Senft & Noble’s Race and Social Media discusses social media as a current axes of oppression against race, gender, and class. Something not quite related to “online life” but was in fact mentioned and I think is critically important to the discussion of this class in general is “neoliberal notions of individualism” (8). The dictionary defines neoliberal; as, “relating to a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism”. I have heard this term before as it relates to multicultural or intersectional feminism. As I understand it, neoliberalism promotes self-reliance and autonomy within capitalism. It is easy here to make the connection between neoliberalism and behaviors that arise with the proliferation of social media outlets. Within neoliberalism, we see ourselves with agency – it is not a far stretch to explain why people do much of what they do online.

Last quarter, I took a different Digital Humanities 150 course called Internet Histories.   At the same time, I was taking Intro to Gender Studies. In the latter class we were discussing neoliberalism as it relates to intersectional feminism; we were challenged to use feminism as the entry point into an interlocking force of an oppressive system. As we tracked the developments of the Internet from its initial “birth” by the U.S. military’s funding, to universities, to the general public via private businesses, I couldn’t say I was exactly surprised by the lack of diversity. Yet, I couldn’t help but feel that there should have been at least some mention about the elephant in the room. In the entire book we read, every single actor in the development of the Internet was a white, educated man (side note: the book was written by a woman). Recalling my frustration with the lack of at least one class discussion about this fact, I couldn’t agree more with what Senft and Noble had to say about the unrealistic ideals of the Internets’ founders. The original fantasy of the Internet – connecting people from disparate locations – was never truly democratic; so it’s unrealistic to say that it 100% could be now.

Another concept Senft and Noble consider is the phenomenon of “racial micro aggression” which they define as “automatic and unconsciously uttered insults and dismissal routinely directed toward people of color” (12). An example of this very real, prominent concept I encounter all the time is this: a white young woman has returned from vacation (somewhere tropical, or at least sunny), caught some sun, and is meeting up with her friend. Her friend exclaims upon their reunion, “Oh my god. You literally (big emphasis here) look black!” I hear this constantly. It has always made me uncomfortable and to be honest, I couldn’t quite put my finger on why until reading Senft and Noble’s discussion of micro racial aggression. It’s not as though the white young woman is throwing out a racial slur, or even consciously trying to insult her friend – in fact, she’s complimenting her appearance. Instead there, the implication of this “compliment” works to enforce “racing” as Senft and Noble put it. Like the authors also argue, the women in this situation do not see themselves as a race – they are “unraced”, “neutral”. Therefore, when the woman’s skin tone deepens from a tan, she resembles this raced other that must be pointed out.