# Reading Responses (Set 2)

### Tuesday, March 23 – Finding someone and living alone

As the world has become increasingly digitized, there have been immense changes in the way people view love and marriage. Increased individualism has contributed to a phenomenon that Eric Klinenberg discusses in his article for *the Guardian* where he explains that people these days are more likely to live alone and get married later. Though Klinenberg argues that “living alone is something that each person, or family, experiences as the most private of matters,” I would almost argue that this is not entirely the case for younger generations. He admits that it is an increasingly common condition for people to live alone, but I would argue that younger generations are more accepting of it, and it’s not seen as taboo. Due to this shift in perspectives on marriage, many younger people are getting married at later ages, if at all. As Klinenberg discusses, however, these individuals that live alone aren’t necessarily lonely, in part because digital communication allows individuals to remain connected even when physically separated. It allows people to connect with friends when they choose, but to still have a place to call their own.

Another way that digital communication has contributed to this societal shift is through the creation of online dating. People use a variety of dating apps and websites, which are talked about constantly in both the social and academic spheres, to meet potential partners. Often online dating is criticized because of falsehoods that can be shown on people’s profiles, as exemplified by the OkCupid article that highlights how people often lie to say they are 2 inches taller than they really are or make 20% more a year than they actually do. However, according to Ferdman in his *Washington Post* article, there are many benefits to online dating, such as widening the prospect pool and allowing people to find potential partners based on a specific set of criteria. While there are certainly dangers that inherently come with online dating, overall, it provides incredible potential that wouldn’t have been possible without digital communication.

### Friday, March 26 – Breakup

Just like how digital communication and technology have dramatically altered the dating scene, they have also changed the way we deal with breaking up. While relationship communication used to be through direct communication – speaking with the other person directly – or indirect communication via a third-party – speaking with a friend as an intermediary –, digital communication has allowed for alternative ways of communicating and breaking up. As reflected in the data collected by the Pew Research Center, teens these days still believe that the most appropriate way to end a relationship is to do it in person. However, they do still admit to breaking up with someone via phone calls, texts, and social media updates. Within this topic, Gershon discusses the importance of second-order information, or the background knowledge needed to understand subtext during communication, in dating during the digital age. People are able to pick up on miniscule details about how others use digital communication or social media and can glean meaning from their actions. For example, Gershon discusses some teens that are able to detect when their friend is mad at them based on whether or not they text “hey” with one y or two y’s.

Overall, I believe that a lot of these observations are still applicable to today’s media use. People still scrutinize other’s texts for meaning, “stalk” others on social media to figure out their relationship status, and find some behaviors “creepy” just like some teens mentioned to Gershon. A lot has remained the same, though behaviors have been transformed due to the new media that we have access to. If anything, media has complicated the process of breaking up because there are more channels for communication that we need to pay attention to. For example, in addition to texts, we have to pay attention to emoji use for different meanings. It may be more complicated, but it also means that we’re able to learn more about people just by the way they use their digital technology.

### Tuesday, March 30 – Shaped

Constant connection can be distracting. As we’ve discussed in previous classes, we are unable to be as mindful these days because digital communication has pulled our attention in too many different directions. It’s hard to even be aware of your own thoughts when you’re constantly being bombarded by an influx of information about those in your social network or even around the world. Ads and commercial marketing also distract us, cluttering our screens and adding more information that we have to perceive and interpret. Like both Professors Lessig and Reagle, I too sometimes have to disconnect from the internet in order to focus. When I have access to the Web, I find myself drifting to social media, thus halting my progress on assignments or other work.

The effect of digital communication on self-esteem is another topic that has long been researched and discussed. In fact, in another one of my communication classes we read a research paper from [Kleemans et. al (2018)](https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1257392) about how teen girls are more susceptible to social comparison based on their peers rather than celebrities, emphasizing the influence that our social networks can have on our self-esteem and, more specifically, body image. Despite these effects, however, there is a pressure to remain positive. I think Goffman’s stage metaphor is an illuminating way to conceptualize it. We’re aware that others may be watching us when we’re on the “front stage,” so we try to hide some of our real feelings if we think they would be perceived negatively. It’s only when we retreat to the “backstage” that we can express our emotions freely. It’s unfair, however, to say that the internet is making people more narcissistic. Though as Reagle (2019) says, “social networks might attract those with narcissistic traits, or perhaps people are more narcissistic when online,” this labeling is problematic not only because it generalizes those that use the internet with this negative connotation, but it also be detrimental to the understanding of the actual clinical disorder of narcissism.

### Friday, April 9 – Collapsed Context

According to Grazian (2003), as cited by Marwick and boyd, “authenticity is a social construct” (p. 119). Our online social presences, no matter how “authentic” we try to be, are curated for our audiences. Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical metaphor explains we engage in “frontstage” and “backstage” behaviors – essentially putting on a façade and presenting ourselves in the most favorable light when “performing” for an imagined audience. This perception of an imagined audience dictates many of our actions, causing us to self-censor and strive for a balance of how much to put online while attempting to be authentic. No matter what we think though, “whether we are viewed as authentic depends on the definition imposed by the person doing the judging,” explained Marwick and boyd (p. 124).

While context collapse is rooted in the idea of forming a singular identity to present to those in your social network from different social situations, I would argue that yes, it’s still possible to have more than one persona online. Depending on how much you reveal on different profiles, it is possible to create different identities and social media profiles. It’s reminiscent of the idea of rinstas and finstas on Instagram. Teens’ “rinstas” are their “real instas” that they use to present themselves to their social network. However, their “finstas,” or “fake instas,” are subtler accounts for the inner circle of their social network where they can have more freedom to be their more “authentic” selves.

When using social media like Twitter, users engage in a directed friendship model, in which “there is no technical requirement of reciprocity, and often, no social expectation of such,” explained Marwick and boyd (p. 116). Twitter then becomes a social space for interacting with friends, promoting so-called “digital intimacy.” It can lead to some users becoming “micro-celebrities,” but I think it could lead to the development of parasocial relationships. When users on the receiving end of (micro-)celebrities’ tweets, it can make them feel like they know them on a personal level and are actually close friends with them when in reality, these tweets were crafted for their audience.

### Tuesday, April 13 – Gendered Work

The idea that we live in a meritocracy is a myth, but it seems like online “influencers” are trying to challenge this notion. “The American Dream” is an unattainable goal due to the institutional barriers to success, but with the internet, it seems like there are more opportunities that have arisen for entrepreneurs. As Duffy and Pruchniewska discuss in their research paper, the “rise of independent work has been framed as a movement away from bureaucratic, male-dominated work structures,” but really women have still had to conform to traditionally feminine presentations in order to be successful (p. 844). In order to be successful in whatever business venture they’ve chosen – whether it be engaging in sponcons or lifestyle blogging (with the help of an Instagram husband) – they’ve had to “conform to traditional prescriptions for femininity, including modesty, sociality, and an aura of decorum,” resulting in what Duffy and Pruchniewska call the digital double bind – involving soft self-promotion, interactive intimacy, and compulsory visibility to appeal to audiences and clients (p. 845).

This discussion reminds me of the term “girlboss,” a millennial word used often to describe women who make their way up the corporate ladder by being assertive and confident. I’m actually currently writing an article about it for a journalism class because it’s such a complex topic. People see it as “feminist entrepreneurship” like Duffy and Pruchniewska discussed, and it’s previously been described as a [marketable form of neoliberal feminism]( https://gen.medium.com/the-end-of-the-girlboss-is-nigh-4591dec34ed8) (p. 844). While it was originally used as a term for female empowerment, its many implications have now caused it to have a more negative connotation. Many find it problematic because of the specification of “girl” in front of “boss.” It’s a reminder that we’re not in a postfeminist world, as mentioned by Duffy and Pruchniewska, implying that women need to take on traditional masculine qualities like assertiveness and confidence while still maintaining a feminine aura in order to be successful in the workplace.