Jones' Self Segregation and boyd's White Flight in Networked Publics

Jones' Self Segregation: Why It's So Hard For Whites to Understand Ferguson 

This article talks about the divide between White and Black understanding of racial inequality. The problem, according to the author, is that Whites surround themselves primarily with other Whites:

In fact, fully three-quarters (75 percent) of whites have entirely white social networks without any minority presence. This level of social-network racial homogeneity among whites is significantly higher than among black Americans (65 percent) or Hispanic Americans (46 percent).

The author says that many Whites feel the issue of race has gotten too much attention. Also, he says that there are cultural values such as "law and order" versus "personal freedom" that cloud understanding and perception.

boyd's White Flight in Networked Publics? How Race and Class Shaped 

American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook.  

Boyd determines that MySpace became known as a site for POC or people from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and that Whites decided to leave MySpace and preferred Facebook as a platform. She describes what it means that MySpace is considered "ghetto":

On the other hand, being ghetto refers to a set of tastes that emerged as poor people of color developed fashion and cultural artifacts that proudly expressed their identity....Those who adopted MySpace were from different backgrounds and had different norms and values than those who adopted Facebook.

Regarding the Whites, then, in that space: if the space does not reflect their tastes or values, why would they stay? Is it really fear, anxiety, and racism, as boyd describes, or are they chosing a space where they fit in to the expected cultural values and norms? Is it necessarily racism, or is it teens, both Black and White, choosing spaces where their own values are reflected and celebrated? I agree wholeheartedly with boyd that the issues she's discussing "reflect broader narratives of race and class in American society," I'm not sure everything can always be chalked up to racism.

She describes MySpace as being built around urban and music culture while Facebook was based on college crowds. Therefore, would it be surprising that each group chose to affiliate themselves in a space that fit their social values and aspirations?

Subculturally identified teens appeared more frequently drawn to MySpace while more mainstream teens tended towards Facebook. Teens from less-privileged backgrounds seemed likely to be drawn to MySpace while those headed towards elite universities appeared to be head towards Facebook. Racial and ethnic divisions looked messier, tied strongly to socio-economic factors, but I observed that black and Latino teens appeared to preference MySpace while white and Asian teens seemed to privilege Facebook.

boyd talks about how Whites stick together. Much later in the article she concedes that so do Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Italians, Irish, etc, down to every last clan, group, and tribe on the planet. It seems silly that we need a researcher to tell us this. Yet when she published about the self-separation of teens on the two sites, it sparked "outrage."

boyd makes a dubious claim. She seems to have a preconceived notion of constant oppression and inequality perpetrated by the powerful on the downtrodden, and then seeks to prove it. She says,

Teens’ fear of MySpace as ‘unsafe’ undoubtedly stems from the image portrayed by the media, but it also suggests a fear of the ‘other.’

I wonder why she is certain that they are undoubtedly swayed by the media and not by what they see of their peers and experience on the site? And while it may suggest a "fear of the other" to her, it may be that it is an environment where the "mainstream" kids who are not espousing urban or music culture don't see themselves fitting in, or aren't interested in fitting in.

By far, the most prominent explanation teens gave for choosing one or the other is the presence of their friends. Teens choose to use the social network site that their friends use.

Yes, that sounds much more likely. Glad she brought it up.

the flashy style that is popular on MySpace is often marked in relation to “bling-bling,” a style of conspicuous consumption that is associated with urban black culture and hip-hop. To some, bling and flashy MySpace profiles are beautiful and creative; to others, these styles are garish. While style preference is not inherently about race and class, the specific styles referenced have racial overtones and socio-economic implications. In essence, although teens are talking about style, they are functionally navigating race and class. 

And regarding the hip-hop aspect of MySpace:

For some, participating in this taste culture is a point of pride; for others, this genre and the perceived attitudes that go with it are viewed as offensive. 

But are those who find it offensive expected to stay, because otherwise they will be labelled fearful, anxious, or racist? boyd mentions the presence of different moral codes and deviant practices. While it wasn't the norm on MySpace, acting out sexually was more prevalent there than on Facebook. boyd talks about kids "forced to leave" MySpace by their parents, but she cites not one teen talking about leaving by force. It was reported to be voluntary and self-driven by each individual teen and his or her friends.

The parallel boyd draws between "white flight" from urban areas and from MySpace is overwrought, but certainly serves to forward her arguement. Spammers took over MySpace like street gangs? What, in this instance, prevented non-Whites from moving to Facebook?  She goes on to say, "Needless to say, the frame of “white flight” only partially works..." That's one thing we can agree on.

She concludes with

The internet mirrors and magnifies everyday life, making visible many of the issues we hoped would disappear, including race and class-based social divisions in American society.

Is it race and class based, or behavior and taste based? Yes, our tools only help us live our everyday lives, they don't necessarily change our souls. Race and class based social divisions exist in every culture in every nation and group. Whether powerful or powerless, every color, gender, class, and creed, looks around themselves, affiliates themselves with likes, and calls "other". Why do we keep expecting this aspect of human nature to just disappear? When it unfairly restricts certain groups, it must be addressed and corrected. But to call for its disappearance is naive.