Rettberg: Chapters 2&3 of Seeing Ourselves Through Technology

Jessica Taylor

3/28/2016

Dr. Zamora

ENG5085

 

Chapters Two & Three of Jill Walker Rettberg’s Seeing Ourselves Through Technology

 

In chapter two of Seeing Ourselves Through Technology, “Filtered Reality”, Jill Walker Rettberg uses “filter” as both an analytical term to understand algorithmic culture and as a metaphor for the ways that technology alters and distorts—and even sometimes removes—certain aspects of our text, images, and data. Throughout the chapter, Rettberg discusses the similarities between the visual filters that we apply to images, the technological filters that alter our social media feeds, and the cultural filter that shape our choices and actions online.

In terms of visual filters, Rettberg notes that “one reason that filters fascinate us is that it gives the image that strangeness that defamiliarizes our lives. The filtered image shows us ourselves, or our surroundings, with a machine’s vision” (26). And although filters have become so overused and commonplace that the defamiliarization effect wears off, “seeing ourselves through a filter [still] allows us to see ourselves anew” (26). Using a filter is simply one way to make our everyday experiences more special to ourselves.

Another reason that people may choose to apply filters to images has to do with selfies. Rettberg writes that selfies can sometimes feel raw or revealing—too real. Filters allow us some distance from images of ourselves. According to Rettberg, it’s “as if we are outside of ourselves” (27). Perhaps that is why some people choose to use filters and apps that alter their image so drastically. This could explain why apps such as SkinneePix and Facetune exist.

Rettberg also discusses cultural and technological filters which frequently overlap and are often affected by one another. Cultural filters are the rules that guide us and teach us to filter out some forms of expression. Rettberg notes that we know what we are “supposed to” do because of the shared ideas of our culture. One example that is provided is the use of preformatted baby journals. Rettberg argues that cultural filters teach new parents what they are “supposed to” document and share. Creativity is often limited—inside of these preformatted journals there are prompts and spaces dedicated for certain pictures. She goes further to say that digital versions of these baby journals are even more restrictive. While you can alter non-digital baby journals to some degree by ripping out pages or pasting larger pictures overtop of some, you cannot usually alter digital versions at all.

Algorithms are another example of technological filters. Recently, Instagram announced that they would be switching their feed from a reverse chronological order to an algorithm similar to Facebook. This caused a huge backlash. One has to wonder if this is because the digital community is aware that algorithms filter some people out.

In chapter Three, “Serial Selfies”, Rettberg argues that one needs to see social media genres as feeds and analyze each post or image as part of a series. She goes on to discuss some visual self-representation genres that are very serial such as time-lapse videos and profile pictures. The first example of a serial selfie artist that Rettberg mentions is Suzanne Szucs. Szucs began taking Polaroid pictures every day in 1996 and continued for 15 years. Rettberg likens her mass of self-portraits to Instagram.

There is a strong storytelling aspect to cumulative self-presentation online. Time-lapse videos allow the creator to present months—even years—of their lives in a matter of minutes. Ahree Lee and Noah Kalina created “Me” and “Everyday” respectively. Both videos where posted on YouTube in 2006 and feature the creator’s selfies over a long period of time. Rettberg notes that audience fascination with these types of projects often has to do with watching change happen in hyperspeed.  She also notes that race and gender may have influenced the different receptions of these two videos. Some of the YouTube comments for “Me” are cited including: “Lol she’s Asian so she looked the same for the whole thing” and more that mentioned her gender (37). It was interesting to watch examples of pregnancy and childhood time-lapse videos because the idea of a story is more obviously present. I found myself responding more to videos like these.

Next, Rettberg discusses profile pictures as visual identity. Profile photos are a form of communication, a “visual expression of identity” (40). They change over time and taken cumulatively, tell a story. Later, Rettberg mentions temporary profile pictures or filters, like the ones sometimes offered by Facebook. Sometimes users are given a choice to add filters or icons that have to do with the changing seasons or upcoming holidays. Also, Facebook often allows users to add a filter to show support after terror attacks such as the flag of the country. Rettberg writes that these types of temporary profile pictures are used to show support and solidarity, but they can also be coercive as people may feel pressured to use them.

Both of these chapters highlight how technology can be used to form digital identity and how cultural and technological filters can alter and shape that identity. As Rettberg notes, technology comes with certain affordances and limitations. In certain ways, our culture shapes our interaction with technology and vise-versa. Our choice of digital self-representation and performance tells a story; in some aspects we get to choose in which ways we tell that story, and in some ways we have no choice at all.

 

Discussion questions can be found on the Google Doc!

Boyd's "White Flight in Networked Publics?”

Dana Boyd’s “White Flight in Networked Publics?” begins with a comment from Kat, a fourteen-year-old from a charter school outside of Boston. In 2007, Boyd asked Kat why her friends were moving from MySpace to Facebook. Kat’s response: Myspace is more “Ghetto”.

In the article, Boyd uses data collected from 2004-2009—interviews and observations from teens in diverse communities across 17 states, 2,000 hours of observation of online practices, and 10,000 randomly selected MySpace profiles—to form the argument that teen preference for one form of social media over another reflects “a reproduction of social categories that exist in schools throughout the United States”. The choice is racialized and reinforced because of self-segregation in schools.

Personally, I don’t know how much I agree with this. I missed the MySpace boat. I don’t really remember if I just wasn’t interested or if it had anything to do with my mom. She was very overprotective (I wasn’t allowed the watch MTV at 16 :I) And I didn’t join Facebook until 2009, when a long-distance friend pretty much bullied me into it. Maybe I was just out of the loop, but I do remember a few people from school having MySpace profiles. In my experience, it just seemed to fizzle out when Facebook became more popular. Facebook was newer and therefore better.

Anyway, Boyd goes on to say that a teen’s social world is shaped by race, and that in terms of their choice of social network, a distinction emerged. Facebook was more popular with white, more affluent teens. Boyd writes that “one way to conceptualize the division that unfolded is through the lens of white flight”. She likens teens moving to Facebook with white exodus to the suburbs. Boyd then notes, “Drawing parallels between these two events sheds light on how people’s engagement with technology reveals social division and the persistence of racism”.

In schools (even diverse schools), children self-segregate by race. There are social categories that come along with labels: “cheerleaders”, “goths”, “nerds”. These social categories mark people and groups based on a shared identity. According to Boyd, online spaces are also often organized by social categories.

Many teens cited personal preference as their reason for switching from MySpace to Facebook. They liked the features or the aesthetics. Also, many noted that pressure from friends (or simply following their friends to the new site) caused them to switch. Boyd mentions that “teens choose to use the social network sites that their friends use”. I say, “duh.” Isn’t that the whole point of social media sites… to be social? Again, I think that these are more plausible reasons for the switch. Teens often have a strong sense of FOMO. They want to be like their friends; they don’t want to be left behind or seen as different.

But Boyd says that this doesn’t disconnect their departure from issues of race. (?) She concludes that their experience with race and class shape their attitude towards aesthetics and features. I’m still not completely convinced.

Losh's Selfie Pedagogy I-IV

Wow! There is a lot more to selfies than I thought...
     In the first of Elizabeth Losh's Selfie Pedagogy blogs, we are introduced to the idea that selfies are worth studying in higher ed. and that the examination of selfies in higher education is not a new concept at all. It's just become more widely talked about because of scholars like Theresa Senft and Miriam Posner and the work of The Selfie Researchers Network. A link brings the reader to The Selfie Course, a six week class developed by academics from all over the world who are in the Selfie Researchers Network. The class covered topics such as "Branding & Celebrity", "Identity and Interpellation", and "Sexuality, Dating & Gender".
     The next link to "Selfies, Snapchat and Distance Learning" focused on Radhika Gajjala and her use of Snapchat assignments in the classroom. Gajjala notes that there is a "strong community component" in the assignments, and that students "are sharing personal stories". It was interesting that she mentioned that her colleagues "fret" about academic records because the images can't be saved. By planning ahead and using other components, it shows that  she has a strong understanding of the digital tools that she uses in the classroom, along with the limitations and affordances of tehse tools.
     Miriam Posner from UCLA was also a focus of this blog post. Her course "Selfies, Snapchat, and Cyberbullies: Coming of Age Online", takes on the question, "How do we talk about generational difference without flattening diversity or ascribing supernatural power to technology". Week 3 in her course looks at "what does identity mean in an online context" and "why is teen online behavior so often misunderstood". Posner also mentions that student privacy should be a concern to those who plan to teach a selfie course.
     In the second blog post, "Selfie Pedagogy II: Internet Identity and Selfie Practices", Alice E. Marwick is the focus. Losh mentions that it was Marwick who published The Selfie Course online so that it would be available to other educators. Marwick notes that she is interested in research surrounding identity and the internet, and "people's self presentation and self expression, and how it changes when they have access to the very large audiences online". She looks at strategic interactions to increase popularity and tries to figure out what practices lead to popularity.
     Marwick was also asked about her role as a core member of the Selfie Researchers Network. She said that as educators, we don't always talk about pedagogical practices, but that the interactions in the network "marry our research interest with practical day to day of teaching in a really effective way". She also offers a few basic guidelines for others who may be interested in teaching a selfie class: 1) urge students to create new accounts for the class, 2) she highly recommends the use of a pseudonym or alias, and 3) look into the pros and cons of using commercial sites. She said, "it was difficult to find technologies that give us openness online".
     "Selfie Pedagogy III: Networked Spaces, Slut Shaming and Putting Selfies in Dialog with Theory" focuses on Terri Senft and discusses her work with Camgirls. The Camgirls are equitable to the ways that girl's are practicing self-expression now. Senft notes that selfies can be used as objects of study to help liven media studies and to go against the feeling of detachment from the subject matter. This is definitely the case in situations like slut shaming, which led to the death of Amanda Todd, and political acts, like the response to the death of Sandra Bland. Senft points out that selfies can "humanize what's going on" and that selfies of the dead can have great political power because "they generate strange familiarity or strange intimacy".
     Mark Marino is the focus of the fourth blog post, "Selfie Pedagogy IV: Diversity, Netprov and Service Learning". His course, "Selves and Selfies: Performing Identity Online" sounds incredibly interesting. The blog post continues by describing some of the assignments that Marino's students competed throughout the semester. In a "Know Thy Selfie" paper, students answered the question, "How do your selfies produce or obscure a sense of your identity?" They had to take or choose 5 selfies of themselves and examine the pictures  for their performance of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, and gender. They were instructed to look at clothing, pose, facial expression, lighting, and other elements in the picture. His students also created a "specular selfie" that represented them in a future moment.
    In addition to these assignments, Marino's students also created Vine-length videos of themselves "unboxing" an abstract concept. (I looked up "unboxing" videos and I don't understand them at all. It was 12 minutes of kids unwrapping chocolate eggs...) The Netprovs that his students participated in looked really interesting as well. There was one that chronicled "giving up" technology while Tweeting about it, and the other one was about working for the Web. Marino calls the assignments "thought experiments".
    Finally, Marino's students participated in a semester-long service project with the Neighborhood Academic Initiative for urban high school youth. The program was meant to help potential undergraduates (the high school students) with self-representation by assisting them in writing personal statements. Marino notes that the original selfies from the beginning of the semester provide an "opportunity to consider what it means to encounter someone with a different position of access to learning opportunities and higher education". Perhaps it even teaches the students "how they come off to somebody of a very different background".
      I really enjoyed reading the four blogs because I have never thought this deeply about selfies. They were simply a "thing" that we did. I would have never thought that they could be used as a teaching tool to think more deeply about identity and self-representation. A lot of the class assignments that were discussed sounded really fun in addition to being very informative. While I don't take too may (haha, I hope) traditional selfies, I do take an embarrassing number of Snapchat selfies, so here you go: