Status Anxiety

Toby Young

Wednesday, 18th February 2009

One of the paradoxes of social organisations is that the more egalitarian they are on the surface, the more hierarchical they are underneath.

One of the paradoxes of social organisations is that the more egalitarian they are on the surface, the more hierarchical they are underneath. Thus, the House of Commons is more class-bound than the House of Lords, the Labour party more rigidly stratified than the Conservatives, and comprehensive schools more cliquey than Eton College. Of nothing is this more true than Twitter.

Twitter, as I am sure you know, is the social networking site of the moment. What Facebook was to the autumn of 2007, Twitter is to the spring of 2009. Soon, you will not be able to open a newspaper or switch on the radio without hearing about it. If the zeitgeist was on Mastermind, Twitter would be its special subject.

Not all social networking sites purport to be egalitarian. ASmallWorld, for instance, has been dubbed ‘snobster’ on account of its invitation-only policy, while LinkedIn caters to high-flying professionals. Twitter, by contrast, is open to all. Anyone can sign up and, for the time being at least, it carries no advertising. Unlike Facebook, which sold a 1.6 per cent stake to Microsoft in 2007 for $240 million, Twitter has yet to generate a single penny of revenue. No doubt its owners will monetise it shortly, but at present it is a kind of socialist utopia.

At least that is how it appears. Dig a little deeper, and the fissures soon become visible. For one thing, the main driver of Twitter traffic is the sheer number of celebrities on the site. Anyone can become part of a star’s virtual entourage — all you have to do is set up a Twitter account, do a search on their name, then click ‘follow’ when you’ve found them. After that, you’ll be able to read all their ‘tweets’ — descriptions of what they’re up to at any given moment in 140 characters or less. Jonathan Ross’s Twitter name, for instance, is @Wossy and his tweets consist of messages like this: ‘My wife and her friend are having St Tropez tan applied upstairs. I am going to spy on them, like Bill Oddie on Springwatch.’

1 | 2 Next page

More articles from: Toby Young | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Anxiously stable

February 19th, 2009 11:26am Report this comment

Twitter ye not – too many people seem to have too much time on their hands. Especially that Woss fellow.

Tina Louise

February 19th, 2009 7:12pm Report this comment

Although well written, your view is not what I see at Twitter. I discovered it recently and am finding it fascinating.

Celebrity is not a reason to be on there, but following a few can be interesting.

I have chosen to follow people who do not live lives like mine and who do not focus on the subjects I do - this way I observe reactions from different perspectives.

As this is another new thing... I choose to 'Tweet' because I have no idea where it is heading and that's interesting.

Twitter is people, interacting with people, in a way that connects those who would otherwise not connect in any other way.

Eric Muldownie

February 19th, 2009 9:52pm Report this comment

Twittering is a win win. The celebs by pass the paps and hacks and us great unwashed get a slice of peeping-tom/stalker heaven without any commitment or guilt.

Toby Young , I'm one of your followers on Twitter.I expect nothing and I give nothing.

Terijo

February 20th, 2009 4:32pm Report this comment

I am interested in this notion. I do believe it is true. Do you have places I can go to read more on the phenomenom? To me it seems like we do all manner of things to change ourselves in ways which change nothing at all.

Post comment