#digitaldiscussions

[digitaldiscussions]

Social Media: encouraging unsustainable and unethical fashion? (Week 9)

Social Media is known to establish trends; dances, food, photography. In particular, social media is a catalyst for new fashion trends. The ability for an influencer to post a photo in a particular outfit, and simultaneously compel their followers to buy similar outfits or clothing from that brand is a testament to the power of social media within modern society. However, with this power, comes great responsibility, and unfortunately, this responsibility has been lacking within recent years. Whilst influencers are great at setting trends and influencing the decisions, opinions and purchasing habits of consumers, regarding fashion and clothing, these influencers are less effective at ensuring the promotion of sustainable and ethical fashion. 

Sustainable fashion refers to those ‘goods and services that respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life, while minimizing the use of natural resources, toxic materials and emissions of waste and pollutants over the life-cycle, so as not to jeopardize the needs of future generations’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 83). Generally, sustainable fashion rejects the unethical nature of fast fashion, denouncing the ‘throw away attitude’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 82) of ‘mass-produced’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 82 ) and ‘cheap’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 82) clothing. Sustainable fashion promotes the use of ethically sourced materials and production of clothing in an effort to limit the amount of textile waste that the fashion industry produces. 

There have been huge efforts of recent years within the fashion industry to reform unethical and unsustainable productions and manufacturing. Brands such as H&M, Nike, Adidas and Levis are leading the charge in sourcing sustainable materials for their products and innovating new and ethical forms of production. Despite this, the benefits of sustainable fashion are still significantly threatened by social media and the relationship between influencers and fast-fashion. 

Lai identified that whilst consumers generally understand and agree that the fashion industry needs to ‘change’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 88) and ‘become more environmentally and socially responsible’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 88), they have little ‘awareness’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 88) about the sustainable fashion movement. Moreover, whilst consumers generally associate sustainable fashion with ‘natural’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 89), ‘simple’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 89) and ‘locally made’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 89) clothing, the lack of ‘awareness’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 88) about what the movement is trying to achieve leads these consumers to develop negative ‘perceptions and attitudes’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 88) towards it. 

The lack of awareness surrounding the sustainable fashion movement can be correlated with the impact of influencers and fast fashion on social media. Many consumers buy clothing based on what their favourite influencers are wearing. Unfortunately, however, many influencers do not actively seek to post about sustainable fashion. As influencers can directly influence the purchasing habits of their followers, posting paid sponsorships with fast fashion companies also directly compels these followers to become consumers of fast fashion. 

Moreover, through influencers not actively getting involved in the sustainable fashion movement, negative ‘perceptions and attitudes’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 88) towards the movement are encouraged. These perceptions include that sustainable fashion is ‘less fashionable’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 92) than its ‘fast fashion counterparts’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 92), and that sustainable fashion is ‘too expensive’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 91). Through the proliferation of these perceptions, the sustainable fashion movement’s main objectives are forgotten, and it becomes more difficult to hold the fashion industry accountable for its large contributions to the environmental crisis. 

Despite this, there is still hope. Influencers can take responsibility on their platforms to inform and compel their audiences to choose sustainable fashion over fast fashion. Through doing so, the demand for fast fashion will slowly decrease, and so will the need for the unethical production of ‘mass-produced’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 82) and ‘cheap’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 82) clothing, that only purports a ‘throw away’ (Lai et al 2017, pg. 82) culture. 

References:

Zhen Lai, Claudia E. Henninger and Panayiota J. Alevizou ‘An Exploration of Consumers’ Perceptions Towards Sustainable Fashion – A Qualitative Study in the UK’, in Sustainability in Fashion A Cradle to Upcycle Approach, edited by Henninger, C.E., Alevizou, P., Goworek, H., Ryding, D. (Palgrave: 2017).

References:

[digitaldiscussions]

Social Media: facilitating abuse and hatred? (Week 10)

Within the ‘real world’, people generally understand what bullying is and what it looks like. However, bullying, trolling and other negative-centric behaviours are less easily deciphered from behind a screen. For the many benefits that social media affords its users; collaborativity, communication and collectivity, social media also presents very real and dangerous challenges to those who choose to use it. Now, more than ever, harassment and abuse on social media is at a high. This increased level of harassment means that members of society who are already vulnerable face additional abuse. 

Gaslighting is the behaviour of “psychologically manipulating a person in order to erode their sense of self and sanity” (Gleeson 2018). Gaslighting, like many other bullying tactics, originated beyond a screen, however the proliferation of social media and the ability to simulate ‘in person’ interactions has meant the behaviour of gaslighting has become commonplace on social media platforms. Gaslighting is particularly alarming within the online context due to its ability to “unnerve and demoralise” (Gleeson 2018) people. 

Social media is often utilised by support groups and social justice movements, using these platforms to inform the masses of issues and invoke change. However, the emergence of gaslighting techniques on social media has aimed to discredit and devalue these groups and movements. For example, the recent #MeToo movement, which encouraged women particularly to publicise situations in which they had been subject to sexual harassment or abuse. However, gaslighting on social media platforms aimed to “dismiss” (Gleeson 2018) these publications, instead stating that these “survivors: had “misread the situation” (Gleeson 2018) or “imagined the abuse” (Gleeson 2018). 

However, the increase of harassment and abuse on social media is not limited to specific behaviours such as gaslighting. Harassment and abuse can be harboured on social media merely through groups projecting and posting hateful and ill-informed views and thought on particular subjects. 

As identified by Marwick, “harassing behaviours” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 543) online are becoming more “networked” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 543), “coordinated and organised” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 543). That is, users of social media are beginning to organise themselves “loosely” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 543) into their own social media “networks” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 543) constituting “blogs, podcasts and forums” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 543), to engage and spread common thought. 

Recently, this has been evidence by the emergence of the “manosphere” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 543), a social media network which aims to spread messages of “men’s rights” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 550) and hence dismiss “feminist thought” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 550) and female equality generally. Like many other collective networks, the “manosphere” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 543) uses vocabulary and language to connect users to a “common” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 553) community and hence “identity” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 553). As the “manosphere” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 543) is really a collective of many different and “diverse” (Marwick et al, 2018, p. 553) online communities, the use of common language and vocabulary connects these varying communities and therefore evolves the community of hatred and bullying. 

Hence, whilst the formation of online networks of similar thought is not inherently subjecting others to harassment and abuse, when these communities main objectives is to spread messages of hatred towards a particular sector in society, these networks further contribute to conflict and bullying on social media. Ultimately, disintegrating the safety and positivity social media aims to employ. 

Social media affords many benefits to those who chose to use it. However, these benefits in recent times are potentially being outweighed by the movement of bullying and harassment into online spaces. Whilst this negativity severely disrupts the main objectives of social media in modern society, awareness and reporting of common bullying techniques and networks can assist in alleviating and reducing harassment and abuse online.

References:

Jessamy Gleeson, Research Officer, School of Global, Urban & Social Studies, RMIT University, 'What does Gaslighting Mean?' The Conversation, 2018 , https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-gaslighting-mean-107888

Alice E. Marwick & Robyn Caplan, 'Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment'  Feminist Media Studies Volume 18, 2018 - Issue 4: Pages 543-559

[digitaldiscussions]

Social Gaming: a civic and political domain? (Week 8)

The world of online and offline gaming is not normally linked to the civic and political domain, or greater sociological studies. Often thought of as a form of leisure or fun, gaming is yet to be taken seriously as a form of entertainment that is intrinsically linked to mainstream issues. Despite this, Taylor argues that gaming is an important aspect of the ‘media and socio technical landscape’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 11)

Gaming has undergone significant changes across recent decades. Initially concerned with ‘arcades’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 4) and ‘home concelse machines’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 4), gaming evolved into ‘internet gaming’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 4) whereby ‘multiplayer connections’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 4) became available, creating a more ‘competitive space’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 4). Currently, gaming has been transformed into a ‘televisual’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 4) activity with the ‘core of its growth’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 4) vested in ‘live streaming’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 4). 

Liver streaming is an incredibly popular aspect of the current gaming landscape. At its core, live streaming enables a participant or player to ‘broadcast’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 3) their game to many people ‘watching’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 10) through online platforms such as ‘Twitch’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 3) and ‘Youtube’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 3), straight from their own homes. Through these platforms, other players can use ‘chat’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 11) features to communicate with the player or can even play ‘alongside’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 6) them. Essentially, live streaming enables gamers to ‘transform their private play into public entertainment’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 6). 

However, live stream gaming provides social benefits to its audiences as well. People watching along a live stream are able to become ‘integrated into the show’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 6) through chatting with the broadcaster about the game itself or ‘everyday life’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 6). Live streaming has evolved from initially just broadcasting a streamer playing a game to creating a ‘new form of entertainment’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 9) whereby ‘gameplay, humor, commentary’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 9) are all a part of the experience. Now, live streaming offers players an ‘opportunity to build audiences’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 6) around their own gameplay that share similar ‘interests’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 6). Thus, through live streaming, gaming has become a social and interactive phenomenon whereby gamers and audience members alike can use a game to form social connections. 

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, gaming offers an opportunity for people to interact in the civil and political domain. As identified by Taylor, gaming is a form of ‘leisure’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 11), often used to come home and ‘tune out from the real world’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 11). However, gaming is becoming a space frequently used for civic and political discussion. Players are ‘regularly encountering’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 11) people from ‘outside their own social worlds’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 11), such as ‘race, sexuality and social identity’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 12). Moreover, the games themselves are becoming increasingly politicised with ‘companies, policies and laws’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 12) addressing issues from ‘intellectual property to standards of behaviour’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 12). This has led to the world of gaming becoming a ‘politically infused space’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 12) rather than an solely entertainment space. As highlighted by Taylor, gaming has become a platform whereby ‘important political and critical conversations’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 13) regarding civic and political life are shared. This is due to the relative connection shared between streamer and audience and the lack of corporate structure within this relationship - streamers broadcast their streams from their own ‘private lives’ (Taylor 2018, pg. 6).

Ultimately, gaming provides an important social space for players and audience members alike to connect and communicate with one another. Through the relative connection live streaming affords its participants, gaming has become a civic space. 

References:

Taylor, TL 2018, ‘Broadcasting ourselves’ (chapter 1), in Watch Me Play: Twitch and the Rise of Game Live Streaming, Princeton University Press, pp.1-23

[digitaldiscussions]

Reality TV: a means for political discussion? (Week 4)

Many different adjectives are often used to describe the world of Reality TV; “trashy”, “entertaining”, “inappropriate” or “funny”. The sheer variety Reality TV offers from dating programs to talent contests, Reality TV is sure to provide entertainment to its viewers. Theories, studies or scholarships are not usually associated with the world of drama produced on Reality TV. However, the polarising nature of Reality TV and the growing connection between social media and these tv shows has led to discussion surrounding the ability of Reality TV to “trigger” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 18)  social and political discussion in a “net-based public sphere” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 18). 

Reality TV shows require “ordinary” (Nabi 2007) people to “engage in unscripted action and interaction” (Nabi 2007). Due to this, these shows inherently expose their audiences to ‘everyday’ issues, challenges or conversations, most of which have a “political dimension” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 19). Reality TV hence poses an opportunity for the audience to “make connections” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 20) between their own “personal experiences” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 20) and the issues present within the TV show. These connections can be fostered through social media. As identified by Graham and Hajru, social media creates an “alternative space” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 20 ) where the “politicization of everyday life issues can happen” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 20), in particular the everyday life issues apparent within Reality TV programs. 

Hence, Reality TV shows allow digital communities, specific to the program, to be created, whereby audience members can interact and discuss the issues exposed and raised within the show. Content within a Reality TV program often causes a strong reaction from its audience. “Behaviour” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 27), “statements and discussions” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 27), “lifestyle, image and identity” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 27) are some of the activities within a Reality TV show that have been identified as “triggers” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 18) for online political discussion between audience members. 

This has often been seen with the controversial Reality TV show Married at First Sight. The nature of the TV show, requiring complete strangers to marry each other and filming their ability to form an actual relationship over a period of time, often ignites strong discussion on social media between audience members. The hashtag #MAFS often trends during the airing of each episode and contains various interactions between viewers describing their thoughts and attitudes towards the content of the episode. These discussions often engage with topics such as gender, and discrimiation. Importantly, as these discussions take place on social media, anyone can engage with these discussions or contribute, promoting greater accessibility to a greater audience. 

Additionally, Reality TV shows also encourage fans and contestants to interact with one another on social media, further fostering the creation of digital communities. These interactions often involve controversial points of discussion. For example, ex-bachelor star Abbie Chatfield often used her social media platform to explain issues of behaviour, image and identity portrayed on her season of The Bachelor. Through this, audience members were able to express their attitudes and thoughts of these issues, which have a “political dimension” (Graham and Hajru 2011, p. 19) to them. 

Ultimately, the increased use of social media coupled with the overt popularity of Reality TV shows poists the opportunity for new digital communities to be created whereby political discussions can be expressed. 

References:

Todd Graham and Auli Hajru Reality TV as a trigger of everyday political talk in the net-based public sphere , European Journal of Communication 26(1) 18–32, 2011.