Is social media facile and narcissistic?

Yes, social media is facile – if you look at it in a facile way. Social media is facile because people are facile and social media only reflects who and what we are. The more interesting question is, “Why?”

Why do I meet a friend at a restaurant and tell them about my dog? Why do they tell me about their shopping adventures? Why do we tell each other who we think will win the Stanley Cup and why?

Because, as serious as we may like to think we are, as profound as we imagine ourselves to be, it is the facile, unimportant minutia we surround ourselves with and engage in it that makes a life. And we’re looking for common touchstones – modes of contact and means of connection.

We’re so damned needy!

Why tell a friend about my dog? Because I care about my dog. Why do they listen patiently? Because they care about me. (They may even care about my dog.)

You may be sick to death of hearing about Star Trek but with the release of the latest movie, Star Trek, loads of people started talking about it again. It’s a TV show, for heaven’s sake! They turned it into a bunch more TV shows! They turned it into movies, and this latest is just that – the latest. But I’ve gotta tell ya …

Nothing grabs my attention more than the idea that someone else not only likes Star Trek but thinks and feels about the way I do. Now that is cool.

It’s suggested by some that this is narcissism. This may be true. Actually, it’s probably true for many people. But again the question arises, “Why?”

Because, I think, we – each I that is an I, meaning all of us as individuals – has no other reference point. And that point is the first one we turn to when trying to connect.

Back in October of 2005 I wrote a post titled “Can you hear me now?” Back then personal blogs were much more common (blogs as “branding” and business focused less so). Facebook has to a large extent taken over the function of those personal blogs. I’m posting an edited version of the post here because it applies to social media, like Facebook and Twitter, and is about why there is so much of what is perceived of as facile and narcissistic.

Can you hear me now?

I came across a song by Emmylou Harris that I think of now as the blogger’s song [read "social media" for blogger]. It’s called Can You Hear Me Now? (Album, Stumbling into Grace.)

And I’m reminded of two quotes. The first is Eduardo Galeano in his Book of Embraces. I’ve lost the exact wording, but it was along the lines of, “Everyone has a voice, something to say that needs to be heard by the others.” (I’ve pretty much butchered it, but that’s roughly what he said.)

The other quote is possibly from Martin Luther King, though I may be wrong. But it goes something like, “Violence is the speech of those who have no voice.”*

And my point with both of these is the business of a voice. Technology aside, blogs and most things on the Internet are about communication and communication is about people and voices and having someone on this silly rock just listen to you. From the song:

I send out my S.O.S.
A message in a bottle set out to sea
It just reads “Soul in distress”
And nobody ever got back to me

Can you hear me now?
Can you hear me now?

Not that everyone online is in distress. Most aren’t. But the point is people need to chatter and they need to feel someone, anyone, is listening to them chatter. I’ve always thought this was one of the biggest mistakes people made in relationships, not understanding that part of your job when you’re in one is to be a sounding board – to listen.

Sometimes you really only need to appear to be listening because, often, when people sound off they don’t necessarily want a discussion. Shit builds up during the day and they need to let it go, like steam. Part of the art of listening is knowing when you’re supposed to actually listen and interact and when you’re really just supposed to sit there and nod.

Anyway … I guess my point is that people need an outlet and this is one of the things blogs are – outlets. But people also need a sense that there is someone listening, even if what they are saying is nothing worth saying. The act of communication is often more important than the content of the communication. And this is why we see things online like , “I changed my pants,” “I brushed my teeth,” or “I petted the dog,” and so on.

Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now?

People are looking for an ear.

Not long ago, I came across one of the saddest blogs I’ve ever encountered. It was from a year or two ago, a woman in Toronto, and the blog consisted of a single post. Her husband of a certain number of years had been having an affair she had been unaware of. Now he had left saying he not only didn’t love her, he never had and now he had finally found someone he did love. She was blind-sided and alone and … well, you know the story.

One post. Who do you talk to when the house is empty, you’re alone and this is what you’re dealing with?

How did the load get to be so heavy?
I used to wear my troubie like a crown
A bad flood’s pounding on the levee
And I’m gonna need some help to hold my ground.

Anyway … blogs aren’t all sad – the exact opposite. I read a lot of blogs because they’re so damn funny.

I think I mainly read them because I find people who feel about things the way I do – and sometimes very trivial things. But you get a sense that you’re not alone. You realize how freakin’ big the world is, how many people are out there, and that someone, somewhere is listening.

Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now?

An additional thought:

Maybe the real “narcissism” of social media isn’t in the people posting but in those reading them? “Why’s that there? I’m not interested in that.” We think that because something is irrelevant to us it’s therefore irrelevant.

Sounds a bit narcissistic to me.

* I don’t know where I heard the quote but it sounds like a variation of something Martin Luther King, Jr. did say, which was, “A riot is at bottom the language of the unheard.”