Tag: Indigenous Australians

Can Networked Participation Deliver Political Transformation? An Indigenous Australian Activist Context

Abstract

Enthusiasm for the politically transformative potential of networked participation is echoed throughout Internet studies. In many accounts, participation in digital networks is configured as a central democratising force: if networked platforms afford an opportunity for the previously voiceless to speak, the flattening of old hierarchies, it goes, must follow. However, critics are increasingly questioning this logic as social and political inequalities persist both on- and offline. This criticism is particularly pertinent when considering the chronic inequalities that exist between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Discourse around online Indigenous activism has emphasised ‘creative resistance through daily practices’, however, I argue that an overemphasis on networked participation obscures a number of myths and inconsistencies around digital network theory, and potentially draws scholarly attention away from the role of power in networks; its existence and operation throughout and within both on- and off-line activist networks.

Keywords: activism, digital networks, Indigenous Australians, participation, politics

Carmen Reilly, Curtin University (2018).

Download .pdf [181KB].

Introduction

Indigenous peoples from around the world have long utilised, appropriated and modified digital networks for a wide range of purposes (Dyson, 2011), including cultural resilience and preservation (Molyneaux et al, 2014; Bidwell, Radoll & Turner, 2007), maintaining cultural identity (Lumby, 2010), education (Townsend, 2014), and activism (Petray, 2011; Soriano, 2011; Carlson & Frazer, 2017). A strong focus of scholarship has been on Indigenous peoples’ digital practices, particularly the compatibility of traditional ontologies and ways of knowing, which favour storytelling, visual representation and networking, with the affordances of Web 2.0 platforms (Molyneaux et al, 2014, p. 277; Townsend, 2014, p. 4). Discourse around Indigenous activism has emphasised ‘creative resistance through daily practices’ (Soriano, 2011, p. 4), for example, social networking to sustain community resilience (Molyneaux et al, 2014), (micro)blogging injustices and dissenting views (Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016), and disseminating memes to create an anti-colonial politics (Carlson & Frazer, 2017). In these accounts, participation in digital networks is configured as a central democratising force: if networked platforms afford an opportunity for the previously voiceless to speak, the flattening of old hierarchies, it goes, must follow. Enthusiasm for the politically transformative potential of networked participation is echoed throughout Internet studies, however critics (Couldry, 2015; Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016; Nakumara & Chow-White, 2013) are increasingly questioning its logic as social and political inequalities persist both on- and offline. In this essay I first provide a review of scholarship in the area of Australian Aboriginal activism and digital network use. I then draw on the work of Couldry (2015), which highlights the myths and inconsistencies around digital networks, and Bozzo and Franceschet’s (2016) theory of power in networks, to argue that locating systems of power that operate within and across on- and off-line activist networks may enable further studies of digital network use by Australian Aboriginal activists and allies to better determine how to leverage these networks (and communities) to effect greater political change.

Australian Aboriginal activism and digital network use

In scholarly accounts, it is recognised that while known social, economic and geographical factors continue to contribute to notable lacks in internet communication technology (ICT) access and expertise among Aboriginal people, there is no shortage of political activity among those who use social networks (Petray, 2011; Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016; Carlson & Frazer, 2017). As Dreher, McCallum & Waller (2016) observe, there are myriad dissenting Australian Aboriginal voices online (p. 31-32). Activists like Gary Foley and Celeste Liddle actively blog and Tweet their frustrations with mainstream politics and respond to injustices, while Facebook groups like Black Fella Revolution create and share political memes and commentate on current affairs (Carlson & Frazer, 2017; Black Fella Revolution, 2014). Aboriginal people make up roughly only 2.5 per cent of the Australian population (Petray, 2011, p. 926), yet the demographic reportedly uses social media at rates up to 20 per cent times higher than mainstream Australia (Carlson & Frazer, 2015, p. 215). Furthermore, many Aboriginal users of Facebook report ‘liking’ and following Aboriginal-affiliated causes and political pages as an important part of authenticating their Aboriginal identity online (Lumby, 2010, p. 71). Among the connected Indigenous population, the conditions for political participation described by Schlozman, Verba and Brady (2010) are present, namely access, skill-level, motivation and exposure to issues (p. 487). And yet, to borrow Couldry’s (2015) observation, the causal link, or lack thereof, between the extent that networked participation of Indigenous users can be said to influence or feed into wider political discourses to effect change, remains unclear.

In her study on the use of digital technology by an Aboriginal activist group based in Townsville, Queensland, Petray (2011) recognises the clear operational benefits of utilising email, blogs and social networking to coordinate activities and mobilise political action. However, Petray concludes the use of ‘push-button’ activism such as online petitions and Facebook posts do not illicit enough engagement to sustain a movement. She calls for activists to devise clearer targets, goals and instructions to their followers in order to achieve effective political action (p. 936). The study’s faintly technological-determinist criticism is thus aimed at the functions of social networking technology for failing to inspire engagement, and responsibility laid on activists to ‘get around’ the potential traps of social network sites. Like many scholars, Petray recognises and grapples with the difficulties of sustaining an online social movement enough to extend its reach ‘offline’. Descriptions of digital participation may not be enough to render an understanding of the factors that result in political outcomes, however Dreher, McCallum and Waller (2016) may offer an inroad.

In their work, Dreher, McCallum and Waller put the onus of action not on activists and users, but on those in established positions of power to ‘listen’. They conclude that “the proliferation of diverse and dissenting Indigenous voices online does not necessarily ensure that those voices will be attended to or engaged with by decision-makers” (Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016, p. 33). According to them, political change fails not because of a platform’s inability to motivate users to act, nor the activist’s or everyday user’s type or level of participation, but the mainstream media and government’s failure to respond to views that are in a minority or otherwise unaligned or anathema to mainstream agendas and narratives. The mediatisation of politics is identified as one potential muffler on the ears of political elites. The authors are concerned with how the convergence of political and media interests impedes the capacity of policy-makers “to engage with grassroots or alternative media” (p. 27). The authors conclude the article calling for further investigation into the diversity of Indigenous voices, the types of views that mainstream media favour, and what might facilitate political listening (p. 35). The limit of the investigation again is that it stops at participation as the primary signifier of a healthy democracy; this time the participation of politicians, media players and prominent Indigenous figures in meaningful dialogue with diverse Indigenous voices.

Both studies point towards the impotence of networked participation but fall short of critiquing the “general logic of ‘horizontal’  networking” itself (Couldry, 2016, p. 614). Petray imagines the virtual space as separate to mainstream media and outside the control of the powerful elite – perhaps envisioning Habermas’s hypothetical ‘public sphere’ whereby inherently subjective, private individuals come together to form a necessarily rational and humane public free from government and corporate interests (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta & David, 2004, p. 319) – but surmises that these spaces are unable to challenge established politics because the platform encourages ‘armchair activism’, not ‘real’ action (McLellan, 2010 cited in Petray, 2011, p. 935). Here Habermas’s democratic public sphere fails as individuals are proven irrational or disengaged and separating virtual networks from mainstream media or state institutions is muddied. Our understandings of user practice must change, or we must refocus on locating power both within and outside networks. Dreher, McCallum & Waller’s article asks important questions about the need for political listening and surfacing diverse voices, but these discussions again beg the issue of power imbalances within networks – both ‘real’ and digital. Why are some voices listened to and not others, or to put it in Couldry’s (2015) terms, “what actions regularly get connected to what other actions, and what actions just as regularly do not get connected up in this way” (p. 615)? Next I will look at Couldry (2015) and Bozzo and Franceschet’s (2016) work to infer that a deeper understanding of how networks configure and reproduce power may go some way in pinpointing these imbalances.

Demythologising digital networks

Couldry (2015) surmises that the democratising digital network is as much a myth as the state-and-mass-media-generated ‘imagined community’ or nation state (Anderson, 1983, p. 6). Mass media has been for decades positioned as a centralised ‘collectivity’ that tells us ‘what is going on’ in the world; acting as the ‘voice’ of a nation, thus solidifying particular narratives above others over time (Couldry, 2016, p. 614). As social networks like Facebook and Twitter are increasingly seen as the places where events ‘happen’, the myth of ‘us’ has been relocated onto digital networks. In Anderson’s terms, the collective ‘us’ online has been endowed with all the attributes of an ideal community, i.e. Habermas’s public sphere in which all citizens can speak free from the constraints of authority and cut through to what is ‘really’ happening (Katz et al, 2014, p. 319). Harlow (2012) deemed that during the 2009 Guatemalan social movement, Facebook participation “helped generate debate and create a sense of community and collective identity, furthering the likelihood of users participating offline” (p. 14). However Harlow’s data shows that links to mainstream media articles were the most frequent type of post at 35 per cent, with alternative news articles comprising only 15 per cent (p. 13). Additionally, the second-highest purpose of comments was to ‘convey information’ (p. 12). It remains unclear how much of the movement’s ‘collective identity’ was shaped by mainstream information and narrative. Here we see mainstream media potentially playing a prominent role in a movement that has been critically assessed as networked and user-driven.¹ While social networks are undeniably important in mobilising political action quickly and efficiently, the danger of the egalitarian network myth is that it may obscure the intrusion of mediatised commercial and state interests in digital social space, as well as draw attention away from issues of sustaining and resourcing movements in the long-term (Couldry, 2015). I argue that issues of whether activist communities can access resources due to power imbalances in digital networks (who is ‘heard’ or given attention) and funding restrictions imposed by governments and institutions should be given more weight in scholarly case studies than participatory behaviour alone.  

Everyday users of social networks indeed now have a voice, but so do to long-established state and media institutions, who use the very same networks. These institutions have always been been networked, and have only intensified their networks in the digital age (Couldry, 2015, p. 611). The networks themselves are owned by private entities with commercial interests in the data of their users (Couldry, 2015, p. 609; Hathaway, 2014, p. 306). Furthermore, “governments are increasingly requesting and can even compel private sector assistance in conducting voice or data surveillance”, meaning governments are actively seeking pathways to access the rich data sources of social networks (Hathaway, 2014, p. 310). While on one hand we must recognise that “the very interconnectedness of people can be denied [by states] and freedom of communication and political freedoms are clearly linked” (Hathaway, 2014, p. 309), the link becomes less clear when supposed freedom of communication does not equate to full political freedom i.e. the ability to participate effectively in political debate and be heard, which has been a common experience of Aboriginal activists in Australia (Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016). Further to this, evidence points to long-term social patterns becoming digitally networked, such as the ‘platformed racism’ experienced by ordinary Aboriginal people online after crowds booed Indigenous Australian Football League player Adam Goodes during a match (Matamoros-Fernández, 2017). We cannot assume that freedoms of communication and participation automatically result in social and political equality.

Instead of imagining social networks as domains that automatically elevate the most persuasive or entrepreneurial voices – a prevailing concept with neoliberal undertones – Couldry unsensationally reads networks as “the outcome of local struggles over resources in particular historical contexts” (p. 614).² This shifts the approach to networks from one focused on the network as symbolic route to democracy (the only trick being to get the type and/or level of participation right), to one focused on power and resource allocation situated in time. For accounts of networked Aboriginal Australian activism, the emphasis may then change to questions of how resources – time, money and energy – flow through and are sustained in these networks, how they respond to ‘short-term external events’ and what capacity they have for ‘long-term adaptive responses’ (Bennet and Segerberg, 2013, p. 9, quoted in Couldry, 2015, p. 619). Couldry suggests sustained resourcing, not simply a free horizontal networked space, is required for a political environment in which conflict and conflict resolution are both accommodated, yet sustained resourcing implies organisational/institutional structures, which further challenges the myth of the ideal network sitting ‘outside’ structures (p. 614). Perhaps an avenue for future studies of digital Aboriginal activism could be to locate how and why activist groups are, or are not, financially and socially resourced, and put pressure back on policy-makers and other powerful elites to close disparities.

Bozzo and Franceschet’s (2016) account of how power works in networks states that an actor is more powerful if its connections do not have many of their own connections or options. Conversely, a well-connected actor linked to many other well-connected actors is not as powerful. In Bozzo and Franceschet’s view, options equal power. What political options do Indigenous Australians have? The few prominent Indigenous political players are more likely to echo mainstream party politics more than dissenting opinions (Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016). This suggests the government remains disproportionally powerful because Indigenous people, due to complex factors, continue to have fewer options and alternatives for political representation – and indeed for education, health treatment, employment and access to integral technologies such the Internet – than mainstream populations, who can pick and choose from a much wider range of representatives and life trajectories. Although there are arguably many options for voicing Indigenous opinions via digital networks, I would also ask to whom these voices are connected? The prevalence of social media ‘bubbles’ whereby online communities with similar interests become insular may be relevant here.

We can take as a mini case-study the recent incident involving the mainstream Australian morning television program Sunrise. Sunrise conducted a discussion panel on adoption rates of Aboriginal children. None of the panelists were Indigenous; indeed all were from white-Anglo backgrounds. The segment relayed a number of false facts and one panelist even suggested reinstating the policy which resulted in the Stolen Generation. The segment provoked widespread condemnation on social media and from other mainstream media outlets for its racist overtones, and protesters gathered outside the program’s studio, which the broadcaster blanked out (Latham, 2018). As such, an issue that would be far from new to activists, the removal of Aboriginal children from homes to enter the foster care system, is brought into the national spotlight due to the blunders of a mainstream program. The program’s power to reach a wide audience provoked a wide response, while by the same token its power enabled it to control and contain the protest by rendering the relatively small group of on-ground protesters invisible. The response to this incident involving a mainstream media player could be said to differ from other related activist action because it was ‘listened’ to – the powerful connections of the program begetting a powerful response.

Conclusion

I have presented an alternative, though admittedly ‘negative argument’ to the discourse on participation within digital networks (Couldry, 2015, p. 621). Couldry’s concept of the digital network as a myth of ‘collectivity’ highlights the need to look beyond the assumption that ‘us’/’we’ online are autonomous and ‘free’ to speak and be heard on an equal footing online – this myth potentially benefits those already in power, as networked action, though its impact remains unclear, is still imbued with transformative powers. For minority communities such as Aboriginal Australia, the Web’s unique networking capabilities to coordinate activities and mobilise political action are all the more important as the struggle for Indigenous recognition, self-determination and equality continues to have its voices silenced. However, I argue that Internet studies must encompass not just user practices and participatory behaviours but the mediatisation of and influence of commercial and state interests on networks, where resources are allocated and sustained, and macro or long-term structural forces at work. At this point in history, almost any object, group or actor has a networked web presence, so research efforts must extend beyond the idea that platforms automatically enable democracy.

Notes

  1. Another example where mainstream media’s contribution to a ‘Facebook-led’ movement has been underplayed is the 2015 Guatemalan protests. Attendees to the protest soared when a mainstream media outlet shared the Facebook event page, however the movement is attributed to nine ordinary Facebook users (Rogers, 2015).
  2. While researching this essay, I found similarities between Couldry’s (2016) unsensationalist concept of networks and Latour’s (2005) actor-network theory whereby he discourages determinist/structuralist thinking by prescribing the network scholar five areas of concern: groups, actions, objects, facts and discourse. The links need to be fleshed out but it seems both attempt to ‘see through’ digital network myths, which have tended to stand in for the ‘social’ i.e. there has been a lack of theoretical leg-work bridging digital networks and social change; scholars have simply inserted ‘network’ where they have envisioned transformation. As Couldry puts it, “we do not yet know what ‘a successful transition to [a different politics] looks like’  ([Juris,] 2013, p. 214): put more bluntly, accounts of digital networks … have not provided such answers” (2016, p. 619). Latour’s instructions may be another way to if not sketch out a ‘successful transition’ then produce research that gives sober consideration to all physical and nonphysical actors at play in digital networks.

References

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: Verso.

Bidwell, N.J., Radoll, P., & Turner, J. (2007). Redisplacement by design. Interactions. March-April. 12-14. doi:10.1145/1229863.1229878  

Black Fella Revolution (2014). Facebook group. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/ourcountryourchoice/

Bozzo, E., & Franceschet, M. (2016). A theory on power in networks. Communications of the ACM, 59(11). 75-83. 1510.08332

Carlson, B., & Frazer, R. (2015). “It’s like going to a cemetery and lighting a candle”: Aboriginal Australians, sorry business and social media. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 11(3). 211-224.

Carlson, B., & Frazer, R. (2017). Indigenous memes and the invention of a people. Social Media + Society. October-December. 1-12. doi:10.1177/2056305117738993

Couldry, N. (2015). The myth of ‘us’: digital networks, political change and the production of collectivity. Information, Communication & Society, 18(6). 608-626. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.979216

Dreher, T., McCallum, K., & Waller, L. (2016) Indigenous voices and mediatized policy-making in the digital age, Information, Communication & Society, 19(1). 23-39. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093534

Du, J.T. (2017). Research on Indigenous People and the Role of Information and Communications Technology in Development: A Review of the Literature. Journal of the Australian Library and Information Association, 66(4). 344-363. doi:10.1080/24750158.2017.1397857

Dyson, L. (2011). Indigenous people on the Internet. The Handbook of Internet Studies. M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Harlow, S. (2012). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society, 14(2). 225-243. doi:10.1177/1461444811410408

Hathaway, M.E. (2014). Connected choices: How the Internet is challenging sovereign decisions. American Foreign Policy Interests, 36(5). 300-313. doi:10.1080/10803920.2014.969178

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook. 28. 315-371.

Latham, T. (Producer). (2018, 19 March). Episode 7. Media Watch [Television broadcast]. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4819017.htm

Lumby, B. L. (2010) Cyber-Indigeneity: Urban Indigenous identity on Facebook. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 39, 68-75. doi:10.1375/S1326011100001150

Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017). Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information, Communication & Society, 20(6). 930–946. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293130

Molyneaux, H., O’Donnell, S., Kakekaspan, C., Walmark, B., Budka, P., & Gibson, K. (2012). Community resilience and social media: Remote and rural first nations communities, social isolation and cultural preservation. Paper for the 2012 International Rural Network Forum, Whyalla and Upper Spencer Gulf, Australia, 24-28 September. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1543471774?accountid=10382

Nakamura, L., & Chow-White, P. A. (2012). Introduction – Race and digital technology: Code, the color line, and the information society. Race After the Internet. Nakamura and P. A Chow-Whites (Eds.). New York: Routledge. 1-19. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Race_After_the_Internet.html?id=hGfJQgAACAAJ

Petray, T. L. (2011). Protest 2.0: online interactions and Aboriginal activists. Media Culture & Society, 33(6), 923-940. doi:10.1177/0163443711411009

Rogers, T. (2015). How 9 strangers used Facebook to launch Guatemala’s biggest protest movement in 50 years. Splinter News. 14 June. Retrieved from https://splinternews.com/how-9-strangers-used-facebook-to-launch-guatemalas-bigg-1793848431

Soriano, C.R. (2011). The arts of indigenous online dissent: Negotiating technology, indigeneity, and activism in the Cordillera. Telematics and Informatics. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2011.04.004

Townsend, P. B. (2014). Mob-Learning – Digital communities for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Territory students. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 17(2). 1-23. Retrieved from http://epubs.scu.edu.au/jesp/vol17/iss2/2

Indigenous Australians and social networking: Post-colonial challenges and innovative digital practice

Author:  Bec Allen

Bec Allen’s work has predominantly been with Indigenous Australian young people in the development of Kimberley-based film and photography projects. Bec is currently studying her Master of Internet Communications online from the remote town of Kununurra, the home of the Miriuwung and Gajerrong people. Her paper presents some of the challenges that Indigenous Australians face when using social networking sites as well as the innovative digital practice that comes as a result.

Abstract

The Internet is shaped by the values of post-colonial culture.  This cultural hegemony is woven through legacy media forms such as film, television and print news, and informs the political landscape of modern Australia.  Despite Web 2.0’s potential for a digital democracy that might transcend society’s economic, political and cultural boundaries, equal participation in online communities is not afforded to all members of society. This paper will argue that Social Networking Sites (SNSs) can reinforce the marginalisation of Indigenous Australians and challenge cultural protocols.  It will also show that, despite these barriers to participation, the up-take of SNSs by Indigenous Australians, and FaceBook in particular, is increasing rapidly.  Indigenous Australian users are capitalising on the open and flexible nature of SNSs to produce innovative digital practices that facilitate kinship and connectivity and address the lack of political listening.

Keywords: social networking sites, Indigenous Australians, online communities, Facebook

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

Indigenous Australians and social networking: Post-colonial challenges and innovative digital practice

The engineering of positive representations of non-Indigenous Australians of European descent in the Australian mainstream media reflects the dominant, post-colonial value systems that underpin modern Australian life. These values are woven through legacy media forms such as film, television and print news and inform the “economic and cultural policy” of modern Australia (Williams, 2004, p. 739).  The Internet, as a global, mass archive of knowledge and social practice, is laden with a post-colonial value system which Brabazon (2001) describes as “invisible” and a “structuring grammar for social truths” (p. 3).  Similarly, Duarte and Belarde-Lewis (2015) emphasise that “how we structure our knowledge shapes who, what, and how we can know” (p. 684).  SNSs, and FaceBook more specifically, are often celebrated as spaces for cultural expression and collective empowerment (Jarrett, 2008). However, scholarship into the field of online networked communities identifies that not all sectors of society have equal access and participation in this space. Once a promoter of Web 2.0 as an agent of democratisation, Henry Jenkins (2014) shifts his perspective to advocate for a systematic broadening of participation and to “push back” against corporatisation and government control of the Internet (p. 290). Despite the potential for SNSs to transcend economic, political and cultural boundaries, for Indigenous Australian users, post-colonial ways of presenting and managing knowledge continue to present challenges in the online world. This paper will begin by providing context to the Indigenous Australian experience in modern Australia and the ways in which this intersects with access to the Internet. It will then discuss the many forces at play within SNSs and some of challenges faced by Indigenous Australian users when participating in these online communities, specifically in the areas of social capital and identity and intellectual property and cultural protocols. Finally, it will show that the up-take of SNSs by Indigenous Australians, and FaceBook in particular, is increasing rapidly, with users capitalising on the open and flexible nature of this online community to produce innovative digital practices that facilitate kinship and connectivity and address the lack of political listening.

Australia’s turbulent history of colonialism and the subsequent inequity that plays out in the ‘gap’ between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians is well documented.  Current studies show that Indigenous Australians can expect to live 10 years less than non-Indigenous Australians (Life expectancy & deaths, 2017), with inequity manifesting in areas of health, education, politics, housing, employment and media messaging.  A decade on from the implementation of the “Closing the Gap” policy, Bunuba Elder and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, June Oscar indicates that the life expectancy gap has in fact widened and that the policy has been “all but abandoned” (Oscar as cited in Lane, 2018).  Additionally, parity of access to the Internet is an area of research highlighting that Indigenous people in remote Australia have slower Internet connections, less infrastructure and a lack of training in Internet usage (McCallum and Papandrea, 2009, p. 1233) compared to their non-Indigenous counterparts. Although commentators often position the Internet as a catalyst for positive social change which puts users in control of the technology and the message, (Wellman and Gulia, 1999, p. 2) this perspective overlooks which sectors of society are excluded and how code is controlled. Noble (2018) challenges John Perry Barlow’s influential manifesto, “The Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” where he envisioned the Internet as a world that “all may enter without privilege or prejudice” (Barlow, 1996 as cited in Noble, 2018, p. 61). Noble argues that scholars are countering early commentators, such as Barlow (and even Jenkins), who pushed “utopian ideals associated with the rise of the Internet and its ability to free us” (p. 61).  Importantly, Noble emphasises the significant control that the engineers of the Internet have “over the mechanics of sense making” (p. 60) when we are participating in online communities.  Similarly, Arnstein (1969) warned that without the relocation of power and the access to knowledge about its workings, the dominant hegemonies will continue to advocate that all people are considered, all the while preserving the status quo (p. 216).  The Internet is complex archive of knowledge and social practice; however, it is evident that members of marginalised communities can experience the same challenges that they confront in the offline world.

Social Capital and Identity

SNSs such as FaceBook are participatory, online communities that facilitate the formation, development and maintenance of social capital and identity (Ellison, Steinfield, Lampe, 2007, p. 1). Social capital is defined as the “tangible assets…namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse” (Hanifan, 1916 as cited in Brian, 2007, p. 102) that are generated by human interactions. Facebook’s 10.82 million Australian users (“Number of Facebook users in Australia”, 2018) are participants in an “attention economy”, which encourages an assemblage of “self-presentation” techniques to entice other users, mainly through the disclosure of personal information and insights (Marwick, 2015, p. 138). boyd (2006) points out that SNSs are performative by their nature and exist in an egocentric realm of “context collapse” (p.1) where identity can be adapted for the benefit of accumulating “friends” and building the social network.  A study by Carlson (2013) finds that Indigenous Australians are using FaceBook as a vigorous means of strengthening social capital within their own communities and to represent their Aboriginality to other users and groups (p. 147-148).  Significantly, users are “Aboriginalising” their profile pages to proudly demonstrate their identity (p. 149). Carlson also notes that research into the area of “disembodied space” (like boyd’s notion of “context collapse”) cannot necessarily be applied to Indigenous Australian FaceBook users, where it is evident that “Aboriginal people embody rather that disembody their identity and social engagements” (p.148).  While it is evident that there is a strong element of self-determination in the act of resisting censorship of identity, there are also risks associated with the embodiment of Aboriginality while engaging in the Facebook community. Social commentator and activist, Celeste Liddle is an Arrernte woman who represents herself by the social media handle, “@blackfeministranter”.  Liddle uses FaceBook to discuss political issues and the ways these intersect with Indigenous identity in contemporary Australia.  A challenge faced by Liddle and many other Indigenous Australians is “platformed racism”, defined by Matamoros-Fernandez (2017) as “a new form of racism derived from the culture of social media platforms ‒ their design, technical affordances, business models and policies ‒ and the specific cultures of use associated with them” (p. 930).  Matamoros-Fernandez discuss Liddle’s open criticism of Facebook’s community standards after she shared an image of two Aboriginal women, bare-chested, participating in traditional ceremony. She was subsequently banned for publishing the image that was deemed sexually explicit, with Facebook indicating that such content infringed their policy and could “culturally offend” some users (p. 931).  Liddle reflects on the experience of being “trolled” by “a group of narrow-minded little white men” which she believes ultimately led to the ban.  She raises concerns about response by the” trolls” and the platform which “took great offence at Aboriginal women… not only inhabiting their bodies in a way that showed no shame… but also undertaking culture within a country which has continually tried to stop them from doing so” (Liddle, 2016).

Intellectual Property and Cultural Protocols

Facebook engineers the interpersonal connections of 2.2 billion active monthly users (“Number of monthly active Facebook users”, 2018).  It is these connections, and the personal data that was harvested from its users and distributed to advertisers, that generated Facebook’s $12 billion in the first quarter of 2018 (Solon, 2018).  Benedict Anderson argued that the “convergence of capitalism and print technology…created a new form of imagined community” (1991, p. 29). Certainly, the commercial foundations of Facebook where the act of sharing intellectual property (IP) in the form of written text and images is rewarded with “public approval, attention and recognition” (Malik, Dhir and Nieminen, 2015, p. 130) is testament to Anderson’s assertions.  For Indigenous Australians, Lumby (2010) points out that “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” (p. 69).  However, there are community concerns around IP being shared, copied and remixed on the Internet which can contest important spiritual and custodial obligations (Dyson, 2011. p. 257).  Christie (2001) highlights that the Yolngu people of Arnhem Land view certain knowledge around land, language and ceremony as sacred.  Although Yolngu can share specific knowledge about their own IP, they are obliged to be mindful about sharing the IP of others (p.36).   Further, Christie argues that “this is very different from the western notion of knowledge, which is represented as abstract, universal, value free, not belonging to anyone in particular” (p. 36).  Notably, Facebook’s Data Policy shows that public posts may be downloaded, re-shared and seen by anyone through search engines, apps and even offline media forms such as television (“Data Policy”, 2018). Carlson and Frazer’s (2015) research looks specifically at Sorry Business (cultural observances surrounding the death of a community member) and the ways in which FaceBook has become a space for Indigenous Australians to grieve and strengthen kinship during this cultural practice.  In their study, though, Indigenous Australians expressed significant concern about the use of FaceBook during Sorry Business as the lack of control over images of the deceased can cause distress to community members (p. 215).  Facebook’s ability to memorialise the accounts of deceased users may be a useful point of remembrance for some family members. However, to have the account of a deceased family member removed may prove challenging for some Indigenous Australians. As of 2016, one in five Aboriginal births were unregistered in Western Australia (Gaffney, 2016).  Facebook’s policy for having accounts removed requires proof of identity, such as a birth certificate or will (“Memorialized Accounts, 2018) and without this kind of legal documentation, the profile of the deceased potentially remains visible, active and ultimately becomes known as “Sorry Pages” (Korff, 2017).

Kinship and Connectivity

Recent research into the use of Facebook by Indigenous Australians indicates that while many users face challenges, this is not preventing them from joining online communities.  SNS use by Indigenous Australians is “20 percent higher than the national average” and over 60 percent of the population in remote communities are active users of Facebook (Carlson and Frazer, 2015, p. 215).  Despite the issues that most Indigenous users are confronted with while online, Facebook has become a “modern site for kinship connectivity and community” and (Lumby, 2010, p. 70) can preserve cultural knowledge, grow resilience and assist in the building of social capital (Molyneaux, O’Donnell, Kakekaspan, Walmark, Budka and Gibson, 2012, p. 3-4).  Rice, Haynes, Royce and Thompson (2016) found that Indigenous Australian young people use SNS to preserve cultural identity and strengthen kinship connections to family members and their broader communities. They also found that these connections enhanced health and educational outcomes.  The notion of “hidden transcripts”, a concept coined by anthropologist, James C. Scott, describes tactics of resistance that marginalised communities employ when in public life.  The deployment of “hidden transcripts” to communicate and maintain connectivity on Facebook illustrates how Indigenous dissent can materialise online.  Users “improvise, interpret, bend and negotiate” their online experiences (Soriano, 2011, p. 2), using cultural nuances to protect knowledge from wider public consumption. For example, the FaceBook pages, “Noongars Be Like” and “Kooris be Like” build and maintain social capital and kinship connection through memes and colloquialisms which require cultural and contextual understanding for users to participate meaningfully in the online community. Soriano (2011) further explains that this form of resistance is designed to push back against the dominant hegemony and is visible only to those with membership to the subordinate group (p. 3).    This kind innovative practice is permeating through FaceBook despite the constraints that post-colonial value structures present to many Indigenous Australians.

The Politics of Listening

The representation and debate of Indigenous affairs has traditionally been restricted to legacy media forms such as film, television and print news. The affordances of SNS have facilitated an “open journalism” movement that has mediated a diverse range of perspectives in the conversation around complex issues such as Aboriginal land rights and constitutional recognition (Ingram, 2016). In response to the mediatisation of Australian life, Indigenous Australian Facebook users are using “guerrilla tactics to create alternative spaces of meaning, memory and identity” (Brabazon, 2001) and to produce innovative digital resistance against oppressive government policies. The #Sosblakaustralia movement grew out of a “grass-roots” response to the proposed government closure of Indigenous communities in remote Western Australia. Women from the Kimberley desert community of Wangkatjungka used FaceBook to campaign against the policy and to draw attention to the injustices faced by Indigenous Australians. The movement generated international attention and verified that Facebook could be used as a tool for self-determination and activism (Carlson and Frazer, 2016, p.1). The campaign was largely omitted from the Australian mainstream media news cycle, however an offline protest in Melbourne gained attention when it featured on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald with the headline, “Selfish Rabble Shut City” (2015).  Despite the attention and protest that was generated by the women of Wangkatjungka, Dreher, McCallum and Waller (2016) find that Indigenous voices are consistently challenged by the volume of content that is generated on SNS which ultimately affects their ability to be heard (p. 28).  Dreher et al points to the “politics of listening” as an essential part of an “ensemble of practices that are as necessary for democratic communications as ‘voice’ or speaking” (p. 27).  For meaningful engagement with Indigenous affairs to occur, a focus on listening rather than speaking will move the emphasis from those who are subjugated to those who dominate the political conversation (p. 28). #Sosblakaustralia remains a strong example of Indigenous Australians using Facebook to challenge the mediatisation of Indigenous issues and to enhance offline activism (Petray, 2001, p. 925). While the rigours of a new form of “open” media has birthed collective action by Indigenous Australians, the need for long-term political transformation beyond the short-term collective disruption of protest remains a critical issue (McCallum, 2016, p. 38).

Conclusions:  Growth despite challenges

This paper has addressed the challenges that Indigenous Australians face when using SNSs. The Australian mainstream media reinforces the dominant, post-colonial value systems that permeate through modern Australian life. These hegemonic frames are also embedded within our social network.  Aitchison rightfully argues that “technology is embedded within social relations of hierarchy and control” (2013, p.2). SNSs are often heralded as a democratiser of knowledge, however, this paper has demonstrated that not all sectors of society have equal access and participation in this space. Indigenous Australians are often excluded due to the lack of infrastructure, training, literacy and conflict with the dominant social paradigms that work against cultural protocols. But Web 2.0 is providing Indigenous Australians with a platform to enhance the exploration of Aboriginality and a vehicle to bypass and challenge the gatekeepers of legacy media. Notably, the Indigenous media sector in Australia is growing exponentially in reaction to misrepresentation and the desire for self-determination (Meadows and Molnar, 2010, p.19). Indigenous Australians continue to join Facebook and use the platform to enhance self-determination and produce innovative digital resistance, both online and offline.

Banner image CCO Creative Commons

References

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.   Retrieved from https://sisphd.wikispaces.com/file/view/Benedict_Anderson_Imagined_Communities.pdf

Aguiton, C. & Cardon, D. (2007). The Strength of Weak Cooperation: An Attempt to Understand the Meaning of Web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1009070

Aitchison, G. (2013, April 22). How capitalism is turning the internet against democracy, and how to turn it back. Open Democracy. Retrieved from: https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1332313296?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Aprimo

Arnstein, S. (1969). A Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35 (4). 216-224.             https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

boyd, d. (2006). Friends, Friendsters and Top 8: Writing Community into Being on Social Network Sites. First Monday,             12(4). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1418/1336

Brabazon, T. (2001), How imagined are virtual communities? Retrieved from:  http://motspluriels.arts.uwa.edu.au/MP1801tb2.html

Brian, K. (2007).  OECD Insights Human Capital How what you know shapes your life: How what you know shapes your     life. Massachusetts: OECD Publishing.

Carlson, B. (2013). The ‘new frontier’: Emergent Indigenous identities and social media. In M. Harris, M. Nakata & B.             Carlson (Eds.), The Politics of Identity: Emerging Indigeneity (pp. 147-168). Sydney: University of Technology             Sydney E-Press.

Carlson, B. & Frazer, R. (2015).  “It’s like going to a cemetery and lighting a candle”: Aboriginal Australians, sorry             business and social media. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 11(3), 211-224. http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/2410/

Carlson, B. & Frazer, R. (2016).  Indigenous activism and social media: a global response to #SOSBLAKAUSTRALIA.In A. McCosker, S. Vivienne & A. Johns (Eds.), Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture             (pp. 115-130). London: Rowman and Littlefield International.

Christie, M. (2001). Aboriginal Knowledge on the Internet. A Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues. 19, 33-50. https://search-informit-com-au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/fullText;dn=995871709795240;res=IELIND

Data Policy. (2018).  Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/update

Dreher, T., McCallum, K. & Waller, L. (2016). Indigenous voices and mediatized policy-making in the digital age. Information, Communication and Society 19(1). 23 – 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093534

Duarte, M. E. & Belarde-Lewis, M. (2015). Imagining: Creating spaces for indigenous ontologies. Cataloguing and Classification Quarterly 53(5-6), 677-702. DOI: 10.1080/01639374.2015.1018396

Dyson, L. (2011) Indigenous Peoples on the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess The Handbook of Internet Studies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C. & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12 (4), 1143–1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Gaffney, D. (2016). No identity: one in five Aboriginal births unregistered in WA.  Retrieved from             https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2016/07/04/no-identity–one-in-five-aboriginal-births-unregistered-in-wa.html

Ingram, J. (2016). Do the Guardian’s Losses Mean Its “Open Journalism” Has Failed? Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/02/03/guardian-losses/

Jarrett, K. (2008). Interactivity is evil!  A critical investigation of Web 2.0. First Monday, 13(3).       http://firstmonday.org/article/view/2140/1947

Jenkins, H. (2013). Rethinking ‘Rethinking Convergence/Culture’. Cultural Studies, 28:2, 267-297.             DOI:10.1080/09502386.2013.801579

Korff, J. (2017). Aboriginal use of social media.  Retrieved from             https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/media/aboriginal-use-of-social-media

Lane, S. (Producer).(2018, February 8). Closing the Gap outcomes disappointing but not hopeless: Commissioner [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/closing-the-gap-policies-all-but-abandoned:- june-oscar/9407342

Liddle, C. (2016). Looking Past White Australia And White Feminism. Retrieved from              https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/09/looking-past-white-australia-and-white-feminism/

Life expectancy & deaths. (2017). Australia, Australian Institute of health and Welfare. Retrieved from             https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-statistics/health-conditions-disability-deaths/life-expectancy-deaths/overview

Lumby, B. L. (2010). Cyber-Indigeneity: Urban Indigenous identity on Facebook. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 39, 68-75. http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2271&context=artspapers

Malik, A., Dhir, A., & Nieminen, M. (2015). Uses and Gratifications of Digital Photo Sharing on Facebook. Telematics and Informatics. 33 (1), 129-138. DOI:10.1016/j.tele.2015.06.009

Marwick, A. (2015). Instafame: Luxury Selfies in the Attention Economy. Public Culture, 27(175), p.137 – 160. DOI:             10.1215/08992363-2798379

Matamoros-Fernández, A. (2017) Platformed racism: the mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.  Information, Communication & Society, 20 (6), 930-946, DOI:     10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293130

McCallum, K. & Papandrea, F. (2009).  Community business: The internet in remote Australian Indigenous communities.    New Media & Society, 11(7), 1230-1251.  DOI: 10.1177/1461444809342059

Meadows, M. & Molnar, H. (2010). Bridging the Gaps: Towards a history of Indigenous media in Australia. Media History, 8(1), 9-20. DOI: 10.1080/13688800220134473

Memorialized Accounts. (2018).  Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/help/1506822589577997

Molyneaux, H., O’Donnell, S., Kakekaspan, C., Walmark, B., Budka, P., & Gibson, K. (2012) Community  Resilience and Social Media: Remote and Rural First Nations Communities, Social Isolation and Cultural             Preservation. Paper for the 2012 International Rural Network Forum, Whyalla and Upper Spencer Gulf, Australia,         24-28 September. http://meeting.knet.ca/mp19/file.php/16/Publications/2012-            Community_Resilience_and_Social_Media.pdf

Noble, S.U. (2018).  Algorithms of Oppression.: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. USA: New York University Press

Number of Facebook users in Australia from 2015 to 2022. (2018). Retrieved from             https://www.statista.com/statistics/304862/number-of-facebook-users-in-australia/

Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide as of 4th quarter 2017 (in millions). (2018).  Retrieved from             https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/

Petray, T. L. (2011). Protest 2.0: online interactions and Aboriginal activists. Media Culture & Society, 33(6), 923-940. DOI: 10.1177/0163443711411009

Rice, E.S., Haynes. E., Royce, P. & Thompson, S.C. (2016). Social media and digital technology use among Indigenous young people in Australia.  International Journal for Equity in Health. 15 (81), DOI: 10.1186/s12939-016-0366-0

“Selfish Rabble Shut City” (2015).  Sydney Morning Herald.

Solon, O. (2018). Facebook posts record revenues for first quarter despite privacy scandal.  Retrieved from             https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/25/facebook-first-quarter-2018-revenues-zuckerberg

Soriano, C. R. (2011). The arts of indigenous online dissent: Negotiating technology, indigeneity, and activism in the Cordillera. Telematics and Informatics. DOI: 10.1016/j.tele.2011.04.004

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1999). Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. In P. Kollock, & M. Smith (Eds.), Communities and Cyberspace. New York: Routledge.

Williams, M. (2004). On the Discriminations of Postcolonialism in Australia and New Zealand. University of Toronto Quarterly. 73 (2) p. 739-754.  Retrieved from https://muse-jhu-edu.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/article/518046/pdf

 

The potential benefits of virtual communities on Facebook for Indigenous Australian youth

­Abstract

Virtual communities on Facebook have several potential benefits for young Indigenous Australians. These communities may help to reinforce young Indigenous Australians’ identities, foster new community ties and strengthen existing ones, and improve educational practices and opportunities. This paper first discusses virtual communities on Facebook and the use of Facebook by Indigenous Australians. It then examines each of the potential benefits listed above drawing on peer-reviewed studies and the popular Indigenous Facebook group, Blackfulla Revolution. Lastly, it describes the limitations of the resources used and proposes areas of study that may be beneficial in future research. 

Introduction

The true meaning of “community” has long been disputed amongst academics and theorists, and a clear definition of the word has yet to be agreed upon (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta & David, 2004, p. 304). The Internet, which allows people from all over the globe to connect with one another, has made finding a widely accepted definition even more challenging. Katz et al. (2004) describe the difference between a physical community, a “population group defined by the space that it occupies” (Park, as cited in Katz et al., 2004, p. 311), and a virtual community, characterized by “intimate secondary relationships, specialized relationships, weaker ties, and homogeneity by interest” (Wellman & Gulia, as cited in Katz et al., 2004, p. 313). While the focus of this paper will be on virtual communities, it is important to note that physical and virtual communities are not mutually exclusive – members of a virtual community may also share a physical space and vice versa. Ridings & Gefen (2006) provide a more comprehensive definition of virtual communities: “people with shared interests or goals for whom electronic communication is a primary form of interaction” (para. 5). Using this definition as a framework, this paper will explore the potential benefits of virtual communities on Facebook for Indigenous Australian youth. These benefits include the reinforcement of Indigenous identity, the building and strengthening of community ties, and improvements in education.

Indigenous Australians and Facebook

Facebook is a social networking service that allows users to create their own profile, link to other profiles by adding “friends” and/or joining groups, post and share content (e.g. photos, videos, text posts, links, etc.), organise events, subscribe to (i.e. “like”) public pages, and more. Facebook is currently the most popular social networking service in the world (Statista, 2018), with roughly 1.45 billion daily active users in March 2018 (Facebook Newsroom, 2018, para. 3). Its core functionality is its users’ ability to connect with “friends” and belong to groups of people with which they have something in common (Lumby, 2010, p. 68). Community is therefore integral to Facebook. Facebook also enables several types of communities. It may help to form new communities of people with similar interests, values and/or goals that otherwise may never have had the opportunity to meet, or it may strengthen communities that already exist offline (Rice, Haynes, Royce & Thompson, 2016, pp. 10-11). The functionality and wide, frequent usage of Facebook make it a useful tool with which to examine the potential benefits of virtual communities.

 Rice et al. (2016) state that despite the “economic, social, cultural and geographic factors” that may limit their access, Indigenous Australians have been using the Internet and social media since its early introduction in Australia (p. 2). Furthermore, since mobile phones have facilitated Internet access, the use of social media as a communication tool by Indigenous Australians has become increasingly widespread (Rice et al, 2016, p. 3). In fact, studies have found that Indigenous Australians are over-represented as users of Facebook; 73% of Indigenous Australians actively used Facebook in 2015, compared to only 62% of the general Australian population (Dreher, McCallum & Waller, 2016, p. 29). Across the board, adolescents and young adults are known to be the primary users of social media (Rice et al., 2016, p. 2). This coupled with the fact that young Indigenous Australians face a unique set of challenges – for example, poor standards of education (Townsend, 2015, p. 2) – is the reason for the focus on Indigenous Australian youth in this paper. 

Indigenous Identity

 It has been suggested that the Internet may provide a path for Indigenous people to create “richer representations” of themselves, speak up for themselves, and publish their own stories in a place where participation is not limited (Christie, as cited in Lumby, 2010, p. 70). Being a part of a virtual community, particularly one on Facebook, helps young Indigenous Australians to understand, construct and express their identities. In her study of urban Indigenous identity on Facebook, Lumby (2010) describes how several Indigenous Australian Facebook groups encourage their users to share their art, music, ideas or “anything [they] are proud of” (p. 70). She suggests that this kind of encouragement allows young Indigenous Australians to build a stronger sense of identity and “perform” it to others in these groups (Lumby, 2010, p. 70). The concept of “performing” Indigenous identity on social media has been a popular subject of research in recent years. Carlson (2016) notes that in her research on Aboriginal identity, community and social media, several of her participants stated that they “visually express” their Indigeneity to others through their Facebook profiles, posts and networks; one participant stated that her profile, photos, groups and friends on Facebook “all highlight [her] Aboriginality” (p. 255). Rice et al. (2016) argue that performing their identity to others in Indigenous-specific Facebook groups may help young Indigenous Australians to further define and affirm that identity (pp. 4-10). It seems, then, that virtual communities on Facebook may aid Indigenous Australian youth by allowing them to explore and embrace their Indigeneity.

It has been suggested that the importance that young Indigenous Australians place on representing their cultural identity online may also have negative implications, particularly for those who do not “look” Indigenous. For example, Carlson (2016) notes that “a significant number” of participants in her research reported being challenged and/or mocked for claiming to be Indigenous online, and some admitted to “fabricating aspects of cultural knowledge” so as to be accepted in online communities (p. 256). Similarly, Lumby (2010) posits that Facebook can act as a “restraining force that regulates who can and who cannot be Indigenous”, but also notes that this kind of “surveillance” of Indigeneity regularly occurs among Indigenous Australians in the offline world too (pp. 71-73). This suggests that the issue of identity surveillance is not limited to or a result of social media.

Nevertheless, the impact of virtual communities, particularly those on Facebook, on Indigenous identity are generally positive. Rice et al. (2016) point out that a “strong cultural identity” has known positive outcomes for young Indigenous Australians, including greater participation and achievement in education and improved mental health (p. 13). Furthermore, it has been argued that all “authentic” Indigenous websites (i.e. websites run for and by Indigenous people) reaffirm Indigenous identity and assert “the right of Indigenous peoples to survive” (Dyson, 2011, p. 259). It could therefore be argued that all Facebook groups, pages and profiles run by Indigenous Australians are, in themselves, reaffirmations of Indigenous identity and assertions of the right of Indigenous Australian people to live and thrive.

Community Ties

As mentioned earlier, communities on Facebook, such as groups and pages, can help foster new community ties between people who may never otherwise have met offline or strengthen ties within existing communities and networks (Rice et al., 2016, pp. 10-11). This is particularly important for Indigenous Australians, who are more likely than other Australians to live in remote or very remote communities (Rice et al. 2016, p. 10), and who are often forced to leave their original territories to seek education and/or jobs (Dyson, 2011, p. 260).

Creating New Community Ties

Dyson (2011) notes how the Internet and social media play a crucial role in helping to “reconnect the Indigenous diaspora” (p. 260). She uses the example of the Indigenous Canadian Wendat Nation, who after being widely dispersed from their original home in the 17th century, now use discussion groups on Yahoo to talk about a range of topics including identity, culture, language, planned gatherings and the reacquisition of their original territory (Dyson, 2011, p. 260). There are several Facebook groups and pages designed for Indigenous people all over Australia to connect over similar issues to those discussed by the Wendat people. For example, the popular Indigenous Blackfulla Revolution Facebook page lists their interests as: “culture, dreamtime spirituality, first nations and dialects, history, self-determination, empowerment and advancement, and awareness and education” (Blackfulla Revolution, n.d.). The page has over 170,000 likes and followers, and regularly shares Indigenous news stories, articles about issues faced by Indigenous Australians, stories of achievement by Indigenous Australians, local event details, and links to language, health, and funding resources (Blackfulla Revolution, n.d.). These posts are liked, commented on and shared by sometimes thousands of people – many of them young Indigenous Australians (Blackfulla Revolution, n.d.). Facebook groups and pages such as Blackfulla Revolution may help young Indigenous Australians gain a greater sense of connection and belonging by allowing them to discuss issues that are important to them with others who understand and share their perspective.

Strengthening Existing Community Ties

It has been noted that social networking sites – Facebook in particular, which allows users to share a wide range of content – have gained popularity among young Indigenous Australians, largely because these sites allow them to keep up with their family and friends, especially those with whom they have lost touch after moving away from home (Rice et al., 2016, p. 11). In fact, 92% of participants in a survey of mostly young Indigenous Australians by Carlson (2016) claimed to use social media to “connect with Aboriginal family and friends across distances” (p. 257). Many also suggested that they engage in online activities with friends and family just as they do offline, such as sharing photos and updates, talking about family trees, and speaking in a shared language (Carlson, 2016, p. 257). This suggests that as well as allowing disconnected friends and family to keep in touch, Facebook enables already close friends and family members to maintain and strengthen their relationships. This increased connectivity with members of their existing social networks gives young Indigenous Australians a sense of support, which may help to improve their mental health and overall wellbeing (Rice et al., 2016, p.11).

Education

The rates of educational participation and completion among Indigenous Australians compared to the wider Australian population are very low. Rice et al. (2016) notes that 25% of Indigenous people aged 15 and over report Year 12 or equivalent as their highest level of education, compared to 52% of the non-Indigenous population (p. 2). Furthermore, of those Indigenous Australians who do enrol in higher education, only 41-65% complete their studies (Townsend, 2015, p. 2). Such low levels of education have been identified as a key factor in poor employment rates of Indigenous Australians. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2014) claims that over 80% of the difference in employment rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians – which are around 44% and 72% respectively – can be attributed to differences in education (para. 4-5).

Education-based Facebook groups provide several opportunities for Indigenous Australian students – particularly for those living in remote areas who may have less access to educational facilities than those in metropolitan or inner regional areas. A study by Townsend (2015) of Indigenous pre-service teachers in remote communities reveals some major benefits of mobile learning, which involves the use of Facebook groups to connect students with their peers and teachers. Firstly, participants could give and receive academic support by connecting with each other and with staff for help with their studies outside the classroom (Townsend, 2015, p. 11). One participant claimed that he and his peers had “integrated through Facebook”, and that if they were struggling with assignments, they could reach out to each other for help (Townsend, 2015, p. 11). Participants also reported using Facebook groups to offer each other personal encouragement and develop support networks with their peers (Townsend, 2015, p. 12). Townsend (2015) notes that having the opportunity to connect with their peers and teachers online helps pre-service teachers to better engage with their studies – moreover, he argues that this increased engagement may lead to higher completion of teaching degrees among Indigenous Australians living in remote areas, which may lead to more qualified teachers and therefore improved education for future Indigenous students (p. 19). While this last point is mostly theorizing, there is evidence of the positive impact of Facebook groups on school results among non-Indigenous students. For example, a study by Chen (in press) found that students who participated in a school Facebook group achieved “significantly higher” grades than those who did not (p. 5). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Facebook groups may also lead to higher results among Indigenous students – especially those in remote areas, for whom online communication with peers and teachers is vital.

Limitations

There are a number of limitations to the main studies and texts referenced in this paper, including:

Limited samples. The studies by Townsend (2015) and Lumby (2010) have very small sample sizes – 28 and 26 participants respectively. There is also little diversity among participants in these studies: Townsend’s (2015) study included only Indigenous Australian pre-service teachers in remote areas of Queensland, and Lumby’s (2010) study included only current or graduated Indigenous Australian university students with Facebook accounts.

Outdated information. Information cited from both Dyson (2011) and Lumby (2010) is somewhat outdated, as these texts were written seven and eight years ago respectively. Many sources referenced in each of these texts are even older (i.e. early-to-mid 2000s).

Ambiguity. There is some ambiguity in Carlson’s (2016) text, as she draws her information from one of her “recent” studies and several of her previous studies. These are sometimes not distinguished and of which the dates, aims and samples are often not specified.

Unpublished literature. Rice et al.’s (2016) literature review includes “grey literature” – academic literature that has not been formally published (p. 3).

Conclusion

Facebook is an extremely popular social networking service that allows its users to connect with others and build virtual communities. Despite several factors that may restrict their access to the Internet and social media, Indigenous Australians are heavy users of Facebook. Belonging to virtual communities on Facebook has several potential benefits for young Indigenous Australians in particular, who face their own unique set of challenges, such as poor standards of education. Facebook enables them to explore, express and reaffirm their Indigenous identity by “performing” their Indigeneity to others in Indigenous-specific groups and in their own networks. Facebook also allows young Indigenous Australians to create new community ties – often through joining Indigenous-specific groups – and strengthen existing ones. This is particularly important for young Indigenous Australians who live in remote areas or who have lost touch with friends and family after moving away from home. Education-based Facebook groups aid young Indigenous Australian students by allowing them to connect with their peers and teachers for academic support and personal encouragement. This may increase their engagement in their studies and eventually lead to improved standards of education for Indigenous students, which are currently very poor. While there is a significant amount of research on Indigenous Australians and virtual communities on social media, much of this research is limited due to small and narrow samples, outdated information, ambiguity and the inclusion of unpublished literature. Future studies would benefit from larger and more diverse samples, the use of more recent data, greater specificity in research aims and sample details, and stricter regulations on the kinds of literature cited in reviews and discussions.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2014, February 28). What works to improve education and employment outcomes for Indigenous Australians? [Press release]. Retrieved from https://search-informit-com-au.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/fullText;dn=085566734433385;res=IELAPA

Blackfulla Revolution. (n.d.). In Facebook [News & Media Page]. Retrieved April 2, 2018, from https://www.facebook.com/ourcountryourchoice/

Carlson, B. (2016). The politics of identity: Who counts as Aboriginal today? Canberra, ACT: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Chen, M. (in press). Students’ perceptions of the educational usage of a Facebook group. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313220.2018.1434448

Dreher, T., McCallum, K., & Waller, L. (2016). Indigenous voices and mediated policy-making in the digital age. Information, Community & Society, 19, 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1093534

Dyson, L. (2011). Indigenous peoples on the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The handbook of Internet studies (pp. 251-269). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Facebook Newsroom. (2018). Company Info. Retrieved from https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal mediated communication and the concept of community in theory and practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and community: Communication yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lumby, B. L. (2010). Cyber-Indigeneity: Urban Indigenous identity on Facebook. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 39, 68-75. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2271&context=artspapers

Rice, E.S., Haynes, E., Royce, P., & Thompson, S.C. (2016). Social media and digital technology use among Indigenous young people in Australia: A literature review. International Journal for Equity in Health, 15(81), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-016-0366-0

Ridings, C.M. & Gefen, D. (2006). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00229.x

Statista. (2018). Most popular social networks worldwide as of April 2018, ranked by number of active users (in millions). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/.

Townsend, P.B. (2015). Mob learning – digital communities for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tertiary students. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 17(2), 1-23. Retrieved from https://epubs.scu.edu.au/jesp/vol17/iss2/2