A recent inbox exchange with a Facebook friend got me thinking about what social media friends really mean and whether or not you can categorize virtual friends as you would the people in your non-virtual life.
The exchange was far from fun but was certainly illuminating in terms of conceptualizing categories of Facebook friends.
My analysis led me to conclude that, in a general sense, there are three main groups of people that constitute the landscape of your social media friends. I describe each below.
Close Friends, Relatives, Students, and Colleagues
This category revolves around folks you have typically known for a long time.
You have maintained steady contact with them through the years because they are either part of your family or are persons with whom you have developed a stable and reciprocal close relationship. They could also be people you see regularly because you either work, go to school with, or collaborate with through an organization/association.
“Real / virtuous friendships are always personal.”
Using Facebook to communicate is a complimentary way to share feelings, thoughts, and information. Such ‘friends’ often provide support, guidance when physical communication is not possible or difficult. If a conflict does occur through Facebook with this group of people it can be more or less easily resolved by talking in person and clearing the air.
Friends to Snoop On
Those are individuals you are curious to know more about/explore their Facebook without any real intention to develop (or rekindle) a friendship. They are the people you add five minutes after knowing them or the person you knew a million years ago and are wondering what happened to them (just like you wonder what happened to that one hit wonder).
In almost all such cases, you have no written communication with them – you just ‘add’ them and snoop from afar and may search ‘deep’ into their albums, wall, without admitting to anyone you do so.
You may like some of their comments or pictures and, if you go a little further in publicly acknowledging you are following their virtual lives, you comment on a good post. However, sending an Inbox message saying how great it was to reconnect or glad you have become Facebook friends may be considered odd.
“Basically, those friends are there for your curiosity and viewing pleasure.”
They are what the great Greek philosopher Aristotle would describe as friendships of utility or pleasure. In other terms, it is self-centered interest that drives you to connect with them without a real interest in having a solid bond/relationship.
This is the category fitting the relationship with the person I brought up at the beginning of this article and is the most complicated of the three. Those are people you were good friends with at some point in your life but, because of moves, circumstance, and other factors that made it difficult to stay in touch, you do not ‘talk’ on any regular basis.
Interactions with such friends when you find/reconnect with on Facebook is usually characterized by one or two Inbox message exchanges to let one another know how life has treated you. Messages usually end with something like: ‘it was great to hear from you and we have to stay in touch.’
But then what? More often than not, those friends, show up on your newsfeed regularly (probably because Facebook algorithms recognize they are ‘important’ since you messaged one another) and you watch their virtual lives roll by.
However, you hesitate to remain in touch. Most times than not, you choose to never contact them again and your only connection is through news feeds and ‘likes.’
Also, the fact you were good friends at some point makes it ambiguous enough to wonder if you should make an effort to be in touch. And if you have a personality such as mine, you will tend to persevere and attempt additional contact before calling it quits.
But there is a risk with taking such action (as there always is with ambiguous situations) because there is a good chance reaching out will not be reciprocated. So I took the risk and sent this person an Inbox message inquiring why they neglected the friendship and expressed hurt I did not hear back from them after two attempts.
“Ambiguous friendships are characterized by shaky connections.”
Here is their response: “Hey Bilal, don’t take it personally, life is busy sometimes I check messages and don’t have time to respond and forget they are there. I’m in the job market and traveling. Please don’t be the kind of friend that is high maintenance – the drama of the last email is a bit much for me…”
Ouch. So much for taking a risk!
After I was done scratching my head as to how on earth my two line message expressing hurt that she did not respond is an indication of drama and high maintenance (two descriptors about me I had never heard before) I realized her wording was very revealing.
In fact, it allowed me to distinguish between real friendships, as defined more or less universally by philosophers and psychologists, and ambiguous friendships, which are characterized by shaky connections.
Specifically, her choice of words reveals three different ways in which this relationship did not fit the characteristic of the most meaningful type of friendship – the one Aristotle describes as virtuous friendship. Aristotle believed such friends are rare since they involve consistent effort in communication, personal sacrifice, and a genuine care for the other.
Here Is Why the Response Lacks the Criteria for a Friendship of Virtue:
Don’t Take It Personally
Real/virtuous friendships are always personal. If you are not worthy of someone’s personal attention at some point in their lives (my two inbox messages were two years separated so I kind of gave this person time to respond) then you are a random person, an acquaintance at most.
I Forget They Are There:
If you forget someone has contacted you, then you are not really part of their lives. Would that person have the same memory lapse if it came from a more relevant person? Forgetting a message is really saying: “you are not of value to me and can be forgotten.”
Life Is Busy
That is a non-statement. Almost every single person who has any kind of job (or is looking for one) is busy. The important point is that, if we believe we are free individuals with an agency, a choice is always being made as to what to do and not to do, to contact a friend or not contact a friend.
In fact, there is clear data that indicates Americans are significantly less busy than they were 50 years ago.* But people feel more overwhelmed than they did a half-century ago because of the explosion of leisure options and the almost infinite choices for distraction.
The fact remains that when someone decides to spend two hours watching Netflix on a weekday night for example or chooses to Facebook the choice is a conscious one and the decision is willful.
“three main groups of social media friends: close friends / family / colleagues, friends to snoop on, and ambiguous friends.”
Furthermore, it takes time away from other options such as making an effort to stay in touch with people you care for. Put differently, my friend’s decision to respond by saying ‘life is busy’ after my reaching out for a second time tantamount to saying: ‘you are not a priority for me, even when you make an effort to reach out and are hurt by my not responding.’
While it is hard to know who among your Facebook friends will fit that category until you actually take the risk to find out by reinitiating contact we do know, based on data from the Pew Research Center, the average Facebook user has about 340 friends.
And, although it is highly unlikely a third of those are Aristotelian-like virtuous friends, let’s assume it is an even split for all categories. This means, if you agree with the points I have made in this article and are the ‘average’ Facebook user, it is likely you have 115 ‘uncertain’ friends on your Facebook. That is a lot of ambiguity in your life, don’t you think?
*In her book on time perception – Time Warped – Claudia Hammond discusses data from a 2010 study that shows the “Average American man has six to nine more hours more free time every week” than he did 50 years ago and that “there is one chief way in which they use that longed-for extra free time. They watch more TV (p.288).”