Category: Communities and Web 2.0

Seetaram Archana_Final_Conference Paper

Pillay_Laura_A1

Abstract

The sharing of breastfeeding images, commonly referred to as ‘brelfies’, on social media is becoming increasingly commonplace in today’s society as mothers actively engage with and participate in the online environment. Such platforms afford users various opportunities to belong and participate in online communities. Breastfeeding communities are increasingly common; many women and mothers belong to such communities who are involved in the active promotion of breastfeeding with the aim of de-stigmatising the practice whilst also empowering women who breastfeed. However, this paper will demonstrate that this is not necessarily achieved in practice. Rather, such communities are marred by various dominant ideologies that exist within society and serve to reproduce and legitimise such ideologies. In particular, the capitalist and consumerist ideology seem to be at play in the virtual breastfeeding communities on Facebook and Instagram. Furthermore, these communities often advance and popularise certain beauty ideals placing pressure on mothers to conform to such ideals.

Introduction

Digital technologies and “the smartphone revolution” influences and impacts significantly on daily life (Johnson, 2014, para. 1). The ubiquitous nature of social media has changed various aspects of daily life from the way we communicate and interact with others to the way we interact with the world in general. As observed by Tomfohrde and Reinke (2016), computational and digital technologies have become “increasingly salient in our culture” (p. 556) forming a vital part of our lives. Social Networking Sites (SNS) and mobile applications offer users a plethora of opportunities to create and belong to a virtual community whilst also facilitating the creation of social movements.

As Economos et al. (2009) state, a social movement is “collective action” on a continuous basis to “promote or resist change” within society (p. 40). Social media platforms like Facebook and Instagram which are “widely used among many demographic groups” including parents (Tomfohrde and Reinke, 2016, p. 556). As Ibrahim (2010) identifies, in the context of breastfeeding, such platforms are occupied by supporters and activists who wish to promote breastfeeding and fight for women’s rights to breastfeed in public places (p. 17). Furthermore, such technologies are transforming the way motherhood is viewed and practiced within society. Indeed, Johnson (2014) observes that social media and apps serve to “organise parenting practice” and offer users potentially “new experiences” of motherhood (p. 331). Breastfeeding communities on social media platforms Facebook and Instagram allow mothers to share content and to be part of a community with common beliefs and values; such platforms, centered around the notion of online communities, have expanded the “social support networks” that parents have access to (p. 342). In such communities, the main aim appears to be the de-stigmatisation of breastfeeding within society through the promotion of breastfeeding content and practices on such platforms.

Various researchers have studied parents’ use of social media, more specifically social media behaviours of mothers. The large majority of research on the subject seems to conclude that the practice of sharing breastfeeding selfies in an online environment is empowering for women and allows them to participate and feel a sense of solidarity and belonging in a virtual community. However, an analysis of existing literature and examples from Facebook and Instagram reveal that such studies overlook the fact that the widespread sharing of ‘brelfies’ serves to reinforce stereotypes that exist within society as well as dominant ideologies, namely stereotypes of mothers and women and the ideologies of patriarchy, capitalism and consumerism.

Social Media and breastfeeding

Social media platforms Facebook and Instagram are perhaps the most widely used social networking sites (SNS) in contemporary society. Facebook is a platform that can be accessed both via the Facebook application or the mobile site (Johnson, 2014,p. 342). The “high-traffic” platform has numerous uses including the sharing and dissemination of content, “social connection”, opportunities to join interest groups with shared interests as well as “people watching and social surveillance” (p. 342). As noted by Statista (as cited in Tomfohrde and Reinke, 2016), a significant proportion of the 2 billion Facebook users are of “childbearing and childrearing age”, aged between 18-44 (p. 557). Facebook has thousands of pages devoted to breastfeeding communities and breastfeeding practices in general.

Similarly to Facebook, Instagram is a social media platform and a mobile application which allows users to take and modify photographs, through the use of filters, and allows them to share these photographs and short segments of video content to it’s site (Zappavinga, 2016, p. 271). Instagram is the most popular photo sharing platform with over “600 million users worldwide” as of December 2016 (Locatelli, 2017, p. 2). Characteristic Instagram practices include the sharing of ‘selfies’, “digital self-portraits” that serves to communicate a message or simply as a “representation of something” (p. 2). Lim (2016) views selfies as the “cultural marker of the current generation” stating its popularity not only amongst public figures such as politicians and celebrities but also amongst the general public (p. 1774). He notes that selfies represent “an avenue for self-expression” (p. 1774), “social feedback” and “social calibration” (p. 1775).

Selfies depicting breastfeeding on Facebook and Instagram are labelled as “brelfies” obviously by fusing breastfeeding and selfies (p. 4). By sharing breastfeeding selfies, social media users “construct their identities and simultaneously express their belonging” to the breastfeeding community (Locatelli, 2017, p. 2).

Figure 1: Breastfeeding selfie, commonly referred to as ‘brelfie’ on Instagram

‘Brelfies’, Social Media and Society

According to Tiidenberg and Gomez-Cruz (2015) images have a central function in how we experience, understand and shape the world (p.79). The notion and the concept of the body “are socially constructed” (Featherstone, as cited in Tiidenberg and Gomez-Cruz, p. 81) and defined by cultural and social beliefs, norms and values (Crisp, as cited in Tiidenberg and Gomez-Cruz, 2015, p. 81). Therefore, it could be argued that the various ideologies that exist with larger society also impact on the notion of the body. For instance, Tiidenberg and Gomez-Cruz (2015) elaborate on Featherstone’s (as cited in Tiidenberg and Gomez-Cruz, 2015, p. 81) theory of consumerism to conclude that the “consumerist culture makes us all responsible for our body” leading to the commodification of the female body by emphasising the perfect beauty ideal and stressing the importance of the body as a form of social and cultural capital (p. 81).

Within the digital media landscape, Lasen and Gomez-Cruz (2009) argue that selfies and self-portraits are re-shaping the “knowing of the self” and “relation to our own body” (p. 206). They state that the three important aspects to selfies; representation, “presentation and embodiment” of the self do not simply represent and existing entity but rather they contribute to the “configuration and transfiguration of bodies and selves” (p. 213). Images depicting breastfeeding on social media form part of the ‘’visual economy” and impact on users who belong to the breastfeeding community whilst also communicating the cultural and social elements of society (p.79). The “contemporary visual economy” remains ageist and “heteronormative” leading women to “feel inadequate and dissatisfied with themselves” (p. 79). Furthermore, the modern visual culture is overtly “sexualised” and “pornified” (p. 79). Tiidenberg and Gomez-Cruz (2015) acknowledge the relationship between bodies and sexuality stating that “bodies are intertwined with sexuality” (p. 79) and as Boon and Pentney (as cited in Locatelli, 2017) argue, the boundaries between motherhood and sexuality are troubled; “breasts disrupt conventional understandings of public and private, self and other, subject and object” (p. 2). Asides from the sexualised and pornified views of women’s bodies, Johnson (2014) highlights how women’s bodies are traditionally viewed as “leaky, uncontrollable, open and permeable” (p. 343).

Brelfies, Celebrities and Commodification

According to Marwick and boyd (2011), the internet, Web 2.0 and its social media affordances has changed celebrity culture from a “highly controlled and regulated institutional model” (p. 139) to a ‘culture’ and practice that can be performed and accessed by anyone with access to the internet and social media (p. 140). “Networked media” which involves blogs, fan sites, social media sites and gossip websites have created opportunities for “the circulation and creation of celebrities” (p. 40). Celebrity, a status given to a “famous” person is a complex social and “cultural construct” characterised by “performative practice” (p. 140). Celebrity culture involves the “construction of a consumable persona”, “performed intimacy” and authenticity (p. 140). Individuals who are classified as ‘celebrity’ can be equated to a “commodity” of media industries (p. 140); celebrity culture serves the interests of the media, an institution of power within society. Indeed, Turner (as cited in Marwick and boyd, 2011) defines celebrity as “a process by which a person is turned into a commodity” (p. 140).

Analysing the practices of public figures and celebrities on social media platform Twitter, Marwick and boyd (2011) conclude that such practices serve to reinforce and legitimise “unequal power differentials” (p. 144). Performing and maintaining celebrity status is dependent on fans, followers and ‘non-celebrities’ recognising the “asymmetrical status” and the “imbalance between practitioner and fan” (p. 144). The power structure is maintained by intimacy practices including the sharing of personal images (p. 148) to create a sense of “familiarity” (p. 147) between the celebrity and fans as well as through the process of affiliation. Affiliation is the “process of publicly performing a connection” with fans through the use of cultural symbols, norms and conventions and language (p. 147). Marwick and boyd’s (2011) conclusions suggest that celebrity practices of sharing ‘brelfies’ is reduced to a “co-performance” (p. 155) to maintain the existing hierarchy and power structure. By sharing photographs and images of breastfeeding, celebrities engage in familiarity and affiliation practices to connect with fans who belong to the breastfeeding community. Consequently, such “co-performances” (p. 155) reinforce the power disparity as “fans show deference” (p. 144) therefore reproducing the power imbalance between celebrities and them.

Celebrity Alyssa Milano shares a ‘brelfie’ on Instagram

Indeed, Duvall (2015) remarks how celebrity images depicting breastfeeding are reliant upon and reinforce stereotypical beauty ideals and notions of what constitutes ideal motherhood behaviours and practices. In mainstream and traditional media celebrity breasts are represented as central to the female sexuality intended to be consumed by audiences as “sexualised objects of desire” (p. 324).

Duvall (2015) argues that media discourses surrounding celebrity maternity and motherhood “police boundaries of ideal beauty and motherhood” (p. 327). Photographs and selfies of celebrities revolving around motherhood reinforce ideal and normalised beauty ideals as they are often edited or manipulated with perfect lighting and dominant representations of glamour (p. 327). Similarly, Ibrahim (2010) observes that images shared by celebrity mothers which are staged, “manipulated and distorted” complicate the “existing relationship between reality and representation” (p. 20). The traditional female maternal body is replaced by portrayals and representations of hyper-commodified, unrealistic and unattainable representations of the body (p. 328). This leads to the “policing” of the “celebrity breastfeeding body” which is “reprimanded, sexualised and commodified for global consumption” (p. 327). Furthermore, it highlights the double standard underscoring celebrity motherhood practices and media portrayals; Duvall (2015) advocates that “celebrity breastfeeding both disrupts and normalises existing taboos particularly because the “famous body” is a political vehicle used primarily for the dissemination of ideologies about sexuality, race, gender and class (Redmond, as cited in Holmes and Redmond, 2006, p. 124).

Celebrity Jessie James Decker breastfeeding her infant

The image of Jessie James Decker, a ‘brelfie’ posted on her Instagram account depicts the celebrity mother breastfeeding her infant. The image features both mother and baby laying down and both mother and baby are featured in perfect lighting. Moreover, the mother is dressed in white and is adorned by jewellery while she strikes a pose and stares into the camera rather than at her infant. The composition of this image appears to have been “painstakingly prepared” (Locatelli, 2017, p. 6) with the mother being represented as meticulous and posed. It could be argued that the pose adopted by the mother directs viewers attention towards the mother; the pose adopted by Jessie James Decker could be classified as one contrived to the male gaze and for male consumption and therefore undermines the practice of breastfeeding since the focus seems to be on her beauty. This serves to reinforce idealised images of breastfeeding as a natural practice associating breastfeeding with the notions of “nature, purity” (Locatelli, 2017,p. 6) and beauty. Moreover, it also serves to legitimise existing beauty ideals that dictate that females should be beautiful despite the stresses and burdens of motherhood. Duvall (2015) argues that such images such images reinforce the “unattainable standard” of the “super-working, super-mummy” who has the perfect balance both in her professional and domestic life whilst also conforming to the hegemonic beauty standards (para. 6). It could thus be argued celebrity breastfeeding photographs are merely political vehicles that serve the interests of ideologies such as consumerism and capitalism in the interest of maintaining the status quo and power order in society.

Brelfies and non-celebrity mothers

Stearns (1999) observes how breastfeeding, “a visual performance of mothering” places the “maternal body at centre stage” and “symbolises good mothering” (p. 309). The performance and practice of breastfeeding are “complicated by conflicting cultural beliefs” regarding women’s breasts (p. 309). Within Western societies, female breasts represent femininity and heterosexuality (p. 310). This poses a problem for “breastfeeding women and their maternal bodies” (p. 310). Furthermore, within Western societies there is a “strong cultural preference for sexualised breasts” (p. 309). This places pressure on mothers to negotiate their breastfeeding practices, although it is a natural and nurturing practice to suit the dominant and patriarchal view commonly held in society that breasts are “exclusively for the other” (p. 323). As Boon and Pentney (2015) observe, breastfeeding selfies can be both a “personal gesture” and or a “political act” (p. 1768); they represent an “ambiguous space” that reinforces “rather than undermine the status quo” since they can “re-inscribe cisgender and heteronormative frameworks” (p. 1768). Furthermore, breastfeeding selfies can be “risky” exposing nursing mums to “criticism, online harassment, or the co-opting of images for unsavory purposes” such as porn sites (p. 1760).

Conclusions

Considering the limited amount of research available regarding breastfeeding and technology, conclusions offered fail to provide an accurate and reliable account of the relationship between breastfeeding, social media and society. While the majority of existing literature seems to unfold around the ‘benefits’ of social media for breastfeeding mothers giving them a sense of belonging to a community and as a form of empowerment, it is evident that there are several underscoring mechanisms at play within the discourse. An analysis of celebrity breastfeeding practices reveals the underlying ideologies surrounding motherhood whilst also highlighting inequality within the social structures of society. Furthermore, the breastfeeding celebrity body reduces motherhood to a politicised, romanticised, sexualised and glamorised practice thus undermining the potential of ‘brelfies’ a significant social movement, a form of activism or as a vehicle for social change.

In relation to mothers who do not have celebrity status, it is evident that breastfeeding content has to be clearly negotiated; mothers are pressured to conform to societal beliefs of what constitutes good mothering practices whilst also pressurised to negotiate ‘brelfies’ so that they are not viewed as sexualised. It could thus be argued that rather than acting as a vehicle for social change, virtual breastfeeding communities simply create an illusion of empowerment for users. Rather, women who belong to such communities are faced with various challenges and are coerced and exploited to negotiate their breastfeeding practices.

Bibliography

Duvall, S. S. (2015). Not “Simply the Breast”. Feminist Media Studies, 15, 324-340.

DOI: 10.1080/14680777.2014.919334

Economos, C. D., Brownson, R. C., DeAngelis, M. A., Novelli, P., & al, e. (2001). What lessons have been learned from other attempts to guide social change? Nutrition Reviews, 59(3), 40-56. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2001.tb06985.x

Holmes, S., & Redmond, S. (Eds.). (2006). Framing Celebrity: New Directions in Celebrity Culture. London: Routledge.

Ibrahim, Y. (2010). The Breastfeeding Controversy and Facebook: Politicisation of Image, Privacy and Protest. International Journal of E-Politics, 1, 16-28. Retrieved from https://www.igi-global.com/article/breastfeeding-controversy-facebook/43598

Johnson, S, A. (2014). “Maternal Devices”, Social Media and the Self-Management of Pregnancy, Mothering and Child Health. Societies, 4 (2), 330-350.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/soc4020330

Lasen, A., & Gomez-Cruz, E. (2009). Digital Photography and Picture Sharing: Redefining Public/ Private Divide. Knowledge and Policy, 22, 205-215.

DOI: 10.1007/s12130-009-9086-8

Lim, W. M. (2016). Understanding the Selfie Phenomenon: Current Insights and Future Research Directions. European Journal of Marketing, 50, 1773-1788. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-07-2015-0484

Locatelli, E. (2017). Images of Breastfeeding on Instagram: Self-Representation, Publicness, and Privacy Management. Social Media and Society, 1-14.

DOI: 10.1177/2056305117707190

Marwick, A., & boyd, d. (2011). To See and be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter. Convergence, 17(2), 139-158.

DOI: 10.1177/1354856510394539

Stearns, C. A (1999). Breastfeeding and the Good Maternal Body. Gender and Society, 13, 308-325. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/190257

Tiidenberg, K., & Gomez Cruz. (2015). Selfies, Image and the Re-making of the Body. Body and Society, 21, 77-102. DOI: 10.1177/1357034X15592465

Tomforhde, O. J., & Reinke, J. S. (2016). Breastfeeding Mothers’ Use of Technology While Breastfeeding. Computers in Human Behaviour, 64, 556-561.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.057

Zappavigna, M. (2016). Social Media Photography: Costruing Subjectivity in Instagram Images. Visual Communication, 15, 271-292. DOI: 10.1177/1470357216643220

Emotional Norms in Online Communities

By Abbey Healey

HealeyA Conference Paper PDF

Abstract

This paper reviews online communities how they negatively affect our ability as humans to be ever truly be alone, with reference to traditional offline communities. Online communities have been a great addition to technology, increasing productivity and adding an element of ease into our lives, however have made being alone in the ‘real world’ a difficult task for some. Web 2.0 has created a constant need for connection and has given ‘real-life’ a lonesome feeling that leaves people begging for a sense of control within their social lives. This paper explores the feelings experienced when communicating online and the impact they have on daily life and traditional communities.

Keywords:Online Community, Collective Self-Esteem, Invisible Dimension, Web 2.0

Online communities in Web 2.0 negatively impact our ability as humans to experience moments of independence when navigating the online world. These communities, while having many positives such as accounting for marginalised groups and making everyday life easier, are the same communities that are responsible for things such as loneliness and ignorance of professional opinion as well as a decrease in the set of life skills one would otherwise develop if not following in the footsteps of everyone else in the world. An online community can be defined as “passion-centric” (Porter, 2015, p161) groups of individuals with similar interests or situations that form a basis for means of communication. Today’s individual’s use online communities in a search for approval and recognition from others as well as to find  a niche within communities that makes them feel part of a group. Web 2.0 technologies are responsible for connecting people and allowing communities to be portable within daily life. With reference to work by other scholars, this paper argues that online communities should be held responsible for a decrease in one’s ability to be independent in every-day life as well as noting we are never truly alone when it comes to Web 2.0. Through social hierarchies and power in online communities the influence they have on our lives and decision-making processes is phenomenal. Sherry Turkle’s 2012 TED talk about the lonesome feeling we get as a result of constant connectivity in online communities will be largely referenced  to back up my argument and ideas formed about belonging in communities and works by other scholars will back up her ideas as well as help to form the rest of my argument.

Belonging in Online Communities

There is an online community that suits every individual’s needs and interests, from fashion and sporting communities to buy-and-sell and relocation communities – the internet houses every niche audience imaginable that it almost seems impossible for users to ever be truly alone. Turkle (2012) notes “being alone feels like a problem that needs to be solved” hence why so many people are reaching for their devices.  Online communities make people feel like they are a part of something bigger than just an individual sitting alone at home, holding Web 2.0 technologies responsible for creating such a “psychologically powerful” world, that is always available to help us feel a form of connection (Turkle, 2012). In moments of lonesomeness, it is not uncommon for individuals to crave a connection in an online community, where as a body they are alone but their minds are occupied as part of a constant communication happening elsewhere. This has significantly changed everyday life, because now we exist in the ‘real’ world, and because of mobile technology, in “an invisible dimension over everyday life” (Thompson, 2008) at the same time. Traditional communities have changed as a direct result of this. Traditional communities are different from online communities in that the communication is not constant and is not as controlled.  People would choose when to communicate with others and almost all of the time needed to physically be in the same room for this to occur. Online communities boast non geographical connections at any time but seem to fill a void in everyday life where participation is based upon wanting to feel something rather than participating because a feeling is already being experienced (Turkle, 2012).

Where before, alone time out of communities was a hindrance and a bore, it has now become a luxury that people crave to have.  However, humans have always needed a community and a sense of belonging but we have evolved into having a need to belong all of the time, leaving people in online communities wondering why should they be alone when they do not have to be, even if your physical bodies are nowhere near each other. Gangadharbatla(2008) explains this “need to belong” as a motivational way of gaining social recognition and that it also stems from 3 qualities that come from being a part of an online community; inclusion, affection and control. This type of person is what we call an “altruist individual”, they are “motivated by collective action, community belonging and knowledge sharing” (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007, p53). Gangadharbatla(2008) discusses a concept called “collective self-esteem”, which is defined as the worth someone places on themselves based upon the communities they are a part of. This relates directly to my argument that individuals no longer know how to be on their own, and how to perceive others as individuals. Online communities make it so much easier to place labels and values on people, based solely on what their interests are and who they associate with. Whilst I agree, online communities have helped marginalised groups become a part of society, they still separate groups of people creating an ‘us and them’ atmosphere on the web. Solving tasks as part of a group is something we all know makes life a lot easier, but I argue that while this increases individual productivity it decreases an individual’s belief that they can complete a task alone as they are always going to be looking for social recognition in the “invisible dimension” (Thompson, 2008) that gives them a chance of boosting their “collective self-esteem” (Gangadharbatla, 2008).

Power and Status in Online Communities

While the idea of community boasts equality amongst participants, social hierarchies exist and online communities fall nothing short of a typical social hierarchy as well as a heightened ability to upgrade once social status. Social hierarchies and status seeking is not something unfamiliar as far as communities go, there always seems to be a leader unspoken or elected, in traditional communities. However online with exposed admins and hierarchal titles, such as how often you participate in online discussions within the community, status seeking seems to be the main motivation within online communities.  Aguiton and Cardon (2007) suggest that the more active a user is within an online community (i.e. the more power they have), the more important their goals are within the community. Admins and highly ranked members of online communities are looked up to by newcomers and lower ranked community members, with usernames often recognised amongst the bunch.

Like with offline communities it gives a sense of power to those higher rated within online social groups and creates a desire in the minds of lower ranked participants, to be socially accepted within the community. “Status seeking is a social passion that drives participants to invest time and effort in giving the gift of their experience to others without direct benefit to themselves. This social passion is a reliable source of continuing participation, making it more likely that virtual communities will survive and grow.” (Lampel and Bhalla, 2007). Status seeking  and power are the main motivators for individuals to invest so much time into creating another identity for themselves, for the reason that behind a computer or mobile screen, you can create the perception of being whoever you want to be.  Aguiton and Cardon (2007) also state that “people build their identity through the continuous search for recognition in the eyes of others”. This again draws attention to the idea that individuals have become wrapped up in the Web 2.0 world where the technology is available to construct yourself to feel powerful, giving them another reason to not experience time alone away from communities, as they have a social status to build. Status within the community, self-building and set leaders are amongst the “rules and norms [that are] are created by users themselves” (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007, p56) and are responsible for a pattern that shows lower ranked community members adapting their beliefs and values to follow the highly ranked members, in order to become more socially accepted in yet another community they are a part of. The constant need for recognition, approval and power in virtual communities are another reason individuals are no longer capable of being independent, with the ability to upgrade one’s social status 24-hours a day, it is obvious why some individuals feel the need to be constantly participating in online discussions and playing an active role in online communities that never sleep.

Influence from Online Communities

In spite of the fact that many participants in online communities have never met each other, they have an undeniable ability to influence each other’s opinions instead of individuals being able to create an opinion for themselves. This has skyrocketed things like word of mouth or buzz marketing and online collaboration. For corporations, these are great money making tools but for individuals, can seem like while the friendships and bonds formed online may seem real, there always is in fact an outside motivation to the relationship. Aguiton and Cardon (2007, p55), convey that “publishing individual activities is the first step towards potential collaboration with others”, this is for the reason that it sparks familiarity in similar interests. The word similar in this sentence hold significant importance, as no two opinions are the same. Even without online word of mouth marketing and promotion, individuals still hold lots of power to influence opinion of people they would not have otherwise met in a traditional way. An example I would like to point out is how naivety is affected in online communities when it comes to professional opinion versus community opinion with reference to the saying “do not believe everything you read on the internet”.

Behind a computer screen it is impossible to know whether the professional giving you advice at the other end is actually who they say they are. Web 2.0 gives users the opportunity to conceal their identity within communities, whereas traditional communities are largely face to face. In online communities there is an element of trust with the forged bonds that are created with again, people you may have never met. This trust stems from the sense of belonging you feel within the community. The loneliness experienced by people in online communities, though constantly communicating, is part of the reason they trust others they meet online so easily. It is almost as if they are consumed by online communities and have nowhere else to turn. “The process of social influence leads people to adopt behaviours exhibited by those they interact with” (Crandall et al, 2018). The impact of an influence in behaviour experienced by people because of individuals they have never met is staggering. Where before traditional communities were quite reserved in opinions seeing as you could place a face to shocking comments that were made, the online world now gives users the opportunity to say what they really think, introducing strong influences from many directions. Independent voices seem to be a thing of the past, as now our opinions are made up of those of others. There seems to be no such thing as an original opinion, just merely samples of the opinions of others that we witness in online communities. The influence created in situations like these goes unnoticed and forges bonds between people online for sharing the ‘same’ opinion. Excuses for forming bonds such as this one are a direct influence from the lonely feeling people get when they feel they do not share common beliefs as part of a community.

Conclusion

With web 2.0 technology so integrated as a part of everyday life, it is hard not to constantly be involved with an online community that requires little effort to participate in. On one hand it keeps us engaged with others but on the other means we never get time to make meaning on our own without outside influence and support. The lonely feeling we get when we are not connected with other holds responsibility for our involvement in an “invisible dimension” (Thompson, 2008). Needing to belong and a need for power as well as naivety when it comes to being influenced all play a role in the way we unknowingly need to be a part of online communities. These factors all have one thing in common, that is they all involve other people. Independence as we know it, has changed significantly due to virtual communities, creating a hardship when it comes to being alone in ‘real life’. Online no matter what you do, there are always other people there, making it seemingly impossible to ever be alone in virtual space and making it so we do not ever want to be away from our online communities.

References

Aguiton, C., & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to

Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1). Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070

Crandall, D., Cosley, D., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Suri, S. (2018). Feedback Effects

between Similarity and Social Influence in Online Communities (p. 160). Retrieved from https://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~snean151/wiki.files/6-FeedbackEffectsbetweenSimilarityandSocialInfluence.pdf

Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook Me: Collective Self-Esteem, Need to Belong,and

Internet Self-Efficacy as Predictors of the iGeneration’s Attitudes toward Social Networking Sites. Journal Of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 4-5.

Lampel, J., & Bhalla, A. (2007). The Role of Status Seeking in Online Communities: Giving the

Gift of Experience. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 434-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00332.x

Porter, C. E. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni and J. A.

Danowski, (eds). Communication and Technology. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 161 – 179

Thompson, C. (2008). Brave New World of Digital Intimacy. The New York Times. 5

September.   http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?_r=1

Turkle, S. (2012). Connected, but alone? [Video]. Retrieved from

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

HealeyA Conference Paper PDF

Abstract: Social Software such as social networking sites (SNS), have become very useful in recent years, helping its users to derive value from these platforms due to their features that encourage virtual community formation and strengthening. To explore factors that encourage community formation and strengthening on SNSs, this essay highlights features of popular SNSs; Facebook, Snapchat, and Tumblr. This essay collected evidence from various scholarly platforms and the SNSs themselves in order to prove this assertion. From this, it is proven that Facebook provides value to Aboriginal Australian’s by encouraging social interaction through its identity confirming affordances, secondly, Facebooks and Tumblr’s features afford its users value by encouraging collaborative communication, lastly, Snapchat provides value to its young users and how Facebook has provided value to its grieving users, through encouraging efficient and intimate exchange of information that matters to users personally. The findings in-fact support this assertion with little to no refutation.

According to Porter (2015), a community is defined as a group of individuals or an organization that can interact in virtual and/or offline space, with the members interactions being able to be mediated through any networked technology. Porter further states that a community is an entity that places value on giving “members the ability to participate in key decision-making processes, encouraging members to collaborate with other members in value-creating activities and convincing members to make contributions that matter to them personally” (Porter, 2015, p.169). Community building in the virtual world is encouraged by social software which is defined as “a set of tools that enable group-forming networks to emerge quickly” (Fuchs, 2010, p.775) as this software “facilitates social interaction, collaboration and information exchange” (Fuchs, 2010, p.777). Furthermore, Social software includes “software which supports, extends, or derives added value from, human social behaviour – message-boards, musical taste-sharing, photo-sharing, instant messaging, mailing lists, social networking” (Fuchs, 2010, p.773). With this, social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook, Tumblr and Snapchat are inherently social software as they “(1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.” (Ellison, 2007, p.211) Thus providing its users with value by encouraging community formation and strengthening. Therefore, it can be confidently asserted that social software, such as SNSs, have provided value to its users by encouraging virtual community-formation and strengthening through their various affordances. This assertion will be illustrated firstly through assessing how the SNS Facebook has provided value to Aboriginal Australian’s by encouraging social interaction through its identity confirming affordances, building community, secondly, through discussing how the features of the SNSs Facebook and Tumblr have afforded its users value by encouraging collaborative communication, also building community, and lastly, how the SNS Snapchat has provided value to its young users and how Facebook has provided value to its grieving users, through encouraging efficient and intimate exchange of information that matter to users personally, strengthening their “stabilized” community.

SNSs have encouraged social interaction due to the features of these platforms, which facilitate virtual community building between individuals that share commonalities, thus providing value to its users. SNSs facilitate virtual community as they are public spheres where members identity is confirmed by social interaction and where the decision-making processes are communal. A perfect example of an SNS that does so is Facebook as its user base was “over 800 million in March 2012” (Forman, Kern & Gil-Egui, 2012, p.1) and is still growing. Therefore, this platform provides fertile conditions for virtual community building. According to Atkinson (2010), Aboriginal culture in Australia has diminished due to their community being depleted through centuries of abuse, dehumanization, and separation resulting from European colonization. However, a silver lining to this tragic treatment is that their power to revive their largely diminished community has been somewhat restored as “Facebook provides possibilities for extending community, for establishing connectedness and cultural belonging, through networking aspects of pre-contact culture, language, the sharing of practiced rituals, information about kin or mobs that may have been lost, photographs, stories and so on.” (Lumby, 2010, p.69) Facebook users who have affiliations to the Aboriginal culture can use the platform to find and join online communities in the form of “pages” or “groups” that have relations to their culture and that host offline events. “Pages” are public spaces that can be “liked” to join and “share” or “post” information in the space. “Groups” are private spaces with one or a few admins and thus require users to “request” or be “invited” by the host/s of the group to “post” or “share” information in the space.

Therefore, constructing their online identity is often required to be integrated into these spaces as “the performance of Indigeneity is necessary for the subject position to be taken seriously, and for recognition to occur in a meaningful way.” (Lumby, 2010, p.71) A popular way for users to do so is by utilizing Facebook’s identity personalization features that allow users to make highly customized “profile pages”. Some users with an Aboriginal background thus actively customize their personal “profile pages” to indicate this heritage by having photos on display of the Aboriginal flag and/or other Indigenous symbols. Another way for Facebook users to ensure their identity is confirmed is to “friend” other people that they can identify as possessing a desired identity that is part of a specific community, this “requires validation by as many as possible.” (Lumby, 2010, p.71) Facebook’s networking affordances also work to connect potential similar users by “recommending” friendships that have “mutual friends” to the user, so, therefore “because Facebook works to increase ‘friends’ exponentially, a user can ‘collect’ a number of potential verifiers.” (Lumby, 2010, p.71) Furthermore, Facebook not only allows “a recomposition of space” (Lumby, 2010, p.73) for the disbanded Aboriginal community, but provides a place where members can “instate their own hierarchies of Indigenous identity which can be re-deployed “on the outside” if (and only if) they perform credibly in the Facebook sphere of activity.” (Lumby, 2010, p.73) Here, key decision-making processes are left up to the members of the community, instilling power back into their culture through social interaction and identity confirmation encouraged by Facebook’s sizeable user base, collaborative culture and technological affordances. Thus, adhering back to Porter’s (2015) definitions of community, it is clear that SNSs such as Facebook have facilitated community building among Aboriginals in Australia, thus providing them with value.

Community formation is a collaborative endeavor that creates value for those individuals involved. For young people especially, SNSs such as Facebook and Tumblr often act as catalysts in this process. Hodkinson (2015) states that these types of SNSs have become the most popular spaces in which teens can efficiently congregate with large groups of their peers. However, merely congregating in these spaces is not enough to ensure community building, and thus value being derived. This is because as understood above, community formation is aided through identity construction to form virtual boundaries. However, young people often try to remain social with as many people as possible which means young SNS users “are suited to communication with a wider number of superficial acquaintances, or ‘weak ties’.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.7) For young Facebook users, then, its primary interface, or the “news feed”, “acts as the primary conduit for communication.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.8) This is because it enables “individuals to communicate simultaneously with numerous peers” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.8), a driving reason behind them using this social software. While these weak ties were found to be a driving force for young people when they start using social software, it has been found that it is common for users’ “friends-lists tend [to] gradually stabilize as people move through adolescence, coming to form a relatively predictable and consistent part of individuals’ communicative spheres.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.16-17) Collaboration is encouraged by the features of this SNS during this stabilization process due to “the properties of social media, creating boundaries around these online spaces is far more difficult.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.10) Therefore, users must collaborate through “interpersonal relationship management to negotiate who shares what about them, who does what with their information, and how their reputations are treated.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.19) This to ensure that the virtual space is a personalized community where members can create and derive value comfortably. Value is derived from the ability that Facebook affords its users to make a “group chat”. This feature allows users to make a private communication interface where up to “150 people,” (“How many people can I message at once on Facebook? | Facebook Help Centre | Facebook”, 2018) can be invited to “chat”. Here, members can derive value through; organizing group activities/ projects, depicting how they want to be viewed on Facebook or just general chatting with their closest “friends”. This is quite similar to the SNS Tumblr, another platform popular with young people as “Tumblr blogs, although often publicly accessible, are (…) frequently regarded by users as ‘safe spaces of self-expression’ whereby interaction is oriented to relatively discrete and limited sets of trusted followers.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.24) Tumblr affords its users the ability to create an account under a pseudonym and post/ share images/ gifs they like. This gives them the option to disclose their private creative space to whomever they like, forming a mutual trust between the users, providing value to their creativity. Thus, it can be seen that Facebook and Tumblr’s affordances have given young people the ability to collaboratively build communities through “the informal encoding of communication so that meaning is discernible only by a limited group” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.18) so that value can be created and derived between members.

Virtual communities of SNS users have continued to derive value from SNSs that affords its users efficient and intimate exchange of information that matter to them personally, thus strengthening their stabilized community. This has been particularly facilitated by “the rapid growth of newer platforms explicitly oriented to intimate conversation with smaller groups of friends.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.23-24) A good example of a newer SNS that does so is Snapchat where “interactions tend to involve groups of friends considerably smaller than most Facebook friends-lists and that, together with the ephemerality of content on which the platform centers, this leads such conversations to have a particularly intimate feel.” (Hodkinson, 2015, p.24) This platform allows its users to send photos with words attached to a single or multiple people in their social circle, a malleable means to send intimate information. According to “Snapchat Support” (2018), the platform allows a maximum of 31 users in a “group chat”, delegating a more intimate “group chat” than Facebook affords. This feature enables Snapchat users to derive considerable value from the platform as their group chat will likely only comprise of immediate members of their stabilized community, thus strengthening their stabilized community.

As previously mentioned, “groups” on Facebook are private places where members need to “request” or be “invited” to join. These “groups” can be used to express grief within a stabilized virtual community in the wake of a member of their offline or virtual community passing away. This type of intimate information exchange usually entailing stories, memories, photographs and/or details of various death-related rituals like funerals or wakes can be shared privately in a “group”. This aids in the community strengthening process because “death builds community, as mourning and the associated cultural rituals provide order, acceptance, and a space for mutual support to those who are grieving.” (Forman, Kern & Gil-Egui, 2012, p.1) Not only can people derive value from engaging and posting information about the loss of a community member, but they can also derive value from this multi-purpose process as “expressions of grief aid the process of mourning, as they show, to the deceased and to others, the importance of the life that is gone.” (Forman, Kern & Gil-Egui, 2012, p.1) Therefore it can be seen that Snapchat and Facebook provide features that adequately encourage efficient and intimate exchange of information that matter to users personally, therefore providing value to its users and strengthening their stabilized community.

It has been substantially proven that social software, such as the SNSs mentioned, have facilitated the strengthening and building of virtual communities’. This has been illustrated by discussing how the Indigenous population in Australia have been afforded the ability by the SNS Facebook to confirm their identity through personalizing their Facebook profile pages with indigenous symbols in order to be accepted by groups/ pages and to socially interact and participate in key decision-making processes with those who are also indigenous to Australia efficiently, thus providing them with value. The thesis was further reinforced as it was proven that the SNSs Facebook and Tumblr encourage collaboration between young people to build their communities, deriving value from this process as their online social interactions will be more rewarding. Subsequently, discussing how Snapchat and Facebook have strengthened virtual communities by encouraging users to exchange intimate information that matter to them personally between their stabilized community, providing them with value. Therefore, it can be confidently asserted that social software has facilitated virtual communities as it has promoted online network-formation through its various affordances which in-turn has provided value to its users.

href=<“STIRLING-18358030-A1“>Download PDF

References:

Atkinson, J. (2010). Trauma trails, recreating song lines. North Melbourne, Vic.: Spinifex Press.

Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 13(1), 211. doi: 10.1109/emr.2010.5559139

Domahidi, E., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2014). To dwell among gamers: Investigating the relationship between social online game use and gaming-related friendships. Computers In Human Behavior, 35, 107-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.023

Forman, A., Kern, R., & Gil-Egui, G. (2012). Death and mourning as sources of community participation in online social networks: R.I.P. pages in Facebook. First Monday, 17(9), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5210/fm.v0i0.3935

Fuchs, C. (2010). Social Software and Web 2.0: Their Sociological Foundations and Implications. In S. Murugesan, Handbook of Research on Web 2.0, 3.0, and X.0: Technologies, Business, and Social Applications (pp. 764-789). Hershey: IGI Global. Retrieved from http://fuchs.uti.at/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Web2.pdf

Hodkinson, P. (2016). Bedrooms and beyond: Youth, identity and privacy on social network sites. New Media & Society, 19(2), 1-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444815605454

How many people can I message at once on Facebook? | Facebook Help Centre | Facebook. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/help/131313586947248

Lumby, B. (2010). Cyber-Indigeneity: Urban Indigenous Identity on Facebook. The Australian Journal Of Indigenous Education, 39(S1), 68-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/s1326011100001150

Porter, C. (2015). Virtual communities and social networks. In L. Cantoni & J. Danowski, Communication and Technology (1st ed., pp. 161-179). Berlin: De Gruyter. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books?id=AhxpCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PA161&ots=bZIat75i-L&dq=online%20virtual%20communities%202015&lr&pg=PA161#v=onepage&q&f=false

Snapchat Support. (2018). Retrieved from https://support.snapchat.com/en-US/article/group-chat

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.