12 November 2012


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

12 November 2012

  1. 1. Today’s Plan• Manago et al article – identity, looking-glass self – online/offline• Hegland and Nelson article – reading assignment question – queer politics, genderqueer• BREAK• Castells – mass self-communication – counter-power• wrap up and what is coming next
  2. 2. Manago et al article• what is different about online identity construction? – co-produced with others – ‘virtual applause’
  3. 3. from Wikipedia
  4. 4. Online/Offline• should we be surprised to see traditional gender norms reproduced online?• is the virtual male gaze worse online?• no accountability online?
  5. 5. What did Hegland and Nelson’s article tell us? • Community for cross-dressers • Find stores of others, tutorials • Internet as positive space • Cross-dresser consultants • To pass in public – alter voice • Explored differences between sexuality and gender • Anonymity – support system online; not out offline • Pictures – space to share story • Coming out, first time cross-dressing • Projecting femininity and feminine gender norms • Acts as component of femininity (what it is to be a woman for these individuals • what dose the male gaze mean
  6. 6. Hegland and Nelson Critiques• only MtF• “I felt that their comments relating to male-to- female cross dressers embodying stereotypical views of femininity, which feminists seek to dismantle was an erasure of female and femme-identified queers who have found empowerment through being hyper- feminine.”
  7. 7. Hegland and Nelson article This article could certainly do with beingtranslated into our current dynamics around queer politics. Can you apply any of theconclusions reached here to the potential of social media for the expression of a genderqueer identity?
  8. 8. QUEER POLITICS• what might we mean by queer politics?• Politics without binaries – Fluidity of gender and sexuality – Denouncing specific labels (gender pronouns – he/she; heterosexual/homosexual)• Heteronormativity and homonormativty• Compulsory heterosexuality – everything we buy; assumed we are hetero so we have to come out; opposite of queer politics
  9. 9. “a colloquial or community term that describessomeone who identifies as a gender other than‘man’ or ‘woman’, or someone who identifies asneither, both, or some combination thereof. Inrelation to the male/female genderqueer peoplegenerally identify as more ‘both/and’ or‘neither/nor’, rather than ‘either/or’. Somegenderqueer people may identify as a thirdgender in addition to the traditional two. Thecommonality is that all genderqueer people areambivalent about the notion that there are onlytwo genders in the world.” (Rooke 2010:667)
  10. 10. • web 1.0 versus web 2.0 – what impact does this have? – greater potential for community with 2.0?• safety changed with advent of social media?• is anonymity equated with safety?
  11. 11. Castells• information and communication are vital sources of: – power – counter-power – domination – social change• connected to how we think; how we socially construct norms and values
  12. 12. Power• “the structural capacity of a social actor to impose its will over other social actor(s)” (239) Counter-Power • “the capacity of a social actor to resist and challenge power relations that are institutionalized” (239)
  13. 13. 91% of the links originating within either the conservativeor liberal communities stay within that community
  14. 14. Castells• media = social space where power is decided – define boundaries – infinite capacity to integrate & exclude• electronically processed information networks – organizing form of life, including social life – social networks process and manage information using technologies• interactive, horizontal networks – mass self-communication – disrupt top-down, vertical traditional media
  15. 15. mass self-communication• “new form of socialized communication”• “mass communication because it reaches potentially a global audience”• multimodal• “self-generated in content, self-directed in emission, and self-selected in reception by many that communicate with many” (Castells, 248)
  16. 16. Castells• production of meaning in the public mind – power holders are entering the battle in horizontal communication networks – networks make possible: • unlimited diversity • largely autonomous origin• sociability is transformed – individual-centered culture + need and desire for sharing and co-experiencing
  17. 17. Wajcman critiques Castells• common theme: “everything in the digital future will be different” – what about the social relations of gender?• “optimistic commentators on the digital revolution promise freedom, empowerment and wealth” BUT “rarely any consciousness of the relationship between technology and gender” – “oblivious to the fact that men still dominate scientific and technological fields and institutions”• “to be in command of the very latest technology signifies a greater involvement in, if not power over, the future”• feminist scholarship “identified womens absence from these spheres of influence as a key feature of gender power relations” Technofeminism, pgs 11-12
  18. 18. Test YourselfWhich of the following could be classified asmass self-communication?① an email from you to me about your essay② a video you take on your phone and upload to YouTube③ the television show Girls④ all of the above⑤ none of the above
  19. 19. Test YourselfWhich of the following could be classified asmass self-communication?① e-newsletter from a non-profit organization② character in Second Life③ YouTube video④ all of the above⑤ none of the above
  20. 20. Week Ten: Places and Spaces• Marwick, Alice E. and danah boyd. 2011. “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media and Society 13:96-113. (M)• Wakeford, Nina. 2000. “Cyberqueer.” Pp. 403-415 in The Cybercultures Reader, edited by David Bell and Barbara M. Kennedy. New York: Routledge. (M)• Rooke, Alison. 2010. “Trans Youth, Science and Art: Creating (Trans) Gendered Space.” Gender, Place and Culture 17(5):655-672.