Affinity Online. Mizuko Ito
discourse, and gaming to ethnic, religious, or LGBTQ identities. Howard Rheingold described the unique bonding among participants in early online forums such as the Whole Earth ’Lectronic Link (the WELL) in his book The Virtual Community (2000), and many other researchers followed in his footsteps by studying, for example, virtual worlds (Boellstorff 2008; Kendall 2002; Turkle 2005), online groups of gamers (Nardi 2010; Steinkuehler 2008; Taylor 2009), fans (Baym 2000; Bury 2005; Jenkins 2008), and bloggers (Russell and Echchaibi 2009). Eventually, internet platforms such as MySpace and Facebook became mainstream, mirroring the everyday networks that we navigate in school, community, and workplace (boyd 2014). At the same time, niche and interest-centered online communities also continued to proliferate and now encompass almost every imaginable affinity and pursuit. The internet has provided a new infrastructure for people to communicate and organize around interests and affinity with ease and in a more pervasive way. For children and youth who have limited mobility and access to face-to-face affinity groups, the impact of online affinity networks is particularly profound.
In online affinity networks, young people are pursuing what, in our earlier Digital Youth research (Ito et al. 2010), we described as “interest-driven” learning and participation—where they are going online to find information, communities, and learning resources that support specialized interests and affiliations that may not be available in their local communities. In our earlier study, LiveJournal was a gathering spot for these kinds of interactions, which later moved to platforms such as Tumblr or Twitter. We contrasted this with “friendship-driven” forms of online communication through MySpace and instant messaging (IM) and eventually through text messages, Facebook, and Instagram. Teens might discuss romantic relationships and negotiate school-based popularity on Snapchat and Facebook, while they geek out on games, anime, or music on Tumblr and Twitter. While some online affinity networks do use platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, they more typically rely on sites and platforms that allow for more specialized forms of content creation, sharing, and reputation building. Young people describe how they will segment their online identities between the friendship-driven and interest-driven platforms. Often, they will have little overlap between their social networks on Facebook or Instagram and their online affinity networks.
Online affinity networks share some characteristics with long-standing hobby and sports networks, but they are not characterized by the organizational contexts, infrastructures, and face-to-face relations that we associate with these place-based groups. In their analysis of online social networks, Rainie and Wellman (2012) describe how online access is tied to a growing and flexible palette of choices for affiliation and a resulting shift away from affinities grounded in local places and organizations. We see youth online affinity networks as part of this broader trend toward affiliation defined by affinity rather than by geography or organizational membership. While Rainie and Wellman describe this as “networked individualism,” our cases indicate a shift toward intentional and tailored group membership rather than individuation. The young people we spoke to stress how online networks enabled them to find a social context for what was previously a solitary interest. We see continuity between place-based affinity networks and online affinity networks in that both support learning and participation that is centered on the pursuit of interests. What differentiates online affinity networks from the hobby and sports groups in a young person’s local community is that the infrastructure centers on online space and infrastructure, rather than on brick-and-mortar organizations and settings. Although most hobby and interest groups now have some mix of online and place-based presence, online affinity networks are distinguished in their primary reliance on online infrastructure. We have identified three common features that characterize online affinity networks, which we elaborate on in this section:
1 The network is specialized. It is centered on a specific affinity or interest, rather than being layered with other forms of affiliation. Organizations such as schools and workplaces can support affiliation based on specialized interests, but other affiliations and agendas come into play. In schools, teens negotiate romantic and peer relationships and academic competition, as well as pursuing specialized interests. By contrast, in online affinity networks their status centers on knowledge, expertise, and contribution to the interest area.
2 Involvement is intentional. It is a voluntary “chosen” affiliation, and not part of a formal professional, school, or governmental affiliation. While some online affinity networks may have formal markers of membership and leadership, contributions and involvement are driven by personal interest and choice. Participants move more fluidly in and out of engagement than in more formal organizations that directly determine young people’s academic and economic success.
3 Content sharing and communication take place on openly networked online platforms. At least some dimension of every online affinity network is discoverable on the “open” internet, without the gatekeeping of a financial transaction or formal institutional membership. Further, online affinity networks make use of digitally networked infrastructures that allow for broader visibility and access than place-based forms of communication.
Relationships in online affinity networks are by definition specialized in that they are centered on a particular identity or interest. They differ from the more multilayered relationships that young people navigate at home, in school, and in local activities. They are likely to encounter their families and school friends in multiple settings that can vary from social hanging out to more specialized kinds of pursuits such as athletics. By contrast, online affinity networks are structured around particular niche pursuits, whether that is modding in StarCraft or knitting items related to Harry Potter. Further, the way people achieve status and recognition in online affinity networks is highly targeted to engagement in a specific area of interest, rather than to other factors such as “real-world” popularity and attractiveness or the ability to garner attention online in a generic way. In other words, online affinity networks are unique in being optimized around a particular affinity and related pursuits. The groups we have studied are particularly distinctive in valuing niche forms of expertise. Harry Potter fans gain status through the knowledge of the extensive lore and trivia around the series, and StarCraft players win recognition by working their way up the competitive rankings of a challenging game. The workings of status and reputation systems in online affinity networks are the focus of the next chapter.
The other important dimension of these relationships is that they are intentional—young people make conscious choices to connect and maintain connection, unlike relationships they are born into or relationships that are sustained as part of a job or at school, or for instrumental reasons. With this intentional quality comes a sense of authenticity as well as ephemerality in that it is easy to disconnect when an interest wanes or other responsibilities crowd out discretionary time. Online affinity networks do not have the layered and resilient characteristics of relationships embedded in schools and other community institutions, but in exchange, they are also free from the status hierarchies that characterize these social networks for teens. Young people describe how they go online to play games and connect with fandoms without having to worry about issues of status, popularity, and the heterosexual marketplace that are omnipresent in their face-to-face networks. For those who might feel stigmatized by displaying their creative, fannish, or nerdy interests to their friends at school, online affinity networks represent an opportunity to geek out with people who share their passions and support their learning (see, for example, figure 2.1). Status and reputation in online affinity networks can be just as exclusionary and unforgiving as in the high school cafeteria, but they are centered on a chosen set of affiliations and are easier to escape.
Figure 2.1. A meme circulated on Tumblr (absentimental.tumblr.com).
With the intentional and targeted nature of online affinity networks comes certain risks. Although we focus on groups with positive social values, other groups can reinforce problematic perspectives and pursuits. What we see as positive “geeking out” can pivot to a negative form of extremism, with peers reinforcing niche views without the checks and balances that come from family, local community, and those with different interests and affinities. We recognize these risks, and we focus on the features of prosocial and learning-oriented online affinity networks in an effort to highlight and advocate