The Importance of Belonging: A Study About Positioning Processes in Youths’ Online Communication

The Importance of Acting Normally Correct Online

The online arena works as a leisure center for most of the youths in this study. They want to be informed about what is happening in the peer group and therefore it is of great importance to join the same social media as the peers. The number of online friends differs between the youths; some have 50 to 60, while others have 500. Three boys did not use social media at all. Nevertheless, most of the youths describe a lot of advantages of online interactions. But, there are also social norms and rules connected to the online arena, irrespective who you are, that are important to be aware of in order not to be insulted in different ways. Normative expectations, connected to different social categories in the peer group, also affect the online acting space. Important aspects for being included in the community are both to follow the social norms and to submit to the social control (Yuval-Davis, 2006). The control system is effective online, because of the visibility and proliferation possibilities.

General Norms and Rules Online

A main reason for being online is to get attention from friends, especially close friends. Fredrik (Grade 8) explains that “everyone wants attention and to be ‘liked’ by everyone and everything . . . otherwise programs like Big Brother wouldn’t work.” But it has to be positive attention, that is, attention that preserves and consolidates a good reputation. Carl (Grade 7) is completely aware of what it is all about. He states that “social media is mostly about the outside . . . your outward face in society, not much about the inside at all . . . about making a good image.” The “like”-button is central in the interactions. It is an easy way to affirm each other. It feels good to get “likes” and if someone has been mean you can always look at your “likes.” Ebba (Grade 7) says for example: “if someone has said something stupid to you, in this way you can always improve your self-confidence.” When you get positive attention, it works as a receipt that you are acting in the right way. Online, there are many possibilities to test and challenge normative boundaries, both consciously and unconsciously. Because of the visibility online, there is often an immediate response. There is a balancing act between getting positive attention and avoiding different kinds of exclusive processes. Elin and Johanna (Grade 7) give an example:

The girl described in the excerpt breaches a social norm that deals with the relation between private and personal content. Being too private and vulnerable is not accepted online, at least not in public. Another social norm deals with honesty. It is important to present oneself in the same way online as offline, for example not publishing “strange” photos of oneself. Jessica (Grade 7) explains that “it is as if someone would see me in reality . . . this is the kind of photos we publish.”

In the text above, examples of general online rules are given, independent of gender or position in the peer group. But, there are also norms connected to different social categories or positionings that affect the online acting space. The first perspective discussed deals with power orders between groups and their different access to social media.

Normative Expectations in Relation to Group Membership

All youths in this study can be seen as part of the same category—they are all young people in Grade 7 or 8 interacting in social media. But the analysis shows that they are constructed in different ways in the same category. They are boys and girls belonging to different peer groups in school. Their social identities are constructed in relation to how they identify themselves or being identified of their peers as a member or not a member of these groups (Berger & Luckman, 1966; Jenkins, 2008; Tajfel, 1981). Most of the youths are connected to each other through a common interest and they develop a shared repertoire within these “communities of practice.” A situated learning appears and they learn from each other how to act as a member of the specific group (Lave & Wenger, 1991). For example, they describe themselves as “horse girls,” “football players,” “tough guys,” but also as “outsiders.” A group membership indicates an idea that there is a difference between those who belong to a specific group and those who do not. Often, they talk about them and us. While individual and personal opinions are created about group members, stereotypic and generalized opinions often are created about those who do not belong to the group (Tajfel, 1981).

Related to group affiliations, there are expectations for what kinds of photos that can be published without any risks to be insulted online. Michael, Moa, and Hannes (Grade 7) strongly define themselves as members of specific peer groups. Moa is a “horse girl” who loves horses and she says “I just publish photos when I jump with my horse and nice photos of horses.” Michael is a “skate-boarder” and he has the same opinion “I just publish nice moves when I skate, that’s what I do.” Throughout all the interviews, there are lots of comments about the fear of publishing photos exhibiting one’s body. Hannes (Grade 7) is also a “skate-boarder” and he explains,

Michael, Moa, and Hannes belong to groups that are not expected to publish photos of their bodies and if they would publish such a photo it would be rather scary for them. In their statements it appears that they are acting as expected, that is, they publish photos that are related to their common interest. Their photos do not challenge the prevailing order, instead their online publications strengthen their group membership.

The position in the peer group determines different access to the online arena. Carl and Sebastian (Grade 7) are two “well-behaved” boys who are accepted and respected by peers in the class. They play football and they have, in some way, power to decide themselves how to act online. But they challenge neither the teacher nor the hierarchical order in the class. Neither of them actively participates in the struggle to become popular by their peers. They have each other, and they are aware that they are some sort of outsiders looking at peers acting both offline and online:

Because of their position in the peer group, Carl and Sebastian cannot participate in the struggle to become popular by publishing photos of their bodies. The above excerpts are examples of a subjectification and the process of becoming a young person accepted in the peer group. Social norms play an important role in these processes, because a system of norms is an effective tool not only for the controlling of individuals but also for integration and social inclusion (Coleman, 1990; Kumashiro, 2002).

Tom and Martin are also students in Grade 7. They are closed out from social media and it seems that they themselves have chosen to be excluded. They have a very low ranking in the class, which they are fully aware of, and they will not risk being insulted or being even more excluded online. For example, Martin says, “I have only a few friends so I don’t need social media” and interacting online may be dangerous for him. No one will protect him if someone is mean. Tom has the same opinion:

Tom and Martin have each other and that is enough. They argue that they do not need social media. This opinion can be related to Gramsci’s (1971) discussion that subordinated groups often are adapted to the prevailing order. They themselves are a part of the structural inequality culture that creates subordination and marginalization. It can be seen as a hegemonic power exercise where the subordinated reproduce dominant relationships not based on force and violence. Instead, there is a fundamental cultural and ideological acceptance. Accepting or not being aware of the oppression leads to facilitating the spreading and fortification of it at different social levels (Gramsci, 1971). Tom and Martin accept being invisible online, and from Kumashiro’s (2002) point of view being invisible is also a form of oppression.

Social norms are constructions that change over time and space. To be a “normal” young person implies being accepted in a specific context. This means that someone has the power to define what is regarded as normal and not normal. To construct a social norm, there have to be deviations (Coleman, 1990; Kumashiro, 2002). To visualize the social norm, the youths demonstrate, through their online comments what is regarded as normality. But, a visual confirmation also appears when they decide to accept or deny a friend’s online request. Fabian is a boy in Grade 7, and he is not so popular in the class. He disturbs the lessons and irritates the peers. In the excerpt below, Henrik (a classmate of Fabian’s) describes why he would never accept a friend request from Fabian:

For those who are looked upon, more or less, as deviants there is always a risk being online. Fabian tells me that he does not like social media and because of that he did not want to be interviewed.

Normative Expectations in Relation to Gender

As described above, group belonging is one aspect that affects the online acting spaces. Another aspect deals with gender. To be an appropriate boy or girl that is accepted and respected by peers, it is important to act both in accordance with the prevailing order in the specific online and offline context, and with the overall expectations in society. Hirdman (2003) states that the gender system rests on two principles. The first is that men and women are regarded as separated from each other; they are complementary with different qualities. The other principle deals with a hierarchical order in which men are viewed as the norm connected with the power to construct normality. Some expectations are related to men, while others are linked to women. Caring, sensibility, and focusing on relations are some examples of feminine-coded qualities. Complementary, masculine-coded qualities are rationality, decision ability, and “hardness” (Hirdman, 2003). One example of the disparity between boys and girls manifested in this study is the difference in need for affirmation. Both boys and girls are convinced that girls need more affirmation than boys. Because of that, girls send nice comments to each other all the time. Olivia (Grade 8) and Alice (Grade 7) give some examples:

Michael and Sebastian (Grade 7) have explored the difference between girls’ and boys’ different ways of communicating online. Michael says that “boys don’t care as much as girls to become popular. Of course, boys want to be popular / . . . / girls want to compete . . . all of them want to feel that they get attention.” Sebastian adds “boys don’t care so much . . . girls want more self-confidence . . . boys have it!.” Isaac (Grade 7) distinguishes himself by saying that “I don’t like . . . I don’t publish my feelings.” Successful boys are acting online in accordance with appropriate masculinity; they are controlled and they do not show vulnerability. These opinions follow the general gender order and are consistent with other studies (Abiala & Hernwall, 2013; Forsman, 2014; Herring & Kapidzic, 2015). The youths’ knowledge is often based on stereotypes and on normative expectations for boys and girls when they perform their gender identity (Harding, 1986; Hirdman, 2003). If a boy publishes photos where they show their body to get likes there is a great risk of being insulted, because these kinds of photos are female-coded and there is a great risk to be looked upon as “gay.” Instead, boys often publish photos where they act; they are “doers.” For girls, it is more accepted to use boys’ acting space, to publish photos when they are acting. This is one example of the hierarchical order between men and women (Hirdman, 2003), that is, boys and girls have different access to each other’s acting space. Olof (Grade 8) explains why he never would publish a photo of his body: “I would be teased by my guy friends . . . be called gay or something like that.” As a boy it is a great risk to be marked as female, and Frida (Grade 7) explains that “girls can write, ‘how cute you are’ every day, but boys think it is more ‘gay’ than girls do.”

Another example of performing masculinity online deals with arguments about accepting or not accepting friend requests. Joseph (Grade 8) is a “tough guy” who does not like school. He has the power to challenge the school system as well as teachers and classmates. To maintain his position, it is important for him to act in an appropriate way, both online and offline. Bill is another student in this class. He is only joining the class in practical school subjects, due to cognitive difficulties. He is marginalized in school and has no friends in the class. Joseph ignores Bill in the classroom and he never talks to him. When I ask Joseph about the reason why he does not accept some friend requests online, he says:

Bill is a boy who needs care and care-taking is an issue suggesting vulnerability and empathy, which are female-coded. To preserve his masculinity Joseph has to be cool, not show himself to be weak. The visibility online reinforces this endeavor. Through all these acts described above there is a learning of defining normality as well as what is normatively correct depending on whether you are a girl or a boy (Harding, 1986; Hirdman, 2003; Kumashiro, 2002).

The Intertwining Between Gender, Sexuality, and Group Status

The participants in this study define themselves as either girls or boys, but within this gender category they perform differently depending on other categories that are intersecting with the gender category, in this case sexuality. Historically and traditionally, there have been different norms and rules related to sexual behavior for men and women. The inequality appears in this study, for example in the boys’ fear of being regarded as gay. There is much research about young people’s sexual identification related to vulnerability both online and offline. It is very shameful for a boy to be looked upon as gay. “Doing” masculinity does not link to homosexuality. The boys are working, more or less actively, with the characteristics involved for becoming a “real” man. In these processes, heterosexuality is a strong marker (Espelage et al., 2008; Friedman et al., 2011; Godley, 2006). Hetero-normativity and masculinity are not only evaluated as important in the youths’ online context, but they are loaded with the necessary power. This means that boys who actively use markers to show their hetero-normativity and masculinity are more likely to be looked upon as real men/boys. Thus, this type of intertwining between sexuality and gender gains hegemony in the peer group (and in society), which leads to less risk of being insulted online. With other words, this intertwining is loaded with sufficient power to guard normality in the peer group.

In contrast to boys, girls in general do not need to focus on hetero-normativity in their online interactions. Instead, they need to adapt and conform to the prevailing view upon girls’/women’s sexuality. For young girls, there is always a risk of having a bad reputation related to sexuality. It is very discreditable to be looked upon as someone who is sexually promiscuous. There is a general opinion in society that a woman who is sexually active is looked upon as “bad” (Crawford & Popp, 2003). This view can be seen as a sexual oppression to remind young girls of their gendered role in the heterosexual interplay (Rahimi & Liston, 2009). Almazan and Bain (2015) point out that the regulation of women’s sexuality is:

a norm for females to position themselves and others in sexual hierarchies, raising regulative discourses around sexuality, appearances and performances in the private space of their friendship groups. (p. 2)

This opinion is common in the girls’ statements. A frequent way is to use the word “slut” when they talk about some girls in school and what kind of photos they publish. It is important to get attention but Sara (Grade 8), for example, would never publish a photo where she exhibits her body to get attention. She is aware of the risks and she says,

this person has got a bad reputation . . . look at her! She would be insulted in school.

In the peer group, some positions are loaded with adequate power to challenge the intertwining between gender and sexuality. The more status the more power to challenge normative boundaries. In this study, the concept status is seen as the rights and obligations tied to a given position in the peer group (Foucault, 1972). Some girls in school are popular, especially among boys, and they have the power to transgress and challenge prevailing norms without risking being insulted, instead the power to act online is reinforced. Stina (Grade 8) explains that “some girls have a kind of status . . . and it’s clear that if they put out such photos they get even more.” Ebba (Grade 7) is of the same opinion:

I think that depends on what kind of photos you publish . . . that’s status. If there is a girl that publishes disgusting photos . . . when she exhibits her body . . . then all the boys are thinking . . . wow . . .

A similar point of view emerges in discussions about boys’ online photos. Some positions among boys are loaded with power to provoke the prevailing order of how to be an appropriate boy/man without risking being called gay. These boys objectifying their bodies online, which commonly is female-coded:

There are hierarchies developed in the classroom and in school based on categories and each category is provided with power. Power is a ticket to interact online and to challenge normality. It is important to mention that this study does not discuss the intertwining between positions in the peer group that underlie the group status in general. The present interest is to show that high status in the peer group is connected to adequate power for challenging normative boundaries online. The result shows that simultaneous processes of power create and preserve relations of superiority and subordination in the peer group.