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.
I think Wooseok highlights a key point when he describes the non-heterosexual online community as an overall “subculture of minorities.” While reading the article, I almost felt that the author could have been describing any marginalized or counter-cultural group of youth. For example, Downing explains how non-heterosexual youth have used the internet as a “virtual sounding board” to explore their identity and preferences, as well as to meet like-minded people and develop socio-sexual relations. However, this doesn’t seem too different from the way that “gamers,” anime/manga enthusiasts, “pro-anorexia” or “pro-self harm,” and other seemingly “countercultural” youth populations might use the internet to seek and connect with peers they cannot otherwise find in the “offline” world. Furthermore, each of these communities seems to have its own set of institutionally and culturally embedded norms and expectations that shape the way youth interact in them. Though the emphasis on sexuality and sexual relations in the non-heterosexual virtual communities might be relatively more prevalent compared to the other subculture virtual communities, Downing also reveals that for many non-heterosexual youth, the goal is still to develop friendships, rather than sexual relationships. Certainly this does not minimize the fact that non-heterosexual youth have been driven to seek online community because they are marginalized and/or bullied in the offline world, and I do not mean to downplay the struggles or challenges that these non-heterosexual youth have faced. Still, I find it interesting that this article seems to represent non-heterosexual youth as some “special” class of youth, as if there are not other youth subcultures that also use the internet to negotiate their identities (albeit in different ways). This article seems to depart from the readings in this class that have tended to draw distinctions between “youth-centered” and “adult-centered,” and instead seems to focus more on the distinction between “heterosexual” and “non-heterosexual,” without as much emphasis on the difference between the youth and adult perspective.
ReplyDeleteI think Wooseok did a great job presenting the problem non-heterosexual youths face, and the resources that have become available to them during the last few years. However, I must step out a little and comment on the comment above this one, written by Jacqueline. Both point out the fact that the internet has become a unique world in which counter-cultural youths (note: we must distinguish this from regular youth subculture, narrowing it more) are able to shape and define their identities.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question Wooseok had posed at the end of his essay, I would have to say that the internet definitely has served a purpose of mitigating counter-cultural youths' needs; however, I would also have to agree that the internet has not and cannot fulfill ALL of their needs, and to rely wholly on the internet would be a form of escaping reality. Like Jacqueline pointed out, while we must acknowledge the challenges these counter-cultural youths had to face, we must also understand that these youths have more (in a sense) "real" resources for them to discover, resources that are perhaps even more effective in fulfilling their goals and wants than chatting online. This resource would be to create a connection with other subcultures that are experiencing the same type of rejection and/or discrimination from society.
I just think that though the internet is a useful tool in preparing one for a social community, it is simply just that; to credit it as the actual solution would be to grossly undermine the root of the problem. The root of the problem should be worked on with actual human connection, with vulnerability of eye contact and nervousness of voice that a regular text cannot deliver or convey.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWooseok effectively summarized Gary Downing’s article regarding the use of the Internet to form relationships among youth who do not identify with the main heterosexual culture of their societies. I also thought that it was interesting how the youth’s differing sexual orientations and identities were compared to Coleman’s idea of a subculture. Also, I must agree that while social networks are helpful, they are not necessarily among the safest methods for forming relationships. However, social networking is an accessible means of self-expression and finding friends, so it would be difficult to completely neglect their value. Regardless, it is a problem if youth are using only social networking instead of also trying to make connections in the real world because these connections help shape one’s identity in society. This is a reflection of a possible consequence of the lack of cultural flexibility, a term that Prudence Carter uses to describe the likeliness of a youth to cross cultural boundaries. As a result, I think that it would be important to make sure that society is more accepting as a whole of not only other races and cultures, but also of other sexual orientations. Just as it was important to collect data from a variety of backgrounds, it is important to have a diverse society so that everyone can hopefully learn to be more accepting and respective of one another.
ReplyDeleteThe author did a great job. Although I agree that social media is a great way for the LGBT community to communicate with each other particularly for geographic reasons, it does not fix the situation that the heterosexual community around them does not accept them. I think if only the virtual community is accepting people may rely on that community and network rather than their physical community, which can be detrimental to a youth’s mental health and social development. LGBT youth may solely rely on that virtual community than his/her physical community to find acceptance. But I think there is a bigger issue in our society that the youth aren’t being accepted and maybe we should focus on that rather than finding a community that accepts them. I think it is more of the issue of changing our attitudes so youth do not feel left out in their physical communities.
ReplyDeleteI feel internet relationships and support systems are a short term solution. The internet can be a refuge for any person who feel isolated from mainstream society. It is great that the internet provides LGBT (and other) marginalized groups with resources and a space to explore and understand their identity, however, this virtual world cannot transcend into the real world. While the internet provides comfort, I think more importantly, it can serve as a starting point for LGBT to begin the process of coming out and finding a support group in the real world. While the cutting down of resources for social services may be a factor why LGBT youth feel rejected, but the cause of discrimination is being ignored by fleeing onto online support groups.
ReplyDeleteI feel that these social networking cited can be very beneficial to the LGBT community. I feel that it is important for everyone to have some sort of support system, especially those at a younger age. They need the affirmation of a trusted indiviual telling them that they will be okay.
ReplyDeleteFor a young child growing up in the society we do, coming out my not be the easiest thing. If they have sources they can reach out to that can help them gain the confidence to express their true self to the people around them, then i would say these social networking sites that have been launched are being successful.
These cites are beneficial for many reasons. Support and knowledge are two of the main ones. Health concerns are a big issue for many people knew and unfamiliar with the LGBT community, so these sites can be a good resource for them. Also, it gives people the opportunity to share stories and know that they are not going through any hard times they may have alone.
Some may say that these sites only provide a hiding place for scared individulas, but i think it serves more as a source of enpowerment.
I agree with Wooseok's concern expressed whether the increasing reliance on social networks to explore youths' non-heterosexual identities online is a progress or not. As much as social networks, such as facebook and Twitter have proven very effective in social movements (such as Arab Spring in Spring of 2011), dealing with social issues such as LGBT rights behind the stage may be more detrimental than progressive. By engaging in this movement back stage, it is difficult to relate to these youths expressing themselves online. It also adds to the connotation that these youths are also afraid of revealing their true identities in front of the public (for good reason, since there is so much discrimination against LGBT community, let alone potential parental disapproval), and it implies that the youths themselves are not yet ready to shamelessly show who they are to the society. I agree with Wooseok that more publicly visible movement may be more effective than just social network to inform people of this issue.
ReplyDeleteWooseok explores how social networks provide an online community for LGBT youth when it is so difficult for them to find a safe haven in a society that is wary of those who go against the mainstream culture. Wooseok's analysis of Downing's work emphasizes that the fact that Downing's interviews are so expansive encompassing people of different sexual orientations, backgrounds, and education levels is so important because it shows how the online social networks are of services to a variety of different people for many different reasons. The social networks provide a safe space to these people where they can ask questions regarding sexual health, their lifestyles, and various other aspects of their lives. These environments also allow for the youths to meet and interact with many other people that are similar to them. Lastly, I liked how Wooseook didn't blindly accept the notion that social networks are good substitutes for actual peer to peer counseling and such and instead questions the safety and effectiveness of doing this all through social networks.
ReplyDelete