Читать книгу Affinity Online - Mizuko Ito - Страница 11

2

Affinity

Bonding through Shared Cultures and Practices

Lead Authors: Rachel Cody Pfister and Crystle Martin

Introduction

Maria, a 17-year-old Asian college student from the Philippines, was interviewed as part of Martin’s study of online fans of professional wrestling (see the end of chapter 1 for the Wrestling Boards case study).1 She was first introduced to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) when her father brought home some wrestling trading cards, and she started to watch WWE when she was a freshman in high school. Her brother would watch with her, but her friends at school teased her and called her a tomboy when she shared her interest in WWE. The online world became a haven for her to connect with peers who shared her interest, and she became an active participant in discussion forums for the WWE fandom. She is particularly active on a role-playing board on the Wrestling Boards, where fans write collaborative fanfiction together, creating and taking on the roles of different wrestlers. Through her participation in the Wrestling Boards, Maria developed both an interest and skill in writing.

Online affinity networks such as the Wrestling Boards are collectives that have shared interests, practices, and marked roles in the community that define levels of responsibility and expertise. These groups are not necessarily limited, however, to the tight ties that one might associate with a “community,” though all of them do include participants who have these kinds of personal relationships. Because of their reliance on open peer-to-peer networks, online affinity networks can include large numbers of lurkers, observers, and transient participants, whether they are sporadic readers or readers with casual interests who might browse a forum after a Google search. Indeed, these more casual participants make up the majority of an affinity network (Gee 2017). Even while allowing for lurkers and casual audience members, these online affinity networks are sustained through interpersonal relationships, shared activities, and a sense of cultural affinity. These characteristics distinguish online affinity networks from more traditional media audiences or from a diffuse interest or scene. For example, the StarCraft gaming scene is very broad and diffuse, and it includes a constellation of online affinity networks centered on activities such as game modding, or competitive league-based play where some people develop close working relationships with one another. Conversely, an online affinity network is broader than what one might associate with a specific activity or program, such as a summer StarCraft program, or a single gaming event, at which participants might gather for a specific period but then disband without forming sustaining practices and relationships.

We describe the groups we have studied as “online affinity networks” to distinguish them from long-standing affinity groups and networks that have predated the online world. We call them “online” affinity networks as a shorthand to distinguish them from affinity networks that are primarily grounded in place-based activities and organizations, and we are not implying that they are not “real,” tied to face-to-face interactions, or embedded in physical infrastructures. This chapter delves into the infrastructure, culture, and practices that hold online affinity networks together.

Infrastructure and Space

Ever since its early days, the internet has been an avenue for people to connect with others with shared interests and identities, varying from fandoms, political discourse, and gaming to ethnic, religious, or LGBTQ identities. Howard Rheingold described the unique bonding among participants in early online forums such as the Whole Earth ’Lectronic Link (the WELL) in his book The Virtual Community (2000), and many other researchers followed in his footsteps by studying, for example, virtual worlds (Boellstorff 2008; Kendall 2002; Turkle 2005), online groups of gamers (Nardi 2010; Steinkuehler 2008; Taylor 2009), fans (Baym 2000; Bury 2005; Jenkins 2008), and bloggers (Russell and Echchaibi 2009). Eventually, internet platforms such as MySpace and Facebook became mainstream, mirroring the everyday networks that we navigate in school, community, and workplace (boyd 2014). At the same time, niche and interest-centered online communities also continued to proliferate and now encompass almost every imaginable affinity and pursuit. The internet has provided a new infrastructure for people to communicate and organize around interests and affinity with ease and in a more pervasive way. For children and youth who have limited mobility and access to face-to-face affinity groups, the impact of online affinity networks is particularly profound.

In online affinity networks, young people are pursuing what, in our earlier Digital Youth research (Ito et al. 2010), we described as “interest-driven” learning and participation—where they are going online to find information, communities, and learning resources that support specialized interests and affiliations that may not be available in their local communities. In our earlier study, LiveJournal was a gathering spot for these kinds of interactions, which later moved to platforms such as Tumblr or Twitter. We contrasted this with “friendship-driven” forms of online communication through MySpace and instant messaging (IM) and eventually through text messages, Facebook, and Instagram. Teens might discuss romantic relationships and negotiate school-based popularity on Snapchat and Facebook, while they geek out on games, anime, or music on Tumblr and Twitter. While some online affinity networks do use platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, they more typically rely on sites and platforms that allow for more specialized forms of content creation, sharing, and reputation building. Young people describe how they will segment their online identities between the friendship-driven and interest-driven platforms. Often, they will have little overlap between their social networks on Facebook or Instagram and their online affinity networks.

Online affinity networks share some characteristics with long-standing hobby and sports networks, but they are not characterized by the organizational contexts, infrastructures, and face-to-face relations that we associate with these place-based groups. In their analysis of online social networks, Rainie and Wellman (2012) describe how online access is tied to a growing and flexible palette of choices for affiliation and a resulting shift away from affinities grounded in local places and organizations. We see youth online affinity networks as part of this broader trend toward affiliation defined by affinity rather than by geography or organizational membership. While Rainie and Wellman describe this as “networked individualism,” our cases indicate a shift toward intentional and tailored group membership rather than individuation. The young people we spoke to stress how online networks enabled them to find a social context for what was previously a solitary interest. We see continuity between place-based affinity networks and online affinity networks in that both support learning and participation that is centered on the pursuit of interests. What differentiates online affinity networks from the hobby and sports groups in a young person’s local community is that the infrastructure centers on online space and infrastructure, rather than on brick-and-mortar organizations and settings. Although most hobby and interest groups now have some mix of online and place-based presence, online affinity networks are distinguished in their primary reliance on online infrastructure. We have identified three common features that characterize online affinity networks, which we elaborate on in this section:

1 The network is specialized. It is centered on a specific affinity or interest, rather than being layered with other forms of affiliation. Organizations such as schools and workplaces can support affiliation based on specialized interests, but other affiliations and agendas come into play. In schools, teens negotiate romantic and peer relationships and academic competition, as well as pursuing specialized interests. By contrast, in online affinity networks their status centers on knowledge, expertise, and contribution to the interest area.

2 Involvement is intentional. It is a voluntary “chosen” affiliation, and not part of a formal professional, school, or governmental affiliation. While some online affinity networks may have formal markers of membership and leadership, contributions and involvement are driven by personal interest and choice. Participants move more fluidly in and out of engagement than in more formal organizations that directly determine young people’s academic and economic success.

3 Content sharing and communication take place on openly networked online platforms. At least some dimension of every online affinity network is discoverable on the “open” internet, without the gatekeeping of a financial transaction or formal institutional membership. Further, online affinity networks make use of digitally networked infrastructures that allow for broader visibility and access than place-based forms of communication.

Relationships in online affinity networks are by definition specialized in that they are centered on a particular identity or interest. They differ from the more multilayered relationships that young people navigate at home, in school, and in local activities. They are likely to encounter their families and school friends in multiple settings that can vary from social hanging out to more specialized kinds of pursuits such as athletics. By contrast, online affinity networks are structured around particular niche pursuits, whether that is modding in StarCraft or knitting items related to Harry Potter. Further, the way people achieve status and recognition in online affinity networks is highly targeted to engagement in a specific area of interest, rather than to other factors such as “real-world” popularity and attractiveness or the ability to garner attention online in a generic way. In other words, online affinity networks are unique in being optimized around a particular affinity and related pursuits. The groups we have studied are particularly distinctive in valuing niche forms of expertise. Harry Potter fans gain status through the knowledge of the extensive lore and trivia around the series, and StarCraft players win recognition by working their way up the competitive rankings of a challenging game. The workings of status and reputation systems in online affinity networks are the focus of the next chapter.

The other important dimension of these relationships is that they are intentional—young people make conscious choices to connect and maintain connection, unlike relationships they are born into or relationships that are sustained as part of a job or at school, or for instrumental reasons. With this intentional quality comes a sense of authenticity as well as ephemerality in that it is easy to disconnect when an interest wanes or other responsibilities crowd out discretionary time. Online affinity networks do not have the layered and resilient characteristics of relationships embedded in schools and other community institutions, but in exchange, they are also free from the status hierarchies that characterize these social networks for teens. Young people describe how they go online to play games and connect with fandoms without having to worry about issues of status, popularity, and the heterosexual marketplace that are omnipresent in their face-to-face networks. For those who might feel stigmatized by displaying their creative, fannish, or nerdy interests to their friends at school, online affinity networks represent an opportunity to geek out with people who share their passions and support their learning (see, for example, figure 2.1). Status and reputation in online affinity networks can be just as exclusionary and unforgiving as in the high school cafeteria, but they are centered on a chosen set of affiliations and are easier to escape.

Figure 2.1. A meme circulated on Tumblr (absentimental.tumblr.com).

With the intentional and targeted nature of online affinity networks comes certain risks. Although we focus on groups with positive social values, other groups can reinforce problematic perspectives and pursuits. What we see as positive “geeking out” can pivot to a negative form of extremism, with peers reinforcing niche views without the checks and balances that come from family, local community, and those with different interests and affinities. We recognize these risks, and we focus on the features of prosocial and learning-oriented online affinity networks in an effort to highlight and advocate for positive community values online. We believe that this approach complements other studies that have looked at more controversial forms of “geeking out” online (Boero and Pascoe 2012; G. Coleman 2014; Massanari 2017; Yeshua-Katz and Martins 2013).

In addition to supporting specialized and intentional affiliation, another common feature of online affinity networks is that they rely on openly networked infrastructures for communication and content sharing. This characteristic of online affinity networks is what differentiates them from more traditional place-based affinity networks, which generally have much higher barriers to access. Young people of all skill levels are publishing, circulating, and commenting on each other’s performances and creations in a “networked public” (Varnelis 2012). When dancers post their videos on YouTube, fanfiction writers publish on the online platform Wattpad, or gamers screencast their competitive play, the creative production of online affinity networks becomes visible and searchable to broad audiences. While young people are also engaging in private communication and face-to-face encounters with peers they meet through their online affinity networks, the circulation of content and communication on open and public networks is a distinguishing characteristic of online affinity networks.

Openly sharing through peer-to-peer networks is fundamental to the platforms that support online affinity networks. Spaff serves as the community manager of Sackboy Planet, a player-created online design community (the case study appears at the end of chapter 3). He described the value of level sharing for LittleBigPlanet 2 players and the collective: “You can create your own levels, your own games, and then people can play them, but they can’t play them if you can’t share them. So the community really is filled with people who are spending hours and hours and hours building their own levels, their own games, then they publish them onto the Internet.… We have just over 6 million levels and games up there now … other people can find those levels and play them, rate them, be inspired by them, create their own things.” LittleBigPlanet 2 players can access a wide range of levels from which they may be inspired to poach, remix, sample, or build on. In turn, creators are also able to receive feedback through sharing, improving their own craft.

For young people first dipping into an area of interest, online affinity networks give them an opportunity to search, lurk, and become familiar with a scene without risk or exposure. As they get more involved in the online affinity network, they might comment or share some of their own work online and get their first taste of connecting with an audience and getting feedback. In turn, their continued sharing in an open network becomes a beacon for new seekers. Openly networked infrastructures supported these dynamics for Katie, a 15-year-old white teen from Australia. Discovering fanfiction online through the Wattpad app was her first step to becoming an author (see the 1D on Wattpad case study at the end of this chapter). By reading the work of other teen One Direction fans, she found “people who have been writing their own stories and they were people just like me.” Madeleine, a 15-year-old white teen from Canada, was nervous about sharing her work on Wattpad, fearing people would “judge me and post hate comments.” Instead, through sharing her work, Madeleine was able to make “a bunch of friends and people asked me to co-write with them.” Her identity as an author was affirmed, and she felt confident in then sharing her works with a school friend. Madeleine also found inspiration when reading the works that others had created, finding new ideas but also learning from the ways that other authors created stories.

Online affinity networks tend to follow the “Pareto principle,” in which 20 percent of participants contribute 80 percent of the network’s outcomes, with the top 1 percent contributing the most (Gee 2017). Our research has focused on the active participants, with a bias toward the 1 percent, among whom we are most likely to find connected learners. Although the more visible participants carry most of the load for organizing and creating content, casual participants and lurkers also engage in important forms of participation that sustain the reach, visibility, and influence of the network. Sustaining the whole range of participation and contribution in online affinity networks is a constant struggle for community organizers, given the intentional and voluntary nature of affiliation. Later in this chapter we describe some of the challenges that community organizers face in maintaining robust participation. Other studies of youth engagement with digital media indicate that, unlike those in our study, most are not inclined to take an active role in online affinity networks (Ito et al. 2010; Livingstone and Sefton-Green 2016). In particular, young people growing up in less tech-savvy families are much less likely to actively contribute to online affinity networks (Martin, forthcoming). Our study seeks to identify the characteristics of young people who counter this trend so that we can design programs that guide a wider range of young people to these opportunities.

As more and more young people go online, smartphones spread, and online affinity networks proliferate, we can expect that they will become more central to how young people socialize, learn, and pursue interests. In our earlier Digital Youth study (Ito et al. 2010), based on fieldwork in 2006–2007, teens described a stigma associated with meeting new friends online—the pull of local relationships and the status and social capital derived from local place-based friendships exerted a much stronger influence on their online participation than online affinity networks. This dynamic may be changing, however. Our current study focused on active participants in online affinity networks, so it is not surprising that they were comfortable with making online friends through affinity groups. More recent survey research indicates that online friendships have become commonplace, so norms may be shifting. The majority of U.S. teens now say they have met a new friend online (Lenhart et al. 2015). The role of online affinity networks likely is growing in young people’s lives.

Shared Culture and Knowledge

At the heart of any affinity network is a set of shared interests, identities, culture, and values that bind participants together. While online affinity networks exist for every imaginable interest area, our cases suggest they may be particularly active and robust for groups that are specialized, lack a critical mass in local communities, and hold to high standards of knowledge and expertise. In other words, people tend to congregate in online affinity networks when they want to geek out with others who are fellow enthusiasts, and when they lack these relationships in their offline lives. They often feel a particularly profound sense of belonging to these groups because of this shared niche culture and identity.

For example, a shared interest in both fiber crafting and Harry Potter is a niche combination that lacks a critical mass in most local communities but is a magnet for more than 1,000 participants to connect on Ravelry (see the Hogwarts at Ravelry case study at the end of chapter 4). “We all belong here,” said Amazon, a white 28-year-old based in Cleveland and a member of Hogwarts at Ravelry. Her description of why she loves Hogwarts at Ravelry captures how a shared passion for a niche interest binds members of an online affinity network. “The camaraderie and instant friendship, especially in your own house, though inter-house love is also prevalent. I can talk to someone I’ve never met before and because of the history inherent at Hogwarts, we’ve passed each other in the halls [of our virtual school] a thousand times. We go to the same charms class. We know the same lingo, share the same inside jokes.”

Amazon describes the unique pleasure of sharing cultural context and insider references with others with shared tastes, passions, and expertise. These shared cultural elements are important to creating, enriching, and sustaining relationships (Fine 1979). Rich content worlds such as the Harry Potter series offer a trove of specialized knowledge that provides ample fodder for geeking out and social organizing by engaged fan communities (Jenkins 2012).

Anime fandom exhibits a similar dynamic. Although anime has become a popular “meganiche” (Shirky 2006) outside of Japan, the breadth of content and fan activity means that the online world supports a wide range of highly specialized affinity networks within the fandom. The anime music video (AMV) scene is one such niche, a network that centers on the specific practices of video remix within the broader anime fandom (see the Animemusicvideos.org case study at the end of chapter 3). Gepetto,2 an 18-year-old from Brazil who had been an anime fan for some time, describes the moment when he first discovered AMVs. He was shocked to realize that the AMV was created by “a fan just like me.” As he recounts this memory, he continues, “Actually, my heart is racing right now just remembering. Of course, I’m a weird person but it’s still racing.” After discovering AMVs, Gepetto went on to become an active participant in animemusicvideos.org, a center of gravity for the AMV community. “I love the forums, I love the chats, I love answering questions and having mine answered in turn. I could spend 24 hours straight discussing AMVs without so much as a coffee break.” His ongoing interest and engagement are fueled by the shared referents and connoisseurship of anime, as well as the deep technical expertise around video remixing that is discussed in the forums.

A pursuit of expertise also fuels networks built around competitive esports such as StarCraft II. StarCraft II represents a highly tuned arena for players and fans to compete and strive for excellence (see the end of chapter 1