Hashtagging for Inclusion: Complex Identities in Singaporean Gay Men’s Social Representation on Instagram

Abstract

Beyond indexing content and creating networks, hashtags can also convey social meanings. From the perspective of social representation, this article investigates how gay men in Singapore use various hashtags to represent their complex identities and create a shared meaning of being gay in Singapore. Through a textual analysis of identity-related posts generated by gay Instagram users in Singapore, we identified two patterns of using gay-related hashtags: habitual and contextual. Both patterns rely on and demonstrate the identity complexity of gay users. The patterns suggest the users’ identity management online while engendering different forms of social representation for Singaporean gay men. By using non-gay hashtags and juxtaposing them with gay ones, the users could disseminate outreach information, establish social connections, and improve the digital inclusion of their group. We also found unusual exclusions of gay hashtags, suggesting the potential conflict between gayness and some traditional values/roles in Singapore.

Keywords

hashtag identity gay social representation digital inclusion Instagram

Introduction

Gay men, or men who are romantically or sexually attracted to men, often lack support from their immediate communities and the media and thus turn to digital spaces to develop a sense of belonging (Tropiano, 2014). But while social media play an important part in cultivating the gay community and culture, the platforms’ commercial orientation is also criticized for reducing gay men’s self-presentation into celebrating individuality and self-branding instead of empowering the group (Duguay, 2016b; Gras-Velázquez & Maestre-Brotons, 2023). Indeed, Duggan (2002) argues that neoliberal technologies of power, such as social media, depoliticize social issues by privatizing them and thus scaling down homosexuality to “domesticity and consumption” (p. 179). Viewing self-presentation as individual performance risks neglecting social-level outcomes, such as building collectivity through participation (Gerbaudo & Treré, 2015).

A way to minimize this risk is to recognize the duality of self-presentation and social representation (SR) in gay-related information generated by gay men themselves. In this process, gay individuals share self-related information (e.g., on social media), which in turn shapes the meaning of being gay in their communities. In this article, we take the perspective of social representation theory (SRT) and view gay-related content generated by gay Instagram users as a form of SR of gay men online. SR speaks to the collective elaboration “of a social object by the community for the purpose of behaving and communicating” (Moscovici, 1963, p. 251). Thus, SRT deals with the shared knowledge of a social subject (gayness) within a community (Singaporean gay men). Gay men represent themselves in the online polymedia environment, selectively sharing self-related information on different platforms (Madianou & Miller, 2013). We study their SR on Instagram not only because the platform stands as one of the world’s most popular social media but also because it demonstrates socio-anthropological potential in terms of representing people’s lives and identities socially and culturally (Baker & Walsh, 2018; Caliandro & Graham, 2020). Besides, Instagram has become a window for gay subcultures worldwide (Campbell, 2019; Cassidy, 2018). By enabling self-presentation and thematic search through hashtags, the platform facilitates a neoliberal understanding of gay subjectivity and regulates the meanings and images surrounding gayness (Gras-Velázquez & Maestre-Brotons, 2023).

Although international platforms like Instagram give gay men more freedom to present their true selves, these people still cautiously manage their images online (Birnholtz & Macapagal, 2021; Duguay, 2016a; Hanckel et al., 2019). They navigate themselves in digital spaces strategically, selectively concealing or revealing their gayness. This tendency is particularly salient for those living in countries where gay rights have not been institutionalized (Yulius et al., 2018). For example, this current study looks at Singapore, an Asian state that is deeply infused with Confucian ideology (Offord, 1999) and has decriminalized sex between consenting adult males only in 2022 (Abdullah, 2023). We study gay men among other sexual and gender minorities in Singapore because this subgroup traditionally faced heated controversy in the law (Chua, 2012), in the media (Paul Tan & Lee Jack Jin, 2007), and in online spaces (Detenber et al., 2014). While surveys found that Singaporeans’ attitudes toward homosexuality have grown more liberal over the decades, the country remains generally conservative for gay men (Cheng, 2019; Detenber et al., 2013).

In such a politically and culturally conservative society, liberal understandings of being gay and the Western styles of representing gayness may not work well. With different understandings of homosexuality, Singaporean gay men have generated unique narratives to express themselves (Lim, 2005; Oswin, 2006). However, research has rarely addressed how gay Singaporean men present their complex identities on social media and how their SR is harmonized or compromised with Singapore’s mainstream values.

While being gay is only one part of a gay man’s entire self, identity-related theories have typically pointed out the complex nature of human identity (Hogg et al., 1995). In the current study, we examine how the complex identities of Singaporean gay men contribute to the SR they collectively create on Instagram. We investigate identity complexity in SR through the lens of hashtags—content indexing tools that allow users to label thematic content generated around certain topics (i.e., gay men). We are interested in how gay men in Singapore label their Instagram posts with hashtags and how they associate different components of identities in their self-presentation. The hashtagged posts, in aggregate, contribute to the SR of Singaporean gay men on Instagram, probably allowing this sexual minority to negotiate for digital inclusion and communicate a comprehensive meaning of being gay in Singapore.

Literature Review

From Self-Presentation to Online SR

Social media facilitate gay men’s self-presentation as they continue to fight for equity and representation in public (Pullen & Cooper, 2010). For example, the image-sharing platform Instagram supports multiple modalities of texts as well as symbolic visuals that represent gayness, such as clothing (Clarke & Smith, 2015), rainbow patterns, and events (Birnholtz & Macapagal, 2021). Self-presentation is a goal-directed behavior through which people control how they are perceived by others (Leary, 1995). When gay men create self-images that display gayness, these become part of a cumulative SR of gay men that may shape how other people understand gay men (Birnholtz, 2018; Birnholtz & Macapagal, 2021).

Scholars draw on SRT to describe systems of shared knowledge regarding a social group and the elaboration of the group within society. For example, SRT has been used to explain how historical events and social environments shaped collective understanding of what it means to be gay in both the gay community and the general public (Jaspal & Breakwell, 2022; Jaspal & Jaspal, 2019). SR serves the purpose of making “something unfamiliar, or unfamiliarity itself, familiar” (Moscovici, 1984, p. 24). Originally, it is created to conventionalize a social object (e.g., a group) by presenting it in a context familiar to most people (Sammut & Howarth, 2014). This process of locating the strange within the familiar is called anchoring (Moscovici, 1984). For example, gayness is relatively unfamiliar (if not strange) to Singapore because queer movements emerged relatively late in this country, and local media’s representation of gay men is often absent or stigmatizing (Oswin, 2014). Thus, SR may be achieved by presenting gay men in ways that conform with dominant ideologies, like heteronormativity and illiberal pragmatics (Phillips, 2014; Yue, 2007). Once an SR is anchored, it projects the meaning of the object outward, and this process is called objectification (Moscovici, 1984). For example, as SR of gay men goes across the internet through individual networks, it shapes more people’s understandings of gayness and guides more gay men’s self-presentation and interactions with others (Sammut & Howarth, 2014).

SR on social media has the potential to create a more favorable environment for gay men. For example, many gay men gained attention and popularity by posting positive images of having a decent job, dressing fashionably, sculpting their bodies, and attending fancy events (Gras-Velázquez & Maestre-Brotons, 2023). However, while such positive representations can help to repeal the feeling of shame or isolation (Gras-Velázquez & Maestre-Brotons, 2023), they also risk turning Instagram into an “exclusionary technology” (Peterson, 2011, p. 745). Digital platforms like Instagram are designed to create an online sphere that perpetuates homonormativity, blocking undesirable expressions of sexuality (Monea, 2022). With its focus on attractive visuals, the platform may discourage gay users who do not meet the standards of masculinity, beauty, affluence, or youthfulness (Duguay, 2016b). This may further marginalize individuals who do not meet the group’s normative ideals. As SR accounts for the shared meaning of being gay in society, it is thus essential to examine how comprehensive and inclusive this meaning is.

Identity Complexity of a Gay Man

Gay men manage their identities carefully in terms of which component is visible to whom. They try to avoid being outed by accident and being discriminated against at work, among many other unfortunate consequences (Duguay, 2016a; Hanckel et al., 2019). In the digital world, some engage with multiple platforms and display varying forms of identities (DeVito et al., 2018). Others tactfully manipulate platform affordances, such as by using gay hashtags temporarily (Birnholtz & Macapagal, 2021). While numerous studies have examined gay men’s self-presentation on social media, few have regarded the complex nature of their identities and how this complexity is reflected in the content they create.

Thus, this current study focuses on how gay men navigate the complexities of their identity as they engage in self-presentation on social media. The concept of identity has multiple layers; it can be understood as personal, enacted, relational, and communal (Hecht & Phillips, 2021; Shin & Hecht, 2017). While on the micro-psychological (personal) layer, identity is understood as a key indicator of “selfhood” or “a fundamental condition of social being,” and on the socio-psychological (relational/communal) layer, identity also refers to a “fundamental and consequential sameness among members of a group or category” (Brubaker & Cooper, 2000, p. 7). In this current study, we focus on examining identity at the personal level, conceptualizing identity to refer to the entirety of one’s selfhood, that is, each individual bears a unique identity.

Identity is a multifaceted construct, as role identity and social identity theories (SITs) suggest (Hogg et al., 1995).¹ The idea of identity as related to roles reflects the symbolic interactionist view that society affects individual behavior through its influence on the self (Mead & Schubert, 1934). As a reflection of social structures, the self should be deemed a multifaceted and organized construct. Variation in self-concepts is based on the different social roles that people occupy (Burke, 1980; Stryker, 1980). The more important a person’s social relationships are based on the occupancy of a role, the more salient that role is in her networking activities (Stryker & Serpe, 1982). Like most people, gay men can take on various roles. However, some roles may conflict with one’s gayness, such as being a parent or taking male-dominant jobs (Ahmed et al., 2013; Bergan-Gander & von Kürthy, 2006). Gay men enacting traditionally masculine roles (e.g., truck drivers) are often considered less feminine or less “gay” (Fingerhut & Peplau, 2006). Many gay police officers (Miller et al., 2003) and gay athletes (Anderson, 2002) thus have to manage their gayness carefully at work. Due to such role stereotyping and the subsequent self-stereotyping, gay men may also present their roles selectively in online spaces.

While role identity theory explains multiple roles that one plays, SIT addresses the broader range of social attributes like gender, class, and race. SIT proposes that people’s self-concepts are defined by the defining characteristics of the social groups they belong to (Tajfel et al., 1979). There are two underlying processes in SIT—one is self-categorization, through which people obtain group memberships; another is social comparison, through which people enhance their self-esteem by evaluating their positive attributes in comparison to others (Hogg et al., 1995; Tajfel, 1982). In these processes, people cognitively represent their attributes based on prototypes, which are constructed from relevant information in interactive contexts like social media (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Turner et al., 1987). SIT also acknowledges the complex nature of individual identity. For example, scholars have used social identity complexity (Roccas & Brewer, 2002) to describe an individual’s identification with multiple social groups. For gay men, being gay might be one of their most salient social attributes, but they also categorize themselves according to other attributes, like gender and ethnicity. They can actively evaluate the status of each attribute in self-presentation and probably detach themselves from being gay when perceiving it as lowering their social status (Humphreys, 1972).

When an individual experiences conflicting identity components, personal value priority may drive them to present some components over others. External stress and institutional factors also drive gay men to present their complex identities strategically. In traditional social institutions, being gay remains to be unfairly considered as relatively inferior to many other social roles and attributes. Hence, Duggan (2002) describes neoliberal sexual politics as homonormative, which guides homosexuals to represent themselves as undifferentiated from the sexual majority, except for their sexual orientation. Here, gay men rely on their non-gay attributes to negotiate for social inclusion. But while homonormative strategies give gay men more access to representing themselves, such a “normalizing” process is increasingly criticized for reinforcing heteronormative standards and undervaluing the diversity within a minority group (Robinson, 2016).

Hashtag for SR and Identity Expression

This current study examines gay men’s self-presentation through the use of hashtags on Instagram. We deem hashtags as a significant approach through which self-presentation becomes social. A common feature of social media, a hashtag contains a keyword (or combination or abbreviation of words) preceded by the hash sign (#). Users add a hashtag to a post to link it with other posts around the same topic (Small, 2011). While hashtags are organically generated by users, platforms also use big data to recommend hashtags for content creators to categorize and annotate their posts, improving the efficiency and accuracy of content clustering (Zhang et al., 2021). By searching for a hashtag, users can retrieve all the posts that include the hashtag. Thus, studies have traditionally focused on the indexicality of hashtags, using them as a retrieval tool for thematic content or targeted information (Bashari & Fazl-Ersi, 2020; Efron, 2010).

However, recent studies have moved beyond the traditional understanding of hashtags as an indexing tool to view them as having polysemantic functions imbued with personal and social meanings. For example, Erz et al. (2018) identified several motives for using Instagram hashtags, such as for self-presentation, chronicling, venting, and etiquette. Some researchers also highlighted the role of Instagram hashtags in knowledge sharing and elaboration of social objects, such as local communities (Worms & Gras-Velázquez, 2020) and social movements (Kim & Lee, 2022). Others examined hashtags’ networking function in the context of agenda-setting and online activism (Proferes & Summers, 2019; Xiong et al., 2019). In sum, these studies no longer simply treat hashtags as content clusters but underscore hashtags’ symbolic functions in serving various social purposes. Guided by these studies, we view hashtags as part of how SR of certain social groups are created. By including a hashtag in a post, one can share knowledge with others who are associated with or have interests in this group, contributing to the SR of the group being represented. This is valuable because information is directly generated by the ingroups.

Indeed, scholars have also regarded hashtags as labels or expressions of identity. Some view hashtags as symbolizing group membership (Baker & Walsh, 2018), allowing content creators to connect themselves with the group they belong to. For example, sexual minority hashtags on Instagram (e.g., #lesbian) enable the collective identity construction of sexual minorities (Herrera, 2018). By using #IAmGay, gay users link isolated individual posts together to form an alternative discourse of sexuality (Liao, 2019). Some have even used the term “hashtag activism” to describe using hashtags to show support to social groups, such as lesbian feminists (Mikhaylova & Gradoselskaya, 2021) and African Americans (Duvall & Heckemeyer, 2018). In sum, social media users include hashtags in their posts to not only disseminate self-related information (self-presentation) but also establish connections or identification with certain groups (SR).

Thus, we consider hashtags as a bridge between self-presentation and SR, aligning information generated in personal social networks and channeling it to the broader public. This process often involves simultaneous expression of multiple sides of one’s identity. A few studies have examined how people use a mix of hashtags to mark their identities, such as Jewish (Ichau et al., 2019) and engineers (Johri et al., 2018). Similarly, a gay man is more than just a gay man; they can present multiple components of their identities using hashtags. This study focuses on concurrent and separate expressions of these components in Singaporean gay men’s Instagram posts. We ask the following research question: How do Singaporean gay men use hashtags to represent various components of their identities on Instagram?

Method

We qualitatively examined posts on 12 active Instagram accounts owned by gay men from Singapore, a multicultural society mainly composed of Chinese, Malay, and Indian ethnicities. We focused on users with these ethnicities to better reflect the national context.² Criteria for case selection were threefold: the account must (1) belong to a Singaporean gay man, (2) include at least 20 posts with hashtags, and (3) have uploaded at least 20 posts over the past year. We identified a user as a gay man based on their profile and posts, such as whether they have self-identified as gay in their user bio or any of their posts and whether they have indicated their relationship status with another man. We determined a user as Singaporean based on either (1) his location as indicated in the profile or (2) a substantial amount of posts can be identified as generated in Singapore. Based on these criteria, we conducted two-step purposive sampling. First, we selected three accounts from the followers of Oogachaga, one of Singapore’s most established NGOs working with the LGBTQ+ community. Then, we examined these three accounts’ followers and following lists, resulting in nine more accounts being selected. The purpose of choosing cases from follower/following lists rather than a hashtag page was to eliminate the bias caused by any particular hashtag. All the 12 accounts selected were public accounts; we did not select private accounts due to privacy considerations. The cases demonstrate good variations in total posts and ethnicity (see Table 1). To further anonymize the users, we paraphrased long quotations in our data exemplars using an AI tool (ChatGPT) and further manually edited the ChatGPT results to avoid unintentional identification of the users but remain accurate and faithful to the meaning conveyed by the original posts (paraphrased quotations are marked with *).

Table 1.

Case Descriptions.

No.	Posts total	Ethnicity
1	727	Chinese
2	189	Chinese
3	2,712	Indian & Chinese
4	60	Chinese
5	1,339	Chinese
6	1,386	Malay
7	1,757	Chinese
8	704	Chinese
9	1,446	Chinese
10	825	Indian
11	168	Malay
12	1,369	Chinese

We downloaded 2,337 posts (910 with hashtags) generated by 12 users between 1 January 2018 and 30 April 2022. Then, we textually analyzed hashtags, images, and texts in the posts, following the constant comparative approach of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 2017). In the open coding stage, we coded identity components in each post; we filtered out the posts that were homogeneous (e.g., similar photos in the gym or at work) and that contained no identity component (e.g., scenery and selfie with few texts). Posts with identity components but without hashtags were not filtered because we were also interested in the non-use of hashtags. Through this process, 324 posts were selected for secondary coding. In this stage, we summarized identity-related themes emerging from the codes and examined hashtags used on these themes. In particular, we examined what hashtags were used in each theme and compared the inclusion and exclusion of gay-related hashtags in each theme. We determined the sample size based on the data-saturation principle (Tracy, 2019); after analyzing posts from 12 accounts, few new themes could emerge by including more cases.

Findings

Identity Complexity of Singaporean Gay Men

To answer our research question, we first identified different identity components that the users represented in their posts. In general, the data confirmed the identity complexity of Singaporean gay men, who used various hashtags to represent multiple roles and social groups. For example, alongside his selfie, No. 7 wrote, “Hello, are you . . .?” Under this question, they listed a range of hashtags, like #homosexual, #asiangay, #sgboy, #singapore, and so on. Some of these hashtags indicate their gayness, while some do not. The 12 users used gay-related hashtags at different frequencies and generated different styles of gay representation. They also highlighted several other components of their identities, such as gender, nationality, profession, and membership in the family or society. The following paragraphs describe how these identity components were represented with hashtags.

Gayness

The users used a variety of hashtags to show gayness explicitly (#gay, #gaymen, #gaybro, and #instagay) or implicitly (#loveislove, #pinkdot). These hashtags were often used alongside other gay visuals, from the rainbow and Pride events to more novel ones like circuit parties (e.g., White party in Bangkok), air-filled unicorns, and flamingos in the pool. Some hashtags pushed the boundaries of homonormativity. For example, by hashtagging #gay on photos where they dress in pink, ride a lady bike, cosplay female characters (#Dragqueen), and live with #polyamory lovers, the users challenged the sex duality, stereotypes, and traditional sex relations in society.

Manliness

At the same time, the users used many hashtags to show themselves as men or males (#boy, #asianman, #fitman, #malemodel). For instance, No. 3 often used male-focused hashtags instead of gay ones to represent their “manliness.” When posting their photo with another muscle guy at a buffet, they tagged the photo with #manliness, #men, #muscle, and #beastmode. They also used #gay and #straight simultaneously when they shared their experience performing a “straight 18-year-old dude” in a TV series, mocking themselves in the text like: “I shaved and removed my piercings, and made sure I didn’t cross my legs while sitting. Wish me good luck, ladies*.” Using self-deprecating language, No. 3 pointed at a pervasive stereotype of gay men—feminization—and they satirized it. However, many users only hashtagged “men” in the posts where they represent manliness “appropriately,” like working out in the gym or doing a masculine job. In this case, we suspect that homonormativity still confines many gay Singaporeans’ self-presentation in a male-dominated cultural space (#men), encouraging those straight-acting while repealing those “gay-looking” or feminine.

Family

The users also used hashtags to label their roles as in the family, like the son of parents and the uncle of kids. Hashtags like #asianmom and #fatherknowsbest are always used to highlight sweet moments between the users and their parents, and tags like #cny and #qingming are used to record family gatherings and activities on traditional festivals. Several users also shared their photos with the younger generation in the family (e.g., #guncle, “gay uncle” used by No. 6, 7, 8, and 9). Presenting themselves as the middle-aged generation who have close ties with the elderly and the young, the users appear loved and confident in the photos like many of their non-gay peers.

Singaporean

Another significant component of the users’ identities is Singaporean or membership in the Singapore society. They frequently used Singapore-related hashtags to emphasize their belonging and patriotism to the country (e.g., #SG, #WeAreSingapore, #nationalday, #SupportLocalSG). Some also highlighted long-term attachment to the nation by sharing old-time photographs and stories of growing up in Singapore. For example, No. 7 used #singapore and #throwback on an old photo and wrote, “Me, as boy with cousins, was playing with plastic bags because we couldn’t afford kites*.” When representing their nationality, the users often linked it to their gayness. For example, No. 8 shared their creation of a Singa (symbol of Singapore) for an exhibition and introduced it as “(a Singa) with a heart for diversity, empathy, and inclusion.” Some also demonstrated their roles in the military and stated their willingness to do their part like other male citizens, like what No. 2 wrote, “Gay soldiers demonstrate their unwavering dedication to defending Singapore. They willingly offer their lives in serving the country regardless of sexual orientation*.”

Professional Identity

Some hashtags represented the users’ jobs or professional backgrounds, such as podcaster, host, DJ, singer, filmmaker, hotel worker, firefighter, violist, and dressage rider. Other hashtags like #beachcleanup, #Goodness, #Empathy, and #SandsForSingapore witnessed the users’ volunteering services, showing their role in serving society. These roles coexist with gay hashtags in many posts.

Habitual Gay Hashtagging

We found that while some users (e.g., No. 1, 11) used gay hashtags at the same frequency as their hashtag use in general, others showed inconsistency in using different types of hashtags (e.g., No. 6, 10). Thus, we argue that the use of gay hashtags should be closely examined with respect to identity management and identity complexity. In general, we identified two patterns: habitual and contextual.

First, we identified a less selective and decontextualized way of using gay hashtags and named it habitual gay hashtagging. This usage occurs when a user attaches a batch of gay hashtags to seemingly irrelevant photos and selfies. Identity complexity is significant in habitual gay hashtagging—the users present gayness when portraying various roles and discrete contexts. The users seemed to be less cautious in identity management, that is, they disclose gayness everywhere, regardless of context. Some of them might perceive a high salience of gayness in their self-concepts, that is, they see being gay as an organic part of themselves and cannot be separated from their everyday lives. For others, it might be a deliberate action to use gay hashtags regularly. By showing a certain level of carelessness, they might be demonstrating how they embraced their gay selves and how willing they were to present their gayness to the online public.

Habitual gay hashtagging often occurs on images that focus on the users per se, representing positive features of being a gay man: keen in fitness, well-dressed, and living a healthy life (#photoshoot, #gaymodel, #healthyliving, #fitness, #ootd, and so on), like No. 3 said, “Believe me that gays overdress for any particular occasion*.” Another example is No. 9, on their photo of playing a violin in public, using hashtags like #gaypride and #gayboy, together with #violist, #classicalmusicians, #fitnesslifestyle, #malemodel, and #malephotography. Assigning gay hashtags to such positive images may contribute to a positive representation of the gay group in public domains.

Contextual Gay Hashtagging

We also found many gay hashtags were used in specific contexts. Contextual gay hashtagging occurs when a hashtag is adopted to serve an identifiable group-related purpose or in a gay-related context. In the following sections, we present several sub-patterns of contextual gay hashtagging. We argue that contextual gay hashtagging extends the SR of Singaporean gay men and improves the digital inclusion of this group in discrete online communities.

Juxtaposing Gay and Non-Gay Hashtags

Gay hashtags were often simultaneously used with non-gay ones to underscore the identity complexity of the users. By juxtaposing these hashtags, the users could reveal their gayness when representing themselves in non-gay-specific domains, like #workfromhome, #toiletselfies, #millennials, and #tattoos. Such a joint usage increased the visibility of gay Singaporeans in different online communities and interest groups, bridging their gayness into diverse and larger communities.

In the same vein, some “gay+” hashtags were created to establish a gay niche in a specific domain, such as #Gaytraveler, #gaymusician, #gaydogdads, #gayfit, and so on. By using such “gay+” hashtags, the users could socialize with like-minded ones within the gay group. More importantly, while “gay+” hashtags distinct gay men from other groups in terms of sexuality, they also indicate gay men’s commonality with the majority in various senses unrelated to sexuality. Some gay+ hashtags were also used concurrently with non-gay counterparts (see Table 2). Such paired uses suggest that gay users see themselves as comparable to heterosexuals, from interests and expertise to romantic relationships and the roles they play. Through these paired hashtags, gay users can pursue broader social recognition and improve the digital inclusion of their community.

Table 2.

“Gay+” Hashtags Paired with Non-Gay Hashtags.

Gay hashtag	Paired hashtag	Gay hashtag	Paired hashtag
#gaycouple	#couple	#gayfit	#fitness
#gaymusician	#musician	#gaydogdads	#dogdads
#gaysian	#asian	#gayboy	#boy
#guncle	#uncle

Particularly, nationality-related hashtags (e.g., #Singapore and #sgboy) often co-occurred with gay hashtags, shaping the common ground between gay and non-gay Singaporeans based on a common nationality. Most related posts present positive features of the gay users, associating gayness with the users’ understanding of being good citizens. By juxtaposing gay and nationality hashtags, the users did not distance themselves from other Singaporeans due to their unique sexual orientation. Instead, some highlighted their homosexuality when illustrating their contribution to the nation. Longing for Singapore society’s acceptance, No. 3 wrote,

We work very hard and occupy significant roles of power and influence. We make positive impacts through creation, innovation, and entertainemnts. And we proudly serve our nation in the military. It is crucial that we are seen, respected, and on top of that, reciprocated with love*.

We also found the co-occurrence of gay hashtags and those of other social forces, including ethnic minorities, migrant workers, people with disabilities, as well as social movements like #BLM. Some users also drew on hashtags of other subgroups in the LGBTQ+ community (#queer, #transgender, #bisexual). Juxtaposing these hashtags allows gay users to symbolically ally with other minorities, establish shared interests, and consolidate unity across groups. For example, No. 3 aligned a range of minority hashtags in a post where they shared their insights on the current situation:

As we advocate against discrimination due to our identity, it is equally important that we should treat one another with the same respect. It all starts from within our community. Let’s love and respect each other, regardless of our labels of masculinity, femininity, top, bottom, bear, twink, chub, drag queen, lesbian, bisexual, transgender—everybody deserves a seat at the table*.

There were also mixed uses of gay hashtags and #mothersday, #friends, and #wedding, highlighting the extensive support gay men received from their families and immediate communities. For example, No. 4 wrote “Coming Out To Mother” on a photo with their mother, tagging #gay, #comingout, and #mothersday together. No. 9 posted a photo when they attended their heterosexual friend’s wedding and labeled the photo with #gaybestfriend, #soulmates, and so on. With these hashtags, gay men could step into controversial spaces traditionally occupied by heterosexuals (e.g., #wedding and #parents), harmonizing themselves with the majority while challenging the existent heteronormative institution.

In addition, some influential users tended to tag companies and media groups in their gay-hashtagged content. By naming the supportive companies and quoting favorable voices from the media, they could enrich their social capital and legitimize their connections with multiple social sectors. SR is a co-creative process of different parties, where each party takes its part in storytelling and mobilization. In our view, individuals’ self-presentation on social media is a decentralized form of media representation. Given Singapore’s regulations on the mainstream media, gay men can seek decentralized outlets for their voices and take the initiative in producing SR for themselves. No. 8, a filmmaker, denoted the importance of individual storytelling,

Clearly, change can only happen if we keep pushing out our stories. In Singapore, there is pervasive ignorance to the lived experiences of LGBTQ people. Of course, it doesn’t help when the mainstream media do not represent gay people at all . . . Their stories should be told*.

Regional and International Gay Hashtags

The users presented themselves in both domestic and global gay communities, from using Chinese characters like #萌 to tagging overseas locations like #Taiwan, #London, #warsawgay, and #whitepartybkk (Bangkok). The international hashtags reflect the global nature of gay cultures and how queer globalization has benefited domestic gay men as they seek connectivity and inclusion. As the users borrowed global symbolism and the international language system to express their gayness, the SR of Singaporean gay men benefits from the notion that supporting sexual minorities is a positive turn happening in many parts of the world.

However, the users seldom used #gaysingapore or any hashtags that combined gay and Singapore. A possible explanation is that the users preferred to generate SR in the broader context of queer globalization rather than to confine it to the domestic. Then, we searched #gaysingapore and found the hashtag at work, but it was mainly used by people outside Singapore. We examined some posts and found #gaysingapore was always jointly used with a series of #gay+ location tags like #gayspain, #gayindia, #gayitaly, and so on. This finding, on the one hand, confirms our finding that the use of gay hashtags is sometimes decontextualized. On the other hand, it also shows the digital connectivity that gay men create across the world.

Instead of #gaysingapore, the users widely used hashtags like #asiangay and #gayasian, suggesting their simultaneous identification with Asianness and gayness. These Asia-specific hashtags can bring together gay men living in Asia while harmonizing the traditional conflict between gayness and the Confucian culture. For example, No. 2 shared their photo wearing a rainbow scarf standing on a rainbow-patterned zebra crossing, and they wrote: “Asian values: 永遠為自己驕傲 (always be proud of yourself).” In such a case, the Pride culture,³ originating from Western advocacies, might have been internalized by Singaporean gay men as part of their new Asian value.

Synchronizing Gay-Related Information

Some other gay hashtags were created to serve informational functions, such as offering/seeking support, storytelling, coming out, and calling for action. These hashtags allow the users to create SR to serve group purposes of outreach and diffusion. When No. 4 and No. 7 tagged Oogachaga in support of the organization’s mission, they also included hashtags like #counseling, #therapy, #mentalhealth, #suicide, and #hivpositive. Understanding the dilemma faced by gay youngsters in Singapore, these users used hashtags to provide helpful resources to those struggling with their identities. Besides, gay hashtags like #gaylife and #comingout allowed the users to share their life trajectories and appeal to the public, like No. 12 wrote:

I suffered rejection from families, mentors, and classmates for liking the same gender. I was once taught to reject myself, and I went along with that . . . Now, I look back and reflect: Am I happy about my choice of this path of advocacy and putting myself in the spotlight? My answer is Yes*.

Gay hashtags were also used to organize information regarding mobilization and collective actions. For example, some hashtagged posts were used during Pride Month every year (#pride, #loveislove), while others were generated in support of domestic social movements, like #pinkdot. Notably, many hashtags (e.g., #377a, #ready4repeal) were generated around Section 377A of Singapore’s old Penal Code, a law that criminalized sex between consenting male adults. Dozens of posts drew on hashtags to oppose this law and call for collective action, like what No. 12 wrote: “If there’s one thing the community knows to do, it’s to #TryAgain until we #Repeal377A*.” In such a case, the hashtags might serve as a space where the group members and supporters could rally, exchange information, and negotiate on social inclusion.

Non-use of Gay Hashtags

To better understand the users’ identity management in hashtagging, we also analyzed the non-use of gay hashtags. In contrast to those using gay hashtags frequently, No. 6 and No. 10 seldom or never labeled themselves as gay, though they both indicated that they are gay in their profiles. In fact, they actively used other kinds of hashtags. As such, we further confirmed that using gay hashtags is selective. Since the users bear complex identities, they do not necessarily associate each aspect of their selves with being gay. More importantly, although all the users disclosed gayness in their profiles or posts, it is questionable to identify them as “gay activists.” While No. 12 self-labeled as an “advocate” and a “political gay,” No. 3 clearly stated in the profile that they are “not a brand, not a platform, not an activist.” This discrepancy shows different identity management of gay men on social media—while some want to be known as representatives or spokespersons of the gay group, some reject to be addressed in a unidimensional or radical way. Therefore, we argue that identity complexity gives gay men freedom in terms of how to represent themselves in public and whether to join the SR of the gay group.

We also examined unusual exclusions of gay hashtags. We compared each user’s use and non-use of gay hashtags and examined what themes of posts seldom or never include gay hashtags. We found that the exclusion of gay hashtags can be linked to the post’s context. Living in a country with compulsory military service, some users (No. 1, 2, 7) shared photos about their reservist life. Although they frequently used gay hashtags in many other types of posts, they somehow omitted gay hashtags when posting about their roles as reservists. In other words, the camouflage uniforms, as the symbol of military and male power, might have repelled the expression of gayness. Similarly, No. 11, another user who habitually used gay hashtags, did not use them on any of their photos as a firefighter. These are aligned with the assumptions that gayness is still considered contradictory to masculine roles in Singapore, so the users might deem adding a gay hashtag to portrayals of these roles as inappropriate. In fact, many Singaporean gay men experienced the army differently due to their homosexuality, like what No. 2 described in their testimony (even in which no gay hashtag was used),

I didn’t finish my 1st Basic Military Training since I had major problems adjusting to the military due to my sexuality. . . . I didn’t want others to gaze at me the way they did in high school. I didn’t want to be seen as a weak man or an outsider. I felt it was my obligation to represent gay men as strong and assimilatable as possible. . . . I felt cheated and deprived of the freedom to live my truth*.

Second, family photos were seldom accompanied by gay hashtags. Despite a few users sharing photos that include both their partners and other families, the partner’s presence was hardly spotlighted. By sharing such photos, one can assure their friends and followers that their partner is accepted by the family. But only one user (No. 9) has used gay hashtags on a family shoot during Chinese New Year. In the case of No. 11, gayness was never revealed in their posts about parents and families, though they used gay hashtags in almost all other posts. Indeed, having a gay child may still be a stigma for a Singaporean family. It was reasonable that most users avoided gay hashtags on family photos, keeping their families away from the SR of this controversial group.

Besides, heterosexual hashtags like #relationships, #love, #anniversary, and #valentines were sometimes used alone, without a gay counterpart. If not omitted, gay hashtags were excluded when the user wanted to represent their romantic relationship as common as heterosexuals. Using love-related hashtags without extra labels, images of gay lovers entered the celebration of heterosexual partnerships, or broadly speaking, the dominant social structure.

Discussion

As hashtagged gay self-presentation becomes increasingly visible online, content creation of gay men opens opportunities for them to reshape and enrich the meaning of gayness in society. In this study, we illustrated how Singaporean gay men used hashtags to represent gayness but also other roles they play and other attributes they bear. All these identity components contribute to the SR of their community on Instagram. As part of identity management, the users used gay-related hashtags habitually or contextually. Previous research found that potential influencers motivated by self-presentation tend to engage in heavy use of hashtags (Erz et al., 2018). Such usage is consistent with what we define as habitual gay hashtagging, where the users actively present gayness in any posts and contexts. Moving beyond, we examined hashtags as an approach to creating SR, extending our understanding of hashtag’s social meaning. Besides seeking popularity and status, Singaporean gay men also used gay-related hashtags to align gayness with other groups and attributes in particular contexts.

As such, the meaning of hashtags can be examined not only on the individual level but also on the intra- and inter-group levels. On the intra-group level, some gay hashtags define subcultural spaces for gay men, such as #gayasian, #gaymusician, and #gaygym. Some hashtags also serve as information corners for gay men, allowing them to vent, seek support, and even come out. On the inter-group level, the users demonstrated identity complexity and established broad social connections through contextual gay hashtagging or juxtaposing various hashtags. Some non-gay components of their identities were salient in such usages, such as being a good citizen, a Singaporean, an Asian son, a fan of sports, and so on. From the SRT perspective, anchoring gayness in these familiar contexts can facilitate the outgroups’ understanding of the gay community. Juxtaposing gay and non-gay hashtags also allows gay users to target multiple cultural spaces simultaneously—these spaces, traditionally, are not defined by gay men and do not enact gayness. The presence of gay images in these spaces thus increases the digital inclusion and visibility of gay men and enriches the social meaning of being gay.

Although Instagram and its hashtags give gay men more freedom and flexibility in expressing identity, gay users are still not free from certain social norms and the normativity of being gay. Two layers of institutional factors probably underlay the SR of Singaporean gay men on Instagram. The first layer is the political economy of Instagram. As many scholars suggest, gay men’s self-presentation is largely shaped by digital platforms’ business models and commercial orientation (Duguay, 2016b; Gras-Velázquez & Maestre-Brotons, 2023). Thus, SR on the platforms is likely to underrepresent marginal individuals within the gay group, such as those who do not represent youthfulness, fashion, and affluence.

The second layer of institutional influence comes from the Singapore society. In a conservative country like Singapore, some social norms permeate into digital platforms and shape individual content creation. In our study, a substantial part of hashtagged posts reflects Singapore’s mainstream values, such as underscoring cohesion as a nation, celebrating internationalism, and reinforcing heteronormativity in representing sexual minorities. But in liberal society, SR of the gay group should be inclusive of various forms of individuality. While the current SR on Instagram suggests that gay men can harmonize their gayness with mainstream values, this SR should also include those who do not fit with these values, for example, those who challenge certain national ideologies, those behaving “less manly,” and those not into dieting, fitness, or dressing. At this point, we want to warn about the risk of assimilating dominant power relations by overlooking a gay individual’s inherent difference. When homogeneous representation is created and goes across the platform, gay men’s efforts to blend into the majority structure may reinforce the status quo and depower themselves in driving further social change. For example, by isolating gay hashtags from posts about military services and family gatherings, one cannot challenge the conflicts between gayness and the traditional values behind these scenes.

An inherent limitation of this study comes from the text-based method we use. While qualitative textual analysis enables researchers to identify themes, concepts, and patterns emerging from the content (Tai et al., 2024), it does not allow us to explore or deduce the rationale and motives behind the content. In this study, by closely reading and performing thematic analysis of the posts, we could answer questions like how gay Singaporeans use hashtags and how the SR they create looks, and we could analyze how SR was created through hashtags. However, we could not examine what motivated the users to use hashtags and how they perceived the influence of the SR. Future research can use in-depth interviews to answer these questions. Another limitation related to the method is the sample size. The findings yielded from 12 accounts are hard to generalize to all gay Instagram users in Singapore, although of course generalization is not the goal of this qualitative study. Future research can rely on larger samples and big data methods to address this issue.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Langcheng Zhang

Edson C. Tandoc Jr.

Notes

Author Biographies

Langcheng Zhang (M.A., Yonsei University) is a PhD candidate at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. His research interests include digital cultures, social media, gender and sexuality, intergroup contact, and political communication.

Edson C. Tandoc Jr. (Ph.D., University of Missouri) is a Professor, Deputy Chair, and Associate Chair for Research at the Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. He is also the Director of the Center for Information Integrity and the internet (IN-cube) at NTU. His research interests include digital journalism, social media, fake news, and media sociology.

References

Abdullah

W. J. B.

(2023). The politics of compromise: Analyzing the repeal of section 377A in Singapore. Pacific Affairs, 96(1), 105–118.

Ahmed

A. M.

Andersson

Hammarstedt

(2013). Are gay men and lesbians discriminated against in the hiring process? Southern Economic Journal, 79(3), 565–585. https://doi.org/10.4284/0038-4038-2011.317

Anderson

(2002). Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a homophobic environment. Gender & Society, 16(6), 860–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124302237892

Baker

S. A.

Walsh

M. J.

(2018). “Good Morning Fitfam”: Top posts, hashtags and gender display on Instagram. New Media & Society, 20(12), 4553–4570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818777514

Bashari

Fazl-Ersi

(2020). Influential post identification on Instagram through caption and hashtag analysis. Measurement and Control, 53(3–4), 409–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020294019877489

Bergan-Gander

von Kürthy

(2006). Sexual orientation and occupation: Gay men and women’s lived experiences of occupational participation. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(9), 402–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260606900903

Birnholtz

(2018, September). I don’t want to seem trashy: Exploring context and self-presentation through young gay and bisexual males’ attitudes toward shirtless selfies on Instagram [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, Barcelona, Spain. https://doi.org/10.1145/3229434.3229460

Birnholtz

Macapagal

(2021). “I don’t want to be known for that”: The role of temporality in online self-presentation of young gay and bisexual males. Computers in Human Behavior, 118, 106706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106706

Brubaker

Cooper

(2000). Beyond “identity.” Theory and Society, 29(1), 1–47.

10.

Burke

P. J.

(1980). The self: Measurement requirements from an interactionist perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 18–29.

11.

Caliandro

Graham

(2020). Studying Instagram beyond selfies. Social Media + Society, 6(2), 2056305120924779. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120924779

12.

Campbell

(2019, February 26). Why Instagram is the top social platform for engagement (and how to use it). https://www.relevance.com/why-is-instagram-the-best-platform-for-engagement-and-how-you-can-use-it/

13.

Cassidy

(2018). Gay men, identity and social media: A culture of participatory reluctance. Routledge.

14.

Cheng

(2019). S’poreans more liberal towards homosexuality compared with five years ago, IPS survey finds. Today Online. https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/singaporeans-more-liberal-towards-homosexuality-ips-survey-finds

15.

Chua

L. J.

(2012). Pragmatic resistance, law, and social movements in authoritarian states: The case of gay collective action in Singapore. Law & Society Review, 46(4), 713–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x

16.

Clarke

Smith

(2015). “Not hiding, not shouting, just me”: Gay men negotiate their visual identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(1), 4–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.957119

17.

Detenber

B. H.

Cenite

Zhou

Malik

Neo

R. L.

(2014). Rights versus morality: Online debate about decriminalization of gay sex in Singapore. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(9), 1313–1333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.926769

18.

Detenber

B. H.

S. S.

Neo

R. L.

Malik

Cenite

(2013). Influence of value predispositions, interpersonal contact, and mediated exposure on public attitudes toward homosexuals in Singapore. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 16(3), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12006

19.

DeVito

M. A.

Walker

A. M.

Birnholtz

(2018). “Too gay for Facebook”: Presenting LGBTQ+ identity throughout the personal social media ecosystem. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), Article 44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274313

20.

Duggan

(2002). The new homonormativity: The sexual politics of neoliberalism. Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics, 10, 175–194.

21.

Duguay

(2016a). “He has a way gayer Facebook than I do”: Investigating sexual identity disclosure and context collapse on a social networking site. New Media & Society, 18(6), 891–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814549930

22.

Duguay

(2016b). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer visibility through selfies: Comparing platform mediators across Ruby Rose’s Instagram and Vine Presence. Social Media + Society, 2(2), 2056305116641975. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116641975

23.

Duvall

S.-S.

Heckemeyer

(2018). #BlackLivesMatter: Black celebrity hashtag activism and the discursive formation of a social movement. Celebrity Studies, 9(3), 391–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2018.1440247

24.

Efron

(2010, July 19–23). Hashtag retrieval in a microblogging environment [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 33rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Geneva, Switzerland.

25.

Erz

Marder

Osadchaya

(2018). Hashtags: Motivational drivers, their use, and differences between influencers and followers. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.07.030

26.

Fingerhut

A. W.

Peplau

L. A.

(2006). The impact of social roles on stereotypes of gay men. Sex Roles, 55(3), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9080-5

27.

Fiske

S. T.

Taylor

S. E.

(1991). Social cognition. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

28.

Gerbaudo

Treré

(2015). In search of the “we” of social media activism: Introduction to the special issue on social media and protest identities. Information, Communication & Society, 18, 865–871).

29.

Glaser

B. G.

Strauss

A. L.

(2017). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.

30.

Gras-Velázquez

Maestre-Brotons

(2023). Spanish gay male subjectivity, body, intimacy, and affect on Instagram. Sexualities, 26(3), 331–353.

31.

Hanckel

Vivienne

Byron

Robards

Churchill

(2019). “That’s not necessarily for them”: LGBTIQ+ young people, social media platform affordances and identity curation. Media, Culture & Society, 41(8), 1261–1278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443719846612

32.

Hecht

M. L.

Phillips

K. E.

(2021). Communication theory of identity: Understanding the multilayered nature of identity. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Schrodt

(Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 221–232). Routledge.

33.

Herrera

A. P.

(2018). Theorizing the lesbian hashtag: Identity, community, and the technological imperative to name the sexual self. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 22(3), 313–328.

34.

Hogg

M. A.

Terry

D. J.

White

K. M.

(1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255–269. https://doi.org/10.2307/2787127

35.

Humphreys

(1972). Out of the closets: The sociology of homosexual liberation (Vol. 288). Prentice Hall.

36.

Ichau

Frissen

d’Haenens

(2019). From# selfie to# edgy. Hashtag networks and images associated with the hashtag# Jews on Instagram. Telematics and Informatics, 44, 101275.

37.

Jaspal

Breakwell

G. M.

(2022). Identity resilience, social support and internalised homonegativity in gay men. Psychology & Sexuality, 13(5), 1270–1287.

38.

Jaspal

(2019). Why a social psychology of gay men? Springer.

39.

Johri

Heyman-Schrum

Ruiz

Malik

Karbasian

Handa

Purohit

(2018, June). More than an engineer: Intersectional self-expressions in a hashtag activism campaign for engineering diversity [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies, Menlo Park and San Jose, CA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209811.3212700

40.

Kim

Lee

(2022). # ShoutYourAbortion on Instagram: Exploring the Visual Representation of Hashtag Movement and the Public’s Responses. SAGE Open, 12(2), 21582440221093327.

41.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior.

42.

Liao

(2019). “# IAmGay# What about you?”: Storytelling, discursive politics, and the affective dimension of social media activism against censorship in China. International Journal of Communication, 13, 21.

43.

Lim

E.-B.

(2005). Glocalqueering in New Asia: The politics of performing gay in Singapore. Theatre Journal, 57(3), 383–405. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25069670

44.

Madianou

Miller

(2013). Polymedia: Towards a new theory of digital media in interpersonal communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 16(2), 169–187.

45.

Mead

G. H.

Schubert

(1934). Mind, self and society (Vol. 111). University of Chicago Press.

46.

Mikhaylova

O. R.

Gradoselskaya

G. V.

(2021). Radical self-representation in a hostile setting: Discursive strategies of the Russian Lesbian Feminist Movement. Social Media + Society, 7(1), 2056305121989253. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305121989253

47.

Miller

S. L.

Forest

K. B.

Jurik

N. C.

(2003). Diversity in blue: Lesbian and gay police officers in a masculine occupation. Men and Masculinities, 5(4), 355–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399702250841

48.

Monea

(2022). The digital closet. MIT Press.

49.

Moscovici

(1963). Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review of Psychology, 14(1), 231–260.

50.

Moscovici

(1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. Farr & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3–69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

51.

Offord

(1999). The burden of (homo)sexual identity in Singapore. Social Semiotics, 9(3), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350339909360441

52.

Oswin

(2006). Decentering queer globalization: Diffusion and the “global gay.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24(5), 777–790. https://doi.org/10.1068/d63j

53.

Oswin

(2014). Queer time in global city Singapore: Neoliberal futures and the “freedom to love.” Sexualities, 17(4), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460714524765

54.

Paul Tan

Lee Jack Jin

. (2007). Imagining the gay community in Singapore. Critical Asian Studies, 39(2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672710701339311

55.

Peterson

(2011). Neoliberal homophobic discourse: Heteronormative human capital and the exclusion of queer citizens. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(6–7), 742–757.

56.

Phillips

(2014). “And I am also gay””: Illiberal pragmatics, neoliberal homonormativity and LGBT activism in Singapore. Anthropologica, 56(1), 45–54.

57.

Proferes

Summers

(2019). Algorithms and agenda-setting in Wikileaks’# Podestaemails release. Information, Communication & Society, 22(11), 1630–1645.

58.

Pullen

Cooper

(2010). LGBT identity and online new media. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com.sg/books?id=qCLJBQAAQBAJ

59.

Robinson

B. A.

(2016). Heteronormativity and homonormativity. In Wickramasinghe

Naples

N. A.

Hoogland

R. C.

Angela Wong

W. C.

(Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell encyclopedia of gender and sexuality studies (pp. 1–3). Wiley.

60.

Roccas

Brewer

M. B.

(2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0602_01

61.

Sammut

Howarth

(2014). Social representations. Springer.

62.

Shin

Hecht

M. L.

(2017). Communication theory of identity. In Kim

Y. Y.

(Eds.), The international encyclopedia of intercultural communication (pp. 1–9). John Wiley.

63.

Small

T. A.

(2011). What the hashtag? A content analysis of Canadian politics on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 872–895.

64.

Stryker

(1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Benjamin-Cummings Publishing Company.

65.

Stryker

Serpe

R. T.

(1982). Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: Theory and research example. In Ickes

Knowles

E. S.

(Eds.), Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 199–218). Springer.

66.

Tai

R. H.

Bentley

L. R.

Xia

Sitt

J. M.

Fankhauser

S. C.

Chicas-Mosier

A. M.

Monteith

B. G.

(2024). An examination of the use of large language models to aid analysis of textual data. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 16094069241231168. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241231168

67.

Tajfel

(1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39.

68.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational Identity: A Reader, 56(65), 9780203505984–9780203505916.

69.

Tracy

S. J.

(2019). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. John Wiley & Sons.

70.

Tropiano

(2014). “A safe and supportive environment”: LGBTQ youth and social media. In Pullen

(Ed.), Queer youth and media cultures (pp. 46–62). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137383556_4

71.

Turner

J. C.

Hogg

M. A.

Oakes

P. J.

Reicher

S. D.

Wetherell

M. S.

(1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell.

72.

Worms

J. L.

Gras-Velázquez

(2020). Hashtag favela: Instagram, space and identity in urban Brazil. Journal of Urban Cultural Studies, 7(1), 59–76.

73.

Xiong

Cho

Boatwright

(2019). Hashtag activism and message frames among social movement organizations: Semantic network analysis and thematic analysis of Twitter during the# MeToo movement. Public Relations Review, 45(1), 10–23.

74.

Yue

(2007). Creative queer Singapore: The illiberal pragmatics of cultural production. Gay & Lesbian Issues & Psychology Review, 3(3), 149–160.

75.

Yulius

Tang

Offord

(2018). The globalization of LGBT identity and same-sex marriage as a catalyst of neo-institutional values: Singapore and Indonesia in focus. In Winter

Forest

Sénac

(Eds.), Global perspectives on same-sex marriage: A neo-institutional approach (pp. 171–196). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62764-9_9

76.

Zhang

Liu

Niu

(2021, December 7–10). ContentHE: Content-enhanced network embedding for hashtag representation [Conference session]. 2021 International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW).