Class division through aesthetics
In her blog essay titled “Viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace“, danah boyd makes some interesting observations about how socio-economic class divisions manifest themselves online through MySpace and Facebook. In this essay, boyd defines “class” as something beyond just income level; the two classes of teens she identifies are “hegemonic” (the so-called “good” kids) and “subaltern” (the so-called “troubled” kids and outcasts). Based on her observations, the separation between Facebook and MySpace users is the very same as the separation between hegemonic and subaltern teens, with the hegemonic teens preferring Facebook and the subaltern teens preferring MySpace.
There are several explanations boyd proposes for this separation, but the one that should interest designers most is that a website’s look and feel has a lot to do with which class it appeals to. Here is the specific excerpt from her essay, with the parts I find particularly interesting in bold:
Most teens who exclusively use Facebook are familiar with and have an opinion about MySpace. These teens are very aware of MySpace and they often have a negative opinion about it. They see it as gaudy, immature, and “so middle school.” They prefer the “clean” look of Facebook, noting that it is more mature and that MySpace is “so lame.” What hegemonic teens call gaudy can also be labeled as “glitzy” or “bling” or “fly” (or what my generation would call “phat”) by subaltern teens. Terms like “bling” come out of hip-hop culture where showy, sparkly, brash visual displays are acceptable and valued. The look and feel of MySpace resonates far better with subaltern communities than it does with the upwardly mobile hegemonic teens. This is even clear in the blogosphere where people talk about how gauche MySpace is while commending Facebook on its aesthetics. I’m sure that a visual analyst would be able to explain how classed aesthetics are, but aesthetics are more than simply the “eye of the beholder” - they are culturally narrated and replicated. That “clean” or “modern” look of Facebook is akin to West Elm or Pottery Barn or any poshy Scandinavian design house (that I admit I’m drawn to) while the more flashy look of MySpace resembles the Las Vegas imagery that attracts millions every year. I suspect that lifestyles have aesthetic values and that these are being reproduced on MySpace and Facebook.
I should note here that aesthetics do divide MySpace users. The look and feel that is acceptable amongst average Latino users is quite different from what you see the subculturally-identified outcasts using. Amongst the emo teens, there’s a push for simple black/white/grey backgrounds and simplistic layouts. While I’m using the term “subaltern teens” to lump together non-hegemonic teens, the lifestyle divisions amongst the subalterns are quite visible on MySpace through the aesthetic choices of the backgrounds. The aesthetics issue is also one of the forces that drives some longer-term users away from MySpace.
I think this has some interesting implications for the choices we make in design. It means that the clean, simple, white websites that are very popular nowadays are actually alienating a large percentage of the population. It would be interesting to see how Apple electronics place between the two classes discussed by boyd. Apple’s entire identity is based on clean and modern, which would seem to fit more with the aesthetic preferences of hegemonic teens. How about Flickr vs. YouTube?
The biggest question here is this: Are designers actually encouraging class separation (and segregation)? User experience may extend further than just the user; it may extend into society as a whole.
Comments
2 comments
It is rather startling to me to think about the socio-psychological implications of design for a (web) application. Or rather a social (web) application.
I think this discovery is pretty bloody groundbreaking (assuming it is original, I am no expert in this area of research)!
One thing that occurs to me in all of this from reading this post (about a post I should probably read :-D), is that the capacity for customization of a digital environment seems to be a significant factor in all of this. For instance, myspace offers a considerable amount of customization for users, through web languages and technologies, where-as facebook is more limited in its customization of layout and interface (no color changing at least, you stick with their scheme… as far as I know and I have been using facebook for the past 5 years now).
I think that the the distinction between the two general groups might have something to do with self expression. The questions that comes to mind is this: Do subaltern kids need to express themselves (visually?) more than hegemonic kids? Do hegemonic kids express themselves more through content as opposed to visual design and layout? Am I making any sense at all in this?
Good snackage for the brain :-D.
I don’t think this is an original discovery. It was just one of the things pointed out as a potential segregation factor between the two groups of teens.
You really should read the full article because danah makes some of the same observations that you do and more. Good questions, though. Definitely something to think about.