University of Amsterdam
MA New Media and Digital Culture
2016 – 2017
Analyzing LGBTQ Public(S) on Tumblr:
Networked. Intimate. Counter.
Supervisor: Niels van Doorn
Second Reader: Natalia Sanchez
Date: 04.09.2017
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1. Publics
2.2. LGBTQ Publics
2.3. LGBTQ Publics Online
2.4. LGBTQ Publics on Tumblr
3. Tumblr
4. Methodology
4.1. Research Design
5. Findings
5.1. What are the subjects being talked of and shared?
5.2. Who is the audience?
5.3. Which subjects get the most attention? Which subjects are marginalized?
6. Conclusion
1. Introduction
Love is love. But why is love sometimes public and otherwise confined to the private? Two people can hold hands and walk down the street which is considered as normal as it gets. That is of course, if these two people are of opposite genders. Yet, even in a country like The Netherlands, a country that is known for its openness, tolerance and acceptance of LGBTQ people, the first country to legalize gay marriage, and yet two men holding hands on the street gets attacked. Yes, it makes headlines locally and globally, it leads male Dutch politicians to hold hands on their way to parliament1, it leads Dutch people to start holding hands with each other on the street and post photos of it online on various social media platforms,
but why does such an attack happen in the first place?
LGBTQ people have faced stigma, discrimination and harassment for decades. They have also formed communities, found each other and connected, creating their own spaces, safer spaces, intimate spaces, and spaces from which to fight back against the stigma. They have wanted to be normal, they have wanted to be different. Simply wanting to be accepted as they are…
This research paper will start by looking at multiple types of publics, how and why they are formed to be able to base the rest of the research on this theory and to use it as a lens to analyse through. For this Habermas, Fraser, Warner, Berlant and Boyd will especially be looked at in detail. Then LGBTQ publics will be researched in general, online and finally particularly on Tumblr.
Tumblr is a micro-blogging platform founded in 2007 by David Karp and is today home to 363 million different Tumblr blogs. (Tumblr) Whereas blogs are mostly about long, in depth posts, microblogging is about short, quick updates. This difference is also what led Karp to create Tumblr as he found the blogging platforms that existed at the time to be too complicated, required commitment (due to long posts) and that he didn’t like writing and thus needed a different tool (TechCrunch).2 Thus Tumblr was created. While examples of blogging platforms can be given as WordPress or Blogger, micro-blogging platforms include Twitter, Facebook and Tumblr. What makes Tumblr interesting for this research is that today it is known to be a platform that brings together minoritized groups such as the NSFW3 communities or the focus of this paper, LGBT and Queer communities. (Oakley 6)
Some research has been done in the area of Tumblr and its various communities, especially by scholars such as Hillman who has multiple works regarding this subject, as well as Oakley, Tiidenberg, Marquart
1 You can read more about this here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/dutch-men-hand-in-hand-solidarity-gay-couple-attacked
2https://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/founder-stories-why-david-karp-started-tumblr-blogs-dont-work-for-most-people/
and so on. Not many of these studies however have focused specifically on LGBTQ people and the publics they have formed on Tumblr. Additionally, one common characteristic of all these studies were their use of rather traditional and qualitative research methods, made up of interviews and surveys. As someone from the New Media and Digital Methods field, I wanted to extract larger amounts of data and analyse it in order to create visualizations built on more quantitative data. I would be able to do this through the Tumblr Tool which was built by Bernhard Rieder and will be explained in detail later, under methodology. While the previous research already had interesting findings regarding these communities, they were limited in their scope which I felt could be strengthened through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. In order to achieve this I have focused on the research question: How do various
segments of the larger LGBTQ community come together, through the Tumblr platform, around both mainstream and marginalized subjects?
To be able to operationalize my research and answer this question I have selected three sub-questions: 1. What are the subjects being talked of and shared?
2. Who is the audience?
3. Which subjects get the most attention? Which subjects are marginalized?
Within this paper my goal is to take as a base the academic work done on publics, LGBTQ individuals, and Tumblr communities and to combine all of this information with my findings based on the data analysis which will be conducted in order to have a quantitative and qualitative look at LGBTQ public(s) on the Tumblr platform.
2. Theoretical Framework
So much has been researched; so much has been said and written about LGBTQ communities over the years through a variety of angles, focusing on a variety of subject matters or concerns. It isn’t possible or necessary to cover all of this material for the purposes of this thesis. Thus it is important to begin by presenting the scope of this research, in line with the research question, this chapter will focus specifically on different types of communities, community formation within LGBT and Queer spheres and the problem of community. This involves the concepts of heteronormativity and homonormativity, followed by the subjects of exclusion (within these spaces) and representation.
2.1. Publics
“’Publics,’ a contested and messy term with multiple meanings that is used across different disciplines to signal different concepts” (Boyd 2).
This section begins by looking at publics at large to get an understanding of the types of publics that exist. This will involve Habermas and his theory of the Public Sphere, followed by Nancy Fraser’s critique and further theorization of the Public Sphere as well as Michael Warner’s concept of Counterpublics as an alternative take on publics. Lastly two more types of publics will be introduced: Intimate Publics by Lauren Berlant and Networked Publics by Danah Boyd. These concepts of various publics will later be used to understand and to explain the types of publics (or counterpublics) LGBTQ people belong to in general, online as well as specifically on Tumblr. They will also be used in the analysis to explain certain patterns around the users and their interactions.
Habermas and the Public Sphere
When looking at or talking of publics, it is almost obligatory to mention Habermas, and though his concept of the public sphere is not fully applicable in today’s society, it will be mentioned briefly to begin with. The
Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, originally published in 1962 is a book by Jürgen Habermas
in which he discusses the public sphere, a concept which emerges in the late 18th century Western Europe. The book is an analysis of the rise and decline of the “liberal model of the bourgeois public sphere” (Habermas 222). The public sphere during this time transitions from a literary one to a political one and Habermas defines its “institutions” as coffee houses, salons and table societies with “sociable discussions that quickly developed into public criticism” (30). According to Habermas this bourgeois public sphere is a sphere of private people coming together to form a public to discuss subjects of common interest, and to keep the state and public authorities accountable (27). Although the text and the kind of publicity it
addresses are rather dated, Habermas and the public sphere still have modern day relevance and they are frequently referenced by scholars and students. There are also various criticisms regarding this concept, its accuracy and inclusivity as well as how Habermas explains it. However even the critiques take note of its continuing relevance, and rather than dismissing it completely, offer adjustments or further theories to improve the original material through new perspectives, which will be explained below through Nancy Fraser.
Criticism of Habermas’s Public Sphere
Fraser states that although Habermas’s public sphere rests on the idea of “publicity and accessibility” or in other words a place where inequalities are “bracketed” and everyone is considered equal, many scholars have argued that in fact it was shaped by various exclusions (113). Scholars have written about exclusions of gender (Joan Landes) and social class (Geoff Eley) in Europe as well as the exclusion of women of different classes and ethnicities in North America (Mary Ryan). Fraser’s important take from these accounts of critique is that “declaring a deliberative arena to be a space where extant status distinctions are bracketed and neutralized is not sufficient to make it so” (115). This is not only limited to the public sphere of Habermas and can be applied to a variety of publics and communities where the claim or desire for a non-discriminatory platform do not necessarily equal to one.
Here things get interesting because although there were certain exclusions of gender and class within the liberal bourgeois public sphere of Habermas, Fraser and the earlier mentioned scholars show in their work that “the bourgeois public was never the public” (emphasis in the original) and that there were in fact multiple “competing counterpublics” (emphasis added) with various backgrounds (116). Here we already start seeing the mainstream and the marginalized between these publics as one is presented as the public and the others overlooked and not recognized or taken into account. But how were the relations between these publics? According to Fraser, the counterpublics were challenging the exclusions of the bourgeois public sphere and developing more inclusive approaches while the bourgeois public sphere intentionally aimed at blocking these alternatives which would lead to broader participation (116). This leads to her second important point, which is crucial for this thesis. Fraser questions how beneficial or realistic it is to
bracket inequalities in such public spheres. This is especially because when all is considered equal in an
overarching public, the mainstream will have the dominant hand while the marginalized tends to get overlooked as the majority absorbs “the less powerful into a false ‘we’ that reflects the more powerful” (Mansbridge qtd. in Fraser 123). The marginalized in this case do not have an arena of their own, where their specific subjects, needs and issues of concern get addressed, a place where they can express
themselves as well as uphold their interests. This is why it is more advantageous for marginalized social groups to have their own alternative publics and historical accounts support this with groups for women, people of color, gays and lesbians and workers. Here Fraser introduces the phrase “subaltern
counterpublics” (emphasis in the original) which serves to point out that these publics are “parallel
discursive arenas” where the subjects, needs, issues of concern and interests of the marginalized are uphold and where they can “circulate counterdiscourses” (123). These counterpublics carry two roles; one as a place to disengage from the mainstream and gather together and one as a place to plan activities aimed at the larger public to get attention and recognition. During the analysis later in this thesis, the counterpublic(s) as well as their role as one or the other or both will be looked at.
Counterpublics
Another famous scholar that has worked with the concept of counterpublics and has to be mentioned is Michael Warner. His work is especially important within this thesis as he explains publics and counterpublics, often times through or with examples from queer theory. Thus, in the framework of this thesis Warner presents the bridge between publics (and counterpublics) at large and specifically LGBTQ publics (and counterpublics). Just like Fraser, Warner also believes in multiple publics rather than the public, and states that there are possibly infinite publics (2002 9).
Before getting into detail with publics and counterpublics, Warner starts by looking at the words public and private and what they both mean. Here he first looks at how masculinity is often associated with publicness whereas femininity is associated with the private, at least in the Western world (2002 24). This is followed by a connection to sexualities where Warner applies the same logic, stating that “not all sexualities are public or private in the same way” with heterosexual public displays of affection (PDA) being viewed as normal and acceptable whereas the same thoughts are not extended to same-sex PDA (2002 24). Then he goes on to explain how in both cases these identities, which were constrained to the private by the dominant public, recognized that in order to change the existent norms of society they had to go against them, and claim their spaces in the public world (2002 24).
The personal is political.
Warner uses this quote and explains it through the examples of the women’s movement and the gay liberation movement of the 1960s, showing how the personal, the “most private matters” could be made political and gain public relevance (2002 31). Taking these two movements as its base Warner introduces the term “counterpublic”, publics that are defined by their going against the larger public and its thoughts and norms; these counterpublics are negative towards power and authority, since they often identify as
the oppressed (2002 56). The identities of the members of such publics are shaped and reshaped by their participation within, since to belong to a public means to speak its language, to share its views of the world and to be motivated by the same subjects (Warner 2002 10).
Warner establishes many possible meanings of the word “public” as well as the different types of publics there may be such as a national public, or the public at a concert etc. but chooses to focus instead on publics that are only brought and tied together through the circulation of texts, giving his own essay as an example text with a public shaped around it (2002 66). These publics are solely organized by their discourse, and only exist through the act of being addressed. Such publics are made up of connections between strangers, in the end creating a place where these strangers can connect with and be intimate with each other which is called “stranger-relationality” by Warner (2002 76). In relation to this, Warner emphasizes the fact that a counterpublic is not only about representing the interests of its members but that it could also “mediate the most private and intimate meanings” (emphasis added) giving new avenues, new perspectives on cultures, sociality, new associations, new vocabularies of addressing and more to these individuals (2002 57).
Intimate Publics
This is where Lauren Berlant’s concept of intimate publics, from her book The Female Complaint, comes into the picture. Berlant’s approach to intimate publics is very similar to Warner’s counterpublics since in both cases the members of the public are the minority, the not-so-dominant and the complete book of Berlant is actually based on the female experience, its assumed place in the private sphere and its move towards the public sphere through these intimate publics. She works through a similar thought process as Warner, asking how it is possible to call a public made up of strangers “intimate” and answers this by bringing up the shared experiences and histories of these people, the common texts they read, the content they consume, all in all the common ground that is based on their shared worldviews (viii). This type of common ground does not require the people to be at the same locations nor for them to know each other personally; it is the shared experience that matters:
“…there existed a world of strangers who would be emotionally literate in each other's experience of power, intimacy, desire, and discontent, with all that entails: varieties of suffering and fantasies of transcendence; longing for reciprocity with other humans and the world…” (Berlant 5).
While Berlant’s primary example is women, she states the applicability of her concept also to other non-dominant people, where the shared desire of all these connected strangers is “to be somebody in a world where the default is being nobody or, worse, being presumptively all wrong” (emphasis in the original)
and for this desire they work together by interacting and legitimating their ways of being, their ways of life which have been overlooked by the majority (3). This process involves identification of the self and others, conversations about how to live as a person with the non-dominant identity and evaluations of how things are, where changes can be achieved and how etc. and in this way, providing spaces for emotional connections as well as “enduring, resisting, overcoming, and enjoying being” (Berlant viii).
Where does the internet fit in all this?
Now that these publics (subaltern, counter and intimate) have been established, there is only one more left to look into within the confines of this thesis which is networked publics by Danah Boyd. Before getting into specifically her concept of networked publics, let’s start with the question: Where does the internet fit within this look at varying publics? Since the concept of public has been related to the distribution of texts, a connection to the web can be made with its websites, bogs, social media platforms where strangers are connecting and interacting every day with others based on their mutual experiences and interests.4 As Bucher points out the internet has also especially benefitted counterpublics by providing them with increased visibility, helping their movements gain traction locally and globally (117). Others agree with Bucher on this and explain the strengthening role of the internet for counterpublics through the newly discovered ways of access and participation, which it has allowed for (Faina 59; O-Hallarn 3)). There are also some scholars who disagree with this on multiple points, the most relevant one here being the argument that the internet leads to “echo chambers” where people only talk with like-minded people, rather than having the kind of rational debate introduced by Habermas (Candon 39). Fink and Miller also bring up another point which may be considered a challenge on the side of the counterpublics which is that, despite initial expectations that the internet is a level playing, in reality it is a reflection of the offline world and thus voices that are heard more outside the internet are also heard louder on the internet, with the minority voices being maintained as the minority once again (624). This may be true in some cases and maybe not in others, however it is not necessarily going directly against the points made so far regarding each of the publics discussed prior. Subaltern, counter nor intimate publics are aiming to reach the Habermasian public sphere; their focus instead is more around their ways of existence as explained earlier. The internet does not have to be a public sphere for all these various publics to exist.
4 There is a significant amount of literature which looks at the meaning of such content creation by users as “immaterial
labour”, making connections to Jodi Dean’s concept of “communicative capitalism” however these theories are not within the scope of this research and thus have been left out. For more on this, Terranova (2000) and Lazzarato (2004) are two good sources.
Networked Publics
Having acknowledged these differences in opinion, we can now look at Boyd and the networked publics.
“Networked publics are publics that are restructured by networked technologies” (Boyd 1).
By networked technologies Boyd is hinting at affordances, stating that while networked publics are similar to other publics in terms of helping people gather and interact on a variety of subjects, also possibly with strangers rather than only their friends and family (1). What distinguishes networked publics is not what they do (as this is similar to other public too) but how they do what they do. It is about how people interact with these spaces and this question can be answered through a look at affordances. Any person using a platform is bound to be affected by the affordances of that platform, meaning what it allows the user to do, what it doesn’t allow for and what options are easier than others which can be used as a way to hint more towards certain actions while leaving other options in the background, so overall it is about the “architecture of networked publics” as the differentiating factor (Boyd 3). To give an example, Boyd looks at multiple affordances one of which is individual updates provided by platforms which on their own may not have too much meaning but when combined as an on-going flow of updates, can create a sense of being surrounded by connections and interactions with others, the sense of a public of which they are a part(6). Lastly, it is important to mention that Boyd doesn’t see interactions as solely shaped by networked technologies, but simply as them having an impact too, which is sometimes noticed but not always and as people interact with these technologies they learn new ways to use them and ways to navigate through them (15). While, for the time being, this is may come across as a rather abstract concept, it will be built upon through examples in sections 2.3 and 2.4.
2.2. LGBTQ Publics
Having established how the word public is perceived and will be used in this thesis and detailed the types of publics which are relevant for this research, we can now look at LGBTQ publics, starting with explanations of terms used for various gender and sexual identities in order to ensure clarity in the rest of this research paper. Following this, this section will look at three subjects: heteronormativity, homonormativity and being outside the binary. There is an incredible amount of research that has been done regarding LGBTQ publics, in relation to a variety of subjects, however, within the limits of this thesis it is both impossible and unnecessary to look at all of this research and thus this section has been narrowed down and limited to these three subjects. The choice was based on their relevance (as they were adjusted and re-adjusted throughout the research and analysis process) and their relatively broad nature in comparison to some other subjects which came up during the research period. For example,
subjects such as the Stonewall Riots of 1969, AIDS crisis of the 1980s or the marriage equality battle of today are all very important for the LGBTQ public but while saying a lot about their shared history and experiences, they are singular subjects whereas the three subjects chosen for this section are relatively timeless and comprehensive.
To be able to talk about the subject of LGBTQ publics it is important to first start with some explanations. LGBTQ is an acronym which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender and is currently the most wide-spread acronym in use. However, the word or acronym used to address under-represented gender and sexual minorities has experienced a continuous change over the years. In earlier texts the most used phrases were “gay” or “gay men and lesbians” whereas later the addition of bisexuals could also be seen, leading to the LGB (or GLB) acronym. This was followed by debates and discussions regarding the addition of T for transgender, expanding the acronym to LGBT (or GLBT). While LGBT currently has the title as most popular acronym, there are several recent variations to it with people suggesting the additions of more letters in order to represent more of the gender and sexual minorities and to not exclude them. Some variations include I for Intersex5, P for Pansexual6. There is also A which could stand either for Ally7 or it
could stand for Asexual8. Finally, the most common addition to LGBT is the letter Q, which may stand for
Questioning or Queer or both9. Questioning here means somebody who is uncertain of their gender and/or sexual orientation.
Queer on the other hand has a less straight-forward explanation as its connotations and usage are still being debated within the LGBTQ community. Queer is a word that originally had the meaning "strange" or "peculiar" and was not necessarily used in a negative manner. However later, it started being used as a slur against LGBT people and has left negative memories of harassment in the minds of many who were affected by this. Today there are people in a significant number of circles that are choosing to use the word and identify with it, in an act of reclaiming the word, strip it off its derogatory meanings from the past and regain power through it. One of the main purposes of the word queer is that it aims at stronger inclusivity than the LGBT acronym and its variations. The LGBT acronym keeps getting more letters added to it by different publics within in order to include more genders and sexualities while at the same time
5 Intersex is a general term used for people whose reproductive or sexual anatomy is different than the general
definitions of what is female or male, according to the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA).
6 Pansexual is a term used for people who can be attracted to others of any gender or sexual orientation, according to
Merriam-Webster.
7 Ally is a term used for people who support the rights of gender and sexual minorities. 8 Asexual is a term used for people who do not have any sexual desires.
still missing some others. And even if many letters are added and inclusivity in this sense is achieved, these longer alternatives do not gain traction in daily life, online or offline, with people either using LGBT or LGBT+ as a shortcut. There are also people who believe that such continuous additions are leading to the acronym being taken less seriously, with many criticizing it to have become “alphabet soup”.
Having covered the meanings of a variety of sexual/gender identities and most importantly for this thesis the LGBT acronym and the term Queer, we can now move on to the four overarching subjects that have been chosen for this section in order to provide a broad overview into the LGBTQ publics.
Heteronormativity
“Almost all children grow up in families that think of themselves and all their members as heterosexual, and for some children this produces a profound and nameless estrangement, a sense of inner secrets and hidden shame. … Later in life, they will be told that they are "closeted," as though they have been telling lies. They bear a special burden of disclosure” (Warner 2000 8).
This excerpt sets the ground perfectly for the explanation of the concept of heteronormativity. It shows the reader how heterosexual is assumed as the norm, the normal, what is expected of one and how if one does not fit in this expectation, they are left out, overlooked or seen as the exception to the rule, the outlier. This is also supported by the idea of “being in the closet” and “coming out” which portrays once again the heterosexual identity as the norm, putting non-heterosexuals in a position to state their difference and thus minoritizing their identity in the process. Therefore, the meaning of the word heteronormativity is actually in the word itself, hetero (as the) norm, heterosexual as the normal and all else as secondary. The coining of this term is attributed to Berlant and Warner, has been used by many scholars ever since and has also gained use outside academia, in daily life; offline and online.
In their work together and ever since, Berlant and Warner bring attention to the often-overlooked position of power and privilege that comes with heteronormativity. While when the term was first coined it was focused more around sexuality, the extent of heteronormativity in other areas of life were realized soon after and can today be seen all around us, as it is actively promoted from TV scripts to national policies, having become institutionalized and engraved in society as we know it. Here it must be kept in mind that the non-heterosexual experience is not solely about the closet and coming out, and the variance in experience between a heterosexual and non-heterosexual person can also be rather immense with the latter experiencing challenges regarding denial, ignorance, harassment, bullying and at times with even their existence being illegal, depending on where in the world they are.
Homonormativity
The term homonormativity is more recent and was derived from the earlier explained term: heteronormativity. The idea behind it is the creation of a “normal” within the non-heterosexual world, the image of what is often a white, middle class gay couple living what is seen as normal lives, just like heterosexuals. Warner explains this through the belief of gays and lesbians that in order to not be stigmatized they would have to be accepted and seen as normal by the heterosexual majority, rather than trying to be accepted as they are (2000 50).
While this thought may come across as sensible to begin with, since being perceived as normal would make life easier for many gay and lesbians, there are also troubling aspects to it. One problem with this approach is the narrowing down of the non-heterosexual agenda, a “shrinking of the scope” to issues that are relatively more in touch with the norms of the majority such as marriage equality, and seeing that as the “final frontier” in a way that assumes there are no other issues left for LGBTQ publics, no more problems left to solve and Warner believes that this is causing a widening gap between gays and lesbians, and queers (Oliveira et al 1477; Warner 2000 143).
A second problem that is often brought up when it comes to homonormativity is that the non-heterosexual public is not only made up of gays and lesbians, but a wide variety of gender and sexual identities who tend to get overlooked in such processes of normalization. This will be discussed below, but beforehand let’s take a look at one point of view within the discussion around homonormativity which is less heard and less acknowledged. Herz and Johansson draw attention to how some gay people aspiring to what is seen as the heterosexual lifestyle as being perceived as “disloyal to the cause” (1013). Additionally, Oliveira et al goes a step further and discusses homonormativity as an “immediate protection” provider in some instances (1490). This is about appreciating the benefits that come with the existence of a homonormativity which may include; worrying less about coming out because now the stigma is not as strong, knowing that a life with marriage and kids is more feasible than before and if that is what one wants it is in reach, that being on the street and being open about your gender and sexuality is less dangerous because you are not not-normal anymore but instead accepted.
Outside the binary
By aiming at normalization (which is also seemed as assimilation by some), the counterpublic character of non-heterosexuals is not removed and it is only the “relatively more normal” who can now be part of the public. This is also an example of how within a counterpublic too, a public and counterpublic can co-exist. As Warner explains this:
“It does not seem to be possible to think of oneself as normal without thinking that some other
kind of person is pathological” (2000 60).
As the “boundaries of the socially acceptable have shifted”, different scholars have given different but similar, at times overlapping examples of who is left behind in these cases (Brown 1067). Carrera et al gives the example of trans men and women who feel that they do not match the gender they were assigned at birth however whose identities are not recognized by the majority public; and Intersex people who are showing of the heteronormative nature of “even medical science” (997). Page and Peacock build upon the intersex example further, by stating the frequency of its occurrence and how instead of adjusting the views on intersex to acceptance, the choice is surgeries and hormones to fit within the existing gender binary:
“Rather than adjust the social model to fit reality, we force reality into our socially prescribed model of normalcy” (650).
Transgender people have also struggled with the gender binary as historically, it led to them being a counterpublic within the LGBTQ public, as some were worried that trans people didn’t fit and could not be categorized within the traditional ways (Williams 29). Page and Peacock also touch upon a more personal side of being outside the heteronormativity binary, where individuals have to discover and form their identities, but they have to do this within the already existing understanding and vocabularies of the majority, in which they are the other (639). Lastly, queers are also mentioned here as Warner believes focusing on issues like marriage equality is causing a widening gap between the lesbians and gays, and the queers, who believe there are many other, more prominent issues to focus on (2000 143). This view as the costs of homonormativity being carried more heavily by others such as trans people and queers is repeated also by Brown (1067).
2.3. LGBTQ Publics Online
The potential of the internet for gathering and connecting people, helping in processes of community building is a subject that has been around, discussed, and analyzed for decades, however in order to remain within the scope of this research, we will look directly at LGBTQ publics online and the purposes for which they use the internet as well as subjects that they discuss. Subjects regarding LGBTQ publics that are relevant for this research and scholars have looked at include: community/support, learning, representation, self-discovery, coming out, relationships and self-representation which will all be looked at one by one down below.
Many scholars have looked specifically at the role the internet has played for LGBTQ publics and what the internet means to them, while contesting the view that connections made online are “impersonal” or simply “cold and artificial” and criticizing the separation created between what is called real life and the online world as two separate things, implying that the world online is not real. (Walther 1996; Paradis 5). McNeill and Zuem make a point that is rather relevant to the matter of public and private which was discussed in the previous section of this chapter, bringing attention to the possibility of “enable the performance of the private in public” through platforms such as blogs, though their statement can be applied to a broader understanding of the online world, with websites and social media platforms too (x).
Community
The most prominent within all the subjects listed was community/support which was brought up within a variety of contexts, by a variety of scholars; this makes sense as every other subject is reliant on the feeling of belonging to a community, sharing and learning from and with that community.
What is meant by community here? Community in the online sense is sometimes relatively blurry than for example the community at an event where you can physically see who is there and who is not, who is participating and who is not. Bruns and Burgess explain this through the example of Twitter hashtags and the people and conversations that form around these hashtags as the people involved having shared interests, being aware of the existence of others and interacting with each other actively through conversation or passively through being present (5). Boyd, Golder and Lotan also have a supporting view where they explain the lack of barriers on platforms such as Twitter enable even passive participants to feel as though they are “surrounded by a conversation” and thus as being part of a community, being present and joining in (1). These explanations may sound familiar to the way publics were explained earlier by Warner as formed around the distribution of texts and they are telling of the possibilities for the formation of publics online.
Here there is also a return to Kaplan and Haenlein’s concept of ambient awareness, as they mention how being surrounded by a multiplicity of content of others, such as a set of tweets, may create a connection and a feeling of intimacy between the individuals despite the lack of physical closeness (107). And this explanation brings us back to the intimate publics of Lauren Berlant, providing a context for how they can be present online too. This is especially the case since online spaces are seen as a place for minorities to find and receive support from each other, especially for LGBTQ youth who might be lacking this support in their daily offline lives, the internet and its people is a place they can turn to (Baams et al. 1820; Craig et al. 271).
Here the internet is really seen as a place that counterpublics can turn to where they can interact and be intimate with each other around issues of common interest and shared experiences. Overall, scholars have stated the internet as a place LGBTQ people turn to for finding similar others, a place where they can feel like they belong, a place where sharing of experiences, advice and support is all possible (Paradis 145; Ridder and van Bauwel 777, Fox and Ralston 636).
“It may be enough for queers to know these spaces exist and to participate in them”(Schwartz 14).
While Schwartz’s view has a point, there are nevertheless specific ways in which the existence of these places has helped LGBTQ publics and these will be explained below through more specific examples.
Learning
(The internet) “…has become a virtual lifeline-a place where, anonymously and in relative privacy, they can find the information they so desperately seek” (Greenblatt 99).
Due to the lack of LGBTQ presence and access to information in the heteronormative, offline world where subjects regarding LGBTQ experiences and struggles are often pushed to the private spheres, the internet plays a crucial role as a platform where individuals can have access to various types of information and learn. It is also very important as access to information online has been seen to provide a positive experience for individuals who are exposed to more negative perspectives offline, regarding their gender and sexual identities (Craig et al. 267).
This very crucial process of learning has been researched and analyzed in depth by Fox and Ralston who have in the end come up with four types of learning that are present and relevant for LGBTQ people on social media which are: traditional learning, social learning, experiential learning and teaching (635). The initial step is often traditional learning where individuals simply seek information about LGBTQ related issues as part of their discovery process. Later they move on to social learning which is about finding representations of the self or similar others who could both be celebrities or regular people sharing their experiences online. Thirdly, there is experiential learning, which is a step further as it is more about interacting with others, such as through trying out dating apps and so on. While these kinds of learning have been expressed as a straight route from one to the other, this does not always have to be the case, and different varieties are possible. The fourth and often overlooked type is teaching as of course for people to be able to learn, there has to be others who are interested in teaching and what Fox and Ralston has noticed was that individuals who were already out and ones who have identities that are less represented also within the LGBTQ public such as asexuals, pansexuals and transgender people tended to
take on the role of teaching more often (635). Fox and Ralston have identified this fourth type as a “pay it forward mentality” as many of the individuals who take on the role of teaching have themselves benefitted from the internet and the people who have shared their knowledge and experiences (641). Other scholars have also recognized the important role of learning online for LGBTQ publics however Fox and Ralston were prioritized here due to their in-depth analysis of the different ways in which this learning occurs within the LGBTQ publics.
Representation
Representations of LGBTQ people on traditional media platforms are rather scarce however when they do exist, it leads LGBTQ people to feel a strong connection to the celebrities, shows and characters that are visible, who are like them and present within the public sphere. Some of the examples that came up during the research include Glee (Craig et al. 267), The L Word (Kern 435), Laverne Cox and George Takei (Fox and Ralston 638). The connection LGBTQ audiences feel is carried onto online platforms where they discuss these shows and celebrities, talk about the characters and their qualities, who they like most, who they relate to, which of the characters they would like to see together and creating various fan art which could include images, drawings, memes, GIFs etc. Such acts were found to have led to stronger feelings of “shared experience and identity” for the audiences, connecting them on an intimate level with each other and provided them with “a newfound community of viewer” who are strangers, yet with common interests, in line with the concepts of both Warner and Berlant (Craig et al. 267, Kern 435).
Nonetheless, the majority of the representations that do exist in traditional media spaces are often one-dimensional, homonormative portrayals with white, middle class, gay men while other gender and sexual identities are less represented such as lesbians, bisexuals, asexuals, transgender individuals, as well as youth, people of color and people of various ethnicities (Craig et al. 257; Kern 440; Billing et al. 145). However, this counterpublic made up of the LGBTQ public, and more specifically the people who feel further marginalized also within the LGBTQ public have found the internet and social media platforms as a space where they can respond to both lack of representation, overly stereotypical representations and instances of misrepresentation (Craig et al. 265). They have started using platforms like YouTube and Tumblr not only for community and identity formations but also for LGBTQ activism for resisting by through creating their own contents in various media forms (Billings et al. 145).
Lack of representation and misrepresentation are also damaging for the identity formations of marginalized individuals, while on the other hand the internet provides them with access to much more
varied and accurate representations of different gender and sexual identities, providing them with the information they might need for their own self-discovery processes. (Fink and Miller 614; Craig et al. 257)
Self-discovery
This brings us to self-discovery, a challenging process experienced by LGBTQ individuals as they try to understand and find themselves, discover their bodies and sexualities. While this is not an easy process to go through, especially due to such subjects not being discussed in the public sphere and being kept (or enforced) as private matters by the norms of the majority, the internet provides a space where the process might get at least slightly easier. Using the internet for exploration and self-discovery is especially prevalent among the youth, this is likely because the older individuals within the LGBTQ public have gone through these processes already (Paradis 18; Ceglarek and Ward 201).
Some of the benefits of having access to the internet during this process is that it allows for anonymity if desired, the ability to have control over the process and interact more or retreat when needed, and trying out different things without being defined by them in daily, offline lives (Craig and McInroy – You Can Form a Part of Yourself Online 101). Online platforms provide individuals with the ability to be passive users who only read and watch, or chose to be more active and join in discussions, create content personally which could include texts, stories, videos and more etc. giving the individual the choice on how much they want to and need to interact for their individual self-discovery (Fox and Ralston 635).
And possibly the most important benefit here is the ability to connect with similar others rather than a family member or school counselor who does not share the similar histories or experiences and does not fully understand the meaning behind the LGBTQ individual’s identity and struggles. Therefore, it is argued that this interaction with similar others is better for not only the discovery process, but also for self-esteem and perceptions of the self, increasing the likelihood of a sense of belonging (Ceglarek and Ward 201).
The use of internet for self-discovery was the most important for people with the least visible and most overlooked identities, also within the LGBTQ public; such as asexuals, pansexuals, transgender people etc. to the point that some of the participants in the research of Fox and Ralston have stated that if it weren’t for the internet they would not have been able to identify as asexual due to lack of knowledge and awareness (640).
Coming Out
The concept of the closet has already been mentioned earlier, in section 2.1, through Warner, where he presents it as an example of the heteronormative society that we live in, where LGBTQ individuals are told that they are in the closet and that there is an act of “coming out” to tell others your non-normative gender and/or sexuality, which is reflective of the marginalizing assumption that unless stated otherwise, we are all cis-gender10 heterosexuals.
Coming out can be seen as the step that follows self-discovery and just like self-discovery when it comes to coming out the focus is more often on youth, although older LGBTQ individuals can provide advice, guidance and support. Many scholars have found that individuals who are thinking about coming out sometimes use their online social platforms as a try-out, a test-run for their potential coming out in the offline world. In each case this has been related to the relative perceived safety of doing this online which is largely connected to the factor of anonymity, where others who might see the shared content are likely not family or friends but strangers with similar histories and experiences, which is likely to provide empathy over prejudice (Baams et al. 1820; Stern 257; Craig and McInroy – You Can Form a Part of Yourself Online 103).
Relationships
In parallel with its role as a place for community building, the internet also plays a role in finding friends and building relationships for LGBTQ people.
Korchmaros et al. have found in their study that the internet is especially important for youth to form relationships and they have stated multiple reasons for this, the main, broad reason being that it is generally harder for LGBTQ youth to form these relationships offline (55). This is partially because, as mentioned before, unless stated otherwise everyone is assumed to be heterosexual and thus it is hard to know who else might also belong to the LGBTQ public and share similar/matching gender and sexual identities. It is also due to the minority nature of these identities, where the number of potential partners in surrounding areas is lower than it is for heterosexuals, when going from cities to suburban areas and villages the numbers get even lower and the people who do exist might be “well hidden” by the closet or worried about the stigma and harassment that may come as a consequence of being visible in public with potential partners (Korchmaros et al. 55).
The internet affords a “relative ease of self-disclosure” for LGBTQ individuals, for whom it might be easier to disclose their identities online due to the relative anonymity some social media platforms provide, thus giving the ability to search and interact without consequences for their lives offline (Korchmaros et al. 55; Baams et al. 1821). Another factor that makes approaching others online easier is that, these individuals post online about their feeling and identities, relatively more freely, and thus it is easier to guess or know who might be a similar other with shared experiences, making the connecting process easier.
Additionally, Fox and Ralston have had some interesting findings; for example, that many LGBTQ people used dating sites and apps “even before they were actually interested in seeking romantic or sexual partners”, their aim instead was to observe and to learn more about how certain relationships are formed and providing knowledge on what it is like to date as an LGBTQ individual (639). This was not about the broader subjects such as community formation and support and self-discovery but about being LGBTQ and to “engage in an everyday activity” by meeting others, interacting, dating and having relations (639). Overall this was about having the lived experience of the individual’s identity not only hidden in private, as a marginalized being but as part of the public. It was also found that in some cases, once connections were made online, they were also carried on to the offline world. For example, people who had changes their locations would use the internet to search for local spaces and communities for LGBTQ individuals that they could go to (638). A benefit they found to be related to dating websites and apps was about their geolocation affordance and how these platforms showed their users all the other users in nearby locations (638). This increased visibility and showed users that they are in fact not alone although they may not see many people around them who are out and in public, that others still did exist which delighted and reassured these individuals (Fox and Ralston 638).
Self-Representation
The final subject under this section is self-representation, which often follows the previously mentioned steps such as learning, discovery, coming out and so on, though a person still in the process of self-discovery may also be showing signs of self-representation as identities are not set things and instead they keep on shaping, being formed and re-formed continuously. In fact, it has been found by Tiidenberg that the act of representation through selfies for example can be seen as a “constitutive, self-exploratory practice”, by through providing new areas for narration of the self, aiding the process of personal self-discovery (1564).
How is self-representation performed online? It can be performed through various types of media ranging from texts and stories to photos, selfies and videos; there are various different options based on the
platforms being used. This act has also been called “lifestreaming” by some scholars as it can be seen as a stream of content reflecting the life of the user over time, telling their stories and is seen as a way to “curate an imagined and real self” (560). This is because while it is possible that some of the content is coming directly from the user’s life, some might be more about dreams and wishes for the future, as a way of working on their process of self-discovery and identity formation.
Wargo also sees this as an act to gain visibility, which can support the rhetoric of Warner and Berlant, where by sharing this content that is themselves, their thoughts, ideas, stories and selfies they make their private identities, public which can also be seen as an intimate act of resistance, and a way to deny the stigma that is attached to them and their identities (563; Miguel 2). This lifestreaming of the self also allows for the individuals to define their own narratives, rather than being defined by the heteronormative majority public (Wargo 575). Vivienne also agrees with this, arguing that such acts of self-representation can be empowering as they go against the accepted, normative understandings of beauty, gender and sexuality (126). They are seen as a way to counteract the images of LGBTQ people on mainstream media (Vivienne 127). The issues regarding this with misrepresentations as well as lack of representation have already been addressed in 2.2. Overall, self-representation is seen as “everyday activism” where similar others get to share their intimate, shared histories with each other through the platforms provided by the internet (Vivienne 127; Duguay 1). This is in line with both Warner’s concept of counterpublics, Berlant’s
intimate publics and Boyd’s networked publics.
2.4. LGBTQ Publics on Tumblr
The Tumblr platform will be explained in more detail in the following chapter with its interface and affordances while this section will first look at what other scholars have researched regarding LGBTQ people and the publics they have formed on Tumblr or how they use the platform in general.
Tumblr is seen as a platform where communities and bonds are formed and there is a variety of research that has been conducted where scholars have looked into particular communities within Tumblr, ranging from fandoms of TV shows by Hillman et al., eating disorders by Choudbury or the NSFW community by Tiidenberg. Looking more specifically at LGBTQ related Tumblr research, it is seen that many scholars such as Oakley, Bell, Fink and Miller, and Craig et al. do associate Tumblr specifically with people who are minoritized based on their gender preferences and sexual identities, that come together on this platform to find themselves, explore and express their identities with others who share similar experiences as them (7; 34; 611; 261).
Despite the common association of communities with Tumblr, the concept of belonging to a community is not as clear as it is on a platform like Facebook where the user requests to join groups and then is either accepted or denied entry. Instead, as Hillman et al. explains users “are part of the fandom when they feel they are” through acts of following, sharing and posting things about a certain subject and interacting with other users with similar interests who do the same, they create a community to which there are no concrete boundaries and anyone can enter and feel like they belong (2014a 778). This is in line with Warner’s approach to publics as formed around the distribution of texts, where the public is ever-changing and constantly being formed around this circulation. Although the understanding of the word “text” can be re-considered based on the nature and affordances of the platform, in this case Tumblr, to mean for example, written posts and stories, as well as photos, selfies, videos, likes and follows etc.
“…where users feel they can present a more authentic reflection of themselves to those sharing similar experiences and interests” (Hillman et al. 2014a 775).
This is a very interesting quote as its sentiments come very close to the language used by Lauren Berlant to explain intimate publics, although this connection was not specifically made by the authors of the article. With this quote Hillman et al. sheds a light on what makes Tumblr special as a place where users feel comfortable to share pieces of their lives. The users have the sense that they are interacting with similar others, strangers with whom they have shared histories and experiences, making Tumblr feel like a platform where they belong, where they can express their private lives in public without experiencing the stigma that is more common in the offline world (Hillman et al. 2014a 782).
The anonymity factor present on Tumblr has been found to play a role in why LGBTQ individuals use Tumblr, especially during their learning and self-discovery processes (Fox and Ralston 639; Vivienne 136). The affordances aspect of this will be looked at in the following Tumblr chapter. However here it is important to mention why this anonymity was important, this was because it allowed them a place separate from their offline lives where they could build new relations with others who understand them and have possibly gone through or are going through similar experiences, aiding in their self-discovery process (Fox and Ralston 639). Another related part of this was that these spaces were less heteronormative, less affected by stigma and users felt that they were not judged here for bringing their private into the public, as they would be in the offline world where chances of harassment and discrimination were higher (Vivienne 136).
The process of self-discovery and the use of labels for this were also found to be important factors. Bell describes Tumblr as a “first stop” for many LGBTQ individuals discovering themselves as they seem to feel
safer on this platform and in many cases, they might be out on Tumblr while not being so on other social media platforms or the offline world (34). This is showing of the trust these users seem to have in the strangers they interact with on the Tumblr platform, reflective of the intimate relations they have formed. The labeling is about the terms a person uses to identify their gender and sexualities and Tumblr specifically is known as a place where there is a multiplicity of options for labeling, rather than being limited to the male/female or straight/gay binaries like in other online media platforms (Oakley 1). This has also been explained through the affordances Tumblr in the following chapter. These labels were also used as tags11 with the content that was shared, for archival purposes where the tags enabled categorizing and indexing of the self over time (Wargo 562).
However, an interesting argument was made regarding this by Vivienne as she pointed out that this content when “stripped of tags” might be misinterpreted or its meaning missed (136). She also gives potential examples for clarity; such as a photo with chest scars representing a transitional surgery not being noticed without its context, or due to the area being covered with tattoos; another example is of individuals who might be trying different styles associated with different genders as they try to discover their own, using make up, growing facial hair and similar acts which might be read simply as fashion choices, without its gender and sexuality related context (Vivienne 136). This is connected to content that is shared often on Tumblr by LGBTQ individuals and more specifically transgender individuals that Vivienne takes a focused look at; selfies and photos of the individuals’ bodies as they go through the process of transition they document their journey and progress with steps such as starting hormones, going through surgery and the recovery that follows etc (134). While the formats of this content varies, two popular trends are creating collections or archiving the posts with a dedicated tag to show the changes over multiple posts, and one post with a combination of before and after photos to show change over time but in one photo (Vivienne 135).
Lastly, one final subject which attention was brought to by scholars was self-representation, as was also present and researched in the previous section of this chapter. They drew attention to the lack of representation and misrepresentation on traditional media platforms and how this was being countered by both online spaces in general and Tumblr specifically. For Fink and Miller, self-representation was a way to go against the stigmatized and fetishized views towards LGBTQ individuals by through sharing intimate visuals of daily moments and personal experiences to provide a perspective which is shown less
11 Tags on Tumblr are similar to hashtags on Twitter and its specific functions and use cases will be explained in the
in the public sphere (624). Vivienne also makes the same point of sharing “everyday images” in order to gain more visibility in the public domain (134). The sharing of daily images could be seen as an attempt to de-stigmatize and normalize the existence of these identities, the benefits and disadvantages of this normalization attempt have already been argued in section 2.1. and 2.2. of this theoretical framework. However, such an argument would also have to depend on the specific content that is shared as the “daily image” and the text and tags attached to it, as any given post could just as well be promoting being out and proud, as whoever the individual is and however they identify, without changing for outsiders and their expectations and norms. Thus, context matters.
“In the context of specific Tumblr users, images of people making art, charting transitions, having sex, hanging out—or doing anything, really—communicate specific users’ interests, states of mind, erotic sensibilities, and political commitments” (Fink and Miller 621).
This is exactly what we will look at in our analysis and shed a light upon in the findings section but before we go any further lets first look at Tumblr as a platform, followed by the methodology and research design of this thesis.
3. Tumblr
It is essential to get familiar with Tumblr as a platform, understand what it is, how it works, what its features are and so on, before moving onto the methodology and research design of this thesis to ensure that every term used in the following chapters will be clear and the reader will have a fair understanding of the platform, its functioning and the terminology used even if they have not used Tumblr personally. The question “What is Tumblr?” is answered by the homepage of Tumblr as a simple blog for people, to which they can put whatever they want: “Stories, photos, GIFs, TV shows, links, quips, dumb jokes, smart jokes, Spotify tracks, mp3s, videos, fashion, art, deep stuff” (Tumblr). This explanation can be seen in the collage below which is made up of four screenshots from the homepage of Tumblr.
Figure 1: Screenshots of the Tumblr homepage
While the tradition of microblogging is short, quick posts, this is not an obligation and posts on Tumblr can vary from quick Q&As and images, to very long opinion pieces with details, links and even citations. It is also possible to create posts made up of several images and gifs etc. In addition to this, users can search, like, re-blog, follow and ask questions to other users; through which finding content and people that they find interesting and engaging in conversations, and possibly joining communities. Indeed, Tumblr is seen
by many where a variety of communities have been formed, ranging from fandoms of online games or TV series to Bronies (adult male fans of My Little Pony) or NSFW (Not Safe For Work) bloggers.
Young describes this exchange of the interests of users as “the driving ethos of Tumblr’s design” (11). These possibilities and features are what we will look at in this chapter.
Platforms in general have gained popularity over the recent years, affording us users with the chance to connect and to communicate, or to sell and micro-blogs in particular have been growing exponentially (Gillespie 351). Kaplan and Haenlein relate this to a couple of concepts. The first of these is “ambient awareness” which is about the constant updates coming in from other peoples’ lives, and not only regarding big events and news but also the simplest and smallest happenings (106). Two other concepts they bring up are “virtual exhibitionism and voyeurism” that is available to both active and passive users of these platforms (106). These concepts lead to strong feelings of participation and connection for the users, a place where they can share anything and everything, with anyone and everyone. Zooming in from platforms, to micro-blogs, to Tumblr: What is participation like on this platform? Tumblr hosts both creators and (re)users; people who actively produce new content as well as others who share and share the existent content, essentially reproducing content, leading Young to use the phrase “hybrid” for the platform (11).
“Social networking sites are not empty spaces upon which sociality and subjectivation simply occur. Software contains certain normative and prescriptive structures” (Bucher 12).
This chapter contains the role of the platform itself in shaping the connections and interactions of the users as well as how they use the platform. Because as explained by Bucher, these connections are “increasingly mediated, processed, and even engineered” already in the development phase, through the code and all the choices made during this process (12). The same sentiment has also been stated by many others such as Gillespie, Flanagin et al. and Oakley and is largely agreed upon in the scholarly world. This is also in line with Latour’s view of agency as not being limited to humans, as long as something “makes a difference in the course of some other agent’s action or not” they have agency (71). The customizability feature mentioned above is what makes each Tumblr experience special and personal for the individual users. However, this is only one affordance of the Tumblr platform and Tumblr like every other social media platform is made up of many affordances. What are some other examples?
Signing Up
In order to start using Tumblr, the first thing a user does is to sign up for the platform as is also the case with other social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Signing up and creating an account are common steps for platforms but they are not the same for each platform. In this case, what makes Tumblr’s signing up process different than others? Platforms like Facebook tend to have detailed profile pages with fill in the gaps kind of information regarding age, hometown, interests, education and work history etc. They also continuously ask you to fill in this information in order to “complete your profile”. Tumblr, on the other hand, asks for very little information from the user while signing up and does not have any further requests for information later on either. Tumblr, by not offering the same pre-formatted forms, allows for more flexibility in terms of identity construction through the use of “bios, ‘About Me’ pages, blog posts, and tags on those posts” where users choose what to showcase and what not to mention rather than filling in a pre-set format (Oakley 2). On its sign-up sheet Tumblr asks only for a username, email address, birthdate and gender which is optional and is designed as a blank space to be filled in rather than choosing an already existent option provided by the platform. This can be seen below.
Here, especially the gender option is a good example of design choices on the platform level as well as being directly related to the subject matter of this thesis. The reason for this is that Tumblr has opted for a very different approach than Facebook who over the years has made headlines with the changes they have made to the gender options presented. Initially starting with male and female as the only options, Facebook has increased the choices to 58 in 2014 and to 71 in 2016 due to complaints over inclusivity.12 Later they have also provided users with the option to fill in a custom gender, initially only in the US, then only for people using Facebook in English (US) etc. Each time, with every change Facebook has received both praise and criticism and is continuously working on improving their options. Tumblr, on the other hand, has provided its users with infinite choices, giving the ability for the users to decide for themselves.
Anonymity
Anonymity is another feature of Tumblr that has come up multiple times during the research process. However, the concept of anonymity in the case of Tumblr, is different than the idea of anonymity on other platforms or the web in general. It is not a profile without a picture, without a description and “Anonymous” as the name visible when any activity such as liking, posting or reblogging is performed. The idea behind seeing Tumblr as a relatively anonymous platform is due to the fact that it is not shaped around family and friends. Each person’s Tumblr is based solely on their interests; users follow other users and tags based on their interests, which is the deciding factor on what they see and what they are recommended. Their dashboard becomes a curated version of the topics they are interested in, with their choices shaping their ever-continuing feed as each specific content is tailored specifically to cater to them (Bell 33).
Showing this through my personal experience, below is a screenshot of my personal Tumblr account’s Dashboard. I had opened this account years ago and hadn’t used it much but for the purposes of this research I started using it again and followed some LGBTQ related accounts during the process of re-familiarizing myself with the platform and the communities I was planning to look at. Shortly after following a couple blogs, my personal dashboard had already become significantly tailored around LGTBQ content and suggestions. This can be seen in the image below with both the post at the beginning of my feed coming from an LGBT account as well as all the recommended blogs on the right side of the screen
12 For more on this: Bivens, Rena. "The gender binary will not be deprogrammed: Ten years of coding gender on
being about LGBTQ subjects: nonbinarypastels, lgbt-aesthetic-moodboards, afab-advice-help13 and
findmygender. These areas of the screenshot have been marked with red rectangles to ensure visibility.
Figure 3: My personal Dashboard screenshot
Many social media platforms, like Facebook or LinkedIn, are follow-ups to offline connections and relationships, and there is the continuous suggestion to “find your friends” or to “connect with the people you know” and so on. Tumblr, however, can be considered relatively disconnected from the person’s offline life (Bell 33; Hillman et al. 2015 256; Wargo 562). Additionally, because platforms with strong connections to the offline lives of users, such as Facebook, are likely to be viewed by parents, extended family members, potential employers and so on, they tend to be heavily monitored and include self-censorship to present the self in a certain manner (Bell 33). The feeling of having to self-edit is relatively less present on Tumblr and users believe that they are able to present themselves in a freer manner, which allows more authentic representations of the self and more straightforward content which could involve personal stories, socio-political opinions etc. (Bell 33; Hillman et al. 2014b 287)
13 Afab here means “assigned female at birth” often used in contexts where the individual doesn’t agree to the gender
