This section is organized by theme with the theoretical context and the discussion of data interlaced rather than put into separate sections in order to provide a cohesive argument and a fuller picture of the complexity of online NBG&SO construction. I also believe that this type of organization better reflects the iterative process of analyzing data, as researchers often move between existing literature and their data many times during the research process. Therefore, I organized this discussion to highlight three salient themes that I observed during my iterative review of both the data and existing literature:
The organization of these themes is also important as each analysis builds upon the previous. It is necessary to first understand how platform affordances may shape the usage of that platform to then understand how affordances and usage influence layered identity construction. Finally, an understanding of layered identity construction on Tumblr allows for examination of NBG&SO labeling practices that also take place on Tumblr.
Networked Publics and Platform Playgrounds
Social media has made “widespread publicness” an unprecedentedly common phenomenon, and “social media introduce a conundrum of visibility…, as people’s mediated acts are both visible and invisible in networked publics” (
Baym & boyd, 2012, pp. 321-322).
boyd’s (2011) study on networked publics gives a framework for how to think about mediated communities and publics. Unsurprisingly, she explains that networked publics are similar to face-to-face (F2F) publics in function; however, technological affordances shape how people connect with one another (
boyd, 2011, p. 39). Acknowledging effects of a platform on its users,
boyd (2011) argues that “[n]etworked publics are not just publics networked together, but they are publics that have been transformed by networked media, its properties, and its potential” (p. 42).
Bryce J. Renninger (2015) has already applied this framework created by
boyd (2011) to Tumblr, showing it to be a networked public in compliance with both the “four types of features that play a salient role in constructing social network sites as networked publics” (
boyd, 2011, p. 43), and with her four affordances of networked publics. Establishing Tumblr as a networked public then allows us to examine the ways the architecture of the platform itself influences the type of publics and counterpublics (referred to here as communities) that gather there.
Though the affordances of platforms often just function quietly in the background during use, ultimately they shape both how they are used and the types of communities that use them (
Flanagin, Flanagin, & Flanagin, 2010). Social networking platforms themselves are not neutral entities but rather rhetorically and politically constructed (
Flanagin et al., 2010;
Gillespie, 2010). The intentional shaping of platform affordances affects not only its demographics, as
Tarleton Gillespie (2010) notes, but also the content users share there. Therefore, different types of media and SNSs are used for different purposes, and, in turn, standards are set for what is appropriate discourse for different platforms.
Ilana Gershon (2010) describes the collective decision of how to use different media and the “appropriate social uses of technology” as media ideologies (p. 6), and these media ideologies play a key factor in choosing which platform to share certain information (
Renninger, 2015).
Gershon (2010) focuses on the social aspect of media ideologies, as
Renninger (2015) notes, and he goes on to explain the necessity of “acknowledg[ing] how the design and politics of technological platforms may play a role in impacting their use” (p. 6). That is, the design of the platform affects usage in various ways, two of which are particularly relevant here. First, the way that designers intend a platform to be used may not be the way that users actually end up using the platform. For example, Tumblr states that it “effortlessly lets you share anything” (
“About,” n.d.) and that “Tumblr celebrates creativity. [Tumblr] want[s] you to express yourself freely and use Tumblr to reflect who you are, and what you love, think, and stand for” (
“Community Guidelines,” 2015). Although Tumblr encourages creativity in its users, it seems unlikely that the
intended purpose of Tumblr was for the gathering of marginalized groups like the LGBTQIA community or sexually explicit NSFW communities like those
Tiidenberg (2012,
2013,
2014a,
2014b) examines.
Second, the affordances of the platform shape actual usage, community, and identity formation. That is, what a platform is capable of doing heavily influences how it is used. While this may initially seem like a simple concept, its result is more complex. Consider that in this sample, less than 22% of users had an About Me page on their Tumblelogs (see
Table 1). This seems like it should be a primary point of identity construction for users; it allows them unlimited space to share information about themselves. However, the About Me page is not usually included in a default blog layout and must be added as an extra page. This requires more than the fill-in-the-blank type of persona building that happens on other SNSs or even in the bio box section of a Tumblelog. This additional effort to include an About Me page may account for—or at least contribute to—the small number of users who choose to include one in the structure of their blog.
Tumblr’s unique tagging system is also an excellent example of affordances shaping usage. While metacommunicative discourse in hashtags is common across platforms (
Daer, Hoffman, & Goodman, 2014), Tumblr allows both spaces and punctuation (except for the comma which separates the tags), which in turn allows for longer, more complex metacommentary about the content of a post that frequently just occurs in the tags rather than appearing in the actual text of a post or reblog.
2 Since tags are not carried along when users reblog content, it is rendered temporary commentary or categorization on blog posts when considering reblogging, though these tags remain on the post of the user that wrote them and are still searchable on Tumblr writ large. This ephemeral aspect of Tumblr’s tagging system creates another space, apart from bio boxes and About Me pages, that LGBTQIA bloggers can, and in some cases do, practice NBG&SO identity construction;
3 this is part of what will be discussed in the next section as “layered identity.”
True Self, Identity, and the LGBTQIA Tumblr Community
Identity construction is a multifaceted practice that is complex both in real-world and online situations. In both cases, there is an apprehension regarding “authenticity” that can be magnified in the ambiguous space of the Internet. Research overwhelmingly shows that, in most situations, people represent themselves truthfully in online spaces (
Baym, 2010;
Baym & boyd, 2012;
de Laat, 2008;
Yee, Bailenson, Urbanek, Chang, & Merget, 2007), and some studies suggest that there is even a more accurate representation of self in online spaces than in real-world situations (
Bargh & McKenna, 2004;
Bargh, McKenna, & Fitzsimons, 2002;
McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002;
Tiidenberg, 2012,
2013,
2014a,
2014b). A few influential Internet researchers comment on this phenomenon in varying ways:
Bargh et al. (2002) suggest anonymity allows users to express themselves in ways unavailable in F2F social interactions (p. 35);
Nancy Baym (2010) states that “reduced social cues make it easier to lie, but separation, time lags, and sparse cues also remove social pressures that make lying seem a good idea” (p. 116);
Katrin Tiidenberg (2013) argues “that a sex blog allows people to type themselves into being in a more open and layered way than, perhaps, some other form of non-sexualised social media participation” (p. 179); and
Yee et al. (2007) find that even when people are represented by digital avatars in an online game, they are still “governed by the same social norms as social interactions in the physical world” (p. 119).
Narratives of authenticity are often a concern for the Internet users, and, while authenticity certainly can be a concern for LGBTQIA Tumblr bloggers, there seems to be more worry about being allowed to show one’s
true self. Though the distinction I make here between authenticity and
true self might at first seem untenable, it is a distinction worth making. Generally, authenticity needs a source of external validation. In other words, in order for one’s authenticity to be verified, someone must concur that one is authentic—consider, for example, the blue check mark on Twitter that means users (usually a celebrity or public figure) are who they say they are.
Mary L. Gray (2009) comments on authenticity in her study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rural youth, and instead of notions of authenticity, advocates for “queer realness.”
Gray (2009) argues “[g]enres of queer realness simultaneously expand and consolidate the possibilities of identity,” and “identity, even the most intimate, personal senses of self, can be explored as deeply social and highly mediated” (p. 139). That is, sense of self and the identity work one must do to get to their
true self is a mediated venture that requires effort to fold one’s queer identity into their own “realness,” rather than relying on an outside source for validation of authenticity.
I borrow the term
true self from
Bargh et al. (2002), to indicate notions of
inner self rather than the performance of
actual self.
Bargh et al.’s (2002) use of
true self is borrowed from Carl Rogers, and is similar to
inner self as defined by Erving Goffman and Carl Jung (p. 34). As
Bargh et al. (2002) use the terminology,
true self refers to the participants’ inner self, and
actual self is their public presentation of self.
Bargh et al. (2002) find that in online interactions, users present
true self qualities more easily than in F2F interactions. Similarly, Tumblr users are often worried about being able to express their
true self. For example, one of the primary concerns when Yahoo purchased Tumblr in 2013 was that Tumblr would no longer be a place where users could express their
true selves (
Renninger, 2015). Both
Bargh et al. (2002) and
Tiidenberg (2012,
2013,
2014a,
2014b) show that the Internet users provide a more complete sense of
true self in an online environment. This inclination to express
true self on Tumblr is compounded by the solace and sense of community LGBTQIA users find in online spaces (
Gray, 2009). Although my use of
true self in this essay represents one’s inner self, aligning with
Bargh et al.’s (2002) definition, it also has similarities to the queer realness that
Gray (2009) describes. So, considering
Bargh et al.’s (2002) findings regarding the presentation of
true self in online spaces and
Gray’s (2009) conceptions of queer realness, rather than narratives of authenticity which must be confirmed by an outside source, it is possible then to examine Tumblr blogger identity formation as expression of their
true selves in their own online space, continuing to use the term
true self in representation of these notions.
The Internet users can, and often do, feel comfortable sharing glimpses of
true self in online spaces. Tumblr is a site where users experience freedom specifically related to gender and sexuality, and bloggers experience “[c]ertain freedom from sexual and gender roles [they] have been socialized with” (
Tiidenberg, 2012, p. 43). The ability to express one’s sexuality freely within a community of like-minded individuals is then a welcome and freeing experience for bloggers, and
Tiidenberg (2013) notes that
NSFW blogging helps with valuing oneself positively, especially the aspects that may not have been valued thus offline. This happens via new elements being assembled into one’s identity, and previously existing ones being redefined as positive. It also happens via the sense of belonging with a specific group of online others . . . There was a desire to be seen as more like themselves, and simultaneously more than themselves, in the bloggers’ narratives. (p. 193)
Here,
Tiidenberg (2013) indicates both the complex nature of online identity construction and Tumblr’s role in facilitating that identity construction. Just as humans are complicated beings—rightly so, or else many academics would have nothing to study—the process of building a
true self identity is complicated and messy. On Tumblr, users wish to “be themselves” (
Renninger, 2015, p. 8) but also to be liked, valued, and accepted.
Tiidenberg (2012,
2013) remarks that NSFW blogs allow users to come into an acceptance of themselves for their sexual desires, which may have previously been seen as deviant or non-normative such as bondage, spanking, or same-sex erotic encounters.
In addition to NBG&SO identity construction, there are indications of the desire to build community, be liked, and be accepted within the identity building that happens outside of, and sometimes in conjunction with, NBG&SO identity construction; as
Deborah Cameron and Don Kulick (2003) point out, “[e]veryone may have sexuality, but not everyone defines their identity around their sexuality” (p. 8). Similarly,
Tiidenberg (2012) argues that
including non-sexual, personal details in . . . construction of the private sexual self online and being sincere about their sexuality, is a part of constructing their sense of self as distinct . . . and positively valued (by other community members) within that particular culture. (p. 43)
In accordance with
Tiidenberg’s (2012,
2013) notions of community, these data indicate a trend of specific community building practices in which bloggers invite readers to send them asks or otherwise contact them via social media. One blogger even implores their readers: “Please don’t be scared to talk to me . . . I’m super nice . . . I just can’t hold a conversation.” This particular blogger is requesting submissions for their ask box, a feature on Tumblr that allows the audience to communicate with the blogger. This is a voluntary feature, and bloggers have the ability to control the presence of an ask box on their blog in addition to whether or not they allow anonymous submissions to their ask box. Once a blogger receives an ask, they may choose to answer it privately or post it publicly. Requesting asks and even having an active ask box encourages community building communication between a blogger and their audience, and, as
Gray (2009) notes, the presence of other nonbinary persons online helps to add resonance to experience and helps individuals understand that they are not alone.
Almost 90% of the bloggers sampled had an active ask box with 15.7% of those bloggers specifically requesting readers to contact them through their ask box (see
Table 1). Bloggers invite their readers to ask them questions. Some invitations are simple: “Ask me stuff!” or “send me some anons,” and others are more involved; in a few instances, bloggers invite their readers to inquire about nonbinary genders and sexualities: “Also please don’t be afraid to ask about me or anything you see on my blog like gender, sexuality, and kitties.” In combination with an active ask box, public labeling of NBG&SO signifies inclusion in the LGBTQIA community, indicating a sympathetic or at least non-hostile interaction is possible with a particular blogger. Likewise,
Paul B. de Laat (2008) notes that when bloggers assume “others to be worthy of [their] intimacies, at least a number of them will indeed become [their] intimate correspondents” (p. 68); meaning that the act of public labeling in conjunction with an active ask box provides community building opportunities for LGBTQIA bloggers and their audiences.
Identity construction, not just in regard to gender and sexual identity, on Tumblr is a complicated activity. Since Tumblr does not have the typical profile-like structure (fill in pre-determined information about one’s self, such as on Facebook), it is difficult to pinpoint where the majority of identity construction takes place.
Tiidenberg (2012) writes about “layered” identity, to describe the complexity of identity construction in relation to the different aspects of self shared by the NSFW bloggers she interviewed (e.g., sexual and non-sexual pieces of information). But the types of information shared are not the only kinds of layers that appear during identity construction. Platform affordances, discussed previously, also factor heavily into this identity construction—at least they do on Tumblr. Yes, users engage in labeling practices on the bio boxes and About Me pages, but these labeling practices also happen within the posts on the blog and via tagging on those posts. Tagging then becomes an integral part of that identity construction in part because tags are searchable on a user’s blog. Occasionally, bloggers will link common tags that they use and especially tags related to blogger selfies or personal tags (see
Table 1). The tagging and linking of selfies was even more prevalent than constructing an About Me page with 36% of bloggers tagging their selfies and just 21.5% taking the time to construct an About Me page (see
Table 1). So, while only 39.3% of bloggers chose to identify their sexual orientation and 27.7% their gender (combined totals from bio box & About Me pages), all of the bloggers in this sample chose to either have LGBTQIA content on their blogs (evidenced by the methods used to gather data for this study) indicating that they are, on some level, identifying as nonbinary.
While the data in this study cannot examine the motives behind the labeling process, the fact that the labeling of genders and sexual orientations is present in the semi-publicity of Tumblr indicates that Tumblr is a space where NBG&SO are more widely accepted and even encouraged by the LGBTQIA community that exists there. This notion of disturbing hegemonic understandings of NBG&SO or at least defying those expectations by “mere presence” is supported more widely by research on queer communities (
Gray, 2009, p. 26). So, what this discussion of
true self and being one’s true self does for examining NBG&SO identity on Tumblr is allow researchers and audiences to take these identity building moves at face value.
de Laat (2008) describes this as a type of trust shared between the blogger and their audience. So, the relative anonymity of the Internet does not encourage users to fabricate identities (
Bargh et al., 2002;
Baym, 2010) but rather allows identity construction that audiences may trust as a representation of
true self. NBG&SO labels, created and shared between an ever-growing number of LGBTQIA bloggers on Tumblr, can then be seen as meaningful markers of an evolution of how gender and sexual orientation are viewed.
Labeling
The labeling practices discussed here are in relation to gender and sexual orientation identity. Consistently, LGBTQIA Tumblr bloggers self-identify with up to four pieces of information: (1) gender, (2) preferred pronoun, (3) sexual attraction, and (4) romantic attraction. Distinguishing between romantic and sexual attraction means that the individual doing so recognizes their desires for romantic and sexual love differ, for example, an individual identifying as biromantic pansexual would have romantic feelings (usually meaning wanting to be in committed, loving relationships) for two genders, but be sexually attracted to all genders. That stated, it is worth noting the differences between gender, sex, sexual orientation, sexual identity, and sexuality. The word “sex” is most commonly used to describe “the biological phenomenon of dimorphism (the fact that humans come in two varieties for purposes of sexual reproduction)” (
Cameron & Kulick, 2003, p. 4), whereas gender is the societal construct of modes of behavior and appearance normally associated with sex.
Cameron and Kulick (2003) are also careful to explain that there is a difference between sexual identity and sexuality. Sexual identity encompasses both sexual orientation and sexuality, which is broadly defined as “ways of being sexual” (
Cameron & Kulick, 2003, p. 8).
The labels that LGBTQIA Tumblr bloggers use more frequently describe their sexual orientation, unlike the groups of NSFW bloggers that
Tiidenberg (2012,
2013,
2014a,
2014b) examines, which go through a process of constructing their sexuality—or ways of being sexual—on their NSFW blogs.
Tiidenberg (2012,
2013,
2014a,
2014b) also describes NSFW blogs and sexual identity as a community-driven type of identity construction. The NSFW communities that
Tiidenberg (2012,
2013,
2014a,
2014b) studies have a community-influenced aspect of each individual’s sexual identity construction comparable to the way that other SNSs facilitate community-driven identity construction. Similarly, the LGBTQIA community on Tumblr co-constructs NBG&SO labels, co-creating media ideologies as described by
Gershon (2010). The result is the acknowledgement of Tumblr as a safe space where it is appropriate to display labels outside of the binary whereas the same users may not be comfortable sharing this information on sites like Facebook due to the availability of the information to real-world friends and family—something that has been shown as a deterrent to the presentation of
true self (
de Laat, 2008;
Tiidenberg, 2012,
2013,
2014a,
2014b).
Labeling as a form of identity construction is an important practice in that it gives LGBTQIA individuals a way to have an accurate, nuanced description of their feelings, gender, and desires. However, it is also a practice that is born within binary discourse. In a Foucauldian sense, LGBTQIA bloggers construct discourses within existing hegemonic norms of a power that is intent on pretending that, as a sexual abnormality, they do not exist (
Foucault, 1978/1990, p. 84). Terms of gender, romantic desire, and sexual desire are framed and described by the binary both subverting and hiding within binary norms. That is, terms such as “asexual” and “bisexual” are variations of terminology already existing to describe sexuality: heterosexual and homosexual. Labeling, like
Foucault’s (1978/1990) concepts of discourse,
transmits and produces power; it reinforces, but also undermines and exposes it, renders it fragile and makes it possible to thwart it. In like manner, silence and secrecy are a shelter for power, anchoring its prohibitions; but they also loosen its holds and provide for relatively obscure areas of tolerance. (p. 101)
Here,
Foucault (1978/1990) notes the delicate balance between power and discourse; discourse that attempts to subvert power also reinforces it by first recognizing its power and second by giving it credence through acknowledgment that it needs to be challenged in the first place. Likewise, remaining silent allows that which is in power to remain in power, though silence should not be assumed to be passive acceptance of dominant powers (
Carillo Rowe & Malhotra, 2013;
Glenn, 2004). So, although the LGBTQIA community asserts and makes space for their own genders and sexualities, they use the framework of gender that has been constructed by the hegemonic binary.
Cameron and Kulick (2003) write about “default heteronormativity,” and this sort of default also seems to present itself within the LGBTQIA community on Tumblr. I mean this in two ways: First, the “default” of the LGBTQIA community is the LGB (or, arguably, the LG) portion of the community. That is, within the LGBTQIA community, lesbian, gay, and bisexual are the “default” sexualities, with labeling outside of those being the “deviant” labeling within the community. Additionally, there is the more traditional hegemonic default gender binary in that it is highly unlikely for LGBTQIA bloggers to identify themselves as cisfemale or cismale (see
Table 4, which shows the prefix “cis” is used by only three bloggers to describe their gender). The LGB portion of the LGBTQIA community is the least likely to also include gender identity labels (see
Table 6), showing the TQIA portion of the community to be the most deviant section of the LGBTQIA community in that they are more likely to identify
both their gender and sexual orientation as outside of hegemonic binary norms. This information suggests that the sharply increased likelihood of queer, asexual, and pansexual individuals—rather than lesbian, gay, or bisexual individuals—to divulge gender identity labels is significantly impacted by hegemonic binary norms that emphasize their status as deviant both writ large and within the LGBTQIA community.
Additionally, individuals who identify their gender outside of the binary continue to use variations of normative male/female terminology. That is, even if an individual identifies as genderqueer or genderfluid, the pervasive practice is to claim a pronoun such as “they” (see
Table 3); only two individuals chose to use nontraditional pronouns (ey/em/eir and xir/xem/xyr). Although “they” is gender-neutral in that it does not indicate whether or not the individual being referred to is male or female, those who do this are still choosing to use existing language that was created with the male/female binary in mind. Language is ever-evolving, making the invention of new or usage of current, nontraditional gender-neutral pronouns not an entirely unmanageable task. In fact, the gender-neutral pronouns “zir” and “ze” have even been adopted in University infrastructure language to accommodate genderqueer students (
Scelfo, 2015). In effect, the choice of traditional pronouns, rather than subverting the hegemonic, binary discourse, is, in some ways, reified by extensive labeling practices and pronoun usage.
Even the absence of gender (agender) is a label that allows individuals who claim the label to be recognizable by those who think in terms of the dominant discourse. Asexuality has only come to describe human desires in the 21st century (
Renninger, 2015), formerly being used to describe the reproduction of plants (
“Asexual,” n.d.). This is due in very large part to the online communities such as those on Tumblr and AVEN, a website which “is often said to be the birthplace of an asexual identity as it is understood today” (
Renninger, 2015, p. 3). After claiming of the label “asexual,” several sub-categories of asexual cropped up, including gray-asexual, demisexual, and aromantic, all of which fall under the “asexual umbrella” (
Renninger, 2015, p. 3). But the point here is that the appropriation of the term “asexual,” which is traditionally used to describe reproduction that is abnormal—that is, without a male and female partner—is the appropriation of a term that exists because of a hegemonic male/female understanding of both gender and sexual orientation.
Additionally, the term “queer” is the most claimed sexual orientation label (see
Table 5), which is another appropriation of hegemonic language. Where asexual is simply a term that fits the lack of sexual desire, “queer” has historically been used as a derogatory term toward gay and lesbian individuals (
Cameron & Kulick, 2003;
Gray, 2009). The reclamation of the term “queer” has, in the past, represented a cultural-political move that both repurposes a derogatory term and challenges heteronormativity and even some gay identity politics (
Cameron & Kulick, 2003, p. 28). In the labeling processes on Tumblr, “queer” serves as more of an umbrella term for nonbinary persons. There are those who use “queer” as a cultural-political statement (e.g., claiming to be “queer as hell”), but it also functions as an intentionally vague NBG&SO label or else as a label for those who recognize themselves outside of hegemonic understanding of gender and sexual orientation, but are unsure of their fit on the LGBTQIA spectrum.
Labeling theory
There is a body of literature in psychology referred to as labeling theory and modified labeling theory (
Norris, 2011). Predominantly, this literature focuses on the negative influences of labels such as “depressed” and “ex-convict” attached to individuals considered by society to be deviant (
Norris, 2011). Given these focuses on labeling, drawing connections between labeling theory or modified labeling theory and gender labeling practices can be tricky—the implication that a nonbinary gender or sexual orientation label is indicative of either mental illness or criminal tendencies, especially when the validity of gender identity disorder has been called into question by scholars such as
Judith Butler (2004), is not the aim of this study. Helpfully,
Dawn R. Norris’ (2011) study examines
self-labeling in nontraditional undergraduates (those aged 25 years and older), rather than focusing on more socially stigmatizing labels of ex-convict or mentally ill. One primary point of difference, though, is that
Norris (2011) finds negative self-evaluation and subsequently disidentification to be closely tied with self-labeling (p. 191), whereas NBG&SO self-labeling practices as discussed in this article are, ultimately, a constructive process, for example, the process of public NBG&SO self-labeling helps to provide openings for communities to connect.
Norris (2011) also argues that self-labeling arises out of “discrepancies between how one ‘should’ be and how one is in reality” (p. 190). While this is likely the case in some instances of self-labeling (even some instances of NBG&SO self-labeling), I find that, generally, the practice of self-labeling NBG&SO on Tumblr serves as an attempt to bridge those discrepancies and create/use labels that more precisely describe one’s NBG&SO rather than nonbinary individuals attempting to fit into hegemonic understandings of gender and sexual orientation. This conclusion is similar to
Adam D. Galinsky et al.’s (2013) findings that the reclamation of previously derogatory labels (such as “queer”) by marginalized groups help to “attenuate the stigma attached to the derogatory group label” (p. 2028). It is then possible to understand the reclaimed label of “queer”—described by
Cameron and Kulick (2003) and
Gray (2009)—as initial grounding for the self-labeling of NBG&SO since “once a group begins self-labeling, group power is perceived as increasing” (
Galinsky et al., 2013, p. 2028), and this perception of power may be a contributing factor to the expansion of NBG&SO self-labeling as seen on Tumblr.