#Cancelled:
User-to-user public exposition and public shaming on
MA Thesis
Ashley Snoei 12292559
New Media & Digital Culture June 2019
Abstract 4
1. Introduction 5
2. Theoretical framework 10
2.1 Public shaming 2.0 10
2.2 Participatory culture & participatory surveillance 12
2.3 User ‘feedback’ 15
2.4 The platform 17
2.5 Norm enforcement & cybermobs 18
2.6 Public shaming gone wrong 22
3. Methodology 28
3.1 Retrieving data 34
3.1.1 the Instagram Scraper 34
3.1.2 Choosing the sample 35
3.1.3 Performance 38
3.2. Content-analysis: the comment section 39
3.2.1. Comments 40
3.3 Co-hashtag analysis 42
3.3.1 Analysis of the (co-)hashtag scrape 43
3.3.2 Analysis of the (co-)hashtag network 43
4. Findings 46
4.1 Engagement metrics: likes and comments 46
4.2 Comment analysis 50
4.3 Hashtag analysis 59
4.3.1 Hashtag frequency 59
4.3.2 Hashtag network 61
5. Discussion 71
5.1 Identifying the ‘norm enforcer’ and the ‘norm violator’ 71 5.2 Public shaming and exposure through platform affordances 73
5.3 The formation of publics 76
6. Conclusion 79 References 85 Appendix A 91 Appendix B 92 Appendix C 95 Appendix D 97
Abstract
With the emergence of new communication technologies and and online interaction, the visibility of our daily lives have increased considerably. Particularly so in terms of observing one another; through social or participatory surveillance. This thesis focuses on how such user-to-user monitoring and increased abilities to express ourselves online, along with the functions that platforms provide to do so, has implications on practices of online and exposition. The focus of this thesis was to examine the issue space of the chosen case study, ‘D&G Loves China’. In doing so, the functions and use of emojis, likes, comments, and (co-)hashtags by users for publicly exposing or shaming @dolcegabbana have been examined. As part of mapping the issue space of this case study, Digital Methods have been employed to scrape the data in order to interpret the controversy and the role of the users are ‘norm enforcers’ and ‘norm violators’. Particularly the comment section and emoji show to be utilized to a great extent for the public exposition and shaming, particularly so as these affordances and types of vernacular have clearly demonstrated the formation of a public through shared cultural identities. Similarly, (co-)hashtags have been illustrative of the kind of narrative and context in which the hashtags belonging to the case study may be used, including hashtag hijacking through the use of anti-programs, and so forth.
1. Introduction
I think our natural disposition as humans is to plod along until we get old and stop. But with social media, we’ve created a stage for constant artificial high drama. Every day a new person emerges as a magnificent hero or a sickening villain. (Ronson 78)
Human beings are inherently social, communicative beings - inventive and adoptive of means that enhance our capacity to interact with one another. This, insofar, is apparent from the way that communicative technologies have developed over time to make interaction easier, faster, more readily accessible, to transcend physical and geographical boundaries, and thereby feeding our desire for ‘communal’ bonds (Picard 32). The fragment above from the book So You’ve Been
Published is a point of departure for this thesis in the way that it illustrates that not only means of communication have changed - particularly with social media - but also that the emerging tools for communication have clear, transformative social implications, such as on norms and expectations, interpersonal relations, and the overall functioning of society.
That is, as society increasingly opts for interaction online, we are inclined to share more of ourselves within this space, too. And with each online interaction, netizens leave a digital trail of their online practices, from online ‘friendships’ to interactions with content through likes or comments (Albrechtslund 3). The transforming “economy of visibility” (Schwarz 1) encompasses that our lives are increasingly transcending into the digital realm, available for monitoring by those within and even beyond our online social networks. This kind of user-to-user monitoring that is also referred to as participatory (Albrechtslund 1) or social (Marwick 379) surveillance have become “part of a whole way of life” (Lyon 825). This is particularly so as Web 2.0 and social media have fostered supposedly dehierarchized and democratized communication channels through which users are granted means to easily and readily create, collect and disseminate information, while simultaneously scanning others undergoing these same processes (Langlois 94; Marwick 384). Because of this increased visibility and “unprecedented surveillance culture” (Trottier 824) netizens’ publication of bits
and pieces of their lives, whether genuine or not, are also instantaneously subjected to close examination, evaluation, and possibly scrutiny, by their audience.
This thesis focuses particularly on how participatory surveillance culture and amplified opportunities for self-expression have created an environment in which individuals can openly comment on one another; whether in the form of approval or disapproval. In the case of the latter, netizens may take on roles of what Kristine Gallardo refers to as ‘norm enforcers’, through which they seek to “correct behavior that does not comply with the perceived norm, or rule of conduct in society” (726). The specific means that are employed are important in terms of how norm violations are addressed by users and with which severity, but also how they may subsequently be studied by researchers. The topic of public exposition and shaming, however, has been subjected to very limited, if any, examination with regards to social media platform Instagram. The overall lack of research on Instagram is peculiar, as the platform has surpassed one billion active users as of June 2018 (Instagram: Active Users 2018), and therefore evidently poses as socially significant. Not to mention that the visual aspect of Instagram introduces a whole new graphic and personalized dimension to information dissemination, leaving such content all the more vulnerable for ‘feedback’ by fellow users (Lyon 831). Therefore, it may be of no surprise that this very ‘feedback’ has been of interest for this thesis, in the form of public exposition and shaming practices. In order to examine the role of users in providing such ‘feedback’, it is hypothesized that the employment of affordances will illustrate various ways in which users take this role of supposed ‘norm enforcer’ upon themselves - highlighting strategies on Instagram such as likes, comments and hashtags.
As the theoretical framework of this thesis will illustrate, surveillance and public shaming are not new phenomena, and have known varying severities over history, ranging from fatal repercussions to complete communal condemnation. The “digital mark of shame” (Hess and Waller 102) that is often referred to as the contemporary Scarlet Letter, introduces a new dimension to public shaming. Namely, it is said to leave a lasting (symbolic) scar, as online interactions are indefinitely stored on the Web and carried by those upon which it is branded
(Hess and Waller 108). However, even within the digital realm, it appears that public shaming practices are constantly evolving and taking on different forms, as exemplified by the recently emerged ‘cancel culture’ (Bromwich Everyone is Canceled) or ‘callout culture’ (Anderson 84). In short, ‘cancel culture’ or ‘callout culture’ are forms of public shaming in which individuals publicly expose a person, brand, event, or other, for supposedly unacceptable conduct, thereby urging others to also halt their endorsement. The point at which someone is deemed ‘cancelled’ is undefined, however it is clear that it is highly dependent upon the issue’s circulation, and presumably the volume of individuals that contribute to this (Bromwich, Everyone is Canceled).
While there is no academic documentation of this phenomenon yet, its mentions in popular culture, and discussions on its potential for dictionary entry (Macquarie Dictionary), signify its growing implications for our everyday lives.
A case study has therefore been opted for that could be supported by the concepts and practices introduced in existing literature, while simultaneously embodying this rather new, unexplored phenomenon. In this light, the case study of choice is Dolce & Gabbana (@dolcegabbana) and their 2018 Instagram-led ‘D&G Loves China’ campaign, which had received tremendous backlash for its allegedly culturally offensive content. The controversy, however, suffered not only from backlash on their Instagram content (uploaded on November 16, 2018), but a chain of events that eventually led to the literal cancellation of their fashion show The Great Show, in Shanghai (November 21, 2018). The way that the controversy was constructed is particularly interesting when highlighting the ways in which users played a role in it. With special reference to Instagram, this thesis has set out to outline how users have employed features of the platform to recognize, call out and (re)circulate information on ‘norm violations’, and subsequently contribute to the demise of the campaign and its associated fashion show. Throughout this, an additional focus point is the way that the formation of publics has taken place through such a controversy. In other words, it is examined how platforms and its affordances facilitate collective action, and how this contributes to the alleged violator’s “digital mark of shame” (Hess and Waller 102). Noortje Marres’ notions on public formation, along with Gallardo’s literature on ‘norm enforcers’ and ‘norm violators’, are fundamental for the understanding of publics, and
applicable to its online counterparts, such as the ‘cybermob’ (Petley 91). Hypothesizing that norm enforcement would be most effective when done collectively, and thus synthesizing this with literature on public formation, certain questions arise concerning the role of these ‘enforcers’. Namely, how are ‘issues’ or alleged norm violations recognized by users? How does this issue-making potentially reflect public formation? How are these issues addressed? And what means are used to ensure its visibility?
The main motivation behind choosing the topic of public shaming, Instagram and the ‘D&G Loves China’ case study is that public exposition and shaming is a very delicate and relevant topic in today’s society, particularly with regards to the civility or ‘safe space’ that Instagram and other platforms claim to strive for. The responsibility that is partly passed on to users can be 1 rather complex. On the one hand, individuals wanting to enforce norms and create awareness on socially offensive behavior could be beneficial for educating those around them and the targeted ‘violator’. On the other hand, the latter statement may be too optimistic, as the ‘feedback’ itself or its delivery may, in turn, be socially offensive - possibly based on ‘malicious objectives’ or motives to misinform (Kasra 173). While this thesis’ purpose is not to measure repercussions, or examine whether the negative sides of ‘norm enforcement’ outweigh the positive (or vice versa), it attempts to shed light on online reprimanding among users by answering the following question:
How do practices of user-to-user public exposition and public shaming take shape on Instagram?
As the areas under examination within this thesis are so multi-faceted, the research will be further guided by the following sub-questions:
1) How do users take roles as ‘norm enforcers’ to reprimand ‘norm violators’?
2) How do users of Instagram use platform affordances to publicly expose and shame other users?
3) How does public formation play a part in user-to-user public exposition and shaming practices?
Ultimately, the aim is to get a grasp of how users move around and utilise the ‘issue space’ (Rogers, Otherwise Engaged 456). Firstly, the theoretical framework will synthesize relevant literature that addresses concepts and areas of study such as public shaming, public formation, platforms and affordances, surveillance culture, and social media. Then, the methodology will, based on works by Richard Rogers, Noortje Marres, and Tim Highfield and Tama Leaver, outline how digital methods are repurposed for studying the above-mentioned concepts by applying it to a case study. The findings and discussion will ultimately reflect upon the issue space of the chosen controversy and how users have situated themselves within this space by deploying the affordances provided by Instagram - both in anticipated and unanticipated ways.
2. Theoretical framework
Emerging communication technologies in the form of social media and its networked conditions have influenced the way in which individuals - as users - interact. This thesis seeks to explore how this landscape of increased visibility influences users interactions in circumstances in which there is disapproval with and scrutiny of one’s [online] behaviour. The following chapter will begin by explaining the concepts of public exposition and shaming by outlining its historical significance, and thereby contextualising the role public shaming has had in society. Following this, the social media user is more closely examined by exploring the multi-faceted notion of surveillance and the emergence of user-to-user monitoring, including its implications such as user-to-user ‘feedback’. A closer look will then be taken at social media platforms and how they carry functions that allow for the aforementioned practices. Finally, the concepts of ‘norm enforcers’, ’cybermobs’ and the formation of publics are discussed.
2.1 Public shaming 2.0
With the opportunities for communication that social media offers, and the enhanced ability to express ourselves - and to be heard - de-hierarchized modes of communication have emerged. That is, social media encompass mutual sharing practices (Albrechtslund 7), in which the user can create, express, and be observed in doing so, while observing others undergoing this very same activity (6). With the users’ roles as so-called “subjects in communication” (Mitrou et al. 2), users share data and information about oneself to other actors, including other users, “thus becoming ‘objects of information’ and therefore ‘objects of surveillance’” (Mitrou et al. 2), including to unforeseen audiences. While the relevance of surveillance will be further contextualised in the next section, it should be noted that it remains merely a starting point to explain the implications of increased user-to-user observation, and the potential public expression of disapproval - or even shaming - of ‘misconduct’ online. Picard addresses this predicament of surveillance and public shaming, by weighing the practice of public shaming to
“serve purposes of supporting social norms and moral behaviour” against the ways in which social media could pose “as a weapon to damage or destroy others” (38).
Whichever perception one may side with, the possibilities provided by social media for interaction and surveillance are increasingly utilized by users for reprimanding. As a consequence, “online public shaming [...] has increased and changed in nature” (Gallardo 723). It should be noted, however, that the act of public shaming is not a new practice, as it has existed in various forms and severities for centuries as a means for punishment of misconduct. In an article by the New Yorker, Ariel Levy compared the Internet - as a venue for public shaming - to a town square that is “big enough to put all the world’s sinners in the stocks”. Seemingly without intentionality, this imagery of public punishment bears similarities to Foucault’s description of the public executions of 18th century Europe, along with the later shaming practices of colonial America (Goldman 418). In Discipline and Punish, Foucault explains the spectacle that surrounded the public execution in 18th and early 19th century Europe, which refers to the punishment as a ceremony “by which power is manifested” (47), and a way of “exacting retribution that is both personal and public [...] carried out in such a way to give a spectacle not of measure, but of imbalance and excess” (49). A bridge can be made more specifically to the notion of the ‘theatre of terror’ (49), as the public executions were a spectacle in and of itself. They were well-attended ceremonial displays of torture that demonstrated “public sanction” (Kasra 177) for those that committed the crime, and the “reactivated power” of the sovereign (Foucault 49). In the example of social media, the public sanctioning is carried out by fellow users, rather than a sovereign, but the ceremonial display can nonetheless be compared to the mass audience in front of which users may be ‘persecuted’ online.
Other more recent and milder forms of punishment, too, can be taken from history and literature to explain the public shaming of the present. In Goldman’s example of the historical novel The
Scarlet Letter, the protagonist’s adulterous behaviour resulted in the individual being forced to wear a scarlet letter ‘A’ on her chest as a sign of her misbehaviour (418). Another fictional example - said to be inspired by the ‘walk of shame’ by King Edward IV’s mistress Elizabeth
‘Jane’ Shore - could be the walk of ‘atonement’ in Game of Thrones’ episode ‘Mother’s Mercy’
(Petković 37). As public penance for her sinful behaviour, character Cersei Lannister is sentenced by a religious order to walk naked through the streets accompanied by a religious representative chanting “shame”, all the while being physically and verbally assaulted by spectators (Petković 37). Similarly to the fear that is likely instilled in the crowd following a public execution in 18th century Europe, the latter examples demonstrate the prospect of condemnation that coincides with public shaming, particularly in a communal sense. Goldman stresses, however, that in order for such humiliation to be effective and control ‘deviant behaviour’ (419), the community must be familiar with the offender, through which the “community members would be aware of the offender's crime, spread this information to others, and criminals would thus feel the sting of shame” (419). Like Goldman, Gallardo refers back to public shaming in colonial America, emphasizing that while the use of stockades are indeed in the past, the use of public shaming tactics have made its return in the digital age. That is, increased visibility and ability to watch one another contributes to a heightened sense of vulnerability to scrutiny by our surroundings. Whether the ‘sentence’ for a ‘crime’ is in the form of a Scarlet Letter, or a “digital mark of shame” (Hess and Waller 102), both demonstrate ways in which an ‘offender’ may be publicly branded.
2.2 Participatory culture & participatory surveillance
According to Duffy and Chan, awareness or fear of public scrutiny in our increasingly connected environment is “indicative of a pervasive cultural anxiety about online surveillance and the potential implications of internet use - or maybe more aptly, misuse” (120). Here, Duffy and Chan address the implications that our online visibility may have on our lives because of the omnipresent surveillance practices that take place on social media - by platform regulators, state, but also by fellow users. It should be kept in mind that surveillance in and of itself is not the focus of this thesis, but is hereby acknowledged as a societal condition of which “potential implications” (Duffy and Chan 120) - online public exposition and shaming - are examined.
Therefore, it is worth exploring existing literature on surveillance in order to understand its contemporary significance and implications for user-generated content, and its conditioning of
user-to-user monitoring.
Duffy and Chan express that “understanding how surveillance is implicated in existing power structures seem especially crucial at the present juncture” (120), particularly so as users are continuously negotiating “identity, self-presentation, and social relationships across a sprawling social media landscape” (120). To simplify its definition, surveillance refers to human beings’ awareness of their surroundings while “consciously and less consciously taking note of the appearance and behaviour of others nearby” (Brown 1117). With the emergence of new information infrastructures and Web 2.0, communication processes have amplified, but also decentralized considerably (Langlois 99). The emergence of Internet platforms and social networks “indicate and incorporate the shift to interpersonal, horizontal and mutual communication and offer the ability to increase information aggregation” (Mitrou et al.). More traditional, asymmetrical surveillance practices may still exist today, particularly with large social networking corporations’ ability to collect and store data, however this thesis is centered around user interactions in the context of supposed online misconduct, as enabled by user-to-user monitoring.
Essentially, participating in online social networks encompasses sharing information about one’s own identity, or, at least, one’s constructed identity, as part of the mutual sharing practice that constitutes participatory culture (Albrechtslund 7). Web 2.0 has, among other things, provided users with opportunities to create, collect and disseminate information online, including one’s personal opinions and other forms of self-expression (Marwick 384). In this light, many scholars have attempted to theorise the implications of surveillance in participatory culture. Anders Albrechtslund, for one, introduces the concept of participatory surveillance. Rather than focusing on the negative conceptions of surveillance that are often associated with the invasion of privacy, Albrechtlund recognizes surveillance, in the context of social networking, also as “something potentially empowering, subjectivity building and even playful” (1). The
‘subjectivity building’ that Albrechtslund refers to herein seemingly suggests a somewhat optimistic consideration by highlighting freedom in creating, exploring and interacting online. Alice Marwick’s similar-sounding conceptualization of surveillance, social surveillance,which is described as the domestication of surveillance practices in our daily lives, while simultaneously referring to power as “intrinsic to every social relationship, as micro-level and de-centralized” (379). Herein each individual is described as sharing information to be consumed by others, while simultaneously consuming information shared by those very same users. In other words: “users can choose to watch others as well as make themselves visible” (Trottier,
Interpersonal Surveillance 320), which, according to Trottier, empowers the practice of
surveillance on social media.
Additionally, Marwick identifies contemporary [social] surveillance through three components; power, hierarchy and reciprocity (382-384). As aforementioned, power and interaction have become decentralised, however this does not mean that power relations have vanished. Rather, it signals a shift in the ‘locus’ of power (Langlois 99). This runs parallel to the idea that power and surveillance are no longer solely “conceptually linked to top-down impositions” (Trottier, Digital
Vigilantism 57). Rather, Marwick establishes that an indirect form of power has emerged that enables for self-monitoring and the “internalization of the surveilled gaze” (381), in which the awareness of our visibility has resulted in our own behavioral modification and practices of “self-conscious identity construction” (381). Presumably, however, this behavioural modification would be in line with one’s own perception of what is acceptable. The second component is hierarchy, which is straightforward in the sense that individuals are given to ability to watch one another, through peer-to-peer monitoring. This seemingly does not correspond to the origins of the term surveillance, which essentially implies a top-down relationship of overseeing (Brown 1118). Hierarchy in social surveillance is shaped by social power differentials, rather than structural, meaning that hierarchy among individuals may be derived from elements such as social status, cultural background, or gender (Marwick 384). Lastly, social surveillance can be characterized by its reciprocity, which suggests that “people who engage in social surveillance also produce online content that is surveilled by others” (382); a mutual sharing practice
(Albrechstlund 7). In other words, when joining a social media site, one enters a networked audience in which information is exchanged and online behaviour is observed between its members, through online interaction that encompasses both sharing and consumption.
2.3 User ‘feedback’
Essentially, participating in online social networks encompasses sharing information about one’s own identity, or, at least, one’s constructed identity, as part of the mutual sharing practice that constitutes participatory culture (Albrechtslund 7). The user, or ‘sharing subject’, is, according to Deborah Lupton, one that “seeks to recirculate content as part of their identity” (qtd. in Lyon 831), in which subsequent ‘feedback’ of others is said to be beneficial to the user (Lyon 831). Although this fragment from Lyon’s literature may be a rather positive simplification of the extent of user interactions, the mutuality in sharing and monitoring seems to demonstrate that self-awareness and self-monitoring coincide with our conscious perception of others. That is, the development of perceptions may ultimately express itself as ‘feedback’, in the form of public evaluation, judgment and exposition of other users’ social media activities. Moreover, Lyon points out that there is an emergence of an “unprecedented surveillance culture” (824), in which user participation can be seen as an attempt to coordinate monitoring; of themselves and of others. As Trottier brings to light:
Interpersonal social media surveillance renders users visible to one another in a way that warrants a care of the virtual self [...] including both self-scrutiny, and watching over what peers upload, as this may reflect poorly on oneself. ( Interpersonal Surveillance on Social Media 319)
This preludes to the concepts of criticism and repercussions - potentially in the form of exposing or being exposed - as part of the aforementioned ‘feedback’ that may be generated through user-to-user monitoring.
Perhaps it would be fruitful here to move the focus to the notion of consciousness, or lack thereof, when it comes to who users expose themselves to on social networks. According to Langlois, each development within the technology of online communication “has seen a resurgence of the trope of active users replacing passive and manipulated masses” (92), who subsequently are given the tools and incentives to make themselves heard. Web 2.0 has reduced the inequality in access to communication, in which the user has gained the ability to “create, redistribute, exchange information and opinions, and also the participation in virtual communities, in which they are encouraged to express themselves” (Mitrou et al.). Kasra adds to this that the construction of identity and community consciousness “is no longer accomplished through shared vernacular languages, cultural practices, or physical borders” (174). Rather, online communities are said to extend and may be imagined beyond borders, by individuals and collectives that, in turn, each possess their own set of subjectivities (174).
It can be argued that it is this exact invisible extension of our direct network that may delimit our own control over the circulation and visibility visibility of our content online (Langlois 94). In other words, the (default) public nature of social media platforms and their interfaces is designed to enable the information that we share to be accessible by audiences that we often do not know or account for (Albrechtslund 3). However, acknowledging that these ‘invisible audiences’ (Boyd 3) do exist could impact the user’s online behaviour. Lyon places this in the context of surveillance by introducing the notion of ‘surveillance imaginaries’ (829), which implies “shared understandings about certain aspects of visibility in daily life, and in social relationships” (829). As a response to Lyon, Duffy and Chan introduce the concept of ‘imagined surveillance’ (121), which further adds how, if at all, users conceive of potential scrutiny of one’s presentation by others.
Thus, for the user to be conscious and cautious of invisible audiences is said to impact how users’ are “curating online ‘exhibitions’ of different aspects of their identities” (Brown 1117). However, as will be examined over the course of this thesis, it would only seem logical to
assume that scrutiny may still come in unanticipated ways and for unanticipated reasons, even when users carefully curate their social media presence. After all, knowing that the ‘imaginaries’ exist does not mean that there is a mutual understanding of social norms. While user-generated content empowers citizens to self-regulate, and generally creates a space for self-expression and sharing opinions, user-generated content may “also misinform or advance malicious objectives” (Kasra 173). That is, similarly to how one may judge certain social media practices as inappropriate or unacceptable, the interaction that takes place to expose and reprimand behaviour may equally vary in its nature and degree, along with its repercussions. In whichever way surveillance and acting upon the observed takes place, it seems to demonstrate the vulnerability of one’s online behaviour to close examination by other users.
2.4 The platform
In order to understand how the aforementioned user-to-user ‘feedback’ takes place, it seems necessary to briefly touch upon how social media platforms and its networked conditions provide the means for such interactions. While later parts of the theoretical framework will more specifically outline the role and use of affordances, the following will refer to the basis of how platforms carry functions that condition the circulation of information and our communication processes online. According to Brown, the “rapid development of computing technologies, and the social, political and economic practices that have shaped and been shaped by this development, is one of the most significant enablers of social media surveillance” (1118). Therefore, one should not ignore the significance of platform affordances in the creation and transmission of content, as well as users’ employment of such. In this light, Langlois introduces the notion of the participatory media paradox, which considers both the freedom of communication and how networking information is controlled. The paradox is based on two supposedly fundamental paradigms: the user-centric paradigm, which consider the “link between empowering users and fostering more democratic communication” (94), and the network paradigm, which focuses more on the “networked conditions and regulations within which information can circulate” (94) and thus the technical elements of information transmission. Van Dijck and Poell, add to this that social media affordances play a fundamental part in the ‘logic of
connectivity’ by which social media is governed (5, 8). That is ‘platform apparatus’ are said to play a large role in mediating activities carried out by users and in defining “how connections are taking shape, even if users themselves can exert considerable influence over the contribution of content” (8). In terms of the topic of this thesis, the latter notions have created further intrigue concerning the examination of how platforms and its functions mediate communicative processes when utilized for user-to-user public exposition and shaming.
It has thus been touched upon how platforms provide the means to interact, and through its workings and supposed ‘logic’ are able to determine ways of interacting. When talking about the power of the user, one should not completely undermine the role that platforms play in information dissemination, or, rather, platforms’ ability to mediate it. It should also be noted that, platforms often have terms of service, such as Instagram’s Community Guidelines , and thus do 2 apply some forms of censorship, such as nudity or violence, upon which the platform is able to eliminate the content presenting misconduct. The focus of this thesis is, however, what roles
users could play throughout all such processes in terms of exposing or policing one another , and which other latent, unanticipated uses of affordances may be unveiled.
2.5 Norm enforcement & cybermobs
The final two sections of the theoretical framework will return to the aforementioned concepts, such as user-to-user monitoring, public exposition and shaming, platform affordances, and so forth, but closer look will be taken at how users evaluate one another’s behaviour online. More specifically, the following will contextualize such interactions with preceding notions of public shaming. In their literature, Hess and Waller outline the ‘disciplinary power’ manifested in new media, based on Foucault's identification of the concept, to explain the dynamics of user-generated content. Disciplinary power is said to encompasses systems of surveillance and assessment that “no longer required force or violence, as people felt compelled to discipline themselves and to behave in expected ways” (Hess and Waller 104). In a way, this runs parallel
to the idea of the “internalization of the surveilled gaze” (Marwick 381), the curation of one’s “online ‘exhibitions’” (Brown 1117), and the ‘model of power’ that runs through media shaming practices (Hess and Waller 105). Namely, the disciplinary power manifests itself in social media [shaming] practices through the user’s ability to distinguish particular behaviour as “deviant and unacceptable” (105), while undertaking self-monitoring in accordance to his or her understanding of what is deemed ‘acceptable’. Here, Hess and Waller specify that this is not based on individual subjectivities, but rather enforced by “public understanding about (and compliance with) persuasive social standards and implicit norms” (105), upon which we turn to the power relations among ‘norm enforcers’ and ‘norm violators’, as elaborated on by Gallardo. What we know thus far is that the practice of public shaming does not necessarily need to be a response to criminal acts (Gallardo 725). Gallardo refers to this non-criminal shaming as ‘norm enforcement’, in which an individual seeks to “correct behavior that does not comply with the perceived norm, or rule of conduct in society” (726). In the contemporary, social media environment, I have already addressed individuals as having a growing role in surveillance practices. Comparing this to the aforementioned examples of sovereign power in 18th century Europe penal system, religious penance or, more generally, a judicial system deciding upon one’s unlawful conduct, ‘ordinary’ citizens are increasingly given the ability to police the digital space and exert social control, all the while armed with digital devices and tools to call out misbehaviour (Hess and Waller 103-106). Although this does not entirely answer what grants a person the right to ‘punish’ another individual’s online misbehaviour, it aids in understanding how online versions of spectators or the ‘pitchfork’ mob may be formed, also referred to as the ‘cybermob’ (Petley 91).
The cybermob is said to be formed by “the same emotion: moral outrage as a reaction to norm transgressions” (Petley 91), which may be expressed through comments, posts, the sharing of posts created by others, and so forth. Similarly to the cybermob, Kasra, among others, addresses the collective sharing of emotions by netizens by referring to the formation of counterpublics, which encompasses the formation of a collective identity beyond one’s own network that coincides with the demonstration of resistance towards certain issues. Collective identities may
be constructed and strengthened online with regards to ideologies, interests or shared concerns (174). Referring back to platform affordances, one may, for instance, employ hashtags in resistance or promotion of certain topics, or reach out to comment sections on Instagram posts to share sentiments.
It still remains unclear how the formation of such a cybermob, counterpublics, or more generally a group of collective identities takes place. After all, I intend to get an understanding of how users are using the possibility of user-to-user monitoring and platform affordances to identify and respond to issues. However it should once again be stressed that this looks beyond individual actions. Rather, within a networked space, how does collective response to and problematization of an issue, content or a particular user, take place? In No Issue, No Publics, Marres addresses what appears to be an important, fundamental component of collective action: the formation of ‘publics’ (61). In construing this formation of publics, Marres approaches the conceptualisation of this practice with different argumentations and theorizations by John Dewey and Walter Lippmann. In doing so, she sheds light on a definition of the term as derived from Dewey’s account on the formation of a public in political issues ( No Issue, No Publics 48), however the idea of an ‘issue’ calling publics into being could perhaps also be perceived in a greater context. To define, a public is:
A group of actors who are affected by actions or events but do not have direct influence on them. Lacking such influence, these indirectly affected actors must organize into a public if they are to address the problems ensuing form these actions and events. (Marres,
No Issue, No Public 48)
The publics are, in this sense, described as ‘caretakers’ of certain issues that are not addressed by actors such as institutions, without having direct influence on the affair in question (Marres, No
Issue, No Public47). In other words, while the public may not be able to carry out the ‘executive act’ of rectifying problematic incidents or issues, they play a role in the bringing to light of such. That is, an issue is not shaped until publicized, problematized, protested or, essentially, made
into an issue by individuals - all of which is made possible by communication and interaction (No Issue, No Public 49). Relating this to the supposed disciplinary power of (social) media, an avenue for exploration may be the role of the publics in establishing social control by calling out that which is inappropriate behaviour or content. This is particularly interesting when certain publics take responsibility of addressing issues that platform regulators or other users fail to (or simply choose not to address), thereby impersonating as ‘care takers’ of the issue (Hess and Waller 104).
In addressing the now somewhat dated blogosphere, Gillin describes such platforms as a social space for self expression in which “millions of writers of all ages, interests and motivations are together forming a set of shared principles, operating standards and behaviors without any kind of central coordination” (15). This seems to resonate with social media in that Gillin illustrates an environment with fewer formal rules, room for self-expression and opinions, yet one that is governed by shared, uncodified values. Granted that social media platforms have shown to be able to enforce some rigidity in certain problematic areas, such as nudity or violence, many ‘rules’ remain more loosely defined, and rely, in the example of Instagram, on users to “help foster the community”.3 This seems to suggest that the civility of social media platforms to some extent relies on the efforts of the user, or publics, to evaluate the content they create and/or consume. This includes the recognition of ‘issues’, with the expectation that there is a sense of shared social norms. Relating this back to concepts of disciplinary power and the formation of publics, it thus far seems to suggest that much of the ‘regulation’ that takes place on social media is increasingly made, or taken up as, a responsibility of the user.
Building upon this, Gallardo makes an noteworthy statement with regards to platform affordances and their role of “enforcing social norms” (727). Namely, the enforcement of online norms does not necessarily take place as a straightforward telling-off, or informing others on what is right or wrong. In fact, Gallardo explains that the ability to enforce online norms through the interface and affordances of the platforms, such as liking or commenting, has resulted in an
online ‘outrage culture’ (727), as a platform, such as Instagram, “provides an opportunity for individuals to passively indicate that they do not endorse certain socially offensive behavior” (727). Other terms that have appeared in popular culture and mainstream media to describe such phenomena are ‘callout culture’ (Anderson 84) or ‘cancel culture’ (Bromwich, Everyone Is Canceled), which are less formally described as “an act of withdrawing from someone whose expression — whether political, artistic or otherwise — was once welcome or at least tolerated, but no longer is” (Browmwich, Everyone Is Canceled).
Less clear here is what is defined under ‘socially offensive’ or intolerable behaviour, or whether this is something subjective. The latter seems to be the case if we were to read along the lines of Kasra and take the example of vigilantes who ‘believe themselves to be enacting justice’ (175), often by taking extreme measures of public humiliation. Ultimately, an individual may perceive another individual’s act as misbehaviour, based on their understanding of what is right or wrong, and thereby performing measures justified by their take on societal norms. Which prompts an additional question of whether the degree of ‘punishment’ will simultaneously correspond to the value this individual places upon a ‘violated’ norm. Or whether percussions are an uncontrollable element in and of itself with the amount of voices and publics that are present in the online environment, and mechanisms such as affordances that affect the visibility of content.
2.6 Public shaming gone wrong
These grey areas in the comprehension of social media’s terms and conditions and users’ perceptions of supposed societal norms, is where social surveillance and public shaming may become problematic and worthy of examination. This final section adds to this that there may be many ways in which individuals may (indirectly or unwittingly) contribute to the online public exposition and shaming of others.
As aforementioned, an inherent feature of Web 2.0 is its encouragement of new forms of interaction along with constantly updating surveillance tendencies, in which “any content
echoed by various literature that have already contributed to the basis of this theoretical framework, including Marwick, Brown, and Albrechtslund. Namely, that digital data, and social networking as mediated publics, can be defined by a number of properties, which additionally make individual control over one’s own information more difficult. First, digital data is
persistent, meaning that communication data is “saved by default” (Brown 1117) and “stored indefinitely” (Albrechtslund 3), which is particularly problematic when such information is unfavorable to the individual. Like the eternal digital trails of, for instance, online ‘friendships’, negative relations and outcomes of such may also persist (Albrechtslund 3). Second,
searchability of data ensures the convenience of finding information by using keywords or hashtags (Albrechtslund 3) or other means of searching on the platform, making information easier to find, usually without discrimination towards the nature of the data (Marwick 381). Third, data is replicable, meaning that it is easily shareable (Brown 1117), and, because of its digital nature “can be detached from its specific media and perfectly reproduced, even altered, and put into other contexts” (Albrechtslund 3). Lastly, due to the nature of online social networking, information shared often becomes available to invisible audiences (Albrechtslund 3), which brings us back to the concept of the ‘surveillance imaginaries’, or the ‘imagined surveillance’. Here, the concept of not fully knowing one’s audience is a default of social media, which may be considered a result of the exposure which the first three properties provide. Naturally, this may be avoided through one’s privacy settings, as one may shield their content from users by undoing the default public setting of the user profile. With these properties in mind, we have established one of the main distinctions between modern day, online public shaming and that of the past. To further contextualise, Brown uses the example of real-world gossip, which he refers to as “deniable, geographically limited, and fades over time” (1119). Digital information, however, is once again compared to one’s possession of a scarlet letter, of which the digital trails of activity are an eternal reminder of one’s online wrongdoings, whether actually representative of a user or not (Brown 1119).
In this light, what should also be accounted for is the fact that while condemning certain ‘unacceptable’ behaviour or a “digital faux pas” (Duffy and Chan 120), the practice of public
exposition or shaming may likewise be executed “without respect for classical social norms of distribution and appropriateness” (Esposito et al. 182 ). In the case of online public shaming, or what Kasra - in terms of digital vigilantism - refers to as the “21st century manhunt” (173), digital media enables citizens, to “self-report, self-represent, and self-organize” (173), while also potentially contributing to vengeful ideas and advancement of malicious objectives. One should also consider the possible disproportionality of the repercussions for online shaming, particularly when the degree of the norm violated is small relative to the backlash one receives for it. Ultimately, a person does not necessarily need to have committed the ‘crime’ or violated a norm, but may still receive scrutiny for numerous reasons (Petley 89). In a time where Fake News has become integrated into many individuals’ vocabularies, Petley’s first reason is not so surprising, namely that “digital evidence of supposed transgression can easily be faked on the Internet: images can be manipulated, written text can be changed and accounts hacked” (89). In other words, an individual’s social media profile may be hacked by another individual that subsequently shares information on said profile to shed a negative light on the user to which the profile belongs. Another reason for public shaming may simply be that mocking or placing voyeuristic comments are done out of boredom, enjoyment or other reasons that may even be unrelated to the violation of norms, but nonetheless potentially damaging to the targeted users (Petley 91).
A user may even find different ways of using the platform’s interface and features to optimise the effectivity of a message, through its affordances. Here, we should perhaps refer back to Marres’ remark on the necessity of communication in the formation of publics, as mentioned in the previous section. Particularly so the means of communication and its effect on how publics are formed. This seems to be of significance in terms of this thesis as I ultimately examine how publics are formed around issues through the mediation by a particular communication channel: social media. While we should not “overate the merits of the Web as a technology of politics” (Marres, No Issue No Public 109), Marres explains that the Web and the Internet provide opportunities for “the enactment, as well as the study, of public controversies” (109), and thereby making interactions and issues, among other things, not only more visible, but also traceable.
Boyd adds to this that while networked affordances do not ‘dictate’ a users one’s online behaviour and practices, they “configure the environment in a way that shapes participants’ engagement” (1). In other words, the means through which interaction is enabled can affect how publics are identified and shaped, and simultaneously impact the ways in which issues can be negotiated (Boyd 7). Thus, going back to defining ‘publics’ and the formation of such with respect to the supposedly integral notion of communication, Bruns and Burgess clarify that publics are:
Understood as being formed, re-formed, and coordinated via dynamic networks of communication and social connectivity organized primarily around issues or events, rather than pre-existing social groups (13)
Although this definition is contextualised by Bruns and Burgess’ with the example of Twitter, it could be applied to a greater context: the role of the platform in the formation of publics. Their demonstration of the centrality of the hashtag in coordinating publics could, for instance, be applicable to other platforms that have integrated this function too, such as Instagram. In the most basic sense, the hashtag is an organizational function which, upon its use, has the ability to categorise the respective content and make content more easily searchable (on the platform), based on the keyword that it contains (Rogers, Digital Methods for Cross-platform Analysis 97). Additionally to organizing certain content, hashtags are said to have the ability to “aid the formation of ad hoc publics around specific themes and topics” (Bruns and Burgess 14). That is, hashtags may gain traction during particular events by individuals or large numbers, without these individuals needing to be in each others direct networks (14). In the case of a particular event, hashtags gain traction when users reach consensus on an appropriate hashtag - adopting a hashtag to designate one’s participation in a discussion (Bruns and Burgess 14). This is where it is important to distinguish that the use of issue- or event-specific hashtags indicates one’s participation, but does not indicate that users have necessarily reached consensus on the intention of the hashtag. A hashtag may be neutral in its description of an event, or users (most effectively collectively) may start using a pre-existing, usually trending hashtag for promoting a message
that portrays something different, such as in the case of spamming in extreme cases, or drawing attention to purposes with different intentions - also known as hashtag hijacking (Dam and Tan). Furthermore, hashtags may also come in the form of ‘program’ and ‘anti-program’, in which the latter are also referred to as ‘counter-hashtags’, and “position those deploying them in the societal issue space” (Rogers, Otherwise Engaged 462). In terms of the formation of publics, “hashtag publics” (Rogers,Otherwise Engaged 462) are not only an example of how content is organized in the platform’s realm, but also demonstrate the contribution of users in the shaping of, and providing a narrative for, an issue.
Interaction with a particular ‘issue’, whether through likes, comments, hashtag hijacking or other methods, “aids in accumulating actions and action potential” (Rogers, Doing Digital Methods 213). However, the strategy may, in turn, also very well be utilized to “mock, satirize, or negatively critique the original hashtag sponsor” (Gilkerson & Tusinski Berg 141), which resonates with Boyd’s remarks that affordances provide the conditions for the digital environment and essentially the issue space, however they do not directly command how users present themselves in this space. Further, a lack of knowledge about a violation of norms could consequently add to the degree of public exposition, as “apart from commenting on and spreading the evidence of transgression, Internet users also make use of the so-called ‘wisdom of the crowds’” (Petley 92). Usage of the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ here refers to individuals seeking more information about the norm-violator. Two repercussions of such a search for details are outlined by Petley; the first being that this action adds to the self-energizing and self-perpetuating mechanism that is social media. From the side of ‘the crowds’ of ‘wisdom’, trying to educate people and providing information about an issue, possibly hyper-linking or applying ‘mentions’ or hashtags redirecting to the original ‘norm-violating’ content, or to new content created by the ‘shamers’, would seemingly contribute to keeping the issue ‘relevant’. If anything, it could be considered adding fuel to the fire by making information on the issue more searchable. Secondly, it is not guaranteed that the information one consumes is genuine, as “incorrect or imprecise information is all too frequently circulated as a result of this process”
(Petley 92), in which the ‘process’ refers to individuals seeking for information on or entertainment by the supposed norm-violation.
Whatever intentions and motives are involved in the putting on display or reprimanding of other users online, it is clear that social networking sites and its affordances allow for a variety of ways in which one may situate oneself in the channels of communication and the issue space. While there are Community Guidelines, Terms of Service and other means of ensuring certain inappropriate content is taken off of the platform, there seems to remain room for subjectivity, or perhaps oversight by platform regulators, when it comes to ‘norm violation’ and ‘norm enforcement’. In other words, it may be interesting to look at the interplay between norm ‘violators’ and norm ‘enforcers’, roles that simultaneously can be taken by and given to anyone in the social media landscape, and in many forms, of which an example is provided in the case study in the following chapter of this thesis.
Essentially, ‘norms’ could be considered subjective in and of itself. The incomprehension and disagreement on acceptable behaviour, together with the indefinite, easily searchable, and manipulatable digital trail of user interaction, and the ways of using affordances, seem to extend beyond the architecture of social media platforms. Therefore the interactions that are facilitated, but also unanticipated, seem worthy of research. Having outlined surveillance practices, along with means for social interactions, the potential subsequent formation of publics, and its implications for the interplay of power among the ‘norm enforcer’ and ‘norm violator’, this thesis will draw these notions together through a relevant case study that explores the concepts of user-to-user public exposition and public shaming.
3. Methodology
As the theories demonstrate, interactions among individuals online can lead to collective action, and with the emergence of social media it has become easier for the formation of certain publics to take place. That is, platforms such as Instagram are said to carry functions that not only allow for constant user-to-user monitoring - and risk of scrutiny - by one another, but also open up new channels and means for communication and public formation that transcend direct, interpersonal verbal interactions (Langlois 92; Fox and Warber 3). For instance, interaction can take place the form of hashtags, emojis, or expressing one’s sentiments through likes or comments. These new means of interaction simultaneously seem to suggest a certain ease of interaction, including the ability to seamlessly provide ‘feedback’ to others, in positive, as well as negative ways (Lyon 831).
What has not yet been established at this point is how exactly Instagram allows for such feedback to come into being in the case of calling one another out on ‘norm violations’. To tweak this question from the perspective of the user: how do users employ Instagram’s affordances in order to identify, address and ensure the visibility of an issue, while simultaneously positioning themselves in publics that are formed around the ‘issue’ (Rogers,
Doing Digital Methods 174)? I employed a qualitatively- and quantitatively-supported multi-methodological approach to examine a wider scope of the research, with digital methods as its foundation.
The tools employed to capture, process and analyze data from Instagram will be outlined, but before doing so I will provide an explanation on how digital methods can be repurposed for social and cultural research, and what this can tell us about user cultures and the cultural conditions that have evolved. Following, I will provide an explanation of a case study around which this research has centered and was subject of the methodology. Based on a timeline of events and allegations surrounding the ‘#DGLovesChina’ social-media-oriented campaign by Dolce and Gabbana, I will explore the “potentialities of online technology to serve as a medium
for counter-publics” (Salter 226), by exploring how users have interacted and potentially created a particular narrative throughout this event, using Instagram’s affordances. Such interactions and use of affordances will lastly be elaborated on, by outlining how digital methods such as (co-)hashtag analysis, combined with content analyses, were conducted and analyzed in order to obtain a wider scope of user interactions during controversy.
Digital methods: studying online worlds
Digital methods encompass the emerging and increasingly used approach in which traces and methods inscribed in digital objects are repurposed in such a way that they allow for social and cultural research (Venturini et al., A Reality Check(-List)4197). It is important to understand how digital methods distinguish themselves from virtual methods, as they share a similarity, but have crucial differences in their research practices. Taking form as a digital extension of ethnography, often referred to as netnography, virtual methods deal with natively digital data (Rogers, Digital
Methods for Web Research7), while digitizing traditional, ethnographic research methods, such
as interviews, or surveys (Kozinets 3). In other words, it is conducted by ‘migrating’ existing methods to studying the online realm (Rogers, Digital Methods for Web Research4). As Web 2.0, and subsequent social networking sites, platforms and social media emerged and evolved, so did new methods of analyzing them, giving way to digital methods (Rogers, Digital Methods for
Cross-platform Analysis 93). The latter, tool-based methods for studying online media are rooted
in the “computational turn in the humanities and social sciences” (Venturini et al., A Reality Check(-List) 4200), and incorporate types of data and methods that are native to the digital environment. Rather than consisting of research approaches that have migrated online, digitally ‘native’ methods thus refer to methods that are essentially ‘written’ for an online medium (Rogers, Digital Methods for Web Research 9), such as the Instagram scraper that formed the basis for this thesis’ data retrieval.
Thus, in order to study natively digital data, digital methods are said to “learn from the methods of the medium” (Rogers, Digital Methods for Cross-platform analysis 91). Digital platforms and
infrastructures (the medium) are said to be “increasingly oriented toward the dynamic valorization of content” (Marres, Why Map Issues? 671), in which social media ensure engagement through constantly ensuring users are up-to-date on what is happening in their networks and beyond. Marres refers to this practice of letting users know what is happening as the “the formatting of ‘happening issues’” (671), which ultimately encompasses the making visible, if not promotion, of particular topics or events. Herein, one could wonder what is driving certain ‘issue-making’ practices. In other words, how are certain topics made into ‘issues’, and how do users ensure their visibility in the digital society?
Taking this question as a point of departure, and approaching ‘issue-making’ from the angle of this thesis, it would be significant to look at the role of platform affordances and the employment of such by users in generating exposure around certain problematic events (Marres, Why Map
Issues? 670). This does not solely concern the examination of methods with which platforms enable the practice of rendering issues as visible - such as the ability to use hashtags and other means of public interaction - but particularly how users and publics deploy such. Ultimately, the aim for this methodology is to answer how digital methods can be repurposed for social research on public formations surrounding supposed problematic online behaviour. In other words, how can the examination of hashtags and other potential uses of affordances inform us on how ‘norm enforcement’ takes place on Instagram?
Case study: ‘D&G Loves China‘
On November 16, 2018, Dolce and Gabbana started posting a series of promotional content for their latest online marketing campaign, ‘D&G Loves China’, to their Instagram and Chinese social media platform Weibo. Amongst the content was a now-deleted video, called “Eating with Chopsticks”, which featured a Chinese female model dressed in Dolce & Gabbana, attempting to eat traditional Italian foods using chopsticks. The video contained Chinese, allegedly ‘cliché’ background music, and was narrated by a Chinese male in native tongue (Ritschel). Following the first set of posts, issue was instantaneously taken with numerous aspects. In terms of the
deleted video, mainstream media took note of the clip for its allegedly sexist, racist and stereotypical impression, particularly targeting the narrators’ sexual innuendos. Above all, conversation was ignited on the alleged derogatory and distorted portrayal of Chinese culture (Barr). Throughout that same week, Dolce & Gabbana had also posted new campaign-related content, accompanied by the hashtag ‘#dgthegreatshow’, to promote their fashion show in Shanghai - “Tribute to China” - that was to take place on November 21, 2018 (Barr). Although the responses to the 2018 campaign videos sparked discussion, along with the reminder of an already problematized depiction of China in the 2017 cycle of the ‘D&G Loves China’ campaign, the outrage and eventual cancellation of The Great Show was finally realized due to an additional event in that same week. Namely, Instagram account and ‘industry watchdog’ @diet_prada had posted screenshots of leaked Direct Messages (a private messaging feature on Instagram) that were sent from the personal Instagram account of Dolce & Gabbana co-founder Stefano Gabbana (Bromwich, We’re All Drinking Diet Prada Now). From the designer’s Instagram account, the sent messages had expressed offensive sentiments towards China and its citizens, both verbally and through emoji use, after being criticized for the aforementioned video and campaign. Following these events, the duo posted an array of posts on the brand’s Instagram with claims of being hacked , an announcement of the cancellation of The Great Show , along 4 5
with a link to an apology video that has remained in their bio since . Although the latter posts are 6
telling of the aftermath of the events, in this thesis I will only focus on the initial, campaign- and The Great Show-related posts (from now on altogether referred to as case study posts or samples). The reason for this is that I am focusing on exposition and public formation in terms of the ‘revealing’ (Özçağlayan and Çeli̇k 188) or the ‘making visible’ of an issue (Marres, Why
Map Issues? 670-671), and the response to such practices by @dolcegabbana are, within this thesis, considered as events post-revelation or - exposition. The entirety of events are summarized in the timeline below (Figure 1).
4 “Our Instagram account has been hacked. So has the account of Stefano Gabbana. Our legal office is urgently investigating. We are very sorry for any distress caused by these unauthorized posts, comments and direct messages. We have nothing but respect for China and the people of China. Dolce & Gabbana 的官方Intragram 账号和Stefano Gabbana 的 Instagram 账号被盗
，我们已经立即通过法律途径解决。我们为这些不实言论给中国和中国人民造成的影响和伤害道歉。我们对中国和中国
文化始终一贯的热爱与尊重。” (@dolcegabbana, https://www.instagram.com/p/BqbjuT3nYa4) 5 Post announcing the cancellation of the great show (
Figure 1: Timeline of events of the ‘D&G Loves China’ controversy
It is this problematization by users to the numerous events and content that had fuelled the demise of the ‘D&G Loves China’ campaign (and fashion show) that posed for an interesting avenue for research in the examination of public exposition, public shaming, and the formation of publics. This is particularly the case if one considers the contribution of Instagram’s platform affordances - and ways in which these have been employed - to the exposure and unforeseen aftermath of the content posted by Dolce & Gabbana. According to Bruce Berg, there are
numerous ways of defining case studies, one being the attempt to “systematically investigate an event or set of related events with the specific aim of describing and explaining the phenomenon”, while it may also regard the examination of a “single setting, single subject, single event” (829). Through the case study of Dolce and Gabbana’s campaign, from now on simply referred to as ‘D&G Loves China’, I will examine the ways in which the events surrounding the Instagram-led campaign was interacted with by users, and the role of platform affordances in facilitating users’ ‘feedback’.
Why Instagram
Being able to ‘see’ one another on social media platforms is said to have become increasingly desired both in the sense of ‘keeping up’ and knowing what one is doing, but also in the literal sense of ‘seeing’ how one portrays him/herself - or is portrayed - and the means with which this is done (Özçağlayan and Çeli̇k 176). As aforementioned when describing the significance of visual content in monitoring, there is a reason why visual-oriented technologies have become more prominent, and perhaps why Instagram is one of the most popular and populated social media platforms. Exemplary of the influence of visualization is Dolce & Gabbana’s ‘Eating with Chopsticks’ campaign video, for the very fact that backlash was directed at its portrayal of China through the use of chopsticks as a prop and “trivializing China’s centuries-old culture” (Pan). Secondly, while textual content, such as Tweets, are said to be more readily collected and processed, visual content is becoming an increasingly important component of one’s social media practices (Highfield and Leaver, A Methodology For Mapping Instagram Hashtags 4), and thus of cultural research. The still limited research on visual-oriented platforms, and means for such, combined with the increasing popularity of sharing (and seeing) visual content on social media, ultimately suggests the following:
There is a need for expanded social media research methods which more directly and consistently incorporate visual content, from collecting data from image-sharing platforms
