Selfies are a ubiquitous practice worldwide in which social media users create and share cultural artifacts that go beyond mere idealized or narcissistic self-presentations. As a cultural phenomenon, selfies reflect not just personal impressions but also communal values of modern life. This study analyzes the use of place in selfies as a defining visual element of self-representation in the United States and China. In particular, this research examines differences and commonalities in the places used to create meaning in selfies in the two national contexts. Our research shows that the deliberate use of places plays a critical role in the presentation of self within selfies both in the United States and China. While there are significant differences in some aspects of selfie construction, the selection of places for selfies followed similar patterns of public and private spaces in both countries, privileging the domestic and commercial most of all, and providing some support for the dominance of a global online culture over the influence of a specific national culture in presentations of the self.
AdamsP. C.JanssonA. (2012). Communication geography: A bridge between disciplines. Communication Theory, 22, 299–318.
2.
AlburyK. (2015). Selfies| Selfies, sexts and sneaky hats: Young people’s understandings of gendered practices of self-representation. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1734–1745.
3.
AsurS.HubermanB. A.SzaboG.WangC. (2011). Trends in social media: Persistence and decay. In Proceedings of the 5th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 434–437). AAAI press.
4.
BaishyaA. (2015). Selfies | #NaMo: The political work of the selfie in the 2014 Indian general elections. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1686–1700.
BoonS.PentneyB. (2015). Selfies | Virtual lactivism: Breastfeeding selfies and the performance of motherhood. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1759–1774.
7.
BrunsA.BurgessJ. E. (2011). The use of Twitter hashtags in the formation of ad hoc publics. In Proceedings of the 6th European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference 2011. Reykjavik: University of Iceland.
8.
CouldryN. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
9.
CresswellT. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Malden, MA: John Wiley.
10.
DellerR.TiltonS. (2015). Selfies| Selfies as charitable meme: Charity and national identity in the #nomakeupselfie and #thumbsupforstephen campaigns. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1788–1805.
11.
DrentenJ. (2012). Snapshots of the self. In CloseA. (Ed.), Online consumer behavior: Theory and research in social media, advertising, and e-tail (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
EavesM. H.LeathersD. G. (1991). Context as communication: Mcdonald’s vs. Burger King. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 19, 263–289.
13.
ElsbachK. D. (2003). Relating physical environment to self-categorizations: Identity threat and affirmation in a non-territorial office space. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 622–654.
14.
ElsbachK. D.PrattM. G. (2007). The physical environment in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 1, 181–224.
15.
EndresD.Senda-CookS. (2011). Location matters: The rhetoric of place in protest. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 97, 257–282.
16.
FroshP. (2015). Selfies| The gestural image: The selfie, photography theory, and kinesthetic sociability. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1607–1628.
17.
GirouxH. A. (2015). Selfie culture in the age of corporate and state surveillance. Third Text, 29, 155–164.
18.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
19.
Gomez-CruzE.ThornhamH. (2015). Selfies beyond self-representation: The (theoretical) f(r)ictions of a practice. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture, 7, Article 28073.
20.
GreenfeldL. (1992). Nationalism: Five roads to modernity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
HallS. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In HallS. (Ed.), Culture, media, language: Working papers in cultural studies, 1972–1979 (pp. 128–138). London, England: Hutchinson.
22.
HansenD. L.ShneidermanB.SmithM. A. (2011). Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
23.
HermidaA. (2010). Twittering the News: The emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism Practice, 4, 297–308.
24.
HessA. (2015). Selfies| The selfie assemblage. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1629–1646.
25.
HochmanN.ManovichL. (2013). Zooming into an Instagram city: Reading the local through social media. First Monday, 18(7). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/4711/3698
26.
KoliskaM.RobertsJ. (2015). Selfies: Witnessing and participatory journalism with a point of view. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1672–1685.
27.
LarsonG. S.PearsonA. R. (2012). Placing identity: Place as a discursive resource for occupational identity work among high-tech entrepreneurs. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 241–266.
28.
LasénA.Gómez-CruzE. (2009). Digital photography and picture sharing: Redefining the public/private divide. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 22, 205–215.
29.
LicoppeC. (2004). “Connected” presence: The emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22, 135–156.
30.
LinC. A. (2001). Cultural values reflected in Chinese and American television advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30(4), 83–94.
31.
LoshE. (2015). Selfies | Feminism reads big data: “Social physics,” atomism, and Selfiecity. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1647–1659.
32.
MacekJ. (2005). Defining cyberculture. http://macek.czechian.net/defining_cyberculture.htm, translation of MacekJ. (2005). Defining cyberculture. In BinkováP.VolekJ. (Eds.), Média a realita (pp. 35–65). Prague, Czech Republic: Masaryk University Press.
33.
MasseyD. (1994). Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
34.
MasudaT.GonzalezR.KwanL.NisbettR. (2008). Culture and aesthetic preference: Comparing the attention to context of East Asians and Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1260–1275.
35.
MasudaT.NisbettR. (2001). Attending holistically versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 922–934.
36.
MeeseJ.GibbsM.CarterM.ArnoldM.NansenB.KohnT. (2015). Selfies| Selfies at funerals: Mourning and presencing on social media platforms. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1818–1831.
37.
MerriganG.HustonL. (2009). Communication research methods. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
MinaA. X. (2014). Batman, Pandaman and the Blind Man: A case study in social change memes and Internet censorship in China. Journal of Visual Culture, 13, 359–375.
40.
MocanuD.BaronchelliA.PerraN.GonçalvesB.ZhangQ.VespignaniA. (2013). The Twitter of Babel: Mapping world languages through microblogging platforms. PLoS ONE, 8(4), e61981.
41.
MorleyD.RobinsK. (1995). Spaces of identity: Global media, electronic landscapes, and cultural boundaries. London, England: Routledge.
42.
MurrayD. C. (2015). Notes to self: The visual culture of selfies in the age of social media. Consumption Markets & Culture, 18, 490–516.
43.
NisbettR.MiyamotoY. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 467–473.
44.
NisbettR.PengK.ChoiI.NorenzayanA. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.
45.
O’TooleP.WereP. (2008). Observing places: Using space and material culture in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 8, 616–634.
PanZ.ChaffeeS. H.ChuG. C.JuY. (1994). To see ourselves: Comparing traditional Chinese and American cultural values. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
48.
PorterD. (1997). Internet culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
RettbergJ. W. (2014). Seeing ourselves through technology: How we use selfies, blogs and wearable devices to see and shape ourselves. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
50.
RobertsonR. (1995). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. In FeatherstoneM.LashS.RobertsonR. (Eds.), Global modernities (pp. 25–44). London, England: SAGE.
51.
RooneyD.PaulsenN.CallanV. J.BrabantM.GalloisC.JonesE. (2010). A new role for place identity in managing organizational change. Management Communication Quarterly, 24, 44–73. doi:10.1177/0893318909351434
van DijckJ. (2008). Digital photography: Communication, identity, memory. Visual Communication, 7, 57–76.
56.
Van LearC. A.SheehanM.WithersL. A.WalkerR. A. (2005). AA Online: The enactment of supportive computer mediated communication. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 5–26.
57.
VieraA. J.GarrettJ. M. (2005). Understanding Interobserver Agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37, 360–363.
58.
WellsM. M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: The role of office personalization in employee and organizational well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 239–255.
