Sociologists in the Digital Wild

Recently we discussed the controversy surrounding a new paper on artificial intelligence and sexuality by Wang and Kosinski. Really smart analysis continues to emerge. Sociologist Greggor Mattson shares his expert thoughts on how we study marginalized communities.

Mattson is tapping into a long social science debate that predates the digital society. But that debate takes on a new urgency in the digital society where ‘access’ to vulnerable communities seems to be a click away. He makes the analogy to a gay bar as a safe space:

These warnings are a reminder to the viewer that although dating profiles may seem public to an outsider, we treat them as private inside the community. There are strong informal norms, for example, against talking to a coworker about the content of their dating profile–we will both pretend we haven’t seen each other online. We treat them as private because they contain information beyond sexual orientation that are often stigmatized within and beyond the LGBTQ community: the degree to which we are out, our preferences for specific sexual behaviors, HIV status or medical conditions, or information about our relationships. Most dating sites require a user to subscribe to them to view this more detailed information and so there is a barrier to entry.

This is quite similar to longstanding norms about gay bars. Premises in the U.S. that are licensed to serve alcohol are legally public (“public houses” or pubs), but historically we didn’t talk about seeing someone in front of outsiders (I think this norm is observed in many parts of the country and among many age cohorts). To outsiders, gay bars seem public. To those inside the community, they are not, and we’re very protective of our own.

Mattson also makes worthwhile critiques of marginalized scholarship in the journal review process. Both of these issues stem from the same questions: who is allowed to study whom and under what conditions?