Article Analysis: Queer Youth, Facebook, and Faith: Facebook Methodologies and Online Identities
It is argued that the internet provides a safe place for people with sexualities “outside the norm”. This article explores the complexities of “coming out” and questions how Facebook helped the movement. As far as the research study goes, the population is young adults (age 17 to 34) most of whom considered themselves to be White British. During the study, the participants were involved with interviews, writing diaries, and a mapping exercise. They were asked to mind map and thinking about multiple places and how comfortable they felt being there. Researchers and participants were “friends” on Facebook in order to deepen the bond between them since the study would be so emotional. It is repeated a few times in the article that using Facebook as a means of contact for work was inappropriate and felt uncomfortable. Once the research was done, the researcher simply “deleted” the participant as a friend. Research methods involving the internet in such ways are becoming increasingly more common when the subjects are youth. “The ‘new media’ in [the] research became an unforeseen platform for [the] participants, confirming that ‘everyday life’ for much of the world is becoming increasingly technologically mediated.” Facebook is identified as an important tool for identity construction. The “online embodiment” is key to construct an identity online and consists of religion, political views, preferences, sexual orientation, and relationship status. One of the girls in the study, Georgina, talked about how when she is making a profile her religion and sexuality will definitely go in there. But, so will her hair color and the fact that she is a woman. “There are not more important than each other,” Georgina simply states. On the other hand, some people, like Helen, only share that they are bisexual with a few select persons. This makes updating her Facebook to “Interested in: Men and Woman” is a major milestone for Helen that she would one day like to pass. While others, choose to not share that part of their life on Facebook – period. There is a strategy known as “showing without telling” that is constantly brought up; this is when – rather than spell out what you want to see – you simply elude to it or literally show it. For example, so-and-so never put that he was gay on his profile, but once he posted a picture of him with his boyfriend, everyone knew. Online spaces are seen as a gateway to new opportunities for negotiating queer religious identities for young people, whereas the “real life” is just a bit too oppressing and restrictive.
I chose this artifact because it shows a man “coming out” over Facebook. While the man’s faith is not brought into play, I feel that the other problem needed to be addressed and related enough to my article topic to use as an artifact. This man is trusting in the community (or network, if you will) that he has built around him – a “safe place”. After feeling comfortable in his community he decides to announce that he is gay and everyone takes it as a joke because of a stupid prank that went around on Facebook. It is a well-known and idiotic prank that when someone left their Facebook profile unattended, a friend would come by and “come out,” letting the owner of the profile deal with the turmoil after that. While the prank is not fully related to this article, I believe that the idea in which the man believed he was in a safe place to be himself and experienced such a rude awakening is clear enough. The main focus of the article is how Facebook is used among LGBTQ to form and find communities where people can be accepted as they are.
Network applies to this article because by following a certain faith, the participants live in a specific religious network and that is one of the reasons it is so difficult for them to “come out”. By surrounding themselves with people from that network that think a certain way, these participants know how the other people in their network will react to them being gay/lesbian/bi/etc. Interactivity is evident in the article considering it is all about Facebook and how people interact with others which instantly or eventually leads to “coming out”. One vital detail is Manovich’s idea of interactivity being limited. In the article, Helen brings up the choice of being interested in (a) men and (b) women. She had the option to click both. But, what if, to someone else, there is more to the story? For instance, what if there is a man who is bisexual, but hetero-romantic. By clicking he is interested in both men and women isn’t exactly the whole story and could feel like a lie.
I don’t know, but to me pressing “delete” on Facebook is an intense moment. I always feel bad about un-friending someone, even if I am doing it because we are no longer friends. By the click of a button it is done. And it doesn’t feel like there is any closure. The idea of online spaces being a gateway to new opportunities for LGBTQ (and all the other letters) is great and all, but now that that is done, shouldn’t we be working on making that a reality in the tangible world? I do agree that the internet, social media sites specifically, are a major part of daily life today, but that doesn’t mean that issues solved online will also be magically solved face-to-face. It feels weird to say this, but I think it works in this context: it is time to make the digital a reality.