On categories (Marsay)

I had a comment on the post “Friends, acquaintances, and Facebook” from a colleague, Dave Marsay, that I thought worth its own post.

Mark: As a fan of Lewis Carroll, I not only wonder if the categories may not have changed and if (whatever) constrains the richness of human relationships, but if the notion of category as a means of viewing (whatever) has outlived its usefulness and constrains human relationships - maybe even in a 'bad' way. At the same time, tools like SNA are clearly essential. The problem, then (as with much else) is to develop theories of use that can provide the context for routine use. One argument against categories, adapted to this case, is a follows. Categories make sense in the context of stable systems, e.g. stable societies. But social networking is transforming social affairs. In math-speak, categories are the invariants of 'the system' - but 'the system' is changing. The use of the tools subverts their assumptions. Another (controversial) argument is that it would be inhuman to deal with our fellow humans as instances of categories, rather than as individuals. Arguably, then, any theory based on categories would be a part of the anti-social sciences. Of course, in many cultures reliance on categorisation is endemic, and until a few weeks ago it was commonly argued that the economic and military strength of such cultures proved the merit of this approach. If this consensus were to change it would radically affect 'who we would ask for a favour', and SNA, for example, would not be of much help in understanding what was going on. Social Networking tools, on the other hand, could be very useful, and could help drive any change. You will appreciate that I have difficulty in saying anything about the universality of human experience, beyond yes and no - and don't know. I'll maybe ponder. Regards.

I'll leave it to stand for a while, and comment in a post sometime in the next few days.