Selfies and videos of teenagers: The role of gender, territory, and sociocultural level
Abstract
Social networks integrate adolescent daily life by configuring modes of socialisation, negotiation and self-representation through different practices that operate as subjectivation resources and condition the gender experience. The objective of this study is to explore the production of selfies and videos among adolescents from Puebla (Mexico) and Galicia (Spain) from a gender, territorial, and sociocultural perspective. A survey study was carried out using an online questionnaire designed ad hoc and applied to 6,654 adolescents (14-17 years), with different gender identities, from public secondary schools in Puebla and Galicia. The results show that the selfie is a more widespread practice among adolescents than video, with revealing differences in its production. Similarities are evident in the level of preparation and the motivations that lead to these practices. Gender differences are found in their production in terms of intentions, materialities, and body expression. The family’s sociocultural level and the territory are visualised as realities that affect the production of these practices. The conclusions point to a transition of knowledge and meanings between the selfie and video and the relevance of analysing gender experience on social networks in light of the forms of power they exercise there.
Keywords
Gender, practices, adolescence, social media, selfie, video
Palabras clave
Género, prácticas, adolescencia, redes sociales, selfi, vídeo
Resumen
Las redes sociales integran la cotidianidad adolescente, al configurar modos de socialización, negociación y representación de sí a través de distintas prácticas que operan como recursos de subjetivación y condicionan la experiencia de género. El objetivo de este estudio es explorar la producción de selfis y clips de vídeo entre adolescentes de Puebla (México) y Galicia (España) desde una perspectiva de género, territorio y nivel sociocultural. Se desarrolla un estudio de encuesta mediante un cuestionario online diseñado ad hoc y aplicado a 6.654 adolescentes (14-17 años), con distintas identidades de género, de centros públicos de Educación Secundaria en Puebla y Galicia. Los resultados muestran que el selfi es una práctica más extendida entre adolescentes que el clip de vídeo, con diferencias reveladoras en su producción. Se evidencian similitudes en el nivel de preparación y las motivaciones que conducen a estas prácticas. Se encuentran diferencias de género en su producción en cuanto a intenciones, materialidades y expresión corporal. El nivel sociocultural familiar y el territorio se visualizan como realidades que inciden en las formas de producción de estas prácticas. Las conclusiones apuntan al tránsito de saberes y significados entre el selfi y el clip de vídeo y a la relevancia de analizar la experiencia de género en redes sociales a la luz de las formas de poder que allí ejercen.
Keywords
Gender, practices, adolescence, social media, selfie, video
Palabras clave
Género, prácticas, adolescencia, redes sociales, selfi, vídeo
Introduction and state of the art
In the platform society (Van-Dijck et al., 2018), digital environments are visualised as hybrid social constructions (Latour, 2008) for social interaction and practices. Practices are understood as activities structured and guided by the know-how, the attributed meanings and the materialities they are produced with (Bourdieu, 1991; Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki et al., 2001). These enable the execution of a human action (Schatzki et al., 2001), while shaping the fabric of societies at the same time. Hence, platforms are inscribed on human nature and embody policies, norms, and values (Srnicek, 2018), which (from their architectures) involve, propose and stimulate one practice or another for the benefit of interests that operate at different levels (Van-Dijck et al., 2018). In this framework, opportunities for anonymity (Fumero & Espiritusanto, 2012), viralisation (Jacquier, 2019), fame (Echeburúa & de-Corral, 2010) and speed of response, among others, shape modes of relationship in adolescence.
Under this approach, people (particularly the youngest) constitute themselves as subjects through practice, by negotiating and incorporating power-knowledge relations (Foucault, 1980). The possibility of negotiating a self-presentation in connection with others and the way in which people show themselves publicly are “signs of identity”; surfing the net and having an extended network helps them validate the identities presented. Profiles (boyd & Ellison, 2007), selfies, or emerging forms of self-representation, which take this concept and transform it according to the new material possibilities, such as videos (reels and TikTok videos), are examples of this. Accordingly, studies such as those carried out by Ayerbe & Cuenca (2019) and Oberst et al. (2016) relate play, experimentation, communication, and self-representation in these environments with the construction of their identities.
These are sites that mould our way of being with others, in a “connected society” (Van-Dijck, 2016), and are presented in a controversial fashion. On the one hand, as mercantilistic discursive machines, which are vehicles for power devices (Papacharissi, 2009) and stimulate subjects’ behaviour towards homogeneous codes of being, doing, and self-representation. And, on the other hand, as an opportunity to negotiate the knowledge and meanings, that are faced by power relations in a global manner. This controversy surfaces on social networks through the performance and evolution of the sex-gender device, understood as the regulating (De-Lauretis, 1989) and colonial (Connel & Pearse, 2018) fiction that links technologies of the self (Amigot & Pujal, 2009) operating in the processes of power and knowledge of the fact of becoming a subject, from the system of sex, race, and socioeconomic class. Social network sites have been used to socialise and disseminate gender roles considered traditional and non-traditional, as well as an arena of expression of equality and difference.
On the one hand, there is a mercantilisation of gender discourses (Banet-Weiser, 2018), which favours the perpetuation and reproduction of power-knowledge relations under the perception of social transformation. In this sense, several studies point to the perpetuation of gender stereotypes and substantial differences in the expression of identity. Dhir et al. (2016) and Rodríguez-Illera et al. (2021) indicate that adolescent girls take more selfies than boys, with increased pressure regarding what to show and how to show it (Martínez-Valerio, 2013), in addition to an increased relevance of beauty (Gómez-Urrutia & Jiménez-Figueroa, 2022), body exposure (Camacho-Miñano et al., 2019), and even the reification of the body (Vera-Balanza et al., 2020). Less is known about videos, regarding which Suárez-Álvarez & García-Jimenez (2021) indicate that there are no significant gender differences in the type of content created, although they suggest significant differences in the production of girls and boys. The proximity of the findings linked to the two forms of production suggests a possible transition from the selfie to video. Therefore, it is hypothesised that this displacement does not start from zero but could be mobilising a negotiation of knowledge and meanings, which were already operating in the selfie, with the new material opportunities of platforms in relation to video – an expression of the recursive nature of this practice (Reckwitz, 2002).
While fewer research studies have broken the cisgender woman-man binomial, studies such as those carried out by Vivienne (2017) or Duguay (2016) point to the normalising imposition of the selfie culture around the body, beauty, and cis-heteronormative aesthetic sense versus the discursive opportunities that the LGBTI community finds in video (Vine). Other studies, such as the one carried out by Jenzen (2022), suggest differences in the meanings attributed to the selfie and other practices in digital environments by people from the LGBTI community. Along these lines, few studies have analysed the role of race or the family’s sociocultural capital, which appear as relevant characteristics in studies on the digital gap (Gewerc et al., 2017; Dussel, 2011). However, Bucknell-Bossen and Kottasz (2020) point out the importance given by young girls and boys to the creation of this type of production in the construction of their identities. The role of Instagram (Camacho-Miñano et al., 2019; Del-Moral-Pérez et al., 2021) stands out, following the logics of monopolisation favoured by platform structures (Srnicek, 2018). In these unequal architectures and practices, young people with dissident gender identities, male and female, from different territories, races, and socioeconomic classes, mobilise unequal learning (Miño-Puigcercós et al., 2019), agency and representation (Vera-Balanza et al., 2020) opportunities.
In addition, other studies suggest opportunities to experience gender outside the normative sex-gender binomial (Wargo, 2015); the proliferation of debates around gender, sexuality, race, and class as political categories; the shaping of communities (Wargo, 2015) or association movements and vindication (Walker & Laughter, 2019) – lines of flight (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980) that show the opportunities for fight and transformation around the predominant power-knowledge.
In this sense, the controversy is expounded as the operating simplification of a complex rhizomatic network (Deleuze & Guattari, 1980), in which devices, discourses, artefacts, and subjects interact and are transformed through social practice, constantly generating new opportunities and risks for gender equity. The social practice approach (with only a few studies dealing with gender knowledge in selfie and video production) provides an opportunity to explore in depth how these forms of social production and the marks of normative and dissident gender are characterised in this transformation, and how education can tackle the representation practices that emerges in living environments. Along these lines, this study is based on practice theory, following the work of Schatzki et al. (2001) and Bourdieu (1991), and identifies four dimensions that are specified as follows: (a) materialities: devices, platforms, frequency of use and frequency of production; (b) meaning: identification of the practice, value, expectations, and the affective motivational component; (c) know-how: operational, informational, creative, and social, and (d) production conditions. This study is presented as an initial approach to this problem and pursues the following objectives:
-
To explore the characteristics of the production of selfies and videos by adolescents from Puebla and Galicia.
-
To identify potential differences in these forms of self-representation according to sex/gender identity, territory, and sociocultural level.
-
To analyse the potential transfer of knowledge and meanings from the selfie to video.
This study contributes to an understanding of the practices that integrate the sociocultural reality of contemporary adolescents according to gender, territory, and sociocultural level, offering a view that provides a broad look at gender experimentation by young people in relation to these digital practices.
Materials and methods
This study is part of the research project “Entornos digitales e identidades de género en la adolescencia” (Digital Environments and Gender Identities in Adolescence, EDIGA) (PID2019-108221RB-I00). According to the objectives, the survey method was used by applying an online questionnaire designed ad hoc. Questions regarding selfie-taking and video-recording activities, both of which are closely linked to self-representation through body image, were taken into account.
Participants
The study was carried out in the Autonomous Community of Galicia, Spain, and in the state of Puebla, Mexico, through public secondary schools in the two regions. The participants were selected according to the population density of the areas in which they were located, through proportional stratified cluster sampling.
The sample was composed of 6,654 adolescents, including 1,020 residents of Galicia and 5,634 residents of Puebla. Most informants were 14 to 17 years old, with a mean age of 15.6 years. More than a half of the sample was composed of cis women (52.1%), followed by cis men (39.6%) and transgender people (8.3%) who identified themselves as being of the gender binomial, fluid gender, non-binary, or other identities that did not add up to sufficient statistical representativeness and were grouped as “other” identities dissenting from the hegemonic norm (Table 1).
Tool
An ad hoc online questionnaire was designed on the platform Survio, with 71 questions distributed in six sections: two general questions – “(I) Sociodemographic questions” and “(II) Use of social networks” – and four specific questions, relating to the main activities carried out by young girls and boys on the digital platforms identified in the literature (Boczkowski et al., 2018) – “(III) Media profile configuration”, “(IV) Selfies”, “(V) Meme creation” and “(VI) Videos”. The construction of this tool (Padilla, 2002) took place as follows:
-
Definition of the construct based on the social practice paradigm (Bourdieu, 1991; Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki et al., 2001).
-
Delimitation of dimensions, following the theoretical framework: (a) materialities; (b) meaning attributed to the practice in the context in which it is framed and the subject’s motivation; (c) knowledge that operationalises the practice (technical, theoretical, and contextual), and (d) production conditions (Bourdieu, 1991; Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki et al., 2001).
-
Elaboration of indicators for each of the dimensions.
-
Drafting of questions for each indicator (scale, multiple-choice and dichotomous questions). The drafting of the tool was adapted to each country according to the language and sociocultural characteristics of each of them.
To ensure the validity of the tool (Taherdoost, 2016), expert judgement was obtained according to the literature on the issue (Escobar-Pérez & Cuervo-Martínez, 2008), with six specialists in educational technology, social research methodology and gender identity. The review allowed us to include new answer options and improve and adapt the wording and language.
Next, a pilot study was carried out with 46 adolescents from Galicia and Puebla with similar characteristics to those of the study population. As a result, other answer categories were included, and attitudinal items were added. The final version was applied in the selected schools in the year 21-22. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Santiago de Compostela (registration code: USC-01-2022). The subjects freely agreed to participate after being informed on the contents, purpose, and authorship of the study, and in no case were they forced to answer personal or delicate questions, especially those related to gender. Their legal tutors were also informed by the school and their authorisation was requested when the school deemed it appropriate.
Data analysis
The data collected were analysed using the software IBM SPSS Statistics 25. Previously, three new variables were created from the items of the tool:
-
Employment and educational status of the families (as indicator of their sociocultural level). Created from the items related to the tutors’ employment status (“In paid employment”, “Without paid employment” or “I do not know”) and the level of education of each of them (following ISCED 2011). This resulted in a variable with five values that were classified from a very favourable level (both tutors work and have an ISCED 5 level of education) to a very unfavourable level (both tutors are without paid employment and with an ISCED 1 or 2 level), with intermediate favourable, medium, and unfavourable levels.
-
Level of preparation to take selfies. Made up by the sum of the score of the following items: “I prepare what is going to appear in the background of the photograph”, “I put on special clothes”, “I style my hair”, “I try different angles and body poses” and “I try different filters”; a total of ten (as each item was asked about for selfies alone and selfies with friends), measured on a scale of 0 (never) to 3 (always), so that the total variable has a range of 0 to 30. A higher score in the resulting summation variable means a higher level of preparation of the practice. The resulting variable has been recodified in five values: very low, low, medium, high, and very high.
-
Level of preparation to record videos. A variable made up by the following items: “I carefully choose where to record”, “I set up a scenography”, “I put on special clothes”, “I style my hair”, “I try different angles and poses”, “I try different filters”, “I rehearse” and “I prepare this thinking about who is going to see it”. This variable was calculated from the sum of the values of these variables measured on a scale of 0 (never) to 3 (always), so its range is 0-24. A higher score in the resulting summation variable means a higher level of preparation of the practice. The resulting variable has been recodified in five values: very low, low, medium, high and very high.
Univariate descriptive analyses (frequencies, percentages, measures of central tendency, and measures of dispersion) were carried out for the whole of the sample and for each of the subsamples according to territory, the main variables related to taking selfies and making videos (level of preparation, frequency of edition, personal attributes projected, and selfie-editing tips) in order to characterise the practice in the two sociocultural contexts.
A chi-squared test (significance level of 0.05) was used to find out whether there was a significant relationship between the performance of the activities analysed (selfies and videos) and the variables of territory, gender, employment, and educational status, as well as between the number of previous selfies and gender, and between the possible motivations and gender. A chi-squared test was also used to find out about the potential association between the motivations to take selfies and the motivations to record videos. The effect size was calculated by applying Cramér’s V, following the proposal of Rea & Parker (2014).
The Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test was used to compare potential differences between genders in the level of preparation of selfies and videos ( <0.05), as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was significant (with values between =0.013 and =0.00), and the overall effect size was assessed with the E² statistic. Between-group comparison with Bonferroni correction was applied and the effect size was calculated according to the r statistic (Tomczak & Tomczak, 2014). To know the possible association between the level of preparation of selfies and videos, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was calculated, and Cohen et al. (2011) was used as a reference for its interpretation.
Results
We will first present a general approach to selfie and video practices, according to the material preferences and frequency of production of the sample, for the three objectives of the study. Next, we will present each of the practices, paying attention to their characterisation and differences by gender, territory, employment, and educational status. To conclude, we will point out the synergies found between the two practices.
The results show that the platforms most widely used by contemporary adolescents are mainly Facebook (44.2%), Instagram (37.6%) and TikTok (38.3%). With regard to production practices, selfies are more popular, as 71.4% of the young girls and boys surveyed state that they take selfies, compared to 19.7% for those who participate in the creation of videos.
With regard to the second objective, it can be seen that adolescents of other genders are more inclined to use TikTok (42.3%), compared to cis women (38.2%) and cis men (36.2%). The same is true for alternative and less popular platforms among this age group, such as Reddit (36.4%) or Twitter (32%). These are spaces where cis women (30.2%; 32%) and cis men (27.8%; 28.9%) are less present. The latter participate notably in streaming platforms such as Discord (31%) or Twitch (29.5%), less inhabited by people of other genders (24%; 28.6%) and cis women (28.5%; 27%). Cisgender female adolescents stand out on Instagram (38.2%), also popular among cis boys (36.2%) and people of other genders (34%).
Cisgender women and gender-dissident people show a higher participation rate than cis men in both activities, both in Puebla and in Galicia (Table 2). However, there are substantial territorial differences: young cis Mexicans take more selfies than young cis Spaniards, and video recording proves to be a more popular trend in Spain. The percentage of cis men who record themselves is 2.4 times higher in Galicia than in Puebla, 3.6 times higher in the case of cis women, and 2.9 times higher among other genders.
In spite of the popularity of videos among Galician adolescents, TikTok, a platform based on this type of production, is more widespread in Puebla (39.9%) than in Galicia (31%). However, Instagram, which enables self-presentation through both practices, is the leader in Galicia (44.8%) and less prominent in the Latin American state (24.7%). There, Facebook remains the main platform (45%), while it is barely relevant in Galicia (20.7%).
The family’s employment and educational status is not related to the production of selfies by young girls and boys (χ2=2.75; =0.6). However, video production is significantly higher among young people with favourable or very favourable employment and educational status (25.7% and 26.1%, respectively, compared to 12.9% and 17.2% in unfavourable and very unfavourable cases [χ2=79.47; <0.001; V=0.125]). Along these lines and as detailed below, the practices linked to selfies and videos show similar tendencies, but some differences are identified in their characterisation which are related to gender, the geographic context, and the family’s employment and educational status.
Selfies
Selfies are characterised by a casual approach, as the level of preparation among the subjects surveyed tends to be medium-low (62.7%). These values contrast with the number of selfies taken before sharing the production: 46.6% of the respondents take more than five selfies before sharing one on their profiles, and 10.2% even take more than 20. There are nuances between individual practice, which is slightly more planned (29% show a high or very high level of preparation), and spontaneous group practice, which is less premeditated (22.74%) and for recreational purposes. The preparation to take selfies focuses on the previous rehearsal of angles and poses (51.9% practise their selfies always or quite often). On the contrary, filters are rarely used by 56% of the sample; these people state that they aim its use at improving their photographs (52.5%), looking more attractive (24.4%) and having fun (20.6%). This tendency extends to the use of editing: 56% of the respondents’ state that they rarely edit their selfies and only 10.5% (in the two regions) make intensive use of these technologies.
With regard to the personal attributes they intend to convey, looking attractive (70.1%), looking formal (64.1%), and looking elegant (55.7%) stand out in individual practice. However, in group practices (although physical appearance still carries a certain weight in selfie production) the importance of intrinsic characteristics such as being funny (55.1%) and friendly (45.3%) is increased. In tune with this, the intentionality of the practice is focused on showing oneself (56.4%), followed by the search for social approval through likes (36.2%). The suggestions to produce a good selfie focus mainly on selecting the background of the image well (68.6%) and using a subtle filter (56.1%), compared to using filters that alter facial features (29.4%) or not using filters at all (37.3%).
The production is higher among cis women, which are a group that shows less inequality between Puebla and Galicia (Table 2). The number of selfies taken before they are posted is minimally associated with gender (χ2=32.46; =0.000; V=0.06); while 44.7% of cis women and 50.2% of transgender young people take more than five photos, 70.3% of cisgender boys take between one and five. This might indicate some gender influence on selfie creation (objective 2). Some differences are also seen in the relevance given to having fun as motivation to edit their production in the case of group selfies (χ2=83; =0.000; V=0.14), which is more important for girls (67.5%, compared to 60.1% of transgender young people and 52.4% of cis boys). The same applies to the intention to enhance one’s physical appearance, as in the case of selfies in which they are alone (χ2=73.8; =0.000; V=0.14), cisgender women stand out (82.8% of them point this out), followed by other genders (77.2%) and, lastly, cis men (70.7%).
No differences are found between cisgender girls and boys in terms of personal attributes they intend to convey in their individual selfies. Both groups choose characteristics linked to attractiveness (good-looking in the first place, followed by formal and elegant). The people of other genders choose “friendly” in the second place (between formal, first, and good-looking, third) (60.4% versus 52.6% among cis men and 55.7% among cis women) (χ2=27.36; <0.001; V=0.082) and are more in favour of choosing intrinsic characteristics, such as looking adorable (57.9% versus 41.4% among cis men and 55.7% among cis women) (selfies alone: χ2=74.32; <0.001; V=0.135).
Regarding tips to take selfies in which they are alone, there is a notable difference between cisgender and transgender people when it comes to asserting their sexual orientation (32.6%) and gender identity (41.1%) through selfies (compared to 23% and 28.5% of cis women and 15.2% and 21.1% of cis men) (χ2=57.26; <0.001; V=0.12; χ2=57.67; <0.001; V=0.12). Depending on the geographic context, the difference in the level of preparation is clear and progressive (Figure 1).
The subjects with a low or very low level of selfie preparation are more common among the Galician population (more polarised). However, the difference between Puebla and Galicia decreases as the level of preparation increases. The behaviour of transgender people is similar: in Galicia, the percentage of non-cisgender people who spend very little time on that is clearly higher, while the percentages in the brackets with the highest levels of preparation are practically the same in the two regions.
The differences between genders in the frequency of edition according to territory are significant among cisgender people. In all cases, the percentage of young Galicians who never use edition formulas is higher (18.3% versus 8.4% in Puebla), and more accentuated among cis men (28.2% in Galicia versus 16.3% in Puebla).
Regarding the family’s employment and educational status, it can be seen that in the most extreme situations of the scale (“Very unfavourable”, “Favourable” and “Very favourable”) the tendency is towards greater preparation among young people from Puebla (27.3%, 31.1% and 29.4%, respectively, show high or very high preparation). In Galicia, on the contrary, this situation occurs in the middle strata (“Medium” and “Unfavourable”) (33.3% and 30.8%, respectively, show high or very high preparation).
This variable shows a weak association with the frequency of selfie edition in the case of Galicia (χ2=26.70; <0.009; V=0.13). In general, the attitudes in Galicia seem to be more extreme: except for the families in an unfavourable situation, the people who never edit their selfies are more common in this territory, and those who do this quite often or always are a notably larger group, except for those who are in a very unfavourable situation (Figure 2).
Videos
Video recording – which is a less widespread practice (19.7%) – is characterised by a higher level of in advance preparation than selfies. In comparison, this practice shows a lower number of recording attempts before the production is shared: 70.7% make one to five attempts, and only 3.9% make more than 20.
The forms of preparation of this practice consist in trying different angles and poses (which 50.7% of these young people always or almost always do) and filters, which are commonly used (always or almost always) by 47.6%. Their intentionality is focused on entertainment (59.7%) to the detriment of the search for social approval through reactions from their audience (20.2%). Along these lines, dancing (65.1%) is the most popular type of video, followed by humour (15.7%) and transitions (15.4%). In contrast with selfie production, young people’s suggestions are mainly fun-oriented (54.6%). The choice of music (47%), the background (41%), monitoring trends in video (23.4%) and clothes (30%) come next.
In relation to the second objective of this study, significant differences can be seen in the level of preparation for video production (Figure 3) between men and women (p=0.001; r=0.22) and between men and other genders (p=0.003, r=0.19). However, there are no differences between cisgender women and transgender people (p=0.43; r=0.03), who show higher levels of preparation.
A significant association is seen between body representation on video and gender (χ2=101.5; <0.001; V=0.23). The majority tendency is never to try to highlight any parts of one’s body, whether one seeks to show it or not. It is seen that cisgender girls tend to highlight parts of their bodies on occasion (54.2%), especially at the same time as they try to avoid showing others (77.9%). Trans people, for their part, also tend to hide some parts of their bodies (60%), while cis youth show less concern about both showing parts of their bodies (33.9%) and hiding them (52.3%). Along these lines, the use of filters is more common among transgender people (56.3%), followed by cis women (50.1%), compared to a low percentage of cisgender boys (34.7%). A similar behaviour is found in relation to rehearsing poses and angles, which is common among 52.3% of trans people and 54.9% of cis women, but recurrent for only 33.6% of cisgender boys.
In terms of intentionality that guides the production of this practice, cis women attach great importance to showing themselves (30.8% versus 26% of cis men and 27.3% of other genders), in contrast to people of other genders, who are more concerned about communicating with their followers (11.4%) or meeting people (18.2%). The search for likes through these types of production is more common among cisgender boys (25.4%), followed by cisgender girls (20.6%), and is noticeably lower among trans youth (15.9%).
Regarding contents, cisgender men prefer to record humorous videos, whether they are funny scenes (20.9%) or jokes (23.8%), as well as challenges (16.2%) or produce content where they can show their skills (12.8%). By contrast, cisgender girls and transgender youth opt for musical staging and dancing (28.5% and 75.2% of girls and 29.6% and 58% of transgender people, respectively).
Placing the focus on territory, the tendencies related to video recording differ, to a certain extent, from those described for selfies. Young people from Puebla show a greater level of preparation (high or very high) than Galician youth in the groups of other genders (30.3% versus 18.2%) and cisgender men (21.3% versus 11.9%). Cis women show a greater level of preparation in Galicia (18.4% versus 14.5%).
In Puebla, those who never try to highlight any parts of their body (Figure 4), in combination both with always avoiding showing them and with never doing this, stand out (74.8% and 77.7%). In Galicia, the highest percentages are found in intermediate situations, such as “Often avoids showing, rarely tries to highlight” or “Often avoids showing, often tries to highlight” (51.3% and 35.1%). In contrast, young people in Puebla rehearse different angles and poses (53.4%) and use filters (52.7%) to a greater extent than young Galicians (46.4% and 39.6%, respectively).
All types of videos have been seen to be more popular in Galicia than in Puebla. In Galicia, young people seek more intensely to obtain likes (22.4%), meet new people (16.4%) and flirt (11.2%), all of which is hardly relevant among adolescents from Puebla (18.7%, 10.8% and 6.2%, respectively). Young girls and boys from Puebla are more oriented towards the exhibition of skills (30.9%) and the aspiration of being influencers (17.2%), a wish that is less widespread among young boys and girls from Galicia (20.3% and 7%, respectively).
Regarding the family’s employment and educational status, it can be seen that in advance preparation to record videos is associated with better employment and education conditions and works differently in Puebla and in Galicia. In cases of favourable or very favourable status, young boys and girls from Puebla tend to show a significantly higher level of in advance preparation for the practice. In the case of Galicia, on the contrary, the subjects with medium and low family employment and educational status show a higher level of preparation. Very low preparation percentages reach 21.6% and 16.7% in Galicia, respectively, and 7.7% and 8.8% in Puebla.
The way of presenting one’s body is also associated with employment and educational status in cases of medium capital. The percentage of young people from Puebla who indicate “Always avoids showing” is higher in households of good status. In addition, except in the case of medium-capital households, the answer “Never avoids showing” is always more common in Galicia in all other family situations.
Selfie-video relationship
Concerning the third objective, an important relationship can be seen between the level of preparation to produce selfies, both alone and accompanied by others, and the level of preparation to record videos (correlation of r=0.64 for individual selfies and r=0.60 for group selfies). This correlation is greater for the subjects of other genders (r=0.78 and r=0.55, compared to cisgender women: r=0.66, r=0.62, and cisgender men: r=0.65, r=0.62) and slightly higher in Galicia (r=0.66; r=0.66) than in Puebla (r=0.64; r=0.54).
At the same time, there are similarities in the motivations to produce group videos and selfies, specifically when the subjects are happy (χ2=109.46; <0.001, V=0.30), feel that they look good (χ2=99.57; <0.001, V=0.29) or are sad (χ2=50.80; <0.001, V=0.21), or when something funny happens (χ2=162; <0.001; V=0.37). This association does not occur in the case of individual selfies.
Discussion and conclusions
The findings of this study reveal the potential of the social practice approach (Bourdieu, 1991; Reckwitz, 2002; Schatzki et al., 2001) to expand the characterisation of selfie and video production that is present in the literature (Camacho-Miñano et al., 2019; Gómez-Urrutia & Jiménez-Figueroa, 2022; Martínez-Valerio, 2013; Rodríguez-Illera et al., 2021). This perspective has also allowed us to detect transition trends in knowledge and meanings between different representation practices and to identify gender marks (in the practices and in academic literature).
The imprint of the architecture of the platforms where the practice originates and takes place becomes apparent (Van-Dijck et al., 2018) (objectives 1 and 3). In Galicia, young people experiment with selfie and video creation on Instagram, whose architectures favour the coexistence of both forms of creation, compared to Puebla, where the prevalence of Facebook might impose the selfie to a greater extent. In both cases, the popularity of TikTok, together with the changes undertaken by Facebook in its structures for the benefit of videos as a strategy for its perpetuation (Srnicek, 2018), suggests a prompt increase in other forms of selfies in motion (Rodríguez-Illera et al., 2021) or different types of videos.
Along these lines, the results of the study reveal that, although there are substantial differences in the characterisation of selfie and video production, there is a recursive transition between the two practices (Reckwitz, 2002), as was hypothesised in the introduction of this study. The trends in in-advance preparation to produce selfies and the motivations for creating group selfies are significantly related to those seen in video production, which is less often practised but shows higher levels of preparation and similar motivations. This reveals a flow of practices grounded in the production of selfies that transits through the dialogue between meanings, knowledge and the material transformation of the artefacts and their structures (Van-Dijck et al., 2018) towards forms of representation on video.
Identifying this flow allows us to deal with video production from an analysis of the academic journey of selfies as an object of study, i.e. an exploration of the social gaps underlying the material access to selfies (to their potentialities and risks as a subjectivation practice in a power-knowledge system) in video production practices. Along these lines, the data show that selfies are explored to a greater extent by the highest socioeconomic strata in Puebla and by middle socioeconomic strata in Galicia, with these preparing the practice more. This trend evolves towards videos (which are less popular) in a different way in the two territories. On the one hand, in Puebla, the study reveals the vulnerability of young girls and boys in unfavourable socioeconomic situations to access forms of expression through video. This is in line with the critical voices on digital and media literacy that point out the higher vulnerability of these groups to the digital gap (Dussel, 2011). On the other hand, the opposite move can be seen in Galicia: a displacement of the practice and its preparation towards the most disadvantaged strata. This reality has already been echoed by research studies on digital literacy in Spain, which suggest greater control of upper social strata families over this type of uses (including their prohibition), compared to the unlimited, uncontrolled material access of disadvantaged strata (Gewerc et al., 2017).
In relation to the second objective, the results reaffirm young girls as main producers of selfies and videos compared to boys (Dhir et al., 2016; Rodríguez-Illera et al., 2021), with pressures operating around the body and beauty (Gómez-Urrutia & Jiménez-Figueroa, 2022). However, when adopting the social practice approach and expanding the cisgender binomial in favour of the transgender population, which has been excluded from these studies, a more complex reality is revealed which could account for an androcentric, cis-normative perspective – or, in other words, the operating power and knowledge relations – also in scientific production.
This complexity becomes apparent with the materialities that operate in selfie and video production practices. It is revealed that young girls access the common space to a greater extent (mainly Instagram, Facebook and TikTok), whereas transgender people and cisgender boys access these and other alternative spaces, such as Reddit and Twitter for the former and Twitch or Discord for the latter. Consequently, cis boys and people of other genders have a broader material network. This might imply, on the one hand, the coexistence with different forms of production stimulated by the architectures of these spaces (Van-Dijck et al., 2018) and, on the other hand, greater material opportunities for negotiation of representation practices. The homogenising tendency seems to fall heavily on cisgender girls, who produce to a greater extent, under the logics of preparation, body representation and editing stimulated by platforms where selfies and videos prevail.
Regarding the forms of selfie and video production, t the differentiation of cisgender boys from the forms of practice of cis girls and transgender youth emerges. It is cisgender boys who break away from the usual platform-stimulated behaviour to respond to the standard of masculinity. They focus to a greater extent on the projection of their worth and the search for recognition, expressing a low concern for practice preparation and body exposure (Camacho-Miñano et al., 2019) that contrasts with the wish to look elegant and attractive.
Although transgender people and cisgender girls tend to engage in these practices in similar ways, different meanings are revealed which are reflected in the tips given for such practices and operate in body exposure and posture rehearsal, without necessarily including reification. Along these lines, trans people identify in selfies and videos an opportunity to vindicate their sexual and gender identities (Jenzen, 2022; Wargo, 2015), recommending their expression in the practice. This is a meaning that is attributed less as gender is experienced from within the norm or privilege (Son, 2017) (cisgender girls and, even less, cis boys). In terms of body exposure, the focus is on concealment rather than display, an issue that is even more pronounced in transgender people, who also make greater use of filters. At the same time, cisgender girls and especially people of other genders pursue the expression of intrinsic qualities such as friendliness to a greater extent than cisgender youth in their productions.
While these issues coexist with self-reification without denying it, they reflect the regulating violence on the bodies of transgender identities and cisgender girls (Duguay, 2016). At the same time, this might be suggesting an androcentric reading by academia of adolescent girls’ behaviour in these spaces, always interpreted as forms of self-reification, without noticing a potential representation of the body that, in a complex fashion, comes in response to the regulating power over the body and ignoring greater attention to motivations and intrinsic qualities.
All this reveals gender identity and its representation in digital environments as a complex experience, given the power-knowledge relations that operate in societies, and this experience cannot be reduced to one single sociodemographic variable. Digital platforms, as structures that reproduce these power relations (Van-Dijck et al., 2018), possess lines of flight that are explored by adolescents for the vindication of their identities, self-protection against body-normalising violence or the creation of links with their peers. These forms of resistance are not accessible by all, are cut across by territory, employment, and educational status, and are strongly revealed in emerging practices, outlining an agenda of unmet challenges in the educational and regulatory field. (1)