The changing contours of online intimacy
NB: Before I get into explaining what my thesis is about, and where my interests lie, I feel that it is perhaps appropriate to note that my thesis is still in its infancy. As in, still compiling a literature review. Many of my collegial counterparts are well on their way to finishing their theses (I started in July as opposed to starting at the beginning of 2012). So, if you see a relative sparsity here in comparison to the information on offer through my links section, that's why.
Tumblr, as many of you might be aware by now, is a social networking site (SNS) centred around microblogging and inspires its users to “share anything...customise everything”. It is a virtual space where millions of users share the things they “do, find, love, think, create”; where inter-connected communities collaborate in the rapid dissemination of ideas, meme culture and information. As at the time of writing, tumblr (as it is styled) has over 67 million individual blogs, with over 28 billion individual posts. One particular micro-blog that has particular sociological significance for anyone interested in gender, cultural studies, and online intimacy goes by the label Girls Who Love Girls.
I had first heard of Girls Who Love Girls while engaging in a casual conversation on Facebook regarding internet dating. A lesbian friend had made mention that she utilised Girls Who Love Girls in order to reach a broader LGBT community, having had consequentially become disillusioned with the limited experiences on offer in Sydney, when looking to connect with other queer women. Girls Who Love Girls is a community-driven online-dating platform, whereby users participate globally in submitting their own self-portrait photographs or videos along-side brief descriptions of their age, location and interests. Their motivation is in the hope of attracting like-minded women to 'add' or 'follow' their personal tumblr blogs, and commence a communicative exchange (from anything ranging from what music they like, to what they seek in a lover).
I became fascinated by the concept that these women were actively challenging social norms surrounding dating, and engaging in what many would regard as unorthodox methods of attracting a potential romantic interest. I have since learned that there is a paucity in empirical research regarding online dating where users (specifically young adults) pursue intimacy in spaces that were not typically or originally designed to accommodate such function. By attempting to situate my research in the Australian context, I hope to complete a lacuna in research in online intimacy. There are a few current exceptions (see for example Barraket & Henry-Waring 2008; Hjorth 2009, 2011; Malta 2008), however none have investigated the experiences and attitudes of young adults aged 18 to 25, or how they are seemingly driving the reconfiguration of online spaces for desired intimacies.
There isn't much else to say at this point, as I mentioned earlier I am still writing my literature review, but I hope to have that completed by mid-August 2012. Through my supervisors I have been persuaded to consider the impact of pornography on online relationships, but I haven't as yet begun exploring that option. Sufficed to say, it should make for interesting reading...
Until next week :-)
References
Barraket, J and Henry-Waring, M. S. 2008, 'Getting it on(line) : Sociological perspectives on e-dating', in Journal of Sociology, vol. 44, no. 02, pp.149-165
Hjorth, L 2009, 'Web U2: Emerging Online Communities and Gendered Intimacy in the Asia-Pacific region', in Knowledge, Technology & Policy, vol. 22, pp.117-124
Hjorth L 2011, 'It's Complicated', in Communication, Politics & Culture, vol. 44, no. 01, pp.45-59
Malta S 2008, 'Intimacy and older adults: a comparison between online and offline romantic relationships', in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian Sociological Association (TASA 2008): Re-imagining Sociology, Melbourne, Australia, 02-05 December, accessed 31/07/2012, Swinburne Research Bank.
NB: Before I get into explaining what my thesis is about, and where my interests lie, I feel that it is perhaps appropriate to note that my thesis is still in its infancy. As in, still compiling a literature review. Many of my collegial counterparts are well on their way to finishing their theses (I started in July as opposed to starting at the beginning of 2012). So, if you see a relative sparsity here in comparison to the information on offer through my links section, that's why.
Tumblr, as many of you might be aware by now, is a social networking site (SNS) centred around microblogging and inspires its users to “share anything...customise everything”. It is a virtual space where millions of users share the things they “do, find, love, think, create”; where inter-connected communities collaborate in the rapid dissemination of ideas, meme culture and information. As at the time of writing, tumblr (as it is styled) has over 67 million individual blogs, with over 28 billion individual posts. One particular micro-blog that has particular sociological significance for anyone interested in gender, cultural studies, and online intimacy goes by the label Girls Who Love Girls.
I had first heard of Girls Who Love Girls while engaging in a casual conversation on Facebook regarding internet dating. A lesbian friend had made mention that she utilised Girls Who Love Girls in order to reach a broader LGBT community, having had consequentially become disillusioned with the limited experiences on offer in Sydney, when looking to connect with other queer women. Girls Who Love Girls is a community-driven online-dating platform, whereby users participate globally in submitting their own self-portrait photographs or videos along-side brief descriptions of their age, location and interests. Their motivation is in the hope of attracting like-minded women to 'add' or 'follow' their personal tumblr blogs, and commence a communicative exchange (from anything ranging from what music they like, to what they seek in a lover).
I became fascinated by the concept that these women were actively challenging social norms surrounding dating, and engaging in what many would regard as unorthodox methods of attracting a potential romantic interest. I have since learned that there is a paucity in empirical research regarding online dating where users (specifically young adults) pursue intimacy in spaces that were not typically or originally designed to accommodate such function. By attempting to situate my research in the Australian context, I hope to complete a lacuna in research in online intimacy. There are a few current exceptions (see for example Barraket & Henry-Waring 2008; Hjorth 2009, 2011; Malta 2008), however none have investigated the experiences and attitudes of young adults aged 18 to 25, or how they are seemingly driving the reconfiguration of online spaces for desired intimacies.
There isn't much else to say at this point, as I mentioned earlier I am still writing my literature review, but I hope to have that completed by mid-August 2012. Through my supervisors I have been persuaded to consider the impact of pornography on online relationships, but I haven't as yet begun exploring that option. Sufficed to say, it should make for interesting reading...
Until next week :-)
References
Barraket, J and Henry-Waring, M. S. 2008, 'Getting it on(line) : Sociological perspectives on e-dating', in Journal of Sociology, vol. 44, no. 02, pp.149-165
Hjorth, L 2009, 'Web U2: Emerging Online Communities and Gendered Intimacy in the Asia-Pacific region', in Knowledge, Technology & Policy, vol. 22, pp.117-124
Hjorth L 2011, 'It's Complicated', in Communication, Politics & Culture, vol. 44, no. 01, pp.45-59
Malta S 2008, 'Intimacy and older adults: a comparison between online and offline romantic relationships', in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian Sociological Association (TASA 2008): Re-imagining Sociology, Melbourne, Australia, 02-05 December, accessed 31/07/2012, Swinburne Research Bank.
Hi Matt, sounds like an excellent subject with so many avenues to research. Made me wonder how the personal ad in the paper must have started out and thanks to google, apparently the personal ad spent a long time on the social outer as a legitimate means of romantic contact. This article (http://www.livescience.com/3362-300-year-history-internet-dating.html) mentions a book on the history of the personal ad, published 2009 that sounded interesting. Looking forward to hearing more! Alex
ReplyDeleteHi Matt
ReplyDeleteYou mention in your posting that online blogging in the area of romance is of interest because it ‘challenges the social norms of dating’. While I agree that the medium involved has to a degree transformed the nature of interaction from a primary (face-to-face) phenomenon to a virtual practice, I wonder whether the enduring ‘implicit’ and ‘explicit’ rules of online dating actually reinforce the legitimacy of dating as a primary phenomenon? I say this because the main aim of online dating it seems is not so much to ‘date online’ but rather to poach, scan and shop around for potential people who would be suitable to meet in 3D reality and scrutinise for future encounters. In this sense the primary interaction setting is positioned as the gold standard of relationship building. This would suggest that the internet as it is constructed by the discourse of online interaction is subordinated as a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself. What are your thoughts on this?
Have you considered any structuralist perspectives when conceptualising the relationship between the internet, chat and ‘social norms’? From both the consensus and conflict perspective, there is much that can be offered that could enrich this discourse, but it seems that the logical implication of both perspectives would be that the internet and chat is an integral part of social norms, their proliferation and reproduction.
From the Marxist perspective, for instance, the internet must be seen within the context of consumer capitalism (computers, hardware and online providers enabling dialog are consumer products). That these are consumer products means that participation in them simply extends market relationships into hyper reality. This poses broader questions about who actually has access to the internet, what the primary demographics are and what the consequences of differential access to the internet are for the legitimation of the social structure, its ‘core values’ and possible class relationships. To Marxists, whether the internet and chat challenges ‘social norms’ would therefore depend on the extent to which it is used to generate class based equity and overcome the interests of capital. A measure for this could include the extent to which all Australian income groups have access or the extent to which the internet is used to construct meanings and values antithetical to individualised wealth creation.
Similarly, although a consensus perspective on computers, the internet and chat would not per se question their role in social inequality, it might position the internet in the context of industrialisation/the knowledge economy. With industrialisation and the emergence of consumer capitalism, there was a greater need for quantification of goods, items and particular processes to calculate the difference between capital inputs and outputs with rapid speed (efficiency). That computers facilitate this capability means they have become the embodiment of a social norm by providing the core pathway to perform efficient business functions, including by communicating over spaces in real time and data storage capabilities. The ideology of efficiency in turn drives technological development in the search for faster and more rapid processing systems, again suggesting that social norms and the material factors of social organisation could be related.
What are your thoughts on these ideas? Do they have any consonance with your conceptualisation of ‘social norms and the internet’?
Peter L