This post examines representations of “selfies” across YouTube. The purpose of this post is to support the creation of a typology of selfies and discuss the sociological themes behind how selfies are represented in popular culture.  YouTube was the chosen platform as it sits in a unique position, being able to capture live synchronous performances (for example live make up application streaming sessions) and curated exhibitions, as part of the identity creation process (Hogan 2010). This enables the platform to provide a wide selection of media and attracts a broad, dedicated userbase.

The selfie occupies and awkward place in culture and academia. After reviewing the literature, a person’s interpretation of a selfie is based around a triumvirate of: the perceived identity of the poster/creator, the context of the image and the purpose of the post. For example, if a user engages with a social media platform in a mundane fashion, selfies are likely to be uncontroversial representations of a grounded reality (Baym 1998). In contrast, the rise of predominately visual platforms like Instagram, enable users to express themselves in a presentative, rather than representative manner, to create their own narratives (Rettberg 2016). However, creative processes involve intense labour to produce the desired image or message (Marwick 2013). Extravagant selfies posted by the privileged or those who have developed an identity around a theme, do not break the normative threshold; if they do it frequent enhances status or is seen as typical behaviour. Aspirational selfies posted by “normal users” are more likely to cross this threshold and be judged as narcissistic (Senft & Baym 2015).

By examining YouTube’s top selfie related content, there is clear evidence of a typology of videos that indicate the importance of the selfie in modern culture. To collect a rough dataset, a new YouTube account was created to remove algorithmic bias. “Selfies” was used as the keyword to find videos. After scanning the results, it was clear videos fit into 4 broad categories. The theme of the first 50 videos found in the search results were recorded.[1] Foreign language videos were omitted. Sentiment for the entertainment category was a value judgement based on the title of the video. For example “Top 10 Selfies Before Death” was viewed a as negative portrayal of selfies.  Positive sentiment are videos such as “Parents Recreate Their Children’s Selfies”.  Figure 1 represents a tally of the findings.

 

Entertainment (- Sentiment Toward Selfies)	Entertainment (+ Sentiment Toward Selfies)	Technical (Tutorials on Selfie Production)	Academic/Educational (Discussing Selfies as a Social Phenomenon)
7	12	23	8

Figure 1. First 50 Video After Searching “Selfies” on YouTube

Whilst not a rigorous quantitative experiment, this snapshot dataset highlights that a significant quantity of users seek to enhance their selfie taking abilities. This reinforces two sociological concepts regarding identity. The first being the three components of Cooley’s “looking glass self” writ: (1) we imagine how other perceive us; (2) we imagine their judgment of us; and (3) we feel something from this imagined judgment such as pride, joy, or embarrassment” (Kaufman 2014). Tutorial videos from YouTube enable users to refine their ability to curate a selfie and achieve their desired image, whilst adhering to the latest norms. Content creators also receive tangible feedback from the community through comments and views.

YouTube itself is a platform that enables vulnerable communities to communicate about sensitive issues such as depression, ethnicity and gender. The platform enables a reciprocal relationship with the content creator and community (Zanatta 2017). This relationship enables users to understand their personal identity whilst conforming to normative social identity markers, through interaction with that group. This supports Snow & Anderson’s “identity work” concept, that a person has an idea of who they want to be. To achieve this, a person can engage with a community in a specific way to have this self-conception reflected back at them (Snow & Anderson 1987).

The above analysis is not an exhaustive examination of the selfie. What it has highlighted is the importance of the selfie in modern culture. A wide variety of demographics make selfie tutorials for their community. The popularity of these videos from diverse content creators, reinforces the selfie as an important part of understanding the self and contributing to a sense of belonging, rather than a reductionist display of narcissism.

References

Baym, N. (1998) Cybersociety 2.0: Revisiting Computer-Mediated Community, Edited by S.Jones. America: Sage Publishing. Available at: URL (Accessed: 05 Oct 20).

Hogan, B. (2010) ‘The Presentation of Self in the Age of Social Media: Distinguishing Performances and Exhibitions Online’, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), pp. 377–386. doi: 10.1177/0270467610385893.

Marwick, A. (2013) Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity and Branding in the Social Media Age. Available at: URL (Accessed: 5 Oct 2020).

Peter Kaufman (2014) A Sociological Snapshot of Selfies. Available at: URL (Accessed: 05 Oct 2020).

Rettberg, J. (2017) SAGE Handbook of Social Media, Edited by J.Burgess, A.Marwick, and T.Poell, America: Sage Publishing. Available at: URL (Accessed: 05 Oct 20).

Senft, T. M., & Baym, N. K. (2015). ‘What does the selfie say? Investigating a global phenomenon’. International Journal of Communication Systems, 9, 1588–1606. Available at: URL (Accessed: 05 Oct 20).

Snow, D & Anderson, L. (1987). ‘Identity Work Among the Homeless: The Verbal Construction and Avowal of Personal Identities’, American Journal of Sociology. 92(6), pp.1336-1371. Available at: URL (Accessed: 05 Oct 20).

Zanatta, J. A. (2017) Understanding YouTube Culture and How It Affects Today’s Media. Senior Theses. Dominican University of California. DOI (Accessed: 05 Oct 2020).

[1] Search was conducted on www.youtube.com (UK) 05 Oct 20.

Oct 6, 2020

C Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination, continues to influence those wanting to understand social life. Mills defined the ‘Sociological Imagination’ as the “quality of mind…to achieve lucid summations of what is going on in the world”, but requires a person to understand the biases “happening within themselves” (Mills 2000 p.5). However, the current Post-Truth era is one where “the epistemic nature of facts has become frailer and more contested”, making it harder to understand current events and ourselves (Salgado 2018 p.321). This is the first entry in a series of four posts that examine the Post-Truth era, by exploring and applying concepts from The Sociological Imagination. This post begins by providing a definition of Post-Truth, before examining Mills’ core ideas in Chapter 1 The Promise in relation to Post-Truth scholarship. Subsequent posts build on these ideas and analyse the Post-Truth era through the lenses of biography, social structure and history.

A Definition of Post Truth

Cosentio unified interdisciplinary perspectives to define the main elements of the Post-Truth era. From the social sciences, Post-Truth is the “systemic circulation of intentionally or unintentionally misleading or false information via the internet, by and among an increasingly polarized and emotional public opinion” (Cosentio, 2020 p.3). From the science and technology disciplines, Post-Truth is the use of “cognitive-behavioural science, big data analysis and micro-targeting”, to disseminate information (Cosentio, p.3). Despite Mills writing in the 1950s, the three core concepts of The Promise resonate with the arguments of Post-Truth scholars.

Declining Belief in Science and Information

There are two arguments to Mills’ reasoning on declining popular trust in science and information. First, Mills stated science and expertise are increasingly viewed as “dubious philosophy”, out of touch with the realities of average people (Mills, 2000, p.16). This is evidenced in the Post-Truth era, by people refuting the claims of scientists and experts with appeals to emotion over evidence (Lewandowsky et al., 2017 p.354). Recent examples include the 5G controversy, rise in vaccine hesitancy and growing disbelief in climate change, despite multiple campaigns by experts to change public opinion.

This ties into the second aspect of Mills’ argument on information. He stated people want “…a big picture, in which they can believe and understand themselves” but that picture must adhere to their values, ways of feeling and emotions (Mills p.17). In a digital Post-Truth context, people have access to unprecedented amounts of information. However, the software we use to find information increasingly constitutes our reality, rather than mediating it (Beer, 2009, p.987). This makes it easy for individuals to find evidence that validates their perspectives, whilst filtering out alternative narratives. When trying to construct a lucid summation, we must reflexively examine how the technologies we use might limit or shape our perspectives. This is examined in the next post, which looks at biography.

Private Troubles and Public Issues

Mills identified that Troubles occur when individuals feel threatened, whether by circumstances such as unemployment, or having their values and norms challenged (Mills, p.8) Issues relate to many groups of individuals in various milieux. As such, the debate over a threatened public value as an Issue (national identity for example) often lacks focus, as each individual processes the Issue within their own context (Mills, p.8). This is significant, as the malign phenomena that characterise Post-Truth such as fake news are able to span this personal–public divide, by manipulating perception and adding emotion to information. For those with a ‘Sociological Imagination’, focusing on the relationship between Trouble and Issue is essential. Understanding this relationship enables observers to see the subjective processes of knowledge creation within individuals, larger groups and themselves. This will be explored in the third post examining structures.

Elitism and Knowledge Production

Mills intended a ‘Sociological Imagination’ to be emancipatory, but it is framed as a tool of importance for scholars, journalists, scientists etc, rather than the general population. As such, he reinforces a problem highlighted earlier; educated elites claim to have a privileged perspective of the world. This leads to tension, when someone’s worldview is written-off as misinformed by the “intellectual elite” (Merkley 2020 p.25). The epistemic implications of this intellectual problem have shaken modern democracies to their core (Cosentino 2020 p.3). Additionally, the rise of the interpretivist perspective reinforces the importance of an individual’s ability to construct their reality through language and interaction. How does this balance against a researcher’s ability to interpret or understand a person’s perspective, when that perspective is premised on false information? This is the focus of the final post examining history.

Concluding Thoughts for Future Posts

The Sociological Imagination remains a useful starting point for anyone trying to understand what is happening around them. As researchers, it is important to consider how our preferred information sources shape and potentially limit our world view. It is also necessary to understand the relationship between our Troubles and wider Issues, when seeing how we approach a problem. Finally, Post-Truth partially emerged as a response to dissatisfaction with existing information practices; researchers must consider if they are contributing to the problem (Merkley, p.24).

 

Next week: The Sociological Imagination in the “Post-Truth era”: Biography

References

Cosentino, Gabriele, (2020) Social Media and the Post-Truth World Order: The Global Dynamics. Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan.  

Lewandowsky, S. Ullrich. K.H.E. and Cook, J. (2017) ‘Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era’, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6 (4), pp.353-369. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008.

Merkley, E. (2020) ‘Anti-Intellectualism, Populism and Motivated Resistance to Expert Consensus’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 84 (1), pp.24-28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz053.

Salgado, S. (2018). ‘Online media impact on politics: Views on post-truth politics and post post modernism’, International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics,14, pp.317-331. doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.14.3.317_1.

Wright Mills, C, (2000), The Sociological Imagination. 14^th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Oct 3, 2020