Geoff:
I increasingly feel that WeChat’s influence on social relationships in China has been underestimated. The issue is not simply how much time people spend on it. A platform with strong social-media features has come to be treated as an everyday communications tool.
Vale:
Those functions do need to be distinguished. Communication mainly delivers information. A social platform also brings self-presentation, likes, comments, visibility to a wider group and judgements about relationships. It carries messages, but it also continuously generates social signals.
Geoff:
Family, friendship, workplace and acquaintance relationships already occupy different relationship networks. They do not require the same conditions for communication.
Vale:
Family relationships contain shared history, responsibility and obligations of identity. They do not normally disappear just because contact pauses for a while. Friendship is more voluntary and can adjust naturally as interests, distance and stages of life change.
Geoff:
Acquaintances may have more need for low-cost signals such as likes. A like says, “I saw you; we are still connected.” Family members do not need to confirm their relationship repeatedly in this way.
Vale:
Yes. A like can express affection within a family, but it should not serve as proof of affection. The same absence of a like may mean no more than a missed interaction between acquaintances, yet be interpreted as coldness or displeasure between relatives.
Geoff:
There is a line in a song whose meaning I like: you never need to recall it, yet it is never forgotten. Of course we think of our relatives, but we do not need to keep displaying that thought socially.
Vale:
A genuinely stable relationship can exist quietly. It does not have to remain at the front of consciousness or performance, and it does not lose its place simply because there has been no public interaction for a while.
Geoff:
Social media can easily turn “not displayed” into “not there”. A missing like, an unanswered message or silence in a group can all become measures of closeness.
Vale:
Affection that did not originally require proof is then subjected to rules of continuous display and repeated confirmation. The relationship itself is not made more stable, but the burden of interpreting it grows.
Geoff:
My observation of life in Australia also led me to this question. Many people still use social media, but important communication among relatives does not necessarily take place in the public feed of a social platform.
Vale:
That does not mean Australian families communicate less. It means private communication and social display have been separated to some degree. Calls, text messages, private chats and small groups are often better suited to intimate relationships.
Geoff:
Facebook’s later separation of Messenger created this kind of division in practice. Facebook leaned towards public sharing, while Messenger focused on direct communication.
Vale:
That observation about product structure is sound. We cannot, however, conclude that Facebook developed Messenger because it had discovered harm to family relationships. The company’s stated rationale was that messaging was a distinct use case requiring a faster and more stable product. Messenger became a standalone app in 2011.
Geoff:
Whatever the original motivation, the separation at least acknowledged that public social activity and private communication are not the same thing. Relatives can still share photographs on Facebook, while their daily conversations do not have to pass through a public feed.
Vale:
Exactly. Family relationships did not completely leave Facebook, but direct communication gained a relatively independent space. The boundary was incomplete, yet still meaningful.
Geoff:
China seems to have moved in the opposite direction. Telephone calls, text messages, email and other established communications tools were gradually displaced by WeChat.
Vale:
WeChat entered everyday life through convenient, inexpensive instant messaging. It then added Moments, group chats, official accounts, payments, workplace contact and public services. It eventually became more than a messaging app; it became a social entry point that is difficult to leave.
Geoff:
Text messages and telephone calls are simple, but that simplicity has an overlooked advantage. They mainly carry communication. They do not automatically attach signals about who can see your social feed, whose posts you liked or which groups you have joined.
Vale:
As WeChat displaced those tools, it changed not only the method of communication but also its conditions. Family, friendship and workplace contacts converged in one account. The stronger the network effect became, the harder it was for individuals to choose another channel.
Geoff:
So this cannot be reduced to users spending too much time on social media. The deeper issue is that a social platform gradually occupied the infrastructure of everyday communication and carried its interaction rules into different kinds of relationships.
Vale:
That is a more precise formulation. The convenience is real, and so is the weakening of boundaries. The point is not to deny WeChat’s usefulness, but to recognise the long-term effects of processing different relationships through the same mechanism.
Geoff:
The effect is also visible in workplaces. Some Chinese organisations and business settings are less accustomed to preserving a complete record through email or business systems, and instead use WeChat as a formal work channel.
Vale:
The value of email is not merely that it looks formal. It has a subject, recipients, a sequence in time and a relatively complete body. Background, questions, decisions, attachments and responsibility can be kept within one communicative unit.
Geoff:
WeChat conversations, by contrast, are organised around immediate response. One matter may be broken into a dozen short messages, interrupted by voice messages, pictures and unrelated topics. The final decision is often scattered across a long chat history.
Vale:
WeChat records are not incapable of serving as evidence, but their context, completeness, identity verification and long-term preservation are generally harder to establish than those of formal email and business systems. The words remain visible, yet the structure still resembles oral communication.
Geoff:
WeChat-based work is therefore not necessarily the same as digitised office work. Often it merely digitises the spoken office. Information exists, but it does not become stable working knowledge.
Vale:
Formal business records are also often stored in employees’ private accounts. When someone leaves, changes devices or loses records, the organisation may lose part of its own work process. Organisational memory becomes dispersed and even privatised.
Geoff:
Instant chat can of course handle simple coordination. The real question is not whether people may chat at work, but whether chat replaces the formal record.
Vale:
A more sensible division is to use instant messaging for temporary coordination, while keeping requirements, decisions, approvals, versions and responsibility in email, ticketing, project-management or document systems. Chat should supplement formal systems rather than replace them entirely.
Geoff:
From family life to the workplace, the underlying issue is the same. Different relationships require different distances, procedures and forms of expression, yet they have been compressed into one conversational form.
Vale:
Psychology and social-network research do offer relevant theories. Academically, relationships can be understood as a multilayered network rather than a flat contact list. Each layer has its own role expectations, exchange rules and behavioural norms.
Geoff:
The type of relationship and its degree of closeness also seem to be different dimensions. A relative may not be intimate, a friend may be closer than family, and a colleague may gradually become a friend.
Vale:
Yes, those are separate dimensions. Relationship networks have boundaries, but they also overlap and change. One person can be both colleague and friend. Someone may be close by kinship yet remain in the outer circle of everyday life.
Geoff:
How does psychology explain the way we naturally enter different modes of communication with different people?
Vale:
Mark Baldwin’s theory of relational schemas comes close to this question. Repeated patterns of interaction become internal cognitive structures, including who I am in this relationship, who the other person is, and how we normally interact.
Geoff:
So when we face a parent, friend, supervisor or casual acquaintance, more than our language changes. Our state of self, behavioural expectations and interpretation of the same event can all change as well.
Vale:
Exactly. A sentence from a friend may be heard as a joke, while the same sentence from a supervisor may be heard as an instruction. The relationship is not merely background added to information; it helps determine what the information means.
Geoff:
Is there a theory that goes further and explains the rules by which different relationships operate?
Vale:
Alan Fiske’s Relational Models Theory proposes four basic forms: communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching and market pricing. Actual relationships usually combine several forms rather than belonging exclusively to one.
Geoff:
Family life contains more communal sharing, sometimes with an order of seniority. Friendship is closer to communal sharing and equality matching, while work is more constrained by authority, responsibility and exchange.
Vale:
That is a useful reading, provided it is not made rigid. One family can contain both care and sharing as well as a strong authority structure. Colleagues have institutional responsibilities but may also develop a private friendship. Conflict often begins when the parties understand the governing relationship differently.
Geoff:
Does the Social Convoy Model describe the same structure from the perspective of relational distance?
Vale:
Yes. It places important relationships in concentric circles. The inner circle contains people whose disappearance from one’s life is difficult to imagine; outer circles contain relationships that matter but remain more peripheral. People move among these circles over time.
Geoff:
Acquaintances are usually further out, but that does not make those relationships worthless.
Vale:
Granovetter’s work on strong and weak ties makes precisely that point. Family and close friends commonly provide emotional support, while weak ties such as acquaintances are more likely to connect us with information, opportunities and networks beyond our established circle.
Geoff:
Chinese relations based on renqing seem to add another layer of complexity. Friends, colleagues and acquaintances often combine affection, practical function and expectations of reciprocity.
Vale:
Kwang-kuo Hwang distinguished expressive, mixed and instrumental ties in Chinese society. Family is primarily expressive. Friends, colleagues and acquaintances often occupy mixed ties, while relations among strangers are closer to instrumental ties.
Geoff:
Once a collegial relationship is personalised into guanxi, formal institutions and renqing begin operating at the same time. Many matters then become difficult to handle solely through workplace procedure.
Vale:
This explains why moving work communication into private WeChat accounts creates more than fragmented records. Professional roles, personal relations, reciprocal favours and pressures of face may all be layered onto the same exchange.
Geoff:
When social media places relatives, friends, colleagues, supervisors and acquaintances on one platform, is that what researchers call “context collapse”?
Vale:
Yes. Context collapse occurs when people, information and behavioural norms that belong to different settings converge in one communicative environment. The boundaries among private, public and professional identities then become blurred.
Geoff:
So it is not merely a privacy issue. A person can present different but equally genuine aspects of self to family, friends and colleagues. When a platform merges those audiences, the person may no longer know whom they are addressing.
Vale:
Research has found that context collapse can increase negative emotion, pressure concerning face and difficulty in self-presentation. When private information unexpectedly enters a professional setting, people may feel embarrassed and powerless, and may worry about career consequences.
Geoff:
Seen this way, WeChat’s problem is not simply that it has too many functions. It compresses multilayered relationship networks into a flat contact list, then uses replies, likes, group chats and feed visibility to process very different relationships.
Vale:
That compression does not automatically destroy relationships, but it raises the likelihood of misunderstanding and boundary conflict. The same signal used in different relationships does not carry the same meaning in each of them.
Geoff:
Family needs stability that does not require repeated proof. Friendship needs voluntary participation and equality. Workplace relations need procedure and responsibility. Acquaintances are better suited to low-cost social confirmation.
Vale:
The more reasonable direction is therefore not to reject digital communication, but to rebuild boundaries. Private communication, public expression and formal work can remain connected without depending entirely on one account, one kind of record and one set of relationship rules.
Geoff:
WeChat has made contact more efficient, but it also exposes a more general problem. Technology can merge functions very quickly without necessarily understanding why different social relationships need to remain different.
Vale:
Those differences are exactly what need to be restored. Only when each relationship retains its own conditions of communication can convenience avoid coming at the cost of relational boundaries, workplace procedure and personal space.
References
Mark W. Baldwin, “Relational Schemas and the Processing of Social Information,” Psychological Bulletin, 1992.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.461
Alan P. Fiske, “The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality: Framework for a Unified Theory of Social Relations,” Psychological Review, 1992.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ495704
Toni C. Antonucci, Kristine J. Ajrouch and Kira S. Birditt, “The Convoy Model: Explaining Social Relations From a Multidisciplinary Perspective,” The Gerontologist, 2014.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3894851/
Mark S. Granovetter, “The Strength of Weak Ties,” American Journal of Sociology, 1973.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2776392
Kwang-kuo Hwang, “Face and Favor: The Chinese Power Game,” American Journal of Sociology, 1987.
https://doi.org/10.1086/228588
Jennifer M. I. Loh and Michael James Walsh, “Social Media Context Collapse: The Consequential Differences Between Context Collusion Versus Context Collision,” Social Media + Society, 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051211041646
Discover more from Geoffrey Chen
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.