An Analysis of Community Evolution and the use of Facebook

8/10/2019 An Analysis of Community Evolution and the use of Facebook

1/22

AJ JarrardDecember, 16, 2010

Dr. R. WimberleyAn Analysis of Community Evolution and the use of Facebook

A sociological battle over the definition of what community is has been occurring

throughout the literature for more than a century. The concept of evolutionary community

is to be considered in the following analysis of Facebook and its direct correlation to

community development. Community however can never be concretely defined, it is a

fluid evolutionary concept that is relative to the population, organization, environment,

and technology (!"T#. $n an attempt to e%plain the evolutionary process of community

$ will define a plethora of definitions, from traditional to contemporary ideas. $n the study

of communities it is important to have a realization of the basic fundamental elements

needed by a community in order to e%ist as part of the !"T& one being the physical

realm and the other being social interactions.As it stands there is no holistic term for community, for it is an evolutionary idea

that finds itself in continuous flu%. !. 'uncans model of !"T) (opulation,

!rganization, "nvironment, and Technology# describes these evolutionary ideas with a

more subtle approach, which $ recommend sourcing for further detail, for $ am only

covering briefly on the sub*ect. As we go further into my analysis we will discuss the two

basic principles of community (places and transactions# as well as e%plain three macro

concepts of evolutionary community (localization, glocalization, and networked

individualism#. $ will correlate Facebook directly to community development by

e%plaining how it changes patterns of behavior in particular areas like social ties, and

human capital and logic. This is a critical transformation of community relations and

boundaries.

$t is argued by some sociologists that community is declining and the social fabric

of our society is fraying. +ome argue that the physical realm is critical& this is the

traditional sense from our relative degree. Another group believes community to be

evolutionary and predictable under the eyes of a% -eber and "mile 'urkheim. This

third conceptualization along with arry -ellmans e%planations of locales, glocales,

and eventually indivualalities, compliment one another in such a way as to be easily

1Duncan, O., 1959. Cultural, Behai!ral, and "c!l!#ical $er%&ectie% inthe 'tudy !( '!cial Or#ani)ati!n. The American Journal of Sociology.65*2+. $.12-15.

1


2/22


Dr. R. Wimberleyunderstood. A further look up the roots of this tree lead us to an understanding of how

comple% feedback mechanisms, like our use of technology, ad*ust the way in which

community is performed. As we will discover, social networking sites like Facebook,

affect the community in a certain ways, both facilitating and shaping its boundaries.The term /social capital is used to describe this particular process of facilitating

and shaping boundaries. The use of Facebook changes how we develop and maintain

social ties with others& it affects our language and interactional ways.

As we maintain increasing ties amongst others in a flu% of physical0non1physical

manners we increasingly become more specific with whom our friends are. This leads to

peculiar rational choices that continue the treadmill of specialization, heterogeneity, and

egoism.

Technology acts as a medium of transaction increasingly in todays society

amongst individuals, locales, regions, nations, and globally. As technology creeps further

into our everyday lives we become intertwined and we find ourselves using tools like

Facebook to enhance and facilitate our social capital, the ties and bonds of society.

$ will attempt to e%plain the current evolutionary trends occurring to the concept

of community by describing how it has shifted from little1bo%es (purely physically

constrained#, to a contemporary state of 2glocalization3 (both local and global#, and then

to a future of total networked individualism (pure personal community, not constrained

by space#. There are arguments saying community is breaking down and arguments

saying it never has and is only changing shape. $ will show how technology is shifting

our way in which we conceptualize community and provide a specific e%ample,

describing the social networking site of Facebook and its particular relation to

community.

The Basics of Community

ost people are 2in basic agreement that the community consists of person in a

social interaction within a geographic area and having one or more additional common

ties.34 The traditional view of this perspective believes community to be rooted in

neighborhoods that are spatially bounded and the local population knows one another and

2e!r#e A. /illerym Jr., Deniti!n% !( C!mmunity Area% !(A#reement, Rural Sociology, 20 *1955+ &.111.

2


3/22


Dr. R. Wimberleymay walk door1to1door (Chua, ade, and -ellman 4556#. +ome consensus say

community has three basic elements. 2!ne, community is a social unit of which space is

an integral part& community is a place.3 (7aufman#. Two, community indicates an

organizational way of life. And the third element is collective action, which is to interacttogether for a common life concern (7aufman#.

-hile others, like -ilkenson, believes community to be 2natural interactions.3

+chwalenbach says it is 2people naturally connected.3 Tonneeis and ead call it 2an

aggregate of people who share common interest in a particular locality.3 (-ilkenson#

Although $ argue that the term 2locality3 may never be fully developed.

Amos 8awleys perspective from a 8uman "cological perspective, along with

8illers and arsons, classified community as 2a structure of relations through which a

localized population provides its daily needs.3 (-ilkenson#

The 8uman "cological perspective re9uires that a physical realm is needed. $

have trouble believing this to be the absolute definition of community and therefore

criti9ue its breadth. This particular perspective, ibid, has flaws in the focusing of solely

defining community through the use of direct concepts of 2locality3 and 2daily needs.3

This is too narrow a perspective, although it carries validity in a more specialized lens of

the community. $n a physical perspective it is precisely true that we need a geographic

setting in which a particular social organization provides our needs for survival:

resources, and services.

The human ecological model is too specific in its definition of a holistic

community. -hat it is failing to consider within its lens is the other root of community,

which is *ust pure social interactional, crossing all boundaries of relative defined locales.

any sociologists using the traditional sense of community are debating the breakdown

of community, especially under the lens of a more localized concept of boundaries and

traditional aspects. 8ow one considers the definition of community effects how one may

or may not believe the argument that community is declining. The traditional community

argument especially blames generational change and its use of technology for a

degradation of community.


4/22


Dr. R. Wimberley

Decline of Community?

;obert utnam, a scholar and writer, argues that community is breaking down andcivic participation is on a steady decline (utnam, 4555#. utnam says that the loss of

what he defines 2civic particpation3 is the main element dissolving the foundations of

community. 8e argues that the number of 2strong ties3 or 2bonded capital3 one has is

dwindling as well.ie, 8illygus, ? "rbring, 4554&

-ellman, 455


5/22


Dr. R. Wimberleyempathy for one another, trust, and identity. -e reach a point, utnam states, where we

do not even know our neighbors, are isolated, and loose the aspiration to 2pay it forward3

when in public surrounded by strangers (utnam, 4555#.

utnam continues to hold strong to his arguments, saying he has validity in hisvariables of measurements, numbers, and calculations through tools like regression

analysts. $f people are tucked away in their homes instead of being out in public maybe

they are chatting online: one1to1one, schmoozing, ranting, and participating in blogs

(discussion groups# (7raut, undmark, et al., )66B& +mith, 'rucker, -ellman, ? 7raut,

)666#. 2-hat if utnam is only measuring the old forms of community and participation

while new forms of communication and organization underneath his radar are connecting

people (-ellman, 455)# -hat he fails to conceptualize in his data is the fact that, yes

formal organizations are on a decline, but those formalities are being replaced with

informalities. This means that community is not falling apart, but is *ust shifting in the

way it organizes itself as conse9uence of the adaptation and use of technology. utnam

did not foresee the 2cultural lag3D that occurs with the power of technology, the

innovation that follows, and the adaptation to technology, to better suit our needs as

humans. +ocial networking sites, like Facebook, enhance community ties through the

medium of technology, thus reshaping how community is performed and defined.

Transition of Community

The evolutionary aspect of community can be understood and e%plained through

the discussion of arry -ellmans macro perspective. The Community Euestion is to

ponder how increased information, computer use, bureaucracy, industry, and urbanization

alters society (-ellman, )66#. The history of community formation, according to

-ellman, can be seen as a series of three ideal types, which reflect changes in technology

and mobility (4556#. -ellman describes community as a shifting adaptive concept that

found its roots in strictly place1based, face1to1face interaction. This -ellman refers to as

/little bo%es, where interaction involved traveling by foot, door1to1door. 8e advances the

idea that community shifts from this 2original3 state to a 2glocalized3 community, of both

place1based and global systematic interactions between individuals. Glocalization

5William O#burn% de(eniti!n !( cultural la# i% the delayed ada&tati!nand reacti!n !( the &!&ulati!n% u%e !( techn!l!#y relatie t! it%inenti!n.

5


6/22


Dr. R. Wimberleyoccurred with the invention of things like, the telephone, car and plane, this created the

ability for individuals to be based in place1to1place interactions, where you call +allys

house from your house. "ventually community reaches a state of total 2networked

individualism,3 interactions absent of place and locality.Traditional little bo%es can be stereotyped as having high social control and

limited resources of what is available within the group (-ellman, Gloc#. The little bo%

community is socially and cognitively bounded by homogenous, broadly1embracing

groups (-ellman, Gloc#. The individuals in this community deal with only a few formal

organizations in which they belong and identify with. "ach situation occurs in a place,

one group at a time. This kind of organization builds strong solidarity, trust, and empathy

for one another within the community. The people live in densely knit, hierarchically

arranged bounded groups, where they e%perience work, community, and domesticity

together (-ellman, Gloc#.

Community is evolutionary and is shifting from spatially1defined communities to

relationally1defined communities (Chua, ade, and -ellman, 4556& 7ayhara, 455=#. -e

are moving from densely and tightly1knit groups to sparsely1knit and loosely1bounded

networks (-ellman, 455o longer are communities locally constrained, but instead people

have a multitude of glocalized ties. This change to a networked society allows for

boundaries to be permeable, interactions to become diverse, ties and associations can

switch easily between multiple networks, and the hierarchies become flatter, but more

comple% (-ellman, Gloc#. "ach person highly develops his or her own personal

community. The technological development of computer networks and social networks

give rise to increased individualism and heterogeneity. This gives rise to demand for

collaborative communication and information sharing, which nourishes societal

transitions from group1based societies to network1based societies (Castells, )66=, 4555&

-ellman, 4554, 455


7/22


Dr. R. WimberleyThe rise of the networked individual from a glocalized system has been

developing for decades. "%amples affecting this transition include: social changes, like

birth control and dual1career families which facilitate in a transition from place1to1place

to a person1to1person mode of domestic and community life& separation of land areas, likecommercial industrial zones and residential& and technological changes, like car

ownership, highways, and affordable air transportation (-ellman, 455


8/22


Dr. R. WimberleyFacebook can support the creation of new social ties as well as maintain old ones,

thus allowing for people to remain connected with one another no matter geographical

distances. any times these on1line connections through Facebook bring about face1to1

face interactions, which according to utnam, is highly needed within the decliningcommunity he observes. Facebook allows for individuals to further increase the density

and velocity of interactions with those from our physical environment.

Facebook"

Facebook was created in 455@, by 'ecember of the first year had ) million users

("llison, 455& 7risanic, 455B# and within three years had more than 4) million members

and created ).= billion page views a day ("llision& 7risanic, 455B#. Facebook works in

two ways& by consuming e%isting content (reading others profiles#, or by contributing

new content, publishing. Contributing to Facebook, which involves impression

management (later discussed#, includes posting comments, sending messages, tagging

pictures, uploading contents, posting website links, and filling out profiles. A typical user

of Facebook may check their page two or three times a day for updates and news of what

others have done. This enhances our relations by keeping people in touch with one

another.

Facebook also provides complete transparency and allows for users to know what

is going on within their community of friends& like where the ne%t party or get together is,

or what last weeks party was like. The site allows for research and learning,

entertainment, communication and social interaction, something to do when bored, access

to material otherwise unavailable, and games. The site allows for users to write down

their thoughts and share aspects of their selves with others, aspects that may be hard to

share in face1to1face interactions.

All of this brings into 9uestion whether individuals are becoming too concerned

with the 2e3 and the self1gratification of the en*oyment received from superficial

actions of others $t also leads me pondering, if and how, Facebook changes the way

individuals choose to portray themselves physically and virtually And how the power of

personalized choice of friendships, interactions, and entertainment may cause a shift in

reality.

8


9/22


Dr. R. Wimberley+ocial networking sites, like Facebook, allows for further advancement of

personalized, specifically tailored, friendships, interactions, and information. Facebook

has the power to provide you with your own 2personalized3 daily newspaper tailored

specifically for you& it is called the 2>ews Feed,3 which acts as your own personal newseditor. >ews Feed brings about more online satisfaction because it feeds you information

that Facebook has calculated as important to you. This may be one reason why Facebook

can become so addicting and is checked often by its members.

The personalized news feed of Facebook can ad*ust information it calculates as

important to you. Facebook has this capability because of all the variables programmed to

monitor your actions while on Facebook. These news filters include: friend filter, putting

only the people who are your friends on your news feed& brand filter, which only shows

particular products you have indicated you are interested in& content rank, this filter

measures the popularity of an event amongst your common friends, the relevance of the

event, and the importance& friend rank is a variable that measures the interactivity of you

with a particular friend& how much you visited their profile, chatted with them, or sent

invites to one another& application rank, which looks at what applications, like games,

you use and how often& and trained behavior, which is an overall assumption of what you

do on Facebook.

All of this comes together to form your customized Facebook news feed, created

*ust for your interest and probably the reason why so many people check it fre9uently.

The satisfaction of increased social interaction is addicting. A human species is naturally

communal, thus a medium like Facebook, which can bring more social interactions, feeds

that drive of social satisfaction through interaction.

Social Ca#ital"

$ncreased interaction on Facebook leads to increased social capital, the resources

accumulated through the relationships among people (Coleman, )6BB#. ourdieu and

-ac9uant define social capital as 2the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue

to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less

institutionalized relationships or mutual ac9uaintance and recognition3 ()664, p.)@#.

$ncreased social capital is linked to many positive outcomes, such as better public health,

9


10/22


Dr. R. Wimberleylower crime rates, improved community and better financial markets (Adler ? 7won,

4554#.

For individuals, social capital allows for the accumulation of resources from other

members of the same network, including useful information, personal relationships, andthe capacity to organize groups (a%ton, )666#. Granovetter believes this gives

individuals access to people outside oneJs close circle of friends which provides new

ideas and also may bring about employment opportunities ()6


11/22


Dr. R. Wimberleymore groups or cli9ues of friends, thus influencing a larger group of people. These weak

ties link members of different smaller groups together (Granovetter, )6


12/22


Dr. R. WimberleyA move towards networked society places an increased importance on ones ability

to use network capital to retrieve 2desirable resources, along with financial capital,

human capital, organizational capital, and cultural capital3 (-ellman, Gloc#. >etwork

capital may provide resources like 2information, knowledge, material aid, financial aid,alliances, emotional support, and a sense of being connected3 (-ellman, Gloc#.

any Facebook ties are both physical and virtual. Facebook *ust fills in the gaps

between times of physical interaction. The stronger the tie, the more Facebook is used.

The time spent online is not reducing the time in face1to1face contact but rather taking the

time of other less social activities such as eating, television watching, and sleeping

(oase, 8orrigan, -ellman and ;ainie, 455=& ;ainie and -ellman, 45)5#. $t

supplements, arranges, and amplifies communications with others, rather than replacing

them (-ellman, Gloc#. The $nternet is fully integrated into our personal communities

and is rarely a separate second life in itself (Keenhof, -ellman, Euell, and 8ogan, 455B&

Euan18aase and -ellman, 4554#. !ne study of Americans show that the mean number

of friends in weekly in1person contact has increased by 45 percent between 4554 and

455: from 6.@ to )).< (-ang and -ellman, 4556#.

Facebook is *ust another means of communication, like the telephone, it

facilitates e%isting social relations and follows patterns of civic engagement and

socialization (-ellman ? Gulia, )666#. Facebook is a personal community, which

provides the essentials of community separately to each individual: support, sociability,

information, social identities, and a sense of belonging (-ellman, 455


13/22


Dr. R. Wimberleyeople now have larger social networks of more people, more communication,

and at a faster pace. -ireless portability allows for the potential of 9uick dispersion of

knowledge and ideas amongst an associated community. $ts creates the everywhere1

nowhere phenomenon: 2Communication will be everywhere, but because it isindependent of place, it will be situated nowhere3 (;andall, 455), p.D#. -e are becoming

more specialized and more mobilized as our social capital does too. This increase in the

amount of communication mi%ed with the specialization of each partial association gives

one the ability to have specialized support for particular social needs (-ellman and

-ortley, )665#. eople will reciprocate with the same kind of help that their specialized

tie has given to them (lickert, Cote and -ellman, 455#.

$t is not clear whether the high use of social networking sites, like Facebook, will

foster densely1knit communities, good for conserving resources, or a more sparsely1knit

community, good for obtaining new information and resources. $t is a fact that as social

networks become larger it is going to be harder to maintain density. 2As the size of the

network increases arithmetically, the number of ties must increase geometrically to

maintain the same level of density3 (-ellman, 455


14/22


Dr. R. Wimberleyspecialized associations, which rarely grab the full attention or passion of an individual

(-ellman, 455


15/22


Dr. R. Wimberleycommunity because of the high amount of partial commitment. 'urkheims theory of

specialization occurs to a point of e%treme egoism and loss of identity through the

multitude of anomic partial associations. A networked individual will suffer from e%treme

compartmentalization, which will lead to anomie and lack of a sense of direction orpurpose. As this occurs one will also find a sense of desynthesization because of a lack of

a knowing what the whole self is. !ver stimulation of constant entertainment and

distractions also creates a sense of desynthesization, like the over use of a drug will do to

you. Lou become addicted to the e%cess stimulation, which overtime becomes the norm,

thus you reach a point of only feeling very little. This is referred to by a% -eber as

disenchantment , which occurs once an individual becomes locked in an iron cage of

rational choice, which is e%actly what occurs as friendship choices become partial,

superficial, and in constant flu%.

Summary"

Facebook may be seen to have both positive and negative effects on the individual

and society as the concept of community evolves. +ocial networking is a revolution in the

way people interact& one that is not fully understood or developed yet. !ur society is

transiting into a 2real time3 culture of networked individualism& the wanting to know

what to your specific taste is going on now, not last week or even two hours ago.

Changing from place1based community to person1based community involves -ellmans

concepts of community transformation: localization, glocalization, and networked

individualism. !ur personal relationships are becoming bounded and intertwined by the

virtual world. $ believe that Facebook can bring about positive change by the way it

allows us to maintain past friends, share pictures of real life interactions, talk about those

events, and share ideas. Facebook is supplementing community and transforming and

supplementing a glocalized community, both local and global. This can be seen by the

invites that are created for events, which are then sent to more people much more

conveniently, thus putting more ease in organizing and participating in particular physical

actions.

Facebook allows for groups of people to create a community of common interests,

which allows for others to connect and perpetuate their knowledge and beliefs about

particular interests without the impediment of geography. The creation of many weak ties

15


16/22


Dr. R. Wimberleyoffers more available resources to a Facebook member, like *ob employment. These weak

ties also have the potential to eventually become strong ties, depending on how a

particular individuals situation changes, like if you move or become interested in

something that a common ac9uaintance is proficient in. The best part of Facebook is thepictures. This is like a reality1tv show of yourself and your friends. eople love to look at

each others lives and as the saying goes, 2a picture is worth a thousand words.3 ictures

allow for an individual to remember past events very easily, since our memories are

easily triggered visually. ictures of my life are simply shared and discussed with others&

normally conversations about the pictures are with the other people that are in them. This

creates even stronger bonds with the people in the pictures because of the continual

discussion of the particular face1to1face interaction captured.

Facebook does bring full transparency of society to the table. -e constantly have

to monitor our performance and image on Facebook because all is publicly available to

be scrutinized by others, thus changing our behavior through impression management,

possibly for the better. Transparency encourages us, thorough fear of being ostracized, to

think about our words, actions, and conse9uences more deeply. This brings about self1

regulation within the Facebook community and thus solidarity. >o one wants their

identity ruined by negative images or words. The problem is that this increased amount of

comparisons and *udgments of others with ourselves begins to drive a wedge between

individual interest and collective interests.

Facebook breeds a symbolic self, an Avatar, caught within a fantasy world, where

actions contain superficial meanings. -e become so hooked to our virtual selves and

friends that we develop 2check1in3 behavior, or a yearning to know what is happening on

our custom tailored news feed in virtual land. This addiction is easy to get hooked on

considering we are by nature social beings, curious if others like us and eager to compare

and *udge ourselves and others. From the creation of civil society humans have always

been interested in gossip (knowledge# of others& technology has allowed for this

particular knowledge to increasingly get larger. ut is this increase a bad thing, are our

virtual selves our real selves, and is the knowledge we are obtaining relevant to our

physical lives in the /real world

16


17/22


Dr. R. WimberleyConstantly worrying about what others think about you, Cooleys looking glass

self, creates an%iety and low self1esteem. This may become problematic as we

increasingly watch and compare what others are doing with our own lives. "ven if we are

more heterogeneous, we still fit into social norms of acceptance. As we develop thesecomparisons of eads generalized others, we continually feel a lack of fulfilling our

roles within society. $ndividuals who are consumed with Goffmans front stage

performance, and the impression management involved for this performance, causes

individuals to lose grasp of who they truly are or what they should be doing.

>arcissism begins to plague our society, as media constantly tells us we are not

good enough if we do not consume or look a particular way& now Facebook friends show

and tell us as well. Facebook acts as a tool of conformity within society& people follow

and do what they assume others are doing and thinking. Friends become more superficial,

as weak ties increase, and lack the feelings and emotions that close bonded capital ties

provide. Although, we can maintain capital with past or distant bonded ties, we lose face1

to1face contact.

The losses of face1to1face interpersonal connections hinder an inherent ability of

humans. -e increasingly are losing the ability to show emotions and connect with one

another in person& the ability to connect with people in a deeper and more traditional way.

>ow our social comfort and interaction comes from online worlds. As "berhardt points

out, 2rather than investing in relationships with new peers who are physically around

them, some students rely on virtual networks and other technological means of

connecting with friends elsewhere to fill their need for social comfort and interaction.3

(455#. -e are moving away from relationships in which we spend actual time with

people physically around us, to ones in this virtual world, as we sit alone at our computer.

>ow we can see a Facebook friends profile and read particular items such as

relationship status, political views, personal interests, hobbies, favorite books and

movies, educational backgrounds, their particular friends, academic coursework, and

much more, the commoditization and concrete partial associations we make with others.

Although this gives a good insight into /who these people are, it does not provide you

with their back stage personality, the true selves, what you know is essentially a persons

living obituary. "berhardt says, 2These students do not form important bonds with friends

17


18/22


Dr. R. Wimberleyin their current social conte%t by e%periencing early emotional highs or sharing low

points together, and they are likely to soon find themselves isolated outsidersM3 (455#.

-e are impairing our development of interpersonal skills as we become hooked to a

virtual self and way of socializing& we lose this ability to physically connect. +o not onlyare we losing the ability to look each other in the eyes or shake hands when we meet, we

are also taking away the e%periences that helps us learn basic elements of human

interaction.

utnam is still proven to be correct in his analysis that strong ties and community

are still declining. -e live in a Gilded age where the social interactions taking place on

Facebook appear to enhance community, but as we can see it only leads to continual

isolation through individualistic tendencies of the abundance of choice. Church groups,

sports teams, social clubs, neighborhood associations, etc. are all currently suffering from

the lowest participation rates ever. "ven conversations with family and spouses are

declining. This is important to recognize because as utnam suggest, close connections

provide physical and mental health as well as community health (4555#. -e have

different types of conversations with different kinds of relations, like with kids, co1

workers, parents, neighbors, etc., but as cpherson et al. proves, important conversations

are sharply going down (455B#.

;eal or important conversations include topics that are relevant to your particular

beliefs, ideologies, religion, and feelings. eople with @ or more /discussion friends have

dropped from one1third of the population to one1fifth in the period from )6BD to 455@

(cpherson et al. 455B#. The social world thus becomes more limited even though you

have more weak ties and access to certain things. This is because of the select few people

you have /real conversations with. $ndividuals speak with fewer outside members of

their family on important life issues, which then socially trap them in the same mode of

thought within the same social1class, religion, and race. Family conversations have

dropped in the past twenty years from D6N to @


19/22


Dr. R. Wimberleyone to communicate face1to1face feelings and beliefs with are on the rise, these particular

individuals are socially isolate. They may feel a sense of happiness and connectivity by

the use of Facebook, but in a case of an emergency will be left stranded. cpherson et al.

says, 2-e may be missing the chance to understand and interact with whole segments ofour social world. -e may cease to care about them because we have no strong bonds that

span the social divides that separate us, because the social fabric that underlies our civil

society continues to fray.3 (455B#.

Technology creates possibilities, opportunities, challenges, and constraints. $t

shapes and constructs how we perform community, from localized areas of high

solidarity and homogeneity to loosely1knit heterogeneity. $t neither makes nor breaks a

community, but *ust brings about a change in the way people do things. Facebook is an

enabler in the evolution of community and how we conceptualize it. Technology in the

past has brought about huge changes, like the invention of the telephone, automobiles, or

the plane. Facebook is *ust another advancement in technology that changes the way

people do things. -hich if used in moderation, like everything in life, then glocalization

will remain for sometime. This will only help in our ability to interact with one another

because we have the best of both worlds, local and global. Facebook complements face1

to1face interaction, *ust as the telephone did, by increasing the volume of contact and

repertoire with others. As technology has brought about this ease of connectivity, we have

moved from a place1based community to a person1based community, which means we

can now personalize our own communities because we are not restricted by geography.

%eferences

Adler, ., ? 7won, +. (4554#. +ocial capital: rospects for a new concept.

Academy of Management Review, 27()#, )1@5.

19


20/22


Dr. R. Wimberley

oase, Heffrey, 8orrigan, Hohn, -ellman, arry and ;ainie, ee

(455=# JThe strength of $nternet tiesJ, The Pew Internet and American Life Project.-ashington, '.C.

ourdieu, ., ? -ac9uant, . ()664#.An Invitation to Reflexive ociology.Chicago: Iniversity of Chicago ress.

Castells, . ()66=#. The ri!e of the networ" !ociety. !%ford : lackwell.

Castells, . (4555#. The ri!e of the networ" !ociety(4nd ed.#. !%ford : lackwell.

Coleman, H. +. ()6BB#. +ocial capital in the creation of human capital.American #o$rnal of ociology, %&(+upplement#, +6D1+)45.

'iaggio, ., 8argittai, "., >euman, ;. -., ? ;obinson, H. . (455)#. The $nternetJs

implications for society.Ann$al Review of ociology, &', ew Lork: Cambridge Iniversity

ress. pp. 661)4).

Feld, +. ()6B4#. +ocial structural determinants of similarity among associates.American

ociological Review, (', 6OB5).

Granovetter, ark. )6ew Lork: Free ress.8aythornthwaite, C., ? -ellman, . (4554#. The $nternet in everyday life: Anintroduction. $n .-ellman ? C.8aythornthwaite ("ds.#, The Internet in everyday

life(pp.


21/22


Dr. R. Wimberley

7ayahara, Hennifer (455=# /Community and communication, in

atrick urcell (ed.#, -etwor"ed -eigh.o$rhood!/ The 'onnected 'omm$nity in

'ontext* ondon: +pringer. p. )41DB.

7aufman, 8arold ()6D6#. Toward an $nteractional Conception of Community. ocial0orce!, an and 'umin, ary ()6B=# JAccess to occupations through social tiesJ, ocial-etwor"!, B:


22/22


Dr. R. WimberleyJCapitalizing on the netJ, in arry -ellman and Caroline 8aythornthwaite (eds.#,

The Internet in veryday Life. !%ford: lackwell. pp. 46)1

Documents

An Analysis of Community Evolution and the use of Facebook