I recently saw the movie The Social Network, based loosely on the founding of Facebook. The story is an ironic one: as screenwriter Aaron Sorkin put it in The New Yorker, “It’s a group of, in one way or another, socially dysfunctional people who created the world’s great social-networking site.” The movie isn’t intended as a factual account; it is based on known facts, but is a dramatic retelling.
We first meet Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg), Facebook’s creator, as a 19-year-old Harvard sophomore talking with his then-girlfriend Erica. He alternately seeks to impress her with his knowledge, yearns for membership in one of Harvard’s final clubs, and shows barely concealed distain towards her. She breaks up with him, not for his being a geek, she says, but “for being an a–hole.” Hurt, he goes to his dorm room, gets drunk, writes a nasty blog entry about her, and hacks into the Harvard computer system to create a website inviting Harvard males to rate the comparative attractiveness of Harvard coeds. The overwhelming response to the site crashes the Harvard server by 4 the next morning. Mark, it seems, is insensitive, desirous of social acceptance, vengeful, and terribly capable.
Mark’s escapade with the coed ranking site attracts the attention of Harvard seniors and identical twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss (both played by Armie Hammer), who are members of the social elite that Mark aspires to. They ask Mark to join them in creating a social networking site for Harvard students. He agrees, then strings them along while he creates his own site (initially called thefacebook) with the financial assistance of his closest friend, Eduardo Saverin (played by Andrew Garfield). The twins soon learn of the betrayal and, after their attempts to resolve their complaint with Mark and the Harvard authorities fail, they sue. Eventually, Mark, having fallen under the influence of Napster founder Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake), betrays Eduardo by diluting Eduardo’s shares in the corporation down to almost nothing, and he sues as well. Much of the movie cuts from the principals and their lawyers sitting in depositions for these lawsuits to the actions being described in the depositions. The social relationships of these social network builders are irreparably broken. Mark seems incapable of establishing a meaningful emotional connection with anyone.
The movie suggests that Mark’s main motivation is acceptance by the social elite, especially by members of the final clubs. As the fledgling Facebook starts to grow, Eduardo but not Mark is selected for possible membership by one of the final clubs. Mark professes indifference to Eduardo’s acceptance, but there is a strong suggestion that Mark betrays Eduardo over envy. What makes the movie so dispiriting is that Mark is driven by desire for something without value. The members of the club to which he aspires are arrogant, condescending towards nonmembers, misogynist, and hedonistic. Augustine wrote that we are defined by our loves, and that happiness is only possible if the object of our love is conducive to enhancing our well-being. Even had Mark been accepted in the social circles he aspired to, it seems unlikely that he could have been happy.
I wrote earlier about the modern malaise of loneliness. I suggested at that time that social networking sites provide only a thin veneer of community and may intensify loneliness. Similarly, in a Newsweek review of Social Network, Jeremy McCarter suggests “A site that began as a response to modern loneliness looks, after the film, like a record of our own struggle with that condition.” Our Facebook connections are superficial largely because we have a narcissistic turn when we sign on; that is, we tend to portray ourselves as more clever and important than we are, and we look to others for affirmation of that inflated self. As portrayed in the film, Mark Zuckerberg certainly is somewhat narcissistic, and we become more like him when we enter his creation. Narcissism is only part of the story, though. The Zuckerberg of the film has narcissistic elements, but I view him as being more autistic than narcissistic. I’m not referring to the psychiatric diagnosis of autism but to the original meaning of the term. My 1966 edition of the American College Dictionary defines autism as “fantasy; introverted thought; daydreaming; marked subjectivity of interpretation.” Though he wanted acceptance, in the film Mark always took an inward turn; how he imagined the world and recreated it in his mind and in cyberspace was more important to him than how others actually viewed him. Might not Facebook be autistic in the same sense: each of us creating our own fantasy, each pleased with the world we have made?
February 21, 2011 at 12:51 am
I believe facebook doesn’t intensify loneliness or create a whole new world or reality for people who use it. I believe it gives people a voice. It can let someone speak on something that is bothering them and people who are friends can give them some advice. It can also be a fun tool and a way to track down friends you haven’t heard from in years. It can also create love connections or rekindeling of old flames. Face book is a tool that a personally use to keep in contact with poeple back home and people I have met throughout my military career. I would reccommend facebook to anybody because unlike cellphone, you can see pics and get constant updates on someone life with out being all in their life or their business. It also gives you a chance to give an opinion about something going on the world today that you might not agree on and get different views and opinions. On the other hand I do see Facebook taking over people interacting in real life and makes it easier to say whatever you want to say to avoid direct conflict, but overall I think Facebook is a postive thing if the user is using it for the right things.
February 21, 2011 at 1:27 am
Thanks for your comment, Victoria. I do use facebook and agree that it has value in keeping up with people. I see the interactions that take place as for the most part being between personas, not persons, though. I think that face-to-face interactions provide much more authenticity in relationships.
March 13, 2011 at 2:51 am
I have not seen the movie yet one of the comments made struck a chord in me. It was stated “I wrote earlier about the modern malaise of loneliness. I suggested at that time that social networking sites provide only a thin veneer of community and may intensify loneliness.” To me, it is a very powerful Statement. I also have a Facebook account and when I began the account I was in a committed relationship and used the account responsibly. In other words, I wasn’t using the account for anything other than a quick hello or to find family and friends. Soon after I began FB my relationship fell apart(not because of the FB use). As a result FB was my support because I didn’t/ don’t have many friends I could count on in person. As time has gone on I find myself more and more in need of the interactions I get on FB yet my loneliness has become deeper! I use FB for the friends and interactions because I have no friends…yet if I took the time I used on FB to make friends Maybe I wouldn’t be as lonely? Interesting paradox! Due to time constraints, financial constraints and familial obligations I’m unable to pursue other relationships but I do certainly see how FB has adversely affected my well being in this manner. Having said that, I’m very grateful for the connections I have on FB. My family and friends are able to take me out of the daily grind, as it were, just enough to keep me going through the hardships I endure. I think there needs to be a balance wirh it somehow and hopefully all who use it will be aware of this too.
March 13, 2011 at 4:26 pm
It is a dilemma. We all need relationships, and, social networking sites are often the quickest and easiest avenue to establish connections with others. Yet online relationships are often the equivalent of drinking watered-down soup; there’s some nourishment, but not enough to satisfy our hunger. I hope that eventually it will be possible for you to add some face-to-face relationships that are satisfying.
March 17, 2011 at 3:15 am
Dr. Ritzema! Ironically I’m reading an article for English That touches briefly on your thoughts about depression linked wirh the “impersonal” computer screen. Lol. Tje article is ‘The Closing of the American Book” by Andrew Solomon. Here’s a quote from it.
“My last book was about depression, and the question I am most frequently asked is why depression is on the rise. I talk about the loneliness that comes of spending the day with a tv or a computer or video screen. conversely, literary reading is an ejrey into dialogue, a book can be a friend, talking not at ypu, but to ypu. That the rates of depression afe going up and the rates of reading are going down is no happenstance.”….the author is arguing that the lack of interactive reading is a cause of lonliness and depression….it’s an interesting article. You’re welcome go take a look if you’d like!
March 17, 2011 at 3:19 am
Btw….please forgive all the typos…I have to respond to these through my blackberry and I tend to make frequent mistakes. 🙂
March 17, 2011 at 4:10 pm
I feel that people who are extroverts would remain that way , with or without Facebook and other networking tools. It has quite a few advantages for those who like to remain connected with their old schoolfriends , neighbours and the like, but yes it also panders to one’s desire to be constantly in communication with someone else. On the other hand, for people who tend to withdraw into themselves ,perhaps an outlet like Facebook may actually help to de-intensify their loneliness
March 21, 2011 at 12:23 am
Jodi, your article does sound interesting. Others have suggested that the increase in depression is due to the decline in social capital; the increase in time spent online and with computers does probably contribute to that decline.
Dreaming thru the twilight, you make a good point about individual differences. Extroverts probably do well at getting sufficient social contact by whatever means necessary. I’m more concerned about those who tend to isolate themselves; social networking does permit them some social contact, but I’m concerned that they in particular would be more likely to hide behind a false persona.
April 11, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Facebook to me is not a reality. People meet on facebook all the time and have conversations but have never met face to face. I believe it creates a false reality in life you can be talking to someone back and forth from California and have never met this person before. To have a real conversation with someone you have to be face to face with the person. Real life interaction teaches you how to talk to someone.
April 11, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Thanks for your comment, Brett. Sometimes, as you say, interactions on facebook constitute a false reality; other times they represent a distortion of reality, and, occasionally, the relationship is genuine and honest. It’s often hard to know which it is. I like your last point; face-to-face interaction promotes the development of social skills. As more people interact online rather than face-to-face, perhaps we’ll see a significant erosion of conversational abilities.