As arguably the most prevalent tool of social media, the hashtag as a phenomenon is one that consistently beguiles, intrigues and annoys me. The premise behind the hashtag is simple, originating on Twitter and constricted by that website's particular format; a short phrase, beginning with a #, which relates to or tries to sum up a recent event. Famous hashtags include "JeSuisHebdo", expressing support for victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, "#HeForShe", Emma Watson's call for gender equality, and "#GamerGate", pertaining to the ongoing debate about treatment of women within the videogame industry and the videogames themselves, particularly regarding its male-centric image at the current moment.
And of course, in the way that only social media can do, there are silly and hashtags as well, such as "#MisheardLyrics", which speaks for itself, and even some questionable hashtags such as "#CutForBeiber", a satirical (we hope) trend which did the rounds when Bieber announced he was quitting music a few years back- whether this was exploitation of young girl's fandom of a famous popstar or an absolutely scathing but nevertheless questionable poke at overblown emotional reactions on the social media sphere is a debate that could be had, but I won't be having here.
Hashtags are simple, easy to use, easy to understand, require minimal effort and allow literally anybody to join in the conversation, which is probably why they've (relatively) endured on the ever shifting sands of the online realm. And I think that as a social media tool they have good and bad aspects, but only really in the way that speech as an overarching social and human construct has good and bad aspects; it is purely how they are used.
But to get theoretical for a moment, there is always that nagging question in my head whenever I see a particular hashtag rise to prominence, and that is simply "is this actually achieving anything and does it actually mean anything?" It sounds blinkered and cynical, but there's something almost vapid to the very nature of the hashtag which almost cheapens the often very serious topic that the hashtag is referring to.
Take the Hebdo massacre. Any loss of life is a tragedy, and in this case the event was unspeakably tragic, and I also think that it served as a call to reconsider our position of responsibility when it comes to freedom of speech and the negative consequences that can sometimes arise by exercising it; whether this means we should be more careful or more dogmatically pursue our right to exercise it; just take a long hard look at ourselves in the wake of this horror.
But what, really, did that hashtag do anything other than simplify it into an easily recognisable meme, when really it's the kind of thing that we should all confront in its entirety out of respect for the victims and their families. It's not an easy thing to try and confront, and anything that makes it easy, in any way, doesn't sit right for me; and if there's one thing hashtags are, it is easy.
I cannot deny their use and handiness as a social tool, and they make looking for topics and trends on Twitter, as well as interests and hobbies incredibly easy to pin down. But there's something too safe about them, something a bit bandwagonesque (what an album) about the entire venture that could, I might argue, be construed as somewhat disrespectful.
We live in an era where, on social media, the opinion has been commodified and any fool with a keyboard can type out their opinions and if they are savvy enough, people will read it (proven by the fact that you're reading this). The stock market, often enough, on these formats, is not insight, profundity or succintness, but banality, recognisability, and retweetability. The hashtag is used so often as a joke, as an ironic statement of postmodern detachment, that when it does explode around a serious topic that deserves our attention, it just doesn't feel right.
But that's just the opinion of a vaguely miffed politics student.
No comments:
Post a Comment