vivien's site

How has social media affected today’s beauty standards for women?

Beauty standards are the societal expectations that decide what is seen as attractive in a particular era. While these standards have traditionally been shaped by cultural, social, and media influences, the rise of social media has sped up and broadened their development. In today’s society the majority of people use social media, including social media platforms like instagram, tik tok, twitter and snapchat. It has become a very normal thing to post everything we do, see, feel and look like. As much as social media can be beneficial to people for various reasons like them expressing themselves or connecting with their friends, it also can be damaging for young people to use on such a regular basis (Pedersen, 2023). A lot of the time we can compare ourselves to others, sometimes we do this in person however it is way more amplified on social media. You may ask yourself “why don’t I look like her” and pick apart the way you look after scrolling all day.

An example of young people being negatively affected by the use of social media are young girls. Adolescent girls seem to be more susceptible to mental health challenges related to social media use compared to boys. The prevalence of sexualized images online is believed to play a role by increasing body dissatisfaction among girls. Such sexual objectification can reinforce the idea that their worth is tied to their appearance (Papageorgiou, Fisher and Cross, 2022).

Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) explains how individuals evaluate themselves in relation to others. On social media, women are constantly exposed to curated and edited images, fostering comparisons that can lead to body dissatisfaction. This constant exposure to “ideal” beauty often results in women feeling inadequate or unattractive, contributing to issues like body dysmorphia (Tiggemann & Slater, 2014).

Additionally, the male gaze (Mulvey, 1975) offers insight into how women’s bodies are often objectified on social media. Women are often depicted in sexualized ways, reinforcing the idea that their primary value is in their appearance, often for the male gaze. This dynamic creates a feedback loop where women internalize the belief that their worth is tied to physical beauty, a notion that can lower self-esteem and promote unhealthy body image (Fardouly et al., 2015).

The rise of influencers on social media further worsens this issue. Influencers often present highly edited images, contributing to unrealistic beauty ideals. Apps like FaceTune and filters on Instagram encourage users to alter their appearance, which normalizes unrealistic standards of beauty and pressures women to conform. Research by McLean et al. (2015) shows that exposure to these “Instagram faces” correlates with greater dissatisfaction with one’s own body.

Sociologically, beauty standards are socially constructed rather than biologically determined. Bourdieu’s concept of habitus (1984) helps explain how social media shapes women’s perceptions of beauty. Constant exposure to idealized images on social platforms shapes women’s internalized dispositions, making them strive for conformity with these standards.

In conclusion, while social media can provide spaces for body positivity, it also perpetuates narrow beauty ideals that negatively affect women’s self-image. The constant reinforcement of these standards highlights the need for media literacy and a more inclusive representation of beauty in digital spaces.

Reference list

·      Oakes, K. (2019). The Complicated Truth about Social Media and Body Image. [online] BBC. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190311-how-social-media-affects-body-image.

·      Papageorgiou, A., Fisher, C. and Cross, D. (2022). ‘Why Don’t I Look like her?’ How Adolescent Girls View Social Media and Its Connection to Body Image. BMC Women’s Health, [online] 22(1), pp.1–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01845-4.

·      Pedersen, T. (2023). How Does Social Media Affect Body Image? [online] Psych Central. Available at: https://psychcentral.com/health/how-the-media-affects-body-image#negative-effects.

·      Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Routledge.

·      Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.

·      Fardouly, J., Diedrichs, P. C., Vartanian, L. R., & Halliwell, E. (2015). Social comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women’s body image concerns and mood. Body Image, 13, 38-45.

·      McLean, S. A., Paxton, S. J., & Wertheim, E. H. (2015). The role of social comparisons and sociocultural factors in predicting body image and disordered eating in young women. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(6), 1061-1072.

·      Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual and other pleasures. Screen, 16(3), 6-18.

Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2014). NetGirls: The Internet, Facebook, and body image concern in adolescent girls. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 47(6), 630-643.

 

Cancel culture refers to the widespread act of publicly denouncing or “canceling” an individual, usually a public figure, because of their controversial actions, statements, or past behavior. While the term can be applied broadly, it often revolves around social media platforms where these calls for cancellation take place in public forums. It has emerged as a new form of social accountability in response to behaviors such as racism, sexism, homophobia, abuse, or other forms of discrimination and harm.

However, the concept is multifaceted and controversial, with proponents viewing it as a way to hold powerful people accountable, while critics argue it leads to over-simplified moral judgments, mob mentality, and online harassment. (Traversa, Tian and Wright, 2023)

Social Media as a Vehicle for Public Shaming: Cancel culture is largely facilitated by social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook, which allow individuals to publicly call out and “shame” others. Social media’s amplifying role is critical in how cancel culture operates. Symbolic Interactionism, a theory focused on how individuals create meaning through social interactions, is crucial to understanding how cancel culture works.

Public shaming through social media platforms can shape how people see themselves and others. Erving Goffman’s concept of facework is particularly relevant here. In the digital era, an individual’s public identity is constructed and managed online, and when that identity is attacked or undermined, it can have profound effects on their social standing and self-image. The public nature of these interactions makes canceling a form of ritualistic and collective retribution. (Goffman, 1955)

One of the most debated aspects of cancel culture is whether it serves as a form of social justice or if it merely acts as a punitive tool that lacks restorative elements. On one hand, canceling someone can be seen as a way to hold people accountable for harmful behavior, particularly when traditional systems of justice fail. It democratizes accountability by allowing ordinary people to collectively challenge those in power.

On the other hand, cancel culture often lacks a pathway for restorative justice. While criminal justice systems typically allow for rehabilitation and reintegration, cancel culture doesn’t always offer a chance for redemption. Once someone is canceled, they may face long-lasting stigma, sometimes without the opportunity to apologize, learn from their mistakes, or make amends. This raises critical questions about whether the goal of cancel culture is truly reform or simply punishment (The Editors of ProCon, 2000).

Cancel culture is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that reveals much about contemporary society. It challenges traditional power structures, mobilizes social justice movements, and provides a new form of accountability. Yet, it also comes with significant risks, including the potential for disproportionate punishment, moral overreaction, and a lack of room for forgiveness or growth.

As we continue to navigate this digital era, it’s crucial to examine how cancel culture shapes our collective understanding of justice, responsibility, and the potential for change. In a world that increasingly operates on social media, cancel culture may be both a tool for societal progress and a cautionary tale about the dangers of moral absolutism and the complexities of holding people accountable.

 

Reference list

Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), pp.213–231. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008.

Sus, V. (2023). Is Cancel Culture Toxic? Pros & Cons. [online] TheCollector. Available at: https://www.thecollector.com/is-cancel-culture-toxic/.

The Editors of ProCon (2000). Cancel Culture | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Social Media, Internet, & Cancel. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/procon/cancel-culture-debate.

Traversa, M., Tian, Y. and Wright, S.C. (2023). Cancel culture can be collectively validating for groups experiencing harm. Frontiers in Psychology, [online] 14. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1181872.

Welcome to your brand new blog at University of Brighton Blog Network.

To get started, simply log in, edit or delete this post and check out all the other options available to you.