Queer Orientations & The Realm of Social Media In The 21st Century Through The Lens of Phenomenology
“What is reachable is determined precisely by orientations that we have already taken. Some objects don’t even become objects of perception, as the body does not move toward them: they are ‘‘beyond the horizon’’ of the body, and thus out of reach.”
Sara Ahmed, Chapter 1: Orientations Toward Objects (p. 55)
The manner in which phenomenology has been understood could very well be described as dead, by current standards, though not phenomenology itself. A new reality has been introduced to many with the, perhaps arguably, ongoing pandemic since 2020. How and why we gather, and what we gather around, has shifted dramatically with the reliance on social media as a means of not just communication but an alternate form of living. Though the internet had opened its arms to the younger generation many years ago as a means to nurture and cultivate their minds, and thus the realm of “online” existed in such a condition already that the transition of a larger population was not impossibly difficult, but not without issues – especially with how nothing seems to ever be out of reach and still not at all within reach simultaneously.
This realm in question grew over time, though the average internet user of early 2000’s was not comparable to just anybody. When the computers entered the family home, it had already become a tool commonplace in work environments; what transformed it into a device for socialization then were the children. In a way, while internet use at this time did not cater to a certain demographic, it was those who were the most isolated and shunned that latched onto it, allowing for a safe space within an environment that was unkind. Being on “the net” was still uncool, unpopular and mostly for the loners – still, it was a new possibility at making friends with like-minded people they were unable to find in their immediate space. Eventually, in line with the same reasoning, spaces for marginalized groups grew as people bonded over personal experience.
In Queer Phenomenology (2006) the introduction to phenomenology leads to a connection to queerness, not just as an identifier but also significance and concept. First, we have a look at orientation in taking a stance; perceiving, seeing, standing and being near a thing. Eventually, the direction and movement comes into play, though this is not limited to how we, us, are those moving. It is more complicated than making the choice to go somewhere, towards a thing, as the directionality of what one directs themselves toward. Regarding Husserl’s term of “twofoldness”, Ahmed explains: “(…) in seeing the object I already apprehend it in a certain way, as a concrete ‘‘it’’ that has qualities that might attract or repel me, or even leave me indifferent, which might affect how ‘‘it’’ enters my view and whether it stays in view or passes from view.” (p. 28)
The mention of who was using the internet at the early stages of social media falls in line with the same idea: the world wide web created new spaces within devices that were not yet utilized for social life. It wasn’t that these social realms were first created for people to allow them in, the people created such new spaces for themselves. Earlier without a central point, most made personal websites for friends or blogging purposes – in the way it was personalized to the best of the owner’s skills, or better yet, abilities. The knowledge of how to create such a thing required longer hours, more investment in the computer itself, which allowed people who spent more time alone to direct their attention inward rather than outward, to the outside world.
Familiarizing oneself with the internet causes a shift in the attitude; this can easily be deduced by how the educators and families talked about electronics in comparison to the newer generation, fear-mongering running rampant with the concerns raised over whether they can harm the children or not. The setting of the family computer plays into the attitude the child takes in comparison to such criticism, as it becomes part of the ordinary and the domestic background. “The natural attitude does not ‘‘see the world,’’ as it takes for granted what appears; what appears quickly disappears under the blanket of the familiar. In such a world, everything is orientated around me, as being available and familiar to me,” explains Ahmed (p. 33). While the concern over whether a child can become social in the regular sense persists, the child moves onto a new kind of social by taking the web as something that allows for more availability without requiring leaving the familiar. This allows the child to form an identity around the computer, and also what’s inside it.
Is it possible, then, to give the internet itself a property? Or is it perhaps more correct to apply separate properties to websites and applications? Without a centralized entity, purposes were split apart, still. Communications took the form of instant messengers or electronic mails as they were called at the time, but they were a means to talk to existing friends one would already know. As a well known example of one of the earlier social media sites, MySpace launched in the second year of 2003, taking the characteristics of personal blogs and the connectivity of instant messenger to form a space that allowed for displaying not just a personal aesthetic but also friend statuses, becoming fairly popular later on with teenagers.
Social statuses, how many friends one has, what kind of music or fashion style they into: these social signifiers are crucial to this age group specifically, which allowed for the surge of popularity while also further changing these spaces to accommodate for their pre-existing values. Computers were introduced in a similar way to the work environment, with functions such as the clipboard, naming-conventions like “recycle bin” or “folders” and such were all taken from the physical, familiar experiences. In Phenomenology of Digital-Being (2001), Joohan Kim explains the durability and sustainability through a virtual game of pool which takes its characteristics from the real-life physics of how the balls are hit, how they curve and move. Despite our bodily limitations it is possible to make up for it in the digital with a totality that does not have physical consequences of incorrectness: the virtual realm does not simply exist to be a copy of the physical, but a thing in of itself. Kim makes the argument that “Among Heidegger's three types of representation, digital-beings are closer to "bodily presence" rather than to "empty intending" or "the perception of a picture."” (p. 92)
Indeed, this is the point that is the most important when considering the relationship of phenomenons within the internet: although it is entirely possible to draw parallels with the real world or the time before the world wide web existed, the ability to construct a new form of totality that feeds itself as it further develops within the realm of internet itself, social media’s growth is, noticeably in the 2010’s, further isolated from lived experiences of the “outside” but not separated entirely from it. This can be explained as going in a different direction, or another variable that is not truly parallel, still inseparable but alien enough that spaces formed within these now increasing centralized social media sites create and harbor their own understandings and interests.
Taking queer people as an example of marginalized groups creating new spaces on the internet, it is reminiscent of earlier queer spaces that were exclusive and meant to be a space free of homophobia, transphobia and the like. Let us consider Ahmed’s description of how “the body ‘‘straightens’’ its view in order to extend into space,” (p. 66). The existence of queer-only spaces are preceded by one being unfit to occupy other spaces that allow most, but does not accept them; where one is expected to shape themselves to fall “in-line” with what makes one (in this case) straight. “On-line” however, the space to be extended to does not have a physical form. Gay bars for comparison, as an off-line space of refuge, still require a certain extension that instead goes against the norm for one to be allowed in as an outsider, though the rules vary in many cases. With virtual spaces, first and foremost, the main difference is the age group: unlike gay bars, online spaces are more accessible for young people who are unsupported in their immediate circle, or those still questioning, in line with the original group of so-called loners who had a difficult time connecting with their peers. These safe spaces offer comfort, a sense of belonging and a better understanding of self through similar experiences shared by other users on the internet.
One other important distinct between these spaces is the amount of inherent danger that can also be attributed to when and how. The internet, even when discussing these safe spaces, was not necessarily safe nor reliable: it would often be described as the wild west by its users. Still, with riots and police raiding bars considered, how one needs to orient themselves toward violence differ: there is a physical representation that is found within an agent of oppression, who has been a symbol of such oppression, that finds shape in the form of a real person, an officer. Users on the internet can be personalized as such representations, though the lack of corporeal blurs how we understand things such as death threats, hate-speech et cetera. If one has already formed a naturalized relation to the internet space as a result of constant, repeated use of the device that already is a result of detaching from the outside world, it is harder to dissociate from such attacks.
“Leib,” or so-called lived body is interesting to consider in this context especially in relation to discourse within these queer online spaces. If a young person who has grown up in the 21st century, who has oriented themselves to queerness through media instead of repeated experiences in the realm of physicality, is only familiar with this orientation virtually, there is little to be said about whether their experiences reflect those who have experienced homophobia. This does not mean that internet user has not had experiences with hate-crime, it just begs the question what difference it makes with how the body is oriented towards such attacks in real time, physically, and how this type of violence relates to what is preached or advocated for in online spaces.
The lack of lived experiences and a faulty “leib” is tied to the sensation aspect of phenomenology. Derrida’s claim of touch overpowering the other senses, for example, would have one claim that the lack of flesh is an instant flag in the lack of orientation of one’s own body. Though this goes directly against Kim’s argument of digital beings being most closely related to “bodily presence”. If we take the “user” as a reproduced image of a person, the physicality still lies with the latter – the one doing the clicking, scrolling, actions that require physical touch that only then allows the body to orient toward the net and through the web towards others. These sensations will stay the same at the core no matter the kind of conversation. Clicking, scrolling.
How does this affect in which manner people discuss issues related to real life oppression? If one has already oriented themselves toward the screen and accepted it as a reality (while it is still seen as uncommon, undesirable even in most cases unless it has direct ties with the physical life) the discourse will orient itself around these virtual experiences, only taking historical examples or anecdotes as examples. “Queer discourse” as it is usually called within these spaces then require the users to turn away from the outside and towards the screen. If these spaces have been occupied by like minded people who have been building on top of similar experiences and thoughts, they are further drawn in to accept those examples as an addition to the virtual reality, not a parallel or even anything separate at all. If topics were even taken from the physical realm, the questions that follow will come from within this virtual system in place.
A general example for better understanding: There is an importance given to mental health awareness and fighting the stigma against signs of mental illness within a space. A typical positivity post in this case can be something along the lines of “people with [condition] are brave, strong and [other positive adverbs]” to encourage those who struggle with said condition. Other times posts are made to bring attention to stigmatized parts of mental illnesses to normalize them, to make them seem as something not to be ashamed of when seeking help, i.e. depression and lack of dental hygiene as a result of this condition. These are usually posted publicly and aim to spread further and gather a lot of engagement from it – either to reach out to as many as possible or personal gain. This can also be seen as a form of activism if clicking is considered ‘taking action’.
Social media generally lacks invitation, especially websites and applications that have the aim of not appealing to a specific group but rather the widest range of people possible. If one enters these spaces within the general user base that already have been having discourse over a certain topic over and over again, only for newer entrees to witness the results of previous conversations that the users have already taken as the correct conclusion or a perceived truth, it will seem alien. They will add onto the never-ending production of such discourse to move it further in the direction that sometimes, somehow, ends up in line with what already is in-line. This is not specific to social media, of course, but this discourse production allows for these newer conclusions to be seen as “unpopular opinions” or something that is meant to challenge the status quo – when the virtual reality had allowed for the consensus to be on the opposite side of social norms in the first place.
On April 19th, 2021 on the social media site Tumblr, infamous for online discourse, user @foulserpent with the display name LAW ABIDING EVIL WIZARD makes the following post:
love when people become so online in spaces like this where marginalized people are actually the ones dominating the conversations, that they forget what its like in the real world and start making positivity posts for things that are literally 100% unchallenged and normalized irl
let men be masculine
(LAW ABIDING EVIL WIZARD, 2021)
How does a space that allows for marginalized voices to lead it still end up straightening itself? If this is commonplace, is there any dismantling that is being done with constant conversation with no action taken in the physical realm? Again, this is not at all specific to online conversations anyhow, but the illusion of activism without taking physical action is curious. This is related to these spaces mostly being occupied by minors who do not get on well with the outside.
The background of the computer, especially if it’s still a family computer, requires the background of the family to exist for the computer to then exist within it; even if the internet has a reach outside this screen, a power-user will still have a hard time calling their natural environment to question even in cases where it contradicts their stance and reality online. The two can and will undoubtedly have a connection but are not the same, and cannot be. Heteronormativity still persists in the nature of the user who perceives the online spaces they exist in to be their second reality – which could still very well be primal in a way.
Let us take Ahmed’s example of spaces being straightened as well as bodies themselves as a way for heterosexuality to extend into each of them. This is how the norm continues to exist. This limited perception of the normal, where the person actively interacts with ideas that are progressive in nature, still works to further the natural attitude being in what is not perceived. The passivity of heteronormativity and social norms haunts such discourse even with the best of intentions present. What is within reach is still this passive existence, only allowing for the virtual reality lead by marginalized voices to exist on top of it. Then, is the virtual within or out of reach – or both?
Ahmed says: “It is important that we do not idealize queer worlds or simply locate them in an alternative space. After all, if the spaces we occupy are fleeting, if they follow us when we come and go, then this is as much a sign of how heterosexuality shapes the contours of inhabitable or livable space as it is about the promise of queer.” (p. 106) When the internet is used as a third space but is contained within itself, it becomes an alternate reality – this can be the case if these spaces are meant to be a tool of escapism. Then, if the escape is kept contained, it is still very much possible for queer bodies to carry the remnants of the heterosexuality even without meaning to, even when they are vehemently against it. Carrying that reality, it becomes clear that despite the orientation away from the outside, the spaces one orients themselves toward reflect the same reality.
These alternative spaces did, at some point, replace the physical realm with the lockdown of 2020 where social life was limited to long distance. What happened was that the transition was made on top of the existing spaces that were already occupied by long-time users, and those who had been wholly unfamiliar with previous existences of this virtual life separate from the life of the normal were put in the position previously mentioned; only now in much bigger numbers.
Adaptation occurred in a way that blatantly highlighted the existing issues; more thoughts given to online discourse in a limited reality where no action can be taken without the threat of the virus – never mind the ongoing protests during this time, because it was already established to the general population that they were forbidden from going outside unless to contribute to the capital as “essential” workers, as usual. Clashing ideas and the refusal to accept online as a separate entity, insisting on it being the only reality only until everything went back to “normal”, by making sure one could continue on uninterrupted by refusing to orient around the internet as it existed for and through these spaces, only the internet as a tool that will stimulate one the same way physical world could. Now that the reliance on touchscreen have taken over the mouse, the mimic of a sensation of touch makes one feel that the world is at the tip of their fingers – the only way they could ever reach out to someone if they wished to.
To Ahmed, the twofoldness of phenomenology also comes in the form of centralizing oneself in orienting, so that it does not only allow for a person to face things, but let things face them by forming an existence around and toward. (p. 116) It does not always mean that orienting around will mean circling it, but if one perceives themselves to be the one circled, their perception of reality will change accordingly. It could be fair to say such spaces are less visibly directed toward, in line with how the internet itself changed by becoming the playground of bigger corporations taking over the large majority by individualizing experiences while simultaneously streamlining internet traffic through algorithms that mechanically function the same. Now there is an even bigger chance of such conversations staying within their bubbles while signaling that being in this space was not an active choice – unlike how blogs and websites used to function, so what is discussed is also a sign of what one should direct their attention toward. The orientation itself is a mathematical calculation that has even less ties to the physical than previous cases.
What the algorithm does not “serve” to one now is, naturally, out of reach.
It is not impossible to consider the philosophy of earlier phenomenologists through current standards, considering that even if it may feel like that at times social media is not the entire picture of humanity and the state it is in. Although taking the different aspect of reliance on social media, especially comparing it through the decades of this century is crucial at understanding how the internet forms a new understanding of what “reach” means, how and in which different ways it is defined. This essay merely provides a glance at the forming of online spaces and the orientations one takes or ends up taking through the ever changing, but barely evolving world wide web.
References
Ahmed, S. (2006). Queer phenomenology: Orientations, objects, others. Duke University Press.
Kim, J. (2001). Phenomenology of digital-being. Human Studies, 24(1–2), 87–111. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010763028785
LAW ABIDING EVIL WIZARD [@foulserpent]. (2021, April 19). [Shared post of @foulserpent] Tumblr. https://foulserpent.tumblr.com/post/648915950289158144/let-men-be-masculine
Li, M. (2015). The Lived Body in Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty and Derrida. LSU Master's Theses, 11. https://repository.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/11
