See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314581845

Social Media

Chapter · January 2016

DOI: 10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc004

CITATIONS READS
12 92,501

1 author:

Jenny L. Davis
Vanderbilt University
54 PUBLICATIONS 1,622 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jenny L. Davis on 01 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Social Media
JENNY L. DAVIS
James Madison University, USA

Social media can be broadly defined as the set of interactive Internet applications that
facilitate (collaborative or individual) creation, curation, and sharing of user-generated
content. Examples of social media platforms are numerous and varied. They include
Facebook, Friendster, Wikipedia, dating sites, Craigslist, recipe sharing sites (e.g. all-
recipes.com), YouTube, and Instagram. Social media platforms all share the above-
mentioned characteristics, but are unique from one another in many respects. In par-
ticular, platforms often vary in their architectures, structures, norms, and user bases.
In working to differentiate between different kinds of social media platforms, schol-
ars distinguish and label several subsets of social media, with a particular emphasis on
social network sites. boyd and Ellison (2007) explicitly differentiate social network sites
from social networking sites. They argue that social networking implies meeting new
people and making new connections, which contrasts with actual user practices. Specif-
ically, social network site users tend to interact with existing—rather than new—social
contacts. Examples of social network sites include Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, and
LiveJournal.
A second subcategory of social media consists of microblogging sites. These allow
users to distribute short messages to a broad audience, often through links and images.
Such sites have explicit limits on the number of characters or amount of content allowed
per message. Twitter, the predominant microblogging site in the United States, and
Weibo, China’s suite of microblogging sites, limit each message to 140 characters. Vine,
Twitter’s video application, limits clips to 6 seconds.
In addition to the label of social media, the contemporary Internet—characterized by
interactivity and user-generated content—is also known as “Web 2.0.” Some argue that
the newest era of digital technologies, characterized by user collaboration and cooper-
ation, can be labeled “Web 3.0.” Others, however, contend that Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0
are better understood as variations in user practice rather than technological capabil-
ity. Of particular relevance, social media users, who can engage in participatory and
collaborative activities online, also utilize social media platforms to send e-mail type
messages, or engage in asynchronous discussions, both of which the characterize the
Web 1.0 era (Barassi & Treré, 2012).
Researchers at the Pew Internet and American Life Project show that 69% of all US
Internet users participate in some form of social media (Brenner, 2012), with Facebook,
the most popular brand, utilized by 66% of Internet users. Women are significantly
more likely than men to participate in social media, with 75% versus 63% participa-
tion, respectively. Those who are younger (under 30) are significantly more likely to
use social media than those who are older (50 and above), and those with either very

The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, First Edition. Edited by Gianpietro Mazzoleni.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc004
2 SO C I A L ME D I A

high or very low incomes have significantly higher social media participation rates than
those with middle-range incomes. There are no significant racial differences in social
media usage (Brenner, 2012). Internationally, social media use among adults is above
50% in Britain, Spain, and the Czech Republic. Usage rates approach these levels in
Brazil, France, and Italy. In contrast, Pakistan and India have very low social media use,
with less than 10% of the adult population engaging social media platforms. As in the
United States, there are strong global variations in social media use by age, with the
young (18–29) far more likely to use social media than their older counterparts (50+).
For instance, 71% of 18–29-year-olds in Japan use social media, as compared with 8%
of those 50 and older (Pew Research Center, 2012).
Because of their pervasiveness and availability through numerous devices—including
home computers, work computers, tablets, and mobile phones— social media have
important implications for private and public practices and processes in everyday life.
In particular, social media pervade processes of identity, interpersonal relationships,
and the political economy.

Identity

Social media platforms are often nonymous, meaning that they are non-anonymously
attached to bodied beings. As such, much research focuses on the identity implica-
tions of social media. Early Internet research, based primarily on multi-user domains
(MUDs) and MUDs object oriented, emphasized the dual nature of identity in a digital
era. Interactive digital technologies were a reprieve from bodily and social constraints.
More recent work, however, recognizes the integration of the digital and physical, and
understands that social and physical reality are part and parcel of identity processes
within social media.
In particular, identity within social media, though enacted and negotiated in new
ways, is subject to the race, class, and gender relations of the larger society (Nakamura
2007). Nathan Jurgenson (2012) refers to the earlier view of a separateness between
online and offline—or the assumption that social media are a less “real” form of
sociality—as “digital dualism.” Many contemporary social media scholars heavily
critique the digital dualist perspective on identity, and argue instead for an augmented
perspective, through which users and technologies mutually constitute one another
(see Cyborgology.org for an ongoing exposition of the augmented perspective).
In line with the augmented perspective, social media can be seen as a medium
through which identities are “prosumed”—or simultaneously produced and consumed.
Social actors come to know themselves by seeing what they do, and how others respond
to them. By producing and consuming profiled content, social actors produce and
consume selves and identities into being (Davis, 2012). This has significant implications
for social movements, as social media become places to learn about, teach about, and
come to identify with, contested identities. Similarly, social media can be a means
by which people come to associate with political parties and causes, developing
politicized identities through production and consumption of partisan content. Far
from a separate or less “real” venue, the social media environment is one in which
 SO C I A L ME D I A 3

users actively negotiate and constitute their very being, affecting self-perceptions, lines
of action, and the evolution of identity meanings.
A key debate among scholars is the extent to which social media afford or constrain
user control over identity meanings. Hogan (2010), for example, notes that social media
platforms are such that actors submit artifacts to share with one another, focusing on
ideal self-presentation with less need to strive for authenticity. Others, however, argue
that authenticity is strongly policed within social media platforms, and that phoniness
is highly reprimanded (Marwick & boyd, 2011).
This debate rests on the complex architectures and normative structures of social
media platforms, which enable explicit curation of identity meanings, while making
the labor of doing so highly visible and therefore always suspect. Moreover, social
media platforms enable other generated content (OGC), in which an actor’s network
contributes—in sometimes unexpected ways—to the actor’s profiled performance(s).
The presence of OGC is further complicated by the collapsed nature of network walls
within social media, such that previously segmented networks (e.g. parents, friends,
colleagues, bosses, and drinking buddies) all come together within a shared interaction
space, bringing with them different expectations about who the actor is and how s/he
is supposed to be.
In this vein the affordances of social media create a tension between ideal and authen-
tic self-presentation, with the added complexity of collapsed contexts. Social actors
must manage these tensions as they prosume selves and identities into being. They do
so in several ways, including complex use of privacy settings, intricate navigation of the
social media architectures, presenting to the “lowest common denominator” (Hogan,
2010), or in some cases conscientiously opting out altogether (Portwood-Stacer, 2013).
The challenge of opting out, however, is increasingly difficult due to the pervasiveness
of social media discussed above.

Interpersonal interaction

As indicated by the label, sociality is a key component of social media. By definition,

social media involve interactivity between users. This interactivity can be synchronous,
asynchronous, one-to-one, one-to-many, situational, or rooted in exhibitional artifacts
(Hogan, 2010). The key debate among scholars and commentators addresses the isolat-
ing versus relationship-building role/potential of social media.
On the one hand, social media can enhance interpersonal relationships by facilitat-
ing connection across geographic and temporal barriers. Especially with the prevalence
of mobile devices, social media make it such that social actors rarely, if ever, have to
be alone. Digital interactivity, facilitated by social media, has become part and parcel
of everyday experiences. Solitary moments can now be shared with friends instanta-
neously, and those friends can engage with the user, inserting themselves into the now
shared experience. Moreover, the vast ties facilitated by social media enable users to
keep in touch with those who might otherwise fall by the wayside, decreasing the cost of
interaction and making tie maintenance more easily obtainable, and, in turn, expanding
network size.
4 SO C I A L ME D I A

Despite fears of fragmentation in contemporary society, research shows that the

expansion of network size through social media can have positive effects on social
capital. Specifically, social media participation, by connecting and activating potential
ties, is instrumental in increasing “bridging” social capital, such that users acquire
access to new perspectives and a broader range of information, resources, and support
than that which is available in close-knit networks. Similarly, intense social media
usage predicts “bonding” social capital, or an increased closeness with existing ties.
Social capital grows along with network size, but only to a point, with positive effects
leveling off, or even declining after network size exceeds 400–500. Importantly, how
users utilize social media platforms affect social capital benefits, with connections
to “actual” friends predicting social capital more so than connections with strangers
or distant acquaintances (Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2011; Tong, Van Der Heide,
Langwell, & Walther, 2008).
On the other hand, social media hold the potential to disconnect, tethering users to
screens instead of to each other. Sherry Turkle (2011) makes this argument powerfully
in her recent book, Alone Together. She claims that our connectedness to digital devices
detracts from the richness of human relationships and moves us away from conversa-
tion. Similarly, Stephen Marche (2012) contends that our increased accessibility holds
the unintended consequence of dissipating social cohesion.
Differentiating interactivity within social media from face-to-face interaction, Hogan
(2010) refers to social media sites as “exhibition spaces.” Unlike face-to-face settings,
social media are not temporally bound and actors do not—and cannot—maintain
vigilant adjustments to interaction partners. Instead, they leave content, traces of them-
selves, which are algorithmically curated and then consumed by often large and ambigu-
ous audiences. Importantly, however, Hogan maintains that social media are not sepa-
rate from the physical world, but afford different kinds of engagement.
In a similar vein, Whitney Erin Boesel (2012) describes the devolution of friend-
ship in light of social media, as the crux of friendship labor shifts from production to
consumption. Rather than spending emotional energy as friends direct stories, jokes,
questions, and anecdotes to a specified audience, members of the audience put their
labor toward sorting through the masses of networked artifacts to find that which is rel-
evant and worthy of or necessitating a response. Users quickly and easily post content
about themselves—status updates, pictures, Spotify listens, and Four Square check-ins.
It is up to the user’s friends to select out that data, personalize it, and engage with it in
meaningful ways that sustain the relationship.
Indeed, social media change the landscape of interpersonal interaction, broaden-
ing network reach, strengthening existing ties, creating new ties, stretching ties thin,
and imploding the meaning of “friendship.” This affects not only how people present
themselves—both directly and indirectly—but also how people make sense of their
relationships with one another. The public interactions of social media in many ways
work to establish friendship meanings, solidify and make official significant relation-
ships, and establish distance or schisms through an absence of such public connection.
In all, these interactions reflect and affect face-to-face sociality, reinforcing while inex-
tricably altering what it means to be social.
 SO C I A L ME D I A 5

Political participation

The relationship between social media and mass media is one of integration, rather than
juxtaposition. Most mainstream news outlets maintain both a mass media and social
media presence, and many mainstream news stories originate with citizen reporters on
Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms. In this vein, social media is an inte-
gral part of the public relations repertoires for politicians and lobbyists. Similarly, much
of the content people share through social media platforms comes from mass media
outlets, as users curate and comment upon mass-produced discourses. Nonetheless,
the presence of social media has shaped the landscape of political discourse generally,
and political participation in particular. The key shift is from primarily one-to-many
political communication capabilities, to a suite of communication modes including
one-to-many, one-to-few, many-to-many, and one-to-one communication.
The potential for digital technologies to facilitate a “public sphere” has long been
debated among Internet scholars. The notion of the Internet as public sphere draws
on the potential to transcend geographic barriers, overcome traditional one-to-many
media oligopolies, and engage in democratic debate. Indeed, such democratic partic-
ipation is a bedrock of Western values, and in many cases a perceived moral “duty.”
At the same time, social media platforms make users traceable and trackable, provide
distraction, and result in a mass of content and information that can be difficult, if not
impossible, to sort through effectively. Social media simultaneously give voice and bring
voices together, while blurring these voices and facilitating their transience.
Some argue that social media are a new and effective avenue for grass-roots move-
ments, cultural sharing, and the presence of multiple voices. These are spaces of revo-
lution and exchange, spaces by and for the people. Others, however, understand social
media technologies as yet another tool of the powerful who can utilize platforms to
perform surveillance, enact social control, and reify (rather than deconstruct) existing
power hierarchies. Still others take a more muted view, arguing that the cacophony of
voices facilitates neither a public sphere nor an oppressive regime, but a benign space
in which multiple voices blur into an oversaturated din.
Interestingly, research shows that social media are neither an impediment nor an
impetus for political participation, but an increasingly required tool for those who do
wish to engage in the political process. In other words, those who are or wish to be
politically active find social media a useful and essential part of their political practice.
Those who do not wish to do so largely ignore political discourse and action both online
and offline (Gustafsson, 2012).
With that said, social media have certainly played a significant role in international
social movements and political uprisings. Twitter and Facebook continue to be instru-
mental in the Arab Spring, as well as the Occupy Wall Street movements. Indeed, the
role of social media in political participation is so salient that new (often value-laden)
language has emerged with which to talk about the phenomenon (e.g. hacktivism, slack-
tivism, Twitter revolution). These platforms, however, have been utilized by both the
people on the ground and those who seek to oppress them. Never was this dual purpose
clearer than during recent events in an embattled Syria.
6 SO C I A L ME D I A

In the effort to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, Syrian rebels were engaged in bloody
battle with the reigning regime. This battle took place on the ground and through digi-
tal communication technologies. With international reporters banned from the region,
rebels communicated with each other and with the outside world using social media
tools. The government, however, also used these tools as a means of tracking rebels
and intercepting plans. Then, on November 29, 2012, with the rebels making significant
inroads and the regime losing control, the government shut down all social media capa-
bilities. The fighting continued, but the communication stopped, changing drastically
the structure of the war. As the rebels adapted, using new digital tools such as Skype, so
too did the regime, tapping into these new communication sources and continuing the
digital battle along with the physical one.
The point here is that political participation, the spread of ideas, the inclusion and
exclusion of voice, has most certainly been affected by social media, but these processes
are very much rooted in an existing physical, political, and cultural reality. Moreover,
while social media enable participation in some ways, they constrain it in others. Over-
all, what it means to participate politically now spans multiple platforms and numerous
communication channels.

The future of social media studies

Social media are integrated into identity, interpersonal relationships, institutions and
the political economy. Social media blur the lines between public and private, work and
leisure, online and offline. Such blurring must be kept in mind as researchers continue
to understand how social media affect, and are affected by, the social world. Some key
areas of interest are beginning to develop.
Increasingly, researchers are looking at the ways in which social media users navi-
gate social media platforms in agentic and active ways. Early research focused largely
on the affordances of social media. This line of work emphasized the ways in which
social media platforms guide users and facilitate particular kinds of interaction and self-
presentation. Emerging work looks more closely at resistance—how social media users
redraw lines, negotiate boundaries, and alter social media landscapes towards their own
ends. This line of research also understands the evolution of digital technologies and
social media usage not as a linear evolution, but as a web of interwoven practices and
material conditions through which users move deftly as fits their needs (Barassi & Treré,
2012).
Another emerging area of inquiry looks at the relationship between social media and
embodiment. Of particular interest is the Quantified Self movement, in which people
track bioindicators using digital technologies and often share their biodata with their
networks (see Quantifiedself.com). In these ways, social media users co-construct their
bodies, enacting their very physicality digitally and publicly, making sense of their bod-
ies in the collaborative social media space.
Finally, emerging work will have to focus on autosharing, or the automatic docu-
mentation of self-data through social media. Applications like social readers, running
trackers, geolocators and social music programs share users’ activities—both online
 SO C I A L ME D I A 7

and offline—without any explicit effort on the part of the user. Increasingly, then, social
actors will need to engage with a social media logic, acting under the assumption of vis-
ibility and sociality. This is even the case for those who “opt out” of social media, as their
presence in public spaces subjects them to the documentation and sharing that is part
of an augmented digital-physical landscape.

SEE ALSO: Blogging, Political; Citizen Journalism; Computer-Mediated Communica-

tion; Cultural Studies; Digital Democracy; Digital Divide; Digital Public Sphere; Inter-
net; Interpersonal Communication; Media Democracy; Online News; Political Sociol-
ogy; Popular Culture; Protest, Political; Social Networks

References

Barassi, V., & Treré, E. (2012). Does Web 3.0 come after Web 2.0? Deconstructing theoretical
assumptions through practice. New Media & Society, 14, 1269–1285.
Boesel, W. E. (2012). Social media and the devolution of friendship: Full essay. In
N. Jurgenson & P. Rey (Eds.), Cyborgology. Retrieved from http://thesocietypages.org/
cyborgology/2012/12/18/the-devolution-of-friendship-full-essay-pts-i-ii/
boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230.
Brenner, J. (2012). Pew Internet: Social networking (full detail). Pew Internet and American Life
Project.
Davis, J. L. (2012). Prosuming identity: The production and consumption of transableism on
Transabled.org. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 596–617.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital implica-
tions of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society, 13, 873–892.
Gustafsson, N. (2012). The subtle nature of Facebook politics: Swedish social network site users
and political participation. New Media & Society, 14, 1111–1127.
Hogan, B. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances
and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30, 377–386.
Jurgenson, N. (2012). When atoms meet bits: Social media, the mobile web and augmented rev-
olution. Future Internet, 4, 83–91.
Marche, S. (2012). Is Facebook making us lonely? The Atlantic, May.
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context
collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13, 114–133.
Nakamura, L. (2007). Digitizing race: Visual cultures of the Internet. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
Pew Research Center (2012). Social networking popular across globe. Pew Global Attitudes
Project.
Portwood-Stacer, L. (2012). Media refusal and conspicuous non-consumption: The performa-
tive and political dimensions of Facebook abstention. New Media & Society, Online First. doi:
10.1177/1461444812465139
Tong, S. T., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L., & Walther, J. B. (2008). Too much of a good thing?
The relationship between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on Facebook. Jour-
nal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 531–549.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and more from each other.
New York, NY: Basic Books.
 8 SO C I A L ME D I A

Further reading

Papacharissi, Z. (2011). A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Rey, P. J. (2012). Social media: You can log off but you can’t opt out. In N. Jurgenson & P.
Rey (Eds.), Cyborgology. Available at http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2012/12/18/the-
devolution-of-friendship-full-essay-pts-i-ii/
Tufekci, Z. (2008). Can you see me now? Audience and disclosure regulation in online social
network sites. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28, 20–36.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Hamel, L. M., & Shulman, H. C. (2009). Self-generated versus
other-generated statements and impressions in computer-mediated communication: A test of
warranting theory using Facebook. Communication Research, 36, 229–253.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empow-
erment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1816–1836.

Jenny L. Davis is an assistant professor of sociology at James Madison University and

coeditor of the Cyborgology blog. Her research interests are social psychology and the
sociology of digital media. Her work appears in prominent sociology and interdisci-
plinary journals, including American Sociological Review, New Media & Society, and
Information, Communication & Society.

View publication stats