Social Media Rituals: Its Influence on the private domestic and the outside public world
Since the turn of the century, there has been an advent of technological
revolution, much of such progress revolving around human communication [Pew, 2016].
The most prevalent being the mass adoption of the mobile phone and its
connected ecosystem which has impacted not only the method and medium of
communication but individual attitudes regarding culture and social community
[Traxler, 2008]. These technologies have themselves become an integral part of
our daily lives and therefore it is not uncommon to have the use of these
technologies, particularly in regards to media, becoming ritualised in our
daily routines [Markham 2017]. For the modern audience, this is evident through
the repetitive engagement of social media, which has helped shaped the core attitudes
of societal functioning for over the past decade [Traxler, 2008]. Yet this
repetitive action through use of these technologies is not what helps shape our
social culture but one of the core aspects of modern social constructs – media
– is what joins technology and human communication.
Media itself is in a unique position being both the catalyst for the
public to enter the private, through a ‘common reality’ or ‘mediated centre’ [Couldry
2012], and yet is also the means of opening up the private to the public; both
of which commonly occur and is enabled through social media.
For the public sphere, media has a great influence on the private
individual life. This is because individual hegemony is greatly influenced by
societal hierarchies which place cultural leaders, celebrities and important
figures at the centre of cultural discussions [Schirato, 2010]. The advent of mobile technology and social
media has only exacerbated this social cohesion of the private and the public
life, whereby social media has enabled the blurring between the “sacred” and
“profane” as the process of movement between the social hierarchy can more
easily occur [Couldry, 2012].
This concept of blurring of traditional boundaries transcends into the
private domestic life consequently. Private life, both in a collective and
individual sense are greatly affected by the ritualisation of social media
habits, which have arisen due to the domestication of media technology [Piel et
al., 2013]. The concept of domestication, as theorised by Roger Silverton,
explores the merging of the public and private life, whereby the use of
technology becomes habitual, that is it not only becomes utilised in everyday
life but helps to shape how future behaviours may occur. This is particularly
true in the sense of social media, which in itself has shaped not only cultural
usage of technological communication but also new technology that is created, a
core principle of domestication [Piel et al., 2013].
Societal function itself is built on regimented processes, all of which
are determined by rules and traditions. Yet the merging of the public and the
private only one of the many consequences of increased media appropriation in
our daily lives. Media, particularly the repetitive necessity of remaining
‘connected’ to media or social media, has greatly affected such regimens [Haddon,
L. (2007)]. This however is not a new concept. It is only a revolution of what
has been occurring previously through ICT use in the domestic sense, with the
introduction of TV and radio as a means of media technology having affected
domestic households in the past. [Haddon, L. (2007)]. Social media is an
extension and evolution, possibly on a more extreme level, of these changes,
with increased accessibility and mobility allowing social patterns to be
affected and influenced by such ritualisation.
This mobility that media technology, specifically social media usage, of
which technology has allowed, referred to as ‘Place-shift’, [Lefebvre, 2009]
has caused a reinterpretation of the traditional domestic environment. What was
traditionally confined to the physical home, mobilisation of such media and its
integration into our daily routines has into the outer world [Piel et al.,
2013]. This has affected the way we see the home environment and its purpose in
the sense of our everyday rituals. However, our patterned behaviour tends to
show a co-existence of media technologies with proving that social media
habitual usage is only an extension of established media technologies. What
this suggests is that despite the media ritual that is social media engagement,
established media retain their meaning and traditional usage with new media
complementing and integrating into such meaning [Piel et al., 2013].
Cultural attitudes, societal norms and repetitive behaviours are all
affected by media rituals. For the modern day, that is in the form of social
media, which has been able to, through complementing traditional forms of
media, blur the historical division between private domestic and the outside
public world. Such influence is a result of the interplay between the
technology and established social hierarchies and ways of thinking, in
conjunction with the domestication of such media in households – particularly
in its expanded contemporary meaning. For social media as a ritual, its limits
in its influence on the private and the public therefore lie in its continued
usage, only to be overshadowed by future technology, created as a consequence
of its use, as theorised by domestication.
References
·
Couldry, N 2012, Media, Society, World: Social theory
and digital media practice, Polity Press, Cambridge UK, pp. 66-83.
·
Markham, T, 2017, Media and Everyday Life, Palgrave, London,
pp. 11-13.
·
Traxler J. 2008, Connected minds, emerging cultures:
Cybercultures in online learning. Wheeler S, editor.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age; 2008. Mobile Subcultures; pp. 17–28
· Schirato, T., Buettner, A., Jutel, T., Stahl, G. 2010, Understanding Media Studies, in Media Audiences, eds. New York: Oxford
University Press, pp. 92-109
· Pew Research, 2016, Three
Technology Revolutions, Pew Research Centre, Washington D.C., [online], Available at: <http://www.pewinternet.org/three-technology-revolutions/>, (Accessed: 16th March 2017)
· Lefebvre, C, 2009, Social Marketing and Health Communication,
Integrating Cell Phones and Mobile Technologies Into Public Health Practice: A
Social Marketing Perspective, Health Promotion Practice, George Washington
University Medical Centre, Washington D.C. [online] available at: <https://smah.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@health/documents/doc/uow083705.pdf)> (Accessed: 16th
March 2017)
· Haddon, L 2007, Roger Silverstone’s Legacies: Domestication, New Media &
Society, ResearchGate, London UK, 9, pp 16-24
· Piel, C and Roser, J, 2013, The
Meaning of Home in the Context of Digitization, Mobilisation and Mediatization,
In
A Hepp and F Krotz (eds) Mediatized Worlds: Culture and society in a media
age, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 233-249.
If you have a burning question, or would like to featured in some way in the "Ask them from me" segment, email me at: cc3493@gmail.com. If you do not want to be featured in the "Ask them from me" featured post, please let me know in the email :)
Visit Particular Interest for more content like this!
Comments
Post a Comment