Re: [Air-l] teens and myspace
My sense if that if it is dependent on all these things, then the notion that "kids today" view online interaction as completely nonstigmatic is a problematic notion. I'm not suggesting that youth don't USE all this stuff -- it's evident that they do and that they are into it. My 9 year old son lives on Runescape whenever he can (playing, for the most part, with the playground crowd from his school). What I am talking about is more like this -- when I interviewed college students a few years ago (before they were all "addicted" -- their own term -- to facebook), the people who rarely used the net socially were very happy to say that those who did things like IM with roomates were "pathetic." The ones who did IM roomates said they did it, but viewed themselves (or at least said they did) as "geeky," "pathetic," and other derogatory terms for doing so. Whether they were really stigmatizing their own internet use, or were responding to a sense that they *should* stigmatize it I don't know. Were these college kids the last generation to think there was anything wrong with what they did (and enjoyed doing) online?
Don't want to play the killjoy here, but aren't our answers related to [and dependent on]:
- age [teen is broad] - technological proximity [demand] and design [offer] - gender [relatively self-explanatory] - size and nature of existing social networks [directly related to Andrea's point] - topic and nature of discussion [soap talk vs. sport talk vs. me talk] - class [oh, yes, kids form different classes use and think of the Internet, and other ICTs, in different ways]
La differance?
Cheers
Wainer
PS My bongo-bongo students seem pretty uncomfortable with online chats, but well into other electronic mediations [but hey, this is CH1 Britain]
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Kavanaugh Sent: 28 February 2006 15:24 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] teens and myspace
I think kids are comfortable because they are generally more likely to be writing to people they know from face-to-face relationships than are adults.
At 10:10 AM 2/28/2006, you wrote:
I have a question for those of you working with youth culture, particularly but not just around MySpace.
I have been interested recently by what I perceive as a gap between the ways in which most of us *use* the internet socially (ie, often without big issues about it) and the way we *think* about using the internet socially (ie, a poor substitute for more meaningful face-to-face interaction). Recently a number of adults have said to me that this gap between action and perception, which they acknowledge in themselves, is completely gone with teens, what with myspace and all.
My question is whether youth really perceive their online communication to be completely non-problematic compared to face-to-face communication, or if even amongst teens there is a sense that it might be a little pathetic or embarrassing to use the internet socially (even amongst those who do). Is the stigma around online socializing really completely gone for youth? Of course, adults always perceive kids as way better and more comfortable with the net than they are, which makes me wonder if this sense that kids have no sense of stigma is adult perception vs youth reality.
Thanks for your thoughts, Nancy _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Uhm, pretty complicated, and equally fascinating, as the both the source act of 'stigmatization' and the stigmatization may well be part of the performance, or even be constitutive of the performing aspects of 'new media'. Would this happen with previous media, which did not 'request' that kids [and adults for that matter] actually engaged? Further trick is the 'interview as performance' context, which adds complexity. [I remember one study by Maren Hartmann based on youth interviewing youth concerning mobile phone use / meaning]. And going back to previous idea, can we flatten technologies / contexts, or are these significant to the performance element? Just a thought WL
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Nancy Baym Sent: 28 February 2006 15:46 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] teens and myspace
My sense if that if it is dependent on all these things, then the notion that "kids today" view online interaction as completely nonstigmatic is a problematic notion.
I'm not suggesting that youth don't USE all this stuff -- it's evident that they do and that they are into it. My 9 year old son lives on Runescape whenever he can (playing, for the most part, with the playground crowd from his school).
What I am talking about is more like this -- when I interviewed college students a few years ago (before they were all "addicted" -- their own term -- to facebook), the people who rarely used the net socially were very happy to say that those who did things like IM with roomates were "pathetic." The ones who did IM roomates said they did it, but viewed themselves (or at least said they did) as "geeky," "pathetic," and other derogatory terms for doing so. Whether they were really stigmatizing their own internet use, or were responding to a sense that they *should* stigmatize it I don't know.
Were these college kids the last generation to think there was anything wrong with what they did (and enjoyed doing) online?
Don't want to play the killjoy here, but aren't our answers related to [and dependent on]:
- age [teen is broad] - technological proximity [demand] and design [offer] - gender [relatively self-explanatory] - size and nature of existing social networks [directly related to Andrea's point] - topic and nature of discussion [soap talk vs. sport talk vs. me talk] - class [oh, yes, kids form different classes use and think of the Internet, and other ICTs, in different ways]
La differance?
Cheers
Wainer
PS My bongo-bongo students seem pretty uncomfortable with online chats, but well into other electronic mediations [but hey, this is CH1 Britain]
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Kavanaugh Sent: 28 February 2006 15:24 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] teens and myspace
I think kids are comfortable because they are generally more likely to be writing to people they know from face-to-face relationships than are adults.
At 10:10 AM 2/28/2006, you wrote:
I have a question for those of you working with youth culture, particularly but not just around MySpace.
I have been interested recently by what I perceive as a gap between the ways in which most of us *use* the internet socially (ie, often without big issues about it) and the way we *think* about using the internet socially (ie, a poor substitute for more meaningful face-to-face interaction). Recently a number of adults have said to me that this gap between action and perception, which they acknowledge in themselves, is completely gone with teens, what with myspace and all.
My question is whether youth really perceive their online communication to be completely non-problematic compared to face-to-face communication, or if even amongst teens there is a sense that it might be a little pathetic or embarrassing to use the internet socially (even amongst those who do). Is the stigma around online socializing really completely gone for youth? Of course, adults always perceive kids as way better and more comfortable with the net than they are, which makes me wonder if this sense that kids have no sense of stigma is adult perception vs youth reality.
Thanks for your thoughts, Nancy _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I know what you mean - but what I am trying to say is that they are comfortable AND savvy a lot of the times. At least the groups of young people negotiating online environments in their everyday. that's what I meant by us being out of touch if we did not go "there" - not just that there exists a "facebook" or "myspace" - but that the particular interface is inhabited in particular ways. These kids have done their own kinds of "ethnographies" over the years and gained an understanding. that is not to say that harms and risks dont exist - but some versions of these exist offline, on the streets, amongst groups of peers in various ways too. r At 09:45 AM 2/28/2006 -0600, you wrote:
My sense if that if it is dependent on all these things, then the notion that "kids today" view online interaction as completely nonstigmatic is a problematic notion.
I'm not suggesting that youth don't USE all this stuff -- it's evident that they do and that they are into it. My 9 year old son lives on Runescape whenever he can (playing, for the most part, with the playground crowd from his school).
What I am talking about is more like this -- when I interviewed college students a few years ago (before they were all "addicted" -- their own term -- to facebook), the people who rarely used the net socially were very happy to say that those who did things like IM with roomates were "pathetic." The ones who did IM roomates said they did it, but viewed themselves (or at least said they did) as "geeky," "pathetic," and other derogatory terms for doing so. Whether they were really stigmatizing their own internet use, or were responding to a sense that they *should* stigmatize it I don't know.
Were these college kids the last generation to think there was anything wrong with what they did (and enjoyed doing) online?
Don't want to play the killjoy here, but aren't our answers related to [and dependent on]:
- age [teen is broad] - technological proximity [demand] and design [offer] - gender [relatively self-explanatory] - size and nature of existing social networks [directly related to Andrea's point] - topic and nature of discussion [soap talk vs. sport talk vs. me talk] - class [oh, yes, kids form different classes use and think of the Internet, and other ICTs, in different ways]
La differance?
Cheers
Wainer
PS My bongo-bongo students seem pretty uncomfortable with online chats, but well into other electronic mediations [but hey, this is CH1 Britain]
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Kavanaugh Sent: 28 February 2006 15:24 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] teens and myspace
I think kids are comfortable because they are generally more likely to be writing to people they know from face-to-face relationships than are adults.
At 10:10 AM 2/28/2006, you wrote:
I have a question for those of you working with youth culture, particularly but not just around MySpace.
I have been interested recently by what I perceive as a gap between the ways in which most of us *use* the internet socially (ie, often without big issues about it) and the way we *think* about using the internet socially (ie, a poor substitute for more meaningful face-to-face interaction). Recently a number of adults have said to me that this gap between action and perception, which they acknowledge in themselves, is completely gone with teens, what with myspace and all.
My question is whether youth really perceive their online communication to be completely non-problematic compared to face-to-face communication, or if even amongst teens there is a sense that it might be a little pathetic or embarrassing to use the internet socially (even amongst those who do). Is the stigma around online socializing really completely gone for youth? Of course, adults always perceive kids as way better and more comfortable with the net than they are, which makes me wonder if this sense that kids have no sense of stigma is adult perception vs youth reality.
Thanks for your thoughts, Nancy _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
The "generation" concept is interesting. We had a discussion last night in my New Com Techs and Society class about MySpace/Facebook. My students are grad students, but have gone straight to grad school from undergrad, so they're in their early/mid 20s. They admit being "addicted," but also considered it a juvenile pursuit; they were embarrassed to say they were members of that community. Is Facebooking just another thing that "kids" grow out of? JS On Feb 28, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Nancy Baym wrote:
My sense if that if it is dependent on all these things, then the notion that "kids today" view online interaction as completely nonstigmatic is a problematic notion.
I'm not suggesting that youth don't USE all this stuff -- it's evident that they do and that they are into it. My 9 year old son lives on Runescape whenever he can (playing, for the most part, with the playground crowd from his school).
What I am talking about is more like this -- when I interviewed college students a few years ago (before they were all "addicted" -- their own term -- to facebook), the people who rarely used the net socially were very happy to say that those who did things like IM with roomates were "pathetic." The ones who did IM roomates said they did it, but viewed themselves (or at least said they did) as "geeky," "pathetic," and other derogatory terms for doing so. Whether they were really stigmatizing their own internet use, or were responding to a sense that they *should* stigmatize it I don't know.
Were these college kids the last generation to think there was anything wrong with what they did (and enjoyed doing) online?
Don't want to play the killjoy here, but aren't our answers related to [and dependent on]:
- age [teen is broad] - technological proximity [demand] and design [offer] - gender [relatively self-explanatory] - size and nature of existing social networks [directly related to Andrea's point] - topic and nature of discussion [soap talk vs. sport talk vs. me talk] - class [oh, yes, kids form different classes use and think of the Internet, and other ICTs, in different ways]
La differance?
Cheers
Wainer
PS My bongo-bongo students seem pretty uncomfortable with online chats, but well into other electronic mediations [but hey, this is CH1 Britain]
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Kavanaugh Sent: 28 February 2006 15:24 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] teens and myspace
I think kids are comfortable because they are generally more likely to be writing to people they know from face-to-face relationships than are adults.
At 10:10 AM 2/28/2006, you wrote:
I have a question for those of you working with youth culture, particularly but not just around MySpace.
I have been interested recently by what I perceive as a gap between the ways in which most of us *use* the internet socially (ie, often without big issues about it) and the way we *think* about using the internet socially (ie, a poor substitute for more meaningful face-to-face interaction). Recently a number of adults have said to me that this gap between action and perception, which they acknowledge in themselves, is completely gone with teens, what with myspace and all.
My question is whether youth really perceive their online communication to be completely non-problematic compared to face-to-face communication, or if even amongst teens there is a sense that it might be a little pathetic or embarrassing to use the internet socially (even amongst those who do). Is the stigma around online socializing really completely gone for youth? Of course, adults always perceive kids as way better and more comfortable with the net than they are, which makes me wonder if this sense that kids have no sense of stigma is adult perception vs youth reality.
Thanks for your thoughts, Nancy _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
--------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Jamie S. Switzer Assistant Professor Department of Journalism and Technical Communication Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523-1785 970.491.2239 fax 970.491.2908 jamie.switzer@colostate.edu
The "generation" concept is interesting. We had a discussion last night in my New Com Techs and Society class about MySpace/Facebook. My students are grad students, but have gone straight to grad school from undergrad, so they're in their early/mid 20s. They admit being "addicted," but also considered it a juvenile pursuit; they were embarrassed to say they were members of that community.
Is Facebooking just another thing that "kids" grow out of? JS
This adds a whole other dimension to the issue -- for instance, many of the students I interviewed described instant messaging disdainfully as "so teenage" and were proud of themselves for maturing enough to use it less, which I think sheds a different light on recent findings that young people are using IM and not email. It's the embarrassment factor that interests me. Do teens feel or express no embarrassment about their online socializing? If not, will they come to as they age or are the days of being embarrassed about online socializing over? I appreciate Andrea's comments about the granularity, that it's differentiating amongst online pursuits that is important, rather than online versus offline. I do think though that this is true for adults as well -- adults are less embarrassed or ashamed when they talk about maintaining mailing lists to keep the extended family in touch, for instance, than they are when they talk about, say, spending time on discussion boards with people they don't know offline. For most adults though, the online/offline distinction (false as we net scholars know it to be) is still perceptually salient. If that is not the case for youth, that's really interesting, and does raise the question of whether it's a distinction that will no longer be relevant to anyone in a few years time, or whether they will eventually come to see a difference as they age and the social norms surrounding their interactions evolve accordingly.
Nancy Baym wrote:
Is Facebooking just another thing that "kids" grow out of? JS
This adds a whole other dimension to the issue -- for instance, many of the students I interviewed described instant messaging disdainfully as "so teenage" and were proud of themselves for maturing enough to use it less, which I think sheds a different light on recent findings that young people are using IM and not email.
My undergrad seniors in an Advanced Research Methods seminar meet on Monday evenings, and we are working on a facebook study. Last night they were lamenting the announcement by facebook.com that the barrier between high school and college facebook domains is being brought down. Their consensus is that a bunch of high school kids running around among the college crowd, making "friend" requests is going to be the death of facebook. The college crew will move elsewhere to avoid the younger participants. So there's a generational component, a desire for a certain exclusivity, but I wonder if there isn't also a fad component. Facebook is "in" right now. Everyone on campus is doing it. But once it goes mainstream and is no longer a site of campus identity (and, God forbid, once faculty start showing up), it's time for a new fad. -- Mark D. Johns, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Communication Studies Luther College, Decorah, Iowa http://academic.luther.edu/~johnsmar/ ----------------------------------------------- "Get the facts first. You can distort them later." ---Mark Twain
I also think these issues are fascinating. A few more thoughts: From doing interviews with young people who frequently use the Internet and Cell Phones, I’m noticing that young people tend not to think of 'online', e.g.as a poor substitute for meaningful face to face interactions, but that they are in the process of integrating the technologies into their lives as different forms of interaction and communication. The opportunities and drawbacks are recognized and appreciated differently depending on who you talk to and their life contexts. Being together in a group was still talked about as a richer and preferred means of hanging out, with IM or cell communication often used to organize these. What communication medium to choose, when to use it, what to say and how to say it, seemed to emerge from the interaction of many different factors, like location (school, home, on the road, etc.), purpose, their relationships with the other people and their own personal preferences. Embarassment seemed to pop up, when the use didn't really "fit" - for example, when the cell phone goes off in class or movie theatre and everybody turns around and looks. It will be interesting to follow, how and if these situations will change. mechthild ********************************** Mechthild Maczewski Interdisciplinary PhD Student School of Child and Youth Care & Department of Computer Science University of Victoria, BC, Canada Nancy Baym wrote:
The "generation" concept is interesting. We had a discussion last night in my New Com Techs and Society class about MySpace/Facebook. My students are grad students, but have gone straight to grad school from undergrad, so they're in their early/mid 20s. They admit being "addicted," but also considered it a juvenile pursuit; they were embarrassed to say they were members of that community.
Is Facebooking just another thing that "kids" grow out of? JS
This adds a whole other dimension to the issue -- for instance, many of the students I interviewed described instant messaging disdainfully as "so teenage" and were proud of themselves for maturing enough to use it less, which I think sheds a different light on recent findings that young people are using IM and not email.
It's the embarrassment factor that interests me. Do teens feel or express no embarrassment about their online socializing? If not, will they come to as they age or are the days of being embarrassed about online socializing over?
I appreciate Andrea's comments about the granularity, that it's differentiating amongst online pursuits that is important, rather than online versus offline. I do think though that this is true for adults as well -- adults are less embarrassed or ashamed when they talk about maintaining mailing lists to keep the extended family in touch, for instance, than they are when they talk about, say, spending time on discussion boards with people they don't know offline. For most adults though, the online/offline distinction (false as we net scholars know it to be) is still perceptually salient. If that is not the case for youth, that's really interesting, and does raise the question of whether it's a distinction that will no longer be relevant to anyone in a few years time, or whether they will eventually come to see a difference as they age and the social norms surrounding their interactions evolve accordingly. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
Sounds like the young folks have an unemcumbered, objective understanding of the medium: "simply" a different form of interaction contextually integrated into their lives. Horrah! :) -eg
-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Mechthild Maczewski Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 10:11 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] teens and myspace
I also think these issues are fascinating. A few more thoughts:
From doing interviews with young people who frequently use the Internet and Cell Phones, I'm noticing that young people tend not to think of 'online', e.g.as a poor substitute for meaningful face to face interactions, but that they are in the process of integrating the technologies into their lives as different forms of interaction and communication. The opportunities and drawbacks are recognized and appreciated differently depending on who you talk to and their life contexts. Being together in a group was still talked about as a richer and preferred means of hanging out, with IM or cell communication often used to organize these.
What communication medium to choose, when to use it, what to say and how to say it, seemed to emerge from the interaction of many different factors, like location (school, home, on the road, etc.), purpose, their relationships with the other people and their own personal preferences. Embarassment seemed to pop up, when the use didn't really "fit" - for example, when the cell phone goes off in class or movie theatre and everybody turns around and looks. It will be interesting to follow, how and if these situations will change.
mechthild
********************************** Mechthild Maczewski Interdisciplinary PhD Student School of Child and Youth Care & Department of Computer Science University of Victoria, BC, Canada
Nancy Baym wrote:
The "generation" concept is interesting. We had a discussion last night in my New Com Techs and Society class about MySpace/Facebook. My students are grad students, but have gone straight to grad school from undergrad, so they're in their early/mid 20s. They admit being "addicted," but also considered it a juvenile pursuit; they were embarrassed to say they were members of that community.
Is Facebooking just another thing that "kids" grow out of? JS
This adds a whole other dimension to the issue -- for instance, many of the students I interviewed described instant messaging disdainfully as "so teenage" and were proud of themselves for maturing enough to use it less, which I think sheds a different light on recent findings that young people are using IM and not email.
It's the embarrassment factor that interests me. Do teens feel or express no embarrassment about their online socializing? If not, will they come to as they age or are the days of being embarrassed about online socializing over?
I appreciate Andrea's comments about the granularity, that it's differentiating amongst online pursuits that is important, rather than online versus offline. I do think though that this is true for adults as well -- adults are less embarrassed or ashamed when they talk about maintaining mailing lists to keep the extended family in touch, for instance, than they are when they talk about, say, spending time on discussion boards with people they don't know offline. For most adults though, the online/offline distinction (false as we net scholars know it to be) is still perceptually salient. If that is not the case for youth, that's really interesting, and does raise the question of whether it's a distinction that will no longer be relevant to anyone in a few years time, or whether they will eventually come to see a difference as they age and the social norms surrounding their interactions evolve accordingly. _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
I'm also wary of lumping a mess of users into a "kids today" group that doesn't consider at least a few social variables. From what I've seen, I think shared ideologies about a medium is something to add to this list - you can find users on livejournal who think that sitting on myspace is completely lame or embrassing (or, to quote a few users, "totally gay"), but reading and commenting on their friend's LJ diaries is a perfectly fine way to spend an afternoon. And like Wainer mentioned, some media just seem less acceptable overall - I'd say chats and MUDs fall in there with most American youth. Unless we're just talking about very general attitudes towards social interaction over the internet. Is that what we're talking about? Joshua Joshua Raclaw Dept of Linguistics University of Colorado Quoting Nancy Baym <nbaym@ku.edu>: * My sense if that if it is dependent on all these things, then the * notion that "kids today" view online interaction as completely * nonstigmatic is a problematic notion. * * I'm not suggesting that youth don't USE all this stuff -- it's * evident that they do and that they are into it. My 9 year old son * lives on Runescape whenever he can (playing, for the most part, with * the playground crowd from his school). * * What I am talking about is more like this -- when I interviewed * college students a few years ago (before they were all "addicted" -- * their own term -- to facebook), the people who rarely used the net * socially were very happy to say that those who did things like IM * with roomates were "pathetic." The ones who did IM roomates said they * did it, but viewed themselves (or at least said they did) as "geeky," * "pathetic," and other derogatory terms for doing so. Whether they * were really stigmatizing their own internet use, or were responding * to a sense that they *should* stigmatize it I don't know. * * Were these college kids the last generation to think there was * anything wrong with what they did (and enjoyed doing) online? * * * * * * >Don't want to play the killjoy here, but aren't our answers related to * >[and dependent on]: * > * >- age [teen is broad] * >- technological proximity [demand] and design [offer] * >- gender [relatively self-explanatory] * >- size and nature of existing social networks [directly related to * >Andrea's point] * >- topic and nature of discussion [soap talk vs. sport talk vs. me talk] * >- class [oh, yes, kids form different classes use and think of the * >Internet, and other ICTs, in different ways] * > * >La differance? * > * >Cheers * > * >Wainer * > * >PS My bongo-bongo students seem pretty uncomfortable with online chats, * >but well into other electronic mediations [but hey, this is CH1 Britain] * > * >> -----Original Message----- * >> From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org * >> [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Kavanaugh * >> Sent: 28 February 2006 15:24 * >> To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org * >> Subject: Re: [Air-l] teens and myspace * >> * >> * >> I think kids are comfortable because they are generally more likely * >> to be writing to people they know from face-to-face relationships * >> than are adults. * >> * >> At 10:10 AM 2/28/2006, you wrote: * >> >I have a question for those of you working with youth culture, * >> >particularly but not just around MySpace. * >> > * >> >I have been interested recently by what I perceive as a gap between * >> >the ways in which most of us *use* the internet socially (ie, often * >> >without big issues about it) and the way we *think* about using the * >> >internet socially (ie, a poor substitute for more meaningful * >> >face-to-face interaction). Recently a number of adults have said to * >> >me that this gap between action and perception, which they * >> >acknowledge in themselves, is completely gone with teens, what with * >> >myspace and all. * >> > * >> >My question is whether youth really perceive their online * >> >communication to be completely non-problematic compared to * >> >face-to-face communication, or if even amongst teens there is a sense * >> >that it might be a little pathetic or embarrassing to use the * >> >internet socially (even amongst those who do). Is the stigma around * >> >online socializing really completely gone for youth? Of course, * >> >adults always perceive kids as way better and more comfortable with * >> >the net than they are, which makes me wonder if this sense that kids * >> >have no sense of stigma is adult perception vs youth reality. * >> > * >> >Thanks for your thoughts, * >> >Nancy * >> >_______________________________________________ * >> >The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list * >> >is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers * >http://aoir.org * >>Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: * >>http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org * >> * >>Join the Association of Internet Researchers: * >>http://www.aoir.org/ * > * >_______________________________________________ * >The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list * >is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org * >Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: * >http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org * > * >Join the Association of Internet Researchers: * >http://www.aoir.org/ * > * >_______________________________________________ * >The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list * >is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org * >Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: * >http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org * > * >Join the Association of Internet Researchers: * >http://www.aoir.org/ * * _______________________________________________ * The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list * is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org * Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: * http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org * * Join the Association of Internet Researchers: * http://www.aoir.org/ *
Unless we're just talking about very general attitudes towards social interaction over the internet. Is that what we're talking about?
That's what I'm asking about. The suggestion that has been made to me repeatedly is that "kids today" (their term, not mine!) do not have a general attitude about social interaction over the internet that is more negative than their general attitude about face-to-face social interaction. I am not talking about how they use the internet socially, which I recognize is multifaceted and highly nuanced (as it is for adults as well). I am talking about cultural-level schema for understanding online socializing in the most general terms -- or to use Joshua's term, is the stigmatization of online interaction not present in the "shared ideology" of young people? Though that's the level at which I'm inquiring, I'm enjoying reading these more fine-grained analyses.
Sorry for this long response, but there's already been quite a lot to respond to! To Nancy's main point - it seems there IS still some stigma to online interaction that views it as not being entirely "real," even amongst heavy users, but I'm not sure how far down in age this goes. On sites like Friendster or Myspace, people use them emphatically but then often make explicitly negative commentary in their profiles, in testimonials/comments/wall posts, or more subtle commentary through use of ironic emoticons or sarcasm - to show that they *know* that what's online is not their *whole* world, or at least not their whole "REAL" world. I'm thinking of Alice Marlow's paper from AoIR in Chicago and what she called "authentic-ironic" as a kind of Friendster profile: these are people who use the system but for self-presentational purposes, also remain detached from it. Whether this applies to people younger than and equal to teens though, in addition to people in their 20s (my demographic), I'm not sure of. I have a hunch that it does apply to some extent - but if it doesn't, or if it applies less to younger age groups, it can have something to do simply with saturation and integration, as Nancy alluded to somewhere up in this discussion. People in their 20s have experienced life (however long ago it may have seemed, and however distant a way of life it now feels) without the internet, without email, IM, or Myspace. People in their teens and younger, for the most part, have not. I would expect that to have grown up immersed in a technology, rather than constantly working to integrate it, has a great effect on how one then views that technology's relationship to one's daily life and how one compares social interaction with/through it to other forms of interaction. Seems it also has to do with whether there's a sense of how connected online practices are to offline practices. Facebook, for instance, seems to be very connected (rooted, even) to the offline. LJ, probably usually less so. Nancy, you wrote: "Whether they were really stigmatizing their own internet use, or were responding to a sense that they *should* stigmatize it I don't know." I'm not sure there's a difference. If you think you *should* stigmatize it, then it seems it's stigmatized. The point about different applications is critical - for some groups, LJ may not be a "cool" place to hang out online whereas AIM is. Like Starbucks is not, but the mall is. And what you value (as Kevin said) or what your ideologies are (as Joshua said) also depend on your social networks - a particular group of users could think Myspace is cool but (as Demetri Martin so eloquently put it on the Daily Show) Friendster "got kinda gay." So many variables. Also, FWIW, there's much to look at with how Media's representation of new media affects/reflects users' perceptions of it. What other media are young people consuming, and what does that media tell them about internet spaces? (Demetri Martin piece on Myspace, example case in point.) Lauren -- lauren m. squires lx: http://polyglotconspiracy.net cmc: http://sociocmc.blogspot.com
Whoops - I meant Marwick, not Marlow. Sorry Alice!
Hi Nancy and others I think the answer to this has to be more nuanced. For an example, my interviews with both families and young people between between 12 and 18 suggest that it depends on the application. For instance, use of chat rooms is thought to be 'sad' due to the suggestion that you have no offline friends of your own to talk to, whilst IM is 'cool' particularly having a large contact list. Also, there's a useful chapter which touches on this in Cyberkids - Sarah Holloway and Gill Valentine, specifically about how young girls may perform gender by positioning themselves as being for/against internet use (if my memory serves). I've seen this in my own research too. Sue -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Lauren M. Squires Sent: 28 February 2006 18:18 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] teens and myspace Sorry for this long response, but there's already been quite a lot to respond to! To Nancy's main point - it seems there IS still some stigma to online interaction that views it as not being entirely "real," even amongst heavy users, but I'm not sure how far down in age this goes. On sites like Friendster or Myspace, people use them emphatically but then often make explicitly negative commentary in their profiles, in testimonials/comments/wall posts, or more subtle commentary through use of ironic emoticons or sarcasm - to show that they *know* that what's online is not their *whole* world, or at least not their whole "REAL" world. I'm thinking of Alice Marlow's paper from AoIR in Chicago and what she called "authentic-ironic" as a kind of Friendster profile: these are people who use the system but for self-presentational purposes, also remain detached from it. Whether this applies to people younger than and equal to teens though, in addition to people in their 20s (my demographic), I'm not sure of. I have a hunch that it does apply to some extent - but if it doesn't, or if it applies less to younger age groups, it can have something to do simply with saturation and integration, as Nancy alluded to somewhere up in this discussion. People in their 20s have experienced life (however long ago it may have seemed, and however distant a way of life it now feels) without the internet, without email, IM, or Myspace. People in their teens and younger, for the most part, have not. I would expect that to have grown up immersed in a technology, rather than constantly working to integrate it, has a great effect on how one then views that technology's relationship to one's daily life and how one compares social interaction with/through it to other forms of interaction. Seems it also has to do with whether there's a sense of how connected online practices are to offline practices. Facebook, for instance, seems to be very connected (rooted, even) to the offline. LJ, probably usually less so. Nancy, you wrote: "Whether they were really stigmatizing their own internet use, or were responding to a sense that they *should* stigmatize it I don't know." I'm not sure there's a difference. If you think you *should* stigmatize it, then it seems it's stigmatized. The point about different applications is critical - for some groups, LJ may not be a "cool" place to hang out online whereas AIM is. Like Starbucks is not, but the mall is. And what you value (as Kevin said) or what your ideologies are (as Joshua said) also depend on your social networks - a particular group of users could think Myspace is cool but (as Demetri Martin so eloquently put it on the Daily Show) Friendster "got kinda gay." So many variables. Also, FWIW, there's much to look at with how Media's representation of new media affects/reflects users' perceptions of it. What other media are young people consuming, and what does that media tell them about internet spaces? (Demetri Martin piece on Myspace, example case in point.) Lauren -- lauren m. squires lx: http://polyglotconspiracy.net cmc: http://sociocmc.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
On 28/02/06, Sue Cranmer <sue@jcranmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Also, there's a useful chapter which touches on this in Cyberkids - Sarah Holloway and Gill Valentine, specifically about how young girls may perform gender by positioning themselves as being for/against internet use (if my memory serves). I've seen this in my own research too.
Please could you explain what is meant in this context by 'perform gender' ?
Holloway and Valentine are referring to gender in the ideological or performative sense - gender being seen as something you accomplish socially rather than some inherent quality about you. Hence the 'doing' a gender rather than, say, 'being' a gender. It cuts the assumption that one's phenotypal sex (physiology, hormones, chromosomes) is tied directly to one's gender identity. That was oversimplified as anything, but hopefully it helped? Joshua Joshua Raclaw Dept of Linguistics University of Colorado Quoting Andy Roberts <aroberts@gmail.com>: * On 28/02/06, Sue Cranmer <sue@jcranmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: * > Also, there's a useful chapter which touches on this in * > Cyberkids - Sarah Holloway and Gill Valentine, specifically about how young * > girls may perform gender by positioning themselves as being for/against * > internet use (if my memory serves). I've seen this in my own research too. * * Please could you explain what is meant in this context by 'perform gender' ? * _______________________________________________ * The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list * is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org * Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: * http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org * * Join the Association of Internet Researchers: * http://www.aoir.org/ *
Oh, I should probably put that more into context. So based on that conceptualization of gender, what the analysis is saying is that the girls are indexing femaleness (or 'performing' a female identity) by adopting a stance that's for or against internet use. Joshua Joshua Raclaw Dept of Linguistics University of Colorado Quoting joshua raclaw <Joshua.Raclaw@colorado.edu>: * Holloway and Valentine are referring to gender in the ideological or * performative sense - gender being seen as something you accomplish socially * rather than some inherent quality about you. Hence the 'doing' a gender * rather than, say, 'being' a gender. It cuts the assumption that one's * phenotypal sex (physiology, hormones, chromosomes) is tied directly to one's * gender identity. * * That was oversimplified as anything, but hopefully it helped? * * Joshua * * * * Joshua Raclaw * Dept of Linguistics * University of Colorado * * Quoting Andy Roberts <aroberts@gmail.com>: * * * On 28/02/06, Sue Cranmer <sue@jcranmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: * * > Also, there's a useful chapter which touches on this in * * > Cyberkids - Sarah Holloway and Gill Valentine, specifically about how * young * * > girls may perform gender by positioning themselves as being for/against * * > internet use (if my memory serves). I've seen this in my own research * too. * * * * Please could you explain what is meant in this context by 'perform gender' * ? * * _______________________________________________ * * The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list * * is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org * * Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: * * http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org * * * * Join the Association of Internet Researchers: * * http://www.aoir.org/ * * * _______________________________________________ * The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list * is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org * Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: * http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org * * Join the Association of Internet Researchers: * http://www.aoir.org/ *
Thanks Joshua, hopefully that makes what I meant clearer, Andy. Sorry if I was being woolly- just spent a hard day interviewing teens about their internet, mobile phone and computer gaming! Fascinating but exhausting. Sue -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of joshua raclaw Sent: 28 February 2006 21:19 To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] teens and myspace Oh, I should probably put that more into context. So based on that conceptualization of gender, what the analysis is saying is that the girls are indexing femaleness (or 'performing' a female identity) by adopting a stance that's for or against internet use. Joshua Joshua Raclaw Dept of Linguistics University of Colorado Quoting joshua raclaw <Joshua.Raclaw@colorado.edu>: * Holloway and Valentine are referring to gender in the ideological or * performative sense - gender being seen as something you accomplish socially * rather than some inherent quality about you. Hence the 'doing' a gender * rather than, say, 'being' a gender. It cuts the assumption that one's * phenotypal sex (physiology, hormones, chromosomes) is tied directly to one's * gender identity. * * That was oversimplified as anything, but hopefully it helped? * * Joshua * * * * Joshua Raclaw * Dept of Linguistics * University of Colorado * * Quoting Andy Roberts <aroberts@gmail.com>: * * * On 28/02/06, Sue Cranmer <sue@jcranmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: * * > Also, there's a useful chapter which touches on this in * * > Cyberkids - Sarah Holloway and Gill Valentine, specifically about how * young * * > girls may perform gender by positioning themselves as being for/against * * > internet use (if my memory serves). I've seen this in my own research * too. * * * * Please could you explain what is meant in this context by 'perform gender' * ? * * _______________________________________________ * * The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list * * is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org * * Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: * * http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org * * * * Join the Association of Internet Researchers: * * http://www.aoir.org/ * * * _______________________________________________ * The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list * is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org * Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: * http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org * * Join the Association of Internet Researchers: * http://www.aoir.org/ * _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
participants (11)
-
Andy Roberts -
Dr. Jamie S. Switzer -
Ellis Godard -
joshua raclaw -
Lauren M. Squires -
Mark D. Johns -
Mechthild Maczewski -
Nancy Baym -
Radhika Gajjala -
Sue Cranmer -
Wainer Lusoli