{"id":12807,"date":"2012-11-01T07:06:22","date_gmt":"2012-11-01T11:06:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/?p=12807"},"modified":"2012-11-01T16:43:58","modified_gmt":"2012-11-01T20:43:58","slug":"social-versus-social","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/2012\/11\/01\/social-versus-social\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201csocial\u201d versus \u201cSocial\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The semantics of Silicon Valley Capitalism are precise, measured, and designed to undermine preexisting definitions of the things such capitalists seek to exploit. It is no coincidence that digital connections are often called \u201cfriends,\u201d even though the terms \u201cfriend\u201d and \u201cFacebook friend\u201d have very different meanings. And then there is \u201csocial,\u201d a Silicon Valley shorthand term for \u201csharing digital information\u201d that bears little resemblance to the word \u201csocial\u201d as we\u2019ve traditionally used it. From \u201cLiving Social<\/a>\u201d to \u201cmaking music social<\/a>,\u201d \u201csocial media\u201d companies use friendly old words to spin new modes of interaction into concepts more comfortable and familiar. It is easier to swallow massive changes to interpersonal norms,<\/a> expectations, and behaviors<\/a> when such shifts are repackaged and presented as the delightful idea of being \u201csocial\u201d with \u201cfriends.\u201d<\/p>\n

But is this \u201csocial\u201d so social? Yes and no and not quite. To elaborate, we propose a distinction: \u201cSocial\u201d versus \u201csocial,\u201d in which the capital-S \u201cSocial\u201d refers not<\/em> to the conventional notion of social but specifically to Silicon-Valley-Social. The point is, simply, that when Silicon Valley entrepreneurs say \u201csocial,\u201d they mean only a specific slice of human sociality.<\/p>\n

To be clear, we are not<\/em> arguing that social only takes place offline while Social happens online\u2014because we are not digital dualists<\/a>. What we are arguing is that we need to make a conceptual and semantic distinction between the broader meaning of \u201csocial\u201d (as it applies to both on- and offline) and what Silicon Valley entrepreneurs mean when they say \u201cSocial\u201d (which happens primarily, though not exclusively, through social media).<\/p>\n

social<\/em><\/strong>
\nFirst, what do we mean by the traditional meaning of \u201csocial\u201d? The landscape of social is vast and broad, far beyond the scope of this post\u2014but this is precisely our point. Somewhat ironically, \u201csmall-s social\u201d is huge. In adjective form, \u201csocial\u201d means simply<\/a><\/p>\n