While I found the ideas presented in Camgirls generally interesting, my lack of knowledge about the history and politics of webcam/camgirl subculture is leaving me a bit at a loss for responding to the text as a whole. Certain parts of the text, though, particularly Senft’s discussion of the perceived and enacted legitimacy of social networking in online communities, did strike me as especially compelling and accessible. Given my experiences as a user of LiveJournal for going on five years now, I can attest, at least from my own perspective, to Senft’s description of the process and dynamics of LJ “friendship”. As Senft explains, there is very much a constant sense of power of relative privacy and access, as well as the need to maintain that power even as you alter the relationship it creates between you and specific other users on the site, in LJ friending interactions (99-101). But what I hadn’t considered before about these interactions is Senft’s later connection of the power dynamic that underscores them to the ways in which our online interactions simultaneously fit and refute the public/private dichotomy. Most obviously, this is through the user’s creation of a public/private divide within their journal content by restricting viewership of some entries and leaving others open to general, often unknown visitors. Such a choice, like the choice to then allow some users greater access to different levels of private content in recognition of online “friendship”, consciously recreates the public/private division and represents on the user’s part not only an adherence to offline social beliefs in the necessity of this division, but also an active desire to regain control over the dubious public of the online sphere by replicating familiar, restrictive-access offline behaviors within it.
This behavior is not in and of itself a bad thing; where it becomes problematic is when it is further complicated by the ways in which we conceptualize the online sphere as always, first and foremost, a private space. Among my LJ friends, and even in the content of my own journal, is constant talk of things “IRL” and the implied need to keep online activities, experiences, and social connections separated from those had “in real life”. Again, the public/private division is replicated, this time with a greater sense of prioritizing the sanctity of the public, IRL image over that of the private, online one. Implicitly, the sentiment expressed here is one of the public needing protection from the private, and of that protection coming through the medium of distinct separation and space: online content (including, as has been discussed in earlier readings, exploration of sexuality, politics, religious affiliation, interests/hobbies, and other aspects of individual identity, especially those positions/identities typically marginalized in normative culture) and any discussion of it are relegated firmly to the online sphere, leaving the offline identity “free” to continue performing and operating securely within appropriate social norms.
Obviously, there are innumerable problems with this line of thought, most of which trace back to more standard feminist critiques of the general public/private dichotomy. But what I found especially interesting about Senft’s discussion was the connection she made between replicating the public/private division online and her concept of tele-ethicality. As Senft argues, relegating our online interactions to the private sphere compromises our ability to recognize them and the aspects of identity they unlock as legitimate. Further, the distance we create from our online networks is also distance between us and any causes, activist or otherwise, related to them that demand our action and support. In this light, the model of camgirls, who Senft assesses as holding power precisely because they straddle and explode that public/private division, becomes, in a sense, a model for what would be achieved by ideal online interaction. At the very least, it is a call for us to reconceptualize our understanding of the online/offline spheres, this time with greater allowance for the necessary complexities created by the increasing prevalence of online networking as a tool in not only social, but also activist endeavors.
Work Cited
Senft, Theresa M. Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Networks. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2008. Print.
And my question for discussion with the author: In your discussion of tele-ethicality, you seemed to be making a few interesting points about ethical imperatives in not only how we allow ourselves to identify/interact online, but also how we then apply those aspects of our identities to activism. In particular, your recollection of being told a few times to disconnect from the online sphere and do “real” and “worthwhile” feminist work struck a chord with me, as that critique is one I have encountered (from others as well as myself) before. Outside of what you discussed in the text, how have your experiences helped you justify your continued involvement in online interactions and activism in the face of such critiques? Do you have any recommendations for ways to bridge the perceived gap between online and “real”/“real-world” activism?
No comments:
Post a Comment