A CLAMOROUS CLAN
Clan, n.
1. A number of persons claiming descent from a common ancestor, and associated together; a tribe.
2. contemptuously. A collection of people having common attributes; a fraternity, part, ’set’, ‘lot’.
–Oxford English Dictionary
We take the term ‘clan’ from the Scotch-Gaelic word clann, meaning children. To the original highlanders, clans represented a tribe of people sharing kindred descent, and loyalty and allegiance in times of strife. As the notions of highland clans became more and more defined over the centuries, clan tartans — plaid patterns specific to each clan — and other identifying traits evolved. Men who shared a clan would march to battle together; women of the same clan would plant fields together. The fortunes of the individual rose and fell with the fortunes of the clan. In a time when travel was dangerous and allegiances shifting, a clan provided a stable safety net.
Modern America is a far more amorphous place. Cousins can live thousands of miles apart and never meet in a lifetime. Loyalty is largely limited to the nuclear family, and even then, family run businesses are few and far between. We don’t have clans, a tightly organized group of people to whom we’re innately loyal. Because America was born afresh as a country without landed gentry, we have a license to live lives independent of the associations of our parents and grandparents. With such a huge population and indoor, sedentary lifestyles, Americans are surrounded by strangers. I only know the names of a couple of my neighbors, and I doubt I’m alone in that. However, the 21st century American is no less social than a 16th century Scotsman; it is in our nature — humans are social creatures.
So into this vacuum of anonymity rushes online social networking websites. The idea certainly isn’t new to 2009; I remember my wife signing up for friendster many years ago, and I’m sure something preceeded that. After friendster’s popularity waxed and then waned, the helter-skelter appearance of myspace was suddenly popular, with customizable backdrops and ever-present music. Now, myspace’s college cousin facebook has passed the tipping point of popularity and claims the most users worldwide of any social networking site.
It is now that we arrive at the second definition, above, of the word ‘clan’. The O.E.D.’s inclusion of contempuously is especially appropriate, as mocking of facebook and similar sites is de rigeur these days. Each of these social networking sites encourage the user to gather their own ‘clan’ of people they’ve met or share interests with. Each user’s page displays a count of their ‘friends’, and on facebook the user sees a log of all their friends’ various activities and photos each time they check their account. This in turn encourages them to comment on their friend’s activities, with the supposed (and sometime genuine) benefit of tying a tighter bond of friendship than they’d have without these online services.
Facebook, and the general concept of social networking websites, is simultaneously brilliant and frustrating. I am an active facebook user with a growing clan of friends — some are dear, close friends I’ve known for many years and see regularly; others I’ve met once or not at all, having only formed a common interest or connection online. Most fall somewhere in between. While I enjoy using facebook to catch up with old friends and develop new ones, I know that facebook has some serious issues worth considering. For one thing, there is the running battle over facebook’s terms and conditions, which recently flared up when facebook tried to claim permanent ownership of materials posted to the site by its users (twitter, the microblogging service, has a far more generous policy — it claims no ownership of posted information whatsoever). However, whatever qualms I might have with facebook’s management decisions, the fact is that it is where my friends are. While I upload photos, I don’t include original content that has any intrinsic value to me; any blogging or writing I do, I do on sites I control.
One alternative to facebook that is gaining some currency is purpose-driven social networking sites. SLISLife is a private social networking site operated by the San Jose State School of Library and Information Science and intended for its students, staff and faculty only. Alternatively, any association, group or individual could use a site like ning to create a specific social networking site. I like the *concept* of both, but not the execution of either. Both are unattractive in comparison to the clean facebook interface, and ning’s endless versatility seems to be its undoing: even ning developed apps and widgets rarely work. For example, RSS feed-based functions such as a flickr feed and a twitter-sourced status box consistently fail to work on my page. SLISLife is a little more functional, but still awkward; simple functions, such as approving a new friend, take several non-intuitive clicks (as pointed out by my colleague).
In theory, purpose-driven social networking sites like SLISLife offer significant advantages: the tightly controlled user-base protects privacy, and the user knows that all the other users have something tangible in common with them (therefore, it makes for a better defined clan!). However, few people are only students, only librarians etc. — most of us have widely diverse interests. The advantage tilts back towards facebook when it can house all of your interests in one place, without having to constantly click on to new websites, new logins, new passwords etc. to keep up with all of your online activities. On facebook, I’m in a group of LIBR-246 students; I’m also in several fan clubs and alumni groups, and I run a facebook group for my local rugby club. I can check in with all of these whenever I log onto facebook, without also having to check ning and SLISLife. The catch: be wary of your privacy, and don’t post intellectual property you would like to retain.
In the meantime, start thinking of your own tartan for your clamourous clan of friends.
