Analyzing the Principles of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber on Facebook
Facebook as a social networking service offers a new platform for social connections. It defies many challenges and hurdles from a number of people who claim that the Facebook founder steals ideas from the original source. Despite this impediment, Facebook continues to dominate as the choice for teenagers and adults around the world to communicate and socialize themselves. As well, Facebook grows its community and becomes global that people globally contact and connect. For the young generation, this innovation helps them acquire more friends in long distances and even widen their circles to accumulate new ones. After class, three students, such as George, Melissa, and Robert, however, discuss the importance of recent technological changes to society and particularly of the growth of social networking platform called Facebook. George argues that Marx’s analysis of estrangement and manipulation best explains why Facebook flourishes. Melissa, on the other hand, counters that Facebook emerges as an expression of anomie, or perhaps, a cult of egoism. However, Robert strikes them down telling that Facebook is nothing but another product of the world’s invention and dissatisfaction. Despite George’s, Melissa’s, and Robert’s disagreements, they hold one rational idea to explain why Facebook booms in the social media market and succeeds in the networking platforms in spite of the prevalence of the competitors.
George’s argument concentrates on Marx’s analysis of isolation and exploitation of the platform. He validates Marx’s ideas that Facebook succeeds because countless people tend to connect their ideas and thoughts to people in remote distances (Avineri, 1968, p. 74). According to Marx, distances make people feel isolated and Facebook resolves such a problem to reconnect people with family members and friends (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012, p. 248). The presence of isolation and exclusion in the real world makes people feel paranoid and frantic that they need people whom they can talk to and discuss with them and their feelings. In fact, George confirms this idea from Marx once again that Facebook serves as a tool for people to build connections through their computers, smartphones, and tablets as long as they have Internet connections. When people use their technological devices and begin connecting with their loved ones and friends, they only quench their longings to see them soon enough. People, who work hard in other sides of the world, who migrate, and who unravel the power of social media, require Facebook to quench their thirst of social connections. The maxim that no man is an island best explains why Facebook continues to grow and expand its territories and users (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012, p. 249). In the end, George’s divergent ideas help explain the success of Facebook in relation to Marx’s investigation of remoteness and mistreatment of the platform.
Melissa’s arguments concentrate on Durkheim’s ideas on anomie theory or perhaps of the cult of individualism. She believes Mark Zuckerberg creates Facebook to satisfy the thirst to communicate and build connections through the absence of personal interactions. Since more people are afraid of communicating personally, they have the chances to connect with other people despite distances and virtual features. In fact, it may sound realistic and beneficial for people who hide behind the keyboards to type the letters and press the send button to forward their messages. Others use video chat system to talk to their loved ones through distance. It seems similar to George’s principle of isolation and exploitation, but she argues that Facebook exists, expands, and grows due to the cult of individualism. Melissa’s argument is logical. It is because Facebook, through the years, becomes the hub for people to be distant from the outside world (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2012, p. 247). After work, people go home and open their laptop computers and begin connecting to friends around the world. Students after class come home and position themselves sitting on the couch or in their rooms while using their computers for video call. As people choose Facebook and other social media sites to communicate, they learn to abandon other people within their circles, such as home, school, and workplace because they have new circles of friends online. In this case, people do not realize that they exhibit the cult of individualism in which they fail to socialize truly on the outside world (Alexander, 1990, p. 24). The purpose of social media sites and Facebook, for that matter, is for social connections; however, people fail to acknowledge this fact only to develop a cult of individualism.
Conversely, Robert’s comment on the advancement of technology disagrees with George and Melissa. With Weber’s sociological view, Robert explains that Facebook is nothing but another period in the validation of progress and in the disillusionment of the world. It means that Facebook exists as a symbol of human intellect. The creators of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and his colleagues, innovate a new platform for social connections, and they always assert their intentions to improve their platforms for stronger and wider forms of relationships. However, the truth remains that Facebook is a by-product of human intelligence. Its emergence and value out of the need of people, especially teenagers and young adults who socialize themselves. In other words, Facebook is a validation of human growth and improvement in the 21st century. Robert differs from George’s and Melissa’s views because he attempts to criticize the presence of Facebook today. According to a source, teenagers and young adults utilize “MySpace and Facebook to explore and communicate with friends” (Raacke & Bonds-Raacke, 2008, p. 170). By means of exploration, they feel satisfied with the uses these social media platforms according to the gratifications. Cheung, Chiu, & Lee, (2011) point out that students use Facebook to meet new friends and stay connected during their distances. This concept is similar to Melissa’s argument on Durkheim’s principle of anomie theory or the cult of individualism. It is closer to George’s perspectives of Marx’s idea of seclusion and abuse of the platform. Both Melissa and George related to Robert’s idea of Facebook as a technological advancement in the avant-garde and sophisticated society. George and Melissa have their own rights to accept their opinions and views; however, Robert describes the functions of Facebook as a tool for human connection out of acumen and disappointment knowing the complications and negative impacts of social media sites. Robert’s adopts Weberian concept vis-à-vis the domination of innovations in the period (Collins & Randall, 1986, p. 125). Regardless of the reasons, people use online social networks like Facebook due to its accessibility and functions.
Moreover, the dominant opinion of Robert captures my attention in the deepest sense. I consider his view prevailing because the main objective of creating Facebook is to innovate. It means that Facebook is a by-product of the world’s intellect, prowess, and dissatisfaction of the true social connection. Facebook as a social networking service transforms and becomes the hub for suicidal attempts, fraud in business selling, stalking, and many others. It exists to socialize, but it emerges to give birth to a new platform for social connections of cheating, lies, and neglect. By and large, I cannot pinpoint, which view is correct since all ideas from George, Melissa, and Robert have logical points. George, Melissa, and Robert strongly uphold varying views from Marx, Durkheim, and Weber, and their ideologies exactly cater to explain the “hows” and “whys” in the world. Facebook, now, signifies socialization, association, and advancement in the new world. It flourishes in the networking platforms to build a community and to take over as a new channel for social interactions. Facebook promotes its socialization, but it also encourages people to move beyond their means and limitations (Lin & Lu, 2011, p. 1156). In this case, I consider the three ideas to exist in order to explain the birth of Facebook and its impact on people in society. In the end, I cannot choose one, even if some try to force me since all three of them hold sound, valid, and valuable ideas.
In light of Marx’s analysis of isolation and manipulation, Durkheim’s idea of anomie or cult of egoism, and Weber’s concept of rationalization and disenchantment, Facebook continues to evolve on its own, grows its circles, and breeds new circles of virtual friends. It maintains its position as a tool to connect people and races from the other corner of the world. Of course, George, Melissa, and Robert are only students who attempt to analyze the impact of Facebook on a society where they live. They only grasp the ideas and philosophies of Marx, Durkheim, and Weber who emerge as the fundamental viewpoints in the world. One important thing to evoke is that Marx, Durkheim, and Weber bear semblances of opinions to compare their thoughts about Facebook. If critics and readers of this paper seem to argue, it is imprudent to argue since Marx’s, Durkheim’s, and Weber’s ideologies are correspondingly all-encompassing, usable, and worthwhile. To reply to whose opinion is correct, I still reserve my right to stand on my grounds that all ideas are, in the same way, encyclopedic, binding, and workable.