Friend?: A Sociological Study of the Blue Light Epidemic
A recent study has found that the average Gen Z (Americans born between the late 1990s and early 2000s) spends about 3 hours and 28 minutes per day browsing through social media (Wheelwright, 2024). 3.5 hours per day adds up to about 24.5 hours per week. In this study of the sociological effects of this activity that they engage in for one entire day per week, I propose that this “blue light epidemic” that Gen Z’ers are modeling, leads to the dissociation between ideas and realities specifically as it concerns the idea of“friends” and/or the people that they associate with.
On the surface level, this debate seems very simple and two-dimensional: either it is believed that the rise of electronic communications and social media is a negative proponent of isolation and self-degrading comparison, or that e-comm and social media are the next steps towards a more positive, wider-reaching and network-building society, a supporter of dream chasers and go-getters. For the purposes of this article, both sides of this argument are acknowledged, and neither is supported. Instead, I aim to investigate the effects of social media from a sociological standpoint; to learn how this new age of interaction affects both “worlds;” that of online, and that of offline.
In this digital–or blue light– age, people crave instant connection, instant communication. One of the beauties of social media is the ability to reach out and be reached at any time of the day. According to the journal article Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships, “Teens have so wholly embraced instant messaging despite its perceived limitations because it satisfies two important developmental needs of adolescence – connecting with peers and enhancing their group identity by enabling them to join offline cliques or crowds without their more formal rules.” These “perceived limitations” are previously defined as “find[ing] instant messaging less enjoyable than, but as supportive as, phone or face-to-face interactions.” (Greenfield, 2008 p. 125).
The ability to “hide” behind a screen and still engage in conversations with their offline acquaintances through messaging, memes, and short clips or videos, has provided a more inclusive, “come as you are” atmosphere that all can engage in, should they choose. Indeed, Greenfield states that “adolescents are using these [online] communications tools primarily to reinforce existing relationships” (2008 p. 119). Meaning, the perceived “safety” of behind the screen rather than behind the eyes of another person, allows adolescents to build their relationships in a more “comfortable” way. The difference being, the average Gen Z would then in theory be building a relationship with “user122” rather than with “Sarah Smith down the road,” as the ability to differentiate between the person and the online presence would become more difficult.
Thus, the wide-reaching and fingertip-ready ability to connect with others forces a new age of sociological implications and consequences. As Greenfield puts it, “Through potentially infinite electronic lists of friends and "friends of friends," [social media] bring[s] the meaning of choosing one's social relationships to a new extreme.” (Greenfield, 2008, p. 126). With the need of instant, varied communication being met through social media, and the choice of “friends” being enhanced to worldwide opportunities, comes the consequent redefining of the word “friend.”
As stated in the book chapter Does Social Media Make People Happier? “Social media provided a way to keep … people, who fell somewhere between close friend and distant acquaintance, in a position that was neither too ‘hot’ nor too ‘cold’: the ‘Goldilocks Strategy’ ” (Miller et al., 2016, p. 199). While the term “friend” was once meant to refer to someone that was known on a personal level, social media has forced and/or led us to “rank friends,” due to the sheer quantity each person’s social media presence contains. An example of this which is commonly utilized, is Instagram’s “Close Friends List,” which allows only those that the user specifically selects, to view certain stories, posts, reels, and highlights that are shared.
Some argue that this “can assist people to manage degrees of scalable sociality through the platforms they use, [which] may help to keep these balanced and under control” (Miller et al., 2016, p. 200). However, thinking about the practical, day to day effects of this for the average Gen Z: how on earth are they supposed to know what is real and what is not, due to the sheer quantity of it all? The ability that their peers now have to not only include or exclude them from their lunch table, their offline world, but now to decide whether they are allowed to maintain an online relationship of varying degrees with each and every person they encounter, muddies the waters horribly. If person A is friends with person B on Monday, but person B sends person A a meme on Instagram that isn’t funny to person A on Tuesday night; they’re out. If person A doesn’t reply to person B’s post with the perfect comment, they’re out. If person B sees that person A follows someone, is “friends” with someone person B doesn’t like, they’re out. And all the while, they are preparing and giving a presentation in history class together, with smiles on their faces.
Essentially, proponents of this kind of “scalable sociality” claim that maintaining online relationships with people that they are “friends” with, but do not wish to interact with in-person for a variety of possible reasons, allows for a smoother or more tactful approach towards interpersonal conflict or the maintaining of their social lives both on and offline. In essence, Goldilocks was “friends with everyone and no one, all at once.”
Why do users feel the need to maintain these “Goldilocks Strategy” friends at all, if the common assumption is that friendships in social media have been “created, developed and sustained through integrated online and offline interaction” (Miller et al., 2016, p.100)?, or how does it reconcile with the fact that Greenfield states that “adolescents are using these [online] communications tools primarily to reinforce existing relationships” (2008 p. 119). The opposition between these two ideas of scalable sociality, and using online to reinforce offline, leads to the assumption that users of social media are creating and maintaining double lives through their online presence; simply because one side must crumble for anything to stand. That is, if person A is not “friends” with person B through in-person, face-to face interactions, and yet they still maintain the status of “friends” on social media; which situation is correct and true? Here, we encounter conflicting ideas about the sociological understanding of the word “friend” in light of social media, the blue light age.
Works Cited
Miller, D., Costa, E., Haynes, N., McDonald, T., Nicolescu, R., Sinanan, J., Spyer, J., Venkatraman, S., & Wang, X. (2016). Does social media make people happier? In How the World Changed Social Media (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 193–204). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1g69z35.20
Miller, D., Costa, E., Haynes, N., McDonald, T., Nicolescu, R., Sinanan, J., Spyer, J., Venkatraman, S., & Wang, X. (2016). Online and offline relationships. In How the World Changed Social Media (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 100–113). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1g69z35.14
Screen Time and Internet Usage Statistics 2024 | Reviews.org
Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online Communication and Adolescent Relationships. The Future of Children, 18(1), 119–146. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20053122
