Investigating
Social Support and Heteronormativity in an Online Lesbian Community
Charlotte Jones
PhD
Sociology and Social Policy
Myfanwy Davies,
Senior
Lecturer in Social Policy,
Abstract
Computer-mediated
communication (CMC), offers new spaces and opportunities for sexual minorities.
This nethnographic (net-ethnographic) study explored forms of social support
among self- identified lesbian women within a closed, online community and
sought to trace what kinds of identifications it might afford.
While most
interactions were positive, referrals to experts outside the group were rare.
Advice given reflected conservative social attitudes to relationships and
family commitments. We consider the content and reception of a series of memes
- including those objectifying women, some consolidating ethnic and social
hierarchies alongside representations of empowerment using symbols from the
off- line world.
We argue
that dominant cultural structures filter through to the online group, despite
its having been formed to provide a space to foster alternative identities. The
choice to participate in a closed, online group may enhance lesbian women’s
identification - and provide support - but may also depoliticise lesbian
identity.
Keywords
Social support, lesbian identity, heteronormativity, CMC,
ethnography, memes, female agency, Facebook.
Background - Queer geographies
This study observes interaction within a closed LGBT online
community and examines how some threads and structures serve to enforce normative
ideals of heterosexuality (heteronormativity). It takes as its starting point
the concept of ‘place’ as a space ideologically constructed, contested or
claimed by a community (Binnie and Valentine, 1999; Smith, 2002; Burgess,
2005). Urban areas have traditionally been regarded as ‘‘a space for social and
sexual liberation’’ (Valentine and Skelton, 2003, 849). While Manchester’s gay
village is a place for LGBT people to meet, Formby (2012) and Simpson (2012)
demonstrate that many LGBT people still censor their gay identities when in
heterospaces. Cities seemingly offer greater anonymity, refuge and an escape
from confined settings, claustrophobic relations, and gender norms (Wilson,
1991; Domosh, 1999). Moreover, Valentine and Skelton (2003) maintain that
lesbian and gay places (often dubbed ‘the scene’) facilitate the expression of
self and sexual identities as ‘‘...traditional orthodox heterosexual morality’’
is challenged and new possibilities for living emerge (Valentine and Skelton,
2003, 856). Practices of disclosure and support; empathy; and freedom from
societal definitions of roles are associated with the scene (Binnie and Skeggs,
2004; Popke, 2007) as is a sense of protection from ‘‘the surveillant gaze of
heterosexual men’’ (Valentine and Skelton, 2003, 856).
The confined nature of the scene may also constrain lesbian
social networks. Valentine (1993), and Valentine and Skelton (2003) maintain
that, hierarchies and ascriptions of character and conduct are clear to
newcomers who then feel obligated to conform, leading to a setting where
tensions, hierarchies and segregation may be unchallenged.
Marketing the scene – as ‘‘cosmopolitan space’’ open to all,
may also serve to transform gay spaces such as bars and restaurants into spaces
of ‘banal consumption by branding’ (Binnie and Skeggs, 2004, 57). Indeed,
drawing in non-gay customers may lead to venues and public spaces becoming
core-user unfriendly (Binnie and Skeggs, 2004). This may be particularly the
case for lesbians as advertising tends to celebrate the gay male consumer as
the archetype of urban cosmopolitanism (Clarke, 1993). As gay spaces become
more visible to mainstream society, sexual minorities may be exposed to acts of
discrimination, prejudice and homophobia (Tomsen and Mason, 2001; Valentine and
Skelton, 2003; Kelly and Gruenewald, 2015). For these reasons, many lesbians
welcome the potential of computer- mediated technologies as a means to
circumvent problems of physical space.
Digital utopias or dystopias?
For Castells (2010, 156), implicit in internet-based
networking are non-hierarchical relationships of power: ‘‘… networking means no
center, thus no central authority. It means an instant relationship between the
local and the global’’. Virtual worlds have been seen to be limited only by the
imagination of their inhabitants, fundamentally disrupting physical forms of
social and cultural relations as real world identities are obscured (Green,
1997). Online spaces can also serve to bring individuals together who are
strangers in the offline world (Walther and Boyd, 2002; Clark, 2007). For
example, Baym (2010), in her longitudinal study of the online interactions
between soap opera fans, discusses how the medium enables people to enact
communities that challenge normative expectations about gender and class.
Memes, pieces of digital culture that are user-generated and
usually combinations of images and text, can be used to create powerful
identifications and to politicise debate. Hohenstein (2016), examines how
members of closed online groups can use memes relating to female protagonists
in popular entertainment such as Katniss Everdeen (The Hunger Games) and
Buffy Summers (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), to challenge the norm of
teenage female passivity and dependence by emphasizing female agency,
empowerment and equality.
The extent to which online communities challenge normative
beliefs about sexuality and gender has been questioned. Sassen (2002), Brickell
(2012) and Siebler (2016) demonstrate how dominant social and cultural gender
norms are transported from offline society and re-enacted in online spaces. For
example, Brickell (2012, 39) describes how in male gay chat rooms ‘conquest
stories’ replicate themes indicative of heterosexual masculinity. Siebler
(2016, 66) observes the consumption and assimilation of patriarchal sex and
gender roles by lesbians in virtual environments:
‘‘when a sexuality or gender
identity becomes so closely integrated with narrow media representations and
capitalist consumption, the internalized message is that one consumes one’s way
to that particular identity. For lesbians this means messages of body type,
gender expression, beauty standards, and sexual ways-of-being mirror those
streamed to heterosexual women and men. Instead of rocking the patriarchal
systems of power … lesbians in the digital environment are products of
heteronormative systems just like heterosexual women.’’
Gay women online are said to seek to disassociate from the
term ‘lesbian’ and to ‘‘work hard to assimilate to the dominant culture’’
(Siebler, 2016, 67). This endeavour may include adopting a commitment to:
‘‘embrace rather than resist or upset standards of sex/sexuality/gender’’
(Siebler, 2016, 67).
The potentials and risks of CMCs for challenging dominant
groups are encapsulated in the use made of ‘closed’ topic or interest-based
groups supported by Facebook. Only those individuals who request access to the
group can join it and be hidden from those who are not also members. Groups
thus offer a safe space for forming and shaping gay identities (Valentine and
Skelton, 2003) through networked personal communities (Wellman, 2001; Zhang et
al. 2010). However, by remaining hidden from the mainstream of virtual
interaction, they may be seen to contribute to the invisibility of gay content
in the virtual - and actual - world. The development of sophisticated
algorithms and user-generated content (UGC), may further the self-segregation
already implicit in online communities (Kenny et al. 2011, 410). Algorithms used
on Facebook collect detailed data regarding individual browsing behaviour
(Roosendaal, 2011). Using an individual’s browsing history (e.g. ‘likes’ and
‘reactions’), Facebook and companies can thus personalise content shown in
‘News feeds’ and deliver targeted advertising (Loomer, 2013; Oremus, 2016a)
thus furthering a perception of belonging while potentially limiting engagement
outside the group.
Methods
An ethnographic approach was adopted for this study.
Nethnography entails ‘‘participant-observational research based in online
fieldwork’’ (Kozinets, 2010, 60). Kozinets (2010) highlights key differences in
the ethnographic approach used in online research, for example the ethical
procedures for in-person fieldwork do not easily translate to the online medium,
often requiring substantial negotiation by the ethnographer wanting to conduct
online research. With regards to this study, the group moderator’s permission
was sought as it would have been impractical to private message thousands of
individual members as well as intrusive. Information relating to the research
and copies of all relevant participant documentation were posted on the group
wall as a pinned post prior to data collection. A document was also posted
within the group so that participants would be aware of our intention to
publish the results. We provided an opt-out option should group-members want
their data excluded, no group-members opted-out.
Primary research was conducted overtly within an existing
closed Facebook group of which the lead researcher had been a member of for
five years prior to the research. Members of this group must fulfil three
essential criteria; members must be female – this includes male to female
trans-persons; they must identify either as lesbian, bisexual or pansexual; and
be aged 18 years old or over. The group itself has thousands of members and
originated in the United Kingdom (UK). Due to its size, a twelve- hour data
gathering timeframe was selected in order to keep the project manageable. To
enable us to include participants from different time zones, data was collected
between 18:00pm and 06:00am GMT on June 25th- 26th 2016 using NVivo 10.6 as it
allows the incorporation of materials from other applications such as social
media (Silver and Lewins, 2014, 70) via its NCapture feature.
Given that the initial focus of the research was on social
support, a deductive approach involving a priori codes based on Harel et al.
(2012) modified version of Cutrona and Suhr’s (1992; 1994) Social Support
Behaviour Code (SSBC) was used. The SSBC assesses the frequency and occurrence
of 32 individual behaviours using eight overall categories, however, some
categories were modified to reflect the online nature of interaction.
Consequently, the tangible support category containing four sub-categories were
removed as they refer to actual physical assistance that rarely occurs on the
internet (Ko et al. 2013; Chiang and Huang, 2016), as was the listening
sub-category. During the coding process as Ko et al. (2013) found, several
responses either could not be categorised into the social support typology of
Cutrona and Suhr (1992; 1994) or into the adapted version of Harel et al.
(2012). Therefore, four additional sub-categories were created based upon the
lead researcher’s interpretation and placed with the overall category of other
(see Table 1).
Access to the data was gained via the lead researcher’s
personal Facebook account. Data were captured in Portable Document Format (PDF)
rather than as a dataset from the groups’ home page/wall as had been initially
intended. Accordingly, only participants/respondents whose names and activities
could be seen within the data were counted as participants/respondents (N=272).
Their activities (such as their written comments and emojis, any images or shared
content) were grouped into 64 posts or conversations where the original post
was categorised as either having a broadly negative, neutral or positive
sentiment. Original posts, where the poster was the recipient of further
comments were not coded to the SSBC, instead these were used as the context for
the coding of whole message responses made by individual participants
(responders). Figure 1 shows how inferences were made and reactions were
considered within this context. Some responses were coded into multiple
categories.
Figure 1
Findings & Discussion
A particular ‘pinned’ post outlined the group rules according
to the Moderator. The rules themselves exhibit traits of empowerment by
outlining the purpose of the group, which is to provide a safe space for
lesbian identified women of all backgrounds to socialise, make friends and
discuss topics of interest and sexuality without judgement. Respectful
behaviour and inclusivity were promoted and negative behaviours such as
bullying were detailed as grounds for expulsion. The presentation of this
particular section of the rules (e.g. capital letters, explanation points and
the detailed description given of types of bullying) may suggest that these
issues had previously arisen in the group. Members were prohibited from sharing
group content outside of the group. Adherence to this rule was reflected in the
data as some respondents asked original posters if they could share the content
posted. Another observation is the explicit statement of no advertisements and
that the group is not a dating website. This particular section of the group
rules suggests a conscious effort to preserve the space from the
commodification processes that have consumed and monopolised physical spaces
(Binnie and Skeggs, 2004; Simpson, 2012). Advice was also given within the
rules. A description of group etiquette was outlined, where ‘thread’ pages were
promoted as a first point of call for anyone wanting to post something within
the group – although the data revealed that one post that belonged to the ‘pet’
thread was posted on the group wall. A comprehensive list of regional and local
administrators was also given suggestive of an attempt to guide new members’
online behaviour to enable them to adjust to the group and avoid any behaviour
that others might find irritating, such as selfies and Hit-me-ups (HMUs).[1]
However, the group rules could be interpreted as a form of
social control as non-conformity results in expulsion. This may encourage
individuals to employ impression management strategies (Goffman, 1967; 1990)
that contradict the fundamental principles on which the group was created,
which was to be inclusive, embrace diversity and encourage participation.
However, of the 64 posts in the group, four posts seemed to disregard the group
rules, perhaps out of naivety, or resistance. For example, the group rules
stated that nothing should be posted on the group wall if there was a specific
thread available and HMUs were prohibited, yet both occurred during data
collection. Equally, the group rules stated that pornographic material and
illegal activities were prohibited. However, the data obtained revealed one
post that blatantly ignored these rules: ‘‘How can I stream Wentworth here in
the US? I’m dying’‘. Respondents ‘liked’ the comment and offered advice,
there were no negative comments or reactions. Another group member, in response
to a post, condoned drug use: ‘‘Id love to drop shrooms on a camping trip with
a lovely girl and fantastic music.”. This received only positive reactions. It
seems that the list of prohibited activity has a ranking system and some rules
were flexible. None of the aforementioned posts were removed from the group
during the 12-hour data collection timeframe. Nonetheless, the Moderator and
the array of regional and local administrators can be viewed as governing
people’s conduct within this online space through structuring the possible
field of action of others.
Online interactions
The eight modified SSBC overall categories and related
sub-categories for each overall category are provided in Table 1. This includes
the percentage each sub-category occupies when all are aggregated. Table 1
indicates that the most common supportive behaviour was attentiveness. However,
consideration to the context in which the data was gathered and coded should be
noted as data was acquired from a social networking site (SNS) whereby
individuals must consciously type comments, make choices regarding emojis
and/or select reactions to interact with others (Walther and Boyd, 2002).
Interactions occurring online were coded according to the definitions of the
modified SSBC. Accordingly, nearly all interactions were coded under the
attentiveness category and its giving attention sub-category. Results for this
sub-category were omitted from further analysis for that reason. Figures from
the responsivity sub-category may illustrate a more accurate picture of
attentive social support.
The results suggest that most interactions within the group
were positive, with validation being the most frequent behaviour. Within the
esteem support category 73% of responses came under the validation
sub-category. This figure is in stark contrast with that of the compliment and
relief of blame sub-categories. However, what these results suggest is that at
the time of data collection, most group members tended to agree with the views
of other members.
Table 1: Modified SSBC, instances of occurrence &
aggregated sub-category percentage
Support
category
|
Definition
|
Attentiveness
|
|
Giving
attention
|
Just responding to a comment, post or picture
with a comment, like, reaction or emoji.
|
Responsivity
|
Responding quickly in a way that meets the needs
of the recipient and which is
emotionally
tactful and positive.
|
Emotional
|
|
Confidentiality
|
Keeps the recipients problem in confidence.
|
Encouragement
|
Provides the recipient with hope and confidence.
|
Prayer
|
Offers prayer for the recipient.
|
Relationship
|
Conveys
the importance of closeness, or articulations of love, or spousal
connections.
|
Sympathy
|
Sorrow or regret for the situation faced by the
recipient.
|
Understanding/empathy
|
Expressions
of understanding of the situation or discloses similar experience in a way that
conveys understanding.
|
Virtual
affection*
|
Offers virtual affection such as emojis and
reactions, or puts affectionate words into
the
written text (e.g. babe/s, bae, sweetheart etc).
|
Esteem
|
|
Compliment
|
Says positive things about the recipient.
|
Relief of blame
|
Alleviates any feelings of guilt the recipient
has about the situation.
|
Validation
|
Agrees with the views of the recipient.
|
Information
|
|
Advice/suggestion
|
Provides ideas or suggestions for action.
|
Referral
to experts
|
Refers the recipient to other sources of information (e.g.
charities, legal aid, subject/problem specific websites) either by giving the
information via the interaction or by sending a ‘link’.
|
Situation
appraisal
|
Helps reassess or redefine the situation or
issue being faced by the recipient.
|
Teaching
|
Offers detailed information, facts or news to recipient.
|
Negative behaviour
|
|
Complaint
|
An overt statement of disapproval of the
recipients’ actions or response to a problem.
|
Criticism
|
Disapproval
of recipients’ actions or response to a problem.
|
Disagreement
|
Not agreeing with recipients’ views or opinions.
|
Refusal to help
|
Overt statement or non-response.
|
Sarcasm
|
Mocks or ridicules recipient.
|
Network
|
|
Access
|
Provides the recipient with access to new people
e.g. ‘Tagging’ or link ‘sharing’.
|
Companionship
|
Reminds
the recipient that there are others who share similar experiences and are
available.
|
Express
willingness
|
Offers or expressions of willingness to help.
|
Presence
|
Offers to be there for the recipient.
|
Tension
reduction
|
|
Diversion
|
Changes
the topic of discussion, or does not respond directly to recipients post.
|
Humour
|
Amusing or comic antidotes or humorous past
experiences are presented to the
recipient.
|
Other
|
|
Gratifiers
|
Is involved in the conversation/interaction, but
offers little in terms of the
aforementioned
forms of support including negative behaviour.
|
Empowerment
|
Anything that symbolises the female sex,
positivity of the female sex, positive
messages
of lesbian sexuality and for women in general.
|
Greeting
|
Starts an interaction/conversation, announces
one’s self or presence to others.
|
Status
|
Redirects the convocation to focus on the
respondent rather than the recipient and/or their original post.
|
Of the informational support sub-categories, advice (e.g.
‘‘No hmu allowed’’), or suggestion (e.g. ‘Read up on cystic personality
disorder, maybe she’s on the spectrum?’) and situational appraisal (e.g. ‘At
least you’re not 50 and single’), were the most commonly used forms of support.
Referral to experts, where the poster would refer the recipient to other
sources of information (e.g. charities, legal aid, subject/problem specific
websites) and teaching, which offers detailed information, facts or news to recipient,
were modest. Informational support was most prevalent within negative posts of
all types and advice or suggestion was usually based upon the stated personal
experience of the responder.
The lack of referral to experts and teaching may suggest that
the group either lacks the required knowledge to give this aspect of support,
or that these forms of support are obtained elsewhere outside of the group.
Another view is that the nature of the group (e.g. being closed) could mean
that group members are engaging in what Fox and Warber (2014) term co-cultural
separation practices as they choose not to signpost other group members to help
outside of it. Accordingly, by limiting support to other group members to
advice, suggestion or situational appraisal within the group, group members may
be limiting their visibility and potential contribution to wider debates
framing feminist and gay rights issues (Munro, 2013; Fox and Warber, 2014).
Of the negative behaviours, criticism and disagreement were
the most common, accounting for 77% of all negative behaviours. For example,
one group member whose friend who has expressed romantic feelings toward her
knowing she is in a relationship, explains the situation and asks only for
positive advice. She wants to remain friends as they go walking together and
she has no attraction to her friend. Despite the request for positive advice,
some of the responses she received included: ‘don’t go there unless your ready
for whats going to happen’, ‘plenty of other places to walk.. stress
free...better off without friend like that or it will coz probs’, ‘it might
cause undesired stress for your girlfriend ... I mean she is the most important
thing right?...Other places and other people you can walk with’.
Equally, most negative original posts centred on being single
or relationship issues, the majority of these garnered emotional support from
respondents. Two particular posts regarding attending family functions as a
couple exemplify this. Poster A expressed a view that partners should attend
the family functions of their partner regardless of their personal feelings:
‘My gf of 9 months continues
to fight me on going to friend & family functions saying that they don’t
like her and barely talk to her. I don’t see it. We are having a 4th of July
cookout early... and of course here we go again she doesn’t want to go. So I
told her if she didn’t want to be part of my life then we shouldn’t be
together.’
Poster B expressed the view that one should not be obligated
to attend one’s partner’s family functions:
‘My wife’s cousin is getting
married...She says i have to go. I say NO i don’t. I don’t want to go, and I
always give her the option of not going to stuff like this.’
Both posts received similar activity and positive support over
a similar timeframe. For example; a group member responded to Poster A: ‘Do you
go to all her family functions if so then you have the right to get upset if
she doesn’t go to yours’; and another group member responded to Poster B: ‘You
don’t have to go! Your wife should go, it’s her family member.’. However,
Poster B also received negative responses and more emphasis on a commitment to
wider family networks of one’s partner and spousal connections:
‘No, you should have the
option of going or not but shoudn’t be forced to go BUT if she is asking and
it’s very very important to her that you go you might have to suck it up‘.
This suggests that Poster A’s perspective was the more
accepted behaviour by the group.
The network support category, involving belonging to a group
of persons with similar concerns or experiences is fairly equally split between
three of its four sub-categories, with access (through ‘tagging’ or link
‘sharing’) being the exception. This may be due to participants’ choices not to
direct other users to services outside the group. However, it could also be
attributed to a lack of knowledge about what services are available or to a
lack of knowledge of gay rights in different national contexts, or the
parameters of conduct set out within the group rules that disallow the sharing
of some content such as recommendations to services.
Within the other category, empowerment (encompassing positive
messages of lesbian sexuality and for women in general) accounted for over a
quarter of responses. Some examples of the discussion included: ‘You’ll find
your princess and she’ll treat you right and the way you deserve to be treated
never give up on love’, ‘Don’t lose hope, She’s out there!!’ in response to
posts where posters were single and feeling lonely. Another example was: ‘You
tell her bye Felicia[2]
real quick’ in response to a poster who had found nude pictures of other women
and of an ex-partner on her girlfriends’ mobile phone. Giving an empowering
response to those facing romantic difficulties may support identity formation
and development (Haimson et al. 2015).
Conversely, the sub-category status whereby an individual
redirects the focus onto them (the respondent) rather than the original poster,
was the most dominant of the other support category suggesting that struggles
for power are present within the group. The high instance of status behaviours
may be indicative of the competitive dimension of SNS and as individuals
compete for position through incentives such as the number of reactions and comments.
For example, a group member posted ‘I need more friends. Ones that will go
camping, fishing, hiking, and swimming with me.’ She received 39 replies on
this post, but from the seventh reply posted where another group member posted
a picture of a lake and commented ‘I own the lake. Pack the tent and pole and
hop in your car!’ the remaining responses were in relation to this group
members reply which then garnered gratifier and status behaviours: ‘You OWN a
lake’, ‘u should be friends with me’, ‘More of a glamper. I need to buy one of
those storage containers and transform it [truck] into a mobile home ‘.
The context: a place for the production, distribution & reception of expression
While sexual activity was not a thread, one particular post regarding
sexual frustration from over three months prior to the data collection
timeframe, was still active during data collection and afterwards. This
suggests that many group members wanted to talk about sex (or the lack of sex)
as they were still posting on it. Upon closer examination, the prolonged
activity on this post could have been due to there being no specific threads
for this type of discussion within the group. In fact, over a quarter of
original posts related to sexual activity/inactivity or had responses that were
sexually orientated. Of these, most were expressed using memes. Others used
written text: ‘What makes you bored in a relationship? Mine is no chemistry no
time and no sexy time’ and ‘Aaaahhhhh! Officially sexually frustrated. I’ve never
been in this position before. So annoyed.’
However, there was a boundary of acceptability in these
discussions. Two neutral memes both expressed explicit sexual content but both
received very different responses from the group. One with the accompanying
text of: ‘Why is there a string on a tampon? So you can floss when you’re done
with your meal’ received the most negative behaviours of any other post within
the shortest time frame (an hour). The comments, which included: ‘Seriously???
FFS [For Fuck Sake]’, ‘No words at all...’, ‘Just plain nasty!!!!’ and ‘angry’
reactions however, provide no definitive answer as to why this particular post
created such friction and was received with such hostility. Perhaps the
‘women-as-object’ (Crawley and Willman, 2018, 164) connotations within this
image were too familiar for those who used the space as a retreat from actual
world objectification. The other meme, which was a sign for a new aquarium
opening with the tag line ‘Guess what’s coming?’ The poster had photo-shopped a
two- finger salute (a reference to a sexual act) on the sign with the headline
of: ‘When you stick your hand down her pants and she’s already wet’. This
received only positive reactions (like and ha-ha) and no comments within
twenty-six minutes, suggesting this post was more acceptable to other group
members perhaps due to containing the more positive message of female sexual
agency. The fact that the data shows multiple threads regarding sex in some
way, and some had prolonged activity over long timeframes suggests that the
group members were setting their own agenda and priorities. We also note that
since the research took place, a specific ‘sex’ thread was put in place. Users’
persistent discussions may be interpreted as acts of resistance to heteronormative
ideals of passive female sexuality - and the eventual provision of a space for
such discussions might also be interpreted as claiming more online ‘place’ for
sexuality on the forum.
In the eye of the beholder: Expression and subjectivity
One particular image depicting a silhouette of the female
form using paint drips of Pride flag colours received the most activity over
the shortest timeframe (1 hour). Within 3 hours it received 236 positive (like
or love) reactions and positive comments such as ‘Awesome!!!!’, ‘I thought it
was just paint flung on a canvas but then I stopped to look when I saw y’all
post that y’all have this as a tat [tattoo]... ok, I see that sexy thang
now...lol’. Additionally, this image also received the most coded instances of
empowerment, validation, compliment and responsivity indicating it was well
received by those who viewed it. An explanation could be that the image
contains many positive symbols of female gay identity and sexual agency. She is
seated, leaning back, with legs crossed and head thrown back and propped up by
her arms. Her pose is sensual while depicting no explicit sexuality. She is
small-breasted and slim with curved hips. However, when analysing the image
further, it became clear that a possible reason for its overwhelmingly positive
reaction was that it can act as a cipher whereby onlookers can project their
ideal. For instance, upon first glance, from the lead researcher’s perspective
as a white Western lesbian woman the image appeared to be that of a tall,
mid-twenties, slim built, white woman with small breasts, curvaceous hips and
long dark hair. Others might interpret this image differently.
A further finding was that video posts were not that popular
with the group. Neutrally coded videos that offered humour or depicted exotic
locations garnered responses that offered emotional and esteem support
primarily in the form of positive reactions and the occasional comment. The one
video, coded positively, that discussed the placement of a monument to
commemorate the LGBT community at the site of the 1969 Stonewall riots received
responses that exhibited negative behaviours, mainly disagreement, criticism
and complaint. Responses also included informational support, particularly
situational appraisal and teaching:
‘Too bad Obama didn’t do a
frickin thing for marriage equality. We owe that to a persistent lesbian couple
from Hazel park Michigan. No politician deserves any praise over LGBT rights’
This corrective response then received several positive
reactions from other members of the group. Commentary inside the group may
however serve to curtail political activity outside it.
Stereotyping & pigeonholing
There were many memes that were neutral in sentiment and
which either asked a general question or were intended to be humorous. For
instance, one particular meme depicted a woman of colour in sport socks wearing
high-heeled shoes that were duct taped to her feet – implying that studs[3]
are incapable of expressing femininity, and that should they try, they would
deserve censure or ridicule. This meme elicited positive reactions and comments
such as ‘They taped their feet down lmao [laughing my ass off]’, ‘Just noticed
that lmao’ and ‘I’m cracking up’ which were consistent with encouraging and
validation forms of support. However, a minority of members disagreed with this
stereotype and criticised the original poster. One group member commented:
‘That’s just wrong’. Based solely on her profile picture, she was a woman of
colour whose aesthetic matched the stud stereotype.
Other examples of humour, such as the two sexually explicit
memes discussed above are highly ambiguous, framing women as things to use or
be used for the gratification of another - albeit another woman. Equally,
another post asks: ‘What attracts you more about a woman? Eyes, lips,
dimples?’. Another shows four images of what the poster seeks from another
woman (a meal on the table, sex and romance, a clean house, holidays) and asks:
‘What do I have to do to get this treatment?’.
Similarly, a Rachel Maddow meme reads ‘Hey Girl, I’ll fight
to keep their laws off your body. My hands, however, are a different story’. In
this case, the text is sexually authoritative, and the image displays scripted
masculine features – short hair, trousers, shirt, jacket and status that are
associated with the ‘butch’ lesbian stereotype (Brambilla et al. 2011; Walker
et al. 2012). Although it was received as being empowering, it also appears to
endorse the passivity of other women. Another meme focuses on ‘blonde’ women:
‘A
blonde goes on a hot date and ends up making out with the guy in his car. The
guy asks if she would like to go in the back seat. ‘No!’ yells the blonde.
Things get even hotter, and the guy asks again. ‘For the last time, no!’ says
the blonde. Frustrated, the guy asks, ‘Well, why the hell not?’ The blonde
says, ‘Because I wanna stay up here with you!’.’
Limitations
Due to the group’s privacy settings, it was not possible to
capture and collect demographic or biographical information that would have
provided greater insights into the group’s dynamics. Similarly, tracing
physical location and demographics was not possible and as such we were unable
to undertake a social network analysis or to provide as rich a discussion of
context as we would have liked. The closed privacy settings also constrained us
to capture data only in PDF form so that only the most recent and visible
participant activities during the data collection time frame were captured and
analysed. There were many instances within the data where many comments had
been posted to original posts but only three were visible to read, code and
then analyse. Equally the short data collection window may have limited this
study as out of the thousands of group members, we examined the activities of
only 272.
There is also ambiguity regarding how the algorithms Facebook
uses for personalisation may have affected the data collected. The lead
researcher used a personal account to access group data, and it is understood
that Facebook uses an algorithm on users individual ‘News feeds’. According to
Oremus (2016b) the algorithm uses an automatic ranking system to scan and
collect posts from individuals who are part of the user’s network. It then
displays posts in an order that it predicts will capture the user’s attention.
It is then unlikely for a user to see every post from everyone in their news feed.
However, it is unclear if this applies to Facebook group home pages (Oremus,
2016b).
A final limitation to this research might be concerns over
the lead researcher’s objectivity due to her group affiliation. It is
inevitable that her life experiences would colour her perceptions of the group,
however her interpretations were discussed in detail with the second
researcher, a heterosexual woman, and were found to be valid. Neither was it
our aim to achieve objectivity, as traditionally understood. As Harding (1993,
71) explains, objectivity ‘insists on a rigid barrier between subject and
object of knowledge’ which, stifles the production of socially situated
knowledge, particularly for minority social groupings. We have set out the
theoretical perspective taken in this work and it is hoped that additional
knowledge can be gained from it.
Conclusion
Advancing technologies present new spaces and opportunities
for sexual minorities such as lesbian women and have been heralded as providing
a safe environment in which to establish new identities and communities
(Castells, 2010). We have delineated practices of resistance and compliance to
heteronormativity and considered the affordances offered by this online social
space for lesbian women.
Closed groups, such as the one studied, have an ambivalent
cultural role, providing freedom of expression and safety to individuals at the
expense of contributing to the continued invisibility of lesbian women. Baym
has argued that: “Too few of us focus on platforms’ force as actors in this
socio- technological economy” (Baym, 2015, 1). A closed Facebook group could be
considered a way of placing non-normative individuals on the periphery of
society, reducing their visibility (Brickell, 2012).
The findings reported here demonstrate that members of the
group exchanged various forms of support through the forum and circulated memes
that served as vehicles for empowerment as women and as lesbians. Nonetheless,
data reported corroborates this suggestion of elective invisibility as informational
support; particularly referrals to experts and teaching
were minimal. Users of the group may thus be unlikely to become visible to
mainstream services as a result of their interaction as part of the group. This
could have further negative effects in the future as continued use of online
spaces as support networks such as this one may justify further reductions of
real world services for lesbian women as has happened under the UK austerity
programmes (Davis et al. 2016).
An examination of the group rules suggests that they are used
as an instrument to maintain group order and to confer authority to a
hierarchy. The initial lack of a specific ‘sex’ thread would appear to reflect
heteronormative assumptions about women’s sexual passivity and decorum (Gordon,
2006; Hill and Fischer, 2007). However, group members continually posted
content discussing sex, its problems and its insufficiency resulting in the
eventual provision of a designated space for such discussions, thus challenging
the group hierarchy and the heterosexual cultural scripts it may be said to
have reproduced.
In terms of the support offered and the memes used, group
members displayed conservative attitudes to family responsibility and sexual
fidelity. Memes understood as being humorous that served to objectify women or
establish racial hierarchies indicate that, even within this closed, online
group, hierarchies that disfavour women or some groups of women, continue to
structure users’ experience and limit their identifications.
Personalised online space creates the illusion of autonomy as
consumer choices increasingly define identifications (Holmes, 1997). Here,
users can select the content of their posts, but their field of choice is
limited by the choices of administrators who determine all content displayed.
More widely the choice to participate in an online, closed group may enhance
lesbian women’s identification (and provide support) but may also serve to
attenuate and depoliticise lesbian identity. Certainly, the re-enactment of
dominant gender norms relating to spousal support and references to the sexual
passivity of other women suggest that the online world provides an illusion of
power for lesbian women. In that respect this paper mirrors Siebler’s (2016)
work on virtual lesbian communities through which she observes the assimilation
of patriarchal sex and gender roles in virtual space.
The extent to which online closed groups for lesbians might
be serving to present artificial representations of autonomy and choice needs to
be addressed in order to understand emerging lesbian identities in both the
online and offline world. Further research might also usefully examine the use
of intra-group humour and information sharing among other minority groups or
within majority female groups as these practices may begin to structure group
identities and relations with the ‘actual’ world.
References
Baym, N.K. (2010), Personal Communications in the Digital
Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Baym, N.K. (2015), Social Media and the Struggle for Society.
Social Media & Society April/June:1-2.
Binnie, J., and Skeggs, B. (2004), Cosmopolitan knowledge and
the production and consumption of sexualized space: Manchester’s gay village. The
Sociological Review 52, No. 1:39-61.
Binnie, J., and Valentine, G. (1999), Geographies of
sexuality – a review of progress. Progress in Human Geography 23, No.
2:175-187.
Brambilla, M., Carnaghi, A., and Ravenna, M. (2011), Status
and Cooperation Shape Lesbian Stereotypes: Testing Predictions from the
Stereotype Content Model. Social Psychology 42, No. 2:101-110.
Brickell, C. (2012), Sexuality, power and the sociology of
the internet. Current Sociology 60, No. 1:28-44.
Burgess, A. (2005), Queering Heterosexual Spaces: Positive
Space Campaigns Disrupting Campus Heteronormativity. Canadian Women Studies
24, No. 2/3:27-30.
Castells, M. (2010), The Power of Identity, With a New
Preface: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. II. 2nd
edition. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell (E-book).
Chiang, I., and Huang, Y. (2016), How to Create Social
Support on Facebook. International Journal of Electronic Commerce Studies
7, No. 1:1-20.
Clark, A. (2007), Understanding Community: A review of
networks, ties and contacts. Leeds: Economic & Social Research
Council/ESRC National Centre for Research Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/469/1/0907_
understanding_community.pdf (Accessed 16th July 2016).
Clarke, D. (1993), Commodity Lesbianism. In: H. Abelove.,
M.A. Barale., and D.M. Halperin (eds.), The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader.
New York/London: Routledge, pp. 186-201.
Crawley, S.L., and Willman, R.K. (2018), Heteronormativity
made me lesbian: Femme, butch and the production of sexual embodiment projects.
Sexualities 21, No. 1-2:156-173.
Cutrona, C. E., and Suhr, J. A. (1992). Controllability of
stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication
Research 19, No. 2:154-174.
Cutrona, C.E., and Suhr, J.A. (1994), Social support
communication in the context of marriage: An analysis of couples' supportive
interactions. In: B.R. Burleson., T.L. Albrecht., and I.G. Sarason (eds.), Communication
of social support: Messages, interactions, relationships, and community.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc, pp. 113-135.
Davis, M., Porter, H., and Mitchell, M. (2016), Implications
of reductions to public spending for LGB and T people and services. London:
NatCen Social Research. https://www.unison.org.uk/content/uploads/
2016/11/NatCen-research-report_Implications-of-reductions-to-public-spending-on-LGB-and-T-people-and-services_Nov_2016.pdf (Accessed 7th
December 2016).
Domosh, M. (1999), Sexing feminist geography. Progress in
Human Geography 23, No. 3:429-436.
Formby, E. (2012), Connected lesbian, gay, bisexual and
trans communities? A scoping study to explore understandings and experiences of
‘community’ among LGBT people. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University. http://www.lgbtcommunityresearch.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Connected-communities-LGBT-discussion-paper.pdf (Accessed 10th March 2016).
Fox, J., and Warber, K.M. (2014), Queer Identity Management
and Political Self-Expression on Social Networking Sites: A Co-Cultural
Approach to the Spiral of Silence. Journal of Communication 65:79-100.
Goffman, E. (1967), Interaction Ritual: Essays on
Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1990), The Presentation of Everyday Life.
New edition. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Gordon, L.E. (2006), Bringing the U-Haul: Embracing and
Resisting Sexual Stereotypes in a Lesbian Community. Sexualities 9, No.
2:171-192.
Green, N. (1997), Beyond Being Digital: Representation and
Virtual Corporeality. In: D. Holmes (ed.), Virtual Politics: Identity &
Community in Cyberspace. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 59-78.
Haimson, O.L., Brubaker, J.R., Dombrowski, L., and Hayes,
G.R. (2015), Disclosure, Stress, and Support During Gender Transition on
Facebook. In: CSCW ’15 Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. Vancouver, BC: ACM, pp.
1176-1190. https://www.
researchgate.net/publication/281692999_Disclosure_Stress_and_Support_During_Gender_Transition_on_Facebook (Accessed 15th
March 2016).
Harding, S. (1993), Rethinking Standpoint Espistemology: What
Is ‘Strong Objectivity’? In: L. Alcoff., and E. Potter (eds.), Feminist
Epistemologies: (Thinking Gender). New York: Routledge, pp.49-82.
Harel, Y., Shechtman, Z., and Cutrona, C. (2012), Exploration
of Support Behavior in Counseling Groups With Counseling Trainees. The
Journal for Specialists in Group Work 37, No. 3:202-217.
Hill, M.S., and Fischer, A.R. (2007), Examining
Objectification Theory: Lesbian and Heterosexual Women’s Experiences With Sexual-
and Self-Objectification. The Counselling Psychologist 36, No.
5:745-776. .
Hohenstein, S. (2016), The Heroine and the Meme:
Participating in Feminist Discourses Online. Current Objectives of
Postgraduate American Studies 17, No. 1:1-23.
Holmes, D. (1997), Virtual Identity: Communities of
Broadcast, Communities of Interactivity. In: D. Holmes (ed.), Virtual
Politics: Identity & Community in Cyberspace. London: SAGE
Publications, pp. 26-45.
Kelly, K., and Gruenewald, J. (2015), Accomplishing
Masculinity through Anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Homicide: A
Comparative Case Study Approach. Men and Masculinities 18, No. 1:3-29.
Kenny, K., Whittle, A., and Willmott, H. (2011), Understanding
Identity & Organisations. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Know Your Meme (2016), Bye Felicia. Cheezburger Inc. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bye-felicia (Accessed 31st
October 2016).
Ko, H., Wang, L., and Xu, Y. (2013), Understanding the
Different Types of Social Support Offered by Audience to A-List Diary-Like and
Informative Bloggers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
16, No. 3:194-199.
Kozinets, R.V. (2010), Nethnography: Doing Ethnographic
Research Online. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Loomer, J. (2013), An Experiment: Testing Facebook’s News
Feed Filtering Algorithm. http://www.jonloomer.
com/2013/12/09/facebook-news-feed-filtering-organic-reach-down/ (Accessed 30th
September 2016).
Munro, E. (2013), Feminism: A Fourth Wave? Political
Insight 4, No. 2:22-25.
Oremus, W. (2016a), Facebook’s Five New Reaction Buttons:
Data, Data, Data, Data, and Data. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/02/24/facebook_s_5_new_reactions_buttons_are_all_about_data_data_data.html (Accessed 1st
October 2016).
Oremus, W. (2016b), Who Controls Your Facebook Feed: A
small team of engineers in Menlo Park. A panel of anonymous power users around
the world. And, increasingly you. http://www.slate.com/articles/
technology/cover_story/2016/01/how_facebook_s_news_feed_algorithm_works.html (Accessed 1st October
2016).
Popke, J. (2007), Geography and ethics: spaces of
cosmopolitan responsibility. Progress in Human Geography 31, No.
4:509-518.
Roosendaal, A. (2011), Facebook tracks and traces everyone:
Like this!.Tilburg Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series 3:1-9.
http://www.privacynieuws.nl/images/files/Working-Paper-Arnold-Roosendaal-SSRN.pdf (Accessed 3rd
October 2016).
Sassen, S. (2002), ‘Towards a Sociology of Information
Technology’. Current Sociology 50, No. 3:365-388.
Siebler, K. (2016), Lesbian Chic in the Digital World. In: K.
Siebler, Learning Queer Identity in the Digital Age. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan UK, pp. 65-95.
Silver, C., and Lewins, A. (2014), Using Software in
Qualitative Research: A step-by-step guide. 2nd edition. London:
SAGE.
Simpson, P. (2012), Perils, Precariousness and Pleasures:
Middle-Aged Gay Men Negotiating Urban ‘Heterospaces’. Sociological Research
Online 17, No. 3:23. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/ 17/3/23.html (Accessed 10th
March 2016).
Smith, M.P. (2002), ‘Power in Place: Retheorizing the Local
and the Global’. In: J. Lin., and C. Mele (eds., 2005), The Urban
Sociological Reader, London: Routledge, pp. 241-249.
Tomsen, S., and Mason, G. (2001), Engendering homophobia:
violence, sexuality and gender conformity. Journal of Sociology 37, No.
3:257-273.
Valentine, G. (1993), Desperately Seeking Susan: A Geography
of Lesbian Friendships. Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of
British Geographers) 25, No. 2:109-116.
Valentine, G., and Skelton, T. (2003), Finding Oneself,
Losing Oneself: The Lesbian and Gay ‘Scene’ as a Paradoxical Space. International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27, No. 4:849-866.
Walker, J.N.J., Golub, S.A., Bimbi, D.S., and Parsons, J.T.
(2012), Butch Bottom–Femme Top? An Exploration of Lesbian Stereotypes. Journal
of Lesbian Studies 16, No. 1:90-107.
Walther, J.B., and Boyd, S. (2002), Attraction to
Computer-Mediated Social Support. In: C.A. Lin., and D. Atkin (eds.), Communication
Technology and Society: Audience Adoption and Uses. Creskill, NJ: Hampton
Press, pp. 153-188.
Wellman, B. (2001), Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise
of Personalised Networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research 25:227-252.
Wilson, E. (1991), The Sphinx in the City. London:
Virago.
Zhang, S., Jiang, H., and Carroll, J.M. (2010), Social
Identity in Facebook Community Life. International Journal of Virtual
Communities and Social Networking 2, No. 4:66-78.
[1] HMU
is an acronym for: Hit Me Up. Generally used to get personal details in order
to start a relationship or meet up for sex.
[2] A
memorable quote from the 1995 comedy film Friday, signifying a
dismissive farewell - http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bye-felicia.
[3] Walker
et al. (2012, 91) explored lesbian stereotypes in their study and they describe
butch lesbians or ‘studs’ (the term used by and for women of colour) as
‘lesbians who present gender alongside the ‘masculine’ end of the gender
spectrum’ - also see Brambilla et al. (2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment