I also believe It’s Complicated is a must read, but not for the same reasons you think it is, Cory. boyd’s work is absolutely central in the conversation about teens and social media. The problem, however, is that she’s wrong about some crucial points and her overall trope that teens are doing what they’ve always done (except now doing it online) and parents should “take a chill pill” and relax around digital media use is both dangerous and facile. It’s a message that parents long to hear, but it doesn’t mean its accurate or helpful for parents struggling to understand just how digital media use impacts their particular teen. I’ve read the entire work and have a long essay-length reply to her book. Let’s just say its not as glowing as every other review I’ve read.
I thought this was the most important quote of the book:
“Given the context in which I’m writing and the data on which I’m drawing, most of the discussion is explicitly oriented around American teen culture, although some of my analysis may be relevant in other cultures and contexts. I also take for granted, and rarely seek to challenge, the capitalist logic that underpins American society and the development of social media. [italics mine] Although I believe that these assumptions should be critiqued, this is outside the scope of this project.”
WTF? The idea of the public sphere that boyd borrows from Jurgen Habermas is focused centrally on the exact point that boyd says is “beyond the scope of the project,” namely, that the forces of state and market fundamentally define and distort communication in the networked publics in which teens participate daily. To say that a consideration of the “capitalist logic” is outside the scope of her project strains the credibility of the project.
