Categories
Identity in Communities and Networks

Cyberhate, Stereotypes, and Social Media: Exploring Instagram’s Role in Reinforcing Harmful Gender Identity Norms

Many early Web 2.0 scholars held high hopes for Instagram. Unlike the rigid perceptions of gender reinforced through traditional media, social network sites (SNS) were heralded as a space where harmful gender norms could be challenged, dismantled, and eradicated. However, cultural and institutional filters embedded within Instagram communities are having quite the opposite effect, instead reinforcing and reproducing existing hegemonic gender stereotypes, inhibiting the formation of group and individual identities that fall outside of existing gender norms, mirroring offline inequalities, and slowing the progress of fourth wave feminism.

Abstract

Many early Web 2.0 scholars held high hopes for Instagram. Unlike the rigid perceptions of gender reinforced through traditional media, social network sites (SNS) were heralded as a space where harmful gender norms could be challenged, dismantled, and eradicated. However, cultural and institutional filters embedded within Instagram communities are having quite the opposite effect, instead reinforcing and reproducing existing hegemonic gender stereotypes, inhibiting the formation of group and individual identities that fall outside of existing gender norms, mirroring offline inequalities, and slowing the progress of fourth wave feminism.

Introduction

Many early Web 2.0 scholars held high hopes for Instagram. Unlike the rigid perceptions of gender reinforced through traditional media, social network sites (SNS) were heralded as a space where harmful gender norms could be challenged, dismantled, and eradicated. Indeed, platforms including Instagram, with its intuitive design and global enmeshment with daily life (Clement, 2019) democratised the means for content creation, handing women, who have historically been associated with media consumption rather than its production (Kanai & Dobson, 2016), a powerful gateway to mass communication and self representation. However, cultural and institutional filters embedded within Instagram communities are having quite the opposite effect, instead reinforcing and reproducing existing hegemonic gender stereotypes, inhibiting the formation of group and individual identities that fall outside of existing gender norms, mirroring offline inequalities, and slowing the progress of fourth wave feminism. In the following paper I explore the means by which individuals and groups create and perform identity on Instagram, particularly through visual cues, tagging, community behaviours, and the inherently networked nature of Instagram. The paper also presents the theoretical potential for more diverse self-representation, and thus gender representation, on Instagram. This utopian image is quickly contrasted with the reality of Instagram’s narrow tolerance of gender identity. Flagging and reporting technology are used by Instagram’s homosocial communities, in tandem with heavily gendered cyberviolence, to enforce the platform’s own regressive Terms of Use policies. Rather than expanding or dismantling existing gender norms, through this toxic cycle Instagram instead perpetuates and strengthens the stereotype underpinning gender identity that is so dominant—and utterly harmful—in the offline world. 

Academics have dedicated many hours and essay inches linking aggressive dialogue online with the disinhibiting effects of anonymous online environments (Jane, 2019). Early research into identity and the Internet centred on self-presentation in anonymous digital spaces, whereby users showed a preference for roleplay and anti-normative behaviour (Zhao et al., 2012). However, Instagram—and its parent Facebook—has been at the forefront of a push toward a real name Internet (Zhao et al., 2012). Within this new, nonymous environment where offline names and markers are core, users express their identities implicitly rather than explicitly; showing who they are through interactions rather than explicitly narrating the self (Zhao et al., 2012). As it becomes increasingly culturally discouraged, if not technically difficult, to mask one’s offline identity on Instagram, so too does it become harder to dismiss gendered abuse prevalent across the platform as a byproduct of anonymity. Instead, we must face the uncomfortable reality that actions Jane (2017) frames as gendered cyberhate are in fact intentional performances of identity exhibited by users adhering to the traditionally homosocial values governing the digital communities with which they seek to belong.

By participating on Instagram and using even the platform’s most basic features, such as commenting, writing and uploading bio information, and posting captions, photos or videos, users are, as Boyd (2006, p. 112) describes, “writing oneself into being in a digital environment” with every single interaction and post. These actions are undertaken by people to sustain their personal connections publicly—a practice that Couldry (2012) terms presencing; the performance of identity. With every selfie, comment, hashtag, Story, and follow (or, indeed, intentional lack thereof), individual users and communities of users are sustaining a public presence (Couldry, 2012) and signalling important information about who they are (Donath, 2014). 

Instagram, as a SNS, is an inherently networked environment in which people perform their identities. Through the public articulation of self, users bind themselves together into networks (Cefai and Couldry, 2019). Clusters of users also convene around hashtags, sparking and strengthening group identity (Bruns and Burgess 2011). Such mediated environments create a blurring of the public and private—even communication across digital spaces that feel private can be witnessed by many others (Pearson 2009). In this way, Instagram becomes a space in which the very concept of intimacy can no longer be termed private, but rather a public performance of identity and self (Hjorth and Lim, 2012). 

In the context of gendered cyberviolence, most commonly directed to women on Instagram, Lewis (et al 2016) notes a particularly abhorrent bonding ritual between homosocial communities on Instagram who actively attack, abuse, and report individuals whose identity blurs the lines of their strict, narrow view of palatable femininity. This is typically a hegemonic femininity defined by the rigid, patriarchal values and expectations held by men with social power (Krane et al., 2004). Participants interpret abusive comments on feminist posts as language cues according to their own status within the social group (Donath, 2014). Through such behavior they gain status and can strengthen their position within the group (Lewis et al, 2016). Performing this type of mediated intimacy on Instagram hastens and strengthens the development of group identities, as groups cohere around high status users particular topics. Such behaviours strengthen the group identity of these collective abusive individuals (Couldry 2012) and mobilize political action (Chadwick & Stromer-Galley, 2016). 

Phipps and Young (2015) note similarities and a relationship between offline forms of harassment and gendered violence that occurs regularly on social network sites such as Instagram. While Boyd (2012, p.108) argues that online networked environments are a complex interplay of “design, business, and social issues” that fundamentally alter the way we interact, other scholars take a different view. Williams (2006) finds that real-world social and cultural patterns are reproduced on the Internet, particularly when platforms are engaged to facilitate abuse. This is particularly relevant when considering the similarities between street harassment offline and abusive behaviour online. While violence against women and girls is often committed privately in the offline realm, street harassment is one example that can take on a performative, bro-ish nature. This echoes the type of public abuse directed towards those whose actions fall outside of gender norms or expectations on Instagram. Even Instagram interactions performed in front of a small group of followers has the potential to be recirculated (Pearson, 2009) amongst a much larger chosen or unknown community. 

These Instagram communities are, at their core, communication systems comprising human signallers and receivers. For users to gain and earn trust and form communities, identity is critical (Donath, 2014). Through these abusive interactions, groups of individuals signal like-minded values and edge closer towards what Pearson (2009, para. 19) calls “strong ties,” a relationship that features “high levels of emotional engagement, intimacy, and strong bonds of reciprocity.

Any scholar who classifies gendered cyberhate across Instagram as non-violent should consider Lewis (et al, 2016)’s findings.  In her research, Lewis (2016) found that perpetrators of gendered cyberviolence often intend to muzzle and exclude their targets from critically important digital spaces—and they are regularly successful in their mission. In the recent study, Lewis (et al., 2016) found that more than a quarter of women who were targeted with gendered cyberabuse reported that they became more cautious about the discussions they participated in online and the topics they chose to discuss after the abuse occurred. 

The disastrous impact of this exclusion can only be fully comprehended by highlighting Instagram’s  importance. Instagram is a significant space where rich cultural, political, and economic exchanges occur. Jane (2018, p.162) studied the ways women respond to gendered cyberabuse, finding many are coerced into withdrawing to a 1.0 version of the Web, “suffering increased forms of exclusion and under-use of the Internet.” Overall, she concludes that the impact of gendered cyberhate on targets is “impeding online participation and digital citizenship.” 

Indeed, activity that explicitly means to exclude non-conformist groups from this public political space is at best grossly unjust, and at its most severe, a hate crime. Through the global domination of this new public space, political culture is no longer centered on identity, but also on visibility—citizens come to Instagram to express, perform, and discuss their political identity in a visible space (Milan, 2015). To be excluded from political conversation on Instagram is to be excluded from modern political life. Megarry (2014) argues that such abuse polices women’s voices, thereby inhibiting their use of powerful online environments for feminist activism. Citron and (2014) make the argument that gendered cyberabuse compromises women’s digital citizenship and should be considered a civil rights violation. At the very least, it’s clear that patriarchal values and norms with which dominant users identify may become increasingly entrenched into Instagram culture as more feminist voices are silenced. 

Perhaps the most egregious element in this cycle of expression and exclusion is the role Instagram itself plays in its continuation, through both its Terms of Use and its reporting functionality. Harmful and outdated gender norms thrive on Instagram not just because individuals and groups of individuals bond here through performed gendered abuse, but due to a multi-stakeholder approach to platform governance in which Instagram itself became the convener of abuse. Instagram has created Terms of Use that propel existing inequalities, and handed the tools of enforcement over to users who are thirsty to bolster their own status and identity among peers. Instagram’s written terms limit and punish any presentation of self that isn’t contained within its strict boundaries of what is considered acceptable, a threshold heavily informed by offline norms founded in patriarchal power structures (Caldeira et al., 2018). Most famously, Instagram enforces a heavily-gendered double standard across its moderation policy, in which the female nipple is considered explicit while the male nipple is not (Caldeira et al., 2018).

Admittedly, Instagram’s policy also clearly condemns abuse in many forms—the platform has implemented intuitive, easy-to-use features such as flagging and reporting to manage such behaviour across comments, posts, direct messages, and tags. However, in practice these tools do not appear to uplift or support women, but—albeit, conceivably unintentionally on the platform’s part—work against their interests. The introduction of flagging and reporting on Instagram makes power across the platform less structured and top-down. Power is not exercised here in a linear manner (Duguay, 2016), but is rather shared between users who can trigger the banning of accounts or content that doesn’t conform with their expectations, by making use of report functionality (Caldeira et al., 2018). These actions are the means through which Instagram enforces its Terms of Use. Through this process Instagram enacts a form of social control, naturalising a particular set of values amongst users—such as the narcissistic nature of female selfies and the explicit value of the female body—as fact (Burns, 2015). Within this system, the majority decide what form of gender identity and representation is acceptable, while the minority are reported, deleted, excluded, and silenced.

Social networking applications like Instagram have been valorised as an alternative to mainstream media in which more diverse and inclusive representations of humanity—and femininity—could thrive (Gill, 2007). While mainstream media propels images of young, thin, white, able-bodied women, the democratisation of mass communication theoretically opens the floodgates for a diverse, inclusive digital utopia. However, a decade after Instagram’s launch, we’re seeing a much less positive reality play out.  

While Instagram has the potential to challenge conventional gender norms that have long been perpetuated by offline, patriarchal power structures, it has fallen far short of this idealistic vision. Throughout this paper I have presented the ways in which Instagram is used as a tool for individual and group identity formation—and indeed, how the platform hastens and amplifies the process. Across Instagram, the very concept of intimacy and connection becomes a public performance of identity and self. This discussion also linked the prevalence of cyberabuse with toxic manifestations of identity performance. Indeed, the abuse creates stronger ties between abusers and strengthens group identity. By policing the representations of femininity deemed accessible on instagram by this dominant group, homosocial communities perpetuate their patriarchal values and expectations, silencing and excluding women who fall outside of their narrow expectations from this important public space. Instagram itself plays a role in the exclusion of women. The platform’s multi-stakeholder approach to governance ultimately empowers homosocial communities to strengthen and perform group identity via heavily gendered cyberabuse. Entrenched gender values and norms are being strengthened and perpetuated across Instagram through toxic, heavily gendered abuse.

Reference list

Bruns, A. & Burgess, J. (2011). The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. 

Burns, A. (2015). Selfie control: Online discussion of women’s photographic practices as a gendered form of social discipline (doctoral dissertation). Loughborough University.

Caldeira, S., Ridder, S., Bauwel,. S. (2018). Exploring the politics of gender representation on Instagram: Self-representations of femininity. Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, 5(1), 23-42. doi:10.11116/digest.5.1.2 

Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clement, J. (2019). Number of monthly active Instagram users 2013-2018.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/253577/number-of-monthly-active-instagram-users/

Donath, J. (2014). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In Kollock, P. and Smith M. (eds), Communities in Cyberspace. (1st ed). Routledge.

Duguay, S. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer visibility through selfies: Compar- ing platform mediators across Ruby Rose’s Instagram and Vine presence. Social Media + Society, April-June, 1-12.

Gill, R. (2007). Gender and the media. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Hjorth, L. & Lim, S. (2012). Mobile intimacy in an age of affective mobile media. Feminist Media Studies 12(4), pp. 477–484.

Jane, Emma. (2018). Gendered cyberhate- a new digital divide? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328474307 

Kanai, A., & Dobson, A. (2016). Digital Media and Gender. In N. A. Staples (Ed.), The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies (1st ed., pp. 1-4). Wiley-Blackwell. 

Krane, V., Choi, P. Y. L., Baird, S. M., Aimar, C. M., & Kauer (2004). Living the paradox: Female athletes negotiate femininity and muscularity. Sex Roles, 50(5/6), p.315-329. 

doi: 10.1023/B:SERS.0000018888.48437.4f 

Lewis, R., Rowe, M, Wiper, C. (2016). Online abuse of feminists as an emerging form of violence against women and girls. The British Journal of Criminology, (57)6, p.1462-1481.https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw073 

Megarry, J. (2014). Online incivility or sexual harassment? Conceptualising women’s experiences in the digital age. Women’s Studies International Forum(47)A, p 46-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2014.07.012

Milan, S. (2015). Mobilizing in Times of Social Media: From a Politcs of Identity to a Politics of Visibility. In L. Dencik & O. Leistert (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Social Media and Protest: Between Control and Emancipation (pp. 53–73). New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks, 14(3)

https://firstmonday.org/article/view/2162/2127

Phipps, A. & Young, I. (2014). Neoliberalisation and ‘lad cultures’ in higher education. Sage Journals 49(2), p. 305-322

https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514542120

Zhao, S., Grasmuch, S., Martin, J. Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior(24)5, p1816-1836.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.02.012

2 replies on “Cyberhate, Stereotypes, and Social Media: Exploring Instagram’s Role in Reinforcing Harmful Gender Identity Norms”

Interesting point about the power to create content being handed to women (Kanai & Dobson, 2016) – In agreeance with this idea, I’ve recently heard some interesting arguments regarding the nature of the Social Networking site “Only Fans”. Traditionally, Only Fans has been a space for highly sexualised content, from which (predominantly) women can reap financial rewards. This platform has essentially cut out the middleman (who generally takes the larger financial cut) that is often required in traditional pornography and sex work and is allowing females to take the power back and earn the money that they are working so hard for.

I agree with your statements regarding the Terms of Use policies on Instagram – they seem so outdated for what is generally seen as a progressive social network. The fact that a post about breast feeding can be flagged and removed (Burns, 2105) for breaching Instagram’s community guidelines is just ridiculous.

A very interesting point about Cyberhate being an expression of identity – an idea that I have never thought of before.

I enjoyed the points about online activity being a “performance” and “expression of self”, it would be interesting to see some research about the numbers of people who “present” their true selves, compared to those who “present” an identity that they wish to become.

The idea of Instagram exercising a form of social control through their Terms of Use (Burns, 2015) is so interesting – and rather scary at the same time, as I feel a lot of users are ignorant to this fact and the harm that it can do.

Interesting point about the power to create content being handed to women (Kanai & Dobson, 2016) – In agreeance with this idea, I’ve recently heard some interesting arguments regarding the nature of the Social Networking site “Only Fans”. Traditionally, Only Fans has been a space for highly sexualised content, from which (predominantly) women can reap financial rewards. This platform has essentially cut out the middleman (who generally takes the larger financial cut) that is often required in traditional pornography and sex work and is allowing females to take the power back and earn the money that they are working so hard for.

I agree with your statements regarding the Terms of Use policies on Instagram – they seem so outdated for what is generally seen as a progressive social network. The fact that a post about breast feeding can be flagged and removed (Burns, 2105) for breaching Instagram’s community guidelines is just ridiculous.

A very interesting point about Cyberhate being an expression of identity – an idea that I have never thought of before.

I enjoyed the points about online activity being a “performance” and “expression of self”, it would be interesting to see some research about the numbers of people who “present” their true selves, compared to those who “present” an identity that they wish to become.

The idea of Instagram exercising a form of social control through their Terms of Use (Burns, 2015) is so interesting – and rather scary at the same time, as I feel a lot of users are ignorant to this fact and the harm that it can do.

Hi Olivia,

Thanks for your thoughts and feedback here.

There’s a real chicken-or-the-egg scenario in play with Instagram’s Terms of Use—these policies are designed to adhere to offline cultural norms, but then end up perpetuating the same problematic stereotypes and stigmas online, rather than embracing the potential social networks have to dismantle harmful, but deeply embedded, gender norms.

This leads smoothly into your point regarding Only Fans. There are certainly online spaces that are less mainstream and able to adhere to Terms of Use and encourage self-representation in forms that fall outside of society’s narrow expectations. Instagram, as a hugely visible, global platform that allows participation from the age of 14 is logically more constricted. Privatised, commercial platforms like Instagram and Facebook regulate content in line with mainstream cultural norms and community values to remain appealing to advertisers (Deibert et al., 2010). The flip side of my own original argument of course can be considered when looking at social networking sites like 4chan and 8chan, where users express identity in ways that are abhorrent to the majority of people offline, but fit within this community’s particular expectations and values. Woolf (2019, p.50) describes chan sites as something new: “organic communities of anonymous participants that have started to behave almost like a new consciousness, separate and more powerful and dangerous than the sum of its parts.” Woolf (2019) also links two devastating mass shootings to the radicalization of users on chan platforms, including the 2019 Christchurch massacre.

Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R., Zittrain, J. (2010). Access controlled: The shaping of power, rights, and rules in cyberspace.
Retrieved from http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=1004009

Woolf, N. (2019). Spreading hate across the internet: the birth of 8chan. The Week, 1235. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/2265675713?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Thanks,
Jasmine

Comments are closed.