User Generated Content, Identity, and Social Change
This is a research paper I wrote as a part of my coursework for the University of Texas in 2017. It is a bit of a lengthy read, but I believe it can be useful for those interested in identity and advocacy and is also revealing of the dangers of relying solely on sources that use algorithms (e.g. Facebook) for news and other important information.
In this paper I discuss User Generated Content (UGC) in relation to the formation of identity in an attempt to highlight the influence advocacy groups can attain with UGC. This point is based upon three main arguments. First, ideas about the “other” are so intimately linked to identity that basic logic and reason alone cannot be used to combat prejudice and one must instead focus on creating a space where individuals feel comfortable and are encouraged to experiment with their identities in a way that will allow them to see their prejudiced views of the other. Second, UGC can have such an influence on the evolution of social norms that it would be detrimental to advocacy to ignore its potential to implement positive change in the current climate of prejudice and racism. Third, because of the algorithms (the basic structure of the web and the ways in which content reveals itself) individuals are repeatedly exposed to content that reinforces their ideas cementing their sense of identity as correct.
To approach this subject, I set out to and answer several questions about identity, social norms, UGC (especially social media sites) and the links between them. What role does user generated content play in forming identity? What capacity does UGC have to influence social norms? Can it be used as a vehicle to combat prejudices that is as efficient as its uses to perpetuate prejudice?
What role does UGC play in identity?
To tackle this question, we must have a brief understanding of how identity is formed which can be achieved by going over some theoretical concepts. An important point to remember is that identity formation is a process that continues over the course of an individual’s life. This means that their experiences will always affect their sense of identity, but (especially in later years) the effects can be so subtle that we often do not notice them. There is no one concrete definition of “identity”. A broad idea is that it can be characterized by a person’s question of “Who are you?” (Schwartz, 2012 p.2)
“First, we should note that “you” can be singular or plural— thus, identity can refer to the self-definitions of individuals…as well as pairs of individuals, small face-to-face groups, and larger social categories...Second, the question may be posed reflexively— to oneself introspectively (i.e., “Who am I?”) or to fellow group members in an intra-group discussion (i.e., “Who are we?”)—as well as in social interactions between individuals and between groups. In other words, identity comprises not only “who you think you are” (individually or collectively), but also “who you act as being” in interpersonal and intergroup interactions— and the social recognition or otherwise that these actions receive from other individuals or groups (e.g., Baumeister, 1986; Butler, 1990; Reicher, 2000). Thus, the identity question, “Who are you?”, actually encompasses a range of diverse but related contents and processes, and these are emphasized in different fields of research, and in different theoretical and metatheoretical perspectives.” (Schwartz, 2012 p.2)
Scholars generally refer to three different levels of identity content (individual, relational, and collective) which are also usually discussed in conjunction with the specific processes of identity formation that seem to occur. While there is not sufficient evidence to argue that these processes occur over a specific timeline, it can be safe to say that the bulk of the “content” of an individual’s identity has merged by adulthood, and the early years of one’s life are extremely influential on the formation of identity. Individual identity includes, “aspects of self-definition at the level of the individual person…[e.g.] goals, values and beliefs (Marcia, 1966; Waterman, 1999), religious and spiritual beliefs (MacDonald, 2000), standards for behavior and decision-making (Atkins, Hart, &Donnelly, 2005; Hardy & Carlo, 2005), self-esteem and self-evaluation (Kernis, Lakey, & Heppner, 2008; Sedikides & Gregg, 2008), desired, feared, and expected future selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986) and one’s overall “life story” (McAdams, 2006)…tend to focus especially on individual-level processes, often emphasizing the agentic role of the individual in creating or discovering his or her own identity (Cote & Levine, 2002; Waterman, Chapter 16, this volume).” (Schwartz, 2012 p.3)
Relational identity is the content that involves an individual’s view of their role in relation to others, “such as child, spouse, parent, co-worker, supervisor, customer, etc.…In terms of relational identity processes, many approaches hold that identity is defined and located within interpersonal space…claims to a particular identity need to be recognized by a social audience if they are to be secure (Markova, 1987; Swann, 2005). (Schwartz, 2012 p.3)
Finally, collective identity “refers to people’s identification with the groups and social categories to which they belong, the meanings that they give to these social groups and categories, and the feelings, beliefs, and attitudes that result from identifying with them (Ashmore, Deaux & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; De Fina, 2007; Tajfel & Turner, 1986; van Zomeren, Postmes & Spears, 2008).” (Schwartz, 2012 p.3) These groups can be large such as religion and ethnicity, or smaller like friend groups or families. The processes that focus on this function of identity involve momentary changes in self-conceptions or larger societal transformations in the meaning of these groups. In addition to these three main kinds of identity, people also identify with tangible things such as certain places, or their personal assets. For the purposes of this paper, I am going to focus on this, an individual based view of identity, and less on the view of categories themselves. I will also focus on social identity theory since we are talking about the impact of UGC on social norms. There is much more conversation to be had about the multifaceted nature of identity but that would go beyond the scope of this paper.
“Social identity theory is based on the assumption that the self-concept comprises both personal and social elements: one can view herself or himself as an individual in one social context and as a member or a particular group in another context…Two basic motivations, tied to social identities, drive people’s attitudes, behavior, and perception of the social world: a motivation to obtain a clear picture of one’s position in the social structure; and a motivation to obtain or maintain a positive sense of self-esteem (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). A clear representation of the social world is obtained through the cognitive process of categorization. Positive self-esteem, in turn, is achieved through intergroup comparisons…in order to obtain positive distinctiveness, and thus positive collective self-esteem.” (Schwartz, 2012 p.900)
Put simply, our self-concept includes the multiple groups we consider ourselves to be a part of. Commitments to categorical groups, especially those related to race and religion, becomes important when discussing acts of retaliation (later in this paper).
There are many overlapping theoretical models that have emerged to explore the formation and development of identity. These models also arose from differing traditions (development psychology, social-psychological, cultural adaptation research). Each has a slightly different take on the nature of longitudinal changes in identity, but it seems to be accepted that whatever the nature of these changes are, it is never absolutely fixed by a certain age.
How can UGC be linked to identity?
First, we must have a solid understanding of what UGC is. There are many ways people have attempted to categorize UGC, but there is no way to do it accurately because most sites have a different combination of components of UGC. I chose the following breakdown, only to demonstrate the wide scope in which UGC is used: a) UGC as Core Content (as seen on sites like eBay, KSL Classifieds, Etsy, YouTube); b) UGC as Supporting Content (comments, ratings, reviews, polls); c) Integrated (carefully woven into product to create high engagement like Ok.com). There is a common misconception that UGC sites are only social media sites in general. The reality is that most current websites, if the site designers are on top of current trends, have some sort of UGC integrated into their site. It is becoming ubiquitous on the internet. As agents, we have two main roles when it comes to this subject -producers and consumers, or listeners.
The majority of UGC actors are consumers. Even when an individual is not actively posting on UGC sites, they are still participating by reading or watching the posts. When they are listening, they are connecting to that community in a very real way.
“But this view of power in the relationship between speaking and listening overlooks the ways in which listening can function as an agentic power itself, and it certainly fails to acknowledge the forms of everyday listening online that can generate powerful bonds of social intimacy and connectedness. Such a perspective is not attuned to the forms of listening that occur between individuals and between groups online, those that are not directed solely towards the purpose of democratic change, debate or resistance. Listening has not been given sufficient consideration as a significant practice of intimacy and emotional connection online.” (Crawford, 2010, p.66)
Content producers are those who actively post content on sites through videos, pictures, blogs, comments, likes, et cetera. As expressed by Kate Crawford (above) much of the original hype about the effects of UGC was that people were able to have a voice, that everyone had the opportunity to be heard. But there was little discussion about the role of the listeners. As producers, people contribute content to their community of interest and in so doing express some of the beliefs and values that they identify with. As listeners, they can reconfirm their beliefs through consuming content that reaffirms their views (or through retaliating against content they do not agree with which we will discuss later) and can simultaneously reaffirm the validity of the original producer’s view by reacting to it through a comment or “like”.
Communities of Interest and Internet Structures
“Zuckerberg subscribes to the idea that communities of interest already exist and the internet and more directly social media sites are supposed to help them. “Publishers asked Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook): “How can my publication start a community like yours? We should own a community, shouldn’t we? Tell us how.” Zuckerberg: “you can’t.” He told the media moguls they were asking the wrong question. You don’t start communities, he said. Communities already exist. They’re already doing what they want to do. The question you should ask is how you can help make them do that better.” (Jarvis, 2011, p.48)
The purpose of this paper is not to show that UGC is responsible for the emergence of communities of interest and social movements, but to show how it affects them and address the growing problem within the internet. The problem seems to lie within how the structure of the internet is evolving and the effect this new structure has on content exposure. The effect of this new structure seems to be that instead of the internet increasing socio-cultural perspectives, it is increasingly allowing narrow perspectives to be perpetuated and to become more “real” in virtual space. This is one of many possible effects of the use of algorithms, especially in regards to ad placement and personalized content suggestions. As internet users, sites collect our data with or without our being aware of it, and then use that data to tailor the content they suggest to us (creating personalized suggestions) and to sell to advertisers. In his book “The Googlization of Everything.” Siva Vaidhyanathan discusses Google’s uses of algorithms and how they use data about our prejudices, interests, and identities to tailor information to us, which even makes something as simple as searching a biased action. ProPublica’s study (2017?) of Facebook’s advertising services also shows how Facebook ads can not only include hate-group propaganda, but can also be targeted toward a very specific group of people and exclude viewers based on profile data, such as ethnicity.
I would like to take a moment to drive this point home with something that ironically happened while researching and writing this section of the paper. While inputting references on citationmachine.net, I was given the option to continue using the site free of charge if I agreed to do a quick survey and watch a sponsored ad. This is a screenshot of the occurrence:
This structure that ubiquitous sites like Google and Facebook are using influences the self-concepts of users by repeatedly exposing them to content that contains supporting evidence of what they already know to be true (whether or not is actually true). This means that while the internet can be used to increase cultural perspectives like never before, it has also, through algorithms, come to immerse consumers in the ideas and movements that relate to their own communities of interest placing them very comfortably in a personalized virtual world because they are inundated with content that builds it up around them. Everything we click on tells an algorithm that we identify with that thing, and the algorithm will assume that we would like to continue to do so.
What capacity does UGC have to influence the evolution of social norms?
To answer this question, we must first understand what factors in general influence the evolution of social norms. There seems to be as much research on social norms as there is on identity. I would like to summarize quickly what social norms are and the relevant theories that attempt to explain what factors influence them. According to Bicchieri, C., & Muldoon, R. (2011), social norms are “the customary rules that govern behavior in groups and societies…a system of norms specifies what is acceptable and what is not in a society or group.” According to the various models that explain the emergence of social norms, the most relevant line of thought for the purposes of this paper has to do with reciprocal altruism. Reciprocal altruism says that cooperative behavior will evolve in a social framework in which individuals can benefit from building reputations, requires learning in ongoing close-knit groups, and requires that "agents can properly identify other agents, such that they can maintain a record of their past behavior.” Axelrod (1986) presents a variation of reciprocal altruism. In this variation he uses the "norms game” where agents probabilistically choose to comply with the norm, or deviate from it, and then other agents can probabilistically choose to punish any deviations at some cost to them. Agents can choose to be bold which affects how often they attempt defections, or vengeful which affects how often they punish. When we add a meta-norm, which punishes agents who do not punish defectors, we end up with a norm that is stable with a low level of defection and high levels of punishment. In this model, norms require meta-norms, they require that failure to retaliate against defection must be seen as equivalent to defection itself. (Axelrod, 1986)
What does this have to do any of it? Social norms influence the beliefs and values that are part of our individual identity. In this model, when a person or group defects, threatening that norm and in affect that part of our identity, we must retaliate in order not to feel like we are defecting from them ourselves. (Bicchieri C., & Muldoon, R., 2011) This theme is repeated through studies of social identity itself in addition to social norms, "Because abstract groups such as nations, cultures, or religions have the potential to outlast the individuals who compose them at any given point in time, affiliation with such groups provides a sense of continuity, permanence, and meaning. Thus, we are highly motivated to act on behalf of groups central to our social identities and against other r groups that threaten or impede our own." (Schwartz, 2012, p.917)
UGC and Social Movements
Can we include social movements as one of these factors to include the effects of UGC on the success of social movements in this section? Social movements emerge for a variety of reasons, they differ from special-interest groups in that they work outside the government system. These movements are dependent upon creating sympathizers of a cause and then motivating these sympathizers to make the jump to action. The larger a movement becomes, the more influential it can be. This makes recruitment an imperative factor of success in social movements. In order for recruitment to be successful, there must be a marketing strategy in place not unlike general business marketing. Currently, if I type into google search “the most important marketing platforms” the first four results are, of course, paid advertisements by marketing companies. Literally every other result on the first page is about social media marketing and UGC in general. If word of mouth is the single most effective marketing strategy, UGC is the holy grail, “people are much more likely to participate in a social movement activity when there are asked or urged to do so by friends, acquaintances, and family members.” (“Understanding and Changing the Social World,” 2016) Several social movements have heavily used UGC sites like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and blogs to get the word out about their cause, spread propaganda, call people to action and request funding. Because of the internet and these methods, even those who want to contribute minimal effort do not even have to leave their couch to funnel money into a movement. The Green Movement in Iran in 2009 is an incredible example of how social networking accelerated the spread of active members of social movements. Other more recent examples are the Black Lives Matter movement (which seems to have originated from a single hashtag that began in 2013) and the very recent American neo-Nazi movement which includes a number of groups including the National Socialist Movement. (The American Nazi Party (@ANP14) currently has 13.3K followers on Twitter.)
Creating a Safe Space for Opinion-Driven Dialogue
So far, we have discussed how opinions are linked to identity in a way that thwarts the efforts of social movements to sway popular opinion. These theories about identity help to explain the evolution of social norms and the strong hold they tend to have over individuals. Studies of user generated content show how producers and consumers on the internet express their beliefs and how they are reconfirmed in part by audience reaction and also by the repeated exposure of personalized content driven by data algorithms. The question remains: how can advocates of equality, acceptance and understanding use UGC to open peaceful and meaningful dialogue between groups who oppose each other?
An exceptional example of this idea is The Human Library Project. Originating in Copenhagen, Denmark, the project began as a youth-activist organization called “Stop the Violence” which was a response from a small group of youths to one of their friends being stabbed in 1993. From this organization, The Human Library was born. At the events thrown by members of this organization, human books from all kinds of backgrounds are available to check out for an amount of time. The “readers” sit and talk with the books and are able to ask them prying questions about their identities resulting in meaningful and educational conversations. Some of their “best sellers” include refugees, the obese, the homeless, nudists, people with body modifications, transgenders etc. Almost anyone in any location in the world can put on these events making the movement cost efficient and increasing accessibility. However, a quick check of their Facebook page upcoming events and past events shows that events in the U.S. seem to be much less successful than those in other parts of the world. It should be noted that this measurement is based only on the number of attendees shown and not the quality of dialogue. Whatever the case, this is a successful effort to create the kind of open space needed to combat prejudice and bigotry in communities.
Conclusions
To conclude this paper, I would like to reiterate the main arguments:
1. Opinions and beliefs about the “other” are intimately linked to our personal identities according to social identity theories, and studies on reciprocal altruism and game theory.
2. Ignoring UGC would be detrimental to advocacy movements because of it’s wide scope and influence which has been acknowledged by contemporary marketing models and shown in social movements all over the world.
3. It is important to create an inclusive space in which individuals of all identities, especially those with radical opinions, can feel comfortable asking questions or learning about the “other” in a way that suspends their instinct to retaliate against subconscious threats to identity. One reason it is important that the space be all inclusive is because ad targeting and personalized content through algorithms lead content consumers to be repeatedly exposed to content that supports their biases.
References
1. Schwartz, S. J. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of identity theory and research. New York: Springer.
2. Jarvis, J. (2011). What would Google do? New York: Harper Business.
3. Banz, R. (n.d.). Journalism Training. Online Courses. Anytime, Anywhere. Retrieved December 10, 2017, from http://www.newsu.org/course_files/TransformationTour/PDF/DDM_UGCModels_RusselBanz.pdf
4. Crawford, K. (2010). Listening, not Lurking: The Neglected Form of Participation.
5. Bicchieri, C., & Muldoon, R. (2011, March 01). Social Norms. Retrieved December 10, 2017, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-norms/
6. [Author removed at request of original publisher]. (2016, April 08). Sociology: Understanding and Changing the Social World. Retrieved December 11, 2017, from http://open.lib.umn.edu/sociology/chapter/21-3-social-movements/
7. Lopes, A. R. (2014). The Impact of Social Media on Social Movements: The New Opportunity and Mobilizing Structure.
8. Tobin, J. A. (n.d.). Facebook Enabled Advertisers to Reach 'Jew Haters'. Retrieved December 10, 2017, from https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-enabled-advertisers-to-reach-jew-haters
9. Vaidhyanathan, S. (2012). The Googlization of everything: (and why we should worry). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
10. Challenge your stereotypes - The origin of the Human Library. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2017, from http://humanlibrary.org/about-the-human-library/
Comments