Marginalized Turned Mainstream

Marginalized Turned Mainstream

As Gary Downing illustrates in his journal article “Virtual youth: non-heterosexual young people's use of the internet to negotiate their identities and socio-sexual relations”, we are introduced to a marginalized cluster of youth that so easily become engulfed by the shunning and embarrassment created by those youth and adults living “mainstream” existences that are now finding a new way to not only accept their own sexuality, but also having the opportunity to embrace it and mingle with others who are in their same or similar position. Downey explains that “geographic scholarship has also explored the relationship between technology and young people’s immediate socio-spacial environments”; LGBT youth who were previously limited by their local culture and society and now able to cross over into something of a parallel world where they can openly speak how they want and relate with others who have felt the same. These non-heterosexual websites thus provide a venue for LGBT youth to gain a sense of belonging and community while being able to openly seek out friends, mentors, and potential boyfriends/girlfriends, granting them the opportunity to take their minority position to a mainstream source- the Internet.

In the journal article by Jonathan Alexander, he champions these LGBT websites saying that “young Internet-savvy teens can ‘follow dispatches from queer activists worldwide, hone [their] writing, flirt, try on disposable identities, and battle bigots-all from [their] home screen[s]” allowing us to see the security and safety that these online communities provide for LGBT youth. Even while Downing considers the effect that these online communities may have on face-to-face initial interactions, it is not altogether limiting these friendships and relationships to online, but rather provides a solid basis for the youth to establish a connection before taking the step of meeting face-to-face. Alexander points out “many of these kids are in rather isolated areas, and they want to know that they are not alone in the world”, which is a fantastic opportunity that the World Wide Web provides.

In conclusion, both Downey and Alexander do a phenomenal job of bringing forth a new lens for us to analyze youth with- one which takes a marginalized bunch of youth and sees how they use mainstream tactics, such as online forums and websites, to create their own microcosmic communities of support. I feel that these online communities present a good first step for LGBT youth to be able to feel comfortable and safe about coming out and seeking out new relationships and friendships, my own quandary regarding this is the potential for cyberbullying and inappropriate use of this site. If we already are experiencing a high level of bullying online in schools and such stereotyping already in our society, I just fear that these sites are bound to cause some youth dismay if others create users and expose these youth who are not ready to step into their shoes in reality. The LGBT community needs a venue of expression and safety, I only hope this online option does not come back to haunt anyone.

Jasmine Ali

Alexander, Jonathan. "Introduction to the Special Issue: Queer Webs: Representations of LGBT People and Communities on the World Wide Web." International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies 7.2-3 (2002): 77-84. Springer Link. Web. 28 Apr. 2014.

Downing, Gary. "Virtual youth: non-heterosexual young people's use of the internet to negotiate their identities and socio-sexual relations." Children's Geographies 11.1 (2013): 44-58. Print.

Non-heterosexual Youth Seek Online Support

More than half of the teenagers surveyed have heard derogatory words about sexual orientation every day at school and in the community, “seventy-eight percent of gay (or believed to be gay) teens are teased or bullied in their schools and communities,” and “the most likely group to be bullied are ‘kids who are gay or thought to be gay’” (Riese 2014). When we look at these statistics, it is no surprise that non-heterosexual youth turn to “LGBT-oriented social networking websites [as] spaces of relative safety, where young people can practice important turning points such as sexual disclosure before telling friends and family” (Addison and Comstock 1998 as cited in Downing 2013). As Gary Downing found, “young people identified that websites aimed at transgender, asexual and queer concerns made alternative sexualities newly accessible.” Like most youth, non-heterosexual youth are seeking acceptance and ability to associate with people who are similar to themselves and across other social groups. However, as the negative stigma of being gay and rampant bullying of gay youth persists in schools and communities, it will be far more difficult for gay youth to cross social barriers and possess compartmentalized fluidity and gay youth will seek support from the internet, which may help in some respects but this may seclude gay youth from offline social groups.

In lecture, we spoke of the term compartmentalized fluidity, which means “relative freedom of movement and association” in the context of urban youth and conflict. The term is associated with “(1) permeable group and spatial boundaries; (2) multiple places for identities to stick; (3) crossing sociocultural lines,” and can also give a useful analysis on conflict resolution for gay youth, namely escaping the reality of being bullied, ostracized, and stigmatized. Since it is difficult for gay youth permeate among groups that do not accept their sexual identity or from constant bullying, gay youth are seeking other places for their identities to stick. For example, my high school’s drama club was the most accepting and understanding of gay youth, and thus gay youth were often socializing with drama club and their social groups. However, as Downing explains, non-heterosexual youth grow up in a predominately heterosexual peer culture and gay venues are not readily accessible. For instance, gay youth who wish to explore their identity prior to disclosure, will require to find means of transportation and circumventing other barriers getting to gay venues for socializing.

With this being said, it seems to reason that many gay youth would seek out the internet in order to “seek support relating to a range of sexuality-related issues, which include[e] sexual disclosure, sexual health and LGBT lifestyles,” and additionally, according to Hillier and Harrison (2006) “to rehearse new sexual identities, same-sex friendships and intimate friendships” (as cited in Downing 2013). Moreover, according to Hardie and Buzwell (2006), although an important part of social networking is creating and maintaining socio-sexual relations— such as dating and engaging in sexual relationships—, establishing friendships is a greater priority for most people online. With the internet, gay youth are able to explore their identities, meet similar-situated people, and deal with the stresses of being a stigmatized minority. However, Downing observed that there [was] a hesitation to use the internet for the stigma of being “perceived [as] fail[ing] to meet sexual partners in offline environment,” and “one out of every two [LGBT] youths are regular victims of [cyberbullying]” (Psych Central News Editor 2010). These may be barriers for gay teens to seek online resources and support but at least statistically, it seems that gay youth are more likely to be bullied in school and the community rather than on online forums with similar-situated people.

This leads me to question, just how much of a remedy the internet is without face-to-face interactions, socializing with in public settings, friend groups at school, and other modes of socializing. These gay youth would still be subject to being ostracized, stigmatized, and bullied during from the school and community. Without support to deal with and escape from such situations, internet does not seem to be able to fulfill all the needs of gay youth. Furthermore, the internet’s limitations on the internet may lead gay youth to stay at home and communicate online instead of interacting with peers, and thus seclude them. Therefore, although the internet may be a helpful and supportive utility for gay youth, it does not give the social interactions and protection from bullying (including cyber-bullying) which gay youth need.

Downing, Gary. (2013). Virtual youth: non-heterosexual young people’s use of the internet to negotiate their identities and socio-sexual relations. Children’s Geographies, 11(1), 44-58.

Psych Central News Editor. (2010). Cyberbullying Rampant for Lesbian and Gay Teens. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/6199-cyberbullying-rampant-lesbian-gay-teens.html

Riese, Jane. (2014). Youth Who Are Bullied Based upon Perceptions About Their Sexual Orientation. Retrieved from http://www.violencepreventionworks.org/public/bullying_sexual_orientation.page#1

Social Networks and Youth Decisions

            The advancement of social networks and technology has become a mode for non-heterosexual youth to shape their socio-sexual identities. For instance, one network called “Hornet” has attracted 3 million users in two years by stressing the importance of chats rather than pictures. Gary Downing explores in his research how the Internet has provided diverse opportunities specifically for non-heterosexual users of the UK, and how this has also fostered a “multi-dimensional dialogue” between online and offline realities. Not only can they interact with the members of the same community, but they can also utilize the Internet to form relationships, seek counsel, and facilitate offline meetings.

            Downing engaged in semi-structured interviews and focus groups and applied purposive sampling due to a more specific population. It is significant that the youth studied were of a variety of orientations, backgrounds, and education levels because the Internet social networks accommodate diverse social groups not just limited to LGBTs [but also queer, asexual, transgender groups] and let them seek help for social issues such as sexual disclosure, sexual health, and LGBT lifestyles. We must account for the fact that such actions are in response to a “predominantly heterosexual familial, educational, and peer culture” (49). Non-heterosexual social networks each have their “own target audience which will change what is discussed” on them. It really depended on what the youth were seeking in terms of a social outlet, and nonetheless these online communities have given non-heterosexual users freedom by allowing them to construct their sexualities however they desired.

            The significance of these online environments is that we see again a surge in non-mainstream, specific subculture of minorities in which youth struggle to identify themselves in the midst of an oppositional, mainstream society. In addition to the encountering of social conflict in local heterosexual settings, some LGBT youth were also marginalized within their own non-heterosexual communities on the basis of ethnicity, age, geographic location (limited LGBT population in rural areas), and sexual orientations. As a response, the Internet becomes a haven for LGBT youth to escape to the ‘back stage’ where they can “rehearse their offline identities” and thus eventually blur the distinction “between virtual and material spaces” (54). However, problems still remain online as “processes of inclusion and exclusion” still occur online due to activity and orientation. Also youth are still going through moral and mental development, and frequently interacting with strangers both online and offline may be potentially dangerous.

According to lecture, the flow of compartmentalized fluidity allows these youth to reflect upon themselves and further construct their socio-sexual identities in the online social sphere. Youth turn to a social outlet online that provides a deviation from realistic social concerns and also a comfort zone by emphasizing a sense of community. This research deals with a specific youth population, and we should reconsider the categorization of contemporary youths as “agents” in context. Non-heterosexual youth struggle to deal with peer conflict and are sensitive to localized identities; they proceed to construct their identities and claim specific socio-cultural values by engaging in a supportive virtual environment with similar people. 

Downing emphasizes in the end that because UK is cutting back on LGBT youth services, social networks facilitate in garnering support. However I think it is important that we question whether virtual networks are really the solution to realistic, material problems. Are non-heterosexual youth actually discovering a place of refuge that promotes diverse characters? Or are they merely trying to escape real-life conflict by fleeing to the Internet? Whichever side you may take, undoubtedly this social network situation is a consequence of minority youths clashing with the rest of society over the socially accepted views of sexual identities.

Works Cited

Downing, Gary. "Virtual Youth: Non-heterosexual Young People's Use of the Internet to Negotiate Their Identities and Socio-sexual Relations." Children's Geographies 11.1 (2013): 44-58. Print.

Hoge, Patrick. "Gay Social Network Hornet Attracts Three Million Users." San Francisco Business Times, 25 Apr. 2014. Web. 26 Apr. 2014.

Comfort Zone - Betrayal?

Gary Downing argues in his article “Virtual youth: non-heterosexual young people’s use of the Internet to negotiate their identities and socio-sexual relations,” that the Internet plays a significant role for LGBT youth to navigate their own identities and create their own community. Since it is fairly recent that the world started to acknowledge non-heterosexual people, LGBT obviously had to grow up in a heterosexual dominant peer culture. This makes it harder for LGBT to come out their real identity, therefore makes it difficult to find reliable information about their identity and friendships/relationships. This is why Downing argues that the Internet is an important community platform of networks for LGBT.

Borrowing Hall’s term “Storm and Stress,” and Coleman’s “Subculture,” one can conclude that figuring out their own identity and having the sense of being accepted the identity they have discovered themselves by the outside world are prominent factors for the youth. When adolescence does not have not yet acquired these two factors, they often suffer psychologically because they feel confused and do not gain enough confidence in them. This being said, sexual orientation is critical source of self-identity.

Downing introduced some of the ways that LGBT utilizes the Internet to explore the new community that they can feel the sense of belonging and safe. The Internet also enables them to get information about often-regarded non-mainstream identity, make friends, and find partners for relationships. It is convincing to argue that the Internet provides a comfortable place to interact with peers because the world still does not provide sufficient education and comfortable community for them.

Despite the fact that a number of youth does use the Internet in their daily lives, the implication of the boundaries of online-offline becoming obscure is problematic. It is great that there are some successful cases of being able to find the right partner through websites, thanks to the Internet dismantling geographical barriers. However, relying solely on the Internet, as an only one source as their community, is dangerous. As some of the interviewed LGBT youth stated in the article, there exist websites that are inappropriate towards some of the younger age youth, and that are only focused on hooking up.

There are numerous dangers of the Internet and there still needs to be improvements to address these cyber regarded issues. Downing overlooks the potential risks of being rejected even in this new community that they find comfortable being involved in. Even in this comfortable cyber community for LGBT, there are people who are perceived as more popular, attractive, and active. Trying to ‘fit in’ is enormously stressful, as we have discussed in; for example, Newman’s reading on how some youth could not find their right place and end up in the solution of violence. Believing that the Internet might provide a better community than offline scenes and their outside daily lives, some youth may delve deeply into the online life. Where do they go next when they discover that they got ‘rejected’ even in the trusted community?  

Source: Iowa State University. "Prevalence of cyberbullying and its psychological impact on nonheterosexual youth revealed." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 8 March 2010. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308182503.htm>.

Self-Esteem and Cultural Flexibility

            Growing up, many individuals go through a phase where they develop peer connections and find their social identity. By socializing with individuals of the same ethnic background, individuals develop a social and cultural preference. However, while many conform socially and culturally as a result of their upbringings and their own choices, Prudence Carter demonstrates that there is another influence that should be considered. Carter argues that a students’ social and cultural preference can be heavily influenced by the social organization within schools.

This social organization can assist or prevent students from becoming culturally flexible. In Carter’s study, she describes cultural flexibility as the ability to effectively cross social and symbolic boundaries and “to utilize variable cultural tools to negotiate multiple sociocultural environments” (Carter 92). Often times, schools create social boundaries that inhibit students of different race, religion, and gender from interacting with one another. For example, many schools separate specific academic classes or extracurricular activities as belonging to a specific group. As a consequence, this discourages students from going against the norm and engaging into that social group, leading to a lack of cultural flexibility.

However, Carter proves that self-esteem was also a significant factor in determining cultural flexibility. From collecting data at the four schools, Carter reports that the black students attending a majority-minority school had higher self-esteem than attending a majority-white school. Consequently, black students attending a majority-minority school, were more culturally flexible than black students from a majority-white schools.  In the article, Does High Self-Esteem Cause Better Performance, Interpersonal Success, Happiness, Or Healthier Lifestyles? It is said that people with high self-esteem claim to be “more likable and attractive, have better relationships, and make better impressions on others than people with low self-esteem.” This article also noted that individuals with higher self-esteem performed better academically. Relating this to Carter’s study, those that were more likable and had better relationships were able to move across different cultural and social groups in schools. Self-esteem led to culturally flexibility and also led to good academic performance. Those that were not culturally flexible did not perform as well as those that were.

Yet, linking self-esteem to cultural flexibility may be tricky. By implying that high self-esteem ultimately leads to a culturally flexible individual could also mean that an individual with low self-esteem might also lead to an individual that is not culturally flexible.  In most cases, the latter assertion may not necessarily be true. Individuals with low self-esteem may not be culturally flexible because of other factors. As Carter points out, these individuals may not cross social boundaries because the school organizes these boundaries in a way that is not easy to cross.

http://www.carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/71496.pdf

Persuasive Writing

Dear LS104AC,

Here is a link to a short article that provides valuable tips for writing a persuasive piece of writing. It will be helpful to some of you thinking about how to compose your final exam pieces.

All the best,
Johann

Rampage Violence in Suburbia

Rampage Shooting

In Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings, Katherine S. Newman asks how “low-crime, family-centered, white communities” have produced rampage killers? This question is a result of a rash of school shooting sprees that begin in 1997 and do not plateau until after the terrorist attacks of “9/11”.  The author argues that the answer lies in two places: “the psychological troubles that were brewing on the inside and the sociological bruises that were collecting as the boys engaged with peer groups, schools, and neighborhoods”. She believes that the natural storm-and-stress state of adolescence combined with the psychological disorders of the shooters led to them blowing social dilemmas out of proportion and lashing out with rampage violence. Before elaborating her argument, the author offers a literature review of the competing theories of school shootings in which she highlights their strengths as well as their flaws.

The author begins by recounting the stories of two separate school shootings that took place in similar suburban towns that were shocked by the senseless and grotesque killings. One was perpetrated by a socially awkward fourteen year old boy named Michael, and the other by a duo made up of an eleven year old named Andrew and a thirteen year old named Mitchell. In both cases there were multiple victims and they seemed to have been random targets. Furthermore, I feel Katherine Newman is drawing on the Rejection Sensitivity Model when she offers her analysis on the killers. For example, the author notes that Michael had been a “victim of one very public incident of teasing” in which it was alleged that he had a homosexual relationship with another student, and that Mitchell and Andrew had built up a sense of rejection by girls and peers. According to RSM theory adolescents are likely to respond to rejection with aggression because of biological upheaval and uncertainty. Additionally, Rejection Sensitivity leads individuals to exaggerate threats and responses that can lead to lethal violence, and according to Newman, all three shooters displayed these characteristics. Moreover, the author debunks the notion that the shootings are spontaneous, random acts, and instead claims that they are premeditated assaults.

In the subsequent sections of the book, the author elaborates on competing theories that attempt to figure out what drove these teens and others like them to murder their classmates. The explanations range from bullying to a culture of violence, from mental illness to a lack of discipline, and from violent media to the availability of guns. The Violent Media theory is of interest to me because it is a debate that played out in U.S. courts. For example, in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) the Supreme Court struck down a California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors under the premise that the media effects research presented could not show beyond a reasonable doubt that violent video games caused aggression and violent behavior. Like the court, Newman acknowledges the correlation between exposure to violent media and violent behavior and desensitization, but she rejects it on the basis that it does not actually prove causality and she states that “it is difficult to sort out whether exposure leads to violence or kids who are already prone to violent behavior select this kind of media material”. This claim essentially highlights a problem about reverse causality.

Overall I felt the author did a great job of engaging the reader with her recounting of the shootings and her in-depth analysis of the killers. Additionally, I believe her literature review of the competing theories really legitimated her argument because she was able to deconstruct each argument and find its weakness. However, I feel that much of her research is affected by her biases and she goes out of her way to try and humanize the killers and justify their actions. For example, when describing the White, church-going communities the killers descended from she claims “these were not the kind of people who produce killers”. What is she implying? Who are the types of people that produce killers? I feel she continually made insinuations like this one throughout the reading. It felt almost like if she refused to believe that these White suburban teens were capable of such atrocities and she was reluctantly writing this piece.

---Jonathan