Chick-fil-A has delicious waffle fries. So delicious. But before getting in to the content of this post, I should locate myself by stating that I have not purchased anything from this company in over a year, and I will never consume those warm checkered squares of potato-y goodness again. The reason for this (in case anyone has been living under a rock/in a dissertation shaped bubble) is that the company explicitly opposes same-sex marriage. I am explicitly anti-bigotry, and so I do not purchase food from Chick-fil-A
Okay, now I can theorize.
The case of Chick-fil-A, and its debaters on both sides, is useful for delving deeper into issues of reality curation—an idea I wrote about previously. As a brief overview, reality curation is the flip-side of self-presentation. In the former, we curate information going out, and in the latter, we curate information coming in. In particular, we curate incoming information in confirmatory ways, seeking out that which appeals to our political, religious, and affective sensibilities.
Using the Twitter buzz surrounding Chick-fil-A, I work here to make three additional and interrelated points about reality curation. First, I argue that reality curation is not a digital phenomena, but amplified by pervasive digitality. Second, I argue that reality curation is required in a digitally connected era. Finally, I argue that reality curation takes place at multiple levels, as users interact differentially with the affordances of a technology.
Reality curation is not new, nor is it unique to digitally mediated communication. Indeed, we curate reality through the newspapers we choose to read, the television stations we choose to watch, the people we choose to befriend and the topics we choose to broach with chosen friends. Pervasive digitality, however, amplifies curation—making it more explicit and visible. With the affordances of digital technology, one not only chooses the slant of their information, but actively and explicitly navigates to do so. For instance, one can implicitly curate their reality of the Chick-fil-A controversy by turning the channel to Fox News versus MSNBC. More explicit, however, is the navigation on Twitter to the #LiberalFastFood versus #ConservativeFastFood (the former in support of Chick-fil-A and conservative policies, the latter in opposition to Chick-fil-A and support of liberal policies).
This leads to my second point: that explicit reality curation is required in a digitally mediated world. A hallmark of the contemporary era is the abundance of information—including an array of voices. This amalgamation of views, facts, stories, and perspectives necessitates the active practice of sifting and selecting. To participate on Twitter, for example, one must choose to Follow some instead of others—engaging in what I call selective connection—and they must both seek out and ignore particular topics—engaging in what I call selective visibility. Indeed, the viewer is responsible for sifting through the chatter about Chick-fil-A in a way that makes it comprehensible, and this clarifying process necessarily involves active reality curation.
This reality curation, however, can and does take place at many levels, and varies with the ways in which users engage the technology. That is, although digital mediation requires reality curation, users vary in the extent to which they curate. In the case of Twitter, information can be narrowed down to different levels. One might curate reality by typing Chick-fil-A into the Twitter search function, choosing to “let in” lay discourses surrounding the controversy. Curating further, one may search by opinion-specific hashtags (such as #LiberalFastFood/ #ConservativeFastFood discussed above). Similarly, one may go to a specific Tweep—an individual or institution— who tends to tweet in a particular vein, and follow the discourse from this one Tweep’s perspective. Most interestingly, however, is that users have the potential to engage in all of these practices simultaneously, or engage in curation at a consistently broad or narrow level.
Reality curation has always been a part of human social life. We constantly make conscious and unconscious decisions about what to hear, see, feel, know, and experience. The potentialities of digital mediation, however, amplify this practice. They make it explicit and required. How we know affects what we know, and we are highly agentic in this process.
Comments 11
Jeffrey Guterman — August 7, 2012
Good article and interesting distinctions. But what's all the fuss? I am for making same-sex marriage available to all. I have eaten at Chick-fil-A about three times in my life, all prior to this incident. It is a questionable thing for a private company to come out and advocate for or against such an issue. What's the point? Being one to challenge taken-for-granted assumptions, however, I ask, "Why must this company not do so?" So the company took a stand against same-sex marriage, or for heterosexual marriage. It seems beyond the scope of what they are supposed to do. So what. Many entities speak to topics that are outside of their domain. Some day I might come across a Chick-fil-A, and I might just order some of those waffle fries. I'm not buying their views on marriage.
jennydavis — August 7, 2012
Jeffrey, thanks for the comment.
Yes, Chick-fil-A is free to express their political views, and when those views are oppressive, patrons have a right to boycott them. To give them money is not only implicit support of their stance, but more directly, helps fund their donations to anti-gay organizations (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-group-donations-_n_1644609.html).
Moreover, to publicly and financially express discrimination towards a particular group creates an unsafe space for that group within the establishment, while promoting and justifying hate towards that group at a cultural level.
Would you feel the same way if the target here were racial minorities?
Jeffrey Guterman — August 7, 2012
You make very good points, Jenny. No, I would not feel the same way if they targeted racial minorities or any racial groups. So, let me reconsider my view on this matter. As it happens, I think this company has attempted to retract it's position in its FAQs (http://www.chick-fil-a.com/FAQ#?category=1) by stating the following:
Q: What is Chick-fil-A’s response to the stories circulating in the media and on the Internet?
A: Chick-fil-A is a family-owned and family-led company serving the communities in which it operates. From the day Truett Cathy started the company, he began applying biblically-based principles to managing his business. For example, we believe that closing on Sundays, operating debt-free and devoting a percentage of our profits back to our communities are what make us a stronger company and Chick-fil-A family.
The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our Restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect –regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 Restaurants run by independent Owner/Operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.
Our mission is simple: to serve great food, provide genuine hospitality and have a positive influence on all who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.
But, again, you make very good points and I try to be open to change. We need to be aware of how we contribute to both solutions and problems. For example, if one holds a mutual fund, it is important to research what individual stocks that fund comprises. The market has become so volatile, corrupt, and dubious that I no longer hold any stock. Like I said, I only ate at Chick-Fil-A about three times, all prior to this incident. I will think twice now before eating there again.
My question is, what do we not know about other companies? Is it necessary, then, that all companies provide comprehensive disclosure statements about their views regarding all matters of public interest? Who determines what the topics shall and shall not be? What if a company has not yet articulated a position? Are they to be considered apathetic?
jennydavis — August 7, 2012
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think you make a key point in your last paragraph. Companies often do not disclose their political agendas, nor do we as consumers seek these out. Ironically, Chick-fil-A is catching a lot of flack because they have been open in their dealings.
With deregulation and multi-layered structures of corporations, it is increasingly difficult to know where our products come from, or to limit our consumption only to those made/produced/sold ethically. Many of us (myself included) take a stance in some cases, and consume blindly (or even with willful ignorance) in others. The defense, though weak, is that this is what is functional for everyday life. It would be immensely time consuming (and probably expensive)to consume ethically without exception. As such, we protest those whose offenses are most egregious and most visible.
ryan caldwell — August 7, 2012
I personally think hate is hate....racial or homophobia. And, the HRC does publish online a list of companies and where they donate their funds. So helpful!!
Jeffrey Guterman — August 7, 2012
Jenny, you are very clear and what you say makes sense to me. I would only add that one cannot NOT influence, even when "invisible." At least, let's note that Chick-fil-A disclosed their position. As you wrote, "Ironically, Chick-fil-A is catching a lot of flack because they have been open in their dealings."
Bradm — August 8, 2012
The "not patronizing a business because of their political/social views" stance seems problematic to me. I understand the impulse but to do this consistently would seem to be impossible. Take Koch Industries, for example. The Koch family has donated large sums of money to global warming deniers, anti-union groups, Mitt Romney, Scott Walker and more. Koch industries also owns companies that produce everything from carpet to napkins to fertilizer to beef to plastics to asphalt. Its easy enough to stop buying Brawny paper towels if you are against the Koch's political views but how the world would you know where their asphalt or plastics go? They could be used almost anywhere. Not saying you should start buying chicken sandwiches or anything just that I don't see any consistent, practical way to implement your "I am explicitly anti-X, and so I do not purchase food from business establishment Y" policy.
jennydavis — August 8, 2012
Bradm. To your point about the hypocrisy of boycotting one product when we do not/can not boycott all--I agree, but would argue that some is better than none. I would also argue that the case of same-sex marriage is different than other social debates in that it treats a RIGHT as a debatable privilege, dehumanizing a segment of the population.
I also want to point out, however (for the sake of everyone) that my political stance takes up only the first paragraph of this essay. I make this stance to locate myself before using Chick-fil-A as an example to illustrate a theoretical argument. This theoretical argument is the meat (pun intended) of the post.
jeffdowd — August 11, 2012
I'll skip over the boycott debate and comment on the theoretical argument. On the surface level the argument is, I think, correct (i've heard some call it "reality shopping.") People can certainly choose their own news and ignore or dismiss news they don't like. Although some research has found that internet users are more omnivorous in their news consumption than assumed, people do have the ability to reality shop.
However, too often this is depicted as a problem for "both sides" but if I choose to listen to NPR and read the New York Times for my information about the world and someone else chooses to watch Fox News - only one of us is engaging with reality. I think that rather important point is often mixed when we theorize about polarization or the segmentation of the news audience.