1. Foucault Meets Facebook
Amy Hruby
CSA 2011
Facebook is a social network whose mission is “to give people the power to share and
make the world more open and connected” (“Facebook”). It attempts to achieve this end by
providing a structure that allows individuals to create online identities in the form of profiles and
to connect with their friends‟ respective profiles. Since Facebook‟s launch in 2004, profiles,
status updates, wall posts, messages, online photo albums and Facebook chat have drastically
altered social interaction. These tools provide new communication modes that increasingly
influence how people craft online identities and interact with others on and offline. As Janet
Murray notes when discussing earlier internet technologies such as MUDs, “one of the functions
of early artifacts is to awaken the public to these new desires, to create the demand for an
intensification of the particular pleasures the medium has to offer.” (94) The “particular
pleasures” of online profiles, photo albums and messaging systems existed prior to the launch of
Facebook. Through a guise of anonymity with options for recognizable response Facebook has
intensified public desire for these particular pleasures. On Facebook, users identify themselves
by sharing information with peers—linking public disclosure to identity formation—and, once
identified and “friended,” users can move anonymously across the information shared by their
peers. They do this to observe and compare themselves to others with ease due to the
standardization of profile format and communication options. Facebook‟s structured field of
comparison operates as an intricate version of Michel Foucault‟s panopticon—the perfection of
power that compels individuals to self-discipline through the threat of observation. On Facebook,
the panopticon‟s ideal lack of real observation is altered, with one‟s Facebook friends filling the
panoptic tower and observation being confirmable through the very communication options
1

2. mentioned above. “Liking,” commenting and tagging are responses to the shared self of the
profile; they are the particular pleasures users desire as judgment and affirmation of their
identity. The individual standardization, mass expectation of use and peer-judgment of Facebook
profiles illustrate that Facebook functions the way that disciplinary power functions by
exhibiting methods of hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment and examination. Analysis
of Facebook‟s discourse and organization exposes the disciplinary power behind its mechanics,
and focusing particular attention on relationship status provides a concrete example of
Facebook‟s disciplinary structure.
In Foucaultian theory, power is the ability to discipline and is seen only in its effects.
Discipline is a “political anatomy of detail” (Foucault 139)—a ubiquitous structure that
“explores [the individual body], breaks it down and rearranges it” (Foucault 138) to produce a
docile body through the processes of hierarchical observation, normalizing judgment and
examination. Foucault defines hierarchical observation as the “apparatus in which the techniques
that make it possible to see induce effects of power, and in which, conversely, the means of
coercion make those on whom they are applied clearly visible” (170-1). Facebook begins
hierarchical observation by being a “technique that make[s] it possible to see” (170-1)—to see
what one can share and what others share. It induces effects of power through demands for and
influence over self-identification and sharing procedures (the standardized profile, the wall), and
it makes its users (“those on whom [it] is applied”) clearly visible through public networks. In
hierarchical observation, a “field of comparison” (182) is organized, and there individuals are
situated for optimal observation of the self and others.
Normalization is the conforming of action, behavior or identity to the average—the
norm—that has been established by the disciplinary power. As Foucault says, normalizing
2

3. judgment “refers individual actions to a whole that is at once a field of comparison, a space of
differentiation and the principle of a rule to be followed” (182). On Facebook, an individual
user‟s actions are recorded by his or her profile, then referred to whole in the newsfeed. The
newsfeed is a place where actions are differentiated by users‟ names and compared by physical
placement beside each other. From this setting, norms of disclosure and behavior emerge. The
official Privacy Guide articulates norms of disclosure, arguing that “name, profile picture,
gender, networks and username are essential in creating connections and making these items
necessary for basic existence on Facebook—the norm. In interactions on Facebook, users often
look to their peers to determine accepted behavior guidelines. Researcher E. J. Westlake notes
the averaging nature of this common norm, saying “it can be socially embarrassing to have a profile
that announces „you only have 3 friends at Michigan‟… Too few friends signifies someone who has
no social network outside of Facebook…Too many friends signifies someone who is desperate,
the so-called „Facebook whore.‟” (36) Examination combines the processes of observation and
normalization to produce a judgment of an individual amongst the field of comparison. In
examination, users are ranked for their adherence to the norm; it is here that a user becomes a
loser or a “Facebook whore.”
Exhibiting the three mechanisms of disciplinary power, Facebook now operates as a
pluralistic intensification of Michel Foucault‟s notion of the panopticon—a centrally placed
observation tower that makes all individuals visible but the presence of an observer unverifiable.
Amidst the panopticon, uncertainty of observation compels individuals to self-discipline their
actions and, as a result, they become their own police and render the presence of an observer
unnecessary. Facebook users affirm and expand the panopticon, populating the panoptic tower
with Facebook friends who could be viewing their profiles at any time, and adding mechanisms
3

4. of confirmation that record observation. While Foucault‟s panopticon is premised on an
individual not knowing when he or she is being observed, Facebook comments, “likes” and
tagged photos confirm observation and validate the information shared. This creates a new
demand to intensify the particular pleasures that provide this affirmation of self. In examination,
a user‟s profile is viewed by a multiplicity of anonymous “friends” who can judge the identity of
the user and break anonymity to “like,” comment or tag posts and validate the user‟s sharing.
The effect of Facebook‟s disciplinary structure (and the illustration of Facebook‟s power) is the
user‟s attempt to shape an identity into a profile that invites validation. For a user to have his or
her life affirmed, he or she must present an easily observable profile that adheres to the norms of
disclosure and behavior amongst a particular peer group. Success in these fields elicits a
response from peers that recognizes the information shared and affirms it; on Facebook users are
only granted positive response options—there is no “dislike” button.
In the example of the relationship status, analysis shows that while Facebook clearly
identifies specific relationship status options, this is complicated territory due to the fluid nature
of online identity and relationships. Amongst the confusion, users appear to crave norms and
disciplinary power to guide their actions in shaping identities and relationships worth affirming.
Observationally, relationship status is prominent on the profile page, displaying twice—in the
profile header and the left column. Relationship status begins defining and normalizing the
individual through its preset options (listed here in the order given on Facebook): Single, In a
relationship, Engaged, Married, It‟s complicated, In an open relationship, Widowed, Separated,
Divorced, In a civil union and In a domestic partnership. The order of listing these relationship
options is part of the process of ranking with preference being shown for those relationship
statuses listed first (notably heterosexual and monogamous). This normalization of relationship
4

5. options combines with Facebook‟s panoptic observation (that provides this information to all of
one‟s peers), and examination occurs as judgment of the relationship status and the relationship
itself comes from within and outside the relationship—affirming the relationship‟s truth or
satisfactory nature with the proper responses (“liking” or commenting) or denying its validity in
silence. Harvard University student Courtney Fiske notes this process in a Harvard Crimson
editorial:
The ubiquitous Facebook „relationship status‟ now defines the seriousness of romance
with a drop-down menu. We can be straightforwardly „single‟ or „in a relationship,‟ or
more ambiguously define our love life as „it‟s complicated.‟ Once ascertained, either
alone or in tandem with a significant other, Facebook faithfully announces this romantic
classification to hundreds of „friends‟… With its unapologetic eschewal of nuance,
Facebook pressures us to define our relationships and display the results for all to see.
(Fiske)
She also notes the now-important role that Facebook plays in affirming and validating
relationships, saying “although usually uttered in jest, the statement „it‟s not real until it‟s on
Facebook‟ increasingly offers an accurate description of reality.” A recent Time Magazine article
confirms this statement, featuring an interview with Trevor Babcock—a Facebook user who is
“not willing to date anyone exclusively unless she feels comfortable going Facebook-public”
(Suddath). These common examinations create norms of Facebook behavior that, while often
noted as complicated, are strictly analyzed and adhered to by users. The disclosure and
declaration of relationships via relationship status is expected. Lack of doing so leaves a
relationship invalidated by peers and void of existence in the Facebook sphere. Aware of these
norms, users shape their profiles to meet expectations of relationship identification and
5

6. disclosure—as a girl dating Trevor might prematurely confirm his relationship request only to
maintain the off-line status of the relationship.
In Foucaultian theory, norms shape users into docile bodies—rather like empty vessels—
for the investment of meaning—a defining purpose. On Facebook, meaning is invested in a
relationship through the assertion of a relationship status. The aforementioned girl only becomes
Trevor‟s girlfriend through the Facebook declaration that they are “in a relationship”—a
statement that may only occur because of the norm Trevor established with influence from
Facebook and his peers. Different norms amongst different Facebook peer groups result in
confusion over the standard behavior regarding relationship status. This situation leads users to
seek the guidance necessary to aid in fine-tuning their Facebook identities for optimal
affirmation and validation of their relationships. No one wants to declare a relationship only to
have an awkward conversation in which the partner, or one‟s social network, denies the
connection.
Facebook is a mechanism of affirmation that has built a social media empire on particular
pleasures that allow users to self-identify, anonymously observe and communicate online. By
defining him or herself in terms of education, philosophy, activities and relationship status and
by illustrating these factors with profile photos, wall posts and statuses, a user can be “liked,”
commented on and tagged—receiving validation for the most minute expressions of self.
Desiring validation, users carefully groom their profiles to adhere to norms in hope of
maximizing response. It is a “political anatomy of detail”—Facebook breaks down and
rearranges the individual for optimal observation and the individual breaks down and rearranges
him or her self for optimal validation.
6