Social media networks are unstable, fluctuating, and may draw in one-off or occasional observers, including audiences with no direct tie to the individual. These complex structures of ties make the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) concept of assemblages (discussed in Fenwick and Edwards 2010) useful. Assemblages describe entities formed from human and non-human actors such as an individual, their articulated connections, weak connections within (and beyond) specific social network sites, latent ties, and unconnected audiences (boyd and Ellison 2007); actors such as the value systems, beliefs, experience, knowledge and digital literacy implicit in or required to engage with these networks; and mediators such as space, time, context, and – of special interest here – mediations and translations of the social media space through filtering or aesthetic manipulations of content, etc. (Thompson 2010).
Fenwick and Edwards (2010), referring to Miller’s (2005) work on the centrality of “things” in everyday life, note that: “our material things can possess us as much as we possess them” (Fenwick and Edwards 2010:6). This is particularly pertinent in the context of social media: these “things” provide a place to perform our identity, engage with our contacts, and be constantly and selectively connected, they vie for our attention through alerts reminding us to return, to engage. Social media are becoming ubiquitously present, particularly when accessed via smartphones (Ofcom 2012, Turkle 2008, Turkle 2012), bringing both these “things” and our social media performances of self (Goffman 1959) ever closer to synchronisation with our current physical performances of self. Social media users self-consciously consider what they might post to keep followers or readers entertained, which connections to curate, which to reject, and which to maintain in the most strategic ways.
These “things” also significantly mediate and translate our identity: a LinkedIn[1] profile shows different connections (and advertisements) depending on the contents of the profile and the identity of the visitor to that profile, it will appear differently and may vary in credibility depending on the viewer (e.g. Donath and boyd 2004); elevation of a tweet to “Top Tweet”[2] status may change the significance and impact of a Twitter[3] user’s updates, their reputation within a specific hashtag[4], or peer group; the appearance and filtering of Facebook updates (e.g. Pariser 2011, McGaw 2012) may shape the identity of an individual in numerous opaque and varying ways depending on the viewer[5], the viewer’s settings, the moment in time, and the activity of others. These connections between the self and social media are complex and in constant flux, but they are extremely important to understanding learning in these spaces.
[1] LinkedIn is a professional social network site: http://www.linkedin.com/
[2] “Top Tweets”, are Twitter updates which have been algorithmically selected as being of particular interest or importance. The Twitter Help pages document their use: https://support.twitter.com/articles/131209-what-are-top-tweets
[3] Twitter is the world’s largest microblogging site: http://www.twitter.com/
[4] Hashtags are keyword tags – they are documented in “What are hashtags (“#” symbols)?”: http://support.twitter.com/articles/49309-what-are-hashtags-symbols
[5] For a recent overview of the prioritisation of Facebook updates see: “Interesting news anytime you visit”, on the Facebook blog: https://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=10150286921207131
Previous Section: What are social media? | Next Section: What is Informal Learning and how does it happen?