‘Discourse’ is a complicated concept that has developed numerous discourse analytical theories. Discourses are abundant throughout society. Society itself is built upon discourses. Two differing discourses social, and cultural discourses are used to discuss the differences between Twitter and Facebook in the use of branding. Depicting the “social discourse” is “Twitter vs Facebook: Which is more valuable for brands?” an article by Megan O’Neill. The opposing discourse of “culture” is portrayed through “Social Networking: Twitter vs Facebook,” a blog post by Jessica Kim.

Firstly, it should be notable that there is no utter definition of discourse. The study of discourse is a vast field, and the nature of its complexity stands as enough of an explanation. On that note, this essay will attempt to define discourse in the way it has been understood. Discourse could be defined as any given theme derived from any given body of text. According to Michel Foucault (1997), discourses are “socially constructed knowledge’s of some aspect of reality” (Theo p.94). Discourses provide us with a port of reference and a way to interpret the world, allowing our knowledge to be influenced and created through certain discourses. Specific notions on a chosen topic have been constructed according to our social contexts; our knowledge of a particular object and are influenced and created through discourses. (Theo p.94)

In the Foucauldian conception, Discourse is seen as “more than just a way of talking – rather, it is understood as a complex network of relationships between individuals, texts, ideas and institutions” (Olsson 2010). He believed that our identities, experiences, thoughts and feelings are built upon existing interactions between people that live in the same cultural environment. This connection of mutual thoughts and ideas predictably provides the seed, and formation of a “discourse community”.

Two distinct discourses that arise from the chosen texts, are those of social discourse, and cultural discourse. In the use of social networking sites, such as Twitter and Facebook, individuals are given a vehicle in which they can communicate with those that they would not have under normal day-to-day associations. There are various reasons for individuals to participate in these interactive sites, whether it be to share a similar interest; find old or new friends; connect with remote family and friends; share ideas and opinions; whatever the underlying initial reason, as a result new virtual communities have emerged.

The concept of social discourse is depicted throughout the O’Neill’s article (2011) by comparing the two major social networking sites of Twitter and Facebook against one another in order to determine which offers a superior value, in terms of branding. The reason this article embodies the concept of social discourse is due to the extensive emphasis on the theme of the value of social networking sites as branding tools. This infographic article bases a variety of criteria’s that include age, gender and education distribution and provide is supported with research and statistics. With this emphasis on presentation of facts and information, the purpose of this article can be assumed to be to elevate the credibility of the comparison presented between one social networking site and another.

In contrast, the blog written by Jessica Kim (2011) on the same topic of Facebook VS Twitter alternatively alludes to the notion of cultural discourse. The casual and subjective structure within this article reflects her preferences based on personal experiences as apposed to providing accurate data and information. The reason this blog post personifies the notion of cultural discourse is due to the subjective style of writing and the use of personal opinion to convey her message. Kim relies on the credibility of her context and her personal experiences to confirm her argument. What would therefore identify this piece of writing as being cultural discourse could be assumed to be related to her personal attributes, experiences or encounters, forming the basis of the author’s knowledge.

In continuation, the direction is clearly towards the Foucaudian theory of “death of the author,” which proclaims that audiences are the constructor of a meaning and that “meaning making is a complex socio-linguistic process involving the reader, the text and their social context” (Olsson 2010). According to this theory, the authors of these two given texts are “products of social construction within and between discourses” (Olsson 2010), in this case being social and cultural. Reflecting the discourse theory of “death of an author”, an understanding of O’Neill and Kim’s intention can be thought to differ according to discourse communities. Racevskis (1983) defines a discourse community as “people who, at least in the context of a particular role share a recognized body of truth,” (Olsson 2010) in this specific instance, the social networking communities of Twitter and Facebook. Thus, the attempt of both O’Neill and Kim to present a specific opinion of their argument remains as irrelevant as each reader would have a varying interpretation.

Elaborating on Kim’s “Social Networking: Twitter VS Facebook,” It is clear that the cultural discourse in her writing has presented her opinion that “Twitter is the place to be right now”. Her judgments are solely based on her cultural biases that in the case of branding, she finds the twitter networking system to be superior. Her motives for considering this thought are all central around the amount of “buzz” she will receive, and which network provides the best exposure for a brand. This impulse of connecting to twitter in order to provide publicity of yourself or for your brand relates to the Foucaultian theory of “death of an author”. The maker of these sites did not give meaning to the networking system, rather, the users did. The hefty amount of Twitter users, as well as the simplicity in following another user, would also relate to the reasoning behind Kim’s verdict of determining Twitter as the more “powerful” tool.

The perception of the uselessness of social networking sites was a topic of interest for the English professor, Mark Bauerlein. He proclaimed that Generation born between the late 1970s through to the late 1990s, also refered to as Gen Y, spends a wasteful amount of time on social networking sites “posting useless updates and sending mundane messages” (2008) . Whereas the Harvard law professior, Jonathan Zittrain reminds us that “the qualities that make twitter seem inane and half-baked are what makes it so powerful,” (Cohen 2009) supporting Kim’s notion. This also further reflects the Foucaldian theory of “death of an author,” noting that social networking sites represent different meanings to different user.

Previously presented though the concept of discourse communities, although everyone on these networking sites come from different backgrounds and have their own specific purpose for using the system, they are all connected in a discourse community as they all commonly “share a recognized body of truth” (Olsson 2010). Relating to Kim’s article in which focuses on the power of Twitter, the cultural discourse in this blog post can be related back to an assumption that she consumes a larger sense of community within the social site of Twitter. Once she states, “I have about 5000 twitter followers and roughly 1700 Facebook friends,” she confirms this statement through the use of a recognized fact. The discourse surrounding this blog post, along with the 40 plus comments agreeing with her thoughts, affirms her view that for her specific cause and according to her discourse, Twitter is superior to Facebook.

When comparing Megan O’Neill’s info graphic styled article to that of Kim’s blog post, not only are different writing styles presented for the same topic , but more clearly is that concept of social discourse is evident. Through O’Neill’s use of images and statistical facts and data, she is able to present her argument and persuade an audience relying on facts and figures, without any cultural context. By use of these facts O’Neill is able to demonstrate that 40% of people on facebook have ‘friended’ a brand, compared to 26% of people on twitter. With this use of social discourse she is able to present the audience with credible information rather than opinion in order to come to conclusions.

Using the information found within O’Neill’s text, a metaphorical comparison exists with social communities .The diverse array of active Facebook and Twitter users reflect the social discourse . There are varying interpretations within her information such as the age, gender and education distribution amongst those surveyed. In comparison to Kim’s subjective statements, the infographic serves to display the opinion of thousands of people, rather than the interpretation of one discourse from one user. It is therefore clear that the theory of social discourse communities is present and as supported by Foucault in declaring that members within discourse communities function according to their own conventions (Olsson 2010).

Only briefly, is the foucauldian theory of “death of an author” evident in O’Neill’s article, in the sense that she too has defined the value of facebook and twitter for branding, however this is not the main aim of her article. Being a “user” of O’Neill has constructed her own “meaning” to the product that is to be used for branding, rather than the meaning being defined by the maker.

In conclusion, cultural and social discourses of culture are abundant throughout society, as society itself is built upon discourses. Jessica Kim’s blog post holds the prominent discourse of culture through the subjective nature of her writing. In contrast, Megan O’Neill’s article can be interpreted through social discourse, as it was more reliant on the credible use of data. Both texts portray the use of social networking in different ways with the same aspect of use. The end result being O’Neill’s article being superior as it was able to project information in an objective, rather than subjective manner.

Word Count: 1615

REFERENCES

Bauerlein, M. 2008. “The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don’t Trust Anyone under 30)” New York: Tarcher/Penguin Books.

Cohen, N. “Twitter on the Barricades: Six Lessons Learned”, N.Y. TIMES, June 20, 2009, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/weekinreview/21cohenweb.html. (Viewed 20th March 2012)

Olsson, M. (2010) ‘Michel Foucault: Discourse, Power/Knowledge and the Battle for Truth’ in Critical Theory for Library and Information Science: Exploring the Social from Across the Disciplines edited by Gloria J. Leckie, Lisa M. Given and John Buschman Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited

Van Leeuwen, T. (2005) “Introducing Social Semiotics”. New York: Routledge

O’Neill, M. August 12th 2011. “Twitter vs Facebook: Which is more valuable for brands? [Infographic]”. Available at http://socialtimes.com/twitter-vs-facebook-infographic_b73972 (Viewed 14th March 2012)

Kim, J. May 5th 2011. “Social Networking: Twitter v. Facebook”. Available at http://bookendslitagency.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/social-networking-twitter-v-facebook.html. (Viewed 14th March 2012)