Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The revolution just might be digitized: toward a critical race theory of the African-American igeneration's online social enfranchisement
(USC Thesis Other)
The revolution just might be digitized: toward a critical race theory of the African-American igeneration's online social enfranchisement
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED:
TOWARD A CRITICAL RACE THEORY OF THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN,
iGENERATION’S ONLINE SOCIAL ENFRANCHISEMENT
by
Genevieve S. Richards
____________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2013
Copyright 2013 Genevieve S. Richards
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
ii
Copyright © 2013
by
Genevieve S. Richards
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
iii
Abstract
This study explores the online social experiences of the African American
iGeneration given its recent integration into online social networking ecologies that allow for
increased access and use of key forms of social networking capital that enable greater autonomy
in students’ network orientation toward power, privilege, and enfranchisement in both online and
offline networks. This study specifically examines how African-American, iGeneration youth
both access and use key forms of networking capital in their respective network orientations
particularly in light of their limited access and use of key forms social capital within offline
social networks. This study contends that the contrast between the use and access of key forms of
networking capital in online and offline social networks affects both the social models and
dynamics of power between African American, iGeneration youth and social authorities in their
immediate offline networks. In many respects, this split in the locus of socialization not only
strengthens features of oppositional identity in individual members of the African American
iGeneration, it vests them with a level of oppositional agency able to generate varying degrees of
transformative resistance to present configurations of social dynamics within their offline
networks. Thus, in some ways, the role of online social networks has reconfigured both the social
roles and outcomes for African-American students in the context of educational system and other
key social networks of dominant American society.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
v
DEDICATION
The Lord is my strength and shield; my heart trusts in Him and I am helped; therefore my heart
exults and with my song I shall thank Him
(Psalms 28:7)
Lord, I’m so thankful for the bountiful provision of Your counsel, blessing, and favor
through my journey so far and in the one to come. All of my work is first and foremost dedicated
to You. I could never have come this far on my own. It is only because of You that I have
completed this very difficult leg of my endeavor to help create educational transformation for the
students of our communities. All thanks and praises are due to You, the Most High, who has
blessed me with family, loved ones, teachers, students and colleagues who have already enriched
the dimensions of my experience beyond what I could have ever asked for in this lifetime. I love
and thank You with all of my heart!
I further dedicate this dissertation to all of my students for whom it has been my privilege
to serve. You are, without a doubt, my greatest loves, instructors, and inspirations. It is because
of you that I strive to move forward in helping to create opportunities that will allow you greater
platforms to shine and bless others with your wealth of talents and abilities. This world is made
better because you are in it.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my amazingly wonderful parents, Paul and Dorothy Richards, thank your for your
unflinching example of service to family and community. Because of you, I have been given the
wherewithal and desire to follow through on my dreams no matter how difficult or daunting the
circumstances. Thank you for supporting me and for your loving words of wisdom and
motivation. I love you!
To my sister, Alicia Richards, thanks for being my partner in creativity and imagination.
As we’ve grown up together, there have been so many times where it truly takes a sister to
understand. I am glad that no matter what happens between us, through the ups and the down, in
the end, we’re still here for each other. I love ya baby sis!
To my Grandma Richards, I miss your beautiful soul so very much! You went home
before I could finish this program but I know you're keeping an eye on me, Grammy, and I hope
that what I'm doing is keeping you proud of me. Keep watching over me, your crazy
granddaughter, up there. Tell Granddad I love him too!
To Auntie Shirl, my prayer partner and second mama, and Emanni Pluton, my mini soul
twin: thank you both for being great sources of strength, love and examples of what it means to
be a Proverbs 31 woman. I love you.
To Ryan Huerto, Julieta Huerto, and Julianne, Chris, and Jeremy Huerto-Lyons. Thank
you for all of your love and support during this part of my journey. I’ve been blessed to find a
second family in you and I’m so glad to have been welcomed into your hearts and home.
Because of you, I’ve been able to make it through some of the toughest parts of this whole
process. I love you guys so much!
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
vii
To Aunt Paula, Aunt Pudden, Aunt Carolyn, Uncle Adrian, Uncle Steve, Aunt Marilyn,
Shelly, Porsche Taylor, Myisha McCarthy, Kalina Flores, Cassandra Villa, Crystal Adams,
Marion Pate, Randy Winston, Apple Diaz, Kyra Young, and all of my many family members,
friends, co-workers and students. I am so blessed to say that there are too many of you to name
directly at this time. Whether you’ve given me a place to rest my head, been an ear to listen,
provided a source of counsel and encouragement, laughed with me, cried with me, put a few
dollars in my pocket or have just been there for me, please know how important your love and
support has been to me in getting through. I hope that one day I will be as a great of a blessing to
you as you have been to me.
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Alan G. Green, thank you for your counsel and mentorship
in getting me through this process. You held me accountable, helped me stay on track with
deadlines, and got me to the finish line. Without your guidance, I doubt that I would have been
able to remain true to my conception of and vision for the study while still meeting the scholastic
and timeline demands required for this effort. I would also like to thank the members of my
dissertation committee Dr. Reynaldo Baca and Dr. Vithrel Searchwell for your contributions and
work with me in completing my dissertation. Thank you for believing in me and what I could
accomplish. You rock!
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………………… iv
DEDICATION………………………………………………………………………………………………… v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………………... vi
CHAPTER ONE—INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY…………………………………………… 1
Background of the Problem……………………………………………………………………………. 3
Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………………………………...... 7
Research Questions………………………………………………………………………………………. 11
Intended Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………………… 13
Significance to Educators as Institutional Agents in School Networks…………………... 13
Significance for Critical Race Theory…………………………………………………………... 19
Terms……………………………………………………………….………………………………………. 20
Organization……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
CHAPTER TWO—LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………... 24
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24
Organization……………………………………………………………………………………………...… 26
The Historical Context of Race, Social Identity and Enfranchisement in DAS…………….... 28
The Global Context of DAS Networking Ecologies………………………………………….. 29
The Systems and Network Levels of Predecessor Social Networking Ecologies…..….... 30
De Jure Social Networking Ecology………………………………………………….... 31
De Facto Social Networking Ecology…………………………………………………… 31
Limitations in Articulating the Shift between De Jure and De Facto Social
Networking Ecologies………………...…………………………………………………………….. 34
Network Mechanisms of Disenfranchisement in the DAS De Facto Social Networking
Ecology…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 37
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
ix
Critique of Ogbu’s Theory of the Cultural Ecology of African American, Involuntary
Minorities…………………………………………………………………………………………...... 37
Racial Stratification and Social Network Capital within De Facto Networking
Ecology……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 38
Network Mechanisms of DAS De Facto Networking Ecologies…………………………. 41
Examining the School Network Mechanisms in the De Facto Networking Ecologies
of the African American iGeneration…………………………………………………………… 43
African American Response to Race and Social Network Capital in DAS Networking
Ecologies…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 46
Collective Response to Disenfranchisement………………………………………………… 48
Individual Response to Disenfranchisement………………………………………………….. 50
Critique of Ogbu’s Work on Oppositional Identity…………………………………. 51
Oppositional Identity as a Social Response to Collective Status Problems in
DAS De Facto Networking Ecologies………………………………………………..... 53
Using School Networks to Examine Oppositional Identity As a Social
Response to Disenfranchisement………………………………………………………. 56
Constructing an Enfranchisement Ecology in Online Social Networks………………………. 57
Global Context of Enfranchisement in Online Social Networking Ecologies……………….. 58
The Social Emergence of the African American iGeneration………………………………. 58
Primary Social capital in the iGeneration’s Online Social Networking
Ecologies……………………………………………………………………………………… 58
Gaps in the African American iGeneration Enfranchisement Discourse……….. 60
Network Mechanisms of Enfranchisement in Online Social Networking Ecologies…..…… 62
Forms of Online Social Network Capital……………………………………………………….. 62
Space…………………………………………………………………………………………... 63
Voice………………………………………………………………………………………… 63
Information………………………………………………………………………………… 64
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
x
Access and Use of Online Social Network Capital……………………………………… ..... 65
Reframing Oppositional Identity as Social Resistance in Online Networks………………... 66
Interpreting African American iGenerational Social Response to Online Networking
Ecologies as Enfranchised Social Resistance……………………………………………. 66
The Transformative Potential of Enfranchised Resistance for Offline De Facto
Networking Ecologies………………………………………………………………………………….. 68
Online Enfranchisement and CRT’s Call for Transformative Resistance………………. 70
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………… 73
CHAPTER THREE—METHODOLOGY……………………...……………………………………...... 75
Research Goals……………………………………………………………………………………………. 75
Methodology………………………………………………………………………………………………. 77
Research Design: Critical Ethnography in Online Social Networks…………………………… 80
Critical Research and Institutional Ethnography……………………………………………… 81
Dimensions of the Study Along the Research Continuum…………………………………. 86
Sampling Strategy………………………………………………………………………………………… 87
Site Selection………………………………………………………………………………………….. 87
Participant Selection…………………………………………………………………………………. 89
Criteria and Justification………………………………………………………………….. 90
Data Collection, Recording and Reporting Methods……………………………………………… 91
Data Collection……………………………………………………………………………………….. 91
Observations ………………………………………………………………………………. .. 92
In depth Ethnographic Interviews……………………………………………………….. 92
Recording and Managing Data ………………………………...……….………………………… 94
Data Analysis Technique: Coding……………………………………………………… 94
Limits to the Interpretation of the Data…………………………………………………………. 95
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
xi
Transferability…………………………………………………….………………………… 95
Dependability………………….……………… …………………………………………… 96
CHAPTER FOUR—DATA PRESENTATION…………………….…………………………….......... 97
Understanding the Data Presentation……………………………………………………..……….….. 99
Introduction to the Participants and Their Online and Offline Social Networking
Contexts…………………………………………………..………………………………………………… 99
Table 1: Student Profile Data……………………………………………………………………... 102
South Central Preparatory High School...........………………………………………………… 100
Jeremiah SmartOne………………….……………… …………………………………………….. 101
Brianna Donnell………………….……………… ……………………………………………….... 107
Luz Del Mundo………………….……………… ………………………………………………….. 111
Darwin Anime………………….……………………………………………………………………. 114
Trebor Lyric………………….……………… ………………………………………………………. 116
Latrice Baker………………….……………… ……………………………………………..……… 118
Research Question One………………….……………… …………………………………………….. 122
Transforming Oppositional Identity into Oppositional Agency… ……………….………. 124
Self or Peer-Designated, Freedom, Authority and Decision-Making
Power………………….……………… ……………………………………………………...... 125
Challenge Institutional Authority and Other Authority…………………………......... 127
Create own Hidden Curriculum………………………….........………………………….... 128
Cognitive Liberation………………………….........…………………………................................. 132
Identity…………………………........…………………………..........………….……….......... 132
Self Expression………………………….........………………………….........…………… 138
Freedom from Social Inhibition and Socially Oppressive Circumstances in
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
xii
Offline Networks………………………………….…......... …………………………......... 139
Catalyze Communication and Social Response Among Users Within
the Network………………………………….…......... …………………………..……......... 143
Reframing Social Models Within Online Networking Ecologies…………...………......... 144
Influence Existing Social Network Mechanisms through Which Capital is
Accessed Online and Offline by Self and Peers……………………....……..…............ 145
Redefine or Create New Social Norms, Values and Attitudes in Both Online
and Offline Networking Ecologies……………….............................................................. 146
Mutual Creation of Social Norms, Value, and Meaning………………………......... 149
Subjectively Determined Creation of Social Norms, Value and Meaning..…...... 151
Maximize Network Orientation and Embededness……………………………………......... 152
Cultivate and Manage Relational Ties………………………………………..……......... 153
Informational Access, Distribution, and Circulation…………………………......... … 155
Research Question Two………………………….........………………………….........……………… 157
The Role of Primary Social Capital in Online Enfranchisement, Power, and
Privilege Outcomes………….........……………………................................................................... 158
Nuanced Dynamics of Race and Culture in Online Social Networks………......... 163
The Role of Secondary Social Capital in Enfranchisement, Power,
Privilege Outcomes…………………………......................…………………………......... …....... 166
Limitations to Access and Use of Online Social Capital………………………......... 167
Parent and Adult Authority………………………….........………………………….......... 167
Peer Authority and Limits………………………….........………………………… ........... 169
The Invisible Audience…………………………......... …………………………......... …... 170
Conclusion…………………………........………………………….........………………………….................. 172
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
xiii
CHAPTER FIVE—DISCUSSION……………......……………………...…………………….............. 174
Overview…………………………........…………………………........……………………………...... 174
Caveats of the Data Presentation and Findings…………………………..…......... ….. 174
About the Interview Process…………………………........……………………………….. 175
Understanding the Participants………………………….........……………………….… 176
Discussion of the Findings……………….........………….......……….........…………………………...... 178
Research Question One: Findings…………………………........…………………………......... .... 179
Table 2: Research Question One Findings………………………….............................. 180
Finding 1………………………….........…………………………......... ………………….… 179
Finding 2………………………….........…………………………......... ………………….… 186
Finding 3………………………….........…………………………......... ………………….… 188
Finding 4………………………….........…………………………......... ……………….…… 192
Finding 5………………………….........…………………………......... ………………….… 193
Finding 6………………………..........…………………………......... …………………….. 195
Research Question Two: Findings...……….........……………………......... ………….………… 197
Table 3: Research Question 2 Findings……………...………………........................…….… 197
Finding 1…………………………........…………………………......... …………………… 198
Finding 2………………………….........………………………….............………………… 200
Finding 3………………………….........…………………………......... …….……………… 201
Implications for Practice and Directions for Future Research….............. ..………………… 203
Conclusion………………………….........…………………………......... …………………………… 206
REFERENCES………………………….........…………………………......... ………...……………..…… 207
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
xiv
APPENDICES
A. Global Level: Disenfranchisement Ecology…………………………......... ………........ 214
B. Systems Level: Disenfranchisement Ecology…………………………......... ……......... 215
C. Network Level: Disenfranchisement Ecology…………………………......... ………..... 216
D. Response Level: Disenfranchisement Ecology…………………………......... ..……..... 217
E. Observation Protocol……………………………………………………..…......... ………..... 218
F. Table of Site Features for Observation ………..……….…………….…......... ………..... 220
G. Interview Protocol…………………………………………...………………......... ………..... 223
H. Interview Protocol Organized by Research Questions …..………......... …………..... 226
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This study explores technological social advances in the online world of socialization and
culture, which in recent years, have brought about the rise of a new category of DAS social
context—the online social network. In light of African-Americans’ racialized social history of
disenfranchisement, and the de facto byproducts of this disenfranchisement within their present
social networking ecologies, this study will examine how students are engaging in online social
networks to not only resist disenfranchisement features within their offline social ecologies, but
to gain and develop forms of enfranchisement, power, and privilege specifically constructed
within their online social networking ecologies.
In 1897, WEB Du Bois, one of America’s foremost thinkers on the social relations
between Black America and dominant American society (DAS), wrote an article, “The Strivings
of the Negro People,” for the Atlantic Monthly. In his piece, one of the most preeminent
reflections on race and social standing, he addressed common frustrations, meant to reflect both
his and the collective African-American social experience. Through his statement, Dubois
imparts the quintessence of African-Americans’ history of social struggle:
The Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this
American world, -- a world which yields him no self-consciousness, but only lets him see
himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double
consciousness, this sense of always looking at one's self through the eyes of others, of
measuring one's soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity.
One feels his two-ness,-- an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two
unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone
keeps it from being torn asunder.
Du Bois’ statement concerning the nexus between race and enfranchisement for African
Americans in DAS captures both a conscious and subconscious awareness of a racialized
ecology of disenfranchisement operating at four different levels of context: global, system,
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
2
network, and response. Du Bois’ perception also speaks to the frustrations of “double-
consciousness,” wherein he specifically refers to his and others’ awareness of the limitations to
social mobility imposed by an involuntary placement into a category of social
disenfranchisement determined solely by their Blackness. In other words, to Du Bois’, African
American subjective identities and social beliefs were involuntarily and collectively infused with
the objective social realities of Blackness in dominant America at that time. The awareness of
his divestment of both social privilege and network resources that could potentially be accessed
and used but for the history of his race and the influence of this history in the creation of his
present social circumstances, became an involuntary feature of his racial identity that required an
ever-present awareness in his social networking endeavors.
Regrettably, his expression as a snapshot of racialized social realities in 1897, as related
to African-Americans’ stunted social mobility and history of racialized discrimination, still
remains relevant to the discussion of addressing the chasm of social imbalance for African
American youth in present DAS social systems and networks (Hancock, 2005). Because of this
enduring connection between race and social mobility and because of the well-documented,
academic, social, and life consequences for the present generation of African American students,
particularly those in low and middle income communities, this study will focus on addressing the
challenges rooted within the historical and present social networking ecologies of African-
American enfranchisement opportunity. To be clear, my choice to focus on African American
social challenges, rather than on the gains and triumphs within a rich history of collective and
individual social achievements, is not to victimize or disparage, but instead, to give undivided
attention to understanding the very critical social developments within a population of students
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
3
whose socio-cultural and academic heritage lies in a history of being discriminated against,
forgotten, excluded, and left behind (Lynn &Parker, 2006).
I am well aware that, fortunately, at the social, class, and economic levels, much has
changed in the networking ecologies of many African American individuals, families and
communities, inside of a long history of relationship with DAS. However, there remains a
population of students, families, and communities who are, and have been, directly or indirectly
penalized on account of their race, whether they know it or not, and have faced a unique category
of challenges that have not received enough attention given the role they play in the gross social
disparities that remain today (Lynn &Parker, 2006). Ogbu and Simons (1998) term this subset of
African-Americans, involuntary minorities. Although the denotative origins and meaning of this
term within Ogbu’s work are heavily debated, its connotative significance of race, DAS social
status and disenfranchisement, accurately reflect the social realities of the population of African-
American students who inspired this study. At the outset of this study, I wish to make clear that it
is only because of my belief in the strength of possibilities available in the present and future of
this generation and the generations that will succeed them, that I insist we not discount
challenges that remain before us in collectively working to transform their present circumstance
and future of opportunity.
Background of the Problem
Because of the pervasive relevance of race within and to present-day, African-American
social ecologies, a body of social scholars (See Bell, 1979; Crenshaw, 1995; Delgado & Stefanic,
1991; Ladson-Billings, 1997; Tate, 1997; Lynn, Yosso, Solorazano & Parker, 2002) has begun
the work of generating and building upon a newer lens of social analysis, Critical Race Theory
(CRT). This relatively recent lens of analysis essentially picks up Du Bois’ mantle of social
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
4
inquiry in critically interrogating the primacy of race in African Americans’ history of stymied
social mobility.
CRT scholars contend that despite the many landmark, hard-won civil rights battles for
de jure social equality waged since the publication of Du Bois’ article, his statements concerning
the de-facto, double-edged features of African-American racial identity still hold true in many
social contexts of dominant American society (Bell, 1979; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Ladson-
Billings & Tate, 1997; Ladson-Billings, 2003;Hancock, 2005). Specifically CRT scholars cite
the ineffectiveness of the law and other social remedies in truly addressing the core of social
issues stemming from America’s history of race-based discrimination and its effect on African
Americans’ social enfranchisement as a function of the dynamic between racial identity and the
access and use of key forms of social network capital in core social contexts of DAS (Bell, 1979,
Ladson Billings, 2004). However, missing from CRT discourse of the current ramifications of
race in DAS, and more specifically for the purposes of this study, the present generation of
African American youth in school and other DAS networks, is a clear elucidation of how a de
facto ecology of social disenfranchisement has managed to keep race remain central to this
discussion despite the removal of legalized social barriers. The solution, as Giroux (2001)
suggests, may lie, “in uncovering the genesis and operation of those socially constructed needs
that tie people to larger structures of domination.” Accordingly, in understanding the present
generation of African American youth, this study introduces an interpretation of how the history
and function of “structures of domination” in students’ offline ecologies may factor into their
social networking in online ecologies.
Particularly within the last twenty years, a growing body of educational research has
adopted Critical Race Theory from legal scholarship, to build a framework of analytical
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
5
discourse concerning the educational system’s pervasive inequities in social and academic
outcomes for African-Americans and other minorities (See Ladson-Billings, 1995; Tate, 1997;
Lynn, Yosso, Solorazano & Parker, 2002). These scholars endeavor to gain a comparable
standard of quality education for African-American students through an unflinching critique of
past and present educational theories, pedagogies and efforts to attain social equality for
populations that, historically, have been socially marginalized by racial discrimination. CRT
scholars note that the challenges of unchaining race from the individual in the operation of social
contexts has proven elusive in many respects; each historic step toward achieving social equality,
especially in the field of education, reveals still more complicated social facets of the
undertaking facing educators, stakeholders and communities (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Tate,
1997).
As the foremost example of this argument, CRT educational research almost universally
cites the social aftermath of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. the Board
of Education (Bell, 1979; Crenshaw, 1995; Delgado & Stefanic, 1991; Ladson-Billings, 2004a;
Tate, 1997; Lynn, Yosso, Solorazano & Parker, 2002; Lynn & Parker, 2006). The landmark
ruling was initially lauded as a tremendous victory against the American legal and social
structures in education that buttress a deep-rooted system of discrimination and rampant social
inequities for populations of color. Yet, in almost sixty years since the decision, though the
specter of legalized discrimination and segregation has been virtually eliminated from public
perception, the long anticipated rectification of social equality through the remedy of persistent
educational inequities present in communities of involuntary minorities has not even come close
to fully materializing (Ladson-Billings, 2004b; Weinstein, 2004). Significant gaps in educational
performance and achievement still overwhelmingly remain between African-American students
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
6
and other racial groups in DAS (Carter, 2005); the disparity in successful educational outcomes
for involuntary minorities remains as one of the primary causes for the negatively skewed “social
distribution of possibilities” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) affecting African- American students’ social
mobility.
In endeavoring to identify, create and implement meaningful transformational solutions,
Critical Race Theory branches off into its own framework, purportedly leaving behind the “safe-
harbor” (Jay, 2003) of the multi-origin perspective on social inequity within the broader field of
educational multiculturalism, by squarely addressing the issue of race within DAS and African-
American social ecologies that produced the race-based disenfranchisement of African
Americans. However, the challenge, as cited by both CRT and multicultural theorists has several
layers. The first challenge has been in devising transformative social strategies that operate at the
following key levels of the present ecology of African American social disenfranchisement:
global, systems, networking, and response. These concepts of networking ecology will be visited
in greater detail in Chapter Two. The second challenge has been to get those who benefit from
current configurations of power within DAS social systems of African-American social
networking ecology to implement and maintain such strategies (Bennett, 2001; Carbado &
Gulati, 2003; Jay, 2003). Lastly, getting would-be beneficiaries to embrace such strategies,
represents a final challenge to the transformation of the DAS social networking ecology (Giroux,
2001). Transformation on the level needed to rectify a centuries-long history of
disenfranchisement would necessarily entail large-scale change at one or more levels of students’
present networking ecologies of social disenfranchisement. Such a dramatic change would
require one of two things: cooperation with or revolution against the key social forces within
existing networking ecologies.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
7
CRT’s major critique of the similar, but broader branch of inquiry, educational
multiculturalism, is that multiculturalism’s proffered solutions have favored the former,
cooperation with those holding power in the DAS networking ecologies, at the expense of
producing meaningful change within the African American disenfranchisement ecology for the
social benefit of African-American students (Jay, 2003). CRT, by contrast, calls for more direct
and radical solutions to approaching the challenges of race in dominant America (Jay, 2003); yet,
until now, it too, appears to have been weakened by its hardline stance on repairing the balance
between race and power (Carbado & Gulati, 2003). This is likely because CRT’s unwavering
advocacy for dismantling current configurations of power, privilege and operation within the
DAS networks and systems affecting African Americans’ ecology of disenfranchisement, is
unlikely to resonate with DAS gatekeepers, such as institutional agents, who have the power and
privilege to remake DAS systems, but retain a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Interestingly, it seems that the advent and rise of social media has uncovered an Achilles
heel at key levels of DAS networking ecology of which schools, as well as networks of other
dominant American systems, play a significant role for African -American students; this
vulnerability in the present de facto ecology of disenfranchisement is allowing students of the
iGeneration to construct a new networking ecology of enfranchisement that mirrors facets of the
social transformation, called for by CRT theorists. Enter the African-American, iGeneration.
Statement of the Problem
Contrast Du Bois’ social authorship, as an expression and exercise of social frustration
with race in 1897, with that of Justice Baker’s
1
“youth online authorship” (Stern, 2008) today in
2013. Justice, frustrated by the limitations related to his skin color, writes a Facebook note,
1
Real name changed
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
8
clicks the publish button on his Facebook profile, tags several of his friends, and “names his
reality” (Ladson-Billings, 1998) as he sees fit through the echoes of cyberspace:
“Just an invisible individual slowly stepping out the dark/walking in the light, looking
like a shadow to most/Afraid they'll call me a piece of shit or burnt toast/To a Full human
being, adding two to the three fifths surprise/you're whole/the goal to [be] wealthy can
eventually lead to my demise/slowly turning into, a living breathing modern day vanity
slave/forget them 24's I want them 28's..inch rims/owning a escalade and a . . brand new
benz/These are my brand new friends/ As I Stride with/The Longest lasting taste for
success, as my enemies kiss my feet/Run In the defeat as the Bad Monkey take on the
globe standing on my two with air force ones, a shiny grill in my teeth/A gold watch on
my wrist, with A L.A. fitted cap, and a gun/so I can too be feared by many and love by
none/ not even myself/use it all as a scapegoat because my skin is dark as licorice/As my
sweet juices flows between the diamonds on my chain you can see the leaked
insecurities, hidden behind my brain/in my eyes, you see no soul/ Now my watch is in
control/point me in the direction I need to go/ saturating my thoughts with negative
videos that the media with holds switching from mono to stereo/blasting that type of
sound/ that'll make a man go crazy, and go burn shit down/bare witnessing a expected
reflected image of myself”
Today, because Justice has access and use of social network capital openly available to
him in online social networks, he does not have to wait to have his social views affirmed and
sanctioned through the same types of checkpoints and red-tape required by an outlet in offline
social networks having a similar “audience” (Deuze, 2006); it is enough that Justice feels like
he’s been heard by a few, or no one in particular—so long as he feels like he’s expressed himself
on his terms, by own his standards, in his own way. Because of the relative accessibility to key
forms of social network capital in these online social networks, he has the freedom to both
generate and exercise self-determined forms of expression that are subjectively reflective of his
own experience and social awareness. At his discretion, he may choose to exercise expression
and action, not only though a wide range of social platforms such as Facebook, Tumblr and
Twitter, but also in wide range of formats: status updates, pictures, memes, gifs, Facebook likes,
tweets, video blogs (Stern, 2008). Justice is now one of many African-American adolescents who
belong to the online social collective termed the iGeneration (Rosen, 2010), a demographic who
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
9
uses widely accessible online social network capital to self-direct their social development
(Stern, 2008).
Online social networks, where social function largely relies on collectively reconfigured,
rather than DAS, social norms and forms of social network capital (Weber & Mitchell, 2008), are
increasingly becoming many students’ alternative social contexts of choice; in many ways, these
social networks have appeal because, unlike in traditional DAS social networks where access to
power and privilege primarily operate on a hidden curriculum of DAS norms, values, and
attitudes (Giroux, 2001; Jay, 2003), there is a virtual and ongoing free-for-all in acquiring social
network capital necessary to gain enfranchisement in these networks (Byrne, 2008; Stern, 2008;
Weber & Mitchell, 2008;Willett, 2008; Rosen 2010). Of those drawn to this element of social
media, especially those like Justice who are socially disenfranchised by not only race, but by
socioeconomic status and age, such platforms offer considerable social advantages compared to
those of offline, dominant system, social networks.
Because of online social networks’ growing role in the socialization of African-American
students, another facet of the CRT/multicultural education paradigm has now emerged: the
interplay between features of African American students’ online social development and
identities and the features of their offline racialized social development and identities in the
primary networks of their social ecologies (Everett, 2008). However, the emerging implications
for students in the African American iGeneration’s online social development for their offline
social models and ecologies, remain lightly explored (Everett, 2008). Because schools serve as a
primary social network within African American students’ social ecologies, (Ogbu & Simons,
1998), the new intersection of these realities merits further exploration and now demands that
educators pay attention, specifically, to the historical and contemporary role of race in traditional
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
10
models of social network capital access and use for enfranchisement in offline social networks
(Hancock, 2005). This is because, in an unforeseen twist on traditional dynamics of social power
and mobility within DAS systems and networks, because of an increased emphasis on African-
American academic performance and school accountability, school actors, as institutional agents,
are finding themselves at a disadvantage in negotiating academic and behavioral performance
outcomes with students whose online access and use of social network capital empowers their
social development outside of offline social ecologies (Ito, Davidson, Jenkins, Lee, Eisberg
&Weiss, 2008).
Through the lens of CRT, the starting point of inquiry in this study begins with a question
toward understanding how online networks growing number of social platforms, have begun to
critically transform the “hidden curriculum” (Jay, 2003) of social norms, power and privilege, at
work in African-American students offline social ecologies, to the exclusion of race—a factor
which has served as one of the predominate, limiting influences on their sense of identity, social
development and social distribution of possibilities in offline social ecologies. Here, this study
specifically takes up an examination of the social implications created by students’ access and
use of social network capital in online social networks and the potential this has, outside of the
constraints of race, to reshape the social playing field for African-Americans in their offline
social ecologies.
In this study, I specifically use Lynn and Adam’s (2002) iteration of the six principles of
CRT, as applied to educational research, as the basis of the study’s focus, the review all
literature, the study’s design, the interpretation of the findings, and the suggestions for future
research. The principles of CRT in the context of education are as follows:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
11
1. CRT offers a systematic critique of the legal and social system in the US
2. CRT calls attention to the enduring legacy of racism in past and contemporary
American society;
3. CRT adopts a post-modern stance with regard to Western claims of neutrality,
objectivity, rationality, and universality;
4. CRT is theoretically driven but experientially based because of the extent to which it
grounds its analysis within the racialized narratives of people’s of color;
5. CRT is interdisciplinary because of its reliance on philosophical, historical, and
sociological traditions in academe;
6. CRT calls for the elimination of racial oppression in the United States through a
multilayered examination of race that explores links between race, gender and class.
In this study, my goal is to follow in the tradition of CRT theorists through an exploration
of a newly emerging arena of social discourse: online social networks. Online social networks
are “networks of interpersonal ties that provide sociability, information, and sense of belonging
and social identity” (Wellman, 2001); this study will specifically examine the online social
networks present in Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Instagram. One of CRT’s core premises is
the idea that race is the foremost factor in key social constructs operating at all levels of DAS
social ecologies (Lynn & Parker, 2006). Given this, the starting point in any CRT analysis of a
social phenomenon begins with a consideration of the relevant historical and contemporary
manifestations of race that surround the issue under analysis. In all CRT analyses, as in this
study, there is an inextricable assumption of the pervasive insidiousness of race and racism
toward African-Americans with regard to social action and outcomes within DAS social
ecologies.
Research Questions
School networks, and the institutional agents within them, are instrumental components
of social mobility in dominant American society and therefore remain as one of African
American, involuntary minority students’ primary social avenues to enfranchisement (Tyson,
Darity & Castellino, 2003). Supporting African American, involuntary minority, students’
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
12
integration of individual purpose and identity into the larger framework of society (Ladson-
Billings, 1995), requires further research to both explore and better understand students’
emerging social roles as members of the iGeneration in offline school networks; consequently,
educators must both consider and develop solutions for addressing the conflict between 1)
African American students’ changing social models as a result of their online access and use of
social network capital in self-directing their network orientation toward enfranchisement, power,
and privilege 2) DAS social networking models in offline networking ecologies governed by
institutional agents who regulate access and use of social network capital according to DAS
norms, values, and attitudes.
From this standpoint, the study will focus on exploring responses to the following
questions posed by iGeneration, African-American students’ social development and integration
in online social networking ecologies. More specifically, this study will seek to better understand
how African American students’ access and use of social network capital in online social
networks fosters their ability to self-direct their social development. This study’s driving
research questions proceed as follows:
1. How do African American, iGeneration youth access and use key forms of social
network capital (space, voice, and information) in online social networks such as
Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and Instagram, to self-direct their network orientation
toward social enfranchisement, power and privilege?
2. How does the African American iGeneration’s access and use of the key forms of social
network capital in online social networks differ from a CRT perspective of African
American’s history of access and use of key forms of social network capital in offline
social networking ecologies?
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
13
This study explores African-American students’ access and use of social network capital in
online social networks, here represented by Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Instagram, in light of
a social history primarily based in an ecology of social disenfranchisement within DAS. Chapter
Two will more carefully trace: (1) African Americans’ history of disenfranchisement in America
through an examination of two predecessor disenfranchisement ecologies (2) the development of
oppositional identity as one category of response to African Americans’ race-based social status
as outsiders in dominant society, and (3) how features of this identity remain applicable and
critical to an exploration of the study’s research questions.
Given African-American students’ increasing social integration into online social networks,
this study also considers, from a CRT standpoint, the potential for transformative effects on the
social status quo within school and other offline networks. Further consideration is given to any
data yielded from this study indicating how African-American students’ increased online social
network capital access and use affects the balance of social power against institutional agents in
offline, dominant system social networks.
Intended Significance of the Study
The intended significance has two important applications for educators vested in the
social and academic outcomes of African-American students and similar youth demographics.
Significance to Educators as Institutional Agents in School Networks
At the heart of CRT educational research, is the understanding that the educational system’s
integral role in the historical and contemporary fabric of dominant American society as well as
its central role in shaping the social outcomes of African-American students requires that the
educational system remain accountable for rectifying both the causes and effects of students’
history of social and racial discrimination (Ladson-Billings & Tate; 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1997,
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
14
Lynn, 2003; Carbado & Gulati, 2003; Abrams & Moio, 2009). In recent years, the educational
system and its institutional agents, (i.e. teachers, administrators, policy makers, and other school
systems leaders) have been at the visible forefront of public scrutiny and accountability as agents
of change for America’s history of discrimination and social ostracism of involuntary minorities
(Ladson-Billings, 2004). The release of films like Waiting for Superman, Teached, and The
Lottery continue to underscore the dual role of educators and school systems, as institutional
agents, in amending egregious disparities in educational and social outcomes for African-
American students.
This level of heightened accountability has created the conditions for what CRT theorists
call, “interest-convergence”(Bell, 1980; Tate; 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1998). That is, as the
gatekeepers who manage the school system’s distribution of social network capital, school
actors’ power within and through the system is, in part, tied to the outcomes for a base of
students that is socially subjugated by the very same system. Because of this, CRT theorists
contend that this type of backlash affects institutional agents’ balance of power enough to create
an incentive for them to reconsider and reassess the status quo of social norms (Ladson-Billings,
2004).
CRT theorists further argue that the solutions produced from this interest-convergence do not
always begin from the starting point of race, an oversight that undermines the opportunities to
create and implement meaningful solutions (Bell, 1980; Jay, 2003; DeCuir & Dixon, 2004). For
example, as will be discussed in further detail in Chapter Two, CRT theorists often critique
multicultural educational theory for its equivocation on the centrality of race in the assessment of
disparate school outcomes for African Americans (Jay, 2003). I am not arguing that school actors
who embrace multicultural strategies always do so from the basis of self-interested, interest-
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
15
convergence (although, that may certainly be the case at times); rather, school actors who
embrace multiculturalist pedagogies may do so because of an interest in producing more
equitable outcomes for their students and believe that such practices will ultimately yield these
results (Bennett, 2001).
No matter the case, however, whether using multiculturalist pedagogies or not, given the
emphasis on school outcomes and academic performance, institutional agents cannot afford to
maintain the misconception that the educational system as a whole is appropriately addressing
the existence of a social disconnect between African-American students and schools or that such
a disconnect does not impact school outcomes for African-American students. To maintain these
short-sighted assumptions will effectively, “paralyze necessary efforts to invest in schools
attended primarily by students of color.” (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
CRT points to the difficulty educators face in addressing this disconnect. According to Jay
(2003), “transformative knowledge poses a serious threat to the dominant power structures
operating in American society that privileges Whites over all other racial groups.” The difficulty
with the full adoption of multicultural pedagogy, then, is not the well-meaning intentions of
teachers, administrators and other practitioners who embrace these pedagogies in good-faith, it is
the inability to understand how empowering those who are socially disenfranchised
fundamentally undermines the existing dynamics of power in DAS networks and systems
between those who have power and those who have far less power. (Jay, 2003). Essentially, to
authorize a full embrace of the ideal social manifestations of multiculturalism entails, in some
respects, a loss of power for institutional agents seeking to implement such practices within the
system. In light of these shifts, educators may opt to move away from a fuller implementation of
such strategies to prevent further imbalances in existing relations of power within the school
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
16
setting. And yet, in large part, because of the universally accessible focus of online social
networks, African American students, with or without the blessing of the institutional agents in
their school and other DAS networks, are moving toward a fuller realization of social
enfranchisement as they are brought into the fold of the online social collective on sites such as
Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, and Instagram where they have access and use of key forms of social
network capital that fuel their enfranchisement, power, and privilege in these networks (Drotner,
2008; Stern, 2008; Weber &Mitchell, 2008; Rosen, 2010). The long-term social effects,
however, of students’ online social enfranchisement outside of online networks remains to be
seen.
As Carter’s (2005) work suggests, African American students’ current use of capital in
offline networks often focuses on verifying the “slippery proposition” of a person’s
authenticity—the idea that a person’s in-group status is based on “their capacity to exhibit and
use in-group cultural knowledge.” I contend that for educators who lack this “authenticity” in the
iGeneration, their educational efforts may be significantly undermined. That is, where
implementation of an educational solution, strategy or intervention to remedy social and
achievement imbalances for African American students relies on the exercise of pre-
iGenerational notions of social development and institutional agency, the intended effect of such
actions may be nullified by a failure to address a change in social dynamics posed by students’
newfound ability to self direct core facets of their own social development and enfranchisement
(Carter, 2005).
For now, however, particularly in light of the iGeneration’s technological and online social
integration and new found social network capital access and use (boyd, 2008; Buckingham,
2008; Stern, 2008; Weber, 2008;Willett, 2008), the notion of interest convergence for
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
17
institutional agents calls for their reassessment of the social status quo in school networks to
better facilitate African American students’ support, acceptance, and participation in school
efforts to improve students’ academic and social outcomes. With the tables seemingly turning on
institutional agents, the African American iGeneration’s integration into a universally-accessible,
socially-empowering, cultural context demands consideration in the design and implementation
of viable educational solutions. Consequently, African-American students’ participation in
online social networks has both begun to transform and, in some ways, upgraded students’ social
roles in the context of the their offline social networking ecologies and their previously central
role in the socialization of African-American students.
From this standpoint, educators, as key social actors in school networks, must understand
more about the nature of the African American, iGeneration’s autonomous access and use of
online social network capital in directing their own social development and identity in online
social networks. Of particular significance to educators will be the data concerning the ways in
which students’ models of access and use of social network capital in online social networks
contrast with their models of access and use of social network capital via institutional agents and
social networks within schools systems. Both CRT and multiculturalist researchers continue to
trumpet the importance of culturally relevant environments, practices and instruction for
educators of African-Americans and other minority populations (Nieto, 1994; Bennett, 2001;
Ladson-Billings; 2004; Howard, 2003; Jennings & Lynn, 2005). In this call for cultural
relevance, advocates of education-based social reform (Nieto, 1994; Stanton Salazar;1997;
Bennett, 2001; Howard, 2003) argue for educators’ need to better understand the historical and
contemporary contexts of African-American students’ models of social development in dominant
American social networks.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
18
Even in light of the rapid proliferation of online social networks and the noted
implications for offline social networking (Ito et.al., 2008; Buckingham, 2008) there is little
available research exploring these potential implications, specifically for African American
students, in school networks (Everett, 2008). To be clear, however, I distinguish this study’s
focus as being on the social implications of online networks for African American students,
given their unique heritage of social disenfranchisement. Given the changing nature of social
development for iGeneration, African-American students, it is important for school actors, as the
primary conduits of social network capital and development in school networks, to understand
the trajectory of their students’ social development and its potential and actual effect on learning,
achievement and social dynamics in school networks (Everett, 2008). Before school actors can
account for the effects of iGeneration, African-American students’ online social integration in
offline social networks, school actors must have a clear understanding of the ways in which this
integration affects and/or reconfigures students’ models of social development (Noguera, 2003).
The significance of the information yielded from this study is expected help school actors in two
key ways. First, it will provide information that serves as a basis for school actors to identify and
create strategic, informed responses to iGeneration, African American students’ changing models
of social development. Second, the data should help to inform school actors in constructing and
improving social, cultural and instructional practices that are more attuned to iGeneration,
African-American students’ changing social models within their online and offline networking
ecologies as a means of addressing the gap between the iGeneration social models and DAS
school social models.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
19
Significance for Critical Race Theory
This study further aims to provide research allowing for a clearer understanding of the
social outcomes that may occur in students’ DAS social networks, particularly those of schools,
in light of social enfranchisement opportunities available in online networks (Hancock, 2005);
this makes for an important niche of exploration in CRT. Specifically, these findings contribute
to a core focus of CRT educational research in finding solutions toward the end of race-based
oppression efforts to develop and implement meaningful learning and social experiences for
African-American students in school networks (Ladson-Billings, 2004).
Cyberculture’s parallel development alongside burgeoning mainstream awareness
(Rosen, 2010) of the serious deficiencies in our educational system offers an important
investigative opportunity for both researchers and practitioners to peer into the otherwise private
worlds (Stern, 2008) of African-American students’ as they negotiate their social development
and enfranchisement in online social networks. Because of students’ increasing integration into
online social networks it is vital that these two communities have a better understanding of the
social parameters in these alternative social networks which can contribute to students’ changed
social models of enfranchisement opportunity and social response in school and other offline
networks.
Additionally, cyberculture’s current socio-ecological state makes for an appropriate and
timely exploration of its race-subordinated social network access and operation, especially given
African American, involuntary minority, students’ history of racialized social
disenfranchisement in DAS networking ecologies (Everett, 2008). Further, the data here may
provide CRT advocates with greater leverage to call for and provide detailed transformative
pedagogies allowing for both school actors and students to reframe the social status quo in
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
20
school networks in ways that can help resolve African American students’ actual and perceived
issues of race.
Terms
Social networking ecology
The processes and operation working at each level of an individual’s primary social contexts in
his or her network orientation toward social enfranchisement, privilege or power.
De jure social networking ecology. The legalized social configuration of dominant
American society, prior to the enactment of key civil rights legislation, whose systems
and networks operated on racialized, legally recognized, norms and values that directly
enfranchised or disenfranchised individual’s primary social capital-- physical and/or
biological “Whiteness”(enfranchised) or physical and/or biological “Blackness”
(disenfranchised).
De facto social networking ecology. The post key civil rights legislation, DAS social
configuration, whose systems and networks operate on implicitly racialized DAS norms,
values and attitudes.
Global context of DAS networking ecology
The overarching, racialized social norms, values, and attitudes of DAS that govern key features
of all levels of an individual’s networking ecology.
Systems context of DAS networking ecology
A collection of social networks that create a social subset of DAS (i.e. the educational systems is
comprised of several school and administrative networks that comprise the educational system as
a whole).
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
21
Network context of DAS networking ecology
The social mechanism for DAS social network capital distribution, access, and use allowing for
an individual’s network orientation toward enfranchisement, power and privilege at one or more
levels of DAS.
Social disenfranchisement
This study uses Ogbu’s (2004) explanation of status problems to represent social
disenfranchisement. Status problems are represented by (1) involuntary incorporation into
society: involuntary social subordination by conquest, colonization, enslavement or arbitrary
subjection to disenfranchised status; (2) instrumental discrimination: denial of access to key
features and resources of core social networks; (3) social subordination: required social
affiliation or assimilation to dominant group norms and values and/or; (4) expressive
mistreatment: cultural, language, and intellectual denigration
Social enfranchisement
An individual’s ability to reach personal goals, motivation, social privilege, power, and/or
increased opportunities for social and economic mobility
Involuntary minority (Ogbu & Simons, 1998)
A racial or ethnic population that (1) has been forcibly made a part of the dominant society and
(2) members within this population subjectively believe that their presence within the dominant
society has been forced upon them
Institutional agents (Stanton Salazar, 1997)
An individual or entity who acts on behalf of DAS social systems or networks in managing key
forms of capital necessary to navigate the social pathways of DAS systems or networks toward
enfranchisement, power or privilege within DAS.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
22
Network orientation (Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2001)
The process of building relational ties and/or acquiring, using or negotiating social network
capital to achieve social enfranchisement, power or privilege within DAS systems and networks.
Social capital
Social resources and/or tools held, accessed and/or used by an individual for network orientation
toward enfranchisement, power, or privilege within one or more networks or systems of DAS.
Primary social capital
An individual’s identity as used by an institutional agent or other relational tie within a social
network to determine negotiation, access, or use of social networking capital within possession
to the individual.
De Jure. In de jure DAS social ecologies, primary social capital, refers to an
individual’s racial (physical or biological) identity. DAS norms and values prior to the
Civil Rights era generally enfranchised physical and/or biological “Whiteness” and
disenfranchised physical and/or biological “Blackness.” DAS institutional agents within
systems and networks, used an individual’s racial identity as the primary basis for
determining an individual’s ability to access secondary social capital, network capital,
allowing for network orientation toward enfranchisement within DAS.
De Facto. In de facto DAS social ecologies, primary social capital may refer (1) an
individual’s physical identity and /or ( 2 ) socio-cultural indicators of “Blackness” and
“Whiteness” linked to de jure DAS notions of enfranchisement, power and privilege.
DAS institutional agents within systems and networks.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
23
Secondary social capital or social network capital
Key forms of capital needed within DAS networks needed by an individual for network
orientation across DAS social and symbolic boundaries toward enfranchisement. For African
American students Secondary social capital in DAS systems and networks is managed and
distributed by institutional agents according to individual conformity with respective DAS
system norms and values. Access and use of social network capital by African American
students must generally be gained by cultivating relational ties with institutional agents.
Oppositional identity
Oppositional identity refers to a category of social response wherein an individual’s leveraging,
reluctance, or refusal to cooperate with or conform to DAS norms, values, or attitudes is used as
a means of transforming network mechanisms necessary to access and/or use of social network
capital for enfranchisement at the network or systems levels of DAS de facto networking
ecologies
Organization
The current chapter provides a brief overview of this study, including its focus, purpose
and background. Chapter Two offers an in-depth examination of the problem presented in this
study through a detailed review of relevant literature using a CRT analysis and other key
frameworks. Chapter Three explains the methodology for the study, including a discussion of a
CRT-based qualitative approach, instrumentation and participants observed. Chapter Four will
present the central themes in the data collected from this study. Chapter 5 will synthesize the
findings in light of the literature reviewed in addition to a discussion concerning the findings’
implications for future research.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
24
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview
In researching this study, I encountered an extremely dense and frequently overlapping
body of literature and theory reflecting a wide range of viewpoints on the historical and
contemporary dynamics concerning the social constructs of racial identity, social networking and
enfranchisement for African-Americans within DAS in relation to the research questions that
form the basis of this study. After carefully considering the literature bearing on key concepts at
work in this study, my choice to use Critical Race Theory as the primary lens of review
reinforces the intention of keeping the social notion of race as the foremost construct within this
study’s analysis of discourse to the African American iGeneration’s present and historical
context of social enfranchisement, power, and privilege in DAS. In reviewing the literature, I
found that many, though not all, discussions of social disenfranchisement shy away from directly
naming race and/or racism, in either its covert or overt forms as the cause for continued
reproduction of social disenfranchisement in the African American demographic. Though this
might be understandable in some cases, especially in generalized, theoretical discussions of the
mechanisms of social inequality (i.e. Lin’s (2000) network theory of social capital) where racism
might be considered as beyond the scope or irrelevant, it is not appropriate in the context of the
discourse on African American disenfranchisement in DAS. It is with this understanding in mind
that CRT becomes the key lens of review in this study’s analysis of the present ecological
conditions for the African American iGeneration’s enfranchisement as a function of its social
history of race within DAS.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
25
The theoretical roots of CRT in assessing social inequities for African Americans stems
from its original use as a tool of analytical discourse in critically evaluating the law’s ability to
redress race-based social inequities. Initially, CRT served as the rallying cry of a collective of
legal scholars, such as Derrick Bell, Kimberle Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, Richard Delgado and
Angela Harris, who had grown frustrated with the ineffectiveness of the law in addressing race-
based social disparities, particularly with respect to fully securing fundamental civil rights (Tate,
1997; Ladson-Billings, 197; Lynn & Parker, 2006) in light of the enactment of key civil rights
legislation and court rulings barring race from legalized social penalties. These advocates
contend that not enough weight has been given to the effects of race and racism in law and
society and that must be the starting point in a critical evaluation of the law and its resulting
social outcomes (Lynn & Parker, 2006).
Following this line of reasoning, where the discussion of social inequality in DAS
controlled social contexts (i.e. in the case of the educational system and its school networks) is
specifically meant to apply to African-Americans, it is a critical omission to give no or little
mention to the role of race and racism. This is because African Americans, unlike most other
populations of people within DAS, have a uniquely stormy history of oppressive relationship
within, and to, DAS specifically as a function of their race
2
. That CRT directly acknowledges
this and keeps race at the forefront of discussion, makes it appropriate as the key lens of review
in this study.
2
To be clear, I am not suggesting that no other population of people in America have had a socially oppressed
relationship within and to DAS. I recognize that Latino, Native American and some Asian populations, to name a
few, also have a history of oppression within DAS. I am only emphasizing that the nature of African Americans’
history of oppression has unique features primarily based in race and racism.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
26
Organization
In his work on social resistance, Henry Giroux (2001) contends that “studies of resistance
point to the social sites and ‘spaces’ in which the dominant culture is encountered and challenged
by subordinate groups” but that such studies have not “adequately conceptualized the genesis of
the conditions that promote and reinforce contradictory modes of resistance and struggle.”
Accordingly, this chapter is specifically organized into two main parts that attempt to address
Giroux’s critique of resistance studies. The first part of the chapter addresses the “genesis of
conditions” in DAS leading into the iGeneration’s present online social networking ecology. The
latter part of the chapter points to the iGeneration’s access and use of online social networking in
ways that “encounter and challenge” dominant culture modes and notions of enfranchisement,
power, and privilege.
To ultimately build a starting point in the case for the iGeneration’s construction of an
online enfranchisement ecology, I apply a CRT lens in using the literature to identify and discuss
four key levels of context within two, key predecessor DAS networking ecologies. Within the
discussion of these predecessor ecologies, I focus on each level of context and the ways in which
they reflect critical constructs of the research discourse on African Americans’ social history and
the struggle for enfranchisement in DAS.
Section one sets forth a description of the key contextual levels of race and racism within
predecessor DAS networking ecologies: global, systems, network, and response. The section
begins by introducing two categories of predecessor DAS social networking ecologies, the de
jure social networking ecology and the de facto social networking ecology both of which are
discussed, referenced, and regarded as bastion precipitants of the African American
iGeneration’s current online networking ecologies and social response. Next, through the lens of
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
27
CRT research, section one attempts an interpretation of how the shift from de jure networking
ecology to de facto networking ecology has managed to keep race central to the discourse of
African Americans’ disenfranchisement. Finally, section one articulates the limitations of CRT
in elucidating this shift and how it has affected advocates’ use of this theory among educators
and other stakeholders in gaining traction for socially transformative practices in school
networks.
Section two begins by introducing John Ogbu and Herbert Simons’(1998) work on the
cultural ecology of African-American, involuntary minorities to flesh out a conceptualization of
the de facto social framework underlying the present offline African-American social networking
ecologies within DAS. In drawing the connection between African American networking
ecologies and the perpetual reproduction of social inequality for many African Americans within
DAS, I primarily turn to Ricardo Stanton Salazar’s (1997) social capital framework to explain
how social networking, and in turn, social disenfranchisement, within DAS offline networks and
systems remains implicitly racialized.
Section three focuses on tracing one category of individual and collective responses
among African Americans in response to disenfranchisement within DAS systems and networks.
Again, I use John Ogbu’s (1986; 2004) work to review the concept of oppositional identity as
one category of African American social response—the features of which, are useful in
constructing an interpretation of how and why some members of the African-American
iGeneration use and access online social network capital in their network orientation toward
enfranchisement, power and privilege in online social networks.
Section four picks up the discussion of oppositional identity as a category of social
response and reframes the discussion as an extension of Giroux’s (2001) discourse on resistance
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
28
and transformation, thus bringing the discussion full circle to CRT’s call for radical social
transformation of enfranchisement structure in the networking ecology for African Americans in
DAS. From here, I make the argument that members of the African American iGeneration are in
fact constructing their own network ecology of enfranchisement in online networks and that the
features of ecologies differ so dramatically from the two key predecessor networking ecologies,
that students’ online enfranchisement points to the emergence of a socially transformative
resistance having considerable implications for students’ offline social ecologies in DAS.
The Historical Context of Race, Social Identity and Enfranchisement in DAS
To appreciate both the purpose of the study and the significance of its anticipated data, it
is critical to understand the racialized historical and contemporaneous elements of social context
for the African American iGeneration’s embrace of online networks. The interpretation I present
in this study, contends that the type of appeal for the enfranchisement offered within online
social networks has a racialized history which must be understood as directly or indirectly
integral to students’ choice to access and use social network capital in self-directing their
network orientation toward social enfranchisement, power, and privilege. In the following
review of literature, which lays a conceptual foundation supporting the argument for the
iGeneration’s ongoing construction of an online enfranchisement ecology, four key levels of
ecological context should be viewed as central to both an understanding of preceding social
networking ecologies and their connection to the iGeneration’s present network orientation
patterns in online social networks.
Global: the understanding of the overarching historical context of students’ racialized
social history as the successors to a largely, historically disenfranchised African
American collective within DAS.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
29
Systems: the understanding of the ways in which students’ history of racialized social
identity has overtly and covertly contributed to disenfranchisement across several
networks of DAS, in ways that are specific to African Americans.
Network: the understanding of how social mechanisms and relationships within the
systems of social ecologies have overtly or covertly reproduced social inequalities at
multiple levels of the social networking ecology to perpetuate African-Americans’
continued disenfranchisement within DAS.
Responses: the understanding of the ways in which African Americans have historically
or contemporaneously chosen or been made to respond in engaging said
disenfranchisement within DAS.
The Global Context of DAS Networking Ecologies
Critical Race Theory holds that all facets of DAS systems and networks are steeped in
issues involving, or related to, race; because of this, any critical inquiry calling for an assessment
of social challenges or phenomena within DAS systems and networks must begin with an
analysis of the inquiry’s relationship to racialized constructs within the networks (Ladson-
Billings, 1998; Lynn & Parker, 2006). From CRT’s use in legal analysis and in educational
research, trends across the body of CRT literature and scholarship reveal six hallmarks of the
theory, which taken together, produce a conceptual basis for understanding the global context of
two key predecessor networking ecologies in DAS (Lynn, 2002). The principles of CRT in the
context of education are as follows:
1. CRT offers a systematic critique of the legal and social system in the United
States;
2. CRT calls attention to the enduring legacy of racism in past and contemporary
American society;
3. CRT adopts a post-modern stance with regard to Western claims of neutrality,
objectivity, rationality, and universality;
4. CRT is theoretically driven but experientially based because of the extent to which it
grounds its analysis within the racialized narratives of peoples of color;
5. CRT is interdisciplinary because of its reliance on philosophical, historical, and
sociological traditions in academe;
6. CRT calls for the elimination of racial oppression in the United States through a
multilayered examination of race that explores links between race, gender and class.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
30
At the heart CRT’s application to the educational system and its school networks, is the view
that because of the educational system’s integral role in the historical and contemporary fabric of
dominant American society, as well as its central role of its school networks in shaping the social
outcomes of African-American students, social justice requires that the educational system
remain accountable for rectifying both the causes and effects of students’ history of racialized
discrimination (Ladson-Billings & Tate; 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1997, Lynn, 2003; Carbado &
Gulati, 2003; Abrams & Moio, 2009). African-Americans’ history of social struggle is rooted in
their racial identity; historically, institutional agents of DAS systems and networks have used
racial identity, or related factors, as the primary grounds for restricting access to key forms of
social networking capital (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu;1994, Howard, 2003; Ogbu, 2004)
now more easily accessed and used in network features of online social networks. In line with
this understanding, one aim of CRT educational research, is to identify core facets of students’
social networks that have been historically influenced directly or indirectly by their race within
DAS and work to the benefit or detriment of African-American students’ social and academic
outcomes (Ladson-Billings, 2004). Similarly, this study concerns itself with assessing the role of
this historical backdrop in online social networks’ appeal to the African American, iGeneration.
The Systems and Network Levels of Predecessor Social Networking Ecologies
The systems and network levels of two key DAS social ecologies, which I refer to as the
de jure social networking ecology and the de facto social networking ecology, represent a
collection of social mechanisms and operation working at each level of an individual’s primary
social contexts in his or her network orientation toward social enfranchisement, privilege or
power. The systems and networks of each ecology function differently, yet together, have
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
31
managed to keep the cycle of widespread disenfranchisement at work in African American lower
and middle class communities (Ogbu, 1994).
De Jure Social Networking Ecology. Prior to the enactment of key civil rights
legislation and rulings largely occurring in the 1950s and 1960’s, the social configuration of
dominant American society operated primarily under a de jure networking ecology. That is, for
African-American and Whites, key DAS social systems and networks operated under legally
recognized, racialized norms, values, and attitudes that directly enfranchised or disenfranchised
what I refer to as an individual’s primary social capital—property notions of an individual’s
racial identity (Ladson-Billings, 1995) — that enfranchised physical and/or biological
“Whiteness” and disenfranchised physical and/or biological “Blackness” (Thomas &
Hughes,1986; Ogbu,1994; Allen & Chung, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2004). Within de jure
networking ecologies, an individual’s primary social capital was the principal basis for the
determination of whether an individual could access and use what I refer to as secondary social
capital, or social network capital, toward enfranchisement, power, and privilege in DAS
(Thomas & Hughes,1986; Ogbu,1994; Allen & Chung, 2000). Further down the line in history,
despite the enactment of key civil rights legislation and judicial rulings primarily in the 1950’s
and 1960’s, social mobility and enfranchisement remained challenging for African Americans
resulting in a de facto social networking ecology for many African Americans.
De Facto Social Networking Ecology. Although socially sanctioned discrimination was,
for all intents and purposes legally barred by the enactment of key civil rights legislation and
judicial rulings of the 1950’s and 1960’s, social inequalities have persisted in many of African
Americans key social systems and networks (Thomas & Hughes, 1986; Feagin; 1991; Ogbu,
1991; Allen & Chung, Ladson-Billing, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2004; Howard 2008). In
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
32
considering the perpetuation of de facto disenfranchisement since the removal of legalized social
barriers, its social trajectory must be traced back into the origins of the de jure networking
ecology. I contend that de facto disenfranchisement primarily continues because of the conscious
or unconscious use of secondary social capital, or social networking capital, as a proxy network
mechanism for primary social capital in the social reproduction of disenfranchisement within
DAS systems and networks.
Because of previous de jure barriers to enfranchisement, following the removal of those
barriers, African Americans’ access and use of DAS network capital still remained severely
limited in de jure ecologies, continuing the deficit of such capital within many of their own, non-
DAS systems and networks. This is because, after the enactment and eventual enforcement of
civil rights legislation, legally, race could no longer be treated as interchangeable with the notion
of enfranchisement. Lynn and Parker (2006) note that the overt racism of de jure ecologies
adapted into an “everyday racism” that could be “characterized as those mundane practices
infused with some degree of unconscious racial mal-intent [and/or] those institutional policies or
practices that are fair in form but have a disproportionately negative impact on racial minority
groups.” This meant that, although legally, DAS racialized norms and values concerning racial
identity and social operation had been removed, these norms, values and attitudes remained
explicitly and implicitly recognized by key social actors, including institutional agents, within
DAS social ecologies at all levels of operation (Lynn &Parker, 2006). For example, Ladson-
Billings (1997) cites the social affordances of “whiteness,” which represents “the ultimate
property” in dominant America. She contends that lack of access to whiteness, laid the
foundation for African-Americans’ exclusion from the social rights of American citizenship in
dominant society. Ladson-Billings (1997) references Harris’ (1993) argument for Whiteness as
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
33
social property, or capital, noting that whiteness grants an agency that includes “the rights of
disposition, rights to use and enjoyment, reputation and status property, and the right to exclude”
which make a fuller realization of the American dream “a more fuller and attainable reality.” As
will be more clearly demonstrated in the next section of this chapter, for African-Americans, the
challenge with the retention of these overtly and covertly racialized norms, values and attitudes
within de facto networking ecologies has primarily been in the collective and individual network
orientation toward enfranchisement, power and privilege though key mechanisms of social
networks and systems of DAS society.
I argue that this continues to occur because, although legalized racial barriers to
enfranchisement have been removed, secondary social capital, still remains in play as a key
component of network and systems operation within DAS networking ecologies. Consequently,
because in prior de jure networking ecologies, African-Americans were previously restricted
from access and use of DAS social network capital specifically on the basis of race, it was not
easily obtained or maintained within their own social networks and systems outside of DAS. To
access key forms of DAS network capital, then, often requires access via a DAS system or
network. However, within these systems and networks, access and use of network capital is
traditionally managed by an institutional agent (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). In this study, I adapt
Stanton-Salazar’s definition of institutional agents to better align with the present discourse of
social power. Here, an institutional agent is an individual or entity who acts on behalf of DAS
social systems or networks in managing key forms of capital necessary to navigate the social
pathways of DAS systems or networks toward enfranchisement, power or privilege within DAS.
An institutional agent’s management and distribution of DAS social network capital is primarily
undertaken in accordance with DAS norms, values and attitudes; for individuals seeking to
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
34
access such capital through institutional agents, this frequently requires that the individual
demonstrate conformity, acquiescence, or reflection of DAS norms and values before an agent
grants distribution or use of DAS network capital.
However, because governing norms, values, and attitudes within DAS de facto ecologies
descend from those of the DAS de jure ecologies wherein direct and indirect notions of
Blackness were disenfranchised and direct and indirect notions of Whiteness, enfranchised, the
present norms and values of DAS de facto ecologies often remain tainted by these notions of
race. The challenge for African-Americans, operating within offline de facto social networking
ecologies then becomes similar to that which was present in de jure ecologies: primary social
capital. The key difference, then, between the role of primary social capital in de jure and de
facto ecologies is merely the shift from the enfranchisement or disenfranchisement of physical
and/or biological identity to the enfranchisement or disenfranchisement of physical identity
and/or symbolic indicators or racial identity via an individual’s conformity to DAS, norms,
values, and attitudes. In this way, de jure networking ecology norms, values, and attitudes toward
race have bootstrapped themselves into the present networking ecology of DAS systems and
networks.
Limitations in Articulating the Shift between De Jure and De Facto Social Networking
Ecologies
Lynn and Parker (2006) note that “CRT has not been as effective in terms of ‘paying
attention’ to the interpersonal [emphasis added] ways that race is produced” and that newer
applications of CRT have begun the work of dealing with this issue. Similarly, I note that
missing from the discussion of this shift in networking ecology of African American
disenfranchisement is a clear articulation of how the discourse of disenfranchisement via race has
in many ways, transmuted, into the discourse of disenfranchisement via social network capital.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
35
Rather than articulating this shift CRT and multiculturalism, a parallel, but much broader branch
of research, make the case for identifying and eliminating racialized social constructs or practices
in DAS.
For instance within educational research, CRT and multiculturalist educational scholars
both advocate for elimination of instructional and social practices that result in disparate
academic and social outcomes for African-Americans and other disenfranchised populations.
Though the solutions yielded by multiculturalist research have not brought about the desired
changes in education, the literature produced in this area, particularly as explained and organized
by Bennett (2001) has provided important much-needed, conceptual articulations of the
challenges facing educators in urban education. The bulk of multiculturalist literature helps to
flesh out the sometimes-elusive concepts invoked by CRT concerning the overlaps between race
and other social factors such as class, gender, and sexual orientation. For the novice practitioner,
unexposed to realities of race in social and educational contexts, multiculturalism makes for a
useful primer (Ladson-Billings, 2004).
Consider for instance, Bennett’s (2001) work in organizing multiculturalist theory into
four fames of research and pedagogical focus; of the four frames detailed by Bennett both the
equity pedagogy and societal equity frames fit squarely within the principles of CRT theory.
Taken together, the equity pedagogy and societal equity (Bennett, 2001) frames of multicultural
research revolve around the idea that greater equity in school and other dominant system social
networks will result from a transformation of the school’s environment, instructional strategies,
practices and most importantly, the relationships between a school’s institutional agents and its
students (Bennett, 2001). Here, one of the central assumptions underlying these areas of
educational research and this study is the idea that both teachers’ and students’ roles at the
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
36
network level of de facto networking ecologies affect the social fruits of the relationships
between these groups, namely enfranchisement outcomes (Bennett, 2001).
The solutions offered across CRT and multicultural research findings often revolve
around the suggestion that school networks and their institutional agents to find ways of
addressing the “cultural mismatch” between students and school actors, as institutional agents
(Ladson-Billings, 1995 Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Bennett 2001; Howard 2001; Nasir & Hand,
2006) CRT and multiculturalism both address the need for the transformation of a “hidden
curriculum” in de facto networking ecologies which permeates school networks at every level,
“from teacher attitudes and expectations for students…instructional strategies, school
disciplinary policies and practices, school and community relations and classroom climates.”
(Bennett, 2001) This hidden curriculum is represented by a social gap between students and
institutional agents resulting in an inability to understand and account for “the cultural styles and
differences such as communication patterns, social values, learning styles, time and space
orientations, and discussion and participation modes” (Bennett, 2001).
While identifying the offshoots of discrimination, in and of itself is not problematic,
failure to trace and specify the racialized mechanisms of social disenfranchisement within DAS
systems and networks, allows the issue of race to be dissolved into the discourse of other
constructs such as gender, class, and cultural differences. And though these constructs are critical
to the equation of African-American disenfranchisement, they are not its principal cause. To
address this gap in the disenfranchisement discourse I turn to John Ogbu’s work in enumerating
the shifting relationships between the very complex variables of race, social history and
networking within the DAS social systems and networks at work in the African American
community. Ogbu’s work helps to illuminate the “experiential” (Lynn & Parker, 2006)
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
37
components of a CRT analysis of the racialized African-American social networking experience
in DAS.
Network Mechanisms of Disenfranchisement in the DAS De Facto Social Networking
Ecology
Ogbu’s key works (1994, 1998, 2004) on racial stratification, involuntary minorities and
cultural ecologies within DAS are particularly compelling as starting points for this study’s
interpretation of African American social disenfranchisement in relation to the discourse of de
facto social networking ecologies. Ogbu (1994), speaking of the de facto social conditions in
DAS, states, “A closer examination of the situation indicates […] that the changes within the
opportunity structure [of DAS] have not gone far enough or long enough to undo instrumental
barriers [emphasis added] let alone other untargeted barriers of racial stratification, and that
class has not replaced race as the chief determinant of the life chances of black Americans.”
Here, Ogbu acknowledges that the challenges to enfranchisement within the de facto ecology lie
in the social instrumentation or mechanisms of DAS systems and networks. This section focuses
on articulating how the social mechanisms of DAS systems and networks reproduce
disenfranchisement within African-American communities. However, before reviewing Ogbu’s
conceptualization of these relationships, it is important to acknowledge the controversy
generated by his work with respect to race, culture and social networking dynamics in DAS
ecologies.
Critique of Ogbu’s Theory of the Cultural Ecology of African American, Involuntary
Minorities
The brunt of critique for Ogbu’s body of research is directed toward his apparently
homogenous representation of African-Americans in DAS without proper acknowledgement of
the diversity of social representations, circumstances, and outcomes within various sub-strata of
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
38
the population (Foster, 2004; Foley, 2005). However, Ogbu & Simons’ (1998) article on the
cultural ecology of involuntary minorities carefully specifies Ogbu’s intention of introducing his
framework as a spectrum of representation, meant to capture the key characteristics at work, in
one category of sub-stratum in the African American population at large. In reviewing research
Ogbu’s work, I agree with Ogbu’s assertion of these intentions, and view his body of work as
separate parts of an evolving conversation of racialized social disenfranchisement within DAS.
Where this study is concerned, Ogbu’s body of work (1986, 1994, 1998, 2004) does a masterful
job of elucidating the relationships between verified socio-cultural features of the lower and
middle class African American community and the history of race in DAS.
To be clear, I do not contend that Ogbu’s theory of cultural ecology and social response
represents all of the nuance and variety of African Americans’ present social condition nor do I
view his work as entirely free of flawed, and sometimes-overgeneralized, analysis. What is clear,
though, is that his work concerning cultural ecology, involuntary minorities, community and
systemic forces and oppositional identity, particularly when paired with Stanton-Salazar’s (1997)
notions of social capital and networking, reflect salient features of the de facto social networking
ecology paradigm which remain lightly considered in the CRT discourse of African American
disenfranchisement.
Racial Stratification and Social Network Capital within De Facto Networking Ecology
The de facto networking ecology fits squarely within Ogbu’s notion of a racially
stratified DAS. According to Ogbu (1994) a society is stratified “when and only when its
individual members from different social groups are ranked on the basis of their membership in
specific social groups […] Social stratification, then, is an arrangement of social groups in a
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
39
hierarchical order of subordination and domination in which some groups so organized have
unequal access to the fundamental resources of society [emphasis added].”
Ogbu & Simons (1998), explain that when this occurs within a society, this produces
involuntary minority status for African Americans who often occupy a subordinate power
position in relation to other, dominant populations within society. Ogbu and Simons (1998)
specify that it is not merely the idea of race itself that creates this status for African-Americans,
but rather the social implications tied to the history of African-Americans’ race in DAS.
Therefore, although numerically, African-Americans may factually be a majority, they fall into
involuntary minority status because (1) they have forcibly been made a part of the dominant
society and (2) members within this population subjectively believe that their presence within the
dominant society has been forced upon them (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Given the previously
outlined history of de jure and de facto social networking ecologies for African-Americans
(Ladson-Billings (1997), involuntary minority status is an appropriate designation for members
of the African American demographic, particularly with respect to low and middle
socioeconomic African Americans (Thomas & Hughes,1986; Ogbu,1994; Allen & Chung, 2000)
In line with this understanding, one aim of CRT educational research, is to identify core facets of
the DAS systems and networks that have been historically influenced directly or indirectly by
race and work to the benefit or detriment of African-American students’ learning and
instructional experiences ( Ladson-Billings, 2004). Ogbu and Simons’ (1998) articulation of the
bifurcated cultural ecology of involuntary minorities offers one explanation for how social
subordination within DAS is reflected and reproduced at (1) the systems and network level and
the (2) individual and collective response level. According to Ogbu and Simons, “ Ecology is the
‘setting,’ ‘environment,’ or the ‘world’ of people [here, DAS social systems and networks] and
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
40
‘culture’ broadly refers to the way people see their world and behave in it.”
Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) cultural models and networks analysis of minority
achievement informs Ogbu and Simon’s (1998) work on the cultural ecology of the social
operation and formation of social response for African American students. Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001) contend that socio-cultural factors are organized into features of individuals’
cultural networks and models. Cultural models represent the way an individual acquires a set of
knowledge, skills and tools needed to navigate various social contexts. Cultural networks
represent a range of social contexts in which the individual regularly operates, precipitating the
individual’s creation of cultural models that serve as basis for determining cultural norms and
anticipating situational outcomes in various socio-structural ecologies. The term socio-structural
ecology refers to a subsystem of individual-environment interactions and outcomes governed by
specific relationships, values, and norms. Here, African American’s social networking ecologies
are part of a greater network of dominant American socio-structural ecologies; together, they
collectively function to support the overarching context of the dominant American society.
Within these ecologies, are the cultural networks and history of social discrimination, that
contextualize cultural response to models of enfranchisement, privilege and power in DAS
(Ogbu, 1994; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Ogbu 2004).
The discussion of the “cultural” or response level of de facto networking ecologies will
be reviewed in the next section of the chapter. However, in reviewing the roles of DAS systems
and networks in the reproduction of disenfranchisement, I now introduce Ricardo Stanton-
Salazar’s work (1997) on social capital and networking theory to inform this component of
discourse.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
41
Network Mechanisms of DAS De Facto Networking Ecologies
Recall CRT’s contention that DAS systems and networks such as those in schools,
creates a negatively skewed social distribution of possibilities for students that directly results
from the hidden curriculum (Giroux, 2001; Jay, 2003) of norms, values, and attitudes at work in
key facets of the DAS system and its networks, from instruction to social operation. This hidden
curriculum serves as the primary means of the social reproduction of dominant American norms
and values by representing the “conscious and unconscious socialization of students through the
‘norms values and beliefs systems embedded in the curriculum, the school and classroom life,
imparted to students through daily routines, curricular content, and social relationships” (Jay,
2003).
Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) work on social capital informs CRT’s contention of the social
significance of the hidden curriculum, showing that this curriculum is dictated by any number
and/or level of school actors, or “institutional agents,”(Stanton-Salazar, 1997), who manage
access and distribution of the social capital required for African American students to
successfully navigate the social landscape in school networks. The research on African
Americans’ access and use of key forms of social capital indicates that the dominant system
norms and values on which this curriculum is managed, has historically worked against favorable
social outcomes for these students (Jay, 2003; Horvat, Weiniger & Laureau, 2003 Ogbu, 2004).
One key reason for African-American students’ inability to master this hidden curriculum to
their social benefit, is that they have lacked access to and use to key forms of social capital
within schools allowing for social development consistent with dominant system norms and
values (Horvat, et al., 2003).
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
42
Stanton-Salazar (1997) explains that the cumulative effect of community forces, identity,
cultural networks and cultural meanings produces networks through which students receive
social capital. Here, it is important to clarify that this study categorizes definition of Stanton-
Salazar’s (1997) social capital as secondary social capital, or, social network capital.
Essentially, social capital is what each person uses as they navigate different networks of society
to realize the notion of enfranchisement which can include personal goals, motivation, social
privilege, power, and increased opportunities for social and economic mobility (Stanton-
Salazar,1997; Lin, 2000). In this sense, the systems and networks of students networking
ecologies represent both the pathway and vehicle to enfranchisement opportunities, especially
where the system’s institutional agents work to produce “strategic […] experiences”(Stanton-
Salazar, 1997) that produce social capital conducive to enfranchisement (Stanton-Salazar, 1997;
Lin, 2000 Horvat, Weiniger & Laureau, 2003). In this case, the African-American iGeneration’s
social models of network access to social capital have evolved as they infer basic principles of
social operation based on their exposure to consistent patterns of situational conduct and
outcomes within the context of their de facto social networking ecology (Gallimore &
Goldenberg, 2001).
Lareau and McNamara-Horvat (1999) argue that race operates independently in shaping
important social transactions and relationships in DAS systems and networks. For example, the
researchers found that, as CRT alleges, school networks reflect the norms and values of
dominant American society by incorporating expressed privilege that favors whiteness. To
reiterate both CRT and multiculturalist viewpoints on whiteness and privilege in dominant
system networks, though whiteness is often associated with race, in this case, it is also reflects
higher levels of power and privilege associated with greater conformity to dominant system
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
43
norms, values and attitudes concerning achievement and enfranchisement (Ladson-Billings,
2004; Lynn &Parker, 2006). In this way, the issue of primary social capital, resurfaces where
African American students cannot reflect or reproduce racialized DAS norms, values and
attitudes to access secondary social capital at the network level of their social ecologies.
According to Stanton-Salazar (1997), the relevance of social network capital functions as
a component of “cosmopolitan networks constructed…toward maximizing individual (and
group) access to the mainstream [society]” where social capital’s role is these networks is to
provide varying levels of “social support transmitted through social ties.” Within these networks,
the cumulative effect of African American students’ identity, community and system forces
within primary social contexts, and resulting cultural models produces a social framework
through which students reach their respective ideals of social power and privilege (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997). To navigate their social networks toward these ideals, students must access and
use social capital with one or more social actors in a setting through a series of diverse social
relationships (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Horvat et. al, 2003). Although the definition and function
of social capital in dominant American social networks has “been plagued by conceptual
murkiness”(Horvat et.al., 2003), researchers contend that its major effect in DAS systems and
networks is to confer social advantage in a network setting to students with access and use of
social network capital (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Horvat, et.al, 2003).
Examining the School Network Mechanisms in the De Facto Networking Ecologies of the
African American iGeneration
For students belonging to the iGeneration, their history of outsider status and lack of
access to social capital often creates unfavorable and imbalanced social ties with school’s
institutional agents which more often than not perpetuates the cycle of their role as social
outsiders in schools and in other DAS systems and networks (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; McNamara
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
44
and Horvat; 1999, Lin, 2000). This is because keys forms of social capital function as critical
components of key structural features (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) in students’ offline social
networks (Rosen, 2010). In this study, a structural feature is a social mechanism that allows
individuals to navigate the complexities of a social network within a given setting. Stanton-
Salazar (1997) contends that a “fundamental dimension of social inequality” is rooted in an
individual’s access, or lack thereof, to the structural features that are critical to a social network’s
operation.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) relates the access of structural features in social networks to the
concept of social capital. Again, the definition of social network capital in this study derives, in
part, from his analysis of social capital as: specific properties that govern the key structural
features in social networks used by individuals in social transactions to lead them toward
achieving their ideals of social outcomes, power and privilege within one or more cultural
networks and/or ecologies. These properties can be both “material and immaterial resources” that
“profitably connect” students within the network (Horvat et.al, 2003). To explain the complexity
of this relationship Stanton-Salazar makes the following analogy:
“The structural features of . . . networks are analogous to social freeways that allow people
to move about the complex mainstream landscape quickly and efficiently. Following this
metaphor a fundamental dimension of inequality in society is that some are able to use
these freeways, while others are not.”
Stanton-Salazar (1997) goes on to make the case that an individual’s ability to use these
social freeways requires access to a “major vehicle” within the network or system; such a vehicle
is one that he considers “strategic, empowering and network enhancing.” In African American
iGeneration communities, students’ school networks remain important social networks and
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
45
primary conduits of social capital (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Ogbu and Simon’s (1998) research
points to community forces in involuntary minority African Americans students’ communities as
one cause for school networks’ predominant role in their access to social capital. In the absence
of other “major vehicles” in their networks, students must therefore operate within the confines
of school networks’ vehicle of social transport.
From this standpoint, it is important to understand how school networks, as a vehicle of
social transport, operate along a hidden curriculum of DAS norms and values that work to
develop students along several pathways of social development: cognitive, self-regulatory,
valuational, social, affective and operational (Bandura, 2002). Institutional agents manage these
aims of DAS social development through social ties with students that allow for access and use
of various forms of social capital (Stanton-Salazar,1997; Stanto-Salazar &Spina, 2000; Horvat
et.al, 2003) As discussed earlier, the challenge that African American students face in
attempting to socially operate in school networks is that to use school as vehicles of social
transport, they often lack the primary capital needed to move their vehicles through key social
ties with institutional agents and other school actors. This dilemma winds up being double edged
for African-American students because of both perceived and actual barriers to social capital
posed by institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 1997), system and community forces influenced
by racialized DAS norms, values, and attitudes (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Moreover, based on
their networking models within their respective ecologies, African American students recognize
the effect of their racialized social identity in their ability to gain social capital, which creates the
need for students to identify other contexts providing social capital for social development and
mobility.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
46
The research presented thus far on history of African American’s history of social
disenfranchisement allows for the conclusion that on some level, students belonging to the
present African-American iGeneration, who operate in both offline de facto social networking
ecology and online networking likely believe that DAS social systems and networks, such as
educational systems and school networks, are set up to configure power toward outcomes that
work against the allocation of power, resources, and social network capital to them and/or their
communities (Franquiz & Salazar, 2004; Ogbu, 2004; Carter, 2005). The consequence, is that
both perception-wise and in reality, students have comparatively little-to-no social
enfranchisement, power, or privilege in the social processes of their networking ecologies which
result in the decisions that wield a high degree of influence on their social outcomes within DAS
systems and networks
(Nieto, 1994; Kao & Tienda, 1998; Carter, 2005). The next section of this chapter explores the
both the collective and individual cultural responses to the subjective and actual realization of
disenfranchisement within offline DAS de facto networking ecologies.
African American Response to Race and Social Network Capital in DAS Networking
Ecologies
Ogbu (1994) argues that disenfranchisement from social network capital as a function of
racial stratification within DAS social networking ecologies is often mistaken for
disenfranchisement from network capital as a function of class stratification. However, as Ogbu
distinguishes, the racialized social strata of DAS are in fact subdivided into class; furthermore,
Ogbu contends that the debate over the social origins of disenfranchisement as the function of
race or class is often confused because the subdivisions of class within each social stratum can
follow parallel, but not necessarily equal, pathways to the class sub-strata of other groups within
DAS. He notes, “Black Americans, like white Americans, are stratified by class but their social
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
47
classes are not equal in development and they are qualitatively different.” In other words, though
it appears as though class, not race, is the governing factor within African American networking
ecologies, for the group of African Americans who subjectively identify (or, in some cases are
objectively identified) with the characteristics outlined in Ogbu’s description of involuntary
minority, this is not the case.
Ogbu theorizes that the key social differences within the African-American stratum of DAS
are reflected in an individual’s cultural ecology of social operation and response to his or
perception of status problems therein (Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Ogbu, 2004). Status problems are
“the external forces that mark a group of people as a distinct segment from the rest of the
population” (Ogbu, 2004) and include the following:
1) Involuntary incorporation into society: involuntary social subordination by conquest,
colonization, enslavement or arbitrary subjection to disenfranchised status
2) Instrumental discrimination: denial of access to key features and resources of core social
networks.
3) Social subordination: required social affiliation or assimilation to dominant group norms
and values
4) Expressive mistreatment: cultural, language, and intellectual denigration
Though Ogbu’s broadly applies his categorization of status problems across the general
demographic of African Americans, in the DAS de facto networking ecology, his
conceptualization is better suited two a two-pronged analysis of African-American cultural
response to status problems within DAS. In failing to examine both the collective (objective)
and individual (subjective) nature of Ogbu’s conceptualization of cultural response, his theory
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
48
easily becomes overgeneralized in failing to separately distinguish these two key elements in
African Americans’ social responses to disenfranchisement.
Collective Response to Disenfranchisement
Ogbu (1994) contends that, “The reasons for the unequal social classes are that the
origins of classes maybe different and that members of the racial groups do not have equal access
to societal resources that enhance class development.” In conceptualizing Ogbu’s argument, it is
important to begin with the understanding of African Americans’ collective cultural response to
disenfranchisement as primarily arising out of original de jure notions of racially stratified
disenfranchisement. That is, in DAS de jure networking ecologies, African Americans were
unilaterally disenfranchised as a function of race. Whereas for other racial groups, the presence
of other social features, particularly those of gender or class, affected an individual’s networking
ecology of enfranchisement. For example, in the case of Whites, social enfranchisement could be
strengthened or weakened by gender or class. That is, White, wealthy, males were generally
regarded as having greater levels of enfranchisement within DAS systems and networks than
poorer White males, or White females. For African Americans this was not the case; the
supplementary social features of individual identity, gender, class, were all collapsed into a
collective racial identity. Therefore, notions of enfranchisement associated with their
“blackness” could generally only be weakened by the intersectionality of other social identity
features, i.e. gender or class, depending on the social context. Even, upper class indicators of
social identity were often not enough to overcome race in an individual’s enfranchisement status
of DAS systems and networks. Thus, African-Americans operating within de jure networking
ecologies of DAS, shared in a collectively disenfranchised social ecology. However, as de facto
networking ecologies replaced de jure networking ecologies, enfranchisement became conflated
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
49
with class features of social identity as represented by secondary social capital, social network
capital.
While access to DAS network capital was still primarily regulated by racialized DAS
norms, values and attitudes, those individuals who were able to access it became eligible to
transcend the symbolic boundaries and actual boundaries of collective disenfranchisement status
within their networking ecologies (Ogbu, 1994). As these avenues for individual or small scale
transcendence of collective disenfranchisement became available through the removal of
legalized social barriers, it created new interpretations of social networking within DAS that in
many ways has reframed the discourse of African American disenfranchisement. Into the
discussion entered notions of new modes of social response available to African Americans stuck
in a networking ecology of disenfranchisement. These new interpretations—those such as
“cultural flexibility” (Carter, 2010), “ cultural assimilation” (Tatum, 1999), “achievement-as-
resistance”(Carter, 2008) or “accommodation without assimilation”(Ogbu, 2004)—have added to
the ways in which to understand, discuss, and theorize the complex nature of individual response
within networks and systems contextualized by a history of collectively disenfranchised identity.
Although the new introduction of these points of discourse in African American
enfranchisement in DAS, has added greater detail to the complex dynamics of between African
American and facets of DAS so, too, have they complicated points of debate among researchers,
particularly those regarding how an individual’s personal or social features, like socioeconomic
status and/or self-determination, represent the end of the principality of race in DAS
enfranchisement outcomes. I suspect that depending on the given interpretation of this shift in
ecologies, this is where Ogbu’s analysis of African American students’ social responses and
outcomes faces much of its criticism. However, Giroux’s (2001) comments on the complex
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
50
dynamics of subordination weigh in significantly on this issue-- “The crucial issue is […] to
acknowledge the contradictions in […] culture and learn how to discard the elements that are
repressive, while simultaneously reappropriating those features that are progressive and
enlightening.
In agreement with Giroux, along with CRT’s views concerning the social reproduction of
African-American disenfranchisement, this study’s position aligns with Ogbu’s contention that
race continues to remain the principal factor driving enfranchisement opportunity in DAS
networking ecologies.
Individual Response to Disenfranchisement
Moving from the first prong of analysis, collective response, to the second prong of
analysis, the individual or subjective response to African American’s objectively imposed history
of collective disenfranchisement, the study now examines one category of social individual
response. While there are many categories of social response identified within the literature [i.e.
“cultural flexibility” (Carter, 2010), “ cultural assimilation” (Tatum, 1999), “achievement-as-
resistance”(Carter, 2008) or “accommodation without assimilation”(Ogbu, 2004)], I focus on
development of oppositional identity as a social response particularly relevant to this study’s
focus on the appeal of enfranchisement opportunity for involuntary minority African Americans
in online social networking ecologies. Here again, it is important to acknowledge the controversy
generated in by Ogbu’s research on oppositional identity in its delineation of the identity’s
feature of social expression as response to the system and community forces at work in African
American’s cultural ecologies.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
51
Critique of Ogbu’s work on oppositional identity. Ogbu’s work on oppositional
identity has garnered much critique with regard to its interpretation as supporting the branch of
“deficit -thinking” research that adds fuel to the fire of disempowering discourses of “culture of
poverty” and social helplessness in assessing African-Americans’ role in DAS networking
ecologies (Foster, 2004; Foley, 2006). However, here, the value of Ogbu’s work lies in capturing
a legitimate category of individual perceptions and social response generated by African
American frustration with the involuntariness of a social identity imposed by a factually
confirmed, longstanding racialized social history. Within the context of this history, there are a
category of African Americans (Noguera, 2003; Ladson–Billings, 2004, Carter, 2005; Howard
2008) who fit Ogbu’s view of involuntary minorities and often recognize their difficulty and that
of their predecessors in the access and use of tools necessary to favorably influence the systems
of social networks in which they must eke out the means for social well-being. Although critics
may skewer Ogbu’s work for seemingly painting all middle and lower class African Americans
with the same broad stroke of “pathological self-defeating cultural practice” (Foley, 2006) it is a
mistake to dismiss the truth and relevance in Ogbu’s observations in a critical examination of
African-American social enfranchisement, for the sake of these flaws.
Ogbu’s work on both involuntary minorities and oppositional identity, is useful in
identifying a set of social markers commonly present in a particularly disenfranchised subset of
the African-American collective. His work on oppositional identity helps to flesh out an
otherwise scant body of detailed research available for understanding and drawing clear
connections in the ecology of racialized social origins, community forces, and social markers at
work in one category of African Americans’ response to social disenfranchisement on several
levels. To be clear, Ogbu’s work in the context of this study, does not represent the experience of
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
52
all African American, iGeneration students. However, it does represent one starting point, albeit
an important one, in the spectrum of discourse on the representations of oppositional identity and
the significance of this identity in relation to students’ systems and networks in their social
networking ecologies.
While Ogbu’s work on involuntary minorities and oppositional identity does not reflect
the experiences or perceptions of every African American, it is undeniable that his work
represents a significant subset of the greater African-American collective’s social experiences,
and therefore, for the purposes of the study, has merited elevated consideration in the theoretical
development and understanding of the study’s purpose, design and presentation of data.
Furthermore, rather than considering Ogbu’s work as another notch in the belt culture-of-poverty
theorists who view African American students as unable to overcome historical and systemic
forces of social disenfranchisement, I contend that by frankly addressing African American
students notions of power and enfranchisement in offline social networks, his work serves as a
key segue into the next section’s discussion of an emerging discourse on the transformative
potential for African Americans students in reclaiming enfranchisement in online social
networks.
For this study, I take a different approach to Ogbu’s work, especially because online
social networks’ potential for social transformation and enfranchisement has yet to fully
manifest. I view Ogbu’s work (1986, 1994, 1998, 2004) as frank, cautionary concerns about the
dynamic between systemic and individual responsibility in transforming African-American
students’ social enfranchisement in school networks and other key DAS contexts. These
concerns are legitimate points of reflection for students, educators and vested stakeholders to
seriously consider in transformational efforts. In light of students growing social freedoms
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
53
online, I echo Ogbu’s (2004) concerns about maximizing the social outcomes for African-
American students through a candid assessment of the dynamic between the system, networks,
and individual.
Oppositional identity as a social response to collective status problems in DAS de
facto networking ecologies. Recall that Ogbu and Simon’s (1998) theory of cultural ecology
argues that systemic and community forces at the network level operate within an involuntary
minority’s social networking ecology to reproduce disenfranchisement within DAS systems and
networks. Ogbu explains from the individual’s perspective this disenfranchisement is represented
by status problems (2004). Obgu (2004) refers to the concept of collective identity wherein he
argues that involuntary minority, African Americans maintain a collective identity of social
disenfranchisement as a result of both status problems and response to status problems. Status
problems are “the external forces that mark a group of people as a distinct segment from the rest
of the population” and include the following:
1. Involuntary incorporation into society: involuntary social subordination by conquest,
colonization, enslavement or arbitrary subjection to disenfranchised status
2. Instrumental discrimination: denial of access to key features and resources of core social
networks.
3. Social subordination: required social affiliation or assimilation to dominant group norms
and values
4. Expressive mistreatment: cultural, language, and intellectual denigration
Ogbu (1994) maintains that subordinate groups experiencing status problems “do not
necessarily accept the rationalizations of the system, but neither are they free from its influence.”
In other words, African American youth recognize the need to operate within DAS systems and
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
54
networks and schools as a means to social enfranchisement. However, attempts to attain
enfranchisement through network orientation with the institutional networks or relational ties
within school and other DAS networks, frequently results in an inability to successfully access
and or use the social network capital necessary to do so. Following this, involuntary minorities
frequently internalize these status problems, as a function of his or her collective and/or
individual racialized social identity within the networking ecology. In turn this internalization
can promote a category of social response from the individual of collectively or individually
dissociating with DAS norms, values, and attitudes in his or her network orientation of DAS
systems and networks. Ogbu refers to this as oppositional identity (1986).
In applying Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) models and networks analysis to Ogbu’s
theory of individual response to status problems within the cultural ecology, this study considers
the constraining effect of the de facto “ecological niche [where students] reside” on the
relationship between students’ cultural networks and models. These models affect a sense of
“what is possible” in a given setting (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Students whose sense of
“what’s possible” is a limited “social distribution of possibilities” (Stanton-Salazar, 1997), likely
results from frustration at recognizing social limitations of acquiring sufficient social capital to
attain power or privilege in school and other DAS networks (Ogbu,1994; Noguera, 2003; Ogbu;
2004). Given this, it is likely for them to find networks or networks offering a suitable alternative
framework for acquiring social capital and facilitating enfranchisement, power, and/or privelege
(Carter, 2005).
Students’ predominant schemas of racialized social mechanism within DAS networks
and systems, can also stem from and interact with a set of community forces that primarily
influence their immediate network models and responses (Ogbu & Simons, 1998). Although
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
55
Ogbu & Simons (1998) frame their discussion of community forces in the context of schooling, I
will adapt the discussion to students’ responses to their social networking ecologies within DAS.
The four types of community forces are as follows: (1) comparison of enfranchisement
opportunity in their networking ecologies to that with of enfranchisement opportunities in
“white” networking ecologies (2) beliefs concerning the value of networking ecologies in
relation to their own enfranchisement, power, or privilege goals (3) relational interpretations of
their networking ecology and (4) symbolic interpretations of their networking ecology (Ogbu &
Simons, 1998).
Relational beliefs are caused by the experiences and observations that shape students’
subjective models of networking and enfranchisement. The observations and experiences of
involuntary minorities lead them to believe that their social networking ecologies do not support
their enfranchisement, power or privilege via network pathways governed by racialized DAS
norms values and attitudes. Symbolic beliefs about social networking within DAS can cause
students to believe that their enfranchisement, power, and privilege, in DAS networks and
systems hinges on the invalidation of their racialized social identity which therefore can either
cause or intensify students’ resistance to the subordination of their cultural identity through the
conscious or subconscious creation of oppositional identity (Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Lundy,
2003; Ogbu, 2004; Carter, 2005).
The notion of oppositional identity remains a broadly discussed and hotly contested
category of social response within the literature. In light of this, I create a modified definition of
oppositional identity based primarily on Obgu’s (1994; 1998; 2004) work on oppositional
identity and modified by concepts in Lundy (2003) and Fisher’s (2005) work. Here, oppositional
identity refers to a category of social response wherein an individual’s leveraging, reluctance, or
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
56
refusal to cooperate with or conform to DAS norms, values, or attitudes is used as a means of
transforming network mechanisms necessary to access and/or use of social network capital for
enfranchisement at the network or systems levels of DAS de facto networking ecologies.
Using school networks to examine oppositional identity as a social response to
disenfranchisement. The following features are represented as common responses to African
social disenfranchisement in school networks
3
: (1) reciprocal relationship between oppositional
culture and cultural mistrust of schools and its institutional agents (Ogbu, 2004; Irving &
Hundley, 2005) (2) real or perceived limitations to key forms of social network capital regulated
by institutional agents in school networks because of race (Irving & Hundley, 2005) (3)
alienation, indifference, resistance, strategic assimilation as alternative forms of power and
decision-making (Lundy, 2003; Ogbu, 2004; Carter, 2005). This collection of features in African
American students’ social disenfranchisement functions as a part of an oppositional response to
students’ social disconnect from school networks. The reason for the appearance of these specific
responses results from the external and internal features involuntary minority de facto
networking ecology (Noguera, 2003; Carter, 2005). Recall that the external influences, in school
networks primarily includes a “hidden curriculum” (Jay, 2003) that is affected by their
relationships with institutional agents and relational ties who manage social network capital;
school networks, then, as social structures of dominant American society, are viewed as being in
the category of dominant system social structures that function under the same patterns of
racially charged social enterprise and mobility (Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Ogbu, 2004; Carter
2005).
3
This list of factors is not meant to reflect upon the academic identity of every African American
student; instead, this list should be viewed as a research based compilation of characteristics that
are more likely to occur in African American students reflecting features of involuntary
minorities.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
57
The dynamic between these types of external sources and internal sources, such as
students’ schematic models of social development in schools, and external sources such create
facets of the oppositional identity as response to social features of within a network (Gallimore
& Goldenberg, 2001; Youngreen, Conlon, Robinson, & Lovaglia, 2009). Essentially,
oppositional identities function as one response to students’ sense that their social distribution of
possibilities and achievement in school and other social networks is reduced or unlikely to result
in DAS standards of enfranchisement, power , and privilege (Ogbu, 1994, Noguera, 2003;
Ogbu,2004).
Constructing an Enfranchisement Ecology in Online Social Networks
Ogbu’s articulation of status problems arguably equates to the categorical definitions of
African American historical and contemporary social disenfranchisement within dominant
American society. In turn, faced with these categories of social disenfranchisement, Ogbu posits
that involuntary minorities respond both collectively and individually in ways that reinforce their
separate existence and collective identity with the contexts of dominant American social
networks—“that is, their very attempts to solve their status problem lead them to develop a new
sense of who they are, that is in opposition to their understanding of who the dominant group
members are.” Ogbu’s notion of oppositional identity as a social response to status problems
akin to social disenfranchisement within DAS, serves as an entry point of understanding the
collective and individual allure of social enfranchisement offered by online social networks in
the African American iGeneration’s access and use of social capital. This literature reviewed in
this section examines how and why the network mechanisms of social networking ecologies
allow the African American iGeneration to construct their own enfranchisement, power, and
privilege in online networking ecologies at all four levels of ecological contexts: global, systems,
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
58
networks and response.
Global Context of Enfranchisement in Online Social Networking Ecologies
Until the relatively recent emergence of online social networks as key networks within
African American iGeneration’s cultural ecologies, students’ oppositional responses, as a form
of dissatisfaction, protest or transformation due to their disenfranchisement within de facto DAS
networking ecologies, remained limited by an inability to access key forms of social networking
capital within DAS systems and networks. Now, because the social features of online social
networks allow the African American iGeneration to circumvent the governing DAS norm,
values and attitudes required for access to social network capital in de facto networking
ecologies, students’ ability to autonomously access and use social network capital to achieve
enfranchisement, power, and privilege in online social networks creates a form of online
enfranchisement that rises to level of transformational resistance in their offline ecologies.
The social emergence of the African American iGeneration. According Rosen (2011)
the iGeneration is largely comprised of teens who are socially integrated into one or more online
social networks, through the use of cell phones, PDA’s, laptops and other online technology and
have gained virtually unlimited access to a digital citizenship. This digital citizenship, or
“netizenship” (Deuze, 2006) allows the iGeneration to access and use key forms of social
network capital (Facer, 2011), such as space, voice and information, in ways that develop their
enfranchisement in the networking ecology of online social networks. (Boyd, 2008; Ito,
Davidson, Jenkins, Lee, Eisberg &Weiss, 2008; Facer, 2011; Smith 2013).
Primary social capital in the iGeneration’s online social networking ecologies. Unlike
in de jure and de facto ecologies, in the present ecology of online social networks, the issue of
primary social capital is not a major limitation to students’ ability to access or socially operate
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
59
within online social networks and systems. However, to be clear, I am not saying that race and
racism are not features of these networks. In fact, one predominate theme in current research on
the social features of online spaces concerns the relevance of race in online networks. Research
in this area includes findings supporting the persistence of racial discrimination, ethnocentric and
racist viewpoints, and racialized social constructs within the networks of these networks. (Tynes,
Reynolds & Greenfield, 2004; Nakamura, 2006; Daniels, 2008; Byrne, 2008; Brock, 2009;
Tynes & Markoe, 2010). To be clear, I am not disputing that these are social realities in these
networks nor am I adopting a “color-blind” (Tynes & Markoe, 2010) approach that suggests the
irrelevance of race in these networks; in fact, from my own experiences online and in reviewing
the relevant research for this study, I agree that racism and ethnocentricity are very real and
salient facets of social interactions in online networks. However, race is not a limitation to
students’ general use and access of secondary social network capital in online social networks in
the same way that it has been in DAS de jure and de facto networking ecologies.
Students’ relatively uninhibited access and use of the forms of social capital discussed in the
next section might be influenced by race, but actual access and use, in and of themselves, are the
basis of students’ online social enfranchisement. Furthermore, according to Rideout, Foehr, and
Roberts (2010), earlier concerns regarding the digital divide
4
existing between African-American
and White consumers of computer and internet-based resources seems to have all but
disappeared; for African-Americans in the age range of 8-18 years old, 92% of them have access
to a computer, 74% of them have access to internet, and 52% have access to high speed internet.
Furthermore, of this demographic, 66% go online from various locations, including from their
homes and from their schools, at least once a day. For involuntary minority, African American
4
The digital divide refers to the disparity between Whites and African Americans’ computer literacy and
technological access (Everett, 2008)
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
60
members of the iGeneration, this online social networking ecology of access and use of social
network capital, coupled with the ability to use such capital to self-direct network orientation
toward enfranchisement, has transformational implications for African-American students’
offline de facto networking ecologies, especially in terms of direct network relationships with
institutional agents and other relational ties who have traditionally regulated access to social
network capital in DAS de facto ecologies (Mizuko et. al, 2008).
Gaps in the African American iGeneration enfranchisement discourse. Much of the
present research on the iGeneration’s social media and technology usage focuses on a general
youth demographic and the implications of their social participation through the access and use
of social capital in online social networks; yet, there is little research that specifically explores
the parameters of this development, for African-American youth, especially given their
racialized history of as members of a socially disenfranchised collective (Everett, 2008).
Admittedly, research regarding African-American students’ participation in social media, is a
relatively recent niche of study because only within the past two to three years have African-
Americans had higher rates of access to and engagement in cyber culture and social media
resulting from newer, less-expensive and rapidly-expanding online technology now widely
accessible in homes and/or schools (Lenhart, Purcell & Zickuhr, 2010; Kaiser Family
Foundation, 2010). The formulation of this study’s core research questions is therefore based in
part on the connection between African-American students’ limited access to social capital in
offline DAS defacto networking ecologies resulting from a history of racialized social identities
(Nieto, 1994; Ladson-Billings & Tate; 1995 Howard, 2001; Howard, 2003;) and African-
American teenagers’ recent social membership in the iGeneration (Tynes, Reynolds &
Greenfield, 2004; boyd, 2008) and its dramatic transformation of their social networking
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
61
pathways to enfranchisement, power, and privilege within online and offline networking
ecologies.
As members of the iGeneration, African-American students gain the advantages of
“netizenship” (Deuze, 2006) which allow for a more-self determined approach to managing and
accessing social network capital in directing their network orientation to enfranchisement, power
and privilege. Buckingham (2008) and Ito, et al. (2008) note that, in general, for youth who
increasingly access social participation through online mediums, the significance of this trend is
that it forces institutional agents and other DAS actors to consider the “emerging power shift” in
favor of a population that that has been “historically subject to a high degree of systematic and
institutional control in the kinds of information and social communication to which they have
access.”(Ito et al., 2008)
Current research on the iGeneration’s (Ito et al.,2008; Buckingham, 2008; Facer, 2011)
online social membership primarily focuses on youth in general’s social engagement in digital
media and the social implications given the degree of control social control exercised by adult
authority in offline networks. Yet, these findings should be considered even more applicable to
involuntary minority, African American students who might be plurally disenfranchised because
of confluent social factors, such as socioeconomic status, gender, and age, which are
contextualized in dominant American social networks by a negative history of students’ race
(Hancock, 2005).
As with the general population of youth in Ito et. al (2008) and Buckingham’s (2008)
explication of the enfranchising nature of online networks, the argument here is that outside of
the context of race and primary social capital, African American students’ increased control over
their own social development by autonomously accessing social network capital, alters their
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
62
relationships to institutional agents and other relational ties in offline de facto networking
ecologies, who have traditionally regulated students’ access to social network capital; this new
implication compels further exploration and understanding of how students access and use of
social network capital for enfranchisement, power, and privilege in these online networks
potentially transform existing relations of power between them and network and systems of DAS
social networking ecologies that historically have turned on the issue of race.
Network Mechanisms of Enfranchisement in Online Social Networking Ecologies
Weber and Mitchell (2008) explain that adolescent social development of youth in the
iGeneration, is facilitated by the new technologies in online social culture and frequently serve as
a model for social processes that contextualize the “experiencing of life, a questioning or
yearning for…some unknown future, the need to situate oneself… to take one’s place in society,
the ambivalent wish to belong and not belong, to be the same yet standout.” Now, because of the
proliferation of online social networks as primary social contexts (Rosen, 2010), iGeneration,
African-American students have increased access to social capital available through these new
technologies in online networks that lies beyond the control of institutional agents in offline
networks.
Forms of online social network capital. Rosen (2010) notes that the new “social landscape”
of online social networks is “really just a combination of content and social action.” According
to him, each part of the social landscape within social networks is “made up of whatever tools
are available at the moment.” Rosen’s description fits that of Stanton-Salazar’s (1997)
description of social network capital as “specific properties” that facilitate the navigation of a
given social network. Here, the primary categories of “tools” or social capital offered as part of
the social landscape in online networks include: space, voice, and information. This study
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
63
examines the iGeneration’s access and use of one or more of these specific categories of social
network capital in their network orientation toward enfranchisement, power, and privilege in
online networks.
Space. The notion of space as social capital revolves around the iGeneration’s access and/or
ownership of virtual property or spaces which, in many ways, functions as offline notions of
property as social capital (Rosen, 2010). As owners of virtual property on sites such as Facebook
or Tumblr, students manage nearly all facets of the space, including: its parameters of social
operation, who has permission to access the space, and the design, purpose and function of the
space within their subset of the larger network (Wellman, 2001; Rosen, 2010; Facer, 2011)
Further, in terms of virtual spaces in online networks owned by other people, entities, or
corporations, the iGeneration’s has a greater level of access to roam or explore such spaces,
without being detected or limited by offline limitations such as racial identity or geographic
distances (Kvasny & Hales, 2009; Rosen, 2010) .
Voice. Mitra (2002) notes that the concept of voice is comprised of two components: agency
and discourse. That is, the idea of voice entails a conscious desire to express or communicate
an idea or thought as a means of “coming into the world” (Mitra, 2002).The concept of voice as
social capital represents the idea that in online networks, members of the iGeneration can express
their thoughts, ideas, opinions and experience through a variety of mediums, formats, and
content such as blogs, videos, writings and music (Rosen, 2010; Weber & Mitchell, 2011 Stern,
2011) The iGeneration can use these forms of voice to experiment with different representations
and intersections of identity related or unrelated to categories of their offline social identities
such as to race, gender, and class. The iGeneration’s’access and use of voice in online networks
allows them to give rise to their subjective representations of authentic self (Stern, 2011). As
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
64
Stern (2011) puts it, the social capital of voice as represented by students’ online authorship
gives students a “presence” which “proves that they exist in a world that otherwise pays them
little attention.” Entailed in the notion of presence is the idea of having an audience (Rosen,
2010; Stern, 2011). For members of disenfranchised populations such as those within the African
American, iGeneration, where other voices of DAS and institutional authority are viewed as
more valuable than their own, the idea that individuals have an audience, leaves them “feeling
empowered about the prospect of mass reception” (Stern, 2011).
Information . One of the key forms of social capital in offline dominant American social
networks, particularly in schools, is information (Rosen, 2010). Students must master a hidden
curriculum of content and other social knowledge in order to successfully navigate their
networks toward positive social outcomes. Students’ access and mastery of this information is
generally mediated by communication with and support from institutional agents who instruct,
guide, and assess students in reaching academic and social performance outcomes (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997; Rosen, 2010). However, Rosen,( (2010) proposes that online networks have
changed the nature of informational access in the following ways:
1. Information is available anywhere there is internet access.
2. Information is available anytime.
3. Information is available through devices that are becoming commonplace and
[… ]affordable to most people.
4. Information can be “pushed” from the environment to the individual and “pulled” by the
student from the environment.
5. The learning environment is fluid and adapts as the learner learns
For African-American students, the effect of this transformation of informational access
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
65
in many ways splits the locus of information between online and offline social contexts (Weber&
Mitchell, 2008). While researchers caution against overly “romanticizing” (Buckingham, 2008)
the iGeneration’s use of the online networks purely for educational or informational purposes,
researchers also acknowledge that the structural features of online networks allow for unique,
“self-styled” adaptations of learning and informational access that differ from more rigid social
contours of informational access through institutional agents in school networks (Drotner, 2008;
Facer 2011).
Access and use of online social network capital. Dominant social networks in online
social networking ecologies belong to and are managed by companies, like Facebook, Twitter,
Tumblr and Instagram, which rely on, profit from, and therefore seek to maximize widespread
social access (Byrne, 2008; boyd, 2008; Rosen, 2010). Aside from legal and functional barriers
(i.e. age related-restrictions, spam blocks, or pornographic filters), there are very few
institutional agents to interfere with network and social capital access among users in these
online social contexts (boyd, 2008; Rosen, 2010; Facer, 2011;). These features, coupled with the
widespread availability of internet access, ensure that the African-American iGeneration’s ability
to access and use social capital in online social networks is relatively uninhibited.
By contrast, in de facto networking ecologies, members of the African American iGeneration
must generally develop social ties with institutional agents at the network or systems levels (i.e.
teachers and school administrators) to earn access and use of social network capital that will
allow them to negotiate their status as participating citizens within DAS systems and networks;
again, obtaining permission to access and social capital is mediated by DAS norms, values, and
attitudes that generally work against African Americans’ racialized social identities (Ogbu, 2004;
Hancock 2005). However, in cyberculture, racial identity poses far less of a restriction to
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
66
“netizen”-ship (Deuze, 2006), social mobility and social capital acquisition in students’ online
social networks. In fact, in online networks, “participation must be seen as a defining principle of
digital culture” where “average people” are given “tools to archive, annotate and recirculate
content” (Deuze, 2006). According to Deuze (2006), the widespread use of social, or networked
media, has transformed consumers, including the African American iGeneration, by allowing
them to access and use social capital tools in the following ways:
1. Individuals are “active agents in the process of meaning making.”
2. Individuals can “adopt, but at the same time modify, manipulate and thus
reform consensual ways of understanding reality.”
3. Individuals “reflexively assemble [their] own versions of reality.”
Interpreting African American iGenerational Social Response to Online Networking
Ecologies as Enfranchised Social Resistance
Henry’s Giroux’s (2001) analysis of oppositional social responses as resistance to social
disenfranchisement in dominant culture represents the final component of this study’s
conceptualization of enfranchisement opportunity in the iGeneration’s online social networking
ecologies. Giroux (2001) contends that “central to analyzing any act of resistance would be a
concern with uncovering the degree to which it speaks to a form of refusal that highlights, either
implicitly or explicitly, the need to struggle against the social nexus of domination or
submission.” Accordingly, the expression of oppositional identity as a social response to
disenfranchisement creates an entry into Giroux’s suggested analysis.
Reframing oppositional identity as social resistance in online networks. Because some
members of the African American iGeneration frequently experience social disenfranchisement
within the networks and systems (i.e. schools and communities) of their offline, DAS de facto
networking ecologies, they may view their enfranchisement opportunities in DAS networks and
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
67
systems as limited. Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2001) note an individual’s inclination to
“strategically confront negative ecological conditions in ways that make the most of difficult and
stressful, if not oppressive circumstances.” People are driven toward the resolution of their
problems through the mobilization and transaction of capital within a network of people and
agents in which people are embedded. This is known as network orientation (Stanton-Salazar &
Spina, 2000). Stanton Salazar and Spina (2000) found that in a person’s social development the
social relational dynamics and social structures operating in various networks and systems each
have their own socializing agents that influence a person’s help seeking behaviors. The idea
behind network orientation is that, essentially, people are wired up to seek help and support from
authority figures, agents, or relational ties within that network. Individuals’ perception of
whether help and support from agents or other sources within their networks are socially
beneficial to them is mediated by their satisfaction with the support.
However, members of the African-American iGeneration who assume oppositional
identities in response to perceived disenfranchisement are less likely to be satisfied with the
support they receive from institutional agents in networks and systems of their de facto
networking ecologies (Ogbu, 2004; Carter, 2005). Consequently, in the social networks of online
networking ecolgies, African-American students’ network orientations prompt them to access
and use social networking capital to better allow for network orientation toward
enfranchisement, power, or privilege.
Though Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2001) argue that early adolescents who share
similarities with the socio-developmental constructs of involuntary African American students
find it difficult to develop new attachments with socializing agents outside of the their early
home and community domains (i.e. school and community networks), this is not the case in
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
68
online social networks. African American students who develop an oppositional identity as an
adaptation to “oppressive or alienating social structures” within the school networks are not
necessarily precluded from help-seeking behaviors in other contexts.
Additionally, Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2001) point to another interesting implication of
online social networks in the enfranchisement of African American students. The researchers
contend that one major advantage had by privileged social groups, e.g. middle-class whites, in
DAS networking ecologies is that the deficits of one social network are generally remedied in
one or more other networks of “embeddedness” allowing for a more readily-achieved social
balance. However, for the predominate social networks of involuntary minority, African
American students, the researchers note that relational dynamics of their networking ecologies
which produce social deficit in one social network are almost impossible to make up for in other
social networks. This is because social networks within each of predominate social network of de
facto networking ecologies are governed by the same principles of race and class imposed at the
global level of the ecology’s framework of operation (Ogbu, 2004). By contrast, in online social
networking ecologies, for now at least, the norms values and attitudes, governing key social
relationships and network mechanisms of enfranchisement in online social networks, have for
the most part, managed to elude the centrality of race and class.
The Transformative Potential of Enfranchised Resistance for Offline De Facto Networking
Ecologies
Emirbayer and Mische (2001) note that an individual’s ability to subject their own
network orientations to imaginative recomposition and critical judgment can loose them from
past patterns of interaction and reframe their relationship to existing socio-structural constraints
(Emirbayer &Mische 2001). Because the iGeneration’s access and use of social network capital
in online social participation is largely unbound by the racialized norms and values of dominant
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
69
American society, when individuals engage in these online networks, it provides them with an
opportunity to reframe their social models within their social networking ecologies concerning
conformity to DAS norms, values, and attitudes (Tynes, Garcia, Giang & Coleman, 2011).
Online social networks, offer the opportunity to not just discredit or disengage from features of
undesirable social models within de facto networking ecologies but to shift into one or more
networks where they can meet more attainable standards of social enfranchisement, power, and
privilege (Rosen, 2010; Tynes et.al., 2011)
Online social networks’ ability to allow individuals to generate social network capital on
their own or to co-construct the significance of network capital with online peers (Weber &
Mitchell, 2008) is a critical aspect of online networking ecologies’ differentiation from de facto
networking ecologies. Emirbayer and Mische (2001) refer to this as cognitive liberation— that
is, students’ self-awareness of their social efficacy and social competencies, especially where
awareness pertains to their ability to self direct facets of their social enfranchisement, power and
privilege through the access and use of social network capital in social networks.
In this way, cognitive liberation allows for the origin of social capital creation and
distribution in students’ social networking models to shift from a top-down, institutional agent-
centered process in offline de facto ecologies, to a bottom-up, individual-centered process in
online ecologies. In online social networks, as noted in the previous descriptions of the
categories of social network capital, the individual has far more control over the choice of how to
socially engage, whom to engage with, and what forms of social capital are considered valuable
either in or out of the social setting (Rosen, 2010).
Students also have the discretion to conduct social capital transactions with other
individuals who regardless of their background, in these contexts, are for the most part deemed
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
70
their social peers. In a sense, cyberculture’s looser definition of who constitutes a social peer in
online networks confers an ability to socially participate that in many ways, lies outside of the
effects of confluent offline social limitations such as race, class, age, gender, and/or religious
affiliation (boyd, 2008) that are the product of racialized social identities (Hancock, 2005).
Online enfranchisement and CRT’s call for transformative resistance. Oppositional
identity originates as a category of social response to both African American’s history of a
socially disenfranchised identity and the systematic denial of access to the social network capital
needed to successfully navigate networking ecologies to enfranchisement (Ogbu 1994; Ogbu
2004). In some respects, although reactively formed, the oppositional identity can be viewed as a
form of re-appropriated social power (Giroux, 2001). For example, an individual’s choice to
refuse conformity to or cooperation with DAS norms, values, and attitudes can create a level of
disruption that can force institutional agents or other social mechanisms of DAS de facto
ecologies to briefly or partially compromise dominant norms and values in order to secure the
cooperation necessary for overall efficiency of the dominant system (Bell, 1987; Tate 1997;
Ladson-Billings, 2003). This idea is reflected in CRT’s perspective on the notion of interest
convergence. That is, where the interests of African Americans or other disenfranchised
populations overlap with that of the system forces of power, those interests are accepted or
promoted to benefit the overall well-being of those in power (Bell, 1987; Ladson-Billings, 2004).
However, despite varying levels of social power ascribed to the oppositional identity, CRT
scholars cite the lack of social network capital available to this form of response (Ladson-
Billings, 1997), which has traditionally limited the ability to generate the social agency required
for more potent social transformation within DAS.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
71
Lundy (2003) defines agency as the “evolving ownership of action” and “the desire to
stand within one’s own cultural location and use that cultural location as a reference to interpret
and engage one‘s reality. CRT focuses its call for transformation on the elimination of racism in
the facets of DAS leading to the reproduction of disenfranchisement. However, creating the
social momentum for these transformative changes has proved difficult because as Jay (2003)
notes, “It threatens those dominant groups in our society who have a vested interest in the
perpetuation of mainstream… knowledge that supports the maintenance of dominant structures,
long present inequities, and the current power arrangement in the United States that often serve
to subordinate racial minorities.” Because the empowerment of those who are socially
disenfranchised fundamentally undermines the existing dynamics of power between those who
have power and those who do not (Jay, 2003), efforts to transform these dynamics are considered
“dangerous.”
Much of CRT contends that the power structure in dominant American society affords,
resources, privilege and power to shape norms to those “possessing White skin.” (Jay, 2003)
Though I do not disagree that being racially White, in many ways, affords social power and
privilege, currently, as discussed at the outset of this chapter, there also exist notions of social
“Whiteness” that are not just limited to skin color. In this sense, the possession of Whiteness can
refer to anyone, of any culture, background, ethnicity, who exercises and/or maintains, any form
of power, according to dominant system norms and values in a given setting (Vaught &
Castagno, 2008). This means that network actors, no matter their race or ethnicity, acting as
institutional agents who maintain the “hidden curriculum” of social norms that limit
disenfranchised populations’ access and use of social capital in DAS networks and systems, to
some degree exhibit Whiteness (Ladson-Billings, 1997; Lynn, 2003;Jay, 2003; Vaught &
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
72
Castagno, 2008). Therefore, because on some level, network actors’ “Whiteness” arguably
stands to be jeopardized by the intended social empowerment of disenfranchised populations,
full implementation of socially transformative measures is often compromised (Jay, 2003).
In online social networking ecologies, however, the African-American iGeneration’s
evolving access to key forms of social network capital responds to CRT’s notions of social
transformation in offline, dominant American social networks. Though members of the African
American iGeneration have traditionally lacked access and use of socially profitable levels of
network capital in their offline de facto ecologies, Horvat et. al (2003) point to the potential for
students to transform these circumstances. The researchers note conclusions from their research
on the use of social capital from students’ kinship network in schools indicating that sufficient
levels of social capital can give students the power to “contest the judgments or behavior of
agents who occupy positions of institutional authority.” Although the researchers’ findings
focused on parental mobilization of sufficient social capital resources in “trumping” school
authority, these findings look similar to students’ mobilization of network resources such as
space, voice, and information in online social networks. Moreover, Horvat et. al’s (2003) note
that “quasi-conflictual” nature of disenfranchised individuals’ successes in trumping institutional
agents’ power in DAS networks remains a relatively undeveloped theme in the literature and
further underscores this study’s significance in building this understanding. As Horvat et al.
(2003) suggests, when oppositional identity as a social response has sufficient access to key
forms of social capital it can rise to a level of power sufficient to interfere with institutional
agents’ regulation of social capital; when this occurs the oppositional identity transitions into
oppositional agency. Such agency has the transformative potential, as called for by CRT (Jay,
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
73
2003) to affect existing relations of power between the system, institutional agents and the
socially disenfranchised.
It is this transformative potential of online enfranchisement that forms the study’s
principal research questions. In this study I give special consideration to an examination of
iGeneration’s access and use of key forms of social network capital in online social networking.
Specifically I focus on how this access and use of social capital allows students to exercise
oppositional agency to the extent that it allows them to stand within their own culture and
network toward enfranchisement, power, and privilege while simultaneously transforming
features of their offline de facto social networking ecologies.
Conclusion
Though members of the iGeneration who form oppositional identities in response to
features of their DAS de facto networking ecologies may dissociate with dominant system norms
and pathways to enfranchisement, in many cases they still feel the need to find alternative social
contexts outside of schools and other DAS networks that provide social capital and sufficient
levels of enfranchisement (Carter, 2005). However, alternative social contexts, especially those
outside of the dominant social system, may have social consequences that amplify the negative
social development in dominant systems networks (Carter, 2005). Giroux (2001) notes, “ the
concept of resistance highlights the need […] to decipher how the modes of cultural production
by subordinate groups can be analyzed to reveal both their limits and possibilities for enabling
critical thinking, analytical discourse, and new modes of intellectual appropriation.”
That online networking ecologies represent an alternative but mainstream, dominant
American social context (Wellman, 2002) allowing for social capital access and use toward
social enfranchisement, power, and privilege, can theoretically help transform perspectives from
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
74
a focus on individual deficits to the inclusion of a ecological deficits analysis. In other words,
understanding the advantages in access and use of social capital online networks might compel,
as CRT calls for, a re-examination of how DAS de facto networking ecologies models fall short
of creating a wider range of social distribution of possibilities that would incentivize African-
American students to reconsider school and other DAS networks as contexts for social
enfranchisement, power, and privilege. A structural deficits analysis includes “units of analysis
that investigators in each community can use to tap into significant structures, processes, and
dynamics of culture as they affect individual students and schools” (Gallimore & Goldenberg,
2001). The units of analysis under examination in this study are forms of social capital available
in online social networking ecologies and the ways in which members of the African-American
iGeneration use them in their network orientation toward enfranchisement, , and privilege in
online and offline ecologies.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
75
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODS
This chapter sets forth the study’s research design. The CRT framework and concepts in
the literature as discussed in the previous chapter concerning African American students’ access
and use of social network capital in online social networking ecologies in their network
orientation toward social enfranchisement, power and privelege also informs and support the
choice of design for this study. The chapter organizes the discussion of the design around the
following concepts: 1) proposed methodology 2) research theory and design 2) role of the
researcher 3) instrumentation 4) data collection methods 5) data analysis methods.
Research Goals
Lynn (2002), in referring to Ladson-Bilings and Tate’s note that “race, unlike gender and
class remains un[der]-theorized,” contends that educators do not have a mode of discourse
allowing for the discussion of “race and racial inequities in ways that are useful and ultimately
liberatory.” He states that CRT, in many ways, opens the channels of opportunity for these
exchanges among educators. I agree. In fact, Within recent years, a second generation of CRT
scholars has cropped up, merging the theory’s principal tenets with concepts of identity and the
impact of global trends on the issue of race. My work in this explorational study focuses on a
similar application of the CRT and other research discourse of African American
enfranchisement to online social networking ecologies’ growing significance as a core social
context within DAS. Unlike previous social contexts of DAS assessed using a CRT frame, online
social networking ecologies, although racialized in some ways do not share the same history of
racialized social operation as offline DAS de facto networking ecologies. In keeping with CRT’s
focus on eliminating racial oppression, my hope is that the data yielded by this study will create
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
76
the opportunity for a “liberatory discussion” among educators, students and stakeholders,
concerning the potential of the African-American iGeneration’s online enfranchisement in
transforming the racialized social operation of their offline DAS social networking ecologies.
In addressing previous limits on the liberatory discussion sought by CRT theorists, I
specifically considered Carbado & Gulati’s (2003) review of CRT’s evolvement into a category
of discourse which points to the challenges CRT has encountered in reaching a mainstream
analysis of the role of race and racism in social contexts. Namely, Carbado and Gulati (2003)
contend that CRT “often ignores the racial productivity of the "choices" people of color make
about how to present themselves as racialized persons” by allowing for an “analysis of the
race-producing practices reflected in the daily negotiations people of color perform in an attempt
to shape how (especially white) people interpret their nonwhite identities.” Here, through the
lens of CRT, relevant theory from the field, students’ own online narratives, and interviews, my
goal is to capture how African-American iGeneration students’ access and use of social capital in
online social networking ecologies reflect their choices, both consciously and unconsciously, to
incite the reclamation of their social enfranchisement from the hidden curriculum of racialized
DAS norms, values, and attitudes governing power and privilege in dominant American social
networking ecologies.
My goals in this study are three fold. First, my goal is to gather and present data that allows
teachers, administrators and school personnel who function as institutional agents to have a
better understanding of how students in the African-American iGeneration’s access and use of
social network capital in online networks supports their network orientation toward
enfranchisement, power and privilege in online and offline contexts. Before institutional agents
can account for the effects of African-American students’ changing social models, institutional
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
77
agents must have a clear understanding of these processes and how they are informed by
students’ access and use of social capital in online networks. The second goal for the study is to
better understand how increased access and use of social capital students’ may contribute to
changing students’ changing models of enfranchisement, power and privilege in online and
offline social networking ecologies. The third purpose for this study is to provide the vested
community of CRT educational theorists and other educational stakeholders with important
insight for creating, developing, and implementing pro-social strategies that complement
African-American students’ changing models of social dynamics and networking within school
networks.
My overall goals for this study are aligned with CRT’s focus on driving transformational
social change and reducing racialized social oppression within dominant American social
networks; my hope is that the findings from this study provide educators, as institutional agents,
with transformational understanding and interest in how their students’ social integration in
online social networking ecologies influences students’ notions of social enfranchisement in
online and offline network ecologies.
Methodology
The nature of this study requires a design that can best capture the data in a way that
reflects the voice and perspective of students who are socially engaged in networks; for that
reason, I opted to use a qualitative, ethnographic research design. To further support my choice
of qualitative design, I have relied on Merriam’s (2001) outline of five key characteristics of
qualitative design, each of which capture an important purpose for using this method of study.
The five key reasons for selecting a qualitative design are as follows:
First, my focus is on understanding the meaning that students have constructed about their
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
78
access and use of social capital in online networks. As a qualitative researcher, my interest is in
uncovering data that points to the way that students’ online access and use of social network
capital reflects their implicit or explicit constructions of their social enfranchisement in these
networks. According to Merriam (2001) qualitative research is specifically concerned with the
experiences of people as they have “lived,” “felt,” or “undergone” them. Rather than testing the
outcome of the theory, or predicting an outcome, my choice to use qualitative research stems
from the importance of capturing a clearer understanding of students’ online social experiences
as the study’s end product. In this case, very little research exists concerning 1) African-
American students’ social developmental experiences in online social networks 2) how those
experiences contrast with their experiences in school networks, and 3) what effect, if any, online
social experiences have on their models of social development with institutional agents in
schools and other offline networks. Therefore, the objective of this study is to provide educators
of African-American students, in particular, a clearer understanding of the social perceptions and
models that are likely to be at work in many of the students they work with in school networks.
Next, in conducting qualitative research, as the researcher, I am the primary instrument for
data collection and analysis. Qualitative research allows me to serve as the medium through
which data is collected and interpreted. Quantitative research, generally only allows for an
interpretation of numbers and data through inanimate mechanisms such as surveys,
questionnaires, and computer analysis; in this study, however, I have sifted through data
compiled from the written and visual narratives told through students posted profile content and
interactions with users in their site networks along with ethnographic interviews to gather and
interpret data that represents students’ perspectives as accurately as possible.
Third, qualitative analysis generally relies on fieldwork to gather the study’s data for analysis
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
79
and interpretation. To learn about the way that a group of people interacts in a specific context,
as the researcher, I visited the setting, albeit virtually, to observe and investigate behavior as it
naturally occurs. Merriam (2001) suggests becoming “intimately familiar” with the phenomenon
being studied. In the section where I outline data my specific data collection methods, I will go
into detail about my strategy for field observation. The nature of the research at issue in this
study, especially lends itself to field work because social media sites that serve “as the field”
allow for access in observing students in the way that they choose to be observed. Students
control over the way that they represent themselves and interact with others is critical data for the
study’s analysis and construction of the answers to the research questions.
Also, the field observation in the context of this study offers some interesting advantages
for observation and data acquisition. The field sites selected for this study are Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram, and Tumblr, each of which provide ample textual entries, visual documentation
and/or video that serve as cultural documents and artifacts for analyzing students’ histories of
social experience and capital transactions as members of the iGeneration. The selected field sites
each have date and timeline features which serve as the functional equivalent of an
anthropological site excavation. As a researcher in the field, I focused on observing students’
profile content and peer networking as a way to investigate their use and access and use of social
capital to enfranchise themselves. Fourth, qualitative research primarily relies on inductive
research strategy. Again, where there is a lack of information, theory or literature on a subject,
qualitative research allows for the generation of “abstractions, concepts, hypotheses, or theories.”
For this study, the findings and data analysis sections will focus on pulling abstract and
conceptual themes from the data to allow for the flexible application of these ideas to students
changing models of social development in online and offline networks. Additionally, Merriam
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
80
(2001) notes that the inductive aspects of qualitative research allow for building abstract and
conceptual themes from observations and intuitive understandings gained in the field. In other
words, provided that I am mindful about any biases in my own frame of understanding,
qualitative research allows me to use a combination of my own understanding, reasoning and
experience as the primary filter for the data. As an African-American woman, who not only has
experienced and understands the social implications of race but who has worked for nearly ten
years as an educator and mentor for the same demographic of students I have endeavored to
study here, my lens of understanding, and reason, are particularly suited an analysis of the data
collected in this study.
Finally, the end product of qualitative research offers a richer, holistic description and
depiction of participants’ perspectives and experiences. Qualitative research allows for a broader,
clearer, and more detailed representation of students’ experiences in online social networks that
take into account a range of cultural influences including cultural histories, language, and social
patterns. Additionally, the literature discussed in Chapter 2 evokes a sense of absence of rich
detail in students’ accounts of their social development experiences in school networks. In
recognizing this as issue in school networks that is partially rectified in online social contexts
where students have increased control in managing their social development through available
social capital, this study follows suit and seeks to construct a picture of student online social
experiences using their own accounts to furnish data and detail that lends itself to richer
depiction of students’ views and experiences.
Research Design: Critical Ethnography in Online Social Networks
In general, ethnographic research is a specific type of qualitative research conducted by
anthropologists as a form of social and cultural study of humans (Merriam, 2001). Here, my
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
81
purpose for choosing to conduct an ethnography is specifically to observe and describe students’
variable expressions of social development in terms of their access and use of key forms of social
capital: space, voice, and information. Specifically, the goal of an ethnographical design for this
study will reveal the beliefs, actions, and attitudes, of African American students concerning
their social enfranchisement in online social networks, that may affect their models of social
development in offline networks, particularly those in schools.
According to Merriam (2001), ethnographies have the following two, distinct
characteristics. The first characteristic of ethnography is the inventory of data collection
techniques used by researchers as strategies for collecting information about the study’s
participants. The techniques I use here are both observation and interviewing. The second
characteristic of ethnographical research is the sociocultural interpretation of the data. The
findings of this study focus on interview responses and interpretive descriptions generated from
my observation and interview of study participants.
Merriam (2001) notes that it is the ethnographic researcher’s concern with cultural context
that distinguishes this type of research from other forms of cultural research. Indeed, as noted in
Chapter One and Two (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Tate,1997; Lynn, 2002;
Howard, 2003, Carter, 2005) the racial and social histories of exclusion for communities of
African-American, involuntary minority students creates a compelling cultural context for the
research questions driving this study.
Critical Research and Institutional Ethnography
As discussed in Chapter Two, Critical Race Theory encompasses a body of literature in
both the legal and educational field arguing the paramount role of racial identity in influencing
the social constructs that operate in the cultural networks and social networking ecologies of
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
82
DAS. Essentially, CRT proponents argue that on some level, all aspects of African Americans’
social experiences in various contexts are informed by their racial identities. African American
students’ racial identities form the basis of their social development experiences in various social
networks including online and school networks. In turn, these experiences affect their models of
social capital access and use in both in online social networks and school networks.
In her discussion of Critical Race Theory, Ladson-Billings (1998) notes that the theory’s
“use of voice or ‘naming your reality’” serves three important ends in exploring inquiries
concerning African-American social experiences: CRT’s acknowledgement that individual
“realities” or cultural models are socially constructed; provides African Americans, as members
of a social “outgroup”, with an outlet of expression allowing for psycho-social adjustment and;
sharing these experiences “from teller[s] to listener[s]” helps change “ethnocentri[c] and
dysconscious” dimensions of the dominant discourse on race and social experience. The
characteristics of online networks complement a CRT lens of inquiry in that, as a form of “we
media” it results in a loosely organized set of social arrangements developing around the
practices and ideals of open publishing and collaborative ‘nonhierarchical’ storytelling (Platon &
Deuze, 2003; Deuze, 2006). Using Critical Race Theory as a lens of inquiry, supports the
qualitative aims of this study by using African-American students’ interview responses and
observed posted content as a form of storytelling that illuminates important insights in the
relationship between African American students’ social development and their use of social
capital in online networks.
This study’s CRT orientation falls into a category of research distinguished by Carr and
Kemmis’ (1986) as critical research, one of three main orientations for educational research.
Merriam (2001) states that, as a genre of educational research, critical research focuses on
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
83
education as a social institution that, along with other major social institutions, helps to
reproduce and/or transform social and cultural facets of inequity in dominant society. The roots
of critical research fields, like CRT, stem from the purpose to act “as an ideological critique
power, privilege, and oppression in areas of educational practice” (Merriam, 2001). This study
falls under the critical research typology by (1) contrasting African American students’ use and
access to social capital in online social networks with their previous histories of restricted social
capital access and usage in school networks and (2) examining how students use and access
social capital toward gaining and maintaining social enfranchisement.
Merriam (2001) goes on to note that research theory is what allows researchers to make
anticipate and make sense of events which makes “perception itself-theory laden.” In other
words, the researcher’s lens of perception appears in the design of the study and in the meanings
assigned to the data. According to Le Compte and Preissle (2003) there are two types of theory
that drive the development, design and interpretations of the study: personal theories and formal
theory. In terms of the formal theoretical research framework for the design of this study and
interpretation of findings, the framework used here is Critical Race Theory. More specifically, I
rely on concepts discussed by Campbell and Gregor’s (2004) in designing this study as an
institutional ethnography.
According to Marshall and Rossman (2006) critical ethnography takes root in a class of
theory that views dominant society and social advancement as fundamentally skewed by race,
class, status, ethnicity and gender to enforce the social disenfranchisement of marginalized
groups of people. The role and responsibility, then, of the critical ethnographer is to bring to
light, systemic, lived, social injustices within a given social context of dominant society. In
addressing the lived, social injustices of one context, a critical ethnography may go beyond the
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
84
school networks to examine the historical and contemporary forces shaping societal patterns
(Marshall & Rossman, 2006) In this case, the study considers the contemporary force of online
networks and its effect on social patterns of African-American students in light of their history of
social disenfranchisement in school networks
According to Campbell & Gregor (2004), an institutional ethnography is a form of critical
ethnography conducted on the basis that “people and events are actually tied together in ways
that make sense of such abstractions as power, knowledge, capitalism, patriarchy, race, the
economy, the state, policy, culture and so on.” Here, the purpose of the study is to open a
window into the lives African-American students, whose critical social experiences and
development are being organized in the context of a newer social ecology that, for the most part,
has remained virtually unexplored from their socio-ecological niche in offline social networks
(Everett, 2008).
An institutional ethnography, essentially examines the forms of social organization that
regularly occur in people’s lives; the participants in the study may or may not consciously
recognize these forms of social organization. Also, important to the examination of social
organization in an institutional ethnography, is the recognition of the role of “objects” (Campbell
& Gregor, 2004). Campbell and Gregor (2004) note that “the social is constituted in use and
conversation about it. Objects may be accepted as a having a particular form, but in institutional
ethnography, we make the assumption that people constitute them as such.” This distinction is
particularly important to the study conducted here, particularly as it relates to the notion of social
capital. What makes the study of African-American students’ social experiences in cyber social
networks important in this case, is that these networks allow students create their own versions of
the social capital and processes of socialization that are at work in the dominant system.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
85
Therefore, the understanding is that, while students’ use of the forms of social capital available
to them in online social networks may not seem comparable to more powerful forms of social
capital in dominant system networks, it is important to recognize that because students,
consciously or unconsciously, constitute them as powerful, they are (Weber & Mitchell, 2008).
There are two sites of interest in an institutional ethnography, the local setting and the
extra-local setting. An examination of life in the local setting focuses on gathering data about
how participants live and experience life in that context; an examination of life in the extra-local
setting that is outside of the normal context of participants’ everyday lives (Campbell & Gregor,
2004) Campbell and Gregor (2004) note that a study of the trans-local setting requires special
techniques to access social organizations that originate from an outside social context but
function as the larger social context of people’s everyday experiences. This study primarily
concerns students’ perception of social experiences as they live them in local, online social
networks, yet recognizes that one of the larger social contexts for their experiences in online
social networks is their social developmental experiences in extra-local, offline social networks.
Institutional ethnographers are aware that people’s patterns of social organizations are
“coordinated and concerted by something beyond their own motivations and intentions” which
means that in the context of this study, students’ choice and use of social network capital in
online social networks do not begin and end with their observed, routine exchanges in these
networks (Campbell &Gregor, 2006) As a researcher my lens of understanding is that what I
observe in the selected online sites is, in part, a “segment of the social relation” that begins in
offline networking ecologies and unfolds and exchanges in online networks, and then reappears
in school networks and other offline social networks.
Finally, then, one purpose of this study is to “make visible as social relations” students’
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
86
socialization experiences as they access and use social network capital in online social networks,
which are otherwise considered “mysterious aspects of their lives”, and demonstrate them as
primarily a function of their lived racial and social experiences in DAS social networking
ecologies (Campbell & Gregor, 2006).
Dimensions of the Study Along the Research Theory Continuum
This study is situated in the following continuums of study:
The first continuum is inductive. Here, I focus on using observational and interview data to
develop an understanding of the relationship between students’ use of social network capital in
online networks and their social development in online and offline networks (LeCompte
&Preissle, 2003). The second continuum is generative. The data collected in this study will is
intended to generate for educators new thinking and ideas regarding online networks as a rising,
predominant context for African American students and their changing models of social
development especially where related to institutional agents in school networks (LeCompte
&Preissle, 2003). The third continuum is subjective. The collection and presentation of data in
this study will build on both participants’ and my own subjective experiences according to the
approach suggested by LeCompte &Preissle (2003). LeCompte and Preissle (2003) note the
difficulty for researchers in attempting to remain uniformed or suspend existing knowledge or
preconceived notions about their research site. Instead, they suggest that a more realistic
approach to the research site, is to integrate the knowledge of both researcher and the participants
by having ethnographers present their initial assumptions and subjective reactions to observed
events. To include the subjective experiences of the participants, the ethnographer uses the
participants’ own constructs to represent the participants’ experiences and world view
(LeCompte & Preissle, 2003).
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
87
Sampling Strategy
In selecting the units of analysis, namely the factors concerning which participants and
sites of observation to choose for the study, my key consideration is to selecting samples that
will yield the highest level of information for analysis and insight; therefore, I opted to use a
purposeful sampling strategy (Merriam, 2001). According to Patton (1990), the most important
feature of purposeful sampling is to find cases that are information-rich and likely to provide
data that reflects on the study’s main issues. In determining how to select a purposeful sample,
LeCompte and Preissle (2003), suggest that the researcher put together a list of key attributes that
are essential to the study and then use the list of key attributes to identify a sample that best
matches the criteria. Marshall & Rossman (2006) state that the researcher’s choices about which
people and sites to sample should be carefully thought through and made concurrently with
choices about specific forms of data collection.
Following these suggestions, the next sections outline my criteria for sample selection
along with the reasons for my choice of participants and sites of observation and their tie-in to
the forms of data collection I use in this study. Also, as recommended (Marshall & Rossman,
2006; LeCompte & Preissle, 2003; and Merriam, 2001), in selecting the criteria for sample
selection, I remain mindful of the need to be flexible about the criteria I am using to select my
sample sites and participants and retain the right to adjust the criteria as needed to best achieve
the ends of the study.
Site Selection
Because my study focuses on African-American students’ access and use of social network
capital in online networks, I am choosing to study a sample of students as they directly engage in
online social networks. There are a number of online sites that are available for observation. In
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
88
this study I am choosing to focus on students’ use of social network capital in the online social
networks of four main sites: Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr and Twitter. For this study I am
choosing to study a total of twenty participants’ who have a public profile on at least one of the
selected sites.
I primarily observed participants’ personal accounts on Facebook, Twitter and/or Tumblr
as the primary sites of observation for this study on African American students’ use and access to
social network capital in online social networks. The sites were selected according to the criteria
and reasons set forth below:
First, the selected sites are considered typical. There are a number of social media sites
that are freely accessible to students; however, some of these sites primary modes of social
network capital use and access may preclude students who don’t have the necessary computer
equipment or capabilities for access. For example, YouTube, Oovoo, UStream, and Skype are
online social networks that allow students access to social network capital but rely primarily on
webcam or videocamera technologies as a means of access. Facebook, Tumblr and Twitter are
easier to access for students because they may be used through a number of devices including
cellphones and computers and do not rely on special equipment for maximum use and access to
social network capital. Additionally, in conducting a preliminary site search, I discovered a
number cases of potential participants who met the criteria I set forth in the next section, that
have public, accessible accounts at two or more of the sample sites. Therefore, there was a
greater likelihood that these sites had the most potential to yield information rich-data on
students’ participation in online social networks to access and use the four key forms of social
network capital.
Second, the selected sites were considered unique. Although each site was chosen for its
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
89
typicality as site of social network capital access for the study’s participants, I also selected each
site for unique features not necessarily available in the same form or function as other sites.
Please see Appendix A for a table of each site’s collection of features.
Third, the selected sites were considered convenient and had few to no gatekeepers. Each
site was also chosen for the level of public accessibility to me as the researcher. Observing the
participants at the sites selected required no more than a computer and internet connection
because the sites of social network capital access and use, exist in cyberspace. Most of the user
profiles that I accessed at each site had public privacy networks. That is, I was able to observe
participants’ profile without requesting to friend or follow the participants at each site.
Fourth, each of the selected sites allowed for my ability to directly and indirectly observe
students’ access and use of social network capital toward social enfranchisement. Each of the
features identified in Appendix F reflects access and usage of one or more forms of social
network capital. I will discuss this in further detail in Chapter 4 where I discuss the data and key
findings in the study.
Participant Selection
For this study, I opted to use observe 20 participants and then interview 6 of the 20
observed participants who met the following key characteristics: 1) African-American 2) in
grades 9-12 or have graduated from high school within one year 3) have user profiles at one of
the selected sites of observation. I will determine whether or not the participants meet these
characteristics through the information that participants self-report in their profile.
I used maximum variation sampling to purposefully select a sample size of about 20-30
students with a wide range of variation in academic, social, cultural and behavioral
characteristics. This allowed to me to identify common patterns of response across the variations
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
90
in the participant population. In selecting the sample, I surveyed prospective participants’ profile
content at one or more sites. The sample size was small enough for me to manage data collection
and measurement while still providing a large enough range of cases from which to gather data.
Criteria and justification. The criteria and justification for participant selection is as
follows:
First, the students had to be African-American. This study’s focus on African-American
students derives from the connection between: 1) African-American students’ restricted access to
social network capital in school networks resulting from a racialized social history (Ladson-
Billings, 1997). As members of the iGeneration, African American students increased access and
use of social network capital in online networks affects their social networking models with
institutional agents in other primary, real-world social networks, who have traditionally regulated
students’ access to social network capital; this compels further exploration and understanding of
the patterns at work in this social demographic.
Second, the students had to be in high school or have graduated from high school within
the last year. There are two main reasons I added this criteria to choosing the participant sample.
The first is because Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Tumblr all have policies restricting site
usage to users who are 13 and older. Second, high school students or recent high school
graduates have spent longer amount of time in school networks and therefore, are more likely to
recognize an absence of social network capital access in these networks. Students’ age, level of
schooling and lack of access to social network capital is more likely to result in a need to find
other avenues of use and access to the four key forms of social network capital.
Third, the students have profiles on one of the selected observation sites for at least a year. I
choose to study participants who have had profiles at one or more sites long enough to generate a
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
91
visible, public history of use and access to one or more forms of the social network capital.
Data Collection, Recording and Reporting Methods
For this study I used observation and interviews as the primary means of collecting data.
The data collection methods for gathering data in this study occurred in two phases. I began by
observing publicly available profiles, collecting data via screenshots and taking field notes. After
observing the data from participants’ profiles, I then requested and conducted interviews from 6
of the observed participants.
Data Collection
Apart from the literature, there were two important considerations driving both the type
and process of data collection methods for this study. The first was the importance of capturing
data that would clearly and accurately bear on the African American iGeneration’s use and
access of social network capital in online social networks toward social enfranchisement. In
conducting preliminary research on the best methodology for entering the setting, finding and
identifying data, and capturing the data in way that wouldprovide the best reflection of students’
social realities, I discovered that the available data, if captured correctly, would likely provide
some startling, significant, and concrete evidence of the role of social media in students online
and offline lives. As discussed in Chapter Two, because students often operate from the
perspective that their online social interactions are undetected by adults and other authority
figures, I felt that the available data would be incredibly raw and unfiltered. The nature of
students’ raw and unadulterated perspective is precisely what I had hoped to capture in this
study. Particularly in cases where the participant was a minor and informed consent would be
required from both student and a parent, by notifying students that I was observing their profiles,
requesting an interview, or otherwise interacting with them, I was concerned that students might
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
92
alter or limit access to the content available on their profiles. Therefore, because the profiles I
examine were available in a public domain, I observed and recorded data before requesting an
interview. Once, I have recorded the data, I began the interview phase of data collection and
recording.
Observations. This study assumes that participants’ use and access of social network
capital in online site networks as reflected in their self-published profile content and interactions
with other users in their networks are purposeful and expressive of participants’ deeper values
and beliefs concerning their views on online social networks and the use and access of key forms
of social network capital such as space, voice, and information. Therefore, accurate recording of
their choice of content and visible interactions with other users in participants’ site networks was
required to clearly understand the patterns and importance of participants’ social network capital
access and use. To accurately record participants’ access and use of social network capital in
online networks, I took screen shots of participants’ profile content and interactions and recorded
field notes to systematically note their user histories, events, behaviors and responses in the
setting. I maintained an unobtrusive role in the setting while taking notes so as not to interrupt
participants’ natural responses, actions and interactions with other users in the setting. In my
notes (See Observation Protocol Appendix E) I included holistic descriptions rather than
structured notation of behavior in order to reflect the details and nuances of complex interactions
within the program setting as they naturally occur (Marshall &Rossman, 2006). In my notes on
screen shots and participants’ observed behavior, use and interaction in the setting, I also
recorded comments and emergent analytic insights to help focus my data collection and analysis
efforts later in the study (Marshall & Rossman, 2006).
In-depth ethnographic interviews. I also conducted in-depth ethnographic interviews
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
93
with six participants from the site that I observed. I sent the participants requests to interview
them, accompanied by and consent form via Facebook messaging service. I will conduct the
interviews via Skype (an online video chat service). The interviews used a loosely structured
conversational format guided by the interview questions outlined in the Interview Protocol (See
Interview Protocol Appendix G) to collect detailed and nuanced information concerning
participant views on the study’s research questions with an emphasis on: (1) the ways that
participants’ use and access social network capital in online networks toward social
enfranchisement and (2) how participants view similarities and differences in their online and
offline social interactions.
Using Skype was very useful to the useful data collection method in this inquiry because
it allowed me to study participants in a more relaxed and natural social context. This style of
inquiry gave me flexibility to explore unanticipated issues as they surfaced in the interview and
also allowed me to capture the entire interview including body language and tone which added
additional layers of understanding to my analysis.
Careful attention was given to allowing the participants’ perspectives to unfold over the
course of the interview, rather than my injecting my own perspectives into the interviewing
process. Throughout the interview I conveyed the attitude that the participant’s views were
valued and useful. I assumed a very personal approach in conducting the interview so that the
interviewees did not get the impression that they were merely part of an impersonal experiment
or research study. I also paid close attention to participants’ perception of power dynamics
between me and them and did my best to make sure that they understood my role was only as a
researcher and not as an adult, institutional agent, or other authority figure.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
94
Recording and Managing Data
Marshall and Rossman (2006) note the importance of the researcher’s understanding that
strategies for data collection should not impede the flow of daily events for participants or others
in the field. One benefit of observing participants’ recorded online social interactions and their
use and access of social network capital in online networks, was that participants had no idea
who was observing their profile. It is unlikely that they realized that they were being observed,
because as a researcher, I assumed the identity of the general public. Since the participants I
observed have public profiles, they already operate under the assumption that people outside of
their recognized site network of friends or followers may access their published content.
Therefore, my unobtrusive observation did not interfere with their participation or action in these
networks.
Marshall and Rossman (2006) also suggest a data recording systems that allows for easy
retrieval for later analysis. To record the data as I encountered it in the study, I took screen
captures of content as I came to it and also maintained a field notes record to record my
impressions and observations and I observe participants’ user histories, published content and
history of interactions with other users in their site networks.
Data analysis technique: coding. Marshall and Rossman (2006) suggest that, in
developing a plan for data analysis, the researcher should be guided by initial concepts and
understandings of the themes likely to emerge from the data that she will “shift or modify” as she
enters the process of collecting and analyzing data. In this case, I used the research questions
and related literature to look for themes and categories of understanding related to participants’
use and access of social network capital in online networks to support their social development. I
will gave particular emphasis to participants’ forms of use and access to social network capital
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
95
as discussed in Chapter Two and as reflected in their use of each site’s specific features as
outlined in Appendix F. After coding the data, I summarized the main themes of understanding
and insight in the data and used these “chunks” of findings to thoroughly review and revisit the
data for any instances that might have conflicted with any of the study’s foundational
understandings as set forth in Chapter Two’s review of relevant literature. I also considered
alternative, plausible explanations to reconcile any conflicts encountered in the collected data.
Limits to Interpretation of the Data
According to Lincoln & Guba (2000), there are four criteria that should be used to evaluate
the quality and trustworthiness of findings in a qualitative study. The four criteria are 1)
credibility 2) transferability 3) dependability and 4) confirmability. I took care to ensure that the
study’s presentation of the data responded to criteria for the overall soundness of the project to
prevent the risk of diminishing the “truth value” of the study.
Credibility
The credibility of this study will rely on its validity. Therefore, in collecting and describing
data I will be careful to provide accurate, detail-rich descriptions “showing the complexities of
processes and interactions embedded with data derived from the setting.”(Marshall & Rossman,
2006) The study’s research questions limit the scope of the study’s focus to 1) the ways that
participants’ use and access to the key forms of social network capital differ to direct their social
development in online networks and 2) how this use differs from a CRT perspective on students
access and use of social network capital in school networks. The research and data collection will
be confined to the parameters of the aforementioned design specifications.
Transferability
The findings in this study should be considered useful for informing practice in school and
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
96
other offline networks serving concentrated populations of African-American, involuntary
minority students. A generalization of the study’s qualitative findings to other school and other
offline networks is intentional and anticipated and should not be viewed as a threat to the
trustworthiness of the findings.
Dependability
The trustworthiness of the study’s findings may be undermined because of the basic
assumption in qualitative research that “the social world is always being constructed and that the
concept of replication itself is problematic.” (Marshall & Rossman, 2006) In this case, the
conditions under which this study was conducted, are unlikely to change given the iGeneration’s
level of engagement in online social networks. Even if the studied demographic were to stop
using the specific sites studied here, it unlikely that its members would completely disengage
from all online social contexts.
Conclusion
The study’s methods of execution, data collection, and analysis as discussed in this
chapter were intended to produce findings that best inform the study’s research questions. In
completing the study, careful attention was given to adhering to the conceptual foundations for
the study so as to present the data, findings, and implications of the study with integrity and
respect for the participants and the African-American, iGeneration demographic they represent.
The next two chapters present the data, findings, and implications produced by the study.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
97
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION
Understanding the Data Presentation
In this chapter, I present the detailed perspectives and experiences gathered through
interviews with six members of the African-American iGeneration (AiG). Within each of their
interviews, the participants offer the stories of their respective experiences and observations
within the social ecologies of their online and offline networks. In conducting the interviews, my
aim was to offer an opportunity for students to both reflect on and offer responses illustrating (1)
the detailed nuances of their self and peer constructed social contexts within online networks and
(2) how those nuances translate back into their models of social networking within both online
and offline social networks. In this chapter, I use their responses to build the reader’s
understanding of the key themes that emerged during the data collection process as I explored
the study’s two key research questions.
Furthermore, in this chapter I intentionally limit my commentary to that which is
necessary only for structuring and/or weaving together the participants’ responses as a reflection
on the wide range of themes in the data responding to the study’s two research questions.
Although the responses in some instances are, at times, lengthy, this too was intentionally done
to adhere to the CRT principle of qualitative inquiry that emphasizes that researchers consciously
allow participants being researched to “name their own reality” (Ladson-Billings, 1998) rather
than having their stories told for them. The commentary I provide in connection with the
presented responses serves primarily to lay out the data in such a way that 1) participants’
viewpoints are articulated as accurately, meaningfully and comprehensibly as possible and 2) in
Chapter Five will allow me to more fully delve into an analysis of the literature-based
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
98
connections for how the data presented in this chapter responds to the study’s two key research
questions.
I am aware of the limitations in my ability to completely construct and reflect each
participant’s complete, subjective and objective realities. However, I have given thorough
reflection and consideration to each response and piece of data presented in this chapter to create
as accurate of a data presentation as possible under the circumstances. Because of participants’
candor and potential social implications, all of the names and identifying details for each
participant have been changed to maintain and ensure as much confidentiality as is possible
under the circumstances. The pseudonyms I’ve selected for each participant here are meant to
demonstrate how they have opted to reflect themselves via their self selected monikers or profile
content in one or more of their online networks.
The presentation of data in this chapter is organized into two discussions of the study’s
research questions. The data presented for the study’s first research question is organized into
three thematic presentations that elaborate on the AiG’s oppositional agency, cognitive
liberation, and influence on network norms and dynamics as they access and use social capital
available for their network orientation toward social power privilege and enfranchisement. The
data presented for the study’s second research question is organized into two thematic
presentations that explore (1) the role of race as primary social capital in online social networks
and (2) AiG users’ limitations and freedoms in access and use of online social networking
capital and how these two features function similarly or differently from CRT and social capital
theory perspectives of AiG users’ ability to access and use social capital in offline DAS social
networks.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
99
Introduction to the Participants and Their Online and Offline Social Networking Contexts
The participants all lie on different points of the spectrum in terms of their viewpoints on
school, academic experiences and performance, family makeup, geographic location, and college
destinations. Four of the six participants are already in college and two participants are in the
process of preparing to attend college in the fall. However, the participant’s commonalities in
two main areas allow for meaningful consideration of how each of their interviews factor into a
better understanding of the answers that emerged in response to this study’s research questions.
The first area common to the participants is that all are heavily immersed as both users and
observers in the greater context of the AiG online social networking ecology. The second area
common to all of the participants is that their respective social backgrounds and high school
experiences created for them, variable socio-academic experiences reflecting features of Chapter
Two’s discussion of Ogbu’s research on involuntary minorities, oppositional identity,
community forces and status problems. While none of the participants seem to embody every
socio-academic characteristic of identity and or experience outlined in that discussion, each of
their interviews reveals that a combination of one or more of these characteristics appears as an
influential feature of their social experiences within both their online and offline social
networking ecologies.
Of the 20 participants originally selected for observation in this study, I was able to
interview six (See Table 1). The data presented in this chapter was collected via interview but
represents, what I believe to be reflective of the highly pervasive, key themes I encountered
during my observations of the 20 participant online social networking profiles. At the time of
interview, four of the six interviewed study participants were at the end of their freshman year of
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
100
college. One interview participant had already graduated from high school last year in 2012, but
was preparing to enter college for the first time this fall. One participant was finishing her senior
year of high school at the time of the interview and was preparing to enter college this fall. Five
of the participants are members of the AiG social networking ecology as result of their racial
identification and having attended a high school in a low SES community with social networking
ecologies resembling those detailed by Ogbu and Simmons’ (1998) work on involuntary
minorities.
One of the interview participants, although she does not primarily identify as African
American, was sought out as an interviewee for three key reasons. First, because of her
experiences as a student at South Central Preparatory High School, a school that all the
participants have attended and has a student body that is nearly all African American. Second,
because she has a peer group within both her offline and online social networking ecology that is
largely comprised of African-Americans. Third, because of her social experiences as a Latina,
particularly those as an Afro-Latina of Dominican and Puerto Rican heritage, in social networks
comprised predominately of African-Americans, indicate that her social experiences within her
online and offline networking ecologies offer several relevant insights and experiences that bear
on the research questions concerning the key AiG demographic central to this study.
South Central Preparatory High School
All of the participants interviewed in this study attended South Central Preparatory High
School
5
(SCP) high school for at least one year of their high school career. SCP is located in the
heart of the Crenshaw District of South Central Los Angeles and serves approximately 500
students, 96 percent of whom are African-American and two percent of whom are Hispanic. The
5
Name of high school changed
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
101
remaining students identify as other races or ethnicities. Forty percent of the student population
is considered socio-economically disadvantaged. The school draws its students from the same
population of students as its surrounding neighborhood schools, Crenshaw Senior High School,
Dorsey High School, Inglewood High School and Morningside High School.
In October 2010, the Students Will Learn
6
(SWL) charter school management
organization made a series of public announcements to its students, parents and community of
stakeholders, revealing its financial instability due to the mismanagement of its finances.
Because of this, both the SWL organization and its school sites, including SCP, underwent
several dramatic and emotionally difficult changes to the school’s social network and
this only served to fuel students and their families’ frustration that their voice had long been
absent from critical decision making processes within the network concerning outcomes having
wide reaching academic and social implications in their lives. Consequently, students began
expressing growing and increasingly rebellious concerns about social, environmental, and
instructional dictates, policies, and changes put in place by school and organizational agents with
virtually no input from them. In response to these changes, SCP students grew frustrated by what
they perceived as a sharp decline in social and instructional quality along with other social
capital resources within the school’s network mainly due to larger class sizes, teacher layoffs,
budget cuts and block scheduling.
Jeremiah SmartOne
Originally from Mississippi, Jeremiah Smart One moved to Inglewood, California at the
age of seven. Jeremiah is actually one of the principal inspirations for this study and is a former
student of mine at SCP. While teaching at SCP, a number of my students asked to “friend” me.
6
Name changed
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
102
Because of this, I created a teacher Facebook page that I maintained for staying connected with
them in an online context. In checking the newsfeed and posted content of many of my students,
Table 1.
Table of Study Participants
I began to notice that many of the students I was teaching, presented themselves entirely
differently online than they did in my classroom. I found students to be more far more expressive
and that they seemed to exercise greater levels of social authority and freedom within their
Jeremiah
SmartOne
Brianna
Donnell
Darwin
Anime
Latrice Baker
Luz Del
Mundo
Trebor
Roberts
Age
19
19
19
19
18
19
Year in
school
College
freshman
College
freshman
Starting
college
College
freshman
Graduating
HS senior
College
freshman
High school
attended*
South Central
Preparatory
South Central
Preparatory
SCP and
Central
Gwinnett HS
South Central
Preparatory
South Central
Preparatory
South Central
Preparatory
College
attending
Cal State
University
East Bay
Brown
University
Starting Fall
2013
Cal State
Dominguez
Hills
Starting Fall
2013
UCLA
Online social
networks used
by
participants
Facebook
Tumblr
Twitter
Instagram
Facebook
Instagram
Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Path
Facebook
Tumblr
Twitter
Instagram
Facebook
Tumblr
Twitter
Instagram
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
103
respective online domains. Jeremiah was one such student.management including staffing,
environment, and instructional design. In many respects,
In my class Jeremiah, was quiet, well mannered, and sometimes, what I might consider,
shy. However, once online, he transformed into his musical alter ego, Jeremiah SmartOne, an
aspiring rap lyricist with a dope flow and a critical eye on his school and peer environment, as
well as key social issues within the greater context of mainstream America. Online he
communicated his views to his peers and a general audience with authority and pointed critique.
He was well regarded by his close circle of peers who frequently shared their own creative work
and social viewpoints with him. Observing this, I often wondered what it was about the online
space provided by Facebook that allowed for this change in social networking.
Views on school networking ecology. As Jeremiah tells it, he often internally exercised
views about school resembling Ogbu’s (1991, 2008, 2004) discussion of status problems,
community forces and oppositional identity. He frequently felt disconnected and alienated from
what he perceived as the purported enfranchisement and instrumental value available to him
within his school’s networking ecology saying:
I hated the fact that in high school—it’s super weird because I mean it’s like education’s
the main focus—but that’s not really the main focus of the students. That’s like—we’re
there to learn, quote un quote, because that what’s were told we’re there for but it’s not
really. We’re not—we’re there because our parents told us to be there. We have to go
there because we have to go to college. We’re there to impress people. We’re not really
there to learn, that’s basically it.
Inwardly Jeremiah had his own thoughts about the value of school, instructional aims,
and social norms stating:
Basically my idea of school was like, ‘Alright I guess I’m here to pull girls then.’ Even as
early as elementary school I was comin’ home with numbers not stories about what I
learned that day. But when high school came around it was different because I guess
girls are different, everyone’s mentality is different—but you still there for a different
purpose—you’re not really there to learn. That’s why I think at the school I went to,
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
104
when it came to the classrooms, people were more talkative and teachers were more
disciplinary, took more disciplinary actions compared to more learning or, like, teaching
actions.
Although, I never had the occasion to hear Jeremiah voice his thoughts on his views of his school
and social environment as frankly as he did during our interview, his discussion of his thoughts
at the time reflect a sense of oppositional identity couched within an ongoing frustration with
social norms and values expected of him by his teachers, versus what he viewed as socially
appropriate for himself and his peers. In the interview his views reveal a disconnect between
how teachers’ social expectations translated into disenfranchisement and his own view of the
same behavior as not being representative of true academic and/or social potential. Jeremiah
states:
I think that the teachers expected us to be mature. But I kind of felt like, ‘Who are they to
tell us how to be mature?’ Because we’re all mature in our own ways, and the way we act
because—although we talk in class—that doesn’t really determine how mature a student
is. Or, cause, if you ask me, cause I know a lot of students back in high school and even
today in college that—like, they talked in class but they were probably the smartest
people in the classroom. I saw it a lot because I was friends with all types of peoples. Just
in general, I don’t like to just look at people and say like, ‘Awww, you’re a fuck up.’ Or
something like that. I like seeing people for like what they are, so I have to get to know
them for what they are before I can judge them like that.
In terms of accessing social networking capital and other resources within the school’s
networking ecology, however, he did recognize that conforming with norms, values and
expectations set by school actors created a context for the reciprocity of respect and social
accord. He states:
If you just respect them, or if you show respect towards them—then that’s all that really
matters. They’ll show respect back to you.
However, Jeremiah noted that the failure to conform to the norms and values produced social
consequences created by teachers and other institutional agents that excluded students from
social capital within the classroom saying:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
105
Then you’re kind of automatically put on their bad side and then once you’re put on their
bad side then—you’ll probably take the blame for things that you probably didn’t do. Just
like any teacher, like, if you show a teacher respect they’ll show you respect back—most
of the time. If you probably don’t even do anything in class, you’ll just be sitting there,
but some people around you are talking, then they’ll [teachers] just blame you. I’ve seen
that so many times. Like students that are on their teachers’ bad side, don’t do anything
at all, but they just get blamed for everything.
When asked how often he saw that his school peers’ social behavior, even where
disruptive or conforming, served as an accurate reflection of their academic and intellectual
capabilities he says:
So, I was cool with everybody from like the knuckleheads to like the smartest people. So
I got to see like some of the smartest people were just book smart, they weren’t smart as
far as everything else. They just read the book when they were told to read so they knew
the rules in the book. Cause I know some of the people that did the ‘bad stuff’ in high
school were good at math and I sucked at math—like I’ll be straight up with anybody—
I’m really horrible at math. They were good at math but they weren’t good at English
because they found it boring or something. Or they didn’t even wanna read the book. I
don’t know, it’s just weird how they determine smartness with tests and all that
like...[trails off].
Jeremiah’s statements about his perception of schools and institutional agents reflects features of
an oppositional identity resulting from the social subordination and expressive mistreatment
identified by Ogbu (2004) as central to disenfranchisement created through African American
status problems.
Views on community forces and access to social networking capital. Jeremiah’s
perspective about access and use of social capital in the social networking ecologies available
through the schools in his community versus those available within other wealthier communities
available reflects Ogbu and Simon’s (1998) discussion about the role of comparison value of
schooling as a community force in shaping African American students’ perception of the value
of networking ecologies within schools. He states:
I think race play[s] a part. Even though I went to an all, basically all Black school. I think
race played a huge part because [of] race and where we were actually. Because I think if
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
106
were Black students in like—a Beverly Hills school—I don’t think we would have really
gotten the education we got. But I think since we were Mexican and Black in the area we
were in then, race played a huge part because like—yeah we were considered a good
school I guess—but, yeah (shakes head emphatically…trails off). Basically, the schools
in our areas are fucked up. Like, they suck! Like Morningside down the street. Like I
coulda went there, but—its education sucks. Inglewood, I could have went there—the
education sucks. Everywhere close by home—sucks. Basically, unless you live in a nice
area, I guess your education’s gonna be great, but if you live in area like this, even though
the people aren’t altogether bad, here, but—the education just sucks. Some of the
teachers you can tell they don’t care about you. Like at SCP, obviously, we had teachers
that actually care. Now, as I’m starting to look at the school now, they’re starting to take
away the teachers that care and put more teachers in that—like—I don’t even know how
they got their jobs.
Even though Jeremiah felt that the high school he attended offered better academic and social
advantages when compared to the local high schools in his neighborhood, he still remained
unconvinced about the significance of his academic and social experiences at SCP, saying:
Honestly, the only reason why I stayed at that school was because my friends were there.
But, if my friends weren’t there and I didn’t see things coming in the future with me and
my friends, I would have left because my mom like wanted to send me to a totally
different school. But, I was like, “Nah, I just want to stay.” And because of money; I
didn’t want her to have to pay all that money.
Today Jeremiah is finishing his freshman year at Cal State Monterrey Bay. He released
his first solo, original mix tape Mind Musings
7
online last summer before starting his freshman
year. Because of his online release he gained a degree of popularity within his online networks as
well as in his offline social networks:
I remember, my music first off, when we posted it on Facebook. Everybody liked our
first mix tape that we put out. So basically we got a little buzz like that. So like, music-
wise, yeah, the posts were helpful.
Altogether, Jeremiah’s interview appears to show a clear understanding of the disparities in
social capital available to him in his offline networks. Although he doesn’t necessarily explain
the direct connection between race and these social disparities, he does realize on an organic
7
Name changed
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
107
level, that race plays a key role in the capital available to him and his peers through the schools
in his surrounding neighborhoods versus the capital he perceives as available in wealthier areas
where there are fewer African-American students.
Views and key experiences in online social networking. When asked how he got into
social networking, Jeremiah notes that when he started to heavily use social networks, his key
purpose was to share and promote his music. He was allured by the potential of social networks
as a young fifth grader watching his cousins use sites like MySpace to “pull girls.” He concluded
that he could use social media’s connective potential for similar networking purposes in middle
school and eventually high school. Currently, Jeremiah primarily uses Facebook, Twitter,
Instagram and Tumblr as his social networking sites of choice. Although he uses all four
networks, his favorite network to use is Tumblr because it allows him greater latitude for
expressing himself and for cultivating a wider range of topics he’s interested in. He says:
[On Tumblr] you can reblog [content], you can post stuff yourself, you can like, type
poems or, like, different things on there. It’s cool. It’s really how I’m feeling. So I guess
when you see [my profile and content], you’ll see how I’m feeling that day.
Brianna Donnell
Brianna is a freshman at Brown University. She is from Gardena, California where she
lives with her parents, brother and sister. Brianna attended SCP where she was actively involved
in writing and poetry, cheer, and rugby.
Views on school networking ecology. In our interview, Brianna shared candidly about
her multifaceted social transition from her school, community, and home social networking
ecology to the social networking ecology at Brown which created social nuances and
implications for her offline network with her peers and back at home. Much of Brianna’s
interview described her transition from high school in acclimating herself to the new social
norms imposed at the offline peer level, online peer level, and back-home adult and authority
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
108
levels of her new online and offline social networking ecologies at Brown.
High school and home social networking ecology. Brianna recounted how going to
away to college raised her parents’ and other adults’ suspicions about her social behavior while
she was away at school. When asked whether her parents and other adults treated her with the
same suspicion while she was in high school, Brianna responds:
Oh no. Because I was the ‘precious’ kid. I was the kid who could do no wrong. Not in my
parents’ eyes but in everyone else’s eyes. And since I was getting such good grades and I
didn’t really go out that much in high school. Because I was always, say, with my
boyfriend, or what ever boyfriend I had at the time. So it would just be like pictures of me
and him at the movies. Or, like, I had a curfew and there was times when like I didn’t
drive as much so you know, I came home at say ten, 11 o’clock. And also since I wasn’t
18, the malls and movies would kick you out. So I didn’t go out much and I was also in
my parents’ house. So if they wanted to come and pick me up at the mall they could just
come and snatch me up.
Asked to explained about how the appearance of conforming to the norms, values and attitudes
set by teachers and other school actors in school networks allowed for access to social capital
and other resources in the school network, Brianna says:
The rules that the authorities set, you do need to follow and abide those in order to access
school resources, because if you’re not, then you’re constantly in trouble, you’re being
punished, you’re being given consequences which could be a denial of these resources. I
know if you get along with the authorities more and they grow accustomed to you, or
they like you then you’ll probably get more resources than someone who is always in
trouble—who, if they’re always in trouble they have a chance of being denied resources,
maybe even being denied school altogether because of suspension or expulsion.
When asked how she and her peers fared in accessing and using social capital within her school
network she says:
It depends on what is the resource. If you’re an athlete, then a valuable resource is a
coach’s recommendation, or people that can see you play, or take your stats. I know I
was an academic, and that my resources were just things that I would take from
classrooms, and teachers, just to further my academic career. For people whose resources
were parties and looking cute, their resources came from other people or other people’s
validation.
Brianna’s interview reveals an awareness of the implicit social norms, values, and expectations
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
109
that influence the networking dynamics affecting her social power and privilege within her
offline networks. Further, Brianna explains her understanding that the appearance of abiding by
the norms, values, and expectations set by institutional agents creates a greater likelihood of
accessing social power and privilege within her offline networks.
Views on her college’s social networking ecology. Though Brianna says that her
parents, teachers and other authority figures viewed her social behavior fairly benignly, she
shares that among her peers and classmates in general, racial and sexual epithets were regularly
exchanged and commonly featured in her everyday school’s social network. Brianna says:
I would say that at SCP it was really easy to use the N-word because everyone was Black.
And even those who weren’t Black, they were around Black people all the time because
they went to SCP, so they just kind of became Black. And so it was always easy to, you
know, say if something went wrong, it was so easy to blame the White teacher because
that was the one thing that wasn’t Black. And so I felt freer in high school to say
whatever I wanted to because I didn’t have to be socially conscious. If I wanted to call
someone ‘gay’ or a ‘faggot’—I could. If I thought someone was playing around with
their sexuality, you could just like call them a ‘slut’, and that was okay. It could also just
contribute to the environment that we’re in, of Los Angeles California, and the
neighborhoods we’re from.
Brianna is currently a business and education major who remains active in sports through
Brown’s rugby program. However, she explains that making the social transition from her high
school to Brown proved more challenging than she had anticipated. Although, academically,
Brianna was a top-ranked student at SCP who consistently performed at the top of her classes
and extracurricular activities, she found that social capital she received at SCP did not equip her
well enough for the academic and social transition. She says:
In high school, I was the nerdy kid. I was the top of my class. I did a lot of extracurricular
activities including rugby, cheerleading, soccer. I was vice president of our whole student
body. I realize that— compared to the kids at Brown—being the best really at South
Central Prep doesn’t really mean anything now. Yes, I’m proud of my accomplishments
for what I did, at South Central Prep but I was still pretty far behind in comparison to
those who are now at my school [Brown], academically.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
110
Even in making the social transition, although her parents had prepared her for encounters with
race and racism in her new school’s social network, Brianna found that she had still had to make
an adjustment to the new facets of social networking in her new school environment saying:
Going to Brown, it was so, so much socially conscious things that I had to focus on. And
so for me being Black, and my parents preparing me for discrimination and racism, I was
ready for race. So say, if a White guy said something racist, I mean, I knew how to
respond to it. But going to Brown, I’ve now had to become gender conscious. I was not
ready to encounter all the gender things that came along with it now.
The social norms, values, and attitudes she had originally been prepared to face were now made
complicated by the intersection of other nuanced social and identity factors such as gender and
sexuality:
So at Brown, everyone’s gay—or some kind of gay. And so I didn’t really know how to
deal with it. Coming from where I’m from, it was a joke, or there was really only two
[types of] people. But now, I was in a place where people were openly gay, bisexual,
lesbian, transgendered. And so there are times where, people knew not to be racist. People
did not know how to not slut shame, victim blame, really around gender and sexuality
issues. So you could see on Facebook how a White guy wouldn’t dare say anything about
Black person or Mexican person but you know, they can easily say something like, a
girl’s a slut. And so sometimes at Brown, you would think that gender matters more than
race. Neither matters more, but you can see how someone’s [social] life would be over
saying something that is sexist versus racist. Also being because the school is half male,
half female and I believe that, sixty percent of the guys at Brown are considered to be
gay, bisexual or transgendered. And so you have this huge community that’s there to
support gender and sexuality whereas there’s only 10 percent of Black kids at Brown. So
I mean, yeah, you have the wrath of all the Black kids, but honestly, if we all sit in one
room, that’s it.
Although Brianna had been primed for the appearance of racism, she had not been made to
consider racism’s overlap with sexism or sexism’s overshadowing of racism as a key focus of
equality and tolerance on Brown’s campus. Brianna later discusses how her social interactions
within her online social networks helped her learn more about the social consequences of
violating these new social convention and also helped provide her with an outlet for exploring
issues of racism that had been somewhat overshadowed by sexism on her campus.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
111
Introduction to and use of online social networks. Brianna was introduced to Facebook
after she noticed many of her peers were leaving MySpace in favor of Facebook. She notes:
I think that was around the time that Facebook started going public. So you didn’t have to
have just a college email to have a Facebook. And so that’s when I got on it. It was a
move with the times.
Now, and in high school, Brianna primarily uses Facebook and Instagram as her primary online
social networks of choice. Brianna observes a shift in socio-personal significance of her online
networking ecologies while away in college versus when she returns home to her community.
She says:
Even in the different areas that I would go to, like say Brown versus home, I am still a
different person even on my social media. So I have talked about a lot of race or gender
conscious things while I’m at Brown. But now that I’m at home, I don’t want to.
Or even, sometimes, [I] forget that everyone sees [my] Facebook. But for some reason I
feel that when I’m at Brown, Brown people are more on my Facebook and then when I’m
at home, all my home friends are more on my Facebook versus everyone is there
together.
Brianna’s explanation of her shift in socio-personal significance reveals the flexible social utility
social networks offers to its users in allowing them to self-direct their network orientation toward
power, privilege and enfranchisement. For instance, here, because the norms, values, and
expectations in Brown’s offline social network favor sensitivity and awareness to issues
pertaining to sexuality, Brianna is able to use her online social network to reflect this awareness
while in these settings and later, while back at home, shift back into her own pattern of posting
content and social interaction.
Luz Del Mundo
Luz Del Mundo is a graduating senior from SCP high school. She will be attending
UCLA as a freshman in the fall. She identifies as both Dominican and Puerto Rican and
describes herself as coming “from a family of very liberal people.” I met Luz in her freshman
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
112
year at SCP and she later became one of my English students. Luz remained actively involved in
extracurricular activities offered to the school’s small student body and often engaged in the
student run poetry and expression club, Writers United. Later in her senior year of high school,
Luz joined the cheer team and also served on the student advisory board for SCP’s school
administration where she represented and shared her class and student body’s interests and
viewpoints with school and organizational administrators.
Views on school networking ecology. Although considered a high performing,
academically competitive student, Luz considers the instrumental value of high school
experience ambivalently stating:
Generally, it’s complicated. I think my school, in a way, has helped to make it a little
more complicated because of things that they did. It wasn’t horrendous, it wasn’t
amazing either—it was just high school.
Race in school social networking ecology. Luz primarily identifies as Latino, however in
attending school with a student body made up of roughly 97% African-American students, she
frequently encounters the social implications of race and ethnicity within her school networking
ecology. She shares her experience saying:
Okay, as the one Latino in my class, for the most part—well that—and then I deal a lot
with the whole like, ‘Anybody who speaks Spanish is a Mexican.’ Unfortunately, I am
not Mexican, so I don’t fit that, which is kind of annoying. There’s like the issue of
people feeling some type of way about immigration. It comes back to like really political
stuff mostly. Cause they’re [other students] smart. They’re ignorant, but they’re smart.
So like the arguments that they [other students] make, make sense, but they’re not all the
way there.
I asked Luz for an example of how such discussions got started and were carried out in
the context of her school network. She shared an example from a class assignment earlier in the
year that illustrated, what she viewed as, misconceptions about her race, culture, and ethnicity:
We had to write an essay for our English class about whether or not charter schools are
the solution to closing the achievement gap. And a lot of the times, it basically breaks up
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
113
this way because of the way that things are just naturally, or not naturally, institutionally
segregated. We basically had to look at how Latino charter schools are doing a lot better
than African American charter schools. And why is that? What is that? And then there’s
argument of like, “Oh well you know because Latinos have this, and culturally it’s like
this…” Kind of the same way they do with Asians. And for me, I personally don’t like
anybody putting down anybody, because I know some pretty dummy Latinos. I guess it’s
the issue of either people saying we’re better or people are saying that we’re worse. It’s
just kind of bagging on them all the time. All the time. So, yeah, I deal with that.
Luz’s experiences as an Afro- Latina in predominately African American social networks in
many respects fits Ogbu’s (2003) notion of the expressive mistreatment experienced by African-
Americans in encountering status problems within DAS. Here, both her peers and school actors
in her offline networks, devalue and/or dismiss, often unconsciously, facets of her culture and
experiences as an Afro Latina creating for Luz, varying levels of disengagement and alienation
within her offline networks.
Introduction to and use of online social networks. Presently, Luz prefers to use
Twitter, Tumblr and Instagram as her social networks of choice. Although Luz uses all five
networking platforms regularly, she explains how she came to use each site and the way that she
views each site as a means of accomplishing her personal and social aims. About Twitter she
says:
Twitter because I had a bunch of people who I wanted to follow. Like I have this thing
about following people who, I don’t know, they’re not necessarily like celebrities, but
they could be, like, considered internet famous or like people who are coming up and I
wanna to see what they’re doing and what they’re working on. So a lot of them have
Twitter. So that’s why I made a Twitter. I don’t really know why I like Twitter. I just
think that’s it’s, like, easy to say my life in 160 characters. Twitter is good for networking
because it’s, like, universal so like every organization pretty much has one. You can
follow any organization, any group.
About Instagram she says:
Instagram because, I don’t know, when you get an iPhone you get an Instagram. It’s kind
of like the thing that goes with it. Instagram—I like pictures—so Instagram is good for
that. It’s like Flickr but on my phone. For Instagram, I definitely enjoy the layout of it,
first and foremost, because I only pick websites with interesting layouts that have the
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
114
HTML together, because if not, then it annoys me. And then, I like the fact you can tag
people and stuff. That makes it easy. And they keep updating ways for you to tag people
in your pictures and all that kind of stuff. Um, it’s pretty much just like straight to the
point. I don’t really use Instagram to network as much, as some people do.
About Tumblr she says:
Tumblr was like, probably at the beginning of high school, it was like really popular. I
mean, all of my friends were making one, and I like to blog so, it wasn’t, like, ‘a thing’.
Tumblr—because I like the mixture of media that you can find on Tumblr. Because it’s a
blog you have video, you have words, you have pictures, you have music. I like that all
that is in one place.
For Luz, each social networking site represents a platform through which to accomplish her
respective social purposes and functions within both online and offline networks.
Darwin Anime
Darwin Anime lives in Georgia and plans to attend Central Gwinett College in the fall as
a freshman majoring in game design and animation—though, he is reconsidering a switch to
biology. He recently quit his job at Burger King due to a disagreement with the manager. He is
presently looking for a new job before he goes back to school in the fall. I met Darwin as a 10th
grader at SCP.
Views on school and other offline networking ecologies. Darwin shared that his view
about the instrumental value of high school was relative to the quality of his interactions with his
teachers and peers. In general, however he did not find school to be very useful for his own aims
until after he graduated high school and faced the challenge of transitioning into college, saying:
I felt that high school was overrated and, as such, I didn’t really try. In hindsight, I wish I
did but you know—can’t really go back and change that.
Darwin notes that his views on life, particularly those with respect to science and
religion, frequently seems to set him apart from his peers and community in both online and
offline social networks. He explains:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
115
I feel that, of my peers, that I have a unique perspective on the world. Not as an African
American but just in how I process everything, how I process information, in comparison
to other people, I may look at it in a completely different way than people may look at it.
I just kind of keep to myself when it comes to those kind of beliefs. I’m a keep to
myselfer, I guess (laughs).
Introduction to and use of online social networks. As Darwin explains it, he was
gradually drawn into using social networking as a matter of social convenience saying:
I didn’t really start adding people on Facebook until like, maybe uh, towards the middle
of the first semester. And even then, like when I added, the first person that I added was
from my first period and that was to play basketball. I didn’t really add him really out of
[a sense of], oh let’s be friends or stay in touch. More of, you don’t have a phone, and I
need some way to get in contact with you. And then most of the friends that I had [...] it
was more of a let’s keep in touch kind of thing. And at SCP, ‘Oh I wanted to hang out
with you. What’s your Facebook?’ Or, ‘Can we hang out soon,’ or something like that.
Even though we did do a lot of hanging out at the school itself.
Darwin favors Facebook as his online social networking site of choice noting that even
though other social networking sites have become available as alternative social platforms, he
prefers to stick to Facebook.
Well, really, what I used it for in the past was just to stay connected with friends on like
Facebook or whatever. I wasn’t really interested in like, I guess the uh—what’s the word?
[...] I guess ‘vibes’ with Twitter, Instagram, and all that other stuff. I mean yeah, I have
accounts, but I didn’t use them often enough to actually remember the accounts.
Darwin is also an anime fan and budding artist who frequently uses his Facebook profile
and other online sites to both solicit constructive feedback on his artwork as well as to learn
more technique that will allow him to perfect his craft. Explaining his approach to using
Facebook to solicit feedback on his work, he says:
I measure [feedback] through both likes and comments. I prefer comments because I
know exactly what they think about it and it’s not just like some blank space that just
says “like” there. I mean yes it looks nice. The more likes that you get the better-- but it
also shows that the more likes that you get, the more people have seen it. But not only
that, the comments is what I look at especially—not for praise, but for help. Just to really
better myself with tips.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
116
Darwin is specific about the type of feedback he looks for in the online comments he receives
within his social network saying:
It’s kind of like a 50/50 thing. In the comments what I typically look for is negative
comments. Just because negative comments is what progresses people. You don’t know if
there’s a problem if everybody’s saying that you’re doing okay or you’re doing good.
And that problem will never be fixed until somebody actually says it. So of course, I look
for negative feedback so that I can enact change in my art and pull that to the next level
from where it’s at now.
Darwin also identifies as a “transhumanist” who spends a great deal of time thinking about the
philosophical and practical implications of science and technology in solving the day to day
challenges of life. In the last year he has written a book on his views on evolution, ultimately
deciding to digitally upload his book to Amazon as opposed to spending money to get his book
physically published. He used Facebook to publicize the effort to his network of family and
friends. Of his success so far he notes:
I ultimately decided instead of spending money to get an actual, physical book, I decided
to digitally upload it to Amazon. So I mean it’s on Amazon now. How many sales I’ve
made, I’m not sure, because I haven’t kept tabs on it. I don’t even think I’ve really made
any sales. Just […] because of [lack of] publicity.
Darwin’s comments reveal that his use for social networking sites appears limited to socially
practical functions that enable his pursuit of social and personal development in art, thought, and
social interaction. Although Darwin lacks access to forms of social capital available within his
offline networks, in many respects, with minimal maneuvering he can recreate these forms of
capital in his online spaces to empower and enfranchise himself beyond what he would otherwise
be able to accomplish without access to networking capital available in his offline networks.
Trebor Lyric
Trebor Lyric is a self described poet, artist, and painter presently attending UCLA as an
aspiring journalism major. I met Trebor as a 10th grader at SCP. For her senior year, she
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
117
transferred to a private, religious school in a nearby Los Angeles community.
Views on school and other offline networking ecologies. Of her high school
experience in general and concerning the differences in the academic and social experiences that
she had at both schools, Trebor says:
I loved high school but I hated high school. I really disliked SCP because of the type of
people that went to the school and all of the financial situations that were going on with
the infrastructure. Academically, it prepared me to get where I am now, because I don’t
think I would be here [at UCLA] without SCP and, like, the teachers there and how all of
that trained me. But at the same time the social atmosphere was a wreck. But, it also
introduced to me like, how people act, and like, how to interact with people as well, and
how to have fun, and how to find friends, real friends. And when I transferred to my
[new] school senior year, I loved the social atmosphere, but I hated the academics.
Here, Trebor’s views on school reflect features of the oppositional identity’s disengagement and
a relatively low relational value for the significance of both of her schools’ networking capital in
her academic and social endeavors.
Introduction to and use of online social networks. Trebor first got involved in online
social networks in when she was in middle school through the social networking service AOL
Instant Messenger (AIM). According to Trebor:
AIM was a very, very popular social network site that’s not as popular anymore. Because
when AIM came out it was primarily used on computers and specific types of phones
(such as the SideKick LS).
Trebor notes that many of her peers used the site because:
As a middle schooler, high schooler, you don’t go out that much, as you do when you get
older. So a lot of the kids would be at home on their computer and they would wanna talk
to their friends but it was a space, Instant Messenger, that people could use. It was not
boring. You could have aliases, user names. They had a status whether you were online,
offline, away and people could see that. They had icons. It was just a certain popular
social media site that people could use.
Later, as Trebor explains, her peers began leaving AIM in favor of Facebook as the
dynamics and features of their social lives began changing. She says:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
118
But once people got older and they started going out more, AIM became less and less
popular. And a lot of people talk about how they miss AIM and they should bring AIM
back, but at the same time, nobody would have the time to sit at their computer all day
and AIM their friends. Especially once the iPhone came out and the Blackberry got more
popular. People started using smart phones more, texting, and aiming from your phone or
iChat became way more popular than AIM.
Trebor’s current social networking sites of preference are Facebook, Twitter, and
Instagram. She explains the personal and social functionality of each site’s network settings in
her day-to-day life. She says:
But, I post things on Facebook just so people could be able to keep up with my life that
don’t talk to me that much. I post on Twitter, just what I’m feeling or what I wanna say
at the moment. It could vary from song lyrics to thoughts to poetry lyrics to something
funny. My Twitter—almost anything goes on my Twitter. Instagram is like the most
popular social media right now, next to Twitter, and I love Twitter—but Instagram is all
pictures, all comments, and all ‘likes’. You can tag people. It’s not as complicated; it’s
not as updating as Facebook. You don’t have to have every single person that you ever
met on your Instagram because you do your personal photos. It’s more for like close
friends or people that you know.
Trebor’s explanation of how, when, and why she and her peers opted to both access and use
different online social networks for varying purposes illustrates the self determining features of
“netizenship” (Deuze, 2006) allowing members of the AiG to exercise power and influence with
each other and upon the networks themselves. Trebor’s comments also point to loss of patronage
and business occurring as the consequences of an online networks inability to engage its user
base of AiG members.
Latrice Baker
Latrice is a freshman majoring in Child Development at Cal State Dominguez Hills. I met
Latrice as a 10th grader at SCP. I remember Latrice as a very straightforward student who was
sometimes quite outspoken among her peers. Latrice often shared her poetry during the
lunchtime meetings for Writers United. She also was active on the school’s rugby team and still
participates in the sport through local, extramural events.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
119
Latrice lives with her mother and brother, Michael. Michael attends a middle school in
Compton and experienced developmental delays as a child. He has been identified as having
special needs and his mother and Latrice are actively working to find schools having a support
network, that will not only meet Michael’s academic needs, but fit the family’s financially
circumstances because as Latrice puts it, “It ain’t cheap.” Latrice decided to major in Child
Development and to pursue a career as an occupational therapist to help students in situations
like her brother’s. Latrice plans to transfer to Fresno State University after next year because she
thinks doesn’t think CSUDH offers enough options for classes. She also wants a chance to move
away from home. In the meantime, Latrice is trying to find a job but does makeup on the side,
and says that one of her main goals is just to finish school on time.
Views on school and other offline, social networking ecologies. Latrice candidly
shared with me the shift in her views on the instrumental and symbolic value of schooling in her
time since graduating from high school and becoming a college freshman She states:
I think I was mid-performing [in high school]. I’m not gon’ say I was high performing. I
put my all into everything but sometimes that just wasn’t enough. [Now] I think I ‘m a
high performing student because I put my all. My sweat and tears in my works. I couldn’t
see it any other way. If I’m not trying I might as well just give up now. And I’m not
about to do that. I have to take this seriously if I’m spending $1000 for just one class by
itself.
In describing the shift in her views on the social value of school and academic
performance she says:
In high school it was like, ‘Alright, this is gonna last forever and these are the greatest
years of my life and you know, I can’t wait to be a senior. I can’t wait to graduate. I can’t
wait to go to college.’ And closer to senior year, playing games, and not doing what
you’re supposed to do does not help you. You know, when the time passes, you know,
that’s it. Like once you get your chance and you miss it. That’s it. Your opportunity is
gone. You have to make your own opportunities. And just sitting there doing nothing, it’s
not gonna help you in life. It’s all about survival of the fittest. And if you can’t survive,
what are you gonna do? Just sit by and do nothing?
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
120
Now in college, Latrice identifies the personal stakes and concerns she has for her social
enfranchisement, power and privilege in her post-graduation workforce opportunities should she
fail to meet DAS norms of academic achievement.
As I got to college—whooooo—college is definitely, college has had a real reality check
on me. So, you know, being in school, you know you’re paying for yourself. It’s no joke.
If you don’t do what you’re supposed to do in school. If you’re not doing your
homework, or if you’re not participating in class, or asking questions, and you need help,
or talking to your teachers, or talking to your peers—then you really have no point in
being there. Because you know, being in high school is free, your parents pay for that.
But being in college, you talking about you’re not doing your work. You’re getting
kicked out of the university. And then you done spent all that money to get in, pay for an
application, wrote all those essays for nothing. You been disqualified from the school.
And, you know, finishing college is the gateway to just about anything and everything.
You can’t really even get a job without some type of college anyway. The best type of
job you’re gonna get is McDonalds. But even now at McDonald’s they want you to have
some type of experience being in school.
Like Darwin and Jeremiah, while in school, Latrice also found the instrumental and relational
value of school to be relatively low. However, upon graduating high school, the significance of
the role of social capital within school networks became much clearer to her.
On how she views race and racism in her offline social networks. In terms of race,
Latrice indicates that in her community, race becomes most apparent to her in the context of the
community she considered outside of her school networking ecology stating:
I think the most race I ever saw is with authority. Not necessarily within school but, you
know, like authority. Most of the time, you know like Crenshaw and Slauson, that’s kind
of like a Black area. The most racist things I’ve seen have probably been with the police
and that’s it […] Nothing but the common stereotypes[…] It’s a pretty regular
occurrence.
At one point in our interview, I directly asked Latrice how she viewed race in the context of any
of her school networks. She said that she really didn’t see race as a factor at any level of her
school’s social networking ecologies. However, later in the interview while responding to
another question about offline authority she revealed the following experience:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
121
One of my professors, and I really almost cussed him out for it, he was talking about race
and black people in general and all of the stereotypes—and it really pissed me off! And I
was just like, you don’t know—cause he wasn’t black—you don’t know what people go
through every day so how can you speak on how we act or what we do, you know? And
not everybody is the same on top of that. You can’t base something off of one thing that
one person does and put it on everybody like, oh yeah they’re gonna do that too, because
you know, that’s not it.
Latrice’s experiences with race in both her offline community and school networks show
that even where racism may not be expressly intended by social actors within offline networks,
the overtones of racism still remain distinctly apparent to members of the AiG. Further, the
inability to address these instances of racism, contributes to the status problems experienced by
members of the AiG in navigating offline social networks.
Introduction to and use of online social networks. Latrice was introduced to social
networking by her best friend, Jontay, who told Latrice that she was missing out important social
updates and happenings because she did not have a profile on Facebook, the primary social
network many of Latrice and Jontay’s friends were using:
I really didn’t make a Facebook ‘til like I was in the 10th grade. And I didn’t even make
my Facebook, my best friend did. So she was like, Tricie, you missed out on all the funny
posts and what we be talking about and I was just like, ‘Oh, like, what is Facebook? I’m
still getting over on My Space. Like, what do I need a Facebook for?’ She was like, ‘I’ma
make you one.’ And I was like, ‘Okay, cool.’
Gradually Latrice began to get more involved and socially integrated into her online networks,
using them to stay informed about the social and personal lives of friends and family and, then,
later for uninhibited self-expression. She says:
So then my Facebook was for talking to my friends and I started added my family on
there and talking to them. And so basically when I was just on Facebook, I would post
what I’m doing and where I’m going. And that was just about it. Then came Twitter. I
was already Twitter but I hadn’t been using it like that. [On] Twitter I just tweet all my
ruthless thoughts. Pretty much. Everything is just raw. I don’t bite my tongue.
Currently Latrice uses Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Path, and Kik as her online social
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
122
networks of choice. In terms of how she has intentionally represented herself within the networks
Latrice says:
I think I come off as somebody who, like, doesn’t just take shit. Like I don’t take shit
from anybody. When I say something that’s it.
Latrice uses all five networking platforms regularly but offers hers perspective on the
way she uses each site for her own social and personal needs She says:
Facebook, the best feature, I enjoy, I would say are my pictures-- being able to just
upload my pictures and write the caption. Other than that it’s basically just status
messages and picture messages that you post. I just enjoy posting statuses. I could post
the most random thing on my status and people will just have the most random opinions.
That’s what I enjoy. Twitter is just something—I can say anything on Twitter. Nobody is
going to tell me what I am going to put on my Twitter because there’s multiple people’s
inner thoughts that you’re looking at. So it’s like, ‘Oh, yeah, so that’s how that person
works?’Instagram is like, I’m like a wannabe photographer, that’s how Instagram is for
me. Like, ‘Oh yeah, I’m a wannabe photographer. I’m gonna take all these pictures of
myself and post’em.’ Cause, I can’t keep’em all on my phone but Instagram can hold’em
for me!
Again, here, Latrice’s comments point to the self-determined approach available to the AiG in
choosing to how and why to access and use an online network’s social capital and other
resources in their respective network orientations toward social enfranchisement, power, and
privilege.
Research Question One
Chapter Two’s discussion of the literature relevant to this study traced the emergence and
role of two predominant social networking ecologies in involuntary minorities African
Americans’ use and access of social capital in network orientations toward power,
enfranchisement and privilege within DAS (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu,1994; Ladson-
Billings & Tate; 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1997, Lynn, 2003; Jay, 2003; Howard, 2003; Ogbu,
2004 Ladson-Billings, 2004 Lynn &Parker, 2006). Chapter Two also focused on understanding
the interconnectedness of critical elements of African American social networking ecologies and
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
123
how these features factored into individual and collective disenfranchisement, termed status
problems by Ogbu (2004), and enfranchisement with DAS and community social settings (Ogbu,
1994; Ogbu & Simons, 1998; Ogbu 2004).
Now, as members of the iGeneration, African-American students gain the advantages of
“netizenship”(Deuze, 2006) that allow for a more-self determined approach to managing and
accessing social network capital in directing their network orientation toward social
enfranchisement, power and privilege. With the rise of online social networks now serving as
key social settings for the African American iGeneration (AiG), in this study I focused on
collecting and analyzing data to answer this study’s first principal research question:
How do members of the African American iGeneration access and use social capital to
self direct network orientation toward enfranchisement, power and privilege in online and
offline social networking ecologies?
The next section of this chapter presents the key themes that emerged in data providing
responses to the study’s driving inquiry. The study found the following themes, presented in
order of significance:
1. The AiG’s online social networks provide members of the AiG with a social platform
allowing for the transformation of oppositional agency into oppositional identity.
2. The AiG’s online social networks provide members of the AiG with a social platform
allowing for greater cognitive liberation (Emirbayer & Mische, 2001)
3. The AiG’s online social networks provide members of the AiG with a social platform
allowing for reframing offline and online social networking models.
4. The AiG’s online social networks provide members of the AiG with a social platform
allowing for maximization of network orientation and greater levels of embeddedness
within online networks.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
124
The data for each of these themes is presented in greater detail in the following section.
Transforming Oppositional Identity into Oppositional Agency
Implications of the literature discussed in Chapter Two strongly supports the conclusion
that, much like the students interviewed for this study, members of the AiG may frequently
exercise or experience features of oppositional identity due to status problems within offline
social networks of their school homes and communities couched within the greater social context
and influence of DAS social norms values and attitudes (Ogbu, 1994, 1998, 2004). However,
because of a lack of access of to secondary social capital, within these de facto social networking
ecologies, their sense of oppositional identity general lacked sufficient access or use key forms
of social network capital to meaningfully transform their subjectively and objectively
disadvantageous social status and enfranchisement standing within their social networks.
Within this analysis, Chapter Two’s also included a discussion on institutional agency,
adapted from Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) work on the role of social capital in students’ ability to
successfully navigate their social networks. In the context of this study, institutional agents
generally manage and distribute secondary social network capital according to DAS norms
values and attitudes. Luz explains her view of on the social controls exerted by institutional
agents and other authorities in her offline social networks, saying:
I guess, technically, they have me on a schedule—so basically—it’s like prison. You
have me on a schedule—you basically control my life. So that’s just controlling in
general. You make it so that I’m here at this point, not here at this point, doing this, what
I’m allowed to do. You make up the rules, then you’re in charge.
As members of the iGeneration, however, African-American students can tap into the
advantages of netizenship allowing them more latitude in accessing and using social capital for
their own power, privilege and enfranchisement ends. The question then becomes, given these
freedoms of netizenship, how are the features of AiG oppositional identity empowered by access
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
125
to these freedoms and social networking tools. Jeremiah sums up how this level of access and
freedom creates a shift in students’ frame of comparison for their cultural models of social
networking in their offline and online models:
You have a certain power online. When you get back to school. It’s like, ‘Oh back to
reality I guess.’ Can’t say everything. Can’t be a dominating figure.
His statement reflects a core belief exhibited by many members of the African American
AiG as reflected within the set of interviews for this study and as a noticeably implicit theme in
much of the posted content I observed. His statement serves as an overarching context
particularly for the presentation of set of themes appearing in the data responding to the study’s
first research question.
Self or peer-designated, freedom, authority and decision-making power. Jeremiah
and other interviewees frequently expressed their perception and disagreement with the social
norms, values and attitudes that govern social dynamics imposed by institutional agents and
other social authorities within offline social networks(Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Here, he offers his
perspective on how expression of this opposition both differs and plays out in online and offline
social networks saying:
In school they want you not to curse and stuff. Yeah basically, they don’t want you to
curse or say fully what you want to say. They want you to give the watered down sugar
coated version of what you wanna say when you’re in school. Compared, at least, with
who the teacher is. And even then, they don’t wanna lose their job so they’re not gonna
let you say everything you wanna say (laughs). But on social media you can say exactly
what you wanna say, no holding back. I mean—depending on whose following you..
Keep[ing] it real, if your mom is following
8
you or something (shrugs, trails off). [But
otherwise, you give your full perspectives online compared to real life.]
Within online social network ecologies, however, members of the AiG because of have a
8
“Following” and “friending” refer to a online user within a site’s network who has a known,
confirmed online connection to another user within the same network and as a result, generally
permits both users to have full access to the other users full profile and posted content.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
126
wide range of freedom, choice and authority in deciding 1) whom to engage 2) what content or
network(s) engage 3) when to engage and with whom or what they what want to engage 4) why
they want to engage and 5) how they want to engage. For instance Jeremiah discusses his
choices about why and when to use his online networks:
I get on Twitter, but barely, not really that much. Twitter when I used to get on all the
time—it used to be freedom—just like Facebook, it was freedom. But it’s more freedom
on Twitter if you ask me because all you’re doing is just like releasing your thoughts.
Darwin gives an example of the factors he considers before engaging in content posted by his
peers within his online network saying:
[For example] I would [decide to] watch a fight if it’s worth being witnessed. Like if was
something like really, really serious. Or if I was completely bored I would watch a fight. I
might be curious as a natural human curiosity, but I don’t really need to watch or get all
crazy.
As opposed to their offline social networks, where students generally have less say and
authority to contest social norms, values and attitudes expected of them by offline authority
figures and status quo, Darwin explains the level of freedom and authority available to members
of the AiG within their online social networking ecologies. He says:
In online spaces, there really are no restrictions. Depending on the site, yes, they might
put up restrictions. Like Facebook bans people for not following or abiding by their rules
and regulations. I mean, I’ve never been banned. Twitter bans people, and not for
explicit content, but excessive content. They call it a Twitter jail. You can’t like post
anything for a certain amount of days or hours. I don’t know how somebody could
possibly tweet that much, but I’ve seen it. There’s different rules and regulations for
different websites but, in essence, depending on the website you go to, and if you think
smart—there really isn’t any like restrictions. I mean like, you’re limited to your, I guess,
space of thinking.
As Luz tells it, the sense of freedom the AiG has, derives from students’ belief that online
networks represent spaces considered as self-run social domains that lie outside the dictates of
offline social authorities:
So at school you can’t say certain things, just because you can’t—because you’re at
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
127
school. So I don’t think that it’s necessarily because it’s on the internet that they say
these things. It’s because it’s a place outside of school where—like, you can kind of
control the people who are reading what you’re saying and such, in a sense. So that gives
it a level of comfortability, that even though it might be false comfort, it’s there. And so
people say things that they probably shouldn’t say. Or they think that what they’re saying
is private or that people won’t really care what they’re saying which also has a different
context to it.
When asked to think of any limitations that either he’s either had or observed others have in
accessing and using social networks Darwin says:
In essence, there’s nothing stopping anybody from putting anything on the internet and
there’s no censorship, really, when it comes to the internet. I mean there’s always a site
that there is no censorship whatsoever as well as there’s sites where there’s complete
censorship and that stuff isn’t appropriate. But with those sites with censorships there’s
always a way around those censorships. I mean like, people could like blur out an image
and still get their point across. I mean whether people are able to connect the dots
enough—to where there’s nothing “bad” that shouldn’t be shown, like content that
shouldn’t be shown. Whether it’s picture, whether there’s posts or whatever—there’s
more than one way to relay the same message.
Compared to their offline networks, the interviewees’ comments here, indicate that members of
the AiG online social freedom primarily arises in the range of choice and authority students have
within their online networking ecologies to both access and use social networking capital.
Challenge institutional authority and other authority. On several occasions, I
observed students publicly airing their frustrations with teachers, administrators, and parents,
especially on those social networks such as Vine, Twitter, and Instagram considered by the AiG
as spaces relatively unfamiliar to adults and other authorities. However, though critique and
insults were common, students also used their spaces to highlight, praise and commend what
they viewed as positive actions and behavior by adults and authorities. Brianna shares one
instance she saw happen on Twitter where one of her peers somehow got hold of a nude photo of
one their teachers and how students’ online exercise of agency translated back into the students’
offline school network. She says:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
128
I have seen, for instance, at school, someone posted a rumor, picture of one of our
teachers naked. And so they posted it on Twitter and so people were commenting on it
from the school, like, saying things that were very inappropriate and vulgar about her.
And whereas when they went to school, I mean, she was still the teacher, and so she kind
of went from being the authority in the classroom to people objectifying or exploiting her
online. So it was interesting to see how she could be in this one spot at one time and all
the students would have to respect her but then when they get home they slander her
name and they write whatever they want to write about her, exploiting her, and saying
rumors, saying this is a naked picture of her. And I mean of course, those lines blurred,
and those kids were let go from the school but I mean for that moment, yeah she was the
teacher but as soon as we got home, she was the next porn star that we looked at.
Luz also shared her recollection of another similar experience and the in-class social
consequences for the students:
So basically at the beginning of the year there was this whole thing—people don’t really
like Mr. Donovan. Shatari went to go visit a college and before she left, she tweeted
something about Mr. Donovan, and Aaron, like they both tweeted something about Mr.
Donovan. In my opinion it wasn’t something that serious. They weren’t like calling him
out of his name or anything. I mean they just said that he couldn’t teach or something or
something like that, I can’t remember. I guess a student told him that they had been
talking about him on Twitter and he got really upset and now he kind of like holds a
vendetta against them. So like, yeah, he hates, them. In my opinion it doesn’t make any
sense.
Both Luz and Brianna’s comments illustrate the interplay between the AiG use of online
social networks’ as forums for expression the influence of this expression on the social
dynamics within offline social networks. That members of the AiG are able to use their online
networks, intentionally or unintentionally, to generate social responses and outcomes within both
online and offline networks, points to the role of online social networks in affecting the status
quo of social dynamics between AiG members and offline social authorities.
Create own hidden curriculum. As I was in the process of choosing which participants
and profiles to observe, I noticed that some members of the AiG had open profiles and content
on one networking site and completely private profiles and content on others. Furthermore I
noticed that where a user had two or more profiles, the postings on their respective profiles
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
129
differed in content and mode of expressions. For example, I observed that for one user there were
key differences in the posted profile content and interactions taking place on his Twitter and
Facebook pages. On his Facebook page, the publicly posted content primarily consisted of what
would be considered fairly benign conversation, pictures and other links. However, his Twitter
page was filled with expletives, highly critical observations about the life and people around him,
and graphic images. This observation fit in with what many of the interviewees shared as the
consciously intentional selection of profile forum for the user’s content, interactive and
expressive purposes in order to influence which observers outsider of the user’s network could or
would be likely to access the user’s online content. Both the participants’ interviews and my
observations expressed a high level of awareness and caution against social “feds.” Feds are
considered as any observers, online or offline, whose potential to access and/or view a AiG’s
user’s content created a social risk or unwanted intrusion into the AiG’s online networking
activity. Because of this, AiG users skeptically viewed friending or following requests from
other users considered outsiders to an AiG user’s online circle. Fed status could be assigned to
offline authorities, other online observers outside of the user’s friend network, and even online
peers within a user’s network who might use an AiG member’s posted content against him or
her. Latrice had this to say about why she values privacy on her online network profiles:
My pages are pretty private. The only thing that’s open is probably my Twitter and that’s
it. Because I don’t know every body and you know, I don’t need to know everybody and
not everybody needs to know me. That’s just me in general. Like, wait a minute, I don’t
know you. Like, I don’t need you on my profile. You know there are stalkers in the
world—and that’s quite scary.
In response to these concerns and also as way to keep certain information, behavior,
content and interactions limited to a specific inner circle, AiG users frequently altered or created
their own online social norms, values, and attitudes to regulate outsider access and use of the
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
130
network capital within their personal networking ecologies. In turn this creates a type of reverse
hidden curriculum (Giroux, 2001; Bennett, 2001; Jay, 2003) wherein, in an interesting twist on
the offline dynamics of social agency, AiG users now become the agents of access and use
within their online ecologies.
Brianna gives an example from her experience in creating a hidden curriculum after one her
posts started attracting unwanted intrusion into her personal life. She shares:
And so, I think one time I said, “I’m gonna get fucked up tonight.” Or something like
that. And so my preschool teacher was telling me not to and that I’m better than that. And
then she told my parents. And then so my parents called me and were like, “You can’t do
things like this. We know that you’re in college but you just can’t.” And I was confused
because I had no clue what they were talking about. That post was maybe like three
weeks ago. It was just very confusing and so, then, that’s when I realized I just needed to
stop posting things like that.
Brianna shares how this experience affected her awareness and sensitivity to the realization that
her openness online created a source of social vulnerability for her. In response to this awareness
she began excluding her parents and other potentially intrusive outsiders from her online social
networking ecologies:
I learned to—not stop caring—but being from the family that I’m from, I’m also my
parents first kid so I’m also their little baby. So now they have a problem separating me. I
can see it like, now with my parents they want to check, like, ‘Oh,who are you talking to
talking to on FB?’ And I just kind of look at them and it’s like, ‘None of your business.
Leave me alone.” And you really want to say but you can’t. Or, they’ll say, ‘Oh, I wanna
Instagram with you. Let me follow you.’ And it’s like, ‘No Mom, I’m going through a
college time right now. I don’t need you in my space because your little heart’s gonna be
broken.’ And I’m also their oldest and so my parents are also very far away from kid
culture. And so, yes, they’re becoming teachers and so now they’re leaning more of it.
But they are confused about everything. They’re trying to hold me in as a kid because
they don’t know how to treat me as an adult because I’m their first kid, so they've never
done it before.
After the content she posted while away in college starting creating garnering increased from her
parents and other adults, Brianna explains that she changed her posting strategy:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
131
For me honestly I never really posted anything incriminating on there anyways because I
just don’t like people in my business. Now, since you [parents] told me that now there’s
random spies on my FB, now instead of posting on a status, I’ll post it, say, in a
comment. Or I’ll say, ‘Oh, I’m having fun tonight.’ And then as we’re talking, I’ll say
what I really want to say. Because for some reason old people don’t look through
comments. They just go through their newsfeed so then when you show up in their news
feed it’s like, “Oh I’m gonna have fun tonight.” Then it’s like, ‘Oh, she’s gonna have fun
tonight.’
Trebor discusses her and other members of the AiG’s posting strategy, explaining their
consideration of an online site’s relative privacy in deciding how, why, and where they choose to
post content in order to maximize privacy:
I love Twitter because Twitter, is, in a way, more private than FB is. Twitter you know
who’s following, you know who can see your tweets. You don’t necessarily know who
all is going on your Twitter profile but at the same time it feels more secluded. You feel
like you can have more freedom of speech because it is private. And because you have so
many tweets—I know I have about […]18,000 tweets or something like that. I talk a lot.
But I only have 400 followers so—none of my followers are gonna go through all of my
tweets. That would take a very long time. And if my tweet pops up in their timeline, it’s
just with all of the other tweets. And people get really, really personal on Twitter. And
you feel like no one is paying attention and someone could see it, someone you know
could see it, but at the same times it’s not like it would matter that much. On Facebook if
you post something, you have everybody that you know looking at that status or that
photo because you don’t have that many FB statuses. You have a lot of FB friends. I have
about 1000 FB friends and these are all people that I know. So, you feel like you’re more
private on Twitter.
Luz explains similar reasons behind her decisions to tailor her profile content and posts on some
sites and not on others:
I do that, but it’s not necessarily to the same degree as some kids. Because I do follow
adults that I know and have adults who I know follow me on Instagram and Twitter—
well, I mean, I don’t act a fool on the internet period. But it’s a little bit more foolish
when its on Twitter and Instagram. On Facebook it’s because it’s mostly like my family
and I know that they are going to scold me if I post anything strange or even unusual. So,
you have to keep it kind of on lock for that. But my family doesn’t really know what
Twitter or Instagram is so, yeah.
The data provided by Luz, Trebor, and Brianna, points to the conclusion that the AiG’s
creation of its own writing conventions, terms, content, usage signifiers and deceptive/deterrent
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
132
networking behaviors allows them to dictate those who are and those who are not considered
social outsiders. In turn this places members of the AiG in gatekeeper roles that function similar
to Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) institutional agents who manage in-group knowledge and resources
necessary for successful networking within AiG online networks. Further, Luz, Trebor and
Brianna’s comments suggest that even in cases where AiG members do not actively function as
gatekeepers, where it is known that adults and other authorities maybe monitoring their profile
content, some members of the AiG, may opt to intentionally leave public selectively posted
content as a means of masking other behavior or sidelining such investigations into their online
behavior and interactions.
Cognitive Liberation
Here the data collected from interviewees and observed participants illustrates, in greater
detail, both Emirbayer and Mische (2001) and Deuze’s (2006) discussion of the cognitively
liberating features of the AiG’s netizenship. The African American iGeneration online social
networking ecologies feature a striking level of cognitively liberating properties reflecting the
participatory features outlined by Deuze. Deuze’s (2006) discussion of the participatory facets of
netizenship identifies three features common to social networking in online ecologies:
1. Individuals are “active agents in the process of meaning making”
2. Individuals can “adopt, but at the same time modify, manipulate and thus
reform consensual ways of understanding reality”
3. Individuals “reflexively assemble [their] own versions of reality”
Identity. Similar to offline networks, the role of a network user’s identity is critical to his
or her operation within a given network (Hancock, 2005). In online networks AiG users may
autonomously alter, edit, recreate, negate, extend, exchange and/or experiment with core features
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
133
of their identity as a means of attaining or engineering social advantages within online networks.
Added dimension of offline identity. Jeremiah explains how he and his peers may choose
social networks to flesh out additional dimensions of their offline identities saying:
I know a lot of people create like a whole new person or alter ego of who they are
through social media but—I like [my profile] to be who I am. So, I mean, even though it
was like names [online aliases that has Jeremiah used] that I was going through, that’s
who I am or that’s who I was or a part of me, but never have I created a completely
different alter ego. I would never do that. It’s always gonna be me.
When asked to give an example of how his offline identity has been enhanced by his identity in
online social networks, Jeremiah elaborates:
When I post new music, these different types of music, then I hit people’s inboxes with
music that hasn’t even came out yet or something, or music that just came out. That’s
how people basically look at me, from 9th or 10th grade on. Like just the guy that had all
the music. Because of social media. Like I talk about music all the time. Even in real life.
Anyone that gets to meet me, I talk about music all the time. But music was just
everything so that basically shaped who I was to them.
In some cases, though, rather than enhancing a user’s offline identity, his or her online
identities may altogether override all other impressions of their identities in both online and
offline networks. Brianna explains what happens in cases where a user’s overly zealous online
interactions can become the basis of their identities in both contexts. She says:
You just [could] come off as drama. Or you just come off as someone that people don’t
want to deal with. And that may not be you, but that’s the impression that you have on
Facebook. And if someone met you through Facebook then that’s what they see. That’s
their impression of you.
However, in some cases a user’s online social networking identity may positively
override preexisting or non existent notions of offline identity by offering the user the
opportunity to post profile content or engage in network interactions that allow the user to reflect
a fuller representation of who he or she is. Trebor shares how she used her online profiles to
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
134
represent facets of her identity and social development that had previously remained unknown to
her peers. She says:
I know for me, I have a different selection of what I put on Facebook than what I put on
Twitter, and what pictures I put on Facebook than what pictures I put on Instagram. So I
know my IG is—I feel like I’ve changed a lot from who I used to be. I’m not recreating
myself online, I’m portraying who I am now online. So for the people who know me
now, they now that my Instagram is just me in person. But for the people who went to
high school with me, they’re like, “Wow, okay Trebor, you’ve changed!” And I’m like,
‘Yes I have, you missed that. Now my Instagram kinda shows you that I have changed. I
have poetry, I have screenshots, I have memes, I have pictures of me at football games.
I’m trying to capture my entire college experience on my Instagram or who I am now. I
have my paintings on my Instagram but I also have pictures of me because I did used to
have a lot of insecurity issues and now that I am confident in myself it’s like—I want you
to see me now.
Sometimes, these added dimensions of a user’s online persona may produce tangible offline
social advantages with peers and other members of a user’s social network. Trebor explains:
A personal satisfaction I get from my Instagram is that-- all the people from SCP, they
see who I am now. And, a lot of people that didn’t talk to me in high school, are actually
like coming up here to see me and hang out with and well, like, let’s keep it real—um,
mostly guys. They seen me in high school and they were like, “Oh she’s probably a nerd.
She’s not cute.” And then they feel like, ‘Oh, well, she’s changed since she’s got to
college. She’s pretty now. I want to try to get at her. What’s her number?’ And then
they’ll hit me up on Facebook, ‘What’s your number? We should chill.’ And I’m like, ‘I
haven’t talked you since high school.’ Or, ‘I did not talk to you at all in high school.’
And they’re like, “That’s okay. Let’s chill. Let’s hang out. Let’s turn up.” And it’s like,
“Okay, I guess.” But all of that comes from if I post a pretty picture on Instagram. I get
all these hit ups.
Here, Jeremiah, Brianna, and Trebor’s experiences with identity illustrate the ways that members
of the AiG use online networks to represent and reflect additional facets of their identities, which
if left relegated only in offline social networks, might never have the opportunity to emerge or
appear within network interactions with peers and other social actors.
Recreation and experimentation with offline identity. Weber &Mitchell’s (2008)
finding that the online adolescent social development of the iGeneration in general is marked by
technology facilitating the “experiencing of life, a questioning or yearning for…some unknown
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
135
future, the need to situate oneself… to take one’s place in society, the ambivalent wish to belong
and not belong, to be the same yet standout.” This is evident in the ways which members of the
AiG both recreate and experiment with their offline social identities. Online social networks
offer ample opportunity for a user’s fairly uninhibited exploration of self either individually or
among peers. Trebor explains this perception among members of the AiG saying:
Because a lot of people wanna be someone and online you can be anyone. So if you
don’t like the way that your persona or your image is in person or the way that people
perceive you in reality—then you can go online and create a Facebook or Instagram, take
amazing pictures, dress differently, talk to people on social networks differently than you
would in person. A lot of people get in arguments over social networks because they feel
bold over a computer screen. A lot of people just wanna be popular and they want to be
social and they want to be liked, but they know that’s not how it is in person. So when
people don’t necessarily know you online and you have that chance to say what you think
is socially acceptable or promote a party or put up pictures that give off a different
perspective of who you are then either—people’s perceptions of you changes from the
one they have of you in person, or they just consider you to be fake.
When asked for an example, Trebor offers the following observation of one offline peer who
used her online space to recreate her offline identity:
Let’s say you know this person and you went to school with them. Okay, I have an
example. One of my friends she goes to school with me, and so, the rumor about her is
that—there’s this connotation of her that she gets around—she’s a hoe. But, all she posts
on Instagram is things about the Bible and Jesus and Jesus and church, and the Bible. So
on Instagram it’s relayed as, oh she’s just soooo saintly. She’s just so into God. And in
reality it’s like, well, she may be into God on Instagram, but she’s really a hoe! And
that’s the reality of it. She’ll have things on her Instagram that contradicts what she does
in real life.
She explains a similar use for another one of her friends:
I have another friend, he’s really quiet and he’s pretty feminine and he’s a math major.
And so, that’s his persona in real life. But on Instagram, he’s like brand new shoes,
beanies like swagged out, like yeah. His Instagram is, like, you know it has things that
you wouldn’t expect from him at all. It would feel like you’re following on Instagram an
entirely different person than you know in real life.
Trebor’s comments reveal the depth of identity experimentation available to members of the AiG
within online networks in their network orientation in their respective notions of social, power,
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
136
privilege. Depending on the user and his or her network of online peers, the boundaries and
degrees of difference between offline and online identities can vary dramatically while, for the
most part, posing relatively minor social consequences, if any, for the user within his or her
networks.
Selective representation of self and identity. Members of the AiG often use their online
profiles to highlight facets of their identities that they feel best represent who they are or what
they represent as individuals. Rather than having features of their individual identity’s imposed
on them because of assumptions based on involuntary features of offline visible identity, AiG
users can selectively edit, cultivate, and manage their profile content to present whatever version
of themselves they wish their online and offline networks to see about themselves. Trebor
explains how she accomplishes this saying:
So, my Twitter icon is a picture of me in all black and shades and it says Trebor’s Lyric,
that’s my user name. And the background picture for that is a picture that I took of one
of my notebooks because on the cover of the notebook it says ‘We write to live life
twice.’ And I wanted to express something about me and how much writing means to me.
So if you go on my profile and try to follow me, you automatically see that clearly I’m a
writer. In my bio it says “Black Queen, UCLA, poet.” It has my Instagram on there, my
location, and my SoundCloud. So, if anybody ever tries to follow me it’s like, oh well,
they look at my background, they read my bio, like, ‘Well, she must be a writer. She goes
to UCLA. She lives in Westwood.’
Where users have peers who know them in both online and offline networks, they may
be less able to selectively represent certain features of themselves. However, for users’ online
peers who only know users in an online context, users’ have a greater degree of control over their
perceived identities in online contexts. Brianna explains one instance of how she consciously
chose to represent herself in her online networks during the college admissions phase of senior
year. She says:
So for instance, when I got waitlisted to Bates, I didn’t tell anybody on Facebook. You
only saw what I got accepted to. When I got waitlisted to Dartmouth. I also got into
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
137
Brown. But when I got into Dartmouth, I still had to tell everybody. For instance—the
college process—no one talks about when they get denied but everyone talks about when
they get accepted. And it’s just because you just want to show everybody that you’re
doing well. You don’t want to tell anybody that it’s bad or that you failed at something.
You know, there’s some people that don’t really care. But then there’s also the people
that seem to be very petty and no one really wants to deal with them. So it’s a game you
have to play.
Now at Brown, Brianna says that she even makes an effort to post certain content, concerning
news and other current events to fit in among the student body. However, when back at home,
she feels no need to post content because her circle of peers do not necessarily vest the same
level of social significance in her appearance of being informed. She says:
When I’m at Brown, it’s really contagious to do that [post current events and
information] because you don’t wanna be the kid that doesn’t know anything that’s going
on. However, now that I’m back at home. I don’t really care. [In high school] that was
never the thing that I thought that would be fun.
However, when I asked Brianna how well her profile represents who she actually feels she is, she
explains that how and what she chooses to post, frequently presents other users in her online and
offline network with a less complex understanding of the nuances in her identity. She says:
I’m not different from my profile, but I’m more complex. On my Facebook, I don’t talk
about my problems. I don’t really talk about anything, so I come off to people as this very
sassy, no nonsense kid, with the things that I post. And I curse a lot. So, you know,
there’s a lot of F-bombs everywhere. And people really take that as my personality
without thinking that I’m also very—I can be very kiddish at times. Or I could be very
caring, and that doesn’t really come off sometimes. Caring in a nurturing sense, versus a,
‘I’m going to kick someone’s ass’ sense. I tend to seem kind of masculine on my
Facebook.
She explains her awareness of how her selectively presented online identity sometimes translates
in other users’ views of who she is as an individual saying:
And so when I’m angry, or when I’m a little hostile, I just think to post something, not
really anything sweet. On my Facebook you would never probably see anything that’s
like, “Oh, I love you guys. God bless.” Or, I never really put anything sweet. It’s just
very like, “I hate you! Fuck you! I just can’t stand this. I don’t like you.” That’s a lot of
what I post but really in actuality, I’m sweeter or I’m more complex, than what I see on
social media. And that’s really hard for some people to understand when they meet me or
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
138
when they talk to me in person. They realize that I’m very different than how I seem on
my Facebook. And it’s not in a bad way—I’m just more complex than what you can see
on a screen. So in my way, I would never be vulnerable on my Facebook. [But] because
of that people don’t see the sides of me that sometimes, I would want someone to see
because I don’t want someone to think that I’m crazy or stupid or judge my social life.
Trebor explains a similar occurrence where her online peers frequently and, almost
automatically, associate what she posts on her Instagram with her identity as an individual:
But at the same time, like, it goes back to creating that persona. Who do you want to be
on Instagram? What do you want your Instagram to consist of? If I put nothing but really,
really, really good pictures of myself on my Instagram, people will say, “Oh, Trebor is
pretty.” If put nothing but pictures of weed and drugs on my Instagram, people are gonna
be like, “Oh, Trebor is a dope head.” If I put up pictures of alcohol on my Instagram—
“Oh, Trebor is an alcoholic.” If I put a picture of money—“Trebor is making bank.” If I
put up pictures of poetry—“Trebor is a poet.” Like, whatever you put on your Instagram,
it says something. It relays a message to the people who are looking at it.
Both Brianna and Trebor’s choice of how to tailor and broadcast facets of their social identities
for different online social audiences reflects a common trend among AiG users in using their
online identities as the social nexus for the significance, access and use of the other cognitively
liberatory features available to the AiG in online networking ecologies. In many respects, the
online identity for AiG users serves as the gateway into their subjective sense of “what’s
possible” within the social models of their online networks (Gallimore &Goldenberg, 2001).
Particularly evident from the data here is the idea that a user’s access and use of social capital,
especially in terms of posted and shared network content, quickly becomes synonymous with
user’s identity which in turn works to affect the social distribution of possibilities available to the
user within his or her network context.
Self Expression. In online social networks, AiG users frequently use their online spaces
to post a range of self produced or reblogged content such as statuses, tweets, memes pictures,
artwork, philosophical inquiries that reflects their viewpoints on their lives and the world around
them. Here, Latrice discusses her favorite forum for unfiltered expression, Twitter, and explains
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
139
the range of content found on her profile and what types of exchanges take place between her
and other users in her online networks. She says:
Whatever I’m thinking that’s what I’m putting on my Twitter. I’ve talked about
relationships. I’ve talked about men, women, sex. I’ve written some of my poetry on my
Twitter account. You know I’ve written, I’ve talked to people on Twitter. You know,
talkin mess to’em, just playin’ around, exchanging jokes or whatever. Stuff like that. You
know, Twitter is like, just my little thought machine. Whatever I’m thinking
at the moment, I’m like, “Oh, yeah, I’m gonna tweet that.” If it’s funny. I’m gonna tweet
that. If it’s something like, okay, that was funny, that was a nice quote—I’m gonna tweet
that. So things that I necessarily wanna remember, or just wanna like put out there and
share with everybody else, that’s what Twitter’s for.
Luz uses her networks for a range of expression as well. She says:
I think it just depends on my mood. I guess my Twitter is somewhat a reflection of what
I’m thinking or what I’m doing. So for example during the playoff season when the Bulls
were actually in—me and everybody and their mother were posting about the game.
Because that’s how you do it (laughs). So you tweet about all of that like the games
you’re watching. I tweet song lyrics, sometimes, if I’m watching poetry, I tweet the
poetry I’m watching. Just like that, like things that I think are profound. And then, most
of the time, I post stupid things, that are just whatever I’m doing or whatever I’m
thinking. Like, ‘Oh, look I just had a bagel. Yay!’ Or, ‘I want a bagel.’ That also goes on
there (laughs).
Jeremiah uses his online networks as a forum for self-expression of his views on the world, but
also uses his networks to gauge his online peers’ self-expression as means of assessing what is
important to them at the moment. He says:
It’s a great way to express yourself. Like you see people actually for who they are
through social media compared to when you just see them in the classroom. Like I know
a lot of people and myself on social media. I can view my points on different subjects like
music, politics. or whatever and then[social media]. They have a little comments sections
so those other people can view their points on them so it shows you who they are and
like—what their point of views are on different subject matters.
Here, the interviewees’ comments point to the conclusion that online social networks offer great
latitude and flexibility in allowing members of the AiG to express themselves as they see fit,
engage online peers in thought, expression and discussion, and get a pulse on thoughts and
perspectives of online peers on a wide range of topics.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
140
Freedom from social inhibition and socially oppressive circumstances in offline
networks. Emotional releases and venting are also common forms of expressions that AiG users
engage in. This is because online networks are viewed as relatively safe spaces that allow the
AiG to find alternative social niches, retreat into one or more social networks offering escape
from offline social demands and expectations, and/or vent strong emotions on authority, issues
with other people, or personal challenges in ways that if, done in offline social networks, would
likely produce undesirable social consequences and ramifications. Luz explains how she views
the freedom from offline social inhibitions. She says:
I can be a little bit more free with what I say. I guess in that sense it does make me a little
bit more bold. But it’s not like, to the point where I lose sight of the facts that people
really can go through myself and look at what I say—but it’s definitely a lot more bold
than I would be in person.
Luz adds that online social networking profiles offer her the freedom of a fuller expression of
self. Although she feels socially restricted in offline settings, particularly about acting in ways
that might not be deemed acceptable in offline networks tending to circumscribe unconventional
behavior, she finds the freedom to be herself in online spaces. She says:
They’re [my social networking profiles] definitely reflections of who I am. I think when
I’m in person—so, like, in person I’m weird. Everyone knows I’m weird. But on the
internet, I can kind of like be weirder and people won’t really think about it. I can’t just
kind of be more myself because—nobody really cares. But if you’re dealing with
someone in person, you don’t really want them to be super weird. So I kind of tone it
down in person.
Jeremiah provides an example of how one of his favorite rappers articulated the benefits
of the contrasting social environments in online and offline social networks. He says:
Like Tyler the Creator is a perfect example of this. If you had a way to interview him that
would be perfect because he was like one of the kids who was bullied in school and was
put down—but then when it came to social media look what he started.He has like a
following that’s huge. That’s a great example of how social media sets you apart from
your reality but it could also lead into your reality.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
141
From his example of Tyler the Creator’s online social escape and ultimate fame, he draws a
parallel to well known instances of cases and outcomes where individuals did not have the
opportunity to retreat into other, viable alternative social outlets. He says:
For example, the Columbine situation. You really don’t know how those people were.
They could have been the nicest people ever but, the since the circumstances they went
through at school—they were bullied. They actually created their own social media
outlet, through like, gaming and all that. But that was like the earliest stages of the
internet. But then they were getting bullied on there too. So basically it’s like ‘Where do I
turn to because my only outlet of freedom, to say and be whoever I am is like kind of
being stripped away from me because I’m facing the same things I face at school like in
my own freedom—in my sanctuary basically.’ So that’s why I think they turned to where
they turned to. Basically Tyler the Creator was like one of those kids that was not cool in
school—but then when it came to the internet he became who he is. He was able to be
who he was, but freely.
For AiG users, some networking sites offer more freedom from offline social inhibitions than
others. Users make these determinations subjectively and use each site accordingly. Jeremiah
explains:
I get on Twitter, but barely, not really that much. Twitter—when I used to get on all the
time—it used to be freedom. Just like Facebook, it was freedom. But it’s more freedom
on Twitter if you ask me. Because all you’re doing is just like releasing your thoughts.
Some users, like Brianna, no longer factor in the overlap between how their online profiles or
expression will affect social perception of them in either their offline or online networks. Brianna
explains how at one point she edited her online profile content as a means of carefully
perpetuating a carefully cultivated image for her online and offline peers. However now, she
feels much freer to post content that she personally values and likes regardless of social
perception She says:
It was more like instead of me thinking about something snazzy to say. I literally, I just
wrote what I thought. For instance like, my brother, who is now bigger than me, he
picked me up. Now that pictures on FB. And usually I wouldn’t put that picture because
my hair is a little frazzled, I have a really ugly face. I don’t have that perfect, like my hair
is done, I don’t have that perfect smile. It just looks like, not that I wasn’t ready for the
picture, but I just took a picture versus like actually getting ready for the picture. Making
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
142
sure that I have clothes that match.
Another instance of freedom from offline social inhibitions occurs when AiG users look
to deal with frustrations about a parent, teacher, or other offline authority. An AiG user may take
to their online network to express their feelings and frustrations without fearing direct social
consequences of directly confronting an offline authority. When I ask Jeremiah about his
response when he encounters negativity or someone makes him angry in the course of he day he
quickly interrupts—
Tumblr. When I really, really get pissed? I go to Tumblr, cause I know what I want to
say, I can’t say it to everyone else I just go on Tumblr.
However, Jeremiah explains that online networks may not always insulate users from
offline social consequences, especially where online peers are the topic of frustration. This
sometimes prompts users to create other private spaces or profiles within in their networks where
they can freely express themselves. He says:
See the thing about that, now, is since I got my friends hooked to Tumblr and stuff, if I‘m
mad at one of my friends, or if I’m mad at my girlfriend or something. I can’t—I can’t
say nothin’ on Tumblr now. They’ll [Tumblr] give you the option to make another
Tumblr and that’s like where you can just basically like rearrange it to say whatever you
wanna say. It’s password activated and everything.
Although he remains cautious about offending the norms, values and expectations of his
online circle of peers who are also a part of his offline network, like his girlfriend and close
friends, for unknown observers, Jeremiah has no qualms about what he posts. In fact, though he
once maintained two Tumblr sites to manage varying levels of expressions for different online
audiences, he has since deleted his satellite Tumblr and maintains just one profile where he
expresses himself freely saying:
I used to have [two Tumblr] sites but I deleted one of them. The one I used to say
everything I wanted to say. I deleted it. I say, if the people want to know how I’m feeling
then I’ll give them how I’m feeling.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
143
For some users, though, the allure of expressive and social freedom within online
networks is so great that users will express online and offline issues even where such expression
creates the risk of direct social consequences for the user. Latrice shares her experience saying:
When I was in high school you know, sometimes the things that I said, the things that I
used to post, like I used to really just run my mouth. Cause I used to be a really angry
person. And I’ve come a long way from that. Sometimes people I just didn’t necessarily
like, I would talk really bad about them on my status. And so, you know, I wouldn’t care
if you seen it or if you said something to me about. Because I’d was gonna be like,
“Yeah, like, I said it.” It’s actually—it’s ended in a couple of fights. But nothing that I
couldn’t handle.
The participants’ interview responses here reflect Rosen (2010) and Tynes et. al. (2011)
suggestion that online social networks represent and opportunity for users to not only disengage
from features of undesirable social models of their offline networks but to shift into one or more
alternative networks where they can meet subjectively attainable standards of social
enfranchisement, power, and privilege.
Catalyze communication and social response among users within the network. AiG
users also generate conversation with online peers and other users within their networks on
topics that AiG users find important. Regarding this, Trebor says:
I know that if I want to get a discussion off of my social media account, I’ll post on
Facebook. You can do it on Twitter but you can only do it in 140 characters, so that
doesn’t really work. If you a post a controversial status about a world event, there’s more
than likely someone that will either refute your status or want to discuss it or get more
information about it. I know if wanted to get a discussion going, I have a lot of friends
that are, like, anarchists, and that are really conscious. So if I post something about
Obama, then I know one of my friends is at least going to comment, either refuting or
trying to get more information—or who just want to talk about it with me.
Jeremiah says that he also his online networks to solicit information on a topic or to prompt his
online peers into conversation explaining:
I use it to get information about certain things and sometimes I spark a conversation
about it like knowing. Like sometimes, I just say something because I know it’s gonna
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
144
make people angry, happy, like just to see how people’s reactions are gonna be.
Asked to explain what allows online users to engage conversation more freely online, Trebor
elaborates:
[These conversations] would happen differently [than if they were offline] because
honestly I know people get their personal feelings involved, they take people’s tones a
different way. A discussion becomes a full out debate and then people get all emotional.
Online you can read it and interpret however you want to and you can respond but it’s
less likely to become a heated argument. It could be, but it’s less likely.
Trebor and Jeremiah’s comments illustrate that through online networks, AiG users have the
power to both generate and tailor discourse concerning subjectively valuable topics or threads of
discourse.
Reframing Social Models Within Online Networking Ecologies
Chapter Two explains how adherence, cooperation, and mimicry of DAS norms, values,
and attitudes heavily influences AiG students’ ability to access DAS social networking capital
managed and distributed by institutional agents and other authority figures within offline social
settings. However, in online social settings, I found that for the AiG to access and use
networking capital, members generally rely on a constantly-changing set of norms, values and
attitudes that are primarily configured by self and an online network of peers. The standards of
conformity and adherence are highly subjective and vary from member to member depending on
which network or setting she or he is embedded in.
Influence existing social network mechanisms through which capital is accessed
online and offline by self and peers. AiG users can use social feedback and interactions with
other users to influence the norms, values and attitudes that shape power, privilege, and
enfranchisement outcomes for themselves and other users in both online and offline social
networks. AiG users are even able to heavily influence the demographic successes of the actual
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
145
online network site by affecting patterns of usage within their peer demographic. Brianna
explains how two social networks, AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) and MySpace used heavily by
both her and her peers early on in high school, fell off in popularity when shifting social
networking norms in the AiG demographic started pulling AiG users to the newer Facebook. She
says:
Well MySpace was dying around the last of my eighth grade year. It [MySpace]was just a
fad. It was more like, ‘MySpace is cool but ooh, look at Facebook. Facebook’s new. It’s
for older people and its great.’ So everyone just kind of moved on to Facebook. Dying, I
mean like socially dying. Like for instance AIM, AOL Instant Messaging, that used to be
big my 7th grade, 8th grade, 9th grade year, along with the Sidekick, when the Sidekick
was out. Like that, [AIM] was just a fad because then you were able to do say instant
messaging through like Facebook[…] like on their phones. […]Blackberry Mobile
Messenger became a thing when Blackberry’s were out. So AIM really didn’t have a
purpose anymore.
Because AOL network failed to adapt to AiG social norms and uses in the same way that
Facebook was now attracting AiG users, AOL began to rapidly lose popularity among the AiG
demographic. Brianna explains:
It [Facebook] wasn’t as, I would say, childish, because like on AIM you would have
“away messages” and you write, like, this whole paragraph about your life, and then it’s
usually about the girl or guy that you liked. But then came the statuses on Facebook and
you didn’t need an away message. You can just write how you feel in that status message.
And everything was just coming together on Facebook. And all it takes is for one person
to say that MySpace and AIM is dead and then everyone just starts trickling out of it. So
for me, I was never one of those cool kids that got like the first announcement that
something was bad—however, I realized that no one else was on it and everyone else was
talking about something else. And so there’s no point in being on social media if there’s
no one there.
However Luz explains that despite Facebook’s social appeal early on with the AiG demographic,
it appears as though Facebook seems on its way to meeting similar fate because of the AiG’s
increasing gravitation toward other online networks like Twitter and Instagram:
I can give you whole the Facebook reason. So like the reason why people don’t really use
Facebook anymore is because if your friends stop using Facebook then there’s nothing
really going on, on your feed, right. So it’s kind of like the equivalent with like Instagram
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
146
or Twitter. If your friends aren’t posting anything and nobody’s on there then there’s
really nothing to read and there’s no reason for you to post, because then nobody’s
reading your stuff either.
Luz also shares her own irritation with Facebook’s social network with her own warning:
There are minute things. The way that things have been getting updated, it irks me. Cause
its like I like things to just stay, not necessarily the same, like you [Facebook] can update
but—making it more complicated is how people stop using your site.
Darwin explains that it’s not just online networks that must keep AiGs users’ attention and
interest in social networking, but also AiG users themselves and other online peers who must
keep posted content interesting to hold the attention of other users within their network saying:
With any social media, or with anything that’s on the internet, it’s all about user interest.
Like for example, with YouTube, nobody’s gonna like or subscribe to your page, if they
don’t like what they’re seeing on your page, if they don’t see a difference on your page
versus all of the million other pages that are on YouTube. Same thing with Facebook,
even though they’re your friends and everything and if you personally ask them, oh can
you check us out—they might do it. You still have to bring out something that is eye
appealing and just drags other people in.
Trebor’s comments illustrate the social significance of other network users’ validation and
explains one potential downside of an user’s inability to achieve this validation from other peers
within online networks:
One thing I really dislike about Instagram is the fact that popularity is weighed by likes
and followers. If you look at other pictures and see that they’re getting a ton of likes and
followers. And you wonder, why don’t I have that many likes or why don’t I have that
many followers. Is it because I’m not pretty enough? Is it because my pictures aren’t that
good? And you start being too insecure about things that shouldn’t matter.
The interviewees comments, here, indicate that because the AiG social norms valuate peer usage
of a network, when AiG users realize that their online peers reduce usage or no longer network
on a given site, they also may reduce usage or stop networking within the site as well. Thus it
appears that the popularity and dynamics of the online networks themselves actually become
subject to shifts in AiG social networking norms and values.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
147
Redefine or create new social norms, values and attitudes in both online and offline
networking ecologies. During the observational phase of data collection the most standout
examples of AiG members’ influence on one one another, appeared in the form of posted drug
and highly sexualized user content. There were several photos of users smoking marijuana,
drinking alcohol or posed with various drug paraphernalia. There were also open posted
conversations with other users featuring explicit, highly sexualized banter and language, and
arguments that included violent threats and other illegal action. Some users posted photos of
themselves or others in highly sexualized positions. On some networks like Twitter, even though
site rules prohibit nudity and pictures with illegal content, users felt comfortable enough within
the network dynamic to post photos including partial and even full nudity. Other forms of
graphic content were also posted including links to violent fights, graphic injuries and
pornographic content.
I am highlighting this content, not to underscore what would likely be categorized as
antisocial behavior and content by the norms and values of many offline social networks, but to
illustrate the comparatively great degree of latitude AiG users have in setting the norms and
values for themselves and online peers within online social networks. As a former teacher, I can
say with unquestionable certainty that in the offline networks of these AiG users, such content
would undoubtedly be prohibited to discuss, let alone openly display evidence of. However,
within the sphere of online networks, I found that, generally, such content is limited or censored
only by intervention of an offline authority or online peer’s denunciation of the content or
behavior. Luz provides her own experience in how AiG users’ posted online content redefined
her perspective on the use of illegal drugs. She says:
[Using drugs] is also a desensitized thing. I promise you the Internet is the reason why, it
is not a big deal for me to walk somewhere and see someone smoking a blunt anymore.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
148
Like, it used to be a big deal and then like, I was on Tumblr this one time, this is like
three or four years ago, and this chick posted a picture of her with like a freezer bag full
of weed. And I was just like, ‘Wow, it just really does not matter anymore.’ And I have
friends who are Instagram, or like on Twitter, or Vine even who will like post some
pictures of them smoking, or make like videos with them smoking, or of them like taking
shots when like, clearly, we’re all under the age of 21. And it’s just kind of like a thing.
Like it’s just whatever. Nobody really cares.
Darwin shares a similar realization concerning sexualized content in online social networks,
saying:
I’ve also realized that the newer generation is getting worse and worse because of the
corruption of the past generation. And what they see that teenagers do and what they see
that parents do or young adults [trails off] Kids—I’m not gonna say that they shouldn’t
know what virginity is, but they shouldn’t be losing it in like elementary or in middle
school. Because what people are okay with—It’s a thinner line of what people are okay
and what people aren’t okay with. Before, the topic of sex was a taboo, until sex ed came
in. And then when sex ed came in, it showed an okayness to the content of sex. And then,
you would hear more stuff about pornography and stuff like that. And people have
opened up and brought an okayness with that.
Darwin gives another example of his understanding for why online users choose to post this
category of content, saying:
There was this picture that [Darwin’s classmate] shared and [my mom] was like, “what is
wrong with these kids?” And it was a picture of a girl no older than 12 using a dildo as a
mic[...]Kids typically try and act grown and don’t think grown. Typically people don’t
like going on places where there’s going to be a record. One, it’s a smart move because it
covers their hide let’s say for people that got naked pictures.
Luz also explains how online social norms help to redefine her social norms and values
concerning sexually explicit content in both online and offline contexts, saying:
I think what it is just that it went from being something like a private activity to where
people were guessing if you were doing it to being an extremely public activity to the
point where like people will basically just give dome at parties and nobody will say
anything. Like that’s not weird. And you’re just sitting there like, “Okay, maybe this is
not weird. Maybe I’m just being weird.” But you probably should not be giving people
fellatio at a party. That just doesn’t seem appropriate. But yeah, it’s basically the fact
people act so nonchalantly about it and make it so public is what makes it so—like it’s
just whatever. So for the most part, I feel like, people feel like, because it’s the internet
because there are things like pornography and all that already on the internet, it’s not as
big of a deal for you to post any of that kind of stuff.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
149
Luz and Darwin’s comments, along with what I observed in the online setting revealed that the
AiG’s exposure to a wider range of posted content from their circle of online peers couple with
users’ much more flexible standard of freedom of expression, allows AiG users a space for them
to not only influence, but redefine or create new norms, values, and attitudes within both online
and offline networks.
Mutual creation of social norms, value, and meaning. One pervasive theme that
continuously re-emerged throughout both phases of data collection was the finding that AiG
users’ not only look for, but specifically solicit social reciprocity via social feedback, validation
or acceptance by peers in their online social networking endeavors. AiG users frequently entreat
online peers and other members of the online audience to “follow me” or “add me” or give them
“shoutouts” as a means of attracting attention from peers and other users in the network.
Trebor explains how mutually created social norms of popularity operate for some users
within online social networks saying:
Because maybe in their, like, actual day to day life they don’t get that kind of attention.
They don’t get that experience. It gives them a level of self-satisfaction that they are just
unable to create elsewhere in their lives so they do it on the Internet. Which is why
there’s a whole level of, like, Internet famousness and fandom that other people who are
not on the Internet can’t fathom. Cause it’s just like, it really has to do with, whether or
not people feel like you’re attractive and how they do that. And it’s funny because on the
Internet most of the people who we follow aren’t even like that in real life or in person.
Brianna says that there can sometimes be somewhat embarrassing social consequences
created when a user’s posted content intended to generate social feedback from online peers falls
flat among a user’s online network. She says:
I mean sometimes [profile] statuses don’t matter. So say if you just say something, like,
sometimes it won’t really resonate with [people]. So if you say said something like, ‘Like
my post’ for something and no one likes it—it’s kind of like you searching for a high-five
and no one gives it to you. So you kind of look like a loser. Or like say if you post a
picture and it’s supposed to be a really pretty picture of you and only one person ‘likes’
it. It’s like, “NO!”
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
150
Latrice comments on the difference in norms established for males and females attention,
feedback and validation. When asked whether males also attempt to gain popularity through
social networks in the same way as females, Latrice says they do, but the standards usually vary
for girls. She says:
You know, I think it’s actually both. But when it comes to girls and Facebook famous,
it’s mostly not the best—it’s not the most connotative thing to be thinking about. So you
not gonna see a girl getting Facebook famous like, ‘Oh yeah, I got me a scholarship to
UCLA.’ You’ll probably get a few—maybe you might get a hundred likes on that. But,
you know, if you post a picture of yourself butt naked, you know you ‘bout to get a 1000
likes and some more stuff. Oh yeah, she’s Facebook famous.
Though AiG users might resort to extreme measures to compete for attention, feedback,
and validation among online peers, there are generally very few boundaries to limit the lengths
that users could go to in attracting attention. Brianna explains:
There wasn’t really any boundaries in my high school. You kind of just put whatever you
wanted. If you talked about someone, or if you said something rude, which means you
had to be bad enough to fight them, you know, if they wanted to. But yeah, but really,
there was nothing that people would say, “Oh I hate you. Die.” There was always
somebody there to back you up in something. There was never like a set rule that [certain
content] was just ‘bad’.
Latrice echoes Brianna’s views and goes into detail about online users striving to become
“Facebook famous” a phenomenon specific to online social networks wherein users create online
a level of online fame, and in some cases infamy, by accumulating peer validation, feedback and
recognition in with online networks.
And people now go over the top with shout-outs. So a lot of people now go over the top
with shout-outs to gain followers so people can follow their life. They post their pictures,
they post their body parts, they post, you know, memes, they post pictures of other
people. Well shout-outs, okay, basically with shout-outs, they’ll probably pick the best
picture of themselves, like, ‘Okay choose this picture, and shout me out on your
Instagram.’ So with the caption it’ll be like, ‘Oh yeah, follow this person, their Instagram
name’, and be like ‘she follows backs’ or whatever the case may be. Or ‘Follow her
because she’s pretty’ or ‘Follow him, cause he’s cute.’ You know, stuff like that. Or,
‘Follow this person because they have so and so many followers.’ Like they’re actually
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
151
known. But you know, it’s Instagram. And being “Facebook famous” is ridiculous
because now being Facebook famous is about some other stuff. Well, most of the things I
see people Facebook famous for is for sexual things like, little girls giving head, like on
pictures giving head
9
, and videos and “Oh, yeah, I do this and I do that,” and twerking
10
and—the whole hundred.
Subjectively determined creation of social norms, value and meaning. Because
profiles are subjectively considered a user’s personal domain, users frequently view these spaces
as sovereign spaces where they determine norms, values and spaces for what happens on their
profiles and, in some cases, within their network. In this sense AiG users can create self-
determined preferences for the who, what, and how allowed to take place in their online spaces.
When asked to describe the value of having her offline peers as part of her online social network,
Brianna gives an example of how her subjective norms and values factor into her use and
enjoyment of her online networks:
Yes [having my personal friends online matters] because unless they’re saying something
funny, I’m not interested in people that much to just really wanna have them as a friend
online--know what they’re doing and saying. Because I don’t care that much. I care about
what my friends are saying, and thinking, and posting and what goes on their lives. I
think that is one of the biggest reasons for having a social network, is to keep up with
people that you know. And even on social networks they give you suggestions. On
Twitter it might say who to follow or find friends. On Facebook it may say ‘people you
may know’ in the sidebar. But it’s not about having all these strangers having this deep
insight into your life. It’s about keeping up with the people you know and the people that
you care about.
Trebor also discusses her own norms and values as well as the variability in the networking and
content norms she’s observed among her online peers:
I feel like everybody has their own line of what they wanna see and what don’t wanna see
and what crosses the line for them. I know for me, I don’t wanna hear about your life
story if I don’t care. I don’t wanna see all your diary entries. I don’t wanna hear about
what happened between you and so and so last night. Everybody has their own personal
line. Some people, they’ll just not pay that much attention, they’ll just go on about their
9
oral sex
10
a popular dance fad circulating via the social networks where users gyrate and pop their
behinds suggestively.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
152
lives. They don’t really care that much about what people post. It doesn’t really affect
them I know people annoy me online because they wanna cry about idiotic things […]
And it’s like I don’t care, that makes want to unfriend people! (laughs) I know on the
Facebook bar it says, “What’s on your mind?” or “How are you feeling today?” Some
people really put some like, some personal deep issues that are on their mind. And like,
it’s like, I kind of sympathize with them, but at the same time I kind of feel like, don’t
you have friends to talk to in real life that can help with that? Like, why do I have to see
it? There’s a certain level of privacy that everyone needs to keep on social media.
Latrice explains her views about the type of content that she thinks should be permissible for
younger users as well as the limits she thinks should be in place concerning what they post:
People need to be age appropriate and nobody’s like that no more. Okay, let’s say you
know someone, let’s say you have a students, and this student is in the 9th grade and this
student’s posting about all the sexual things they want to do to this one little boy that they
know. Like, errrrrrrrrrrrm, like why are you talking about sex? You’re like 14. Okay, I
understand that you’re at that age but there is just a limit to what you need to be posting
online. You can say, ‘Oh yeah he’s cute. He’s nice.’ But it’s not like that no more. It’s
like, ‘Oh yeah, I wanna do this and this to him and we gon…’ Noooooo! I think they do
that for attention too. To see what he’s gonna say, to see what other people are gonna say.
To see how he’s gonna respond.
Here Latrice and Brianna’s comments indicate that AiG users don’t just engage in their online
networks, they are actively involved in constructing both their own models and those of their
peers. In online networks AiG users’ are key social actors who play active roles in creating,
redefining, and making meaning of the norms, values and attitudes that govern the social
network dynamics at the personal, systems and global levels of their online networks.
Maximize Network Orientation and Embededness
Chapter Two identified research (Stanton-Salazar and Spina, 2001; Ogbu, 2004;
Hancock, 2005) explaining that limited resources and relational ties within the AiG’s offline
networks often prompts them to seek out supplemental resources and relationships in alternative
social networks via families, kinship ties and surrounding community networks. In observing
AiG interactions in online networking ecologies, it appears that AiG online users are able to
create for themselves a level of embeddedness, as described by Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2001)
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
153
which allows them to cultivate social networking resources and relationships that in many
respects compensate or at least offset the networking deficiencies within their offline social
networking ecologies. The next section sets forth key themes that emerged during the
observation and interview phase of data collection
Cultivate and manage relational ties. Brianna explains how she uses her online social
networks while she is away at school to keep up her relationship with a core group of friends
back at home. She says:
And talking to my friends is a lot easier now that we’re in college. We’re separated and
so, say for instance, in my friend group, there’s five of us. And so we try to make sure
that no one is not included in something. So, instead of calling or texting each and every
one our business, or if we want to show them something, we just tag everyone in one
post. And that thread can go on for weeks. We just post it on the Facebook page and we
tag each other in it, so that way everyone is notified that they were in something. And so
you just have a great conversation on it—sometimes, I feel like I never left.
Darwin explains a similar use, which, he insists, keeps his social relationships convenient for
him while allowing him to retain personal benefits of those relationships. He says:
I use it just to stay connected with friends, I mean whether we’re in person or not, I find
that social media is easier over the Internet to stay connected with friends because, one,
it’s less expensive. And two, it could be at any given time without going out your way.
You can still live your life without having to worry about, ‘Oh wait, do I have time to
hang out with person, and then this person, and then this person?’ I mean in hindsight
when you look at social media and how many friends you actually have—you don’t
realize how many friends you actually have until you actually see the number of friends
and then compare that to the friends that you also don’t have on social media. I think it’s
a great way to stay connected with friends.
Trebor finds that she can stay afoot of important developments and happenings in the lives of
friends whom she is interested in keeping up with, but may not have time to check in on. She
says:
I like FB to keep in touch with people who I don’t have that much contact with anymore
such as old, old friends, family members—people that I don’t talk to very frequently but I
can still have the power to like, go on their profile, and see what they’re doing, look at
their statuses and photos, and know that they’re doing okay and know that I have the
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
154
option to talk to them and hit them up if I want to.
Luz also shares how online social networks offer users the opportunity to build stronger
relationships with their weaker relational ties in online and offline networks. She says:
It keeps me closer to the people who I don’t usually get to talk to which is kind of nice. In
person, I’m decently popular and I have friends but for the most part I stick to a small
group of people whereas when I’m on the internet I can go through different people, read
different things. It doesn’t feel like I have to be your friend to learn about you on the
Internet. But in person I have to be your friend to learn about you. You click on the
Internet with people who share similar interests with. Which is why people can make
friends. Because its like, I don’t actually have to know you but we can kind of know each
other and we can deal with each other when we want to and we have the same interests.
Like, yeah, you basically make a completely different circle of friends on the Internet
because of the interests that you share and the things that you follow.
Brianna explains how the cultivation of weaker offline network relationships works in online
social settings:
If I don’t really know you and if I know you by face, or if we both went to SCP together,
we know of each other and we can say ‘hi’ to each other face to face but we don’t know
anything about each other. So instead of me checking up on you by talking to you--which
is awkward, because we didn’t really talk before--or stalking your statuses, you just
‘follow’ that person [on their online profile]. So if you click on their link, all of their
pictures come up. So you kind of see, for the most part, you see how someone is doing.
People still put up their life so you can see, like say if they graduated, they’ll probably
have their cap and gown picture on there. If they got a new job, they’ll probably write
something with a picture saying that they got a new job. And so it just makes things
easier for people that you still want to check up on, but you’re not guys are not close
enough to actually ask.
Trebor discusses how the online content that she posts creates the opportunity to network and
gain social resources from people who she would have, otherwise, never met if not for their
contact in online networks:
I know I promote my poetry on my social networks. And because of that I can post one
poem and have 200 people look into it because I’m soliciting people online to look into
my stuff. And so, like, that gives me a lot of leeway. It gives me a lot of opportunities
because people listen to it and say, ‘Oh well, I have an event that I want you to perform
at, can you do that?’ Or, ‘I really like your poetry.’ Or, ‘I wanna write with you.’ Or, ‘ I
write too, I want you to hear some of my stuff.’ So that opens a lot of doors for me when
I put my poetry on there.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
155
Jeremiah explains how he generates relational ties with his online networks simply because of
shared interests identified as common between her and other online users:
You make friends on Tumblr even though they’re not really your real friends. Cause I
wouldn’t consider people I meet on Tumblr to be my real friends. I would just consider
them like associates or something but—but you meet people all across the world. Like I
met people from like Australia and they’re cool. Like they think the same way that I do
like I met people from Africa and different places on Tumblr. It’s crazy. Everyone’s the
same. Like the human race is just one big race and it’s just—everyone’s the same really.
They think the same. You like the same music. You like the same actresses, actors, you
know?
Here, the participants’ responses indicate that one key way in which AiG users reinforce
their online networks is by both (1) finding and cultivating new relational ties and by (2) using
their site profile’s social networking tools to maintain, strengthen and manage existing relational
ties within online networks.
Informational access, distribution, and circulation. Another common form of network
orientation among AiG users is in accessing information that in offline networks would likely lie
beyond their reach without distribution or dissemination by institutional agents. Luz explains her
strategy for accessing information on events and issues that she finds important or interesting
using her Twitter profile:
You follow things on these sites or friend things on these sites that cater to your interests.
I might be like the only person but I definitely follow CNN and NPR on Twitter. That’s
just me though. I follow like NBA on TNT and things like that. So depending on what I
need to be constantly updated on in my opinion, that’s what I follow. So like I follow the
NBA Twitter because on the off chance that I’m not home and the game comes on, I
wanna be able to see what the stats of the game are while I’m out. And there’s like the
news. For example like my stepsister, she is a major soccer fan—like crazy soccer fan.
All she does on the internet is like stalk soccer fans. She befriends other soccer fans, she
stalks soccer players. She gets updated on news like that.
Darwin explains he uses his Facebook profile’s newsfeed to alert him to developing and current
news events in the world around him:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
156
I feel social media is a great way to stay connected when it comes to current events. For
example, when, uh, those kids were murdered at the school, that was all over Facebook.
The bombing in New York, I mean Boston Marathon, that was all over Facebook, as was
the fertilizer plant explosion. I mean just things like that. It’s a great way because it also
strays away from the time needed. Because people do talk about world events and social
news, on social media networks all the time. All the time. Sometimes you don’t even
have to watch the news because you’re seeing so many people talk about it on line where
you already know what happened before you even turn the news on.
He even uses the site as a means of collecting helpful critique on his art and drawing techniques
from other users whose critique he believes is important to helping his strengthen his abilities:
I use Facebook, really, just to get my art out there and just to get people’s opinions—who
are knowledgeable in art and who aren’t knowledgeable in art. And what I’ve realized is
that, of course, I push myself harder with my art and everything, than obviously anybody
else. But, not only that, I’ve realized that when people look at my art, it might not meet
my standards because I drew it, and I’m comparing it to something else. But the people
who look at the art, are comparing it to what they’re capable of, and if they feel that
they’re not capable of doing something as well as that, then of course they think that it’s
good.
Jeremiah notes that the wide range of peer in his social networks ensure that at least one of his
online ties will be willing and able to provide answer to his listed inquiries:
Ask any questions […] when it comes to current events, and somebody’s bound to know
the answer in your friends circle. Or, even outside of the friends circle there’s things on
Facebook where you could like pages and they update you on whatever page is your
preference, whatever your like is. If you like news, of course, you’ll get daily news
updates without even having to watch the news and I think that’s really helpful as far as
social media goes. That’s how you basically get access to your information like people
will tweet something, and then depending on whether its what you care about or not then
you’ll just continue going back to that source for information about things that you care
about.
When I asked Luz whether she believed she had the same level of access to informational
resources as in her online networks, before I could even finish asking the question she
interrupted me to emphatically insist that she did not:
No. Nope. Uh-uh. On the Internet you have access to everything globally that was ever
put on the Internet. In person, you’re limited to what people know, you’re limited to
people’s biases, opinions, personal experiences, perspectives—all that goes into it. But as
opposed to just having like one or two people, or a group of people that are around you,
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
157
on the Internet you can kind of sort through or filter what comes up. It’s like having
everybody’s database, every experience, every perspective, everything that they’ve ever
saw or posted on the internet, it’s all there for you to—it’s like a giant library basically,
like a giant catalogue.
However, with informational access widely circulated and distributed, there are some downsides
especially, when the information circulated is personal or specific to a user or members within
the users’ social network. Luz explains how quickly news travels even without the knowledge of
the person who is the subject of the information. She explains:
Like, I personally find that really scary, because that means I know your business without
you even needing to tell me—which in no case—like in my opinion, that is not safe at all.
It’s okay for to people to have a good idea [of why someone is mad] But I don’t need to
know, why you’re having a fight, when I’m not even that close to you. Like the girls at
my school, I know that they do it a lot and then it’s concerning because it’s like, now I
know just all your business, everybody in this school knows your entire business.
Latrice also shares how easily online and offline information circulates back and forth between
networks and among users:
I’ve seen from HS, videos of girls giving head--no, at school. I don’t know people post
videos, send text messages, share the video, show their friends, and be like, “Oh yeah,
send it to me.” And that’s how that goes. And you know in general, SCP is a small
school, so whatever you’re caught doing, that’s it—everybody knows about it by lunch
time.
Here all of the interviewees discussed the relative ease of access to and circulation of
information within their online social networks which indicates that online social networks
enable members of the AiG to access information that, outside of the online network, might
otherwise be inaccessible.
Research Question Two
Chapter Two took up an extensive CRT based discussion of the role of race and racism in
the social network dynamics at work in the historical and contemporary DAS social networking
ecologies within the African American community (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986; Ogbu,1994;
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
158
Ladson-Billings & Tate; 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1997, Lynn, 2003; Jay, 2003; Howard, 2003;
Ogbu, 2004 Ladson-Billings, 2004 Lynn &Parker, 2006). Chapter Two also articulated four key
levels of two types of networking ecologies that factor into the status problems (Ogbu, 2004)
African American experience which often infringe upon their social enfranchisement, power and
privilege in DAS. However, because social operations of online social networks seemingly
disregard racial identity as a basis of access to key forms of social networking necessary for
users to navigate their networks toward enfranchisement, power, and privilege, this study aims to
understand how this affects AiG users’ network orientations within online social networking
ecologies. In understanding this occurrence, a second question arises:
How does members of the African American iGeneration’s access and use of the key forms of
social network capital in online social networks differ from a CRT based perspective of African
American’s history of access and use of key forms of social network capital in offline social
networking ecologies?
Chapter 2 identifies two key factors affecting African American’s status problems with
offline social networking ecologies: (1) limitations imposed by the historical significance of a
racialized social identity (Ogbu 1991, 1994, 1998, 2004) and (2) limitations created by an
inability to access key forms of social networking capital (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) with offline
DAS social networks. To answer this question, I now turn to how primary and secondary social
capital appear in the AiG’s online networking ecologies and present the key, emergent themes in
the data collected from my observation and interviews with the six study participants: Jeremiah,
Brianna, Trebor, Darwin, Luz and Latrice.
The Role of Primary Social Capital in Online Enfranchisement, Power, and Privilege
Outcomes
In the context of online social networks, primary social capital takes on a completely
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
159
different role and significance for members of the AiG. Although the AiG users still understand
the relevance of race to a global concept of social outcomes and conceptions of social justice in
the broader context of DAS, on a personal, day-to-day level, AiG youth do not always directly
identify a connection between their social status and racial identity. For example Jeremiah says:
We’re really in a generation---My generation really, we don’t—depending on where you
at—we don’t really look at race as a big deal anymore. Like, me personally, like a white
person can say ‘nigga’ like in the same context that I would use it and I wouldn’t care,
like, honestly. But I know like, older people, or older people in the South, they keep race
as a high thing in our society. I think it was Tyler the Creator that was like, ‘As long as
you’re thinking like that, you’re keeping racism alive.’ So, I really don’t look at race as a
big deal, especially on social media. But I remember when Obama won. Race—had a
big—played a big part on Facebook. I remember my dad was telling me he had to delete
some people because they were making racial—like people he had known became racist
all of a sudden when Obama won.
Darwin goes even further of his assessment of the role of race online saying that, for the most
part, he remains altogether unaware of race unless race is overtly presented to him in his online
network. He says:
I can’t really tell the difference [in people’s races] unless I look at their pictures.
Whenever I do see it, it’s typically when somebody is speaking a different language.
How I see it is, it’s only skin color. And that doesn’t change the person itself. I mean
people are people one way or the other and the words come out all the same when you’re
looking at them on a computer screen. I mean if there were no pictures on FB you
wouldn’t even know who you were talking to unless they said it. And you wouldn’t know
what race, you wouldn’t know anything unless they said it.
However when I asked Darwin whether he’d ever been attacked racially or forced to deal with
racism in his online social networks he says:
Attacked me racially? No. Posted a picture of the confederate flag on their toes? Yes.
It depends on where I am [on a social network], it kind of depends. Of course if a
Caucasian person did it, I might take a little offense to it. But, they might post it for its
original meaning—which I’m not really sure what it is. But what it means now, for
African Americans and other races that are knowledgeable enough to know what that flag
stood for and what kind of people were behind that flag, I mean, it takes offense. I’m
mean, I’m sure if I was Jewish and I had a friend post a swastika on my FB, I would take
offense to that also. Not just because of the sign, but because it was an army sign that the
Germans used. It was just, who stood behind that sign and what actions were done with
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
160
the sign and what that sign stands for. It’s that same exact concept.
When I asked Latrice to reflect on how she thinks race factored into her online social
networking experiences, she also initially explained that she also does not generally give thought
to how her race affects her profile. However, in thinking more carefully about it she expressed
the following sentiments:
I never really thought that my race affected my profile. I think it would limit it because
would think, “Oh yeah, she’s black.” Stuff like that. You know, other people try to
belittle people like that. There’s this stereotype that all back girls are messy and ratchet or
of, course, you know nasty and whatever else. You know that’s not me because I’m not
like that. You know people, who are like that, they judge you right off the bat, but that’s
not it.
Luz says this about how she handles race in online social networks:
Like, I have a Dave Chappelle kind of thing where like I think racist jokes are funny—
that’s not good, but it’s true. To me, I’m desensitized to it. I think a lot of the people that
I follow and tweet and stuff are desensitized to it too. But I don’t think I personally ever
posted anything extremely racist unless it’s mostly against my own ethnicity and race.
But I definitely do see it. But it doesn’t do anything to me. There are instances where I’m
like, ‘Oh, wow, that’s really messed up.’ Or like it frustrates me a little bit but I don’t get
extremely upset over things that people post on the internet.
To be clear however, the observational and interview data does not say that AiG youth do not
ever have racist encounters in online spaces or identify racist facets and features of personalized,
community or social circumstances within their online and offline networks. Yet, it appears that
by encountering race and racism so regularly and openly in online social networks, in some ways
they become desensitized to racism’s pernicious nature in these settings. For example, Trebor
provides this analysis for how she views both her and her peer’s level of ability to control the
appearance of racist content and encounters within their networks saying:
It depends on what kind of friends you have and who you follow and what you see. If I
follow certain people that I don’t know and I see racist things, then it’s because I don’t
know them.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
161
In fact, according to Trebor, even content that has racial connotations often falls within a user’s
realms of control in managing his or her online social networks. She offers a very detailed
explanation of why she believes this is the case saying:
It kind of depends on who you are and who you know. I know, I know, predominantly
black people. So my Twitter is black people. My Facebook is black people. My
Instagram is black people. And it’s a world so. I have a couple of multiracial friends but
it’s like their posts are altogether different. You see a different type of humor and the way
they talk. You see the different type of pictures that they take. Different lifestyles.
I know frankly, I haven’t seen anything racist because none of the people that I know are
blatantly, overtly racist. Um, it’s all, social networks revolve around your social sphere
and that’s the point. It would only not revolve around your personal sphere if you’re
adding a bunch of people that you don’t know that are in way different places. Let’s say
you add 50 people on your FB account and one person is from every state and they’re
from all kinds of different races. That’s a whole different social sphere that you’re not a
part of so you see more. You get a bigger idea of what’s going on or what people are
thinking. Twitter doesn’t revolve around your [personal] social sphere and, because of
that, you do see a lot more of what people are thinking. On Instagram—I don’t see it.
You can see racist memes which are comedic pictures but I haven’t seen any people
because all of my friends are black. I haven’t seen any about white people from my black
friends. I haven’t seen anything about my black friends from my white friends. I haven’t
seen anything that’s overtly racist because, um, Facebook and Instagram these are people
that I know. But on Twitter I would see more racist things.
Trebor also explains that her reaction to racist content in online networks changes depending on
racial identity of the poster saying:
It’s different when a Black person is like, “Niggas be like…” or whatever […]twerk
team, and all kinds of things. It really just depends on your social sphere as to whether
the picture becomes popular around you or not. Like, oh I’ve seen this picture a lot, this a
popular picture. Or, I’ve seen this meme a lot, or this screenshot a lot. But then again, that
picture could be non-existent in someone else’s social sphere.
In the times that she does encounter race and racism online, Latrice takes a different approach to
exerting control and influence on the situation by choosing to engage online posters in a
dignified manner. She says:
When it comes to race [on social media], most of the time it’s something negative. It’s
always something negative being said about someone race. I really just brush it off
because you know race is really just about your culture and how you hold yourself as a
person. You know, so really how you act and what you do and how you hold yourself, I
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
162
think that reflects your race a lot.
For instance during widely publicized instances and news events featuring African
Americans, AiG youth take to their spaces to discuss such occurrences with online peers and/or
an invisible audience. Such discussions often feature issues of race and culture. For instance, last
year in the disturbing murder of Trayvon Martin, I observed a great deal of profile content
generated by AiG users questioning the role of accused shooter George Zimmerman and victim
Trayvon Martin’s race in the case’s handling and development by the public and law
enforcement. Trebor gives an account of her experience on Twitter saying:
When the Trayvon Martin case happened, I saw a lot of racist tweets because these are
people I didn’t know and these are people who had no filter and these are people who are
getting attention off of Twitter because of the racist stuff that they say. So—but I didn’t
know any of them.
When I asked Trebor how she felt about content that, although not directed specifically at her,
targeted African-Americans in general she responded explaining:
I do get mad and honestly I do feel like it just gives me the same indication that racism
still exists and stereotypes are still common no matter how much people say we’ve made
progress. Just like when, it was during the Trayvon Martin case, and I saw people
tweeting the most racist things I’ve ever seen. It’s just let’s me know racism still exists.
Luz echoes Trebor’s sentiments, with some qualifications, saying:
It’s easier for me to just--- like, if I’m scrolling down, and you say something on Twitter,
like it’s easier for me to be like, “Okay well you’re entitled to your opinion. That’s all
you.” In person it’s a lot more difficult, because like I said, in person it’s a lot more
difficult. But in person it definitely feels more personalized. But on the internet it doesn’t
feel personalized. It just feels like you’re expressing your stupidity.
In more personalized contexts, AiG now having access to their own self managed social
networking capital can also use their online space and voices to confront and also to ignore what
they believe to be insensitivity or disrespect of their race in both their online and offline
networks. Luz discusses why she is able to disengage from issues of racism in online settings as
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
163
opposed to having to confront and address it in her offline networks:
It’s easier for me to just--- like, if I’m scrolling down, and you say something on Twitter,
like it’s easier for me to be like, “Okay well you’re entitled to your opinion. That’s all
you.” In person it’s a lot more difficult, because like I said, in person it’s a lot more
difficult. But in person it definitely feels more personalized. But on the internet it doesn’t
feel personalized. It just feels like you’re expressing your stupidity
Latrice shares one occasion where, rather than ignoring racism, she used her online
platform as an opportunity to educate another online user who verbally attacked African
American women for using hair extensions:
There is a stereotype, that only black girls wear weaves. But that is definitely false. You
know who started wearing weaves first? White women started wearing weaves first.
White women were the first people to start wearing extensions. But, no, they put they put
this, this emphasis that Black people are the only people to wear weaves and that irks my
soul cause that’s not true. Yes, a lot of black girls wear weaves but you know [trails off].
On FB, [it]was like the funniest thing ever. There was a debate going on in a group and
this girl, this woman--she was Caucasian--she was like, “Only nigger bitches wear
weaves.” Like, what?! Wait a minute. First of all, you know, that was racist as hell. And
then second, you know white girls were the first to wear extensions. You never heard
about black people wearing weaves like three, four hundred years ago.
As the participants’ comments here indicate, in online social networks, it appears that while
members of the AiG may be aware of race and racism, have likely had encounters with race and
racism, and are likely to find such encounters offensive, they do not generally focus on race as a
central component of their online social experience.
Nuanced dynamics of race and culture in online social networks. In what seems to be
a contemporary twist on DuBois’ notion of the double-consciousness of racial identity, some
AiG users feel a sense of social accountability within their online social networks where they
realize that for some of their online peers they serve as representatives of their race and culture.
With this realization frequently comes an invisible sense of responsibility to manage content so
as not to misrepresent, negatively influence, or poorly reflect, in any way, existing notions of
African American race and social identity in the views of other users within their networks.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
164
Brianna explains her experience with this sense of awareness in her online networks saying:
In high school it was really easy to say, you know, “Oh, Black people are so ignorant. I
just saw this one Black woman do this.” And so I was able to say that because the other
Black kids on my FB knew what kind of Black people I was talking about. So they knew
that I wasn’t saying that all Black people in America are ghetto. Like they knew that.
They knew that I was talking about a certain type of person that bothered me or that gave
Black kids a bad name. But now at Brown, I have to watch what I say when I say things
like that because now there are kids who never met a Black person in their life. And there
are now kids that, literally, had one Black kid in their school, of a school of 1200 kids.
And that Black kid was there cause they were adopted. So-- and since they’re in like
Wyoming or Montana, so now they get to Brown and they say there are so many Black
kids. I’m confused because I see no Black kids. So if I say something like, “Black people
are always ghetto.” If they see me say something like that, in their eyes, they think it’s
true because a Black person is saying that Black people are like this—so they must know
because they’re Black. You feel like the poster kid. All the time. And so it made me more
conscious of what I write. I never want to say the n-word anymore because I feel that I
shouldn’t allow people to say it—although I say it.
However, just as AiG users maybe aware of how other users within their network may be
watching them and picking up new and previously unknown facets of AiG’s culture and race,
AiG users also use their networks to broader their base of understanding and connection with
users of different cultures and social standing. Trebor shared an example of how this occurs for
her now that she is in college:
When I got college my social sphere started expanding. So I started knowing more people
of different races different ethnicities, different languages and different backgrounds. So
when we started adding each other on Facebook, I started seeing different sides of their
lives. I started seeing more mutual things. A different insight into how different other
cultures are and what they post and what they view as popular. One thing I know was
popular on social media was the Harlem Shake. I know in my culture, like in the black
culture, in the community, the Harlem Shake is a dance from Harlem, where you, like,
move your arms[…]—but when like, there with this new version of the Harlem Shake. I
was just confused, but it was so popular among like different cultures. It became a really,
really, really big thing and it just kind of spread among these different social medias
like—but that’s what I ‘m saying. I wouldn’t have been able to see it if, I didn’t have
multi-racial friends.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
165
Because of AiG’s online connections, users like Trebor can also translate those connections into
offline applications for social connection and understanding with a broader base of people as
well. Trebor explains how this has happened for her:
I feel like, the more you interact with people of different races offline, the more you can
do it online. I live on the “global humanity” floor of my building and so I have a lot of
multiracial neighbors that live next door to me and that I talk to or that I say hi to. Or,
when I went to Princeton, New Jersey for two weeks and I made a lot of friends that
added me on social networks. And we contacted each other a lot on social networks. Like
on FB, “Hey! I love you oh my gosh!” But it’s only because we did that in person and it
has to be something mutual there. Because it has to be some type of real bridge, real
physical bridge of interaction. You wouldn’t just add a white person on FB that you don’t
know. You would probably follow them on Twitter because it’s easier, it’s less in depth.
But, I know in order for me to interact with people on social networks of different races, I
have to know them and I do have to have a personal relationship with them.
Trebor details how she is able to make connections and tell the difference between her original
circle of online peers of users from back home and users’ posting content who have completely
different socio-cultural and economic backgrounds from her:
I know on Facebook, it’ll be like—I live in a really bad area—and all my friends that are
in that area, that I have as friends on FB--they post completely different things than the
people I go to school with that aren’t as the same race as me. Somebody that goes to
school with me, and that isn’t the same race as me, or maybe is the same race as me, but
right now, I know they’re, like, across the street in Bel-Air. They’ll be tweeting, posting
on Facebook about politics and “look what happened today” and world events. And
somebody from where I come from will be Facebooking about “Mix that lean in my
cup.” Or, “I hate when ratchets do this.” “Guys aren’t anything.” Um, “I’m a pimp. I’m a
player.” Like-- ridiculous things. And it’s just, exposure, it’s environment, it’s minorities.
All of these things have a factor in what’s being posted or what’s being seen. If a video
from World Star Hip Hop is circulating all around these social networks, it’s because you
mostly have black friends that are making this video popular among your social
networks.
Luz describes similar outcomes in her online socio-cultural exposure’s effect on her range of
cultural awareness:
I guess you can kind of say that my school is a sheltered environment because I’m used
to being around African Americans 7 hours a day, everyday, 5 days a week. I guess the
difference is that on the Internet, I’m surrounded by a lot more people with different
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
166
cultures and different races. So I guess in a way it makes me a lot more intelligible about
other people’s cultures. And I guess when people tweet things and post things it is
specific to what they are experiencing and the way they experience it.
From the content and responses detailed in this section, it is evident that for AiG users
there is still a clear tangibility of experience with racism within both online and offline social
networks. However what has changed in the context of online social networks, is that there is far
more variability in how each member of the AiG directly links race to his or her social outcomes
at the personal, network, or global level.
The Role of Secondary Social Capital in Enfranchisement, Power, Privilege Outcomes
The second key network feature of online social networking ecologies central to
enfranchisement power and privilege is access to key forms of social network capital (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997). Chapter Two explained how for members of the AiG, access to key forms of
social networking capital within in their offline networks remains challenging, especially where
such capital must be allocated by institutional agents within a given network. This is because
institutional agents generally allocate, manage and distribute networking capital according to
DAS norms values and attitudes that have a history of disenfranchising African Americans.
However in online networks, there are few to no institutional agents and therefore, AiG users
have greater opportunity to access and use keys forms on social networking with their online
networks. For instance, Brianna says:
My favorites to use are Instagram and Facebook just because they’re easy and accessible.
I‘ve been using Facebook since my freshman year of higschool. So I pretty much know it
and I don’t really like change so I never really went on to Twitter. IG is also pretty easy,
you upload a picture and you’re done. Honestly the reason why I use them is that they’re
easy, they’re accessible and I can talk to more than one person at once.
When I asked if she or any of her peers had any difficulties in access their online sites, Brianna
responded:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
167
No. Not that I know of. Sometimes people, even if they didn’t have internet on their
phone or internet at home, it was easy to just go on friends’ phone or um, even at school
although they blocked it [social networks], it was easy to find proxies. I never heard of
anyone say it was too hard for them to have Facebook. I feel like, there’s no one online
that can dictate anything and what resources you can have or what resources you can’t
have. I know there are rules for online social media and Internet usage. There are rules,
but those rules won’t limit the resources you have if you don’t obey them.
Trebor echoed Brianna’s views but noted that some types of technology my create an
exclusionary factor but that generally most online networks were fairly easy to use and access:
There’s no challenge really except with Instagram, because I don’t have an iPhone so I
have to use an iPod touch. And even some social networks that are created like
Instagram, are really exclusive so it also does gives another sense of um, of [being an]
outcast in a way. If you don’t have an iPhone or Android you can’t make an Instgram or
you cant download these apps and you can’t get in these social networks that everyone is
getting. Just like when AIM came out and everybody got a sidekick, if you didn’t have a
sidekick you would just have to be on your computer all day.
Limitations to access and use of online social capital. Although the data from my
observation and interview of the study participants confirmed that the AiG had less interference
from institutional agents, there still some remain barriers to AiG users’ access and use of social
networking capital with online networks. However, in accessing social networking capital, these
limitations do not hinder AiG users’ opportunities to gain enfranchisement, power and privilege
nearly as much as in offline social networking ecologies. In fact, some limitations may even
provide a degree of cautious protection in light of the risk for socially damaging outcomes
created by the AiG’s unsupervised online social networking. The next section identifies key
themes in the data illustrating the degree of differences that the AiG faces in their use and access
of social networking capital within their online networks.
Parent and adult authority. Although with online social networks, AiG users often
operate undetected by adult authority, there are times where, if discovered, AiG users may find
themselves cut off from online social networking altogether. AiG users generally experience
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
168
high levels of comfort and insulation from discovery, however Luz explains an example of the
consequences when such discovery happens:
One of my friends had an experience where like they posted something that they probably
shouldn’t have--on Vine. He posted something on Vine. And because Vine doesn’t have
a security setting yet—they haven’t made it where you an lock your Vine yet. So one of
his friend’s moms saw him doing something that he should not have been doing on Vine
and showed it to his mom [smoking weed]. So then it like got this whole thing where
everybody was freaking out thinking about the fact that they’re really post things on all of
these websites that they shouldn’t be posting. It’s not like it’s really private. You think
it’s private but people can show your parents whatever they want whenever they want so
it’s not like you’re really safe. So it was kind of like that but then it caught you back in
check. Big brother kind of feeling, yeah.
Brianna also explains the downturn in both her online and offline social networking capabilities
after her parents discovered her online networking activities
So when people try to tell them, ‘Oh, you know Brianna’s been to a lot of parties on her
Facebook. You know, there’s a lot of party pictures of her on her Facebook. Maybe she’s
not doing something right.’So then my parents go, ‘Yeah! Let’s go check on her to see
what she’s doing.’ And so because of that, every Friday and Saturday for the last three
months of college, they called me at like 11:30. To see what I was doing, just to
randomly call at 11:30. 11:30?! That is, like, prime time. And it’s bad because sometimes
I was out of it, or I would be intoxicated and then they would ask me questions that they
knew I had to think about. And so for me, how I was raised, I would never you know, do
anything like that in front of my parents. And so just trying to keep it together and just—
yeah they did it to me on purpose. And it was all because someone who was older told
them, “Brianna seems like she’s partying a lot lately. Seems like she’s having a lot of
fun—maybe too much fun.” And then putting those ideas in their head made them, not
ruin my night, but you know, made my night a little bit more challenging.
Trebor engages in her online social networks knowing that at any moment a family member or
other authority may check-in on her profile’s content:
I also try not to put anything too negative on my Instagram because if any of my family
members try to like snoop on me like, “What’s Trebor’s Instagram? Oh, this is it?” And
they look on it and they see something suggestive and it’s like, “Nooooo.” Then they’ll
tell my whole family so it’s like I have to be careful about what I put on my Instagram
and what I put on my Twitter.
Luz shares how one such online experience caused many problems for her at home:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
169
When my mom first started talking to, who is now her wife. So I posted something on
Tumblr about how frustrated I was about the entire situation and I guess my sister saw it
and she showed her mom and I guess it really offended them. Like, I didn’t necessarily
mean it to offend them because I didn’t think they were gonna read it! But they got really
upset and I got into a lot of trouble.
The participants’ comments, here, indicate that in the AiG’s online networks, although
the barriers to social networking capital still exist in the form of institutional agents and other
social authorities, these barriers function much differently than the ones posed by the same actors
in the AiG’s offline networks. Detection by adult and offline institutional agent authority still
remains a risk to AiG users because of the concern that users online interactions might be
discovered and create consequences for users in their offline contexts.
Peer authority and limits. Not only do AiG users have to be aware of monitoring by
adult authority, but in some cases fear or incitement of peer authority can also present a
limitation for online users. Brianna illustrates the power of peer authority within social networks
through a story that happened last year to a student at Brown.
And so there was time where—we have naked donut runs. That’s when naked people go
around giving people donuts during finals in the libraries. And a guy took a picture of a
girl, naked, and posted it on a social media, Instagram. And so there was guy that was
basically saying that the girl whose picture was taken, never should have been naked and
it never would have happened. And his life was over. And he was getting […]threats on
his, not on his life, but on his social life. More like, “You’re never gonna have any
friends. No one likes you. Why did you even come to Brown? You need to transfer.
Don’t ever show your face.” And it was very serious because everyone felt like he was
victim blaming. Because he was victim blaming, people have deleted him off of their
Facebook. People have blocked him and now all his friends that he has are just like his
meathead white friends on the football team.
Beyond individual peer and adult authority, AiG users must be cautious about unforeseeable, and
sometimes, foreseeable consequences that appear, not just in online settings, but in their offline
“real-life” settings as well. Brianna shares another example of how one her school classmate’s
incitement of an online adversary translated into offline consequences for several students at the
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
170
school:
So at my school. It wasn’t the best school. But we definitely were not the worst. We
weren’t really gangbangers. We weren’t—I don’t know how to explain us—we just
weren’t those kids. But since we were still a part of that environment we were used to it.
S there would be other people who would say rep other gangs--rival gangs. There was a
time when they were talking, just a lot of smack to the Crenshaw kids. And so there was a
day where it was about 50 Crenshaw kids and they rushed the gates of SCP. It was my
8th grade year. Then the next [fight], that they had it wasn’t 50 kids, it was like 10 or 15
of them [students] and they were coming for some girls. Cause they were still talking
smack on Facebook. So people have arguments on Facebook and you know you’re hiding
behind it and you sound all tough. You get into it with the wrong person, and then they
randomly rush the gates of View Park. Of course, they’re not trying to hurt those who are
not a part of it but at the same time, hypothetically, you’re putting other people in danger
because you want to be tough.
Trebor discusses one occasion where one of her online interaction, initially intended as a friendly
reflection of one friend’s sense of fashion quickly turned into an issue for her offline:
I remember when I was in high school at SCP I took a picture of this girl’s nails. And I
thought the nails were colorful. And then I put the picture on Facebook and people were
talking, saying like, “Man, those look like grandma hands. Whose nails are those? Those
look like wolf nails.” And one of the girl’s friends saw it and he was like, “Oh, wow.” He
tagged her for her to go to see it and she tried to like blow up on me on Facebook. And
then that caused problems for me a school. And then, I ended up changing my whole
personality because I had this big altercation with her because of a Facebook post. She
thought that I posted it up there maliciously, regardless of what I said, she was too
embarrassed to even take me seriously. Because everybody on Facebook had seen it, and
commented, and liked it, and added flames to the fire and-- in real life it caused
problems for me.
Jeremiah gives a more benign example of peer sanction he received from one of his frat brothers
after a heated status he posted in frustration caused by his math class:
I posted something because I was in math class, and I was really messin’ up in math
class...and then um… I posted this status, like, ‘F school, blah, blah, blah, Like I’m
done. Like I’m obviously not good at math, so I don’t see why people keep trying to help
me. Like, I suck at math I give. I might just drop out.’ Then my line brother hits me up
like, “Aww bro, AJ ‘s pissed right now, see him after class.’ So I hit him up. He basically
told me like, he understands how frustrated I am. He wasn’t even pissed off really. He
was just more upset that I was basically defeated that easily and that my mom or someone
could see the post and get all worried
The invisible audience. One final type of limitation that emerged regarding AiG users’
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
171
online access and use of social networking capital concerned users’ inability to fully know all of
the observers or participants within an online network or lurking on users’ profiles. Social
missteps or content deemed inappropriate by standards of other users within other online and
offline social networks have the potential to create a range of consequences of varying severity
for AiG users. AiG users must weigh the risk of self-expression or posting content that could
offend an anonymous observer, another user within the network, or any causal observer having
access to the users’ profile.
Brianna explains her thought process in choosing whether or not to post content with the
potential to be misunderstood or misconstrued:
I also have to recognize that I now have 400 new friends and maybe 20 or 50 of them are
Black. So I have this whole new set of friends that aren’t Black, that some of them have
never really been around a whole group of Black people like I have. So they don’t
understand the idea of saying, ‘Black people are ignorant. I just can’t stand niggas these
days.’ Like they just don’t understand what you mean. And so by just randomly posting
a status on Facebook, they don’t hear your voice. Or, they don’t hear your sarcasm. And
so because of that, they take what they can out of it—without the right context. Because I
mean, you can hear my sarcasm, or you could ask me what do I mean and I can explain to
you in my roundabout ramblish ways how I feel. But on Facebook you can’t do a
roundabout talk or you can’t ramble on Facebook. It has to be clear, concise, for the
person who’s reading it—to just read it. And so that’s a really big struggle to try to
explain what you mean to people, because they can’t hear your voice, they can’t hear
your tone and also just make sure you don’t say things that people may take the wrong
way.
Brianna has already experienced such misinterpretations of her posted online content earlier this
year after posting pictures of herself with a friend at school event:
There’s a picture. We had spring weekend at school. There’s a picture of me and my
friend in the front row. And in the background is Kendrick Lamar rapping. And so we
look like we’re having the time of our lives. I think in one the picture, like, my mouth
was wide open, and I never really look like that, and so a couple of people thought I was
intoxicated. Or just the assumption that, “Oh, she’s at a concert. It’s Spring Weekend. It’s
one of the biggest weekends of school—she must be intoxicated.” So sometimes, even if
you just post a picture, if someone just uses their preconceived notions, that picture
becomes worse. Because to me it just looks like me and my friend with Kendrick Lamar
in the back. But to others its--the biggest thing of Brown. We must be having such a great
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
172
time And it’s Brown on top of that so everyone’s always high. And she looks kind of
crazy so.
Jeremiah expresses a different concern which has dramatically affected the way that he now
chooses to post content on certain online profiles of his, particularly those profiles where his
content and user activity can be more easily detected by outside observers.
In high school? I was more like, ‘I said it.’ I said what I wanted to say. But now that I’m
in college, I know that the jobs are gonna look at your--like that even strips away your
freedom. When the jobs are gonna have the freedom to look at what you post on
Facebook. Because it’s—although its you, it’s also like—deciding, deciding what you
obviously only have for your peers or people that you know. But when jobs start getting
ahold of it. Start looking at it—then it kind of holds back you saying exactly what you
wanna say. I think that the biggest disadvantage you have with any social networking
period is the fact that then people are open to looking at your stuff—your employers,
your parents, everybody, kind of has access to that scope of your life, which is kind
frustrating all in itself.I don’t feel like I should have to answer, but I know like since they
have all those blocks or removing certain things online, and they try to do the whole
blocking of everything like I guess we have to answer to them at the end of the day…but
I think that completely destroys the purpose of the internet—all the SOPA crap and all of
that.
The participants’ comments here indicate that while AiG users appear to have much more social
freedom within online networks in terms of their choice of access, use and control of social
capital in online settings, their self-constructed authority for themselves, and among their peers
and invisible audience also works as type of double-edged sword that, in some cases, limits their
engagement in certain online networks.
Conclusion
The data presented in this chapter illustrates that AiG students are able to not only access
and use, but also control key forms of social networking capital for their subjective notions of
power, privilege and enfranchisement within both online and offline networks. Furthermore,
access, use, and control of online social networking capital generally lies beyond the limitations
of racialized social identity, institutional agents and other social restrictions present within their
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
173
offline networks. Although social limitations to access, use and control of social networking
capital do exist, the versatility of online network platforms, social tools, and AiG levels of
network embeddedness allow users to find ways to counteract or offset the effects of such
limitations in their online networking endeavors and network orientation toward social power,
privilege, and enfranchisement.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
174
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
In this chapter, I assess the perspectives and experiences provided by six members of the
African American iGeneration (AiG) in a discussion that compiles the study’s main findings in
response to the two key questions posed at the outset of this study. The discussion of these
findings is organized by research question into the main findings identified within the data. The
findings for each question are based primarily on the study participants’ interview responses to
flesh out the nuances of each theme with respect to the research questions.
As the principal tool of data and collection and reporting, in presenting this data, my
intent was to be as clear of a lens as possible so that, to the degree possible, the participants’
interview responses serve as genuine, unadulterated reflections of their perspective and
experiences within their online and offline social networking ecologies. Given the dearth of data
concerning African American students’ social networking experiences within online ecologies,
of particular importance to me as I collected the data, was the focus on selecting participants
whose profiles, content, social capital access and usage reflected the wide range of prevalent
themes I encountered in the field concerning the African American AiG’s online social network
access and usage.
Caveats of the Data Presentation and Findings
It is important to note that what is presented in Chapter Four concerning the six students
interviewed for the study, though rich in detailed perspective and recounted experience of their
online and offline social networking endeavors, is only the tip of the iceberg of what I observed
during the data collection phase of this study. Originally, I proposed to present both interview
and actual observed visual data. My plan was to observe 20 participant profiles and then
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
175
interview 10 of the observed participants. I did collect visual data from the profiles of 20
observed participants, however, the quantity and richness of the visual data were so
overwhelming that I felt I would be forced to leave out too many pieces of participants’ visual
data that were integral to a proper presentation and analysis of their narratives.
I want to be sure to emphasize that the complexity in the social use and significance of
online social networking is far greater than I had even realized when I first created and began
collecting data for this study. In reviewing the data presented in Chapter Four and the findings
presented below, it is critical to recognize these responses as just one opening of a window into
the AiG’s integration within a vast, sophisticated, and highly complex social networking ecology
having great implications for both online and offline opportunities to gain social
enfranchisement, power, and privilege.
About the Interview Process
In identifying and contacting participants for the interview, I found that it was a challenge
to either get prospective participants to respond to my requests or to follow through with the
interview even after the participants had reviewed the consent form and agreed to participate.
Originally, I planned to reach out to prospective participants who fit my selection criteria that I
both knew and did not know. However, from the responses I received, or lack thereof, coupled
with the observational data regarding “feds”
11
and online user sensitivity to outsider snooping,
gave me the distinct impression that within the networking ecologies of some members of the
AiG, particularly where there is a perception of authority or outsider status, it is taboo to disclose
information about details and happenings for members and/or peers within a member’s social
11
Term used in online networks to refer to profile snooping and observation by those considered by AiG users
(usually offline authorities or social enemies) as outsiders to their online social networks.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
176
network.
I also found it much more difficult to recruit male interviewees, though I am unsure of
what inferences or generalizations can be drawn from this. It may be that, simply, I was not
welcomed into that sphere of understanding and connection. Of the six interviewees, I was able
to recruit, four are female and two are male. All six interviewees, are students whom I have
taught, worked with outside of the classroom in the larger context of the school setting or general
community, and know quite well. I suspect that I was able to secure interviews with them,
primarily because of this pre-existing relationship with them. However, I do not believe that my
pre-existing relationship with them in any way caused them to skewer or alter their responses to
my questions during our interview. If anything, as indicated by the high level of candor in the
interview responses, our pre-existing relationship allowed each participant to be more
comfortable in delivering their responses openly and frankly.
Understanding the Participants
As members of the new iGeneration (Rosen, 2005; Pew Internet & American Life
Project, 2012), African American students’ increased access and use of social capital in their
online social networking ecologies directly affects their models of network orientation toward
social power privilege and enfranchisement dynamics which in turn influences their social
models with their offline DAS networking ecologies. These changes mark a serious
transformation of the enfranchisement, power, and privilege opportunities in relation to the
AiG’s limited access and use of key forms of social networking capital within offline networking
ecologies.
The data in Chapter Four shows that although the six interview participants had divergent
social and academic backgrounds and experiences within their online and offline networks, they
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
177
each shared a commonality of factors within these networks that bears heavily on a consideration
of the study’s findings. First, each participant has experienced one or more features of
oppositional identity as reflected by their views of and experiences within their school,
community, and/or home social networking ecologies. Second, each participant’s views reflects
varying levels of disillusionment concerning the instrumental value of their school, community
and or home networks and respective access and use of social capital in their social power,
privilege, and enfranchisement outcomes. Third, each participant’s views and/or experience
reflects varying levels of one or more of the four forms of status problems identified by Ogbu
(2004) as a function of limited access to key forms of social capital in their offline school, home
and/or community social networking ecologies. Fourth, each participant is heavily immersed in
an online social networking ecology comprising of one or more social network sites where they
have access and use of key forms of social networking capital which participants self direct for
their own power, privilege and enfranchisement within both online and offline ecologies.
In Chapter One, the research questions identified as central to this study’s understanding
of the AiG were given as follows:
1. How do iGeneration, African American students access and use key forms of social
network capital (space, voice, and information) in online social networks such as
Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and Instagram, to self-direct their network orientation
toward social enfranchisement, power and privilege?
2. How does members of the African American iGeneration’s access and use of the key
forms of social network capital in online social networks differ from a CRT perspective
of African American’s history of access and use of key forms of social network capital
in offline social networking ecologies?
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
178
I now turn to an analysis of these questions through a discussion of the findings identified
from the data presented in Chapter Four.
Discussion of the Findings
The purpose of this study is to provide a better understanding of how African American
iGeneration youth, in light of specific social limitations imposed within offline DAS networking
ecologies, use their online social networking to access and use key forms of social networking
capital in their network orientations toward social power, privilege and enfranchisement. At the
theoretical foundation of the study is a Critical Race Theory meets social capital theory based
analysis of African Americans historical and contemporaneous social limitations in access and
using key forms of social networking capital within DAS offline networking ecologies.
However, given the African American iGeneration’s recent social integration into online social
networks that allow them to freely access and use social capital within their online, and in some
cases, offline, social networking ecologies, this study turns to a closer examination of the
dynamics at works within these ecologies and the influence on the AiG’s social enfranchisement,
power and privilege.
Each of the narratives provided in the interviews given by the study’s six participants
indicated commonalities of experience also represented in the literature. No matter their
personal, socio-economic, or academic background, all of the participants’ respective
experiences in school reflect a level of recognition of their school networks limitations in
providing them with the social capital sufficient for a fuller, subjective realization of s social
power, privilege and enfranchisement while in high school or since graduating and moving on
into their post-high school experiences. Although none of the interview participants directly
linked a sense of limitation to the role of race, their shared observations and experiences reflect
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
179
many of the points raised in Ogbu’s (1991,1998, 2004) research on involuntary minorities,
community forces and status problems all of which cites race as the primary factor moderating in
African American students’ social experiences in DAS social networks. Further, using Stanton-
Salazar’s (1997) social capital framework and Stanton Salazar and Spina’s (2001) research on
network orientation as complementary lenses of a CRT-based analysis of the participants’ social
networking experiences, all of the participants described both their and their peer’s considerable
access and use of social capital within online networking ecologies as alternative contexts for
achieving subjective and objective notions of social power, privilege and enfranchisement in
online and offline social networks. Members of the AiG appear to benefit from a social
networking context that, although certainly and regularly features facets of race and racism, does
not hinge on the construct and implications of a racialized social identity in either the access or
use of key forms of social networking capital in their online ecologies’ social network dynamics.
Research Question One: Findings
This section outlines the study’s findings that respond primarily to the study’s first key
research question concerning how AiG members access and use key forms of social networking
capital in their network orientation toward social enfranchisement power and privilege (See
Table 2).
Finding 1: The AiG access and use social capital to create forms of oppositional agency that
directly contrast with various social norms, attitudes, and values that govern social
dynamics within their offline social networks. The discussion in Chapter Two considered
oppositional identity (Ogbu, 2004) alongside Lundy’s (2003) definition of agency as the
“evolving ownership of action” and “the desire to stand within one’s own cultural location and
use that cultural location as a reference to interpret and engage one’s reality. However, Stanton
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
180
Salazar’s (1997) view of institutional agents as manages and distributors of key forms of social
networking capital within AiG offline networking ecologies suggests that institutional agents’
authority and decision-making governs and influences several facets of students’ ability to take
“evolving ownership” and “stand in their own cultural location to interpret and engage their
realities” within their offline networking experiences. However, by contrast, as confirmed
through both interview and observational data, online social networks have, few to no
institutional agents or authorities, to interfere with the AiG’s access to key forms of secondary
social capital within these networks.
Both observational and interview data suggest that not only the interviewees but their online
peers and other AiG users use and access social capital within their online profiles in directing
network orientation toward allowing them to exercise or create forms of oppositional agency that
directly or indirectly contests subjectively conflicting norms values and attitudes governing their
offline social networks. The AiG’s online social networking ecologies offer users the
opportunity to create expression and content that fully, precisely and pointedly reflects users’
wide range of viewpoints on any number of issues in their sphere of understanding, observation
and action. Within these online ecologies, the AiG has a full palette of tools and expressive
platforms allowing them to reflect nearly any range of content or expression. To this end, the
AiG can create, publicize and circulate forms of media such as written pieces, video, memes
and pictures. Latrice’s comments about how she prefers to use her social media networks for
different purposes, illustrate the range of avenues available to students. For instance she uses
Facebook to post messages while using Twitter as her “little thought machine” and forum for
discussion. With the exception of Darwin, all of the students indicated that they used at least two
social media networks with the intention of differentiating use for specific social purposes.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
181
Table 2.
Key Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1
Key Findings
How do AiG youth access
and use key forms of social
network capital (space, voice,
and information) in online
social networks such as
Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter,
and Instagram, to self-direct
their network orientation
toward social
enfranchisement, power and
privilege?
Finding 1: The AiG access and use social capital to create forms of
oppositional agency that directly contrast with various social norms,
attitudes, and values that govern social dynamics within their offline
social networks. (Ogbu, 1994; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Giroux, 2001;
Horvat & Lareau, 2003; Lundy, 2003; Ogbu, 2004;)
Finding 2: The AiG’s access and use of social capital allows users
to become agents of their own hidden curriculum within online
social networks (Giroux, 2001; Bennett, 2001; Jay, 2003; Carter
2005)
Finding 3: The AiG’s access and use of social capital allows users
to achieve a greater sense of cognitive liberation
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Ogbu & Simons, 2001; Emirbayer &
Mische, 2001; Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001)
Finding 4: The AiG’s access and use of social capital allows users
to influence, redefine, and create network orientation dynamics
within online ecologies (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001)
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
182
Finding 5: The AiG’s access and use of social capital allows users
to subjectively influence, redefine and create user notions of social,
power, privilege and enfranchisement.
Finding 6: The AiG’s access and use of social capital allows users
to achieve greater levels of embeddedness in three key ways:
• Informational access
• Social privacy
• Manage and cultivate network relationships
(Stanton-Salazar and Spina, 2001; Ogbu, 2004;
Hancock, 2005)
When contrasted with what are often perceived as rigid social norms and conventions of their
offline networks managed by institutional agents and other authority figures, members of the
AiG use and access online networks as valuable outlets for reinterpreting or acting against such
norms, values and attitudes. Jeremiah, Darwin and Luz all elaborated on the level of freedom that
they and their peers feel when in domain of their online profiles in online networks. The
participants frequently highlighted the sense of expressive freedom to voice or depict their
realities in their online spaces. At least three times in the interviews, this sense of freedom was
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
183
specifically contrasted against the role of school social norms in limiting that same sense of
expression exercised more freely online and is best summed up by Jeremiah statement here:
You have a certain power online. When you get back to school. It’s like, ‘Oh back to
reality I guess.’ Can’t say everything. Can’t be a dominating figure.
Jeremiah’s sentiments were also reflected in the observational data where students regularly and
openly lambasted teachers, parents, and other adults for any perceived infringements against
students’ sense of freedom or choice.
Because of the social freedom and autonomy available to them in their online social
networks, members of the AiG frequently use their online spaces to exercise social power for
themselves, and among an audience of peers, by publicly addressing their grievances, discontent,
or disagreement with decisions or actions taken by institutional agents or other authorities within
their offline networks or in the greater context of society. Alternatively, some students opt to
openly contest, defy or wrest power from offline social authorities often generating similar
expression from their peers who support and/or share their views. For example, in Luz’s
interview she described an instance where her peers used their online Twitter profiles to critique
their teacher, Mr. Donovan, and subsequently faced in-class retribution from him because felt
offended by the posts. Luz’ discussion of the incident illustrates her belief that her peers were
within their right to critique Mr. Donovan and that the ensuing social consequences were not
merited in those circumstances.
This instance along with inferences from the interview and observational data allows for a
finding that reflects both Ogbu (1994) and Horvat &Lareau’s (2003) suggestion that if given
sufficient access to “fundamental resources,” such as key forms of a given ecology’s social
networking capital, facets of AiG offline oppositional identity may achieve and exercise varying
levels of oppositional agency within online contexts. Whether such agency can viably transform
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
184
core features of offline networking dynamics to create conditions amenable to the AiG students’
socially equitable access and use of social capital in offline networks remains to be seen and
definitely considered significant for future study of this area of research.
For now, however, AiG users’ online social agency appears to be sufficiently disruptive to
social networking dynamics with immediate institutional agents and authorities of their offline
ecologies so that this agency appears to rise a starting point for the type of transformative
resistance called for by CRT theorists in addressing imbalance of social opportunities for African
Americans in offline networks. For example, consider, again, the instance with Mr. Donovan and
his students. In that case, before being told by another student in the class, Mr. Donovan was
completely unaware that his students had begun and circulated an online discourse about his in-
class teaching performance. Yet, this online discourse entered his classroom in a way that was
likely different from the way the discourse would have taken place in an offline or private
context. That is, his students critique was not limited to a one-to-one discussion, or even a
gossipy conversation among friends. He was effectively critiqued, by his students, in a public
forum where he had no authority to act to intervene or stop the discussion from occurring.
Furthermore, before he was made aware of the online discussion, it had already followed him
into both his classroom and the greater context of the student body at the high school. Finally,
Mr. Donovan felt compelled to address the issue which in some ways undermined his in-class
authority because of the appearance of overreaction and unfairness for the social consequence
meted out to the offending students.
In another context, consider Brianna’s exclusion of her mother from her online social
networks. Although Brianna’s mother has asked to be allowed into her daughter’s online circle,
Brianna has consciously decided against this inclusion, thus leaving her mother at a considerable
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
185
disadvantage in being able to monitor and intervene in Brianna’s social life. Granted, although
one could argue that Brianna’s attendance of an out of state school effectively creates the same
barrier, I would argue differently. In this case, Brianna’s mother is aware that Brianna is actively
excluding her from information that other adults and people in Brianna’s life may have access to.
Further, Brianna’s mother is aware that there are facets of Brianna’s life that Brianna now has
control over and has chosen to exercise this authority in direct contravention of her mother’s
parental authority. This allows for some transfer of authority from Brianna’s mother to Brianna,
as Brianna’s mother knows that her daughter now sits in control of the decision of what to share
with her concerning her life at Brown.
Though the findings in the study may seem minor instances of the AiG’s usurpation of social
authority and power in the largely traditional networks of the dynamics of power between
African American students and social authorities, they are significant because of their relevance
to CRT and other research concerns’ (Giroux, 2001; Bennett, 2001; Carbado & Gulati, 2003;
Jay, 2003) that transformational resistance is often stymied by institutional agents and other
social forces that benefit from DAS configurations of power in offline networks and therefore
retain a vested interest in maintaining the social status quo. With a more powerful platform for
autonomous exercises of social agency, AiG users appear to be in position to meaningfully
generate social changes in the dynamics between them and social authorities in their offline
networks.
Finding 2: The AiG’s access and use of social capital allows users to become agents
of their own hidden curriculum within online social networks. The AiG has created its own
writing conventions and terms, content, usage signifiers and deceptive/deterrent networking
behaviors allowing them to dictate those who are and those are not considered social outsiders
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
186
which in turn makes them gatekeepers for norms, values, happenings, communications and other
critical social components of the AiG member’s online networking ecologies. Or, alternatively,
knowing that adults and other authorities maybe monitoring their profile content, some members
of the AiG, may opt to intentionally leave public selectively posted content as a means of
masking other behavior or sidelining such investigations into their online behavior and
interactions.
Recall Brianna’s discussion of her decision for who to allow access to her online social
network based on her understanding that what she may say or do in these settings, has the
potential to be misinterpreted by those who do not understand her and her peers’ hidden
curriculum of social networking and interaction. For instance, she described how her Facebook
post stating that she was going to “get fucked up” raised a red flag for other adults in her social
network and resulted in a reprimand from her parents. Rather than changing the behavior, which
Brianna did not view as representative of the same social meaning imagined by her parents, she
simply adjusted her privacy settings and posting strategy to preclude them and other adult
authorities from those types of facets of her social experience.
As illustrated by Brianna, the AiG also uses online social networking ecologies to create its
own version of a hidden curriculum operating similar to the one identified by Giroux (2001),
Bennett (2001) and Jay (2003) as invisibly present in nearly every facet of students’ offline
networks. In offline social networks this hidden curriculum represents the social gap between
students, institutional agents, and authorities resulting in skewed communication and
understanding of norms, values and expectation by agents and other authorities within AiG
offline networks. However, from my observations and the interview responses, it is evident that
access and use of social capital available within online social networks now allows them
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
187
construct their own hidden curriculum providing them with a social context where they can
operate much to the exclusion of offline institutional agents and other authorities. With the
exception of Darwin, all of the participants discussed their awareness of the potential to attract
attention from unwanted audience of parents, teachers and other offline authorities. Because of
this awareness, the AiG often intentionally tailor their content or exclude people from their
hidden curriculum of social interactions. For example, following the incident with her old pre-
school teacher, now when Brianna’s parents ask her, “Oh, who are you talking to on Facebook?”
Brianna says that she now responds, “None of your business. Leave me alone.” Brianna’s view
that her parents “are confused about everything” illustrates the reluctance with which some users
in the AiG allow adults and other authorities access to their hidden curriculum of social
interaction in online social networks.
In the context of what this might mean for offline networks, this finding takes on additional
implications in light of Carter’s (2005) research which suggests that African American students’
current use of social capital in offline networks often centers on the ‘slippery proposition’ of
verifying a person’s authenticity within African American offline social circles; in these social
circles an individual’s authenticity is based on his or her “capacity to exhibit and use in-group
cultural knowledge.” At the outset of the study I indicated that one key implication of this study
for educators and other offline agents was that those lacking this “authenticity” with respect to an
awareness and understanding of the iGeneration’s online social empowerment might find
themselves at a disadvantage in attempting to engage AiG members in social and academic
efforts offline. The data here not only validates that assertion, it adds attaches another facet of
significance for this notion of “authenticity”. Now, in light of the network expansion of the AiG,
in-group cultural knowledge has expanded to an understanding of the hidden curriculum at work
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
188
in AiG online networking ecologies. For example, Brianna’s explanation of how she perceives
outsiders likely responses to her online content influences her strategy for how and what she
posts in her online social networks. Recall this statement from her interview where she says:
…now instead of posting on a status, I’ll post [the status], say, in a comment. Or I’ll say,
‘Oh, I’m having fun tonight.’ And then as we’re talking, I’ll say what I really want to say.
Because for some reason old people don’t look through comments. They just go through
their newsfeed so then when you show up in their news feed it’s like, “Oh I’m gonna
have fun tonight.” Then it’s like, ‘Oh, she’s gonna have fun tonight.’
Her statement here reflects a pointed level of awareness of who her audience is and how to
mislead them so as to maintain social barriers of inaccessibility to her social network and
interaction. As the data reflects, the AiG curriculum can be highly complex and, in many
respects, difficult for outside users to understand without invitation into certain levels of the AiG
online networking ecology. Because of this, the hidden curriculum at work in AiG online
networks creates an additional layer of oppositional agency vested with members of the African
American iGeneration.
Finding 3: The AiG’s access and use of social capital allows users to achieve a greater
sense of cognitive liberation. Chapter Two’s discussion of the AiG’s offline de facto
networking ecologies notes students’ inclination toward what Emirbayer and Mische (2001) term
cognitive liberation within their social networking ecologies. That is, particularly because of the
social limitations created by lack of access and use of key forms of social networking capital,
within their online networks, AiG students actively seek out opportunities to subject their own
network orientations to imaginative recomposition and critical judgment as a means of
disengaging from patterns of, what they may view as, restrictive social operation and interaction.
Jeremiah’s observations, relational beliefs, and symbolic beliefs about his high school and other
high schools in the surrounding area points to a deeply rooted understanding of the social
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
189
inequities at work in the schools in his communities. However, though he observes these social
disparities, he believes that he and his peers are limited in the ability to address autonomously
address or correct these issues and therefore is less inclined to identify schools and their
networks as places sufficient for his cognitively liberation.
However the AiG’s achievement of varying levels of cognitive liberation with online social
networks contributes to their ability to reframe their relationship to and with existing socio-
structural dynamics and constraints (Emirbayer & Mische, 2001). Furthermore, attaining
cognitive liberation not only allows students to reframe existing social models, it also allows
them to reflect, remake, create, or alter facets of meaning and operation central to dynamics and
operations of the social network. For example, consider Trebor’s comments on how her peers use
online networks to remake undesirable features of their offline social experience:
Because a lot of people wanna be someone and online you can be anyone. So if you don’t like
the way that your persona or your image is in person or the way that people perceive you in
reality—then you can go online and create a Facebook or Instagram, take amazing pictures, dress
differently, talk to people on social networks differently than you would in person. A lot of
people get in arguments over social networks because they feel bold over a computer screen. A
lot of people just wanna be popular and they want to be social and they want to be liked, but they
know that’s not how it is in person.
Based on both observation and interview, for the AiG, these core facets of meaning and
operation primarily appear in the notions of identity, self-expression, catalysis of communication
and freedom from offline social inhibitions and oppression.
Trebor’s discussion of how she has used her social networking profiles to signify to her
online peers, both old and new, her ongoing social transformation, illustrates the malleable
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
190
properties of identity in online social networks Recall in her interview where she says:
I know for me, I have a different selection of what I put on Facebook than what I put on
Twitter, and what pictures I put on Facebook than what pictures I put on Instagram. So I
know my IG is—I feel like I’ve changed a lot from who I used to be. I’m not recreating
myself online, I’m portraying who I am now online. So for the people who know me
now, they now that my Instagram is just me in person. But for the people who went to
high school with me, they’re like, “Wow, okay Trebor, you’ve changed!” And I’m like,
‘Yes I have, you missed that. Now my Instagram kinda shows you that I have changed. I
have poetry, I have screenshots, I have memes, I have pictures of me at football games.
I’m trying to capture my entire college experience on my Instagram or who I am now. I
have my paintings on my Instagram but I also have pictures of me because I did used to
have a lot of insecurity issues and now that I am confident in myself it’s like—I want you
to see me now.
Trebor’s choice of how to tailor and broadcast facets of her social identity for different online
social audiences reflects a common trend among AiG users in using their online identities
as the social nexus for the significance, access and use of the other cognitively liberatory features
available to the AiG in online networking ecologies. In many respects, the online identity for
AiG users serves as the gateway into their subjective sense of “what’s possible” within the social
models of their online networks (Gallimore &Goldenberg, 2001). The sense of what is possible
for a user adapts to an expanded range of “social distribution of possibilities” (Stanton-Salazar,
1997) realized from the access, use, and control of key social networking capital within multiple
facets of their online ecologies. Trebor’s comments about how quickly AiG users’ access and use
of online social capital particularly in their choice of posted content becomes synonymous with
user identity illustrates that the social distribution of possibilities for some users may be a matter
of creative or strategic resourcefulness in posting online content. Trebor’s comments here
explain this in an AiG context. She says:
But at the same time, like, it goes back to creating that persona. Who do you want to be
on Instagram? What do you want your Instagram to consist of? If I put nothing but really,
really, really good pictures of myself on my Instagram, people will say, “Oh, Trebor is
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
191
pretty.” If put nothing but pictures of weed and drugs on my Instagram, people are gonna
be like, “Oh, Trebor is a dope head.” If I put up pictures of alcohol on my Instagram—
“Oh, Trebor is an alcoholic.” If I put a picture of money—“Trebor is making bank.” If I
put up pictures of poetry—“Trebor is a poet.” Like, whatever you put on your Instagram,
it says something. It relays a message to the people who are looking at it.
Within online networking ecologies, then, the notion of identity becomes an extremely fluid
construct among AiG members. Much like the considerable variety in social networking capital
tools and platforms available to them in their online networks, the AiG has multiple outlets and
tools for managing and building their identities in online social spaces.
In offline networking ecologies, African American students might be plurally
disenfranchised due to the visibility of confluent social identity factors, such as socioeconomic
status, gender, and age, which are contextualized in DAS social networks by a negative history
of students’ race (Hancock, 2005); these visible signifiers often intersect both involuntarily and
collectively to produce both social advantages and disadvantages within a network. By contrast,
however, in online networks AiG users have far more control over features of identity and self-
representation among peers and other users within their networking ecologies. Interestingly,
AiG users’ online identity funnels into social forces relatively similar to Ogbu and Simon’s
(1998) community forces in the involuntary minority valuations of schooling. Here, too, these
forces hinge on the individual’s social identity in relation to the greater networking context.
However, in the online context, the control users have over this identity allows them to
generate relational and symbolic beliefs that work in favor of cooperative integration within the
networks and ecology. Recall Jeremiah’s social comparison of the Columbine shooters and one
of his musical role models, Tyler the Creator, illustrates his relational and symbolic beliefs of
the advantages and opportunities available in online networks as compared with those available
in offline social networks. In the interview he says:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
192
For example, the Columbine situation. You really don’t know how those people were.
They could have been the nicest people ever but, the since the circumstances they went
through at school—they were bullied. They actually created their own social media
outlet, through like, gaming and all that. But that was like the earliest stages of the
internet. But then they were getting bullied on there too. So basically it’s like ‘Where do I
turn to because my only outlet of freedom, to say and be whoever I am is like kind of
being stripped away from me because I’m facing the same things I face at school like in
my own freedom—in my sanctuary basically.’ So that’s why I think they turned to where
they turned to. Basically Tyler the Creator was like one of those kids that was not cool in
school—but then when it came to the internet he became who he is. He was able to be
who he was, but freely.
This control over the features of identity and self representation allows them a foundation of
both observation and experience which produce relational beliefs (Ogbu & Simons, 1998)
allowing them to believe that their self-constructed identities are supported by their online
ecologies’ network pathways to enfranchisement, power, privilege. Further, AiG users’ symbolic
beliefs allows for the perspective that their enfranchisement, power and privilege within online
networks, and to some extent even in offline networks, is based on the acceptance of their online
identity. Because of this, in online networking ecologies, identity acts as a key form of social
capital in and of itself, which users have ample access to and use of as they manage, accumulate,
and negotiate their identities as resources with other themselves and other users in their
respective network orientations toward social power, privilege, and enfranchisement.
Finding 4: The AiG’s access and use of social capital allows users to influence, redefine,
and create network orientation dynamics within online ecologies. The data appeared to
confirm the suggestion that online social networks offer AiG users the opportunity to not only
disengage from features of undesirable social models of their offline networks by shifting into
alterative social contexts with more subjectively attainable standards of social enfranchisement,
power, and privilege (Rosen, 2010; Tynes et.al., 2011). Beyond even that, however, the
interview and observational data strongly indicates that the AiG wields great influence in
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
193
affecting norms, values and expectations of social networking dynamics in online ecologies. The
outcomes of such influence are reflected in Gallimore and Goldenberg’s (2001) models and
settings analysis where cultural models are an individual’s subjective internalizations of the
knowledge skills and tools needed to navigate a given context. Luz and Darwin’s detailed
comments about the way that they and their peers have been desensitized to drug use and
sexualized content because of the frequency with which they encounter such content among
online peers in their social networks illustrates the extent of influence of the AiG online peer
collective in shaping social norms, values and attitudes.
In this study the data indicates that AiG users don’t just engage in their online networks,
they are actively constructing both their own models and those of their peers thereby
constructing the very fabric of the networks themselves. AiG users play an active role in
creating, redefining, and making meaning of the norms, values and attitudes that govern the
social network dynamics at the personal, systems and global levels of their online networks. This
suggests that online networks represent a circular relationship of social power wherein influence
on networking dynamics is reflected in AiG users online social models which, in turn, creates the
means to and the aims for some AiG users’ use and access of social capital in online network
orientations.
Finding 5: The AiG’s access and use of social capital allows users to subjectively influence,
redefine and create user notions of social, power, privilege and enfranchisement. Similar to
their influence on the social networking models and dynamics in online networks, AiG users also
influence objective and subjective notions of what types of social outcomes and expressions
constitutes power, privilege and enfranchisement within the social models of their online
networks and ecologies. The best case for this observation is made by the both observational and
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
194
interview data concerning AiG users’ endeavors to be “Facebook famous.” Facebook fame
represents a type of enfranchisement, power and privilege primarily created and retained in the
social contexts of online networks. For social contexts unrelated to online social networks, it is
less likely that users can retain the social advantages of enfranchisement, power and privilege
had should they reach Facebook famous status.
Though Facebook fame represents a more visible example of the subjective constructions
of enfranchisement, power, and privilege in online networks, I should emphasize that there are
limitless constructions for the subjective creation of empowerment outcomes in AiG networks.
For example, Darwin’s discussion of his efforts to draw attention and constructive feedback on
his artwork and literary endeavors, in effect represents a form of social privilege and power
available through his network. He finds social value in having his work generate reactions and
appreciation from his online audience. As a result, his attains a level of empowerment that, for
another user might not have if placed in the same context. Though highly malleable and
determined by primarily by user and other users’ subjective interpretations, the AiG’s subjective
notions of enfranchisement, power and privilege should not be viewed as a type of “low hanging
fruit” ideal. On the contrary, AiG users are often careful to assess and weigh the social value of
power, privilege and enfranchisement attained through each networking endeavor on a case-by-
case basis. Consider Trebor’s comments from the interview where she says :
One thing I really dislike about Instagram is the fact that popularity is weighed by likes
and followers. If you look at other pictures and see that they’re getting a ton of likes and
followers. And you wonder, why don’t I have that many likes or why don’t I have that
many followers. Is it because I’m not pretty enough? Is it because my pictures aren’t that
good?
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
195
Trebor’s comments about her own and other peers’ comparisons of the differing levels of
feedback and validation on similar types of posted profile content illustrates the type of scrutiny
that AiG users’ give in gauging would-be enfranchisement, power, and privilege outcomes.
Finding 6: The AiG’s access and use of social capital allows users to achieve greater levels
of embeddedness. Chapter Two identified research (Stanton-Salazar and Spina, 2001; Ogbu,
2004; Hancock, 2005) explaining that limited resources and relational ties within the AiG’s
offline networks often prompt them to seek out supplemental resources and relationships in
alternative social networks via families, kinship ties and surrounding community networks.
However because these supplemental relationships and resources typically draw from the same
networks of limited availability of social networking capital managed and governed by DAS
norms, values and attitudes that historically have worked against African-Americans and similar
social populations, these supplemental relationships and resources generally are not enough to
overcome the AiG’s networking capital deficiencies in schools and other DAS social networks.
Jeremiah’s discussion of the quality of schools and educational opportunity in his community
strongly reflect his perception of disparity in both his and his peers educational opportunity.
Recall the part of his interview where he says :
I think race play[s] a part. Even though I went to an all, basically all Black school. I think
race played a huge part because [of] race and where we were actually. Because I think if
were Black students in like—a Beverly Hills school—I don’t think we would have really
gotten the education we got. But I think since we were Mexican and Black in the area we
were in then, race played a huge part because like—yeah we were considered a good
school I guess—but, yeah (shakes head emphatically…trails off). Basically, the schools
in our areas are fucked up. Like, they suck! Like Morningside down the street. Like I
coulda went there, but—its education sucks. Inglewood, I could have went there—the
education sucks. Everywhere close by home—sucks. Basically, unless you live in a nice
area, I guess your education’s gonna be great, but if you live in area like this, even though
the people aren’t altogether bad, here, but—the education just sucks. Some of the
teachers you can tell they don’t care about you. Like at SCP, obviously, we had teachers
that actually care. Now, as I’m starting to look at the school now, they’re starting to take
away the teachers that care and put more teachers in that—like—I don’t even know how
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
196
they got their jobs.
Stanton-Salazar and Spina (2001) note that one advantage had by socially privileged
groups in offline social networks is embeddedness: that the deficits of one network (i.e. limited
social capital and weak relational ties) can be accounted for or supplemented within another of
the users’ networks. Although the AiG generally may not be able to achieve levels of
embeddedness within their offline networks, the data here shows that they are able to achieve
levels of embeddedness within their online networks which allows them to make up for deficits
in both online and offline networks.
For AiG users the key areas of embeddedness appear to be informational, social privacy,
and cultivating and managing relational ties. As illustrated by Luz and Darwin’s discussion of
their use of online networks like Twitter and Facebook to either stay abreast of current events or
solicit feedback relevant to their interests, where users do not have access to through the
channels or social agents within their own networks, they can likely access informational content
of their choosing, at will, through users in their online networks or in other online locations. As
discussed by Trebor and Brianna’s strategic postings and use of privacy settings in their online
networks, should users choose to act in privacy without raising awareness of offline actors, they
may activate privacy settings or engage covertly within different online networks of their
ecologies. Finally, like Darwin and Jeremiah’s use of their social networks to both cultivate and
manage social relationships, though users may not have the time or means to manage or cultivate
key or supportive relationships within their network, online networks allow users to both
maintain and develop relationships with relative ease through online network tools and social
mechanisms.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
197
Research Question 2: Findings
This section outlines the study’s findings that respond primarily to the study’s second key
research question concerning how AiG members’ access and use key forms of social networking
capital in online social networking ecologies differs from CRT and other research perspectives
on African-American’s ability to access and use key forms of social capital in offline DAS social
networking ecologies (See Table 3).
Finding 1: The role of race in moderating access to network capital is contingent on users’
online network and subjective determinations in respective network orientations. Lynn and
Parker’s (2006) discussion of the role of race in offline networks focuses on the types of
“everyday racism” that African-Americans encounter in social interactions and policies that
shape their social networks. Racial identity is a salient feature of offline social networking,
primarily because of its visibility among social actors within a network. As explained in Chapter
2, such identities come with a history of social meaning in the context of DAS social networks.
However, unlike in offline networking ecologies, in online networking ecologies, members of
the AiG can and do, frequently engage in social networking without the involuntary visibility of
their racialized social identities or other signifiers. For instance, in online networks, Darwin does
not identify necessarily self- identify as an African-American but rather “transhumanist” While
users like Trebor, may choose to post content that signifies their social affiliation with Black
identity intersected by other social features. For instance Trebor’s Twitter bio where she states,
“Black Queen, UCLA, poet” signifies to other users her voluntary assumption of and social
association with the Black identity. Again both examples underscore the idea that racial identities
and signifiers do exist in online social network, however the user has far more control over how
these identities are expressed or signified in these networks as opposed to in offline networks.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
198
Table 3.
Key Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2
Key Findings
How does the African American iGeneration’s
access and use of the key forms of social
network capital in online social networks differ
from a CRT perspective of African American’s
history of access and use of key forms of social
network capital in offline social networking
ecologies?
Finding 1: The role of race in moderating
access to network capital is contingent on
users’ online network and subjective
determinations in respective network
orientations. (Ladson-Billings,1997; Lynn &
Parker, 2006)
Finding 2: Secondary social capital is
generated, accessed, and used through peer,
and self-agency rather than through top down
social mechanisms of institutional agency
within online networks. (Jay, 2003; Horvat,
Weiniger & Laureau, 2003 Ogbu, 2004)
Finding 3: Limitations to access and use to use
of secondary social capital result from multiple
levels of authority—self, peer, invisible
audience, adult and institutional.
(Ogbu, 1994; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Ogbu&
Simons, 1998; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2001;
Ogbu 2004)
Although in some cases, socio-cultural identities and signifiers do still prompt other
online users to raise barriers to social capital access and use in online networks, these barriers do
not rise to same the level of limitation in students’ access and use of social capital as they do in
offline social networks because AiG’s levels of embeddedness in the same or other networks
within may compensate for any limitations created by other users. Trebor and Jeremiah’s
discussion of their experiences in the online aftermath of racialized social events like Trayvon
Martin’s murder and President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election, indicate that AiG users’ still
recognize the relevance of their race in relation to the global context of their online and offline
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
199
social networking endeavors; However, within the personal context of day-to-day social
interactions the role of users’ racial identity may or not be subjectively connected to their online
social status and interactions with other users.
To be clear however, the observational and interview data does not say that AiG youth
do not ever have racist encounters in online spaces or identify racist facets and features of
personalized, community or social circumstances within their online and offline networks. Yet,
it appears that by encountering race and racism so regularly and openly in online social
networks, in some ways they become desensitized to racism’s pernicious nature in these settings.
Jeremiah, Darwin and Luz all explained their perspectives that, while they were aware of race
and racism, had encounters with race and racism, and found such instances offensive, they did
not generally did not focus on race as a central component of their online social experience.
This response may result from the fact that AiG users appear to have several options for
choosing to how and whether to engage instances of online racism. The data indicates that
having access to the platforms, tools, and social capital to address issues of race within online
networks in a manner that is subjectively suitable to the user which allows for a greater sense of
control and power in both responding to the issues and affecting the outcomes of such
interactions. For Latrice’s exchange with and education of one racist user in an online network
concerning African American women’s use of weaves and what Latrice perceives to be the
actual history behind the fashion and choice to wear weaves illustrates this clearly. Although the
user attempted to disrespect Latrice and presumably, other African American users in the forum,
on the basis of race, Latrice had at least two options available to her in choosing to respond:
ignore the user’s comments or engage her. Latrice chose the latter, opting to engage the woman
in the same space, using the same forum and tools as she and other had been attacked with. The
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
200
social significance of this is not whether Latrice effectively put the user in her place, but, rather,
that Latrice was able to engage the user, no matter the user’s race or social standing; for the
moment at least, their positions were equalized in the social context of that online space.
Finding 2: Secondary social capital is generated, accessed, and used through peer,
and self- agency rather than through top down social mechanisms of institutional agency
within online networks. Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) social capital framework works hand in hand
with CRT’s contention of the role of a hidden curriculum for social dynamic in offline DAS
networks. The CRT analysis of social outcomes in offline DAS networks holds that this
curriculum is dictated by any number and/or level of institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 1997),
who manage access and distribution of the social capital required for African American students
to successfully navigate the social landscape in offline networks. African Americans’ limited
access and use of key forms of social capital in offline DAS networks indicates that the dominant
system norms and values on which this curriculum is managed, has historically worked against
favorable social outcomes for these students (Jay, 2003; Horvat, Weiniger & Laureau, 2003
Ogbu, 2004). One of the primary reasons for African Americans’ inability to master this hidden
curriculum to their social benefit, is because they have lacked access to and use to key forms of
social capital within their networks which allow for social development consistent with dominant
system norms and values (Horvat, et al., 2003).
However in online networks, as explained earlier in the chapter, not only do AiG users
have virtually unlimited access to the key forms of social capital within online networks, they
also generate and dictate what tools, content, and interactions constitute key forms of social
capital within their online networks. A key illustration of this comes from the role of network
features such as “likes,” “follows” and other forms of peer feedback in site networks. For AiG
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
201
users “likes” and “followers” serve as type of social capital which users make efforts to earn and
accumulate as a means of assessing their own power privilege and enfranchisement within a
network. Users trade and negotiate these forms of capital that, outside of these networks, carry
little to no social weight; however, because these forms of capital have been constituted as
socially valuable by self and peers within online networks, their social meanings originate and
function as tools of social interaction among AiG users.
Finding 3: Limitations to access and use to use of secondary social capital result
from multiple levels of authority—self, peer, invisible audience, adult and institutional.
Much of Chapter Two focused on the role of institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 1997), limited
network resources (Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Stanton-Salzar & Spina, 2001), community forces
(Ogbu& Simons, 1998), and features of AiG users’ racialized social identities (Ogbu, 1994;
Ogbu 2004) as the principal social barriers to AiG students access and use of social capital
within their offline social networking ecologies. However, in the AiG’s online networks,
although the primary barriers still include institutional agents and other social authorities, these
barriers are created and function much differently than the ones posed by these social actors in
the AiG’s offline networks. Adult and offline institutional agent authority still remains under
consideration by AiG users because of the concern that users online interactions might be
detected and create consequences for users in their offline contexts. This is illustrated in Luz’s
discussion of how two of her classmates’ posted profile content concerning a teacher had in-class
ramifications for them after it was discovered. However, with AiG embeddedness in more than
one online networks, particularly those that are not publically visible to uninvited outsiders, this
becomes less of a threat. There still remains the off chance that another member of an AiG user’s
network might circulate or share the user’s content without permission or to purposefully bring
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
202
about social consequences for the user, however this risk does not always override the user’s
sense of subjective power, privilege and/or enfranchisement from continuing to engage in the
settings.
Although AiG users have much more freedoms available to them in their choice of
access, use and control of social capital in online settings, their self-constructed authority for
themselves and among their peers may also serve as a double-edged sword that limits their
engagement in certain contexts. That is, Trebor’s narrative illustrates how her choice of
expression concerning a picture she took in admiration of a friend’s nails, caused her ongoing
offline social consequences which caused her to rethink the types of content she posted from that
point forward. Or, alternatively, users may choose to limit themselves according their own self-
imposed standards of social propriety for online contexts. For example, Brianna’s comments
about not posting content because she did not think it was a good idea for her online profile to
reflect an identity that was too emotional or vulnerable in the eyes of her online network of
peers. Her self-restraint stemmed partly from her own standards and partly from the perception
of social expectation and opinion from her online peers. Thus, although AiG users are much freer
in how they access and use social networking capital, these freedoms are tempered by
qualifications arising from the users’ need to maintain power, privilege and enfranchisement
while also avoiding potentially damaging social consequences in both online and offline
contexts.
Implications for Practice and Directions for Future Research
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
203
The findings presented in this chapter point to a definite changing in the social tides of
the African American iGeneration’s social networks. What is clear is that the African American
iGeneration is no longer waiting to be allowed into circles of social opportunity within their
offline networks—they are choosing to construct their own opportunities, on their own terms, by
their own standards within their online social networks. At this point in social history, educators
and stakeholders are at true crossroads with AiG youth in choosing how to move forward with
them as factors in their social, academic and personal development. Given that online networks
allow AiG youth to not only sit at the table, but call some of the shots, in the negotiation of their
social development, it is incumbent on educators and stakeholders to find ways to engage AiG
youth that allow the advantages of their online social empowerment to benefit their offline
empowerment and development as well.
Because of their embeddedness within online networking ecologies they now have access
to tools, resources and networks allowing them to build worlds that, in many ways, lie far
beyond the reach of their offline relationships and circumstances. However, to construe AiG’s
online and offline worlds as completely unlinked would create a false dichotomy in
understanding the unique nature of relationship and implications between AiG’s users online and
offline networking endeavors. No matter how engaged and empowered by the social access and
freedoms available in online networks, AiG users remained distinctly tied to offline relationships
and social outcomes that factor in their power, privilege, and enfranchisement outcomes in
offline contexts. Until AiG users can consistently generate or influence key forms of concrete,
offline social networking outcomes as the end result of their online social networking endeavors,
the transformative social potential accruing directly to AiG users may be limited to the subjective
benefits of their social experience. Much research is required to understand and begin generating
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
204
opportunities to meaningfully translate online social advantages into concrete, tangible benefits
within their offline social networks.
As one category of primary influences who manage or govern key facets of AiG
pathways to academic personal and social outcomes—educators, stakeholders, practitioners with
a vested interest in these improving these outcomes must realize that this goal now includes the
responsibility of understanding, learning, and appreciating how the AiG’s online networking
experiences constitute a highly significant shift in students’ models and expectations of social
networking. Like Buckingham (2008) who cautions against overly romanticizing the significance
and implications of the iGeneration’s online activity, I also do not wish to paint an overly rosy
picture of the AiG’s networking within online social ecologies. Although the data and finding
illustrate the range of advantages conferred to AiG users in online networks, the observational
and interview data strongly indicate that there are not only downsides, but also severe
consequences that are not always immediately apparent to AiG users as they engage in online
networking. Self-exploitation, inappropriate sexual conduct and exploitation, damage to the
psyche and esteem, ruined social reputations in both offline networks, stigmatizing behavior and
content, are all very real risks for AiG users who inadvertently or myopically engage in online
social networks.
Because the AiG’s embeddedness in online networks is still a relatively new emergence
in the socio-academic discourse, there are several areas of research required to better understand
how to best apply and incorporate these new developments into ongoing efforts to improve social
and academic outcomes of African-Americans. What is clear is that the AiG has access to key
networking tools and is now accessing these tools to construct their subjective ideals of
enfranchisement, power, and privilege in their online networks. This has two important
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
205
implications for educators. The first implication is that this new development indicates that,
given access and use of key forms of social capital, AiG students will find ways to engage such
capital within the network in their orientation toward enfranchisement power and privilege.
Perhaps there are opportunities for educators to generate AiG student social engagement similar
to that in online networks by providing access and use of key forms of social capital in offline
contexts. Further research is required to understand how educators can create these types of
experiences for AiG students within schools and classrooms in a way that allows students to
have more access and use of social capital without disrupting the critical components of school
management and operation.
The second implication of the research presented in this study is that educators and other
stakeholders must find and develop ways to engage AiG youth in light of their changed social
networking models and roles as the result of their social integration in online social networks.
AiG youth are no longer passive recipients of social experience and development handed down
to them by surrounding authority and institutional agents, but instead, are now collaborators and
decision-makers in the processes and network orientation dynamic instrumental to their
attainment of power, privilege and enfranchisement. Accordingly, rather than work against this
change in tide, educators and stakeholders should determine ways to that build on students’
capacities to self-direct facets of very complex networking dynamics that allow them to
subjectively realize greater levels of social power, privilege, and social enfranchisement.
Conclusion
Within online networking ecologies the AiG has begun the work of transmuting the
offline status problems by re-appropriating the external forces marking them as “group of people
distinct from the rest of society” and using these to forces to generate a distinct ecology of
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
206
subjectively advantageous social conditions” that similarly distinguish them from other groups of
social actors and within both online and offline networks. Although online social networks offer
AiG users a wealth of socially transformative resources, opportunity, and potential for the
attainment of power, privilege and enfranchisement outcomes, these networks are not yet the
panacea for all facets of the status problems these youth encounter within their day-to-day offline
networking ecologies. At this point in time, however, online social networks are only in the
nascence of understanding and social potential for negotiating truly transformative outcomes in
offline networks. In time, however, the development of a greater ecology of social opportunity
and outcomes within in online networks will produce a required collaboration between AiG
youth and key social actors in offline networks to resolve the present inequities of past injustices
and move collectively forward toward a future of greater social access and achievement.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
207
References
Abrams, L. S., & Moio, J. A. (2009). Critical race theory and the cultural competence
dilemma in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 245-261.
Allen, W. R., & Chung, A. Y. (2000). " Your Blues Ain't Like My Blues": Race,
Ethnicity, and Social Inequality in America. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 796-
805.
Bell Jr, D. A. (1979). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence
dilemma. Harv. L. Rev., 93, 518.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of educational
research, 71(2), 171-217.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). 29. Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction. Power and
ideology in education, 485.
Boyd, D. (2007). Why youth♥ social network sites: The role of networked publics in
teenage social life. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on
Digital Media and Learning, 119-142.
Brock, A. (2009). Life on the wire. Information, Communication & Society,12(3), 344-
363.
Buckingham, D. (2008). Youth, Identity, and Digital Media (John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning).
Campbell, M. L., & Gregor, F. M. (2002). Mapping social relations: A primer in doing
institutional ethnography. AltaMira Press.
Carter, D. J. (2008). Achievement as resistance: The development of a critical race
achievement ideology among Black achievers. Harvard Educational Review, 78(3), 466-
497.
Carter, P. L. (2005). Keepin'it real: School success beyond Black and White. Oxford
University Press, USA.
Carter, P. (2010). Race and cultural flexibility among students in different multiracial
schools. The Teachers College Record, 112(6), 1-2.
Carbado, D., & Gulati, G. (2003). The law and economics of critical race theory. Yale
Law Journal, Forthcoming.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
208
Carr, W, & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action
research (Rev. ed.). Victoria, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., & Peller, G. Kendall Thomas, eds. 1995. Critical race theory:
The key writings that formed the movement.
Daniels, J. (2007). Race, civil rights, and hate speech in the digital era. The John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning, 129-154.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Third annual Brown lecture in education research—The
flat earth and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our
future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334.
Deuze, M. (2006). Participation, remediation, bricolage: Considering principal
components of a digital culture. The information society, 22(2), 63-75.
DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised
that it is there”: Using Critical Race Theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in
education. Educational Researcher, 33, 26-31.
Drotner, K. (2007). Leisure is hard work: Digital practices and future competencies. The
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and
learning, 167-184.
Eder, D., & Nenga, S. K. (2006). Socialization in Adolescence. Handbook of Social
Psychology, 157.
Everett, A. (Ed.). (2007). Learning race and ethnicity: Youth and digital media. MIT
Press.
Facer, K. (2011). Learning futures. Routledge
Feagin, J. R. (1991). The continuing significance of race: Antiblack discrimination in
public places. American Sociological Review, 101-116.
Foley, D. (2005). Elusive prey: John Ogbu and the search for a grand theory of academic
disengagement. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18(5), 643-
657.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the
“burden of ‘acting white’”. The urban review, 18(3), 176-206.
Foster, K. M. (2004). Coming to terms: a discussion of John Ogbu’s cultural-ecological
theory of minority academic achievement. Intercultural Education,15(4).
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
209
Franquiz, M. E., & Salazar, M. D. C. (2004). The transformative potential of humanizing
pedagogy: Addressing the diverse needs of Chicano/Mexicano students. The High School
Journal, 87(4), 36-53.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to
connect minority achievement and school improvement research.Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Giroux, H. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the
opposition. Praeger Pub Text.
Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as Property, 106 HARV. L. rev, 1707, 1710-14.
Hancock, A. M. (2005). WEB Du Bois: Intellectual forefather of
intersectionality?. Souls, 7(3-4), 74-84.
Horvat, E. M., Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2003). From social ties to social capital:
Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American
Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319-351.
Howard, T. C. (2001). Telling their side of the story: African-American students'
perceptions of culturally relevant teaching. The Urban Review, 33(2), 131-149.
Howard, T. C. (2003). " A Tug of War for Our Minds:" African American High School
Students' Perceptions of their Academic Identities and College Aspirations. The
High School Journal, 87(1), 4-17.
Howard, T. (2008). Who really cares? The disenfranchisement of African American
males in preK-12 schools: A critical race theory perspective. The Teachers College
Record, 110(5), 954-985.
Irving, M. A., & Hudley, C. (2005). Cultural mistrust, academic outcome expectations,
and outcome values among African American adolescent men.Urban
Education, 40(5), 476-496.
Ito, M., Davidson, C., Jenkins, H., Lee, C., Eisenberg, M. & Weiss, J., 2008, ‘Foreword‘,
in T. McPherson (ed.), Digital youth, innovation, and the unexpected, pp. vii−ix, The
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Jay, M. (2003). Critical race theory, multicultural education, and the hidden curriculum
of hegemony. Multicultural Perspectives: An Official Journal of the National
Association for Multicultural Education, 5(4), 3-9.
Jennings, M. E., & Lynn, M. (2005). The house that race built: Critical pedagogy,
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
210
African-American education, and the re-conceptualization of a critical race
pedagogy. Educational Foundations, 19(3/4), 15.
Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1998). Educational aspirations among minority youth.American
Journal of Education, 106, 349-384.
Kvasny, L., & Hales, K. D. (2010). The internet, black identity, and the evolving
discourse of the digital divide. The Handbook of Research on Overcoming Digital
Divides: Constructing an Equitable and Competitive Information Society, edited by
Enrico Ferro, Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, and Michael D. Williams,
260-76.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice
field like education?. International journal of qualitative studies in
education, 11(1), 7-24.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2003). It’s your world, I’m just trying to explain it: Understanding
our epistemological and methodological challenges. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(1), 5-
12.’’
Ladson-Billings, G. (2004a). New directions in multicultural education. Handbook of
research on multicultural education, 2, 50-65.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2004b). Landing on the wrong note: The price we paid for
Brown. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 3-13.
LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media and young adults.
Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion race,
class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of education,
37-53.
Lee, P. W. (1999). In their own Voices an ethnographic study of low-achieving students
within the context of school reform. Urban Education,34(2), 214-244.
Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), 785-795.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
211
Lundy, G. F. (2003). The myths of oppositional culture. Journal of Black Studies, 33(4),
450-467.
Lynn, M., & Adams, M. (2002). Introductory overview to the special issue critical race
theory and education: Recent developments in the field. Equity &Excellence in
Education, 35(2), 87-92.
Lynn, M., Yosso, T. J., Solórzano, D. G., & Parker, L. (2002). Critical race theory and
education: Qualitative research in the new millennium. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1),
3-6.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. 2006. Designing qualitative research.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
Jossey-Bass.
Mirón, L. F., & Lauria, M. (1998). Student voice as agency: resistance and accommodation in
inner-‐‑city schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,29(2), 189-213.
Mitra, A., & Watts, E. (2002). Theorizing cyberspace: the idea of voice applied to the
internet discourse. New Media & Society, 4(4), 479-498.
Nakamura, L. (2006). Cultural difference, theory, and cyberculture studies: a case of
mutual repulsion. David Silver and Adrienne Massanari (New York: New York
University Press, 2006), 32.
Nasir, N. I. S., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring Sociocultural Perspectives on Race,
Culture, and Learning. Review of Educational Research, 449-475.
Nieto, S. (1994). Lessons from students on creating a chance to dream.Harvard
Educational Review, 64(4), 392-427.
Noguera, P. A. (2003). The trouble with Black boys: The role and influence of
environmental and cultural factors on the academic performance of African
American males. Urban Education, 38(4), 431-459.
Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Minority coping responses and school experience. The Journal of
Psychohistory.
Ogbu, J. (1994). Racial stratification and education in the United States: Why inequality
persists. The Teachers College Record, 96(2), 264-298.
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: a cultural-‐‑
ecological theory of school performance with some implications for
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
212
education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Ogbu, J. U. (2004). Collective identity and the burden of “acting White” in Black history,
community, and education. The Urban Review, 36(1), 1-35.
Platon, S., & Deuze, M. (2003). Indymedia Journalism A Radical Way of Making,
Selecting and Sharing News?. Journalism, 4(3), 336-355.
Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M [superscript 2]:
Media in the Lives of 8-to 18-Year-Olds. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the iGeneration and the way they learn.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Schmader, T., Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (2002). Coping with ethnic stereotypes in the
academic domain: Perceived injustice and psychological
disengagement. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 93-111.
Smith, D. T. (2013). African Americans and Network Disadvantage: Enhancing Social
Capital through Participation on Social Networking Sites. Future Internet,5(1),
56-66.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard educational
review,67(1), 1-41.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Spina, S. U. (2000). The network orientations of highly
resilient urban minority youth: A network-analytic account of minority socialization and
its educational implications. The Urban Review, 32(3), 227-261.
Stern, S. (2007). Producing sites, exploring identities: Youth online authorship. The John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and
Learning, 95-117.
Tate, W. F. (1997). Critical race theory and education: History, theory, and
implications. Review of research in education, 22, 195-247.
Tatum, B. D. (1999). Assimilation blues: Black families in a White community(Vol. 108).
Basic Books (AZ).
Thomas, M. E., & Hughes, M. (1986). The continuing significance of race: A study of
race, class, and quality of life in America, 1972-1985. American Sociological
Review, 830-841.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
213
Tynes, B., Reynolds, L., & Greenfield, P. M. (2004). Adolescence, race, and ethnicity on
the Internet: A comparison of discourse in monitored vs. unmonitored chat
rooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 667-684.
Tynes, B. M., Garcia, E. L., Giang, M. T., & Coleman, N. E. (2011). Racial landscape of
social networking sites: Forging identity, community, and civic engagement,
The. ISJLP, 7, 71.
Tynes, B. M., & Markoe, S. L. (2010). The role of color-blind racial attitudes in reactions
to racial discrimination on social network sites. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 3(1), 1.
Tyson, K., Darity Jr, W., & Castellino, D. R. (2005). It's not “a black thing”:
understanding the burden of acting white and other dilemmas of high
achievement. American Sociological Review, 70(4), 582-605.
Vaught, S. E., & Castagno, A. E. (2008). “I don't think I'm a racist”: Critical Race
Theory, teacher attitudes, and structural racism. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 11(2), 95-113.
Weber, S., & Mitchell, C. (2007). Imaging, keyboarding, and posting identities: Young
people and new media technologies. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning, 25-47.
Weinstein, R. S., Gregory, A., & Strambler, M. J. (2004). Intractable self-fulfilling
prophecies fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education. The American
psychologist, 59(6), 511.
Wellman, B. (2002). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized
networking. International journal of urban and regional research, 25(2), 227-
252.
Willett, R. (2007). Consumer citizens online: Structure, agency, and gender in online
participation. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on
Digital Media and Learning, 49-69.
Youngreen, R., Conlon, B., Robinson, D. T., & Lovaglia, M. J. (2009). Identity
maintenance and cognitive test performance. Social Science Research, 38(2), 438-
446.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
214
APPENDIX A
GLOBAL LEVEL: PREDECESSOR DISENFRANCHISEMENT ECOLOGY
!
S!
Predecessor(Disenfranchisement(Ecologies:(Global(Level((
! De(Facto(Ecology( De(Jure(Ecology(
!
Global:!Race,!directly!and!or!indirectly,!
serves!as!primary!context!for!social!
stratification!and!disenfranchisement!
between!African!Americans!and!DAS!at!
remaining!levels!of!ecology:!
Systems:!Produces!“status!problems”!
within!key!DAS!systems!(Ogbu,!2004)!!
Network:!Status!problems!lead!to!
challenges!in!network!orientation!
within!DAS:!building!relational!ties!with!
IA’s,!accessing!and!using!social!capital!
to!gain!or!establish!enfranchisement!!
Responses:!!Network!orientation!
challenges!frequently!result!in!a!
collective!and/or!individual!
oppositional!identity!!
PreMCivil!Rights!Era! PostMCivil!Rights!Era!
!
Chart!A1!
Ecology!Level!1:!Global!!
Global:!Social!
disenfranchisement!is!overtly!
racialized.!Disenfranchisement!
perpetuated!within!key!DAS!
social!systems!through!legal!and!
social!enforcement.!Because!race!
and!enfranchisement!treated!as!
interchangeable!under!the!law!
and+DAS!norms!and!values,!
physical!or!biological!identity!
treated!as!primary!social!capital.!
Global:!Social!disenfranchisement!is!covertly!
racialized.!Disenfranchisement!perpetuated!
through!hidden!curriculum!of!DAS!social!
norms!and!values!implicitly!based!on!de!jure!
DAS!notions!of!interchangeability!between!
race!and!enfranchisement.!Because!race!and!
enfranchisement!no+longer!treated!as!
interchangeable!under!the!law,!conformity!to!
DAS!norms!and!values!becomes!basis!of!
enfranchisement.!
Responses:!!Oppositional!
identity!becomes!individualized!
and!mediated!by!social!class!and!
ability!to!successfully!gain!
enfranchisement!in!networks!
within!DAS!systems!according!to!
DAS!norms!and!values.!
!
Responses:!!Oppositional!identity!
unilaterally!imposed!onto!the!
collective!population!of!AfricanM
Americans!within!DAS,!despite!
class!differences!within!the!
population.!!!!
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
215
APPENDIX B
SYSTEMS LEVEL: PREDECESSOR DISENFRANCHISEMENT ECOLOGY
!
!
Predecessor(Disenfranchisement(Ecologies:(Systems(Level((
De(Facto(Ecology(
De(Jure(Ecology(
Responses:!!AA!individual!and!
collective!“models!and!settings”!of!
enfranchisement!within!DAS!
settings!prompts!appointment!and!
or!assumption!of!responsive!
identity!such!as!oppositional!
identity!
PreMCivil!Rights!Era! PostMCivil!Rights!Era!
Chart!A3!
Ecology!Level!2:!Network!!
Global:(Physical/SocioM
cultural!indicators!of!!
“Blackness”!and!!“Whiteness”!
directly!and!indirectly!linked!
to!social!enfranchisement!
and!privilege!(
Network:!Ability!to!access!
social!capital!and!relational!ties!
with!institutional!agents!needed!
to!navigate!DAS!system!
pathways!to!enfranchisement!is!
based!on!hidden!curriculum!of!
DAS!norms!and!values!primarily!!!
managed!by!institutional!agents!
Network:!Physical/Biological!
“Blackness”!and!!“Whiteness”!
directly!linked!to!respective!
social!identities!associated!or!
disassociated!with!
enfranchisement!and!privilege.!
Systems:!!Physical/Biological!
Blackness!or!Whiteness!
determine!ability!to!conform!to!
DAS!systems!norms!and!values!
that!have!been!racialized!by!DAS!
conferred!privileges!associated!
with!Whiteness!or!Blackness!!!!
Global:(Physical/Biological!
“Blackness”!and!!“Whiteness”!
directly!linked!to!levels!of!social!
enfranchisement!and!privilege!
within!DAS!
Network:!Status!problems!lead!to!
challenges!in!network!orientation!
within!DAS:!building!relational!ties!
with!IA’s,!accessing!and!using!social!
capital!to!gain!or!establish!
enfranchisement!
Systems:(Pathways!to!enfranchisement!
within(DAS!social!systems!operate!on!
racialized!DAS!norms!and!values.!!
Failure,!refusal!and/or!inability!to!
conform!to!DAS!norms!and!values!
create!status!problems!
Global:!Direct!or!indirect!notions!of!
“Whiteness”!better!align!to!DAS!
social!norms!and!values.!Direct!or!
indirect!notions!of!!“Blackness”!do!
not!conform!to!DAS!norms!and!
values.!!
Systems:!Physical/SocioMcultural!
indicators!of!!“Blackness”!or!“Whiteness”!
determine!ability!to!conform!to!DAS!norms!
and!values!that!descend!from!a!racialized!
history!of!DAS!conferred!social!power!and!
privileges!associated!with!Whiteness!or!
Blackness!!
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
216
APPENDIX C
NETWORK LEVEL: PREDECESSOR DISENFRANCHISEMENT ECOLOGY
!!
!
\!
Predecessor(Disenfranchisement(Ecologies:(Network(Level((
! De(Facto(Ecology( De(Jure(Ecology(
Responses:!!AA!individual!and!collective!
“models!and!settings”!of!enfranchisement!
include!challenges!in!accessing!and!using!
social!capital!through!institutional!agents!
or!other!relational!ties!within!DAS!
networks!thereby!perpetuating!
disenfranchisement!ecology!
PreMCivil!Rights!Era! PostMCivil!Rights!Era!
Chart!A3!
Ecology!Level!3:!Network!
Global:(Physical/SocioMcultural!
indicators!of!!“Blackness”!and!!
“Whiteness”!directly!and!indirectly!
linked!to!DAS!social!enfranchisement,!
privilege!and!power.(
Systems:!DAS!social!systems!
managed!on!racialized!norms!and!
values!enfranchise!physical!and!
biological!!“Whiteness”!and!
disenfranchise!physical!and!
biological!“Blackness”!!
Global:(Physical/Biological!
“Blackness”!and!!“Whiteness”!
primary!means!of!social!capital!in!
allowing!for!enfranchisement!and!
privilege!within!DAS!
Network:(Institutional!agents!and!
within!social!networks!serve!as!
gateway!to!key!forms!of!social!capital!
by!actively!managing!access!and!use!of!
capital!according!to!DAS!norms!and!
values.!!
Global:!Direct!or!indirect!notions!of!
“Whiteness”!better!align!to!DAS!
social!norms!and!values.!Direct!or!
indirect!notions!of!!“Blackness”!do!
not!conform!to!DAS!norms!and!
values!!
Systems:(To!perpetuate!DAS!social!
systems,!power!and!privilege,!
conformity!to!DAS!norms!and!values!is!
primary!basis!for!access!and!use!of!
social!capital!toward!enfranchisement!
within!networks!of!DAS!social!systems!
Network:!!!Secondary!social+capital,!not!
race!is!the!now!the!primary!means!of!
enfranchisement.!However,!the!ability!
to!engage!in!network!orientation!by!
accessing!and!using!relational!ties!or!
social!capital!within!DAS!networks!
rooted!in!hidden!curriculum!of!DAS!
norms!and!values!descended!from!de!
jure!ecologies!of!disenfranchisement!
Network:!Physical/Biological!
“Blackness”!and!!“Whiteness”!are!
treated!as!primary!forms!of!social!
capital!themselves!allowing!for!
(1)!access!and!use!of!other,!
secondary!key!forms!of!DAS!social!
capital!!and/or!(2)!building!
relational!ties!for!network!
orientation!within!DAS!system!
Systems:!DAS!social!systems!managed!
on!norms!and!values!that!no!longer!
identify!race!as!primary!means!of!social!
capital!in!enfranchisement.!Rather!DAS!
norms!and!values!generally!enfranchise!
physical/socioMcultural!indicators!of!
“Whiteness”!and!generally!
disenfranchise!physical/socioMcultural!
“Blackness”!as!primary!social!capital!
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
217
APPENDIX D
RESPONSE LEVEL: PREDECESSOR DISENFRANCHISEMENT ECOLOGY
!!!
!
\!
Predecessor(Disenfranchisement(Ecologies:(Response(Level((
!
De(Facto(Ecology(
De(Jure(Ecology(
Responses:!!AA!individual!and!collective!
“models!and!settings”!of!enfranchisement!
include!challenges!in!accessing!and!using!
social!capital!through!institutional!agents!or!
other!relational!ties!within!DAS!networks!
thereby!perpetuating!disenfranchisement!
ecology!within!DAS!systems!
PreMCivil!Rights!Era!
PostMCivil!Rights!Era!
Chart!A4!
Ecology!Level!4:!Response!!
Global:(Individuals!recognize!that!
primary!means!of!social!capital!are!!
physical/SocioMcultural!indicators!of!!
“Blackness”!and!“Whiteness”!directly!
and!indirectly!linked!to!DAS!social!
enfranchisement,!privilege,!power!(
Systems:!Individuals!function!within!
DAS!social!systems!according!to!
racialized!social!norms!and!values!
which!generally!enfranchise!physical!
and!biological!!“Whiteness”!and!
disenfranchise!physical!and!biological!
“Blackness”!!
Global:(Individuals!recognize!that!
within!DAS,!their!physical!or!
biological!the!membership!in!the!
collective!of!!“Blackness”!and!!
“Whiteness”!is!their!primary!means!
of!social!capital!in!allowing!for!
enfranchisement!and!privilege!within!
DAS!
Network:(Institutional!agents!and!
within!social!networks!serve!as!
gateway!to!key!forms!of!social!capital!
by!actively!managing!access!and!use!of!
capital!according!to!DAS!norms!and!
values.!!
Global:!Direct!or!indirect!notions!of!
“Whiteness”!better!align!to!DAS!
social!norms!and!values.!Direct!or!
indirect!notions!of!!“Blackness”!do!
not!conform!to!DAS!norms!and!
values!!
Systems:(To!perpetuate!DAS!social!
systems,!power!and!privilege,!
conformity!to!DAS!norms!and!values!is!
primary!basis!for!access!and!use!of!
social!capital!toward!enfranchisement!
within!networks!of!DAS!social!systems!
Network:!!!Individuals!rely!on!DAS!
notions!of!secondary!social+capital,!not!
race!as!the!now!the!primary!means!of!
network!!orientation!toward!social!
enfranchisement.!However,!the!ability!
to!engage!in!network!orientation!by!
accessing!and!using!relational!ties!or!
social!capital!within!DAS!networks!
rooted!in!hidden!curriculum!of!DAS!
norms!and!values!descended!from!de!
jure!ecologies!of!disenfranchisement!
Network:!Individuals!rely!on!social!
notions!of!physical/biological!
“Blackness”!and!!“Whiteness”!as!
primary!forms!of!social!capital!in!
negotiating!!(1)!access!and!use!of!other,!
secondary!key!forms!of!DAS!social!
capital!and/or!(2)!building!relational!
ties!for!network!orientation!toward!
enfranchisement!within!DAS!system!
networks.!
Systems:!Individual!function!within!
DAS!social!systems!managed!on!norms!
and!values!that!no!longer!identify!race!
as!primary!means!of!social!capital!in!
enfranchisement.!Rather!DAS!norms!
and!values!generally!enfranchise!
physical/socioMcultural!indicators!of!
“Whiteness”!and!disenfranchise!
physical/socioMcultural!“Blackness”!as!
primary!social!capital!
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
218
APPENDIX E
OBSERVATION PROTOCOL
O
Observation
Protocol
Online
Social
Setting:
Observation
Session
#:
Date:
Time
Period
of
Content
Observed:
Record
#:
Category/Categories
of
Social
Interaction
Observed
in
Online
Settings
Facebook
1.
Status
Update
______
2.
Picture
_____
3.
Gif
_____
4.
Peer
–to-‐Peer
________
5.
Video
6.
Link
to
other
online
content
______
7.
Likes
_______
8.
Other
___________________________
Twitter
1.
Tweet
______
2.
Retweet
_____
3.
@username
_____
4.
Peer-‐to-‐Peer
5.
Picture
________
6.
Video
______
7.
Link
to
other
online
content
_______
8.
Other
___________________________
Tumblr
1.
Post
______
2.
Picture
_____
3.
Gif
_____
4.
Peer
–to-‐Peer
________
5.
Video
O
Online
Address
Log:
1. Starting
point:
2. Address
2:
3. Address
3:
4. Address
4
:
5. Address
5:
6. Address
6:
7. Address
7:
8. Address
8:
9. Address
9:
If
necessary
on
separate
document:
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
219
"
O"
,
Observation,Protocol,
Online"Social"Setting:"" " " " " " Observation"Session""#:"
Date:"" " " " " " " " " Record"#:"
, , , , ,
"
Categories,of,Social,Capital,Accessed/Used"
"
"
"
"""Type"of"Capital"" """"""""""""""""""""""Descriptive"Notes"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Reflective"Notes""
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
220
APPENDIX F
TABLE OF SITE FEATURES FOR OBSERVATION
Facebook: Facebook: Twitter: Twitter: Tumblr: Tumblr:
Features
Avail
able?
Format and Description
Avail
able?
Format and Description
Avail
able?
Format and Description
Posts and Content
Sharing
• Allows
participants to
record thoughts
and perspectives in
words, pictures, or
video.
• Posts and content
appear in a time
line format that
creates a record of
all posts made by a
user for that
account.
• Other people
within the user’s
network may
respond to or
repost the original
user’s status.
Yes
• Status Updates*: Participants may post to
their profiles, thoughts on virtually any topic
in 60,000 characters or less.
• Photo Upload and Captioning *†:
Participants upload an individual photo or
album of photos and organize, edit and
caption according to their own preferences--
Exception: No pornographic, graphically
violent content allowed
• Video Upload and Captioning*†:
Participants may upload videos they
generated Exception: No pornographic,
graphically violent content allowed
• Video Posts from external sites*†:
Participants “share” videos from external
sites. Exception: No pornographic,
graphically violent content allowed
• Notes*: Participants create “notes” on a
subject and have the option of “tagging” one
or more people within their site network to
the note
• Links*: Participants can post links to their
profiles for content of their choice
†: Requires webcam/camera capabilities
*: Requires computer/ phone with keyboard/pad
and internet access
Yes
• Tweets*: Short
• Retweets using “RT@username:comment”
format*: Participants repost what another
user in site network “tweeted” as a form of
endorsement.
• Twit Pic (Photo Upload and Captioning)*†:
Participants upload an individual photo or
album of photos and organize, edit and
caption according to their own preferences--
Exception: No pornographic, graphically
violent content allowed
• Comments and dialogue* using
“@username:comment” format: participants
can respond to tweets from other users in their
network on their own twitter newsfeeds
• Hashtag and trending topics*: Participants
can add thoughts to a trending topic (one of
the most popular topics on Twitter that day) to
be included in a site-wide dialogue that is not
necessarily limited to their network of
“followers” on the site.
†: Requires webcam/camera capabilities
*: Requires computer/ phone with keyboard/pad
and internet access
Yes
• Blog account*: Participants
blog text ,pictures, video, links
and audio to their site account
(known as a tumblelog)
Page/Content
Comments
• Allows a
participant with
one site account to
comment on page,
status, or content
for another user
within the original
participant’s site
network
Yes
• “Likes”:Allows participants to show approval
of another user’s page content
• Commenting (Status updates, photo, video,
notes): Participant may reply or comment on
content posted by any other user within their
network whose privacy settings allow for
participant to comment
• Comment tagging: Participant may tag other
users within the network that participant
believes tagged content is relevant to. This is
feature is used by participants as a way of
generating discussion.
Yes
• Retweets using “RT@username:comment”
format*: Participants repost what another
user in site network “tweeted” as a form of
endorsement.
• Comments and dialogue* using
“@username:comment” format: participants
can respond to tweets from other users in their
network on their own twitter newsfeeds
• Hashtag and trending topics*: Participants
can add thoughts to a trending topic (one of
the most popular topics on Twitter that day) to
be included in a site-wide dialogue that is not
necessarily limited to their network of
“followers” on the site.
Yes
• Reblogging: Allows participants
to share things found on the site.
Clicking the “Reblog” button
next to any post creates a copy
on the participant’s blog, and
give the participant a chance to
include comments. Reblogged
posts automatically include
attribution to the original
participant
•
Submissions: Lets anyone on
the web contribute to
participant’s blog. Participants
can choose to approve or deny
submissions to their blog
• Replies: Lets participants select
which site user can respond to
the participants blog conten.t
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
221
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Tumblr Tumblr
Features
Avail
able?
Format
Availab
le?
Format
Availa
ble?
Format
Privacy Controls
Participant maintains
control over who can
access participant’s
site account and and/or
individual pieces of
content posted by
participant
Yes
• Friending: Participant can choose who can
and cannot have access to profile by
choosing to accept or deny a friend request
or by requesting another person as a friend.
Participant can choose which types and
individual pieces of content on the
participant’s profile are available to an
individual or group within participant’s
network of “friends”
• Visibility Settings: Participants can choose
variable settings of privacy for different
content and information posted on their
profile.Available visibility settings include:
Only Me, Close Friends Only, Friends of
Friends, Restricted to, Public
Yes
• Public or Private Twitter Page:
Participant can choose to have a public
or private page
• Followers and Following: Participant
can choose who can and cannot have
access to Twitter profile by choosing to
accept or deny followers’ requests or
by “following” another person’s
Twitter account.
Yes
and No
• Blog is public but can make
individual posts password protected
Profile/Blog
Customization
Yes
•Profile and Cover Picture Participants may
select a profile picture to represent their Twitter
profile and persona in Twitter feed, comments,
postings and retweets.
•Username Custom middle name):
Participants are required to provide their real
first, middle and last names. However there is
no real enforcement of this rule. Participants
often opt to customize their middle names or
use a descriptive pseudonym of their choosing.
•Timeline Content Highlighting: Participants
may opt to highlight or hide previously posted
content of their choosing
•Profile Design: Participants may opt to choose
updated layouts but are generally limited to
current layout designs as published by
Facebook. Participants do have control over
profile and cover pictures.
•About Me and other Biographical Data:
Participants may include information about
themselves and biographical background.
•Edit, Highlight and Deletion of content:
Participants can choose edit or delete any
content from their profile at any time.
Yes
• Profile Picture: Participants may
select a profile picture to represent
their Twitter profile and persona in
Twitter feed, comments, postings and
retweets.
• Twitter Handle: Participants can
choose any available handle (Twitter
name) provided that it is not already in
use by another Twitter user. Handles
are not restricted to participants’s real
names.
• Twitter “About Me” Description:
Participants may provide a short
statement about themselves that
focuses on information that
participants believe are relevant to an
accurate reflection of their identities.
• Edit, Highlight and Deletion of
content: Participants can choose edit
or delete any content from their profile
at any time.
Yes
• Blog Name: Participants can choose
any available title for a blog (Twitter
name) provided that it is not already
in use by another Tumblr user. Blog
titles are not restricted to
participants’s real names
• Blog Design: Participants can
choose from a number of
predesigned blog layouts or create
their own using HTML coding.
• Edit, Highlight and Deletion of
content: Participants can choose edit
or delete any content from their
profile at any time.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
222
Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Tumblr Tumblr
Features
Avail
able?
Format
Avail
able?
Format
Availa
ble?
Format
Friending/Following
and Followers
• Friend requests : Participant may accept,
deny, or “not right now” incoming friend
requests from users outside of the
participants site network
• Friending:Participant may proactively
request to friend and user thereby allowing
for mutual access to each user’s network.
• Groups: Participant may organize friends
into different groups, each of which may
have varying levels of access to content on
the participant’s profile.
• Followers: Participant may accept or
deny, incoming requests from followers
(users outside of the participant’s site
network) who wish to view participants
tweets and other posts
• Following: Participant may proactively
request to follow another user and have
access to the content posted by another
user.
• Friend requests : Participant may
accept, deny, or “not right now”
incoming friend requests from
users outside of the participants
site network
• Friending:Participant may
proactively request to friend and
user thereby allowing for mutual
access to each user’s network.
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
223
APPENDIX G
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
I. Introductions and review of the Informed Consent form
Briefly review points from the Informed Consent, focusing on how the interview focuses on
learning about how and why students access and use social capital in online social settings for
social enfranchisement. Explain to interviewee, carefully and in plain terms, the key aspects and
terms central to the study. Make sure student is comfortable with the aims of the interview and
interview format.
II. Background information on interviewee
1. Date
2. Name
3. Where do you attend school?
4. Please tell me a little about yourself and your background:
5. Tell me about the school you attend.
III. General Use and Access of Social Capital in Online Social Settings
1. Which social media sites do you like to use? Why? [RQ1]
2. When you use these sites, where do you go online most to use them? [RQ1]
3. Do you ever have any difficulty going online? When? Why? [RQ1] [RQ2]
4. Why did you sign up for an account on ___________? [RQ1]
5. What features of this site do you particularly enjoy? [RQ1] [RQ2]
6. What features of this site do you particularly dislike? Why? [RQ1]
7. What types of content (i.e. pics, videos, gifs) do you post? [RQ1]
8. What groups of people do you communicate with on the site? [RQ1]
a. Friends? Acquaintances? Family? Teachers? Strangers?
b. Any preference in the type of people you like to communicate with?
9. What do you think are the advantages to having a profile on the sites you participate in?
[RQ1] [RQ2]
10. How many of your friends would you approximate are online? [RQ1]
11. Does having none/some/most of your friends online: [RQ1]
a. Make a difference in your enjoyment in using the site?
b. Make a difference in how often you use the site?
c. Affect how useful you find the site?
12. What makes/inspires/motivates/ you to post content? [RQ1]
13. Would you say there is a theme for the kind of content you like to post? [RQ2]
14. What are the advantages to having a profile on the sites you participate in? [RQ1] [RQ2]
15. What are the disadvantages to having a profile on the sites you participate in? [RQ1]
[RQ2]
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
224
16. Has anything you’ve ever posted, created, said, done on an online site benefitted you in
real life? [RQ1] [RQ2]
17. Has anything you’ve ever posted, created, said, done on an online site negatively affected
you in your real-life offline (at school, at home, in your community) [RQ1] [RQ2]
18. Do you feel a sense of control on the sites where you have profiles? Over what parts of
the site? Why? [RQ1] [RQ2]
a. How does this sense of control compare with the control you feel in offline
environments like school, community, home?
b. What do you think is responsible for this similarity/ difference?
19. How do you see race in online settings? [RQ2]
a. How do you view your race?
b. How do you view other races?
c. How does your race limit or empower you in online settings?
d. How does race play into your interactions in online settings?
i. How does race factor into your offline social interactions?
ii. How does this compare to your online social interactions
20. How do your social interactions online compare with the social interactions you have
offline? [RQ2]
a. Do you like online social interaction more or less than you do offline social
interaction?
b. What do you think is responsible for this similarity/difference?
21. Tell me about the way that you have presented yourself on your online profiles [RQ1]
22. Do you view your profile as a reflection of who you really are? [RQ1]
23. How is your online self similar to your offline self? How is your online self different
from your offline self? [RQ1] [RQ2]
a. What do you think is responsible for this similarity/difference?
24. Who is “in charge” online? How? Why is this person(s) considered in charge? [RQ1]
[RQ2]
IV. Use and Access of Space as Social Capital
1. Tell me about your profile layout. [RQ1]
a. Do you have it decorated/designed a certain -way? Why?
b. Do you feel like your layout best represents you?
2. What space do feel like you have control of offline (at school/ at home/ anywhere) [RQ1]
[RQ2]
a. How does this sense of control make you feel?
b. How is this control similar or different to the control you have over your online
profiles?
c. What do you think is responsible for this difference?
3. Tell me about your privacy settings. [RQ1]
a. Who do you generally like share content with? Why?
b. Who do you not want to see your content? Why?
4. How do you control your space?
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
225
V. Use and Access of Voice as Social Capital
1. Do you use your profile to express yourself? [RQ1] [RQ2]
2. How do you use your profile to express yourself? [RQ1] [RQ2]
3. What are the common ways that you like to express yourself? Why? [RQ1] [RQ2]
4. Do you feel like your online profile is a good representation of who you are? [RQ1]
[RQ2]
5. How do you feel like your online profile contributes to your ability to express yourself?
[RQ1] [RQ2]
a. How is this different from the freedom you have to express yourself in the
same way at home or at school?
b. Do you feel inclined to express yourself in the same way at home or in school
as you do on these sites? Why?
VI. Use and Access of Information as Social Capital
1. Do you use social media to have discussions about news, events, and everyday
happening in the world around you (at home, at school, in your community, in the
news, in the world)? [RQ1] [RQ2]
a. How do you use online social media to have these discussions ?
b. With whom do you have these discussions
c. Do you prefer having these types conversations online or offline? Why?
d. How do you think these conversations might be different if you had them
offline?
2. What types of information do you get from these online sites? [RQ1] [RQ2]
a. How easy would you say this access to information is on online sites?
i. What makes it easy/hard/accessible?
ii. Who controls this information on online sites?
b. Are you able to access the same type of information offline ( school, home,
community)?
i. If so, where?
ii. How easy is it to access this type of information offline?
iii. Who controls this information in offline settings?
iv. How does the ease of access to this type of information in offline
settings compare with your ease of access to this type of information in
online settings?
VII. Closing
1. Do you have any questions for me before we close?
2. Would you like a copy of the study when I finish?
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
226
APPENDIX H
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ORGANIZED BY RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Construct Interview Question
Status Problems/
Disenfranchiseme
nt
(Ogbu, 2004)
Sec 3 (Q6) What features of this site do you particularly dislike?
Why? [RQ1]
Sec 3 (Q15) What are the disadvantages to having a profile on the
sites you participate in? [RQ1] [RQ2]
Sec 3 (Q17) Has anything you’ve ever posted, created, said, done
on an online site negatively affected you in your real-life offline (at
school, at home, in your community) [RQ1] [RQ2]
Sec 3 (Q18) Do you feel a sense of control on the sites where you
have profiles? Over what parts of the site? Why? [RQ1] [RQ2]
a. How does this sense of control compare with the
control you feel in offline environments like school,
community, home?
b. What do you think is responsible for this similarity/
difference?
Sec 3 (Q19) How do you see race in online settings? [RQ2]
a. How do you view your race?
b. How do you view other races?
c. How does your race limit or empower you in online
settings?
d. How does race play into your interactions in online
settings?
i. How does race factor into your offline
social interactions?
ii. How does this compare to your online
social interactions
Sec 3 (Q20 ) How do your social interactions online compare with
the social interactions you have offline? [RQ2]
c. Do you like online social interaction more or less
than you do offline social interaction?
d. What do you think is responsible for this
similarity/difference?
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
227
Status Problems/
Disenfranchiseme
nt
(Ogbu, 2004)
Sec 3 (Q23) How is your online self similar to your offline self?
How is your online self different from your offline self? [RQ1]
[RQ2]
Sec 5 (Q5) How do you feel like your online profile contributes to
your ability to express yourself? [RQ1] [RQ2]
c. How is this different from the freedom you have
to express yourself in the same way at home or
at school?
d. Do you feel inclined to express yourself in the
same way at home or in school as you do on
these sites? Why?
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
228
Network
Orientation
(Stanton-Salazar &
Spina, 2000)
Sec 3(Q1) Which social media sites do you like to use? Why?
[RQ1]
Sec 3(Q2) When you use these sites, where do you go online most
to use them? [RQ1]3
Sec 3 (Q4) Why did you sign up for an account on ___________?
[RQ1]
Sec 3 (Q8) What groups of people do you communicate with on the
site? [RQ1]
a. Friends? Acquaintances? Family? Teachers?
Strangers?
b. Any preference in the type of people you like to
communicate with?
Sec 3 (Q12) What makes/inspires/motivates/ you to post content?
[RQ1]
Sec 3 (Q22) Tell me about the way that you have presented
yourself on your online profiles [RQ1]
Sec 3 (Q23) Do you view your profile as a reflection of who you
really are? [RQ1]
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
229
Social Network
Capital (Access)
(Stanton-Salazar,
1997)
Sec 3 (Q4) Why did you sign up for an account on ___________?
[RQ1]
Sec 5(Q1) Do you use your profile to express yourself? [RQ1]
[RQ2]
Sec 5 (Q2) How do you use your profile to express yourself? [RQ1]
[RQ2]
Sec 5(Q2) What types of information do you get from these online
sites? [RQ1] [RQ2]
c. How easy would you say this access to
information is on online sites?
i. What makes it easy/hard/accessible?
ii. Who controls this information on online
sites?
d. Are you able to access the same type of
information offline ( school, home, community)?
i. If so, where?
ii. How easy is it to access this type of
information offline?
iii. Who controls this information in offline
settings?
iv. How does the ease of access to this type
of information in offline settings
compare with your ease of access to this
type of information in online settings?
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
230
Social Network
Capital (Use)
(Stanton Salazar,
1997)
Sec 3 (Q2) What are the advantages to having a profile on the sites
you participate in? [RQ1] [RQ2]
Sec 3 (Q5) What features of this site do you particularly enjoy?
Why [RQ1] [RQ2]
Sec 3 (Q7) What types of content (i.e. pics, videos, gifs) do you
post? [RQ1]
Sec 3 (Q12) What makes/inspires/motivates/ you to post content?
[RQ1]
Sec 3 (Q13) Would you say there is a theme for the kind of content
you like to post? [RQ2]
Sec 3 (Q21) Tell me about the way that you have presented
yourself on your online profiles [RQ1]
Sec 5(Q4) Do you feel like your online profile is a good
representation of who you are? [RQ1] [RQ2]
Sec 5 (Q5) How do you feel like your online profile contributes to
your ability to express yourself? [RQ1] [RQ2]
e. How is this different from the freedom you have
to express yourself in the same way at home or
at school?
f. Do you feel inclined to express yourself in the
same way at home or in school as you do on
these sites? Why?
Sec 6(Q1) Do you use social media to have discussions about news,
events, and everyday happening in the world around you (at home,
at school, in your community, in the news, in the world)? [RQ1]
[RQ2]
e. How do you use online social media to have
these discussions ?
f. With whom do you have these discussions
g. Do you prefer having these types conversations
online or offline? Why?
h. How do you think these conversations might be
different if you had them offline?
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
231
Enfranchisement,
Power, Privilege
Sec 3 (Q5) What features of this site do you particularly enjoy?
Why [RQ1] [RQ2]
Sec 3 (Q9) What are the advantages to having a profile on the sites
you participate in? [RQ1] [RQ2]
Sec 3 (Q14) What are the advantages to having a profile on the
sites you participate in? [RQ1] [RQ2]
Sec 3 (Q16) Has anything you’ve ever posted, created, said, done
on an online site benefitted you in real life? [RQ1] [RQ2]
Sec 3 (Q18) Do you feel a sense of control on the sites where you
have profiles? Over what parts of the site? Why? [RQ1] [RQ2]
a. How does this sense of control compare with
the control you feel in offline environments
like school, community, home?
b. What do you think is responsible for this
similarity/ difference?
Sec 3 (Q19) How do you see race in online settings? [RQ2]
c. How do you view your race?
d. How do you view other races?
e. How does your race limit or empower you in
online settings?
f. How does race play into your interactions in
online settings?
i. How does race factor into
your offline social
interactions?
ii. How does this compare to
your online social interactions
Sec 4 (Q2) How do your social interactions online compare with
the social interactions you have offline? [RQ2]
g. Do you like online social interaction more or
less than you do offline social interaction?
h. What do you think is responsible for this
similarity/difference?
i. What space do feel like you have control of
offline (at school/ at home/ anywhere) [RQ1]
[RQ2]
a. How does this sense of control make
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
232
Enfranchisement,
Power, Privilege
you feel?
b. How is this control similar or
different to the control you have over
your online profiles?
Sec 4(Q3) Tell me about your privacy settings. [RQ1]
a. Who do you generally like share content with?
Why?
b. Who do you not want to see your content? Why?
c.
Sec 4(Q4) How do you control your space?
Sec 5 (Q5) How do you feel like your online profile contributes to
your ability to express yourself? [RQ1] [RQ2]
a. How is this different from the freedom you have to
express yourself in the same way at home or at
school?
b. Do you feel inclined to express yourself in the same
way at home or in school as you do on these sites?
Why?
THE REVOLUTION JUST MIGHT BE DIGITIZED
233
Institutional
Agents
(Stanton Salazar,
1997)
Sec 3(Q3) Do you ever have any difficulty going online? When?
Why? [RQ1] [RQ2]
Sec 3(Q24) Who is “in charge” online? How? Why is this person(s)
considered in charge? [RQ1] [RQ2]
Sec 4 (Q2) How do your social interactions online compare with
the social interactions you have offline? [RQ2]
a. Do you like online social interaction more or
less than you do offline social interaction?
b. What do you think is responsible for this
similarity/difference?
c. What space do feel like you have control of
offline (at school/ at home/ anywhere) [RQ1]
[RQ2]
a. How does this sense of control make
you feel?
b. How is this control similar or
different to the control you have over
your online profiles?
Oppositional
Response/Resista
nce (Ogbu, 2004;
Giroux, 2001)
Sec 5 (Q5) How do you feel like your online profile contributes to
your ability to express yourself? [RQ1] [RQ2]
c. How is this different from the freedom you have to
express yourself in the same way at home or at
school?
d. Do you feel inclined to express yourself in the same
way at home or in school as you do on these sites?
Why?
Socially
Transformative
Potential (Lynn
& Parker,2006)
Sec 3 (Q16) Has anything you’ve ever posted, created, said, done
on an online site benefitted you in real life? [RQ1] [RQ2]
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study explores the online social experiences of the African American iGeneration given its recent integration into online social networking ecologies that allow for increased access and use of key forms of social networking capital that enable greater autonomy in students’ network orientation toward power, privilege, and enfranchisement in both online and offline networks. This study specifically examines how African-American, iGeneration youth both access and use key forms of networking capital in their respective network orientations particularly in light of their limited access and use of key forms social capital within offline social networks. This study contends that the contrast between the use and access of key forms of networking capital in online and offline social networks affects both the social models and dynamics of power between African American, iGeneration youth and social authorities in their immediate offline networks. In many respects, this split in the locus of socialization not only strengthens features of oppositional identity in individual members of the African American iGeneration, it vests them with a level of oppositional agency able to generate varying degrees of transformative resistance to present configurations of social dynamics within their offline networks. Thus, in some ways, the role of online social networks has reconfigured both the social roles and outcomes for African-American students in the context of educational system and other key social networks of dominant American society.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The missing voice: graduate students' perceptions of the school counseling profession
PDF
Significant others in the lives of Latino first-generation college students: how social capital aids persistence
PDF
Social capital networks of institutional agents and the empowerment of African American youth
PDF
Examining the networks of program leaders in the community college component of the Puente Project within the context of a social capital framework
PDF
The influence of social networking sites on high school students' social and academic development
PDF
Representation matters: the ways in which African American faculty support African American students in higher education
PDF
His story: African-American male college students’ journey to success
PDF
The manifestation of social capital within the mathematics, engineering, and science achievement (MESA) program
PDF
Toward an understanding of the achievement of African American students at a nationally regarded California public high school through the theoretical lenses of acting white, stereotype threat, a...
PDF
Defining the mobilization of social capital for low-SES minority youth participants in the Summer Bridge program by program leaders
PDF
A decolonial praxis of hip-hop: hip-hop culture's connection to resilient youth's critical consciousness and wellbeing
PDF
The underrepresentation of African Americans in information technology: an examination of social capital and its impact on African Americans’ career success
PDF
Understanding undocumented students' resistance of acting white as they persist to gain access to college-valued information and resources
PDF
A review of the effects of juvenile delinquency on entrance into post-secondary institutions of higher education
PDF
Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...
PDF
Voices of adult Latinos with physical disabilities and their families
PDF
As the world turns: being Black and gay on campus in the 21st century
PDF
Motivation for participating in virtual religious communities: developing social capital
PDF
Social capital, institutional agency, low-status, urban youth, and empowerment: an investigation of School on Wheels, Inc.
PDF
Impact of required parental involvement on African American male students and families: a qualitative study of the USC-NAI program
Asset Metadata
Creator
Richards, Genevieve S.
(author)
Core Title
The revolution just might be digitized: toward a critical race theory of the African-American igeneration's online social enfranchisement
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
12/18/2013
Defense Date
12/18/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
African-American,critical race theory,enfranchisement,OAI-PMH Harvest,online social network,Power,social capital
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Green, Alan Gilford (
committee chair
), Baca, Reynaldo R. (
committee member
), Searchwell, Vithrel (
committee member
)
Creator Email
gsantori23@gmail.com,gsrichar@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-359448
Unique identifier
UC11295243
Identifier
etd-RichardsGe-2226.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-359448 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RichardsGe-2226.pdf
Dmrecord
359448
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Richards, Genevieve S.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
African-American
critical race theory
enfranchisement
online social network
social capital