In this article, Andre Brock addresses how Twitter has been
fashioned as a space for cultural conversation, specifically amongst Black
people. His argument springs from, in part, Fox, Zickuhr and Smiths’ findings
that Blacks utilized Twitter “disproportionately more than other demographic
groups” (530). Brock acknowledges that there has been much commentary
concerning this phenomenon, ranging from the Black blogosphere to Slate
articles. It is within this context of commentaries about “Black Twitter” and use
of Twitter among Blacks-two terms that don’t appear to be mutually exclusive-
that Brock juxtaposes his own analysis. Specifically, he explores how the
community of Black Twitter is inhabited by “alternate” discourses and is
subsequently constructed by “outsiders and insiders alike” (Brock 530).
Ultimately however, Brock links this analysis to a larger question of how
racial and technocultural identities are intertwined.
The theories on which Brock frames his research is critical
technocultural discourse analysis (CTDA) and critical race theory (CRT). Brock
is very quick to clarify that he views CTDA as a technique rather than a method
(531). He references Nakamura’s theory that Internet Studies should not only
consider “form, user and interface”, but also focus on the ideologies that
underlie them ( Brock 531). Simply put, this approach proposes that the Internet
is not a value neutral entity, but is both rife with and reflects cultural
mores. Brock therefore contends racial beliefs in society “shape technology
use”, while technology use also appears to shape, or at least signify on racial
beliefs (531, 533).
Brock’s applies this recursive critique to the more
pragmatic aspect of his research on how Black’s actually engage with Twitter.
He first questions how accessibility to the Internet itself influences Black
usage of this tool of social media. Due to relatively few barriers to accessing
Twitter, such as needing an “internet connected computer, screen, and input
device”, Blacks appear to have easier access to Twitter since they can just use
their phones. Hence, Twitter becomes a popular mediated space for Black’s to
interact in a comfortable discourse environment. This notion is furthered by
the use of the hashtag, an example of what Brock deems a folksonomic discourse
that occurs in real time (538). He posits that hashtags follow Gate’s notion of
signifying and serve as “signifier,” sign,” and “signified” (537).
However, this discourse does not occur in a vacuum and is
subject to at least three gazes via the internet: a White, Mainstream, and
Black perspective (Brock 542, 543). Each post responds from a set of cultural
assumptions and experiences, which Brock suggests colors their perspectives.
Perhaps more tellingly, these perspectives, particularly the first two, illuminate
what Brock terms “pejorative perceptions of Black technology use” (544). This
attitude correlates to Brock’s main finding about perceptions in relation to
Black Twitter: “Where Whiteness and tech expertise were ascendant, Black Twitter
was viewed as a game and a waste of resources” (545). Yet, where Blackness was
privileged alongside tech expertise, Black Twitter was “understood as the
mediated articulations of a Black subculture” (Brock 545).
Brock bases his conclusions on the preceding binary and
asserts that while Black Twitter can be understood as a “public” it is still
woefully understudied, and, I might add, dismissed. Hashtags appear to bridge
this gap and push Black discourse practices on the social website outside the
sole purview of Black people. This movement can be good or problematic
according to Brock; it simultaneously makes Blacks visible in a technological
space while propagating the idea of Black homogeneity. Brock then proceeds to
admit his study has been complicated by his focus on the more subtle aspects of
race and technology rather than “egregious racism” (546). Yet, he hopes this
struggle will spark a conversation about how the Internet is not a color blind
entity, but a space that, very much like “real” society, normalizes Whiteness
and others everybody else (Brock 546).
I believe this article is pertinent to my research because I
am interested in the intersections of technology, writing, and race.
Specifically, I want to tease out the questions of how ingrained prejudices and
practices about writing and race are transferred into digital spaces and how
this affects minorities, especially in terms of identity. On the other hand, I,
like Brock, would also like to study Black technological identity simply
through a Black lens and examine how we conceive writing in technological spaces.
Finally, I think Brock’s analysis is relevant to our class
as it provides a microcosmic example of and the beginnings of an answer to
specific questions about technology and writing.
