"Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace ." Apophenia
Blog. June 24 .
Over the last six months, i've noticed an increasing number of press
articles about how high school teens are leaving MySpace for Facebook.
That's only partially true. There is indeed a change taking place, but it's
not a shift so much as a fragmentation. Until recently, American teenagers
were flocking to MySpace. The picture is now being blurred. Some teens are
flocking to MySpace. And some teens are flocking to Facebook. Which go where
gets kinda sticky, because it seems to primarily have to do with
socio-economic class.
(I want to take a moment to make a meta point here. I have been traipsing
through the country talking to teens and I've been seeing this transition
for the past 6-9 months but I'm having a hard time putting into words.
Americans aren't so good at talking about class. It's sticky, it's
uncomfortable, and to top it off, we don't have the language for marking
class in a meaningful way. So this piece is intentionally descriptive, but
in being so, it's also hugely problematic. I wish I could just put numbers
in front of it all and be done with it, but instead, I'm going to face the
stickiness and see if a point can be made through it all. Hopefully it
works. If not, sorry.)
Enter the competition
When MySpace launched in 2003, it was primarily used by 20/30-somethings
(just like Friendster before it). The bands began populating the site by
early 2004 and throughout 2004, the average age slowly declined. It wasn't
until late 2004 that teens really started appearing en masse on MySpace and
2005 was the year that MySpace became the "in thing" for teens.
In mid-2005, Facebook opened its doors to high school students, but it
wasn't that easy to get an account because you needed to be invited. As a
result, those who were in college tended to invite those high school
students that they liked. Facebook was strongly framed as the "cool" thing
that college students did. So, if you want to go to college (and
particularly a top college), you wanted to get on Facebook badly. Even
before high school networks were possible, the moment seniors were accepted
to a college, they started hounding the college sysadmins for their .edu
account. The message was clear: college was about Facebook.
For all of 2005 and most of 2006, MySpace was the cool thing for high school
teens and Facebook was the cool thing for college students. This is not to
say that MySpace was solely high school or Facebook solely college, but
there was a dominating age division that played out in the cultural sphere.
When Facebook opened to everyone last September, it became relatively easy
for any high school student to join (and then they simply had to get
permission to join their high school network). This meant that many more
high school teens did join, much to the chagrin and horror of college
students who had already begun writing about their lack of interesting in
having HS students on "their" site. Still, even with the rise of high school
students, Facebook was framed as being about college. This was what was in
the press. This was what college students said. Facebook is what the college
kids did. Not surprisingly, college-bound high schoolers desperately wanted
in.
In addition to the college framing, the press coverage of MySpace as
dangerous and sketchy alienated "good" kids. Facebook seemed to provide an
ideal alternative. Parents weren't nearly as terrified of Facebook because
it seemed "safe" thanks to the network-driven structure. (Of course, I've
seen more half-naked, drink-carrying high school students on Facebook than
on MySpace, but we won't go there.)
As this past school year progressed, the division around usage became
clearer. In trying to look at it, I realized that it was primarily about
class.
Socio-economic divisions
In sociology, Nalini Kotamraju has argued that constructing arguments around
"class" is extremely difficult in the United States. Terms like "working
class" and "middle class" and "upper class" get all muddled quickly. She
argues that class divisions in the United States have more to do with
lifestyle and social stratification than with income. In other words, all of
my anti-capitalist college friends who work in cafes and read Engels are not
working class just because they make $14K a year and have no benefits. Class
divisions in the United States have more to do with social networks (the
real ones, not FB/MS), social capital, cultural capital, and attitudes than
income. Not surprisingly, other demographics typically discussed in class
terms are also a part of this lifestyle division. Social networks are
strongly connected to geography, race, and religion; these are also huge
factors in lifestyle divisions and thus "class."
I'm not doing justice to her arguments but it makes complete sense. My
friends who are making $14K in cafes are not of the same class as the
immigrant janitor in Oakland. Their lives are quite divided. Unfortunately,
with this framing, there aren't really good labels to demarcate the class
divisions that do exist. For this reason, I will attempt to delineate what
we see on social network sites in stereotypical, descriptive terms meant to
evoke an image.
The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes, or other "good" kids are now going to
Facebook. These kids tend to come from families who emphasize education and
going to college. They are part of what we'd call hegemonic society. They
are primarily white, but not exclusively. They are in honors classes,
looking forward to the prom, and live in a world dictated by after school
activities.
MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens,
"burnouts," "alternative kids," "art fags," punks, emos, goths, gangstas,
queer kids, and other kids who didn't play into the dominant high school
popularity paradigm. These are kids whose parents didn't go to college, who
are expected to get a job when they finish high school. Teens who are really
into music or in a band are on MySpace. MySpace has most of the kids who are
socially ostracized at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers.
In order to demarcate these two groups, let's call the first group of teens
"hegemonic teens" and the second group "subaltern teens." (Yes, I know that
these words have political valence. Feel free to suggest an alternative
label.) These terms are sloppy at best because the division isn't clear, but
it should at least give us a language with which to talk about the two
groups.
The division is cleanest in communities where the predator panic hit before
MySpace became popular. In much of the midwest, teens heard about Facebook
and MySpace at the same time. They were told that MySpace was bad while
Facebook was key for being accepted into circles at college. I'd go into
schools where the school was split between the Facebook users and the
MySpace users. On the coasts, things are a bit more murky. MySpace became
popular through the bands and fans dynamic before the predator panic kicked
in. Many hegemonic teens are still using MySpace because of their
connections to participants who joined in the early days, yet they too are
switching. For the hegemonic teens in the midwest, there wasn't a MySpace to
switch from so the switch is happening much faster. None of the teens are
really switching from Facebook to MySpace, although there are some hegemonic
teens who choose to check out MySpace to see what happens there even though
their friends are mostly on Facebook.
Most teens who exclusively use Facebook are familiar with and have an
opinion about MySpace. These teens are very aware of MySpace and they often
have a negative opinion about it. They see it as gaudy, immature, and "so
middle school." They prefer the "clean" look of Facebook, noting that it is
more mature and that MySpace is "so lame." What hegemonic teens call gaudy
can also be labeled as "glitzy" or "bling" or "fly" (or what my generation
would call "phat") by subaltern teens. Terms like "bling" come out of
hip-hop culture where showy, sparkly, brash visual displays are acceptable
and valued. The look and feel of MySpace resonates far better with subaltern
communities than it does with the upwardly mobile hegemonic teens. This is
even clear in the blogosphere where people talk about how gauche MySpace is
while commending Facebook on its aesthetics. I'm sure that a visual analyst
would be able to explain how classed aesthetics are, but it is pretty clear
to me that aesthetics are more than simply the "eye of the beholder" - they
are culturally narrated and replicated. That "clean" or "modern" look of
Facebook is akin to West Elm or Pottery Barn or any poshy Scandinavian
design house (that I admit I'm drawn to) while the more flashy look of
MySpace resembles the Las Vegas imagery that attracts millions every year. I
suspect that lifestyles have aesthetic values and that these are being
reproduced on MySpace and Facebook.
I should note here that aesthetics do divide MySpace users. The look and
feel that is acceptable amongst average Latino users is quite different from
what you see the subculturally-identified outcasts using. Amongst the emo
teens, there's a push for simple black/white/grey backgrounds and simplistic
layouts. While I'm using the term "subaltern teens" to lump together
non-hegemonic teens, the lifestyle divisions amongst the subalterns are
quite visible on MySpace through the aesthetic choices of the backgrounds.
While teens on Facebook all know about MySpace, not all MySpace users have
heard of Facebook. In particular, subaltern teens who go to school
exclusively with other subaltern teens are not likely to have heard of it.
Subaltern teens who go to mixed-class schools see Facebook as "what the good
kids do" or "what the preps do." They have various labels for these
hegemonic teens but they know the division. Likewise, in these types of
schools, the hegemonic teens see MySpace as "where the bad kids go." "Good"
and "bad" seem to be the dominant language used to divide hegemonic and
subaltern teens in mixed-class environments. At the same time, most schools
aren't actually that mixed.
To a certain degree, the lack of familiarity amongst certain subaltern kids
is not surprisingly. Teens from poorer backgrounds who are on MySpace are
less likely to know people who go to universities. They are more likely to
know people who are older than them, but most of their older friends,
cousins, and co-workers are on MySpace. It's the cool working class thing
and it's the dominant SNS at community colleges. These teens are more likely
to be interested in activities like shows and clubs and they find out about
them through MySpace. The subaltern teens who are better identified as
"outsiders" in a hegemonic community tend to be very aware of Facebook.
Their choice to use MySpace instead of Facebook is a rejection of the
hegemonic values (and a lack of desire to hang out with the preps and jocks
even online).
Class divisions in military use
A month ago, the military banned MySpace but not Facebook. This was a very
interesting move because there's a division, even in the military. Soldiers
are on MySpace; officers are on Facebook. Facebook is extremely popular in
the military, but it's not the SNS of choice for 18-year old soldiers, a
group that is primarily from poorer, less educated communities. They are
using MySpace. The officers, many of whom have already received college
training, are using Facebook. The military ban appears to replicate the
class divisions that exist throughout the military. I can't help but wonder
if the reason for this goes beyond the purported concerns that those in the
military are leaking information or spending too much time online or soaking
up too much bandwidth with their MySpace usage.
MySpace is the primary way that young soldiers communicate with their peers.
When I first started tracking soldiers' MySpace profiles, I had to take a
long deep breath. Many of them were extremely pro-war, pro-guns, anti-Arab,
anti-Muslim, pro-killing, and xenophobic as hell. Over the last year, I've
watched more and more profiles emerge from soldiers who aren't quite sure
what they are doing in Iraq. I don't have the data to confirm whether or not
a statistically significant shift has occurred but it was one of those
things that just made me think. And then the ban happened. I can't help but
wonder if part of the goal is to cut off communication between current
soldiers and the group that the military hopes to recruit. Many young
soldiers' profiles aren't public so it's not about making a bad public
impression. That said, young soldiers tend to have reasonably large networks
because they tend to accept friend requests of anyone that they knew back
home which means that they're connecting to almost everyone from their high
school. Many of these familiar strangers write comments supporting them. But
what happens if the soldiers start to question why they're in Iraq? And if
this is witnessed by high school students from working class communities who
the Army intends to recruit?
Thoughts and meta thoughts
I have been reticent about writing about this dynamic even though I've been
tracking it for a good six months now. I'm concerned about how it's going to
be interpreted. I can just see the logic: if society's "good" kids are going
to Facebook and the "bad" kids are going to MySpace, clearly MySpace is the
devil, right? ::shudder:: It's so not that easy. This division is just
another way in which technology is mirroring societal values. The "good"
kids are doing more "bad" things than we are willing to acknowledge (because
they're the pride and joy of upwardly mobile parents). And, guess what?
They're doing those same bad things online and offline. At the same time,
the language and style of the "bad" kids offends most upwardly mobile
adults. We see this offline as well. I've always been fascinated watching
adults walk to the other side of the street when a group of black kids
sporting hip-hop style approach. The aesthetics alone offend and most
privileged folks project the worst ideas onto any who don that style.
Over ten years ago, PBS Frontline put out a video called The Lost Children
of Rockdale County The film certainly has its issues but it does a brilliant
job of capturing how, given complete boredom and a desire for validation,
many of the "good" kids will engage in some of the most shocking
behaviors... and their parents are typically unaware. By and large, I've
found that parents try to curtail such activities by restricting youth even
more. This doesn't stop the desire for attention and thus the behaviors
continue, but they get pushed further underground and parents become less
in-touch with their "good" kids.
I guess what I'm saying is that we assume that all of the hegemonic kids are
"good" kids, but this isn't the case. Many of the subaltern teens that I
talk with have their heads on much tighter than the hegemonic teens. That
said, the hegemonic teens know how to put on a show for most adults (making
it more fun for me to interview them and try to work through the walls that
they offer me). As a society, we have strong class divisions and we project
these values onto our kids. MySpace and Facebook seem to be showcasing this
division quite well.
People often ask me if I'm worried about teens today. The answer is yes, but
it's not because of social network sites. With the hegemonic teens, I'm very
worried about the stress that they're under, the lack of mobility and
healthy opportunities for play and socialization, and they hyper-scheduling
and surveillance. I'm worried about their unrealistic expectations for
becoming rich and famous, their lack of worth ethic after being pampered for
so long, and the lack of opportunities that many of them have to even be
economically stable let alone better off than their parents. I'm worried
about how locking teens indoors coupled with a fast food/junk food
advertising machine has resulted in a decrease in health levels across the
board which will just get messy as they are increasingly unable to afford
health insurance. When it comes to ostracized teens, I'm worried about the
reasons why society has ostracized them and how they will react to ongoing
criticism from hegemonic peers. I cringe every time I hear of another
Columbine, another Virgina Tech, another site of horror when an outcast teen
lashes back at the hegemonic values of society.
I worry about the lack of opportunities available to poor teens from
uneducated backgrounds. I'm worried about how Wal-Mart Nation has destroyed
many of the opportunities for meaningful working class labor as these youth
enter the workforce. I'm worried about what a prolonged war will mean for
them. I'm worried about how they've been told that to succeed, they must be
a famous musician or sports player. I'm worried about how gangs provide the
only meaningful sense of community that many of these teens with ever know.
Given the state of what I see in all sorts of neighborhoods, I'm amazed at
how well teens are coping and I think that technology has a lot to do with
that. Teens are using social network sites to build community and connect
with their peers. They are creating publics for socialization. And through
it, they are showcasing all of the good, bad, and ugly of today's teen life.
Much of it isn't pretty, but it ain't pretty offline either. Still, it makes
my heart warm when I see something creative or engaged or reflective. There
is good out there too.
It breaks my heart to watch a class divide play out in the technology. I
shouldn't be surprised - when orkut grew popular in India, the caste system
was formalized within the system by the users. But there's something so
strange about watching a generation splice themselves in two based on class
divisions or lifestyles or whatever you want to call these socio-structural
divisions.
In the 70s, Paul Willis analyzed British working class youth and he wrote a
book called Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs
He argued that working class teens will reject hegemonic values because it's
the only way to continue to be a part of the community that they live in. In
other words, if you don't know that you will succeed if you make a run at
jumping class, don't bother - you'll lose all of your friends and community
in the process. His analysis has such strong resonance in American society
today. I just wish I knew how to fix it.
I clearly don't have the language to comfortably talk about what's going on,
but I think that this issue is important and needs to be considered. I feel
as though the implications are huge. Marketers have already figured this out
- they know who to market to where. Policy creators have figured this out -
they know how to control different populations based on where they are
networking. Have social workers figured it out? Or educators? What does it
mean that our culture of fear has further divided a generation? What does it
mean that, in a society where we can't talk about class, we can see it play
out online? And what does it mean in a digital world where no one's supposed
to know you're a dog, we can tell your class background based on the tools
you use?
Anyhow, I don't know where to go with this, but I wanted to get it out
there. So here it is. MySpace and Facebook are new representations of the
class divide in American youth. Le sigh.
source: www.danah.org/papers/essays/ClassDivisions.html