Hyves profile pictures and Gender
Cover picture ‘Jessica’. Photo: http://jessicaloveanoniem.hyves.nl/
Bachelor Thesis by Ninon Vlug
University of Utrecht
Language and Culture Studies (Taal en Cultuur Studies)
Major: Gender in Art and Culture
August 2011
Supervisor: Domitilla Olivieri
Department of Media and Culture Studies
Table of contents
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Chapter I:
The question of objectification in photography and the (western) tradition of
depicting women ......................................................................................................... 4
Chapter II:
Private photography in a historical context ................................................................ 7
Chapter III:
Social Media and the creation of identities................................................................. 9
Introduction – the working of Hyves.nl ............................................................. 9
The role of Hyves in the process of creating identities...................................... 9
Chapter IV:
Hyves and the relation between gender and ethnicity ............................................ 12
Chapter V:
Case study: analysis of Hyves profile pictures .......................................................... 14
Criteria for selection ........................................................................................ 14
In depth analysis of the profile pictures .......................................................... 15
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 18
Literature .......................................................................................................................................... 19
Internet sources ........................................................................................................................ 20
Photographic sources ............................................................................................................... 20
Attachment I – Profile pictures ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.0
Introduction
If someone would ask you for a visual representation of yourself, the first thing that probably crosses
your mind is to give a photo of you– i.e. a photo that shows (parts of) your body. The photo probably
shows your best side according to your taste and ideas of aesthetics. Although the exact criteria for
selecting the picture will vary from person to person, the criteria to for choosing your picture may
have a lot less to do with personal taste than you would think; they are part of a tradition and history
of representation.
With the establishment of the social networking site http://www.hyves.nl in 2004, an interesting
communication medium is born. The networking site is a medium for the Dutch and Flemish speaking
society through which people could create and maintain social relations. Hyves works more or less
the same as the international equivalents of Facebook and MySpace. In general, everyone with
access to the internet can create an account that comes with a profile page: one single web page
where you can show information about yourself and where other people can leave you messages.
You are allowed to upload one photo that appears in the left corner of your profile page, your socalled profile picture.
Since the internet is, in the Netherlands, accessible for everybody it constitutes a big part of the
public space. By uploading a profile picture to your profile you are making this photo visible to a
broader public than just your friends and family. An interesting feature of Hyves is that the medium
seems very democratic; everybody has the power to decide which photograph he or she would like to
publish as a profile picture – with some restrictions of, for example, explicitly pornographic material,
as stated in the user agreement of Hyves. This democratic aspect may contribute to the possibility of
breaking certain traditions and stereotypical ways of representation. In this essay, I will show what
the tradition of representation entails when it comes to representing women and I will give an
answer to the question to what extent the profile pictures in social media could contribute to an
alternative – i.e. different from the stereotypes and tradition – self-representation of women?
My research will be particularly after the representation of women, since they long did not have the
power to represent themselves in the public sphere. When analyzing art history, for example, one
might ask why there are so many portraits (paintings) of women and so little (known) female artists.
Women were merely represented by male artists, and obviously this has (had) its effect on the type
of representation, as I will argue using the (film)theory of Laura Mulvey (1975). Not only the
representation by male artists but also the development of new techniques such as photography, has
had its influence on the types of representation, as I will argue using the theory of Walter Benjamin
(2003). Continuously, I will take a closer look at the construction of identity and the role of
photography and Hyves. Finally, the theoretical part will be applied to the case study, an analysis of
11 profile pictures.
Chapter I:
The question of objectification in photography and the
(western) tradition of depicting women
In this first chapter I will investigate in which ways photography is seen as a means to objectify the
body, using Walter Benjamin’s theory on aura in The work of Art in the Age of Mechanical
Reproduction (1936) and Laura Mulveys article Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (1975).
By creating a work of art, a painting for example, the artist
creates a unique object in time and space. Each work has a
unique, authentic existence and therefore a meaning of its
own. (Benjamin, 2003, p.253) But the work also speaks for the
artist, it could be considered as a form of language. The
painting represents the world as seen by the artist. A painted
self-portrait shows us the way the artist sees him/herself.
Hence, a self-portrait can be a copy of the artist’s visual
appearance but at the same time it can also be a
representation of the artist’s feelings. A clear example is the
self-portrait of the Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh, painted in
1887. The painting is a depiction of the artist, but it is far from
an exact copy of reality. The painting is very expressive, which
is mainly caused by the characteristics of the painting itself,
the brush stroke, the use of colour and the kind of painting
technique. By these specific characteristics, the painting
transmits the feelings and emotions from the artist to the
viewer, although we have to keep in mind the exact meaning is
always subject to interpretation.
Painting I: Vincent van Gogh. Zelfportret
(1887) Oil pain ton cardboard, 19 x 14 cm.
Photo: Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam (F
296)
Even if you have never met the artist and you do not know what he looks like in person you can still
appreciate the work simply because you appreciate the characteristics of the painting itself. (Scruton,
2002, p. 206) These characteristics make the painting a unique object, since there is only one item in
the world that is known as the real painting. Reproductions – like the picture of Van Gogh’s painting I
have used here, may exist but they will always have less value than the original, precisely because
they lack the authenticity of the original painting.
The German intellectual Walter Benjamin explains the concept of authenticity with ‘aura’, which he
explains as follows: “We define the aura of the latter (natural objects) as the unique phenomena of a
distance, however close it may be.” (Benjamin, 2003, p. 255) With natural objects, Benjamin refers to
objects in nature such as a mountain or a tree branch. All these objects naturally come with aura,
because they are unique, there does not exist another entity of the same branch. In other words, the
term aura is an object’s unique presence in time and space.
Further on he states that an (art)photo lacks this authenticity, because a photo does not have an
original version at all. What we call the photo is in fact a copy, since we do not consider the negative
but any print of the negative as the photo. (Benjamin, 2003) A photograph lacks aura, because it is
missing the unique presence in time and space, i.e. it is missing an essence.
We are not looking at the photo itself, but instead we are looking straight through it, to the topic of
the photo. This is a thought that also the British philosopher Roger Scruton defends, by arguing the
following: “If one finds a photograph beautiful, it is because one finds something beautiful in its
subject. A painting may be beautiful, on the other hand, even when it represents an ugly thing.”
(Scruton, 2002, p.206) I would say that when looking at a photo we are looking at nothing more than
a fixed mirror image. We do not appreciate the mirror for what it is, what we value is the reflection
that it shows us.
Maybe the best example is digital photography since it does not even require the use of a negative. I
can see my profile picture on the screen of as many computers as I want but in fact, I will always be
looking at the same picture, or as we can conclude from Benjamin’s (2003) article, “through it”.
What then, is the difference between a self-portrait and a profile picture? Following the line of
Benjamin’s theory, it is possible to argue that a painting can be seen as an extension of the artist’s
subjectivity, precisely because it adds a unique item to his/her existence, while self-representation
through photography does the exact opposite to painting: instead of representing subjects, it
reduces the subjective body to an object. It shows a body in the same manner as it would show any
other thing. Instead of a unique representation, a profile picture is rather an infinite repetition of the
same body (thing). By means of this repetition, the photo is not an extension of the body but it
reduces the real body to a body-to-be-looked-at (Mulvey, 1975).
Although photography may be missing a unique presence, it would be ridiculous to argue that
photographs do not exist. They certainly exist in the visual world and form an important part of the
images we are seeing every day. This daily visibility adds to another aspect of objectification that I
would like to argue using the theory of the English film theorist Laura Mulvey. Her theory is about
cinema, but it can nevertheless easily be applied to photography since in both techniques the
features of reproduction, zoom and framing are essential.
By pressing the shutter of the camera, a small part of reality is
captured and although the camera is an objective thing, the person
who is looking through the lens and pressing the shutter is not
objective at all. The very act of taking a picture is framing, a process
of selection of what is considered important and worth a picture.
The use of zooming even emphasizes this importance more.
The objectification according to Mulvey (1975) is caused by the
reproduction of meanings. With the reproduction of each photo we
create, copy and confirm a set of cultural meanings. This set of
meanings is not arbitrary but political because it involves power
relations.
In the theory of voyeurism as explained by Michelle Helling (2009,
p.179), the viewer has the power over the photograph. Although
Figure I ‘Marilyn Monroe’
the represented person can decide how he/she wants to be shown,
the power of action lies with the one who is looking.
Human photography in its essence can be considered as voyeuristic. The power and hence pleasure
of looking at a photo comes partly from the fact that the person depicted does not know you are
looking at him/her. Even a portrait of someone who does address the camera is intrinsically
voyeuristic because one cannot know who is going to see the photo and what that person is going to
do with it.
Mulvey places this theory in the structure of a patriarchic system. She argues that “in a world of
sexual imbalance, pleasure in looking has been split between active/male and passive/female, (…) in
their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their
appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-belooked-at-ness.” (Mulvey, 1975, p. 11)
Visual images of women are often fragmenting the female body
and emphasize only certain aspects of it, as we can see in the
famous photo of Marilyn Monroe (Figure I). The photo is strongly
framed (zoom), we only see her head, neck and a small part of
the shoulders. The use of light has flattened the skin and the lips
and eyes are strongly accentuated. I would say that these
aspects make the picture very erotic. By looking at the photo one
can feel a strong desire, but what is precisely that what we
desire? It is not the picture itself the spectator longs for, since I
have explained that we are not looking at the photo but in fact,
we are looking straight through it. Neither could the spectator
feel desire for Monroe as a person by looking at this picture, Figure II ‘ Shawtylici0us’
because he/she sees only a fragment of her and it is very likely
that he/she has never seen her in real life. One would desire just the parts of the body that are
visible, the way one could feel a desire for any other random object.
Figure II shows a Hyves profile picture that can be analyzed in the same way as the Monroe photo.
We see the same framed part of the body and a similar accentuation of the eyes and lips as in Figure
I. The photo too transmits a highly erotic message and again we are looking straight through the
picture to some body parts. This picture is highly voyeuristic, following the theory I just explained. By
making this photo her profile picture, she must have been aware of the fact that people that do not
know her in person will be able to see it. Therefore, I would argue, the power was already with the
spectator on the moment the girl made this self-representation. She displays herself in a passive
position, as an object of desire, with which the viewer can do whatever he/she wants.
Chapter II:
Private photography in a historical context
In this chapter I would like to show how photography made subjects “without history”, i.e. minority
groups, visible, despite the intrinsic feature of objectification I have showed in the first chapter.
Before the invention of photography in the mid 19th century, representation was a practice reserved
for (professional) artists, ordinary people were not the ones bothered with representing themselves
or the world around them. The traditional ways to practice representation were through drawing,
painting or sculpturing, all considered serious artistic practices. In its early years, photography was
falling outside the realm of (professional) art because it was considered only as a means to produce
accurate images of the outside world. (Wells and Price, 2009, p. 13) Although not considered art, we
could say that the difficult technique did make photography a professional practice. However, the
technological advances that soon followed made it easier for everybody to make use of a camera and
photography developed its amateur side.
At its beginning, photography took mainly place in the private sphere. The first type of photography,
the daguerreotype, was mainly used for portraits (Wells and Price, 2009, p.50). The early personal
pictures were considered as a non-serious practice without much value for others unknown to the
circle of friends and family. However, in a later stage these photos turned out to be a very important
source of documentation in providing a public voice to many minority groups. (Holland, 2009)
The development of photography cannot be seen apart from social history. It is related to the social
changes of the late 19th and 20th century: the ‘creation’ of leisure time played a big role in the rise of
private photography; people started capturing the activities in their free time, inside and outside
their homes. Photography gave the power to the people to represent themselves and various social
groups started to make themselves visible in the public sphere. Women, ethnic minorities and
workers, they all started to picture their lives, and capture the things they wanted to show to the
world. Their personal photographs showed their own histories, which were usually opposite to the
dominant view of events (Holland, 2009, p.153). All kinds of subjects that had never ‘existed’ could
suddenly be in the centre of public attention.
In the first chapter I argued that photography is intrinsically objectifying subjects, so how could it be
that photography gave a helping hand to the creation of many (historical) subjects at the same time?
The current dominant Western perception of the world is one of time and space existing outside and
independent from us (human) that can be known by observation and investigation – i.e. science
(Ramamurthy, 2009, p. 322). One of the most important characteristics we traditionally accredit to a
photograph is that it shows us a situation how it took place in real time and space, hence that it
shows us this independent reality. (Wells and Price, 2009, p. 27) Instead of looking at the outside
world through his/her eye, the photographer is looking at it through the lens.
The situation depicted in the photo could be less or more realistic (people could pose or be
completely unaware that the picture is taken), fact is that the moment as the photo is showing us,
has existed. By zooming we even get to see a more detailed version of the world than we are able to
see with the naked eye. I would argue that one of the reasons why various minority groups were able
to give themselves a voice through personal photographs is because their photos showed us true
moments. Showing a picture I took myself, I could say I have been there and this is what I saw.
Photography was able to make the true circumstances of people visible. I would say that the photos
had the function of a mirror, a mirror of society. 1
Nevertheless, this ‘mirror image’ has an important difference from a real mirror image, because we
are fixing that what we see. These images are staying with us in our heads and in the visual world. All
these images together form part of the discourse of photography. None of the photos we make is
freestanding, every single photo is related the rest of the photos that together form part of our
‘image world’ – the entire collection of pictures we are using and referring to when creating new
images. (Lister, 2009, p. 327) Photos do not only show us something, we also create meanings with
our photos. I have also made this argument clear in the first chapter, referring to the theory of Laura
Mulvey. Following this line, it is possible to argue that since the invention of photography, our
collection of visual images has increased enormously and by adding photos of different minority
groups, we are widening our image world and creating new sets of meanings.
1
I would like to add that since the coming of digital photography, the discussion of the truth-value of a photo
has increased enormously. However, I think this issue is of slight importance for this research because, despite
the discussions, photography is still considered as containing a high truth-value. A good example is the
ubiquitous use of photography in the newspapers, to ratify the truth of the written articles.
Chapter III:
Social Media and the creation of identities
Introduction – the working of Hyves.nl
The social networking site Hyves.nl was founded in 2004 and it works more or less similar to the
international networking sites Facebook and MySpace (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyves). Everyone
with access to the internet and an email address can create an account. Only one account per email
address is allowed. When creating an account you automatically get your own profile page: one
single web page where you can show information about yourself and where other people can leave
you messages. It is not possible to modify the design of the page (the HTLM) but you can add
information about yourself by filling in questionnaires and uploading photos. Your profile picture is
the photograph that appears on the first page of your profile. One of the possible ways to use this
photo is for identification, since the profile belongs generally speaking to the person depicted on the
photo.
The social networking site works with the principle of ‘friends’. Your profile page is connected to
others by making them ‘friends’. To become Hyves friends with someone you have to send him/her
an invitation that he/she has to accept. Friend’s pages are connected by a reciprocal link in the list of
friends on the profile page. Obviously the more friends you have makes the link to your profile
appear on more pages and automatically you will be more visible.
There are various privacy degrees for a profile page. Your page can be accessible for nobody,
everybody, only people connected to Hyves, only your Hyves friends or also the Hyves friends of your
friends. If you choose the last two options, it means the more Hyves friends you have the more
people can see your profile. However, despite the privacy setting you choose, your profile picture is
always visible for everybody.
The role of Hyves in the process of creating identities
It is possible to argue that before the modern era (after World War II) people experienced
themselves manly by their role as family members or by the recognized social position they occupied
(Holland, 2009, p.123). The need to contemplate who you were, regarding your social position, was
less present because this was (in many cases) fixed and determined by the place and time you were
born. The coming of modern times has caused a shift in this perception of identity. Identities are
flexible and changing quickly. The type of job can change your social class and by dying your hair, you
belong to a different group.
We have seen how the rise of the photographic medium gave a helping hand to the visualization of
(minority) community identities. The focus in the modern era is not only on the community however,
but there is a strong emphasis on the individual. One of the possible reasons for this could be that
modern technology increased our mobility, we are no longer forced to stay close to our relatives, and
the economical and social welfare made us more flexible in social class.2
I would say that nowadays in our western society, identity is more a matter of choice than it was
before. By searching for our identity we are looking for what we would like to be and what pleases us
rather than developing or refining where we come from and where we belong. (Holland, 2009, p.123)
2
Please note that I am only referring to a very general part of our western (Dutch) society.
Identity is a matter of non-stop confirmations: this is me, this is not, this is what I like and this what I
don’t like. Needless to say this type of identity is very subject to any way the wind blows.
The basis for the creation of an identity is self-awareness: the ‘I’ has to recognize him/herself as an
autonomous subject. The social actor is achieving this by separating himself from others and at the
same time confirming his/her existence by the connection he/she has with others. The sociologist
Manuel Castells (2000, p. 22) defines identity as “the process through which a social actor recognizes
itself and constructs meaning primarily on the basis of a given attribute or set of attributes (…)” The
attributes Castells refers to can be concrete or abstract objects. To construct a national identity, for
example, requires the recognition of a shared history, which can be seen as an abstract cultural
object. The confirmation of this identity does not mean there is no relation to other identities; on the
contrary, identities are not created by an isolated individual but they are shaped in the process of
interaction with others. (Castells, 2000, p. 22)
The sociologist Stuart Hall (1997, p.234) argues, in the line of the linguistic theory of Ferdinand de
Saussure, that “‘difference’ matters because it is essential to meaning; without it, meaning could not
exist.” In other words, difference signifies. Hall refers to the psychoanalytical necessity of difference,
based on the theories of Freud and Lacan: ”Subjectivity can only arise and a sense of ‘self’ be formed
through the symbolic and unconscious relations which the young child forges with a significant
‘Other’ which is outside – i.e. different from – itself.” (Hall, 1997, p. 238) In other words, we need the
‘Other’ (that what is not us) to construct our own identity.
Identity is not just a vague linguistic concept; it works on subjects, on people. Our identity is
something visible. We are constantly showing, questioning and confirming our identity by all
possible means of communication. An important medium through which we are doing this is our
body. We show who we are by the clothes we wear, by the piercings we have (or not) or by the
shape our bodies have (cosmetic surgery, work out). Accordingly our profile pictures usually show
(parts of) our bodies in a way that we consider the best representation of ourselves.
Within the world of Hyves your identity is not fixed. The photograph you choose to upload to your
Hyves profile can be changed as many times as you would like. It is a flexible, fleeting identity, today
you can choose a photo with hardly any clothes on, to confirm your ‘femininity’, tomorrow you can
upload a photo of yourself climbing a mountain, to confirm your sportive side.
Uploading a photographic self-portrait as a profile picture is in the first place a confirmation of one’s
own self. By taking the picture and placing it on the WWW, you are confirming your existence as an
individual. However, your profile only has a value by its connection with other profiles. The more
friends you have the more visible you are. By looking at my profile picture and sending me a friend
request, you are making me visible. The more friends I have, the more this is a confirmation of my
identity. The same principle works vice versa: by making you visible, I become visible as well.
As I have argued referring to the theory of Castells, we are using cultural objects in the process of
creating identities. By making another user of Hyves your friend, you are not confirming one’s
existence as a subject but you are using the other person (by means of his/her profile page) as an
object for your own identity. In fact, your Hyves friend’s profile page has the same function as any
arbitrary cultural object.
This is precisely possible because photography, as I have argued in the first chapters, turns bodies
into objects. In other words, you are doing the same as you would do with wearing clothes, you are
‘wearing’ someone else, and someone else is wearing you the same way obviously.
Chapter IV:
Hyves and the relation between gender and ethnicity
We have a biological body that is usually classified as being male or female, each with its own
determined physical characteristics. However, these features do not necessarily justify the cultural
differences. The following example will show us that difference in behavior might have nothing to do
with biology: many people have only one bathroom at home for men and women, but outside this
private atmosphere (i.e in different circumstances) in the public, there are usually two bathrooms,
one for female bodies and one for male bodies. We are creating a difference that does not
necessarily have to be there. Social structures set norms and values for our behavior, and we act
differently with our body in different situations.
What we call male or female is based on a set of cultural meanings; we associate aggressiveness,
strength and thought with typical male characteristics while we think of softness, emotions and
weakness as feminine. This construction of masculine and feminine is what we define as gender.
Gender is not a reflection of our biological sex but it is a cultural construction. (Giddens, 1991, p. 152153) Cultural however, does not imply that we are able to change it whenever we want, on the
contrary, strong power relations underlie these cultural structures.
Meanings of gender relations are produced within discourse, a concept Foucault explains as: “a
group of statements which provide a language for talking about – a way of representing the
knowledge about – a particular topic at a particular historical moment” (Foucault in Hall, 1997, p. 44).
Discourse provides us a framework within which we are able to speak and act. In the category of
gender in the Western world, we can only speak of masculine and feminine. Here it is very clear how
the discourse sets the limits: no gender or sex exists besides these two. The power that underlies this
framework is not a monopolized force that works from above but it circulates between all levels of
social existence. Hence, we are rather talking about power relations. (Hall, 1997, p.49-50) As the
theory of Mulvey has showed us, a patriarchal (power) structure forms the base for the – western –
visual representation of women. How we have to behave as ‘women’ (or ‘men) does not come as a
command from a higher force but it circulates on all kinds of social levels. Interesting is that these
relations do not only cause restrictions but moreover they are productive. They create meaning.
(Hall, 1997, p.49-50)
The profile pictures add to the earlier mentioned ‘image world’, and by doing so they do not only
confirm our gender ideas but rather they are create them. By showing oneself explicitly as masculine
or feminine, we are at the same time creating and constructing ideas of gender(relations).
A profile picture is particularly connected to the complete collection of profile pictures that exist
within the networking site - 11.383.994 profiles on 28-06-2011 at 19:45, according to
http://www.hyves.nl. We could say a special profile pictures culture exists, that has its own norms
and values. I will look at this specific culture more in depth in the case study.
Ethnicity
What Women’s Studies in Holland have long called a woman (roughly speaking until the ‘90s), did not
include all women with all their differences. The standard ideal image they (and with them our whole
society) had (have) for ‘men’ is the white, middle-aged middle-class men, and that of a women the
white young middle-class woman. The introduction of intersectionality however changed this
perception and added the fundamental idea that speaking of gender is speaking of ethnicity and
social class. (Wekker and Lutz, 2001)
Even Mulvey does only speak about white men and white women in her essay. She does not mention
how we look at black women and their (lack of) representation. The way we look at black women in
our western society is very different from the way we look at white women: instead of talking about
white women and black women (or women of colour), we are using (generally speaking) only two
categories when it comes to women in relation to ethnicity: women and black women. A possible
interpretation of this division is that the norm is white and de deviant category is black. (Wekker and
Lutz, 2001)
Patricia Hill Collins (2000, p.69-81) argued that there are five controlling images of black (AfroAmerican) women: the mammy (the faithful and obedient domestic servant), the matriarch (young
independent single mother), the welfare mother (who makes use of the social welfare benefits), the
Black Lady (independent black career woman that has become less feminine by competing to much
with men) and the hoochie (the sexually aggressive woman). The latter is a gendered symbol of
deviant female sexuality that is supposed to be a passive sexuality. (Collins, 2000, p.83) The
matriarch is strong, too assertive, the total opposite of the standard western concept of a ‘woman’.
Obviously, I do not want to argue that the same stereotypical images exist in the Netherlands;
neither do I want to say that this is the only present set of stereotypes. Interesting is that this
classification shows that black femininity differs from our standard concept of femininity.
In the case study, I will pay special attention to the representation of black women and I will see if we
can find any characteristics of these five controlling images in their profile pictures.
Chapter V:
Case study: analysis of Hyves profile pictures
Criteria for selection
In the theoretical part, I have explained how women in photography are double objectified: in the
first place because photography is in itself objectifying and in the second place because the female
body only serves the pleasure of (heterosexual) male looking. I have also explained how photography
has served the purpose of making minority groups visible and has provided them a collective identity.
Finally, I have argued that profile pictures create individual identities that are used as objects rather
than creating an extension of the subject, and that this is a result of the way the social network site
works.
Any photo that is displayed in the public sphere (in which I would include a large part of the internet)
adds to our total collection of images and hence constructs the reality that it pretends to reflect. The
main question of this case study is how do the profile pictures construct gender?
To answer this question I will focus more on the similarities than on the differences between the
images. I will not claim that the selection I have made is an objective selection; on the contrary, I
have intentionally selected the pictures where gender is strongly emphasized, because I would like to
know in which way, rather than how much, gender is constructed.
Out of the entire collection of profile pictures of the networking site, I have selected 11 photos to
analyze in depth. To get access to all the photos I created my own Hyves profile (with a fake name,
for various personal reasons I do not have a private Hyves account). I searched for people I knew and
based on their lists of friends, and the lists of friends of their friends etc. I started selecting pictures.
I chose 11 pictures however, the amount of pictures I chose is not too relevant since my intention is
to present a qualitative rather than a quantitative study. The pictures – Figure III – XIII – are to be
found in the attachment.
To be able to analyze how profile pictures construct gender, I have searched for pictures in the
following three relevant categories:
Type I: self-representation in its most ‘pure’ form i.e. the photo is made by the person depicted in
the picture. This is very clear in the cases the picture is made with a camera/phone and the camera
or the arm that holds the camera is shown in the picture. Some of the photographs do not explicitly
show these characteristics but I assume they are taken with a webcam because the backgrounds
show, for example, a desk or an office chair. This type of profile pictures is showing us a very
conscious process of identity creation. On the moment the picture is taken, the girl is aware of the
fact that she will use this picture to express her identity in public. She is looking at herself the way
others will look at her.
Type II: self-representation as a member of a specific group. In this case, more than one person
appears in the picture. It is usually not clear who the protagonist of the picture is, since she is
depicted as a member of the group.
Type III: the rest of the photographs that do not correspond with the first two categories. The photos
are representations but it is unclear if they are made by the depicted person itself or by another
person.
Note: the relevance of digital manipulation in the context of this study is very little since in the case
of gender it does not matter too much if the photo reflects a ‘real’ identity or an ideal image of the
self, digitally constructed and perfected. Both types of pictures add to our image world and they are
showing us norms and ideas about gender.
In depth analysis of the profile pictures
TYPE I
In the first category, we find various types of photographs of which some strongly emphasize a
feminine sexuality, while others – as we can see in Figure III and IV – do not especially accentuate
sexuality.
The first image seems to emphasize sexuality the least because there is no naked part of the body
visible, the hair does not cover the girls face and her eyes are addressing the viewer. Still one could
tell that she is a woman because of the traditionally feminine characteristics such as the long her and
the shiny lips. The colour of the skin shows us her ethnicity, but we cannot tell where she is born or
where she lives. The type of phone and watch tell us information about the social class the girl
belongs to or would like to belong to. The girl is not reduced to one of the stereotypes of black
women as I have described them referring to Hill Collins, in fact she is depicted very similar to the
white girl that represents herself in Figure IV.
In Figure IV, the girl is not addressing the camera; she is even hiding a part of herself behind the
sunglasses. Covered eyes are a form of mystification that makes the picture voyeuristic: the
spectator is watching her but because he cannot see her eyes one assumes that she cannot see the
one who is watching her. In Figure V, we see the same mystification because the viewer can hardly
see the girls face that is all covered by hair and by the camera. By mystification, I am referring to the
tradition of considering (and showing) women as mysterious and therefore irrational, as
unintelligible as nature could be.
Interesting are Figure V and VI because the girls in these pictures are not addressing the viewer but
they are looking at the digital image of themselves on the little screen of the camera. From this
posture, it could be concluded that they already consider themselves as an object in the very act of
making the photo.
To my opinion, the profile pictures do show us subjects since we may assume that the girls that have
taken the photo exist in reality. However, when particularly analyzing the photos I would say that
another possible interpretation is that, while taking the photo, the girls are using their own picture
(their own body) as an object of identification. They look at themselves as an object of desire. I
would say they are not identifying themselves with anything else but their – sexual – bodies. Their
bodies are the bearers of their sexuality and nothing more.
In Figure VI, the traditional framing plays a very important role since the girls breasts are almost at
the centre of the picture and they attract all the attention. Other parts of her body, as her mouth,
remain hidden and mystify the girl in the same way as we have seen before in Figure V. However, the
black girl in figure VI is not more reduced to her sexuality than the white women we have seen
earlier in figure II (chapter I).
What I found striking is that three of these four photos are made in bird perspective (Figure III, V and
VI), i.e. it looks like the camera is placed higher and the spectator is, through the eye of the camera,
looking down on the depicted person. This very common angle for profile pictures is called the
MySpace Angle (Sessions, 2009). One of the possible interpretations of this angle is that it puts the
girls in a submissive position.
Portraits and posing are intertwined and it is not a special characteristic of photography. During a
long period of time posing for paintings was very common in the royal and wealthy families. Men and
women were both posing for portraits. The fact that these portraits are so familiar to us could
possibly be a result of what the feminist scholar Lisa Tickner (explained in Rijsingen, 1995, p.99) says:
that what has usually been considered as art in the tradition of art history is actually only ‘bourgeois’
or ‘modernist’ art history. We have long considered only a specific type of painting as art, which
included a large collection of portraits.
Interesting is that posing is in itself a very passive act. Moreover, we could see these pictures as
particularly passive, since the women on the pictures are not posing against particular backgrounds;
we do not see any attributes that refer to what the girls do in daily life, while one may assume the
girls have a lot more qualities than only their bodies.
TYPE II
In the pictures of the second category, the identity seems less reduced to the protagonist’s body
because there are more people on the photo. I would say that these images show the importance of
relations, rather than the importance of the individual person. If the owner of the Hyves profile is
unknown to the viewer, it is impossible to tell who the main character of the photo is (in Figure VII,
VIII and IX).
Figure VII is again a picture that seems to break with the stereotypical images of women. The
photograph shows a portrait of three girls at an event related to Holland. We could deduce this
because the middle girl is wearing an orange top and we see more orange colours and a Dutch flag in
the background. The three girls are addressing the camera, smiling and we can see their faces very
clear. Sexuality is not emphasized at all, more important in this picture is the relation with the event
and with the other people on the picture.
Figure VIII also seems to break with the traditional way of depicting (black) women. The girls are
addressing the camera, no naked part of the body except for the face is shown. They are a lot less
objectified than the girls in the images of the first category. We do not know the relation between
the two girls, they could be friends, family or even a couple. Because one of them chose the photo as
a profile picture, we assume the relation between them is important and forms a part of the identity.
Nevertheless not all pictures in this category break with the traditional way of depicting women.
Although one cannot be sure if the woman on the left in Figure IX is the main character of the
photograph, then it could be said that she is presenting her identity as that of being a mother. Given
the subscription in the Hyve nickname, independent me, I would argue that this is one of the
stereotypes that Collins (2000, p. 75-76) described, namely that of the Matriarch, the strong and
independent mother. Although one picture does not make a stereotype, it does confirm once again
the stereotypical imaginary that already exists.
The last picture, Figure X, is a very sensual and again a very traditional representation. The girl is lying
on her back while the boy is leaning over her, which is a submissive position. She has her eyes closed
and we can only see her face and a part of her chest. The composition and framing of the photo
cause that the spectator could desire the women the way she is desired by the male figure in the
photo.
TYPE III
The average age on Hyves is 30-year-old, according to their own statistic
(http://hyves.nl/about/facts/.)3 The previous photos I have analyzed were that of women clearly
younger than 30 years. Because the age between 20-30 is the period when young adults are looking
for and confirming their identity, I would consider this the most interesting group for an analysis of
gender identity. However, not to fall back in the tradition of only considering young women as
women, I have also included an image of a clearly older woman, as we can see in Figure XI. She is one
of the few that is looking straight into the camera and her face is not covered. One can tell that she is
a woman but does not know anything else about her. The glasses give her a rather intellectual
appearance. This is the kind of photo you would find on one’s passport (back in the days when
smiling was still allowed), it gives very little information about the person depicted but at the same
time it does not objectify the body as strong the other images of this analysis did.
Figure XII is a typical example of one of the stereotypes Collins (2000, p. 81) describes: the freak, the
hoochie. The body of the woman is very sexualized by the position she takes, by the clothes she
wears and by the so called duckface 4 she makes with her lips. The picture repeats, and once again
confirms, the stereotype.
In Figure XIII the headscarf attracts the most attention, it shows the spectator that the girl is a
Muslim, which is an important part of her identity. By placing this profile picture online she uses her
body to express her religious views. She uses her body as the bearer of her beliefs, while the other
girls, as I have argued, only used their bodies as the bearer of their sexuality. Nevertheless, the way
the girl is depicted still meets the characteristics of submissive representation: her head is looking
down, she has her eyes closed and the position of the camera is again that of a bird perspective.
3
I doubt if this is a real fact because the data is generated by Hyves.nl. It is more than likely that they use this
‘fact’ for marketing goals.
4
“A term used to describe the face made if you push your lips together in a combination of a pout and a
pucker, giving the impression you have larger cheekbones and bigger lips.” Source:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Duckface consulted 17 july 2011.
Conclusion
I have argued that photography is intrinsically objectifying, and that it does not add to the unique
existence of the subject but on the contrary, it reduces the subjective body to an object. The framing
and zooming emphasize only certain aspects of the body that is being turned into a banal object of
desire. However, I have also tried to show that the case of objectification is not that unambiguous as
it seems. Despite its objectifying character, photography played an important role in the construction
of identities of various groups and individuals. Photography also helped creating subjects and new
meanings were created by making people visible. Following this line, the profile pictures could
perfectly provide a stage for different types of representation. Nevertheless we have to keep in mind
that when this phenomenon of making groups visible first took place through photography, the
‘image world’ the photos were part of was still in its infancy, which made it – I would say – easier to
create or change meaning by one or a few photos than it is nowadays. When the collection is big, it
takes more effort to make a change.
In the case study, I have tried to show that as well traditional as more alternative photos of women
can be found on Hyves profiles. A good example are the profile pictures that depict groups instead of
individuals, which could contribute to an alternative representation since the emphasis is on
relations rather than on the individual self.
Thus on the one hand, the profile pictures can contribute to an alternative self-representation of
women because they form part of our image world, to which we could add a different type of photos
and little by little break the tradition. The social networking Hyves site could contribute to the
creation of alternative representations because of its democratic character. It is possibly more
democratic than representations in advertisements I would say. Black women and women of colour,
for example, have more power to add a different type pictures and avoid repeating the stereotypes.
On the other hand, alternative representation will be hampered by the way Hyves works: the more
friends you have, the more visible you are. As I have tried to show, other profiles (and therefore
other people) have become objects in the creation of one’s own identity. If you use other people as
objects to give yourself an identity, they cannot be too different from you. It also works the other
way round: to make your profile visible it you better not upload a profile picture too different from
the norm, since people need you as an object to identify themselves with. I would say it seems a
vicious circle and only changing the images seems, in the current situation, a very difficult task.
As a final statement I would like to add that identity since is not only made visible through
photography since, as I have explained, the profile pages on the social networking site contain a lot
more information about someone than only pictures. Our identities are created by many more things
than profile pictures, they are not only connected to others in the on-line world, but have an
inseparable connection with the real world, which makes the subject interesting for further research.
Literature
Benjamin, W. (2003) ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility: Third Version’ in
Eiland, H. and Jennings, M. W. (eds.) Selected writings / Walter Benjamin Volume 4, 1938-1940 USA,
Harvard College
Castells, M. (2000) The rise of the network society Oxford, Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Collins, P.H. (2000) Black feminist thought: knowledge, consciousness and the politics of
empowerment London, Routledge
Giddens, A. (1991) ‘Género y sexualidad’ in Sociología Madrid, Alianza Ed.
Hall, S (1997) ‘The spectacle of the ‘Other’ in Hall, S (ed.) Representation: cultural representations
and signifying practices London, Sage publications Ltd.
Hall, S (1997) ‘The work of representation’ in Hall, S (ed.) Representation: cultural representations
and signifying practices London, Sage publications Ltd.
Helling, M. (2009) ‘The subject as object: photography and the human body’ in Wells, L. (ed.)
Photography: a critical introduction Abingdon, Routledge (pp. 167-204)
Holland, P. (2009) ‘’Sweet it is to scan…’: personal photographs and popular photography’ in Wells, L.
(ed.) Photography: a critical introduction Abingdon, Routledge (pp. 117-166)
Mulvey, L. (1975) ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ in Screen 16.3 Autumn (pp. 6-18)
Ramamurthy, A. (2009) ‘Spectacles and illusions: photography and commodity culture’ in Wells, L.
(ed.) Photography: a critical introduction Abingdon, Routledge (pp. 205-256)
Rijsingen, M. van (1995) ‘How purple can purple be? Feminist art history’ in Buikema, R. and Smelik
A. (eds.) Women’s Studies and Culture: A feminist introduction London, Zed Books
Scruton, R. (2002) ´Photography and Representation´ in Neill, A. and Ridley, A. (eds.) Arguing about
art London, Routledge (pp. 195-214)
Sessions, L. F. ‘”You Looked Better on MySpace”: depiction and authenticity on Web 2.0’ in First
Monday: peer reviewed journal on the internet Vol. 14, No. 7, available at
http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2539/2242 (last visited 25
july 2011)
Wekker, G. and Lutz, H. (2001) ‘Een hoogvlakte met koude winden. De geschiedenis van het genderen etniciteitsdenken in Nederland’ in Botman, J. and Wekker, G. (eds.) Caleidoscopische visies. De
zwarte, migranten- en vluchtelingenvrouwenbeweging in Nederland Amsterdam, KIT Publishers (pp.
25-50)
Wells, L. and Price D. (2009) ‘Thinking about photography’ in Wells, L. (ed.) Photography: a critical
introduction Abingdon, Routledge (pp. 9-64)
Internet sources:
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyves consulted 30 June 2011
http://www.hyves.nl last consulted 28 July 2011
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Duckface consulted 17 July 2011.
http://www.hyves.nl/useragreement/ last consulted 28 July 2011
Photographic sources:
Cover photo: ‘Jessica’. Photo: http://jessicaloveanoniem.hyves.nl/ last consulted 28 July 2011
Painting I: Vincent van Gogh (1887) ´Zelfportret´ Oil pain ton cardboard, 19 x 14 cm. Photo: Van Gogh
Museum, Amsterdam (F 296)
Figure I: Marilyn Monroe. Photo: http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-48890/21/2128/Y4KED00Z/posters/Marilyn-Monroe.jpg last consulted 28 July 2011
Figure II: ‘Shawtylici0us’. Photo: http://shawtylici0us.hyves.nl/ last consulted 28 July 2011
Figure III: ‘@Dyvaraisha’. Photo: http://chefer-ney.hyves.nl last consulted 30 June 2011
Figure IV: ‘Gina’. Photo: http://gi-naa.hyves.nl last consulted 28 July 2011
Figure V: ‘Valerie *’. Photo: http://itsvaleriee.hyves.nl last consulted 28 July 2011
Figure VI: ‘Alyssa’. Photo: http://fokjoudann.hyves.nl last consulted 28 July 2011
Figure VII: ‘Kim’ Photo: http://shmoesjka.hyves.nl last consulted 28 July 2011
Figure VIII: ‘Music Makes Me Loose Control’. Photo: http://downasschick01.hyves.nl last consulted
28 July 2011
Figure IX: ‘Myn Prins &nd Princess’. Photo: http://independentme.hyves.nl last consulted 28 July
2011
Figure X: ‘Annetom’. Photo: http://annevriendensupertop.hyves.nl last consulted 30 June 2011
Figure XI: ‘Paulien’. Photo: http://bomiro.hyves.nl/ last consulted 30 June 2011
Figure XII: ‘Hoofddoekiie’. Photo: http://boufarkouchiiaa.hyves.nl/ last consulted 28 July 2011
Figure XIII: ‘Africana’. Photo: http://dondiva00.hyves.nl last consulted 30 June 2011
Attachment I – Profile pictures
Figure III ‘@Dyvaraisha’
Figure V ‘Valerie’
Figure IV ‘Gina’
Figure VI ‘Alyssa’
Figure VII ‘Kim’
Figure VIII ‘Music Makes Me Loose Control’
Figure IX ‘Myn Prins &nd Princess’
Figure X ‘Annetom’
Figure XI ‘Paulien’
Figure XII ‘Africana’
Figure XIII ‘Hoofddoekiie’