Food for Thought
Yum Cha and social media are alike experiences. Both entice with a promise of satisfaction but often leave you bloated; to which we vouch to never return! But soon later we're eager for another round. Imagine the restaurant is the media-sphere. Each table represents a different social media site and each dish a unit of content. These dishes are determined and organised by the diners of the table, whose social conventions vary to other groups at their tables. This would determine the manner the food is consumed - a table of young friends gathered for lunch may be eager to share taste all the dishes offered, whereas traditional Chinese diners keep to their own meals, aware and enjoying thoroughly the meals they chose. Opinions within the academic communitiy of YumCha-ology are divided. Some embrace its concept, suggesting that the platform of gathering allows for conversation and sharing of meals one wouldn't usually try (Chicken Feet - its a lot yummier than it sounds!!). And other theorists believe that eating food together steals this opportunity for conversation and socialising, with our mouths too full to talk to one another; an unintentional consequence of delicious food. But the core intention of each table is the same, to gather individuals to converse and associate through dumplings! - or information. Enough of the metaphor. It's too delicious!! What is interesting is the varied methods and modes of these social media platforms to create a network through sociality. But, hang on... Sociality? Network? Platforms? OH THE AMBIGUITY!!
It's like being asked if you'd like light soy sauce, dark soy sauce or Tamari soy sauce... They're the same sauce, aren't they?!?!?
Well let's get to know these ingredients. Sociality essentially refers the association's between individuals (Siapera 2012). However the nature of sociality changes with changes in social structures, the varied means which it is mediated culturally and technologically. Ferdinand Tonnies iterated sociality to examine its shift during the social transition from the Agrarian Age to the Industrial Age. Basically he observed that communities (Agrarian) and societies (Industrial) were distinguished by the 'will' that associated individuals (Siapera 2012). In communities this will was considered 'natural', being based through instinctive needs (Eg. belonging and safety) whereas societies formed through a 'rational' will, in which individuals associate together to achieve an overall goal (Siapera 2012). A sound definition until societal structure shifted again with the introduction of the internet, the Information Age. Howard Rheingold popularised the term 'virtual communities', an extension of Tonnies 'traditional community', expressing that the sociality of 'natural will' transcends into the 'online' coding expression in text and computerised semiotics. Even today this has further expanded. Could we now consider social media to construct 'virtual societies' based on rational will. Perhaps also thought of as networks? This sociality of 'rational will' through online societies could be expressed through the term of social capital. Social capital is 'the sum of actual & virtual resources accessible to an individual through ties, forming a network of sociality' (Siapera 2012). Here is where networks come in, the structure and process in which the social capital is achieved and exchanged between individuals.
I don't know about you, but I'm getting full!! I leave this post for now, so we can rest and eat more!! I'll continue this discussion of networks and platforms in later posts. These posts will consider networks and platforms in unique social media contexts, such as gaming and Instagram!
Siapera, E. (2012) ‘Socialities and Social Media’, in Introduction to New Media, pp 191-208

















