*Sorry guys. I posted this under the wrong class earlier this week because apparently I can't read.
Colin Worthley
ENG 5085
3/23/16
There has never been a point in our world’s history when people who are so physically separated have been so connected as right now. Unfortunately, this connectedness has not been able to reinforce what makes us all the same; rather, it seems to have highlighted our differences more than ever. danah boyd and Robert P. Jones discuss one reason for this: people who belong to certain racial groups, primarily whites, maintain social networks consisting of members of the same racial group. By having such homogeneity, whites find it difficult to understand minority perspectives.
Looking at the social networks of whites supports this claim of self-segregation. In “Self-Segregation: Why It’s So Hard for Whites to Understand Ferguson”, Jones finds that “[o]verall, the social networks of whites are a remarkable 91 percent white.” No other race accounts for more than 1 percent of the remaining network. More surprising still, Jones also states that 75 percent of whites have social networks made up entirely of whites. Such figures make it apparent that the lack of a relationship with minorities would prohibit whites from identifying with another race.
Jones discusses this to identify why there is such a disparity between how white and non-white Americans viewed the shooting of Michael Brown, a black teenager who was unarmed in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014. Prior to the shooting, 44 percent of whites felt that minorities received equal treatment in the criminal justice system. On the other hand, only 29 percent of non-whites felt the same. After the shooting, the gap widened. The number of whites responding positively to the same question had grown to 48 percent, and the number of non-whites dropped to 16 percent. Since whites have limited contact with minorities through social media, they then have a limited view into life as a minority, which possibly contributes to the disparity.
Another interesting statistic that Jones examines is a 2012 survey that found 75 percent of African Americans are more likely to choose “obedience” over “self-reliance” when given a choice of the two traits. When given the same choice, only 41 percent of white Americans chose “obedience.” This statistic does not provide proof that white Americans don’t understand the experience of many African Americans, but it does relate how the two view the world, and their place in it, differently.
boyd’s “White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook” reviews the history of MySpace and Facebook, and how teen preference reveals “[j]ust as physical spaces and tastes are organized around and shaped by race and class, so too are digital environments.” Thousands of profiles were analyzed and over 100 teens from 17 states were interviewed and observed over the course of six years to determine that social media is a reflection of American society.
Some adults were frightened by the potential dangers that MySpace posed. It was the first major social media site and teens now had access to strangers. Additionally, users were followers of indie-rock or hip-hop and the site spread through word-of-mouth. Suddenly teens had access to new people and experiences, scaring parents. When Facebook launched, it was “intentionally limited” to Ivy Leaguers and by the time it was available to the masses in 2006, it had achieved an “elite” status. It was trusted by more parents and viewed as “safe.”
boyd examines how, with both sites available, backgrounds affected which site was preferred by teens. MySpace was the preference of subculture teens while the mainstream gravitated to Facebook. Deeper than that, however, it was found that “black and Latino teens appeared to preference MySpace while white and Asian teens seemed to privilege Facebook.” boyd cites Moody (2001) and Thorne (2008) when pointing out that in diverse schools teens “often self-segregate by race”, mirroring what was happening online.
boyd provides many examples of teenagers explaining what their preferences are and why. While some, like Anastasia and Craig, sounded extremely elitist as to why they prefer Facebook (for “honors kids”, “higher castes”), most students had valid reasons for preferring one site to the other. Whether it was due to the user interface or just simply that it was the site their friends had chosen, a majority of the teens interviewed did not seem to indicate race as a reason for choosing or moving from one site to another.
Because MySpace was “a cultural center for youth culture”, involved parents did not like the wide range of backgrounds and moral codes their children now had access to. This, coupled with MySpace’s failure to stop “spammers and scammers” and the security attacks they presented, led many teens to leave MySpace for Facebook, which was considered a safer, less public platform.
boyd ends with an extended metaphor that compares MySpace to a ghetto and Facebook to the suburbs. She parallels white flight to the students who leave MySpace in favor of Facebook. In the end, it seems that there is more than just race that goes into preference of social media. As boyd herself puts it, “teens…self-segregate along the same lines that shape their social relations more broadly: race and ethnicity, socio-economic status, education goals, lifestyle, subcultural affiliation, social categories, etc.”
Discussion questions
3. Is boyd correct in her theory, or is the nature of social media that teenagers will always flock to the newest site, especially one that parents aren’t using?
4. Haven’t the hierarchies described in boyd’s article always existed in high school, just in different forms?
