Extension and Amputation: The Internet, Social Media and Digital Media

December 18, 2014January 23, 2019 / Emmanuel Johnson / 3 Comments

Case Study: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dHPP4x5vJ8

This analysis shall be exploring Marshall McLuhan’s proposition of ‘Extension and Amputation’ in regards to new media platforms. Using the Internet as a topic, and social media as a subtopic within the Internet, I aim to highlight the presence of amputation and extension within this digital technology platform. I shall also critique McLuhan’s theory and concept of ‘Extension and Amputation’. The digital media has majorly contributed towards the construction of ideological meaning and control within audiences. The Internet has provided itself as a tool, which can be used in various ways. Using my group, ‘Team SEEL’s’ video as a case study, I shall focus on the consumption of texts in regards to the Internet, as well as making comparisons to the television.

Team SEEL’s video focused on creating awkward situations in public. Using Lasswell’s model of communication, which states that every text entails ‘who, says what, in what channel, to whom, with what effect’. This video had youths and young people as the ‘who’. Young participants reacted positively to this experiment, as a result of individuals from their demographic being involved. Our ‘says what’ entailed the essential message, which was the reaction of the public to awkward situations. YouTube via the World Wide Web (Internet) was used as a channel and medium for audiences. My group selected this platform because it allows a wider range of audiences to be reached. The video beleaguered the general public, as various reactions were needed for its narrative. It was made to entertain audiences, as well as enlighten them on societal reactions and responses to given scenarios.

Using the Internet as a digital technology platform, Team SEEL was able to achieve its aim at representing representations to the society. McLuhan (1964: 7) explains that a machine does not create meaning, but what we do with it does. It was not just the fact that our group blew bubbles in public that led to our given reactions, but that the use of a camera was employed, and affected the construction of meaning. Theall (1971: 209-210) criticises McLuhan’s assumption that the media influences everybody in the same way. I disagree with McLuhan as well, because ideology and personal preference play a role in the dynamic process of denotation by audiences. The ideology within the different groups; youth and adults, male and females participants in the video contrasted, which resulted in different reactions from both groups.

It can be said that the Internet is an extension of communication. Lievrouw states that the rise of new media has led to shifts within communication (2011: 222). This is because; it makes connection with other people easier and more efficient. The society no longer requires homes or public facilities to keep in touch with people; it can now be done from anywhere. One could argue that the telephone already served this purpose, but the Internet provides more facilities that ease communication. The invention of social media; a product of the Internet, led to the creation of platforms like ‘Facebook’, ‘Skype’, ‘YouTube’, ‘Whatsapp’ and ‘Snapchat’, whereby people are not only able to communicate, but connect with their friends and share content amongst themselves, whilst accessing a global audience. YouTube via the Internet was useful in sharing my group’s video with an extensive audience.

Audiences are aware of the fact that digital technology can influence them, but choose to ‘dance according to the rhythm’ of this platform. They are more interested in the benefits that can be consumed out of the medium rather than the effects it might leave on them. McLuhan acknowledges that ‘with the new media, however it is also possible to store and to translate everything (1964: 64)’. With that being said, it is possible for viewers of my group’s video to hypothesize that blowing bubbles in public, in the faces of strangers is acceptable, which might not always be the case.

YouTube via the Internet has created a dynamic space for young people in particular, to come under the ‘spotlight’ and temporarily act as media producers with a global audience awaiting them. Perhaps, one could argue that the fate of ideological construction within audiences lies in the palms of upcoming unprofessional producers with smartphones in their pockets. McLuhan makes note of a rather interesting fact, he says ‘perhaps the most obvious “closure” or psychic consequence of any new technology is just the demand for it (1964: 74)’. I strongly agree with his proposition. Using myself, a vast social and open media consumer as an example, I can state that I often demand to use online platforms, and without them, my life would be different. In other words, although the Internet extends by providing entertaining content, it also amputates by altering ideologies and perceptions of audiences.

The Internet has created freedom amongst media audiences. They can now create and construct what they choose to watch and listen to. Marshall states that ‘Media culture is no longer schedule-led, nor even necessarily organised by conventional genres, given that individual users can customise the music/media categories within their ‘libraries’ (2006: 637 in Hills 2009: 113)’. This new development has led to satisfaction within media consumers like myself. The emergence of the Internet as a new and digital platform has taken the spotlight away from television. As a result of this, many individuals would rather watch their favourite programmes online, than on the television. This has been due to the convenient nature of the Internet, whereby people are able to access these services on smaller devices such as mobile phones, ‘i-Pads’ and laptops.

Technology has been seen as the way forward by the society. This can be explained by the reaction of the public to the awkward situation created by Team SEEL. People were more comfortable with the fact that I had a camera, than they were by the bubbles. It can be argued that, this was as a result of the fact that we now live in the digital age, where people have their smartphones and other digital devices, where individuals are not consumers of the media but producers as well, through citizen journalism and social media. Before the advent of the digital media, and the reign of television, it would be rare to capture viral content. The digital media has created a means for people to interrupt public spaces and broadcast content to wider audiences via the Internet.

Marshall McLuhan argues that the television is the medium that controls the environment (1967: 28). I oppose this proposition, stating that the Internet serves as a melting point for the public, and encourages communication via the social media. People read and follow things they see online. Previously, it can be said the newspaper and television had this influence, but the coming of the Internet created a situation of power imbalance between old and new media platforms. In other words, the society would rather use public ‘wifi’ in surfing the Internet than watching the television, listening to the radio or purchasing a newspaper. In the modern day, people are stuck behind their phone screens and face-to-face communication has been less. This has been a result of the influence of the social media on communication. It can be argued that television provided a platform for people to unite, while the Internet has diverted people away from each other. This is because of the intimate nature of its hosts, such as mobile phones and tablets; devices customised for privacy and the use of one person.

For students, the Internet has served as an extension of the mind. Rather than creating personal ideas for research, many students would briefly surf the Internet for things that have been used in the past. The convenient nature of the Internet is its most outstanding feature in my opinion. Compared to the television where most videos have to be carefully and professionally produced, the Internet provides ‘the best of both worlds’, whereby people can either choose to access professional content via services like ‘BBC iPlayer’ or download texts from torrent sites. I would argue that books are reflections of the mind. This is because it involves an author carefully constructing content for his or her own personal perspective to readers. The Internet on the other hand is an extension of the mind, as well as a more stable platform of communication transmission, as there are more avenues to express opinions than writing. The Internet provided a more reliable means for Team SEEL to express our ideas to our targeted audiences. It would have been much more difficult if we had to write about how the public would react to awkward situations, or make a professional video for airing on the television. This was not the case, as we understood that our platform, which was YouTube via the Internet, would not require professionalism as a compulsory criterion. This made it easier to work according to the narrative and express our motives.

Due to the growth of the Internet, an increasing number of television shows have created social media accounts for the purpose of reaching audiences. This proves the relevance of the digital media, and it’s dominance over other forms of media. This platform has presented itself as a powerful and effective medium of reaching audiences. In order to reach targeted audiences effectively, my group focused on sharing our text across various social media platforms such as: Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp and Instagram.

Although I agree with Baym’s claim that, people express emotions, enjoy and strengthen social structures via text-only media (2010:59), it is evident that the Internet has also led to amputations within its users. Although it enhances communication via social media, one cannot dispute the fact that it drifts people apart. Modern day individuals think it is more appropriate to send messages to people online, rather than establishing face-to-face interactions. Unlike the Internet, ‘television’ provided a stage for families and friends to view it together. It has created less interaction between people. Perhaps, if I could directly interact with my video’s audience, I would fully understand their reaction. The emotions and feelings between two parties cannot be fully understood and transmitted online; therefore people often experience conflicts and misunderstanding online.

The Internet has led to lack of privacy. On social media sites, personal information is exposed to the public. This could in turn endanger the users of these sites. Team SEEL’s video featured only the names of participants and excluded personal information. Although we felt the necessity to identify ourselves, we decided not to display contact information in order to respect our privacy. Unlike the television, new media consumers often expect producers to leave contact details alongside their texts. The Internet has led to people having greater expectations.

Social media works through different mediums to construct ideological meaning and control of audiences. McLuhan and Powers state that ‘When Media act together they can so change our consciousness as to create whole new universes of psychic meaning. (1989: 87). Social media provides a platform for people to advertise their identities and lifestyles; audiences in turn construct this connation in different manners. Texts can be interpreted into different meanings, depending on the context in which audiences view them (Ang 1989: 99).

A stage like Twitter presents audiences with ‘tweets’, whereby you are presented with a question when you log in: ‘what’s happening’. This encourages people to share current activities in their lives with strangers. Facebook on the other hand asks a question on their homepage, ‘what’s on your mind’. While Twitter offers the opportunity of sharing current activities, the latter focuses on reflecting things on your mind, ranging from likes, to issues and to opinions. All of these details are now packaged in a different format and uploaded to a platform called Instagram. Whereby, people are presented with the opportunity of visually showing their likes, opinions and lifestyles to wide audiences. This makes one ponder whom might be viewing personal content, which another person willingly decides to put on. Applications like YouTube and Snapchat, not only provide a means of users stating things they like, but filming them as well. It can be said that before the advent of the new media, most people would not have imagined that a platform aimed at showcasing personal interests would emerge with the society taking part in it. It would have been hard to imagine that the writer of this analysis was active on Snapchat whilst writing. This just goes to show how deep the urge for social media has pierced into the society. More platforms keep emerging with linked agendas of revealing personal activities to audiences. At the end of the day, people do not realise how much information they have shared with the social media. No other form of media has this ability of extracting vast information from its users like social media. While this platform might extend communication and serve as an instrument of broadcast to the globe, it also amputates the privacy of its users and creates an avenue of capitalism and exploitation for advertising by social media institutions.

Representation within social media has contributed to its speedy growth. Consumers can now identify programmes that represent them fairly tune into them. Unlike the television, the Internet via social media targets audiences according to their preferred demographic. Facebook for example displays recommended pages based on the likes and interests of its users. People now feel the urge to belong to various online media platforms because they feel represented.

Identities are now vast and diverse. They now differ according to various social, historical, religious and sexual demographic. Unlike the television, the Internet provides a platform where diverse representations could now possibly be represented fairly. Kellner argues that ‘In modernity, identity becomes more mobile, multiple, personal, self-reflexive, and subject to change and innovation (1995: 231)’.

YouTube has viral and entertaining content that young people would be attracted to. This knowledge helped in targeting my group’s video to a predominantly young audience. The complex outcomes of new media are how they are represented, sold and packaged (Lister, Dovey, Giddings, Grant and Kelly 2003: 177). My group’s video tried to represent a wide audience in order to gain viewers from various demographics.

The modern day society enjoys watching viral content. This can be seen as a handful of professional videos online have fewer views than the viral ones. The public have turned to the Internet for these videos because television does not provide enough of this content. With this in mind, Team SEEL aimed at creating a viral video in order to attract audiences. The introduction of YouTube to the public has created a wide spread epidemic of viral videos across various social media platforms. These videos are often unprofessional in nature and entail an interesting narrative. With the help of the social media, they gain even more fame and demand. Using McLuhan’s proposition of extension and amputation, it is safe to say that although viral videos provide entertainment to audiences, it sometimes involves content seen to be morally inappropriate. For example, the interview of Charles Ramsey was found funny and went viral as a result (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZcRU0Op5P4 ). On the other hand, a morally disturbing viral video of a dog being thrown off the roof became widely shared online.

Culture has been adopted into social media. Twitter allows its audience to engage in various activities that people within similar demographics might fancy. This enabled by group to target viewers by sharing its video using ‘hashtags’. This feature allows audiences to word towards keeping social media active, with fewer contributions from the institution. Social media is also influential in re-constructing the culture of its audience. Since it has participants on a global scale, anyone can now contribute to posts and share their perspectives on matters. Since unlike the television, social media comes raw and unedited, people are often affected more efficiently by texts, images and videos shared online. Raymond Williams states that the society entails forms and patterns of communication (Eldridge and Eldridge 1994: 99). Communication is essential and can be seen in all cultures. He also furthermore goes ahead to state that information central to individuals and the society are conveyed by the manner in which people communicate within institutions they keep in touch with (1989c: 23 in Ibid 1994: 99). If communication is essential in culture, that would mean that the way we communicate has the ability to influence our culture. Williams’ general theory of culture entails a ‘theory of relations between elements in a whole way of life’ (Ibid 1994: 45). Using Williams’ theory of culture, social media has extended and amputated culture by providing a platform for the society to interact, yet exposing cultures within given demographics to foreign societies, which leads its re-construction of ideological meaning and control.

The social media provides a space for people to share various ideologies to several other people. ‘A social network isn’t a neutral space. It is designed for a purpose, and that purpose is ideological (Pantland 2014)’. Social media presents people with the ideology that they need to be part of their sites in order to connect with other people. In reality, we would not need a technological device to connect with people. The natural process of physical interaction overrules the idea of Facebook needed to bring people together. Social media provides audiences with the opportunity of re-constructing themselves and their personal image. On Facebook for example, somebody might decide to sue an old picture from several years ago as his or her display photograph. What this does to strangers is create a false image of that person in their minds.

This analysis explored Marshall McLuhan’s proposition of ‘Extension and Amputation’ in connection to new media platforms. I used the Internet as a topic and social media as a subtopic. Although the Internet has extended communication and made it more convenient, it has led to the amputation of its users, by making them too reliant on it. It has created a means for people to interrupt public spheres and diverse contents to audiences. The Internet has proved itself to be a strong force to be reckoned with, within the media. Team SEEL’s video was used as a case study and reference point in my analysis of extension and amputation within digital media platforms. The existence of the Internet has created several effects on its users.

Bibliography

Ang, I. (1989) Remote Control: Television, Audiences, and Cultural Power. (ed.) By Seiter, E., Borchers, H., Kreutzner, G., Warth, E. London: Routledge.

Baym, N. (2010) Personal Connections in the Digital Age: Digital Media and Soceity Series. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gossage, D. (1967) McLuhan: Hot and Cool. (ed.) By Stearn, G. Victoria: Penguin Books.

Hills, M. (2009) Digital Cultures: Understanding New Media. (ed.) By Creeber, G., Martin, R. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Lievrouw, L. (2011) Alternate and Activist New Media: Digital Media and Society Series. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I., Kelly K. (2003) New Media: A Critical Introduction. 2^nd Edn. Abingdon: Routledge

McLuhan, M., Powers, B. (1989) The Global Village. New York: Oxford University Press.

McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. London: Routledge.

Kellner, D. (1995) Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics between the Modern and the Postmodern. London: Routledge

Theall, D. (1971) The Medium Is The Rear View: Understanding McLuhan. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Walton, P. (2014) ‘Every Social Network has an Ideology’. Union Solidarity International [online].

Available from: https://usilive.org/every-social-network-has-an-ideology/ [4 Dec 14].

Eldridge, J., Eldridge, L. (1994) Raymond Williams: Making Connections. London: Routledge.

Effects of Social Media on Youth Culture – Historical, Social and Cultural Framings in the Construction of Ideological Meaning and Control.

November 29, 2014January 23, 2019 / Emmanuel Johnson / Leave a comment

The aim of this analysis is to critique and investigate the way social media affects youth culture, in terms of ideology, social, cultural and historical framings; as well as the way it creates meaning and control.
One could argue that, the opinions of people affect and construct their identity and ideology. This is because people including youth, could be said to construct their lives according to what they think, which in turn metamorphoses into identity. Social media now plays a major role in the lives of young people, and affects the way they communicate with other individuals. Using platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and blogs, I hope to discuss their role in ideological meaning and control.
Social media outlets provide an avenue for youth to interact, but within a framework that influence perceptions and attitudes, which ultimately structure youth practices via popular culture. It could be argued that, they create a change in the perception of ideology (by offering youths the ability to reach wide audiences). I shall be arguing that youths have been transformed into anti-social beings, as a result of the virtual world presented to us by new media.

Using concepts and propositions from Fernback, Lessnoff, Turkle and McLuhan amongst others, I aim to highlight the influences social media has created on ideological meaning and control, in context to youth.

In a complex society, there are several cultures, which develop within a dominant value system. This system is never homogenous; instead, entails constant modifications and adaptations of dominant ideas and values (Brake 1985: 6). The introduction of social media to youths has brought about both positive and negative effects on youth culture. It has enhanced communication by making it more convenient. Friends do not have to me meet face-to-face to communicate but can now do it from far distances. According to Lievrouw (2011: 222), the rise of new media has led to shifts within communication. Kear (2010: 31) argues that ‘A significant difficulty with online communication is that participants don’t always get a very good sense of other people in the group’. It can be argued that, although social media allows youth to communicate with friends and family, it has in turn transformed us into anti-social people. In the present day, cyberspace has invaded the minds in public (Simmons 1995: 147). This is because, as portrayed by the media, it has presented us with a virtual world in which, we are limited, told what to do and presented with representations about what is eligible and trendy. Stuart Hall suggests that, ideas are dependent on effects of the conclusively determining level in the construction of society (Morley and Chen 1996: 29). It could be said that the social media has conditioned the minds of youths to accept this platform into our norms.

Due to this, youths are perceivably deprived of the opportunity of experiencing the actual world for themselves, interacting with real life people and getting genuine reactions. Brake (1985: 6) defines youth culture as the way adolescents live, and the norms and values they share.

Social media challenges our ideological meaning and control. McLellan (1986: 1) argues that ideology is the most unique concept in the field of social science, and questions the originality of our most important ideas. In the individual within the collective, the virtual ideology and the realization of collective principles controls and constructs lifestyles. Jan Fernback illustrates ‘cyberspace as an arena of power (1997: 36)’. It could be said that language in communication is a means of symbolic exchanges underpinned by power relations between the speaker and the addressee. Thus in it’s imperceptible form, ideology continues to reign not only over the mainstream media, but in cyberspace and popular culture determining our choices in taste, class and other impositions in the social scene.

According to Athique (2013: 197), ‘The internet has become a major forum for social debate (reflecting public opinion)’.
It can be argued that, youths now capitalise on the availability of a virtual stage created by social media for communication, to create unreal online profiles aimed at impressing audiences.
Dijk defines the mass society as ‘a social formation with an infrastructure of groups, organisations and communities (‘masses’) that shapes its prime mode of organization at all levels (2006: 32)’. He furthermore states that this society developed at the time of the industrial revolution, as a result of large numbers of people gathering in public places (2006: 32). Youths have observably transformed from a mass to a virtual society, as a result of the prevalence of social media on communication.
Technologies themselves are creating changes in the perception of identity (Hine 2000: 20). Consequently a massive cultural transformation among youth is being realised due to the impact of new media and social networking. Historically, social media did not exist and youths would not construct their ideologies using social networks. Indeed ‘youth’ has never been about the individual self and how it relates to similar identities in the same demographic, but its exaggeration has never been more pronounced amid the loudness of social media seemed to be driven chiefly by young people sharing everything from likes to dislikes.

A major problem with the use of social media by youth is how we strive to find consent and approval online by constantly updating profiles to enhance our virtual profile. This particular issue is at the center of effects triggered forth by new and social media as young people immerse themselves in the thick of the virtual world to a point where their touch with reality is almost secondary and dependent on how the virtual unfolds. There certainly is more to the undercurrents shaping youth behaviour in digital spaces than is clearly apparent and understanding the diffusion of ideology and how profits always triumph over principles might help to elicit some meaning and sense to the deluge of youth practices influenced by new media. Fernback (1997:37) attempts to give it perspective explaining cyberspace as ‘popular culture’ itself.

Its very natives create Fernback’s narratives in digital space as a ‘cultural memory’ (1997: 37) that serves as both a reminder and a replication of our lived lives and experiences. Today we are constantly taking ‘selfies’ and updating profiles to fit in. Social media has offered youths the power to communicate with whom they wish to, and at any given period of time. Susan Douglas hypothesizes that, the Internet will give birth to a new buzzing public arena (2013: 104) One would critique that, although social media has given youth power, it has made us more ignorant of our immediate world as a result. The media now plays a major role in identity formation, and influences the way the present day youth perceive the world. Crawley and Mitchell (1994: 27) suggest that, the media is now an important feature of social life.

Although youth is a construct of culture, it is greatly influenced by social media. In other words, youth can arguably be termed as an evolution of social media culture, because both social media and culture affect the creation of youth. In other words, youth can arguably be termed as an evolution of social media culture, because both social media and culture affect the creation of youth. Jones states that ‘culture is ordinary: that there is not a special class, or group of men, who are involved in the creation of meaning and values’. (1982: 3).
A modern day person who was brought up without the influence of any of the two parties might be seen as an anomaly by this society. Social media connotes signs, which attract youth. It converts a natural process like communication into a virtual process.

The invention of social media has brought about alterations in ideology. The virtual world presented by this media sells the idea to youths that they must partake in it. It has done this by providing services like communication and entertainment, in which young people crave and enjoy. Overtime, youths have adopted this practice into their culture and lifestyle, and think their lives would be different without it. Youths feel the need to check their mobile phones whenever they wake up from sleep, for updates from various social media arenas. This has led to addiction of social media. Lessnoff states that ‘Man was born free; and everywhere he is in chains (1990: 108)’.

Social media networks provide opportunities for youths to escape from reality and express themselves elsewhere. Due to this, youths would rather play online games while depressed, than engage in a conversation with friends and family. People can be led away from in-person encounters by the internet (Chen, Boase Wellman 2002: 82). The media portrays that; youths feel the need to engage with friends, via social media, rather than in person. In the film ‘Cyberbully’, a youth is youth is excited about the gift of a computer and goes online to interact with her schoolmates on it. Virtual space is constructed and recycled by the society (Fernback 1997: 37). Without the presence of people, especially youth, virtual space would be non-existent. In other words, the survival of online platforms is dependent on people, especially youths. Tools and facilities like the ability to share videos and tag friends, created by social media stages such as Facebook, make youth even more interested in this platform. Young people in turn perceive this as an adventure and it continually develops into an addiction. As an effect, youths now lack the ability to maintain interesting conversations physically without the influence of social media. According to McLuhan, ‘Personal and social consequences of any medium – that is, of any extension of ourselves – result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology (1964: 7)’. Young people seek different avenues to meet and interact with new people. Social media can be seen to present youths with the ideology that; they do not need to go out into the public, for this purpose. Over the years, the Internet has experienced a widespread expansion, with more individuals going online (Watts 2002: 1). It does this by offering them a wide and global audience, where they do not travel to meet other people. This opportunity makes young people get influenced by ways of life outside their known demographic. As a result of this, the modern day ‘youth culture’ is a product of globalization.

Entertainment plays a vital role in ideological meaning and control within youth, as a cultural entity. Music as a brand of entertainment is perceived to have the ability to greatly impact it’s audience. Athique outlines that; audiences create particular structural forms in relation to the media around it (2013: 54).

A social media platform such as YouTube offers the opportunity for a host of entertainment – related content to be uploaded onto it. Youths then influenced after coming into contact with some of these texts. In music videos like ‘anaconda’ by ‘Nicki Minaj’, women are represented as entities of the male gaze and pleasure. This presents youth with the ideology that women are objects of sexualisation, and could be treated in such manner. Ideology can be defined as the set of symbolic forms and meanings that serves to establish and sustain relations of domination (Thompson, 1990 in Sarikakis and Thussu 2006: 1). Youths are now presented with this sexist ideology for experimentation.
In both its character and presentation, music itself has spurred a major commercialist movement bent on commodifying youth. Its employment and profusion in adverts and every sphere of life connotes more than a significance expressed through signs, symbols and icons as well. One model of fashioning by music, into an ideological tool can be seen in the Hip-hop culture whose very rise from the sidelines to the mainstream reflects how popular culture continues to be the product and manipulation of a consumer based tradition. Musicians like ‘50 Cent’ do not just embody the image of the quintessential rapper raised and made from the ‘streets’ but also convey a sub-cultural lifestyle representing ‘youth’, street style and ‘ghetto’. Social media has arguably provided a stage for musicians to showcase and advertise their lifestyles to the public, via music videos. The concept of a network society offers the rethinking of the communication, and taking into notice, the changes occurring within our life and culture (Stevenson 2002: 185).

Exemplifying a struggle of strategies from the establishment and tactics by repressed and weak subjects, the ultimate exposition of style elicited via difference from hip-hop illustrates a form of symbolic resistance that makes a mark.
Using YouTube as a social media platform, musicians sell concepts and perceptions of ideal cultures and lifestyles. In the music video ‘We Found Love’ by ‘Calvin Harris’ and ‘Rihanna’, director Melina Matsoukas portrays a carefree, dangerous and careless lifestyle of youth. Ideology has to do with ideas that authenticate the authority of the ascendant social class (Devereux 2003: 98).
Crane suggests that ‘the dominant culture is always presented as the culture, the reference point for the society as a whole (1992: 87)’. This video reinforces the idea to youth that sex and drugs need to be adopted into their culture for an exciting life. Howitt outlines that ‘The outside world is no longer a mystery but it is bewildering (1982: 4)’. As a result, youths are now perceived to be influenced by this new world and attempt to imitate these lifestyles.

The emergence of social media has led to the establishment of various platforms for communication and engagement. Amongst them are blogs. Blogging has encouraged more participation by people in the Internet (Hall 2008: 114). This platform engages youths in interactions and offers the opportunity for youths to share experiences with other people within their demographic. According to Grossberg, Wartella and Whitney, representation means “re-presentation” – ‘to represent something means to take an original, mediate it, and “play it back” (1998: 179)’. Unlike old media forms, social media resents ordinary youths with the opportunity of ‘prosuming’ for targeted audiences. Social media via blogs offer youths the chance of representing other young people and constructing their ideology. The process of individuals presenting lifestyles and opinions derived from personal experience, constructs the ideology of audiences, which in this case are youths. ‘Identities are not unified, solid and stable, but is maintained, changeable and often contradictory (Miller 2011: 161)’
As a result of constant interaction with culture over time, audiences decode signs and symbols to create meaning (Baran 2007: 432). In other words, messages published on blogs have the power to alter ideology within ‘youth’.
In order to understand the structure of the modern society, the information age presents new concepts and ideologies (Castells, 2010 in Fuchs 2014: 71). Due to the process of sharing personal thoughts and ideas online to a specific audience, youths now knowingly or unknowingly adopt certain cultures into their own. Elliot (2009: 144) brings to light that, although actions by individuals may appear impulsive, people also inculcate cultural dispositions.

This analysis has explored the way social media influences and impacts youth culture and ideology.
It has enhanced communication among youths and provided a more convenient avenue for interaction. Nevertheless, social media has arguably made youths more anti-social, due to the availability of virtual platforms.
Through means like blogging, youths have been influenced in terms of ideology and culture. YouTube has offered musicians a platform to upload content, which portray several connotations.
As a result, youths are arguably deprived of the chance of encountering the physical world.

The digital revolution has brought about a shift from a mass to a virtual society.
Social media has led to youths vying to fit in, as well as seeking online approval by friends and peers. As a way of seeking friendship, youths engage in this platform. Social media can in turn be seen to present youths with the idea that, they do not need to go into the public for this purpose. It does this by providing a wide audience for youths to interact globally.

Bibliography

Athique, A. (2013) Digital Media and Society: An Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Baran, S. (2007) Introduction to Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture. 4th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies Incorperated.

Brake, M. (1985) Comparative Youth Culture. London: Routledge.

Crane, D. (1992) The Production of Culture: Media and Urban Arts. California: SAGE Publications.

Crawley, D., Mitchell, D. (1994) Communication Theory Today. California: Stanford University Press.

Devereux, E. (2003) Understanding The Media. London: SAGE Publications Incorporated.

Dijk, J. (2006) The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media. 2nd edn. London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Douglas, S. (2013) The Media Studies Reader. (ed.) By Ouellette, L. Abingdon: Routledge.

Elliot, A. (2009) Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction. Abingdon: Routledge.

Fernback, J. (1997) Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cyber society. (e.d.) By Jones, S. London: Sage publications Limited.

Fuchs, C. (2014) Social Media: A Critical Introduction. London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Grossberg, L., Wartella, E., Whitney, D. (1998) MediaMaking: Mass Media In A Popular Culture. California: SAGE Publications Incorperated.

Hall, G. (2008) Digitalize This Book! The Politics of New Media, or Why We Need Open Access Now. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Hine, C. (2000) Virtual Ethnography. London: SAGE Publications.

Howitt, D. (1982) Mass Media and Social Problems. Oxford: Pergamon Press Limited.

Jones, P. (2004) Raymond William’s Sociology of Culture: A Critical Reconstruction. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLIAN.

Kear, K. (2010) Online Communication and Collaboration: A Reader. (ed.) by Dobelan, H., Kear, K., Ramage, M. Abingdon: Routledge.

Lessnoff, M. (1990) Social Contract Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Limited.

Lievrouw, L. (2011) Alternate and Activist New Media: Digital Media and Society Series. Cambridge: Polity Press.

McLellan, D. (1986) Ideology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

McLuhan, M. (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Reading: Cox and Wyman Limited.

Miller, V. (2011) Understanding Digital Culture. London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Morley, D., Chen, K. (1996) Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues In Cultural studies. London: Routledge.

Sarikakis, K., Thussu, D., (2006) Ideologies Of The Internet. New Jersey: Hampton Press, Incorporated.

Simmons, J. (1995) Resisting The Virtual Life. (ed.) By Brook, J., Boal, I. San Francisco: City Lights Books.

Slevin, J. (2000) The Internet and Society. Bodmin: Polity Press.

Stevenson, N. (2002) Understanding Media Cultures: Social Theory and Mass Communication. London: SAGE Publications Limited.

Turkle, S. (1996) Life On the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Watts, P. (2002) The Internet: Brave New World?. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Wellman, B. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002) The Internet in Everyday Life. Bodmin: Blackwell Publishers Limited.

Emmanuel Johnson

Researcher, Filmmaker, Poet

mcluhan

Share this:

Share this: