As if it wasn't bad enough that the regular social constructs of our world - the need to introduce or refer to someone, for example - force us to some times define and name relationships that dont really have a name, the new ones are making it even worse. I have like a 1000 friends on Facebook. Friends? Really? Google + is asking me to define "circles" for people. Where do you put someone you've never met, but share the most intimate words and feelings with through blogs and emails? Where do you put someone you barely know, but spent a refreshing 2 hours talking to on the flight you met on and will likely never run into again? Where do I put someone who is my best friend, target of all barbs and bouquets, whose arms I hang by and also punch a dozen times a day (when he's not in godforsaken amreeka, of course)? And those who are brought close again by a phone call after months and years, that sounds as familiar, as continuous as someone you see every day. All those people who intersect with my life at random intervals, and touch it in meaningful ways, yet share unique relationships not like any other. And what happens when acquanitances "become" friends. Or vice versa.
Circles are concentric, but they're not all named.
I can of course stop worrying and call all of them "friends". Or I can create a circle called "undefined".
11 comments:
I guess i need a new social network for myself :) Brilliant post kiddo ...
May be its a good opportunity to (re)define where you want someone to be. I like this quality of every change/ new beginning.
On a different note, does Google + allow someone to be in multiple circles? and Can I get an invite if you have one? :)
Thats why google asked you define ur circles :)
My best friend is someone I have never met in real life and have only known through her blog. Human relationships are complicated. Some have no definitions or boundaries worth 'categorizing'. Interesting post Phoenix.
[ted]
:-) Or maybe we need none at all :)
[bhushan]
Yes, and sent you one. And who can keep track of all these changing definitions. Where is the scope for blurred lines?
[chakoli]
Too hard :)
[the lover]
Thanks :) Such is life. I have a ton of such unnamed relationships in my life, and I dont want to ruin them by naming them either.
Thanks :) I am sure the organised and the unorganised will tweak their own way in any system. If only they are sure of where they belong.
Hahaha, Nice one. I really don't care who has access to my posts, photos etc.
Just remember this is still the virtual world we're talking about... no matter what advances we make, it'll never come close to what we have in the real world... so I'm not surprised that there isn't a way to completely map one onto the other... in fact I'm happy that there isn't :) it'll be really sad if there is...
Hmmm... another way is to start from scratch and have only actual friends in your google+ circles - maybe 50 odd or 100 whatever suits you... but they could be people you actually know and interact with! Let facebook be the all encompassing network where you do not have to define those undefinable relationships!
Anyways, good to come back to your blog and I really aim to start writing myself :)
heya....beautiful and reasonable thoughts of urs n this post...:) beautifully written..i like this line of urs "Circles are concentric, but they're not all named." ...wow!!!
dropping by from Devil's workshop..
Aakriti
yarn of ~ words:)
I see Facebook and G+ as being closer to PR tools than anything else. (This does not make me disdain them.) I would have gotten stuck on G+ circles myself for the same reasons if I hadn't decided to organise them purely based on people's interests.
Post a Comment