Social Context Redux: User versus Network Centric
Yesterday, Clay posted several remarks on his difficulties with the RELATIONSHIP grammar. Also yesterday, danah boyd added some of her own thoughts to the discussion. danah is very much in agreement with Clay. Her key points cover the notions of context, culture, and power. I must admit that I definitely agree more with Clay and danah than those that wish to introduce rigidity into the system.
I think of these matters, as they relate to SNS, as a conflict between User Needs and Network Needs (Computational Needs in the larger sense). For the most part, SNS is focused on that first S, Social. As a result, SNS 1.0 is primarily concerned with the network, the bundle of nerves and strings that connect those nodes together. On the other hand, I am more interested in the Users, those things that provide meaning and substance to the lines between them.
Everyone who has actually worked with the SNS applications or examined any proposed standard is quick to realize that there are inherent difference and problems with the representations concocted for us. This is not necessarily a value judgment or statement of quality, but rather it is an encounter with the difficulties of mapping organic systems to computational ones. The most stark reason for this abstraction is network grooming. As the networks try to foster their notion of relationship, they need reliable, rigid data to make that happen. Identity is generally tacked on as "modules" outside the main "core" system.
But we just don't work that way. We are individual. That individuality and complexity creates many challenges for computational representations. As danah notes in her post:
Relationships are situated within a CONTEXT.
Think about the times when you've introduced somebody differently to different people. Here's an example. Said to boss: "Alex is my friend." Said to best friend: "Alex is this girl i'm fucking." Said to mom: "Alex is this nice girl i'm dating." Which is it? All? None? Context!
[...]
Relationships are defined by CULTURE; their types are SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS.
The term "friend" means different things in different cultures. Hell, even the term cousin differs. In fact, if you want to have a field day, check out anthropology kinship research. For some cultures, what we might call "uncle" another culture would call "father" (an individual would have multiple fathers). To define a universal relationship structure is to project our cultural norms onto other peoples. Yet, without a universal structure, there's no common language.
[...]
Relationships do not exist without POWER.
No relationship exists without power (see Foucault's "History of Sexuality v1"). Power can be shared via turn-taking, but there is no such thing as pure equality in a relationship. There are times when one person has power over another; sometimes, the reverse is true. Relationships are a negotiated process.
As long as the network is the focus of system design, there will rougher edges when user perception is concerned. The Catch-22, of course, is that the effort to