Abstract
The Internet has allowed for novel and expansive forms of connectivity, whether through message boards where members can post pictures and discuss topics, to larger networking sites such as Facebook. Countercultures have adapted or avoided these new technologies to their benefit.
In her book Digital Countercultures and the Struggle for Community, Jessa Lingel explores how counterculture communities use technologies and how its use is guided by the desires and goals of these groups.
For her book, Lingel used three sites for her analysis: An online extreme body modification magazine and social media platform; a college-age centered underground music scene in New Brunswick, New Jersey; and a drag community in Brooklyn, New York. To do this, Lingel grappled with the problematic term community, acknowledging its implications and justifying it as a term preferred by the groups in her study. The term alterity is also used, drawing from the work of Mary Douglas in addition to concepts developed by Michel de Certeau, referring to how individuals develop a sense of self while existing within larger institutions. Her take was to examine how communities maintain a sense of identity amid normative institutions on the Internet.
To do this, she took a structuralist stance and conducted what she called a “networked field study.” This approach involved collecting qualitative interviews from members of the three different counterculture groups, moving beyond the online-offline binary and allowing for analysis across the multiple case studies. Her approach adheres to a framework of legibility, flexibility, and authenticity. Through her analysis, Lingel identified five themes “membership boundaries, collective rulemaking, secrecy and privacy, alterity, and performativity” which she drew upon in her discussion (p. 19).
The first community analyzed was that of an online extreme body modification site which consisted of a social media site and an online e-zine. The site allowed its members to connect and share their body modifications without fear of being stigmatized. A continually evolving Terms of Service that relied on members to monitor and alert site managers to inappropriate activity was key to the early success of the site. It was successful until a growing interest and acceptance from mainstream society, a desire to lower the boundaries for the site, coupled with the growing popularity of large social media sites such as Facebook brought about challenges to the counterculture community. To challenge this, creators of the site urged people to exclusively share content on its pages and began to change its design to mimic that of other sites. These changes threatened the sense of alterity and ultimately lead to the abandonment of the site by its members
The second community was an underground punk rock scene that arose in New Brunswick, New Jersey. This community embodied a do-it-yourself esthetic and consisted of students from a local university. They would host shows for local bands taking place in local basements, homes, and backyards. Holding secrecy and self-censorship in high regard, the students would avoid using popular social media sites and focused more on homemade posters and flyers in coordination with word of mouth to spread the news about performances. To keep their shows a secret and away from the scrutinizing eyes of local officials, the New Brunswick punk scene used code names for venues and spread information via phone calls and word of mouth. The use of social media was minimal and maintained secrecy and control of information. Secrecy and obscurity provided a method for the community to identify authentic members and observe new initiates. The New Brunswick punk scene is a prime example of adapting technology only so far as to facilitate needs.
Finally, Lingel examines the Brooklyn, New York drag community and its relationship with Facebook. Although it began positively enough a means to build connections and share knowledge the restrictions and rules set forth by the platform itself soon caused tension in the drag community. The necessity for a full legal name became a significant issue for the drag performers who often used stage names. While some circumvented the issue, others became vocal and fought against it, bringing to light the somewhat contradicting nature of the site itself. Calling into questions its claims of being a community for everyone while simultaneously creating restrictions and penalties for certain individuals.
In her book, Lingel wanted to complicate the normative hegemonic concepts of the Internet and address the privilege and power found within them. And to that aim, she succeeded. Using her various sites of analysis, she showed how technology could be adapted, avoided, and circumvented by communities to achieve their own unique goals, regardless of its intended use and design. She also challenges the dichotomy of offline and online distinctions by demonstrating how the two exist intertwined in daily life. Lingel also drew attention to the design choices and mechanisms on online sites that can be used to empower some and penalize others. She also demonstrates the methodology and the application of her “networked field study.”
In the final section of her book, Lingel discusses implications for further research as well as design choices that could be made by organizations and communities when using the Internet. She makes note of the importance and implications of anonymity in online space, the power and flexibility of the Term of Service to incorporate the community in standards and regulation, and the influence of mainstream technology and design on counterculture communities. Lingel provides an interesting and thought-provoking look at counterculture in the Internet age and how technology is used, avoided, or challenged to fulfill the needs of the group.