What does vulnerability have to do with Web 2.0? How could there be two things that are so far apart? Web 2.0 is technological, concrete, objective. Vulnerability is soft, subjective and ambiguous.
Vulnerability is an important condition for personal learning and development and the deepening of relationships. Personal learning requires one's admission to oneself and to others that one needs to develop further and that certain resources available outside oneself would be helpful to further this development. Vulnerability is essential to the deepening of relationships. It is an indication that one is willing to make one's personal boundaries open to the other as part of the process of engagement. Vulnerability is important in supporing the intangible exchanges that are crucial for producing value in a business context.
Ironically, being involved in a social network does not necessarily require vulnerability. There could be some vulnerability involved in the process of extending an invitation into one's network. However, it is not clear whether users consider this when extending an invitation. The Facebook user who has 500 friends likely does not consider the issue of vulnerability in the "friending" process.
There could be vulnerability involved in sharing information in a social media network. However, here too, it is also not clear to what extent vulnerability is considered by those who share this information. Sharing knowledge in a social media environment in a direct communication mode is akin to email. This should involve some vulnerability depending on the nature of the communication. Sharing knowledge generally in a social network is accomplished in more of a broadcast mode in which vulnerability in a given relationship is not considered. It is doubtful that vulnerability is considered before sending a message to one's 500 plus contacts. Making oneself vulnerable may be a considered in blogging but it is not focused on a particular relationship.
The content of the communication is also an issue. Purely factual or informational communication requires less vulnerability than a more person one.
In a professional, organizational mode, the risks of sharing do involve making onself vulnerable. Judging from in-person interactions, the development of mutual vulnerability to an appropriate extent is useful in building strong teams and strong work relationships. How is this accomplished in a network environment? How is this accomplished when using social network technology?
I think the arguement can be made that how an individual person in a network processes inputs, adds value, and produces outputs useful to the sending person as well as the network does involve moving into joint or collective vulnerability. Knowledge sharing in a high performance environment is not just about the exchange of knowledge. It is about the relationships that are developed, the collaboration that ensures, the trust in the knowledge and the person or people who develop the knowledge. To the extent that a social network is being used to further either of these goals, then vulnerability is important.
I think it is wise not be deluded into thinking that because communication is mediated by social media technology that the desirable aspects of human communication are no longer important. I think it is wise to remember that the quality of interactions in a network should not become anonymous because of the number of participants, but should retain the human qualities that exist when relationships are in-person and amongst smaller groups.
Comments