1

TITLE:ONTHEFACEOFFACEBOOK:HISTORICALIMAGESANDPERSONHOOD

INFILIPINOSOCIALNETWORKING

AUTHOR: DeirdreMcKay

SeniorLecturerinGeography

EarthSciencesandGeography

WilliamSmithBuilding

KeeleUniversity

Newcastle-under-Lyme

StaffordshireU.K.ST55BG

d.c.mckay@keele.ac.uk

ABSTRACT:Exchangingandmanipulatingdigitalimagesonsocialnetworking

sitesofferspeoplenewwaysrenegotiateawidevarietyofrelationships.This

paperexamineshowinteractionsonFacebooktransformpersonhoodandnorms

forrelationshipsandbelongingsamongaparticulargroupofFilipinousers.By

trackinghistoricalimagesthatindexusers’profiles,theargumentchartsthe

simultaneousmodesinwhichdigitalphotographsactinon-linesocialnetworks.

Followinghistoricalphotographsthatindexusers’profile,Ishowhowthese

photographsaremorethansimplyobjectsandinstruments.Users’profile

photographsalsoactasaspectsofothersandoftheself–aspectsmediatedby

reciprocaldisplay,thecontentoftheimagesandtheirhistoriesofcirculation.

KEYWORDS:Philippines,diaspora,Facebook,digitalimages,personhood

THEIMAGEVANISHES

Facebookandothersocialnetworkingsites–MySpace,Bebo,Friendsterandthe

like–haveglobalpopularity.Facebookapproacheshalfabillionusers

worldwide.AFacebookcorporatespokespersonmaydescribethesiteas“all

aboutbeingareflectionofreal-worldrelationships”(Slatalla2007:1)but

differentgroupsofusersengageinawidevarietyofinteractionsthroughthe

site,notallofwhichsimply‘reflect’off-lineinteractions.Instead,social

networkingtechnologiesareinevitablytransformingeverydaylife.Usersand

2

observersintheUKandUShavevoicedwidespreadconcernsthatthesesitesare

producingworryingnewnormsforpersonalrevelation,indiscretion,bullying

andalienation.Insteadofmerelyre-presentingalready-familiarformsof

personhoodandrelationship,thesesitestransformthewayspeopleunderstand

themselves.Digitalimagesworktotrackandshapetheirinteractionswith

othersinnovelways.OnFacebook,digitalimagesrevealthesetransformations

inpersonhoodandnormsforrelationships.

Facebookimagesmatterineverydaylife,asthisexchangeoverheardona

busleavingmyuniversitycampusinOctober2009shows:

“They’vebrokenupbefore,butthistimeIthinkit’sforreal.Reallyover.He’s

deletedheronFacebook.”

“Howdoyouknow?”

“Icheckedhis‘friends’list-she’sgone.”

What’s‘gone’isherphotograph.Eitheranimageofherfaceoranimageshehas

chosentorepresentherselfhasvanishedfromthelistof‘friends’andthe

commentsonhisFacebookprofile.

‘Friends’arepairsofuserswhohaveexchangedtheirprofileimagesto

formtheon-linerelationship.Oneuserinitiatestheexchangewitha‘friend

request’andtheotheracceptstheirinvitation.Theseconduserestablishesthe

‘friend’relationshipbyreciprocatingwiththeirownprofileimage.The‘friends’

relationshiponFacebookcansymbolizeandextendpreviousornewlyformed

off-linerelationships,ormarkacompletelynewrelationshipbetweenpreviously

unacquaintedpersons.On-line‘friends’mightbeoff-lineromanticpartners,

siblings,children,neighbors,colleagues,schoolmates,clients,contactsmadeon

holidaysetc.Being‘friends’onFacebookcandeepenand/orreplacethetimeand

co-presencenecessarytosustainface-to-facerelationshipsoff-line.Profile

images,alongwiththenamesthattravelwiththem,markauser’svirtual

presenceinsocialnetworking’scollectivities,hencethename‘Facebook.’Profile

imagesappearon‘friendslists’onindividualowners’pagesandamong

collectionsofuserswho‘like’acompanypageorwhoare‘attending’an‘event’

page.Reciprocally,theimageofthe‘friend’orcompanyappearsontheuser’s

ownprofile.Reciprocaldisplaydigitalimagesmakesthe‘friends’or‘like’

relationship.Facebookmakestheseimagesvisibletoamuchwidercommunity

3

ofsiteusers.ThoughsomehavedescribedbeingFacebook‘friends’asa

“lightweight”formof“relationshipsmaintenance”(McClardandAnderson

2008:10),Facebookcompelsuserstomakethesedynamicpersonal

relationshipscontinuallyvisible.OnFacebook,theon-lineactionsof‘friends’

reveal‘friend’relationshipstobesimplytokensofrecognitionorvirtualmarkers

forlong-termrelationsoff-lineinvolvingmutualexchangeofgifts,favors,

opinion,affectandsupportwhichoftenhaveoff-linedimensions.Userscanfind

maintainingtheir‘friends’relationshipshardworkandhighmaintenance.In

addition,theyoftenfeelaneedtotrackactivityonthesitecontinuallyinorderto

learnofevolvingconnectionsanddisconnectionsintheirsocialworlds.

Facebookgeneratesacompulsiontovisibilityamongusersbecauseitoffersnew

waystodisplayandmanipulateimageson-line.

Together,digitalimagingtechnologiesandsocialnetworkingsitesallow

peopletosharephotographicimageswidelyandinstantaneously,attachtextto

imagesinseveraldifferentways,andcontextualizeimageswithintheirsocial

networkinteractions.Onthesesites,newnormsforprivacy,discretion,bullying,

intrusionandcopyrightinfringementareemerging,manyofwhichhingeonthe

production,visibility,exchange,ownershipandinterpretationofdigital

photographs.Atthesametime,technologiesforproducing,accessing,

modifying,selecting,andstoringdigitalimagesonsocialnetworkshave

expandedthepossibilitiesforattachingimagestoselves.Thesetechnologies–

digitalcameras,cameraphonesandvideocamerashavebecomemuchmore

accessibletoandaffordableforFacebookusers.Peoplehavelongusedprint

photographstoattempttotakepossessionofspacesinwhichtheyfeelinsecure

(seeSontag1977:9).Inthenewon-linespaceofsocialnetworks,digital

photographstakeonthissamerole.Bypresentingaselfthroughphotographs,a

usercanclaimfeaturesofaphotographiccontext,environmentorhistoryto

suggestaspectsoftheimagesreflecttheirownpersonaldispositions,aesthetic

understanding,orculturalsophistication.Lury(1998:3)describesthisas

photographsattachinga‘prostheticbiography’totheuser.Photographicimages

expressthecultureoftheirproducersandcollectorsthroughtheirchoiceofa

“finiteandwell-definedrangeofsubjects,genresandcompositions”(Tagg1988:

63,quotedinPinney1997:11.)Together,socialnetworkingsitesanddigital

4

imagesenhanceopportunitiesforuserstociteanddisplayfamiliar(andnovel)

subjects,genresandcompositionstoexpressvariousfacetsoftheself-linkedto

variousrelationships–andtoengageinculturalcritique. Displaying images allows users to bring together aspects of the self usually separated in space

and time. Thus sites like Facebook both amplifyandcomplicatethepossibilities

ofexchangeanddisplay,juxtapositionandcomment,culturalproductionand

self-shapingthatgivephotographicimagestheirvariedsocialmeanings.By

followingaspecificgroupofusersandselectedimagesonFacebook,thispaper

exploreshowsocialnetworkscantransformpersonhoodandbelonging.

MyfieldsitehereisaFacebooknewsfeedproducedbyforty-three

respondentsfrompreviousresearchinandaroundBaguioCitywhoarenowmy

Facebook‘friends.’Thinkingaboutwhois–andisnot–a‘friend’on-line-and

withwhatimagestheyrepresenttheirpresenceiscentraltomycurrentproject

studyingreligioussocialnetworksamongFilipinosintheUK.Iwasstruckbythe

numberofmyFilipinofriendsand‘friendsof’whohadhistoricalimagesfortheir

profilesonFacebook.MyCanadian,BritishandFilipinofriendsallpost

photographsofthemselvesaschildren,butmyFilipinoconnectionsalsopost

numeroushistoricalimagesfromtheirextendedfamiliesandhometownson

Facebook,manyofwhichhaveindexedtheiruserprofiles.First,Iexaminethe

generalexchangeofdigitalimages,thenthesetofimagesthatindexFacebook

profiles,beforeexploringtheissuesofhistoricalimagesasprofilephotographs.

Describingtheproductionofandexpectationsforprofileimagescontextualizes

historicalphotographsinthesetofimagesthattravelwithandprecedethemin

users’experiencesofFacebook.Ithenbringtogetheranthropological

approachestosocialnetworksandtheoriesofrelationalpersonhoodwith

insightsfromethnographicobservationstosuggestspecificwaysphotographs

workamongmyparticulargroupofFilipinousers.Finally,Iexploremy

respondents’useofparticularhistoricalimagesbeforedrawingamoregeneral–

andpreliminary–conclusion.

TheprofilephotographsIdescribeareavailabletoeitherallFacebook

usersorarerestrictedtofriendsoffriends(auserviewing‘friendslists’cannot

tellwhichsettingtheownerofaprofilehasselected.)Iprotectmyrespondents’

anonymity-otherthanwheremykeyrespondentshaveagreedtobeidentified

5

byname-byusingpseudonymsandneutralpronouns.1SomeoftheexchangesI

describeinvolvepracticesinfringingoneithercopyrightorevolvinglocalnorms

forcustomaryownership.Discussingthesesensitiveissuesofownership,Irely

oninterpretationsoftheothers’actionscollectedthroughinterviewswithkey

respondents,includingcopyrightholders.Myargumentdrawsthese

observationstogetherwithinsightsgleanedfromFacebookactivities,postings

andemailcorrespondencewithmybroadergroupofon-linerespondents.

DESIGN,IMAGESAND‘SPIRIT’

Thedynamicarchitectureofsocialnetworkingshapesthewayspeopleinteract

andportraythemselvesonline.Thisarchitectureenablesuserstoarticulate

publicidentityandpresenttheirrelationshipsinnewways,while

simultaneouslyenhancingtheimportanceofcreativeplayasastrategyof

sustainingsocialinteractions(boyd2004.)UnlikecompetingsitesMySpaceand

Friendster,Facebookworksnotthroughpagecontent,butbyreportingsocial

interactionsbetweenindividualsandgroups(McClardandAnderson2008:10.)

Facebookusesimagestoenable“lowmaintenance,automaticallygenerated,

interaction-basedcontentcreation”(McClardandAnderson2008:10).Initially

launchedasasiterestrictedtocollegestudents,Facebookopeneduptothe

generalpublicin2006.Bythemid-2010,Facebookhadnearlyhalfabillion

users,withmuchofitsgrowthduetoaninfluxofusersintheover-25

demographic(McClardandAnderson2008:10)andfromnationalitiesbeyondits

originalAmericanmembership.

ProfileimagesindexallothertextandimagecontentonFacebook.2These

imagesarelivelinksinotherusers’‘friendslists’andnewsfeedsorpage

commentsasalivelink(boyd2004).Thearchitectureofthesiteanticipates

users’profileswillshowapictureoftheirfaceandthus‘friendslists’should

appearasacollectionoffaces.Facebookindicatesthistousersbyprovidinga

nullimageforeveryprofile.Awhitemaleheadinsilhouetteonablue

backgroundisthedefault‘face’ofFacebook.Thisarchitecturemeansthat

anything-amusingdrawingorhistoricalphotograph-standsinforauser’sface

inaprofilepicture.

6

ImagesandtheirexchangearethedailydriversofFacebookinteractions.

Therearealsoapplications–agrowingsetofgamesandquizzesandvirtualgifts

–thatexpandthepossibilitiesforinteractions,playfulself-disclosureandself-

publicity,whileofferingcommercialopportunitiesandcreatingcollective

content(boyd2004;McClardandAnderson2008:10).Manyapplications

attempttoenableuserstodiscoverandrevealheretoforehiddenaspectsof

themselves.Theyalsoshareusers’personaldatawiththeirthird-partydesigners

whooperateoutsideFacebook.McClardandAnderson’s(2008:12)interviewees

consideredthe“staticlikesanddislikes,educationanddemographic

information….[onprofiles–DM]waslessfor‘friends’andmoretofeedthe

Facebookadvertisingmodel”thatrevolvedaroundapplications.Evident

connectionsbetweenembeddedadvertising,applicationsandtheintroductionof

chargesfortheexchangeofvirtualgiftssawapplicationsfalloutoffavorwith

someusergroups.Atthesametime,numeroususersmistrustedoftheusesthat

applications–andotherusers-mightmakeoftheirpersonalinformation.They

demanded–andreceived–improvedprivacyfilters.Theseusersshiftedback

towardsdyadicinteractionsmediatedbyimageexchanges,publishedon

newsfeedsandopeneduptoothers’comments.

OnFacebook,aprofileimageindexescomments,postings,links,likesand

groupsjoined(butnotpersonalemails)allofwhichperformon-lineidentity.

Facebookreportsalloftheseactivitiestofriendsinarollingnewsfeed,making

theprofileimageparticularlyimportant.Thisimagesneedtobeuniqueand

evocative,butaccessibleandinterestingtoothers.Userstypicallyselectprofile

picturestobenovelandengaging,yeteasyforotherstodiscernwhenreducedto

asmallsize.Mostprofileimagesareportraitphotographsthatseemtoberich

sourcesofinformationontheowner,offeringsuggestionsoftheuser’smotives

onthesite,physicalappearance,workorleisureinterests,familyrelations,

drinkinghabits,andattributessuchasquirkinessorsenseofhumor.Peoplethe

usermaynotknowandmaynevermeetseetheirprofilepicture.Activitieson

thenewsfeed,‘friendslists’,and‘likes’aswellastextcommentspagesareseen

byfriendsandfriends’friends,allFacebookmembers,oreventhewider

internet,dependingontheprivacysettingstheuserhasselectedandthestatus

ofthepageonwhichthepictureappears.Thenewsfeedonauser’sFacebook

7

‘home’pageoffersastreamofvisualinformation–profileimagesandother

digitalphotographs-accompaniedbysmallchunksoftext.Allthismakesanew

profileimage‘news’initself,whilechangingandvariedprofileimagescan

performauser’sidentityasdynamicandfluid,oratleastmultipleinitsaspects.

Mostimagesselectedforprofilephotoscomefromabroaderfieldof

digitalphotographicpractices.Userstendtochooseimagesfromamongthose

accumulatedonpersonaldigitalcameras,videoandcellphonecameras.

Sometimestheyuploaddrawingsorsymbols,scantheirownmaterial,orcopy

(‘rip’)electronicimagessharedbyothers.Makingpersonaldigitalimages

requiresaparticularaffectivestatetoimpeltheirproduction.Peopleneedto

havewhatoneofVoidaandMynatt’s(2005a:2)respondentscalls“spirit”totake

photostoposton-line.

“(O)nlywhenyouhavethevacationandhavethetime,youenjoyit…toshare

thepictures…[that](s)piritmakessomenicepictures,andsay(s)‘Lookwhat

Iseetoday…”3

Thisspiritwaxesandwanes.Itstemporalitymeansmostpersonaldigitalimages

areoffamilygatherings,lifecourseevents,socializingandholidays.Facebook

photosgenerallyconformtothesesocialandseasonalgenres,showing

continuitywithestablishedphotographpracticesamongamateurphotographers

intheWestandelsewhere.Whenposting,userstypicallyonlychooseafew

imagesfromtheavailablepool.Mostdigitalphotographslanguishinstorage,

neverseeingdisplayorpublication,muchlikemanyoldnegativesandprints.

Historicalimagesrequireadifferentapplicationofeffortintheiracquisitionand

display.Usersscanhistoricalimagesfromphotographicprints,solicitthemas

digitalfilesfromconsociatesor‘rip’themfromotherweb-basedcontent,

includingarchiveandlocalhistorywebsites.

Inastudyofdigitalimages,Merrill(2005:1)arguesthatsharingimages

ispleasurableandintensifiesconnectionsonsocialnetworkingsites.Iftrue,this

pleasureissometimesfraughtwithanxietyanddiscomfort.Privacysettings

enableuserstochoosebetweenpotentiallydisclosingthemselvestostrangersor

restrictingtheirnetworksandactivitiesbyholdingimagesbackfromexchange.

Displayingimagesenablesuserstoreviewandcommunicatepastexperiences

withothers,createsharedandplayfulnarratives,expressaffection,andcreate

8

theirownart(seeMerrill2005).Thesepositiveaspectsofimagesharingattract

usersandmaintaintheirinterestinFacebook.However,sharingimagescanalso

leadtoconfusion,distress,humiliationandalienation.Digitalimages–including

digitalphotographs–canactinawidevarietyofmodessimultaneously.Voida

andMynatt(2005b)identifiedsixwaysinwhichdigitalimagesworkwithin

broaderonlinecommunications.Theyfoundimagesamplify–inthesamewayas

emoticons,cartooncharactersetc.-accompanyingtext.Imagescannarrate–

tellingastoryinthemselves.Peoplealsouseimagestoexpressorheighten

awarenessoffeelings.Someimagesboundalocalsubculturebyactingasakind

ofshorthandthatisinaccessibletooutsiders.Imagescanalsoinviteothersto

interact.Lastly,theyfoundimagesworkedasobjectsorinstrumentswhen

peoplesentotherspicturesofobjectstheyownorofobjectsthathave,forthem,

aparticularsymbolicimportance.AllofthesemodesidentifiedbyVoidaand

Mynatt(2005b)–andmore,asIwillshowbelow–occurinimageexchangeson

Facebook.

EXCHANGINGDIGITALIMAGES:ETHNOGRAPHY

TheFilipinoFacebookusersIinteractedwithinlate2009–early2010were

between20and73yearsoldandhavebetween20and1,247on-line‘friends.’

Mostoftheseusersaremiddleanduppermiddle-class,collegeoruniversity

educated,andself-consciouslycosmopolitan.ComparedtoFilipinosusing

Friendster(asitethathasbeenmuchmorepopularwithyoungerFilipinos),

Facebookusershavemorenon-Filipinofriendsinthemix,includingme.4

Overseasconnections,whetherFilipinomigrants,sojournersoremigrantsand

foreignersformareakeypartofadiasporicandinterculturalon-linespace.

TheirFacebook‘friendslists’includedparents,children,uncles,auntsand

extendedseniororjuniorkin,includingoff-linefriends’parents,manyliving

outsidethePhilippines.5UnlikeusersintheUSandUK,whereFacebookreports

onfriendshipsthatappearfarmorepeer-focusedandplace-limited,Filipino

Facebookprofilesaredirectedtowardsextendedfamilyandlong-distance

connections.Justasoff-line,beyondtheiryoungadolescentbarkadas(cliques),

theyinteractinmulti-agegroupsconnectedbykinship–realorfictive–

propinquityandcommoninterestsand‘friendslists’showedbothgroups.Most

9

oftheimagestheypostedinalbumsandonwallsweretheexpectedvacation

snapshotsandpicturesoflifecourseeventslikeweddings,christeningsand

graduations.Facebookenablesthemtostayintouchwithfamily,classmates,

neighborsandtoformvirtualcommunitiesofvariouskinds,includingrecruiting

forartsperformancesandexhibitsandorganizingreliefactivitiesafterthe

October2009floodsandlandslides.Onlyonestillexperimentedwith

applications,mosthavingremovedtheminearly2009forprivacyreasons.

Virtualgiftshadalsofallenoutoffavornowthatthesiterequiredpaymentfor

them.Instead,theyexchangedimages,renewingtheirprofilepicturesseveral

timeseachmonthoreveneachweek,withthemoveawayfromgiftsintensifying

therateatwhichprofileimageschangedandcirculated.Userswhochanging

theirprofilephotosusuallyaccompanythenewimagewithanewtext‘status

update,’butcouldaltereitherwithoutchangingtheother.Newphotographs,

however,alwaysgarneredaprolongedandmorenumerousseriesofcomments

thannewstatusupdatetextalone.

Theirprofilephotographstendedtoalternatebetweenamusingshotsof

theperson,imagesoflandscapesinwhichtheyaresojourningordwelling,their

ownaesthetically-pleasingphotographsoflandscapes,picturesoftheirfamilies,

particularlychildren,andshotsofholidaysandadventures.Giventheir

migrationandregulartravel,thesepictureswerejustaslikelytofeaturevillage

orbeachscenesfromthePhilippinesastheyweretodepictcityscapesfromthe

USandtheUK.Thesechangingprofilephotosbalancedthesillyandtheserious–

performingselvesthatarenottakentooseriously,buttaketheworldseriously-

showingamixofhumilityandself-expression.Thus,theyoccasionallyremoved

postsandimagestheydeemedinappropriate,usuallyinvolvingexcessive

exposureofbarefleshoralcohol.Sincemy‘friends’aremainlyIlokanospeakers,

theyoughttofeelalumiim-theneedtoanticipatehowotherswillreacttotheir

actionsfirst,inordertoavoidembarrassment.Despitethelanguageterms,I

suspectthispracticeofreviewingimagesisnodifferentfromconcerns

negotiatedbyotherusersinsimilardemographics,thoughIsuspectmany

groupsofWesternusersmaybelessconcernedabouthowtheyappeartoothers

andlessfocusedonothers’feelings.

10

TheseprofilephotosarevisibletofriendsoffriendsorallFacebookusers,

dependingonprivacysettings.Manyrespondentswereuncertainofwho,in

theirsocialcircles,wouldhaveaccesstoFacebookandwhen,becauseofthe

staggeringofarrivalsonthesite.Afewtriedselecting‘friendsonly,’butoff-line

friendswereunabletofindthem,restrictingthepleasuretheycoulddrawfrom

participating.Yethavinganaccessibleprofilemeanttheyfeltobligedtoaccept

almostall‘friends’requests,particularlywhenthesecamefromseniorkinand

olderfamilyfriends.Aswellaschangingtheirprofileshots,theytagfriendsin

photoimagesandin‘non-image’photos(landscapes,usually)todraw‘friends’

attentiontoparticularimages.Allthesetechniquesrelyonimagestoiterateand

thussustainrelationships;visualinformationswampstheirnewsfeeds.Frequent

imageexchangesmapparticularrelationshipsasmoreintenselyconnectedthan

others.Somerelationshipsshowintenseactivityaroundimageofspecificevents,

andthenattenuate.Othersrelationshipsaremaintainedregularly.Linking

people’snamestospecificimagesthroughtagging,comments,repostingor‘like’

postingsexpressestheaffectivedimensionsoftheserelationshipspublicly.

Itrackedmyrespondents’profileimagesfromSeptember2009toAugust

2010.Ifoundhistoricalphotographsappearedinamixofcontemporarysettings

andscannedpostings.Forexample,L’sprofilepictureofSeptember2009

showedherposedinherfamilyhomeinBaguioCity,standinginfrontofa

displayofblackandwhitefamilyportraitsonatable.Herpictureattracted

commentspostedmostlybyherrelativesintheUnitedStates.They

congratulatedherontheattractivephotograph.Theyalsoenquiredastohow

theymightobtaincopiesoftheoldblackandwhitefamilyphotographsshe

displayedandofferedreminiscencesaboutthedeceasedrelativespictured.

Otherhistoricalportraitsandhistoriclandscapesindexedtheprofilesofatleast

fifteenmoreofmyfriendsatdifferenttimesinlate2009/early2010.Theychose

theseimagestoalternatewithcontemporaryphotographsandselected

photographsofhistoriclandmarks(forexample,Figure1),andhistorical

portraits,whichappearedtocolonialerapostcards(Figure2)ortheworkof

FilipinophotographerEduardoMasferré(Figure3).Scanningandsharingof

historicalphotos,orproducingnewphotographsofolderphotographicimages,

seemedtobeaboutadifferentkindof‘spirit’thanmanagingdigitalcamera

11

photos.OnFacebook,thisgroupwantedtobringintocirculationnotjustan

imageoftheirquotidianlifebutoneofthelivingpast.Usersjuxtaposingor

replacingwhat‘friends’expecttobeapresentimagewithahistoricalone

suggestandre-presentaspecificrelationbetweenapastandtheirpresent.Using

historicalphotographsasprofileimagesdrawsanimplicitequivalencebetween

photographsoftheselfasagainstphotographsattachedtotheself.

PERSONHOODANDPHOTOGRAPHS

Profileimagestellusaboutphotographsandpersonhood.Photographsin

‘friendslists’situatethepersonbehindthematthecentreofawide–and

perhapsvaluable–networkthathasthepotentialtoexpandfurther(boyd2004:

3).Nevertheless,profilephotographsarenotalwaysobjectsorinstrumentsin

theconventionalsenseofmaterialthatcanbealienatedandconsumedwhilestill

retainingsymbolicmeaning.Theycanalsobehaveaspartsofpersons.Toexplain

howFacebook‘friends’relationswork,anthropologistshaveturnedtoaccounts

ofdividualpersonhoodofferedbythenewMelanesianistethnography.

AnthropologicalexplorationsofFacebookdrawontheoriesoftheperson

developedinthenewMelanesianistethnographythatemergedinthe1980sand

1990s,specificallyontheworkofMarilynStrathern.Dalsgaard(2008:8)argues

thatsocialnetworkingsitesoffertechnologiesthatexhibitWesternindividuality

butinformsthatmirrorformsofsocialityprevalentinMelanesia.Inthis

analysis,Facebookoffersnotanewformofpersonhoodinitself,butrevealsa

potentialforsomethingakintoMelanesiandividuality(seeDalsgaard2008:10,

note2).Overthelastfewcenturies,Westernsocietieshaverepressedthis

potentialbyemphasizingandrewardingindividualism.Facebook’sdigital

collectionsof‘friends’demonstratehowpersonsaremadeupofrelationshipsby

displayingtheimagesotherusersprovide(Dalsgaard2008afterStrathern

1988.)Itfollowsthatthedigitalimagesprovidedbyfriendsonthe‘friendslist’

areakintothepartible-personpartsofMelanesiandividuals.Trackingthe

contentandfateofthesedigitalphotographsonFacebookallowsbothobservers

andparticipantsintheseimageexchangestogenerateandcriticizenormsfor

personhoodandrelationships,bothonandoff-line.Whatfollows,too,isthatthe

12

revelatoryaspectsofthistechnologyalsothentransformthenormsthey

generate(seeSlaterandMiller,2000).

Imagesandexchangesmakevisibleiterativeinteractionssustainingusers

aspersons–theirconstitutiverelationshipsandidentities.Evenifthisonly

revealsaclearerrealizationofthefundamentalsofpersonhood,asDalsgaard

(2008)suggests,acceptingthissuggestsaprofoundchangeinWesternsocieties.

StratherntellsusthatMelanesiansocialitybuildsupitscharacterthrough

repeateddissolution“intotheritualandexchangeprocessofthemainelements

composingeachindividual”(Strathern1992:76,quotingDeCoppet1981:176.)

IfweconsiderFacebooksocialitytobeanextensionorrepresentationof

somethingcalled‘Westernsociety,’continuallyrevealingthisdissolutionatthe

levelofimageexchangeenablesFacebookchallengeprevalentaccountsof

individualpersonhood.ThoughnotMelanesians,Filipinopersonhoodisnot

identicaltotheWesternindividualmodel.6Thelegal,economicandsocial

bounding(orun-bounding)ofindividualpersonsis,atleastinpart,anelement

ofFilipinoculturalheritagetakenonunderSpanishandthenAmericancolonial

rule.Pre-colonialtraditionsnonethelesspersist.InthePhilippines,aclassictext

explainingthecountrytoforeigners,CultureShock:Philippines(Roces,1992)

contrastsFilipinoandWesternselvesusingthemetaphoroffriedeggs.

Westernersareindividualfriedeggswhoseedgesdonottouch;Filipinosare

eggsfriedtogethersothattheirwhitesblend,leavingapatternofyolks

embeddedinawiderfield.FormyFilipinorespondents,otherpeopleandtheir

opinionsandattributesaswellasone’sownhistoryandancestorsseemtoplaya

comparativelymoreprominentrolewithintheiraccountsoftheperson.Thus,in

thevirtualspacesoccupiedbyFilipinocommunities,itisnotsurprisingthatwe

findtheanxietiesandinsecuritiesofadigitalanddiasporicagearebeing

assuagedbyimportingimagesofandbyothers,andimportingthepastthrough

historicalimages,notonlyofancestorsandpastpersonalevents,butofwider,

historical,collectives.Alongwiththiscomesaconflictedattitudetocopyright

andownershipofhistoricalimages,compoundedcapitalistlogicsthatrelyon

ownershipandauthorshipvestedinindividualsorindividuatedactorslike

corporations.

13

TheMelanesianistapproachthussuggeststhattheimageofafaceina

Facebook‘friendslist’signifiestherelationshipofexchangetowhichits

existenceinaprofilebearswitness.7ExaminingthespecificitiesofFacebook

profileimagesextendsthisanalysisinusefulways.Facebookgeneratesa

categoryoffamiliar‘friendsof.’Thesearepeoplewhoseprofileimagesauser

seesregularlybutwhomheorshedoesnotyetconnectwith–oratleastnot

directlywhileon-line.Facebookthenofferstheuserrepeatedopportunitiesto

connectwiththem.Thecontentofaprofileimageenablesuserstomodifyand

limittheseonlineinteractions.Non-faceimagesare‘localcontent’-crypticand

thuslessinvitingtofriendsoffriends,thoughttheyreinforcelocalidentities

amonggroupsofofflineconsociates.Theattributes,historiesandstatusofthe

photographicimagesthemselvesarecriticaltothewaysFacebookshapes

personhoodandrelationships.Here,Idonotwanttonotsuggesttoodirectand

mechanisticamappingontoaccountsofMelanesianexchange.Theepitomeofa

Melanesian‘bigman’dominatesothersbywealth,excellinginthecompetitive

exchangeofwealth.ItdoesnotfollowthatFacebooksuper-users–likemy

Filipinofilm-directorfriendwith1,247‘friends’-areabletosustainallthese

relationsinquitethesamemeaningfulwayovertime.Whileabigman’s

connectionsallowhimtoattractwealthtohisnextceremony,long-distance

updateswillnotnecessarilygarnerapayingaudiencethedirector’snextfilm,

thoughtheymayhelp.Therisksofexpendingenergyinmaintaining‘friends’

relationsmayindeedbecomparable,tosomedegree.Nonetheless,thetwo

partnersexchangingprofileimagesarenotinvolvedinaclassicalgiftexchange

ofmaterialobjects.Photographsherearenotprimarilyobjectsandtheir

recipientsdonotquiteconsume,thenproducemoreandreturnthem.The

featuresofFacebookanddigitalimagesmeana‘friend’isbetterunderstoodasa

versionofthedividualpersonwhoistheproductofthepropensitiesofFacebook

itself,ratherthanasbeingequivalenttoabigman’sexchangepartner.8

ReciprocaldisplaydoesnotreallyequatetoMelanesianexchange,whileprofile

imagesarenotquitepigs.

Profileimagesarenotthemselvesprimarilymaterialobjects.Recentwork

onthematerialityofphotographsdemonstratesthatphotographs

simultaneouslyrepresentrelationshipsandarematerialobjectsinthemselves,

14

carryingtheirownhistories(Edwardsetal.,2006;Wright2004).Thisinsightis

relevanttounderstandingpeople’sattachmentstoanduseofhistoricalimages

onFacebook.But,whileprofileimagesaresometimesmadebyscanning

preexistingprintsofphotographs,theirexistenceasdigitalcodeandtheirdigital

sociallifearemostimportanttositeusers.Theirownerscanchangedigital

imagesinstantaneously,renewingthemor,crucially,withdrawthemunilaterally.

Whencapturedbydownloadingandprinting,animageisnolongerthe‘friend’

andthusmovesintoanotherrealmofsignification,perhapsasthephotographs

inthebackgroundofL’sprofileimage,describedabove.Renewingtheimage

withanothervariantandexchangingtextaroundthisrenewaliswhatsustains

therelationship.Removingtheprofileimageentirelyendstherelationshipand,

moreoftenthannot,marksitsendoffline,aswellason.

Innegotiatingrelationships,thevalueofaFacebookimagearisesboth

fromtheimageitselfandfromitsgrouping,collection,juxtapositionsandthe

possibilitiesofcitingpastimages,variation,modificationandfutureconnections

tomakenewnormsforpersonsandtheirrelations.Anemergentnormisthat

theabsenceofaprofilephotographinafriends’listsymbolizesafaltering

romanticrelationship.Avoidingon-lineco-presencehasemergedasawayof

compartmentalizingthingswhenpartnersarestruggling.Intwoinstancesinlate

2009/early2010,Iwatchedasmoreandmoreofonerespondentandtheir

partner’smutualsocialcircleandextendedfamiliesjoinedFacebook,appearing

on‘friendslists.’Inbothcases,my‘friend’s’romanticpartnerhadnoprofileand

wasnoticeablyabsentfromallbutafewphotographsintheiralbums.There,

theywerenottagged.Lackingthe‘spirit’tojoinFacebooksuggestedalackof

‘spirit’formorebasictasksofrelationshipmaintenance.Evidently,thepartner

didfindtherelationshiptoodemandingoftimeandaffect.Astherelationship

brokeup,theFacebook-userpartnerpostedmelancholyprofilephotographsand

abstrusestatusupdates.Theirprevioussmiling,colorportraitshotswere

replacedbygrainy,blackandwhite,scanned,historicalimages.

Postingthesehistoricalimagesandaccompanyingtextwasanexercisein

‘localexpression,’forthoseintheir‘friendslist’thatsharedthesamechildhood

hauntsandancestors.Invokingnostalgiaforasharedpastsuggesteddistressin

thepresent,sothesepostsweretroublingforotherobservers,whoregularlyleft

15

puzzledcomments,expressingconcernabouttheposter’semotionalstate.Both

users,wantingtomaintainsomeprivacy,hadselectedtheimagesasakindof

codetoactivatethesupportofclosefriends.Communicatingare-evaluationof

rootsandbiography,ofidentityandconnection,circulatingtheimagesmadethe

workofmourningtheirbreak-upcollective.Tosendthismessage,theyselected

rippedblackandwhitephotographsofoldlandscapesandportraitsof

themselvesaschildren.

Usingimagesthiswayshowshowprofileimagesindexaffectand

suggestsusersseekoutandappropriatehistoricalimagestoconveyparticular

emotionalstates.Thesecondnormrevealedhereisthattruefriendsamong

‘friends’mustunderstandthepersonal,emotionallanguageofphotographs.Of

course,theaffectconveyedmayonlyexist-presentandfuture-asaprojection

byonepartnerinthemanydyadicreciprocalexchangesof‘friends.’Thetenuous

qualityofthisaffectmeansthatthedigitalimagesin‘friendslists’haunttheir

collectors.Willexchangesofandaroundthisimagecontinue?Willthis‘friend’or

thatrespondtomychangedpicture?Onceexchangesstopandprofileimagesare

removed,arelationcanneverquiteberestoredbecausetherupturehasbeen

madepublic,recordedandnoted.Rupturesinexchangesrevealthat,atthepoint

wherethenetworkiscut(someoneisdeletedorsomeonerefusestojoinin),the

powerofsocialnetworkingtechnologiestocreatenewnormsforrelationship,

andthusforextendedpersonhood(Strathern1988).

Amongmyrespondents,then,historicalprofileimagesrevealextended

andrelationalpersonhood.Theimagesmy‘friends’postmapthemselves

throughthiswiderfieldofFilipinopersonhood(Roces1992)backintotime.

Theypostphotosandjoingroupsthatshareimagesofpersonalhistories,

culturallysignificantlandscapes,ghostsandhauntedsites,andphotographs

drawnfromavarietyofarchives.Appropriatinghistoricalimagestotheir

profiles,theymanipulatethemwithaself-consciousattentiontocolonialand

personalhistories.Theseappropriationsrevealusers’attemptstocultivatea

personalaestheticthatmaintainspre-colonialroots.Theyalsoshowhowusers

sustainalocalorientationthatnonethelessnegotiatesintimacyinrelationships

crossingnationalborders.Italsooffersnewroutestoethnicandnational

16

belongings,withFacebookofferingthepossibilityof‘friends’creatinglarger

groups.

NEGOTIATINGBELONGINGWITHHISTORICIMAGES

MyrespondentsinteractonandwithFacebookpagesestablishedaroundthe

displayandinterrogationofhistoricalimages.9Here,theysharecollective

identitiesformedbyjuxtaposingprofileimagesofthose‘liking’thepagewith

photographiccontentandpostedcomments.‘Liking’appearsinthenewsfeed,

whilelinkstopages‘liked’andpageprofileimagesappearonusers’own

profiles.After‘liking’,theyoftenselectimagecontentfromthesepagesfortheir

ownprofileimages.Rippingthesehistoricalphotographsforprofileimages

marksusers’profileswithimagescarryingestablishedsocialcachetand

historical,ifnotcommercial,value.FormigrantsandresidentsofBaguioCity,

Facebookpagesavailablein2009/10includedBaguioCityandOldPhilippines.10

Bothdisplayhistoricalphotographsfromthecolonialerawithapproximately

22,000and100,000‘like’visitorsrespectively.11Imagesfromthesepageshave

appearedasprofilepicturesonfriends’profilesandin‘friendslists.’Inthis

section,Ifollowthreeimagestodrawoutimportantfeaturesofhistorical

photographsandpersonhoodonFacebook.

Ifoundthatthisgroupofusersunderstandshistoricalphotographs

throughasetofcustomaryrulesthatareopentorenegotiation.Oneexampleis

thebiographyofChitoFrancisco’sdigitalphotographofthehistoricLaperal

‘HauntedHouse’(Figure1).

[INSERTFIGURE1ABOUTHERE]

Baguiocitizensconsiderthehousetobeoneofthecity’siconicbuildings.Four

photosofitappearonBaguioCity’sFacebookpage.Chitofirstpostedhis

photographonhisFlickrfeed.Inourcorrespondence,Chitoexplainedthatthe

ownershadseenitandcontactedhimtogivehimpermissiontopublishthe

image.Twothingsareofinteresthere.First,theownersofthehouseunderstand

theycouldobjecttothepublicationanimageshotfromthestreet.Secondly,

Chitowascontactedbyemailbysomeonehedescribedasrepresentingafamily

ofownerswithinterestsintheimage.Itisnotnecessarilythecasethatallthose

whoconsiderthemselvestohaveinterestsinthehousewereconsultedinthis

17

extensionofpermission.Shortlyafterwards,theBaguioCityFacebookpagethen

rippedthephotographfortheiralbumswithoutcontactingChito.Visitorsto

BaguioCitythenpickeduptheimagetouseitasaprofileshot.Appropriating

thisimageincorporatesthecity’s‘spiritsofplace’andurbanlegendsintoauser’s

Facebookpresence.Forthreeofmyrespondentswhoaremigrantsorsojourners

abroad,thephotographexpresseshomesicknessandnostalgiafortheir

hometown’spast.

Imageappropriationslikethismayormaynotbewithinthebroader

intentionofthesites’owners,whotendtoseethesecollectionsaspartofa

nationalistprojectofidentity(re)construction.OldPhilippines,forexample,has

posteda“CompanyOverview”thatexplainsimagesonthesiteare“foranyone,”

intendedtobe“interestinganduseful”tothosewho“knowandlovethe

Philippines.”12Thesiteclaims:“Anation’scollectivewisdomisrootedinits

history….Whatwearenowisexplainablewithhistory.Peoplehavingnopridein

theirpastcertainlyhavenofuture.”OldPhilippines’imageof‘ABenguetBrave’

(Figure2)-seemstohavespreadacrossFacebookfromanoriginalpostingon

thatsite.Ascannedversionofthephotographappearsamongthepage’sprofile

picturesandhasindexedfivefriend’sprofilesoverthelastyear.

[INSERTFIGURE2ABOUTHERE]

OldPhilippinesidentifiesthephotographasdatingto1911andtaken

from“analbumthatbelongedtoanAmericanarmyofficerwhowaspostedin

thePhilippinesintheearly1900s.”TheimageresemblesthoseofFilipinostaken

forthe1904ethnologicalsurveyofthePhilippines.Visitingandresident

Americansandthenlocalphotographersmadesimilarphotographsofsittersin

‘tribaldress’,posedinprofileagainstanemptybackdrop.Photographersprinted

theseimagesaspostcardsandsoldthemtoAmericantroops,colonial

administratorsandvisitors(Best1994).Iffirstpublishedbefore1923,American

copyrightlawplacesthesephotographsinthepublicdomain.Theirhistoryas

postcardsexplainsthefrequentlackcontextualinformation.Underthisimage,

OldPhilippinesexplainsthatthe“writerofthelabelforthisphotousedtheword

"brave",aratherout-of-datetermthatusedtomeananAmericanIndian

warrior.”Thetextgoesontoremindsviewersthat…“asignificantpercentageof

theAmericansoldiersinvolvedinthePhilippine-Americanwarwerealso

18

veteransofthelattercampaignsoftheIndianWars(1870-1890)intheAmerican

West….ThePhilippineswasanAmericancolonyfrom1898until1946.”

Beneaththephotograph,127commentsexpressprideintheresilience

andcourageofFilipinoancestors,discussstereotypesofPhilippineethnic

groupsanddebatethesitter’sethnicidentity.Occasionallyvisitorsleaveracist

comments.OldPhilippineshaspostedawarningthatdisrespectfulcomments

willberemoved.Somecommentssuggestthatthepicturedepictsamanfrom

theGaddangethnolinguisticgroup,ratherthantheIbaloygroupwhoowned

Benguet.Othersrequestdetailsoftheprovenanceofthephotographandthe

album.Onerequestspermissiontoreproduceacleanerscanofthephotograph

inaforthcomingbookonthehistoryofFilipinotattoos.13Visitorsoffer

commentsthehistoryofrepresentationsofFilipinoethnicgroups–particularly

Igorot,thepan-ethniccategoryofindigenouspeopletowhichIbaloyand

Gaddanggroupsbelong.14SomecommentsciterecentrepresentationsofIgorots

inothermediaoutletsanddiscriminatorycommentsbymediafigures,

demonstratingbothhowthebroadermediaconstitutetheFilipinodiaspora(de

laCruz,2009)andFacebookplaysaroleinusers’negotiationofthisbroader

mediascape.WhatOldPhilippinesoffersisaspacetosharepersonalencounters

withhistoricalimageswiththeintentiontobuildsharedinterpretationsof

historyandethnicitythatruncountertobroadermedianarrativesaboutthe

PhilippinesandFilipinoidentities.Commentsletvisitorschallengeprevalent

ethnicstereotypesandjoinapublicdebatewithoutmediationfromfamily

connections,long-standinginterpersonaltiesorletterstotheeditor.

Itseemsthatappropriatinganimagefromthesiteexpressesvisitors’

Filipinoprideandtheirpoliticalviewsandcommitments.OnFacebook,usersare

deployingtheseimagestocreateadistinctivetemporalfieldofon-linenational

andethnicbelongingthatretainsthepast,whilelookingtowardsthefuture(see

Gell1998:239,quotedinHirsch2004:20).Exchangingsuchhistorical

photographsexpressesaspectsofthemselvesthatjustifytheirongoingbelonging

towidercollectivesofethnicityornation.Thusitismyfriends’affective

attachmentstotheversionsofthemselvestheyprojectontohistoricalimages

makesthemthepost-colonial,self-reflectiveFilipinotheOldPhilippinessiteis

cultivating.Postingtheseimagesestablishestheirbelongingbeyondfamilyand

19

neighborhood,kinshipandpropinquity.

AsimilarbutevenmorepopularprofileimageisFigure3–aphotograph

takenbytheesteemedFilipinophotographerEduardoMasferré(1909–1995).I

countedthisimageindexingsevendifferentfriend’sFacebookprofilesatvarious

pointsin2009–2010.Thisimageisa1936portraitofLakayGangaoanofdap-ay

Bilig,Demang,Sagada,MountainProvince,(DeVillaetal.1988:128).15The

Masferréphotographsareoneofthemostimportantcollectionsofcolonial-era

photographsproducedbyanAsianphotographerandthesourceofpridefor

manyFilipinos.ManyFilipinos,particularlythosefromthewiderregionaround

BaguioCitywhoseancestorswerethephotographer’ssubjects,consider

Masferréimagesiconicexamplesofpre-colonialPhilippinecivilization.In

addition,alargecommunityofFilipinoartistsandphotographerscelebratehis

skillandaesthetic.Masferré’sgelatinsilverphotographshavebeenrecognized

internationally,appearinginthecollectionsoftheSmithsonianandtheNational

GalleryofAustralia,aswellasbeingexhibitedaroundtheworldandcollectedin

twobooks(DeVilla1988and1999).TheMasferréfamilyretainsthecopyright

totheimagesbecause,forpost-1923imagessuchasthese,thephotographerand

thenhisheirsholdcopyrightfor50yearsafterhisdeath(DeVilla1999).

[INSERTFIGURE3ABOUTHERE]

Masferré’simagescirculatedwidely,longbeforetheywerecollectedas

art.Thephotographerandhisfamilysoldprintsofhisphotographsaspicture

postcards,largelytotouristsvisitinghisstudioinBontoc,MountainProvinceand

later,visitorstothefamily’srestaurantandhomeinnearbySagada.In1985,

familymembersbegantoprinttheimagesontoT-shirts.Thefamilynowsellthe

imagesprintedontoarangeofbags,backpacksandT-shirtsproducedby

MasferréSouvenirs,acompanyestablishedin2006,employing20workers.16

ThecompanyhasaFacebookpageofitsownlinkedtoanEduardoMasferré

Facebookpagemaintainedasatributetothephotographerbyoneofhisheirs.

Thesouvenircompany’spageshowsvisitorssamplesoftheproductsandphotos

fromarecentfashionparade,aswellasofferinganemailaddressforenquiries

andorders.Thetributepageofferssevenimages-allamongthosepublishedin

E.Masferré–PeopleofthePhilippineCordilleraPhotographs1934–1956(deVilla

etal.1988).17Sincethemid-1990sexpansionoftheinternet,theMasferréfamily

20

hashadongoingstruggleswithcopyrightinfringement.Inaninterview,the

photographer’swidow,Mrs.NenaOguesMasferré,explainedtheirconcernhas

beentheproductionofderivativecommercialproducts-souvenirs,greeting

cardsandartworks–thatcompetewiththeirownproducts,ratherthanthe

circulationofreprintedimagesbyenthusiastsoftheartandthesubjectsit

represents.Theirhistorymeansitisnosurprisetheseimagesappearas

Facebookprofilephotos.WhilesomeFacebookusershave‘ripped’Masferré’s

photographofLakayGangaoanfromthetributepage(orelsewhereonthe

internet)otherhavescannedanduploadedapostcardpurchasedfromthe

MasferréfamilyonavisittoSagada.Severalthingsmaybehappeningtoexplain

theimage’shistoryofcontinualappropriation.

Becausephotographsarematerialobjects-bought,collected,mailed

homeandhandedaround–theybecomepartoftraveler’sbroaderpersonaland

familyhistories,evenwhenthosetravelersarecomparativelylocal.Having

purchasedtheimage,peoplemaynotbeaware–orresistrecognizing–thatthey

cannot‘share’itontheirprofilewithoutwrittenpermissionfromthecopyright

holders.NoteveryoneinthePhilippinesknowsaboutorwantstorespect

copyrightlaw,viewingitasanAmericancolonialimposition.However,theredo

notseemtobeanyrobustandagreedalternativenotionsofownershipand

authorship.Instead,rightstoborrow,useandcirculatedarenegotiatedfromone

instancetothenextandtheoutcomescandependonthepriorhistoryandstatus

ofthenegotiators,economicconsiderations,andtheapparentprestigeattached

totheexchange.

Postcolonialpoliticsmotivateotheruserswhoriptheimageinagesture

ofimaginedpoliticalsolidaritywiththosedepictedintheMasferréportraits.The

photographercamefromamestizo(mixedSpanish-Filipino)backgroundand

peopleassumeheandthefamilyhaveearnedsignificantincome,ifnotesteem,

fromtheimages,whilethesitters’familieshavenotbenefitted.Equally,some

choosetheimagebecausetheyadmireandwishtoemulateMasferré’s

photographicskill,choosinghimasatrulyFilipinophotographer.Alternatively,

othersselecttheimagefortheirprofilesbecausetheysubscribetoOld

Philippines’exhortationtoshowtheirprideinpreviouslydisparagedimagesof

indigenouspeoplesandthepre-colonialpast.

21

Perhapsmostinterestingisthewaythattheseportraitimagesactas

aspectsofthepersonstheydepict.Somewho‘borrow’theimageare

descendantsofGangaoanorrelativesofhisfamilyorthosewhoknewhimbefore

hisdeath.Theymayresistcomplyingwithcopyrightbecausetheyfeelhecould

nothaveunderstoodjusthowwidely–and,fromhislocalperspective,

comparativelyprofitably–thephotographhesatformightcirculate.Likethe

Laperalfamilygivingpermissiontoaphotographertocirculatephotographsthat

depicttheirhouse,thefamilyandfriendsofasitterfeeltheyhavearesidualright

todelimitthecirculationofhisorherimage.Whenthatfailstoberecognized,

theyappropriatetheimagetothemselvesasbesttheycan.Relativesandfriends

cantendtoattributethesuccessofthephotographmoretotheinnatequalities

ofthesitter,ratherthantothetechnicalskillandaesthetic‘eye’ofthe

photographer.TwoofmyrespondentshadselectedLakayGangaoan’simagefor

theirFacebookprofilebecauseoftheirpersonalconnections.Onewasa

descendantlivingoverseaswhohadaccessedtheimageby‘likeing’theMasferré

pagewhileseekinganimagefromthefamilyhistory.Theotherwasan

anthropologistcolleaguewhoscannedanduploadedapostcardimage.Lakay

Gangaoanhadbeenamongtheirfavoriterespondentsintheirfirstfieldworkin

the1970s.Fortheanthropologist,theimage‘was’LakayGangaoan’spresence

and,becausethey’dhadaparticularlycloserelationship,it“feltgoodhavinghim

around.”Mixedwiththeassertionthatthephotograph‘is’itssubjectistheidea

thatitisinalienablyalsopartoftheposter’sself.

Someusersthusappropriatehistoricalphotographsasaspectsof

themselves.Thedescendantconsidersthephotographpartofaselfthatis

composedbyblood,inheritanceandkinship.Theanthropologistconsidersthe

photographpartofapersonal/professionalselfcomposedbyacareerinvolving

training,fieldwork,relationswithrespondents,teachingandotherprofessional

practice–acareerinwhichLakayGangaoan’sinfluencewasformative.

Importantly,thisprofoundlypersonalandexpressiveuseoftheimagedoesnot

negatebutinsteadworkssimultaneouslyalongsideitsculturalresonanceand

commercialvalueasobject.TheMasferrétributepagemaybethesitefrom

whichmyfriendshaverippedthephotographofLakayGangaoan.Despite

infringingoncopyright,itscontinuedcirculationmaybehelping,ratherthan

22

hinderingthefamilybusiness.Publicvisibilityiswhatsustainstheesteemin

whichFilipinosholdthesephotographsandtheircreator.Thefamilythushasan

interestinmaintainingthecachetoftheseimagesandinkeepingthem

prominentinthepublicimaginationinordertoexpandthemarketfortheir

souvenirs.OntheseFacebookpages,useofthesehistoricalimagesthusmarksa

movetowardsrecognitionofaformofpersonhoodthatextendsbeyondthe

legallyrecognizedboundariesoftheindividual.AsMrs.Masferréexplained,in

eachinstancethefamilyfindsancopiescopied,“wetrytounderstandwhythey

puttheimagethere,ontheinternetorwherever…ifit’stoshowtheirpride,we

sharethefeeling,socanjustrequesttheystop.Butiftheywillusethepicturesto

earnmoney…bymakinggreetingcardsornovelties...weneedtoact.”

CONCLUSION:IMAGESANDBELONGING

Facebookisoneofseveralnewinteractivetechnologiesthatshiftuserstowards

recognizingamoremarkedlyrelationalself.Thesiteenablesuserstodeploy

digitalimagesinnewwaysandtheimagesthemselvesbecomeactors,shaping

newmodesofinteractionandnormsforrelationshipsfromkinshiptoromance

tofriendshiptoethnicornationalbelonging(seeMiller2007).Thatnew

technologiesshiftusers’perceptionsoftheselfsuggestsindividualityand

dividualityarealwayspresent,butarticulateddifferentlyindifferentcultural

contextsandwithvaryingemphasis.Myrespondents’desiretotransfer

extendedfamilyandcollectivehistoriesontoFacebookimpliesadifference

betweentheemphasisandarticulationofthedividualandindividualaspectsof

thepersonbetweenFilipinoandnon-Filipinousers.WithFacebookofferingsuch

resourcestonegotiatepersonhood,relationshipandbelonginginnewways,it

notsurprisingthatpost-colonialFilipinouserscontestunderstandingsof

ownershipandappropriationofimagestheyconsiderfollowcolonialnorms. I found myFilipinoFacebook‘friends’usingdigitalimagesinallthe

prosaicwaysVoidaandMynatt(2005b)anticipate,withhistoricalphotographs

asprofileimagesbeingmostimportantforbounding,invitationandexchanging

symbols.GoingbeyondVoidaandMynatt’s(2005b)categoryofappropriated

objects/instrumentsofexchange,inthispaperIhavedemonstratedhowother

modesofactionenablehistoricalphotographsonFacebooktomakevisible

23

personhoodandrelationships.Itisnotsimplythatphotographsattacha

‘prostheticbiography’(Lury1998)touser’sprofilesbyrevealingsomething

abouttheprofileowner.Instead,rippingimagesallowsusers’tore-possess

imagestheyconsideralreadypartsofthemselves.Theseappropriationsexpress

feelingsandattachmentsandhistories(realandimagined)thatusersbelieve

othershaveyetcometorecognizebut-whenothersdorecognizethem–will

createabroadercommunityinwhichtheuserbelongs.Here,historical

photographsarenot‘prosthetics’(Lury1998:3)attachedtotheselfina

replacementrole,fillinginforsomethinglostorneverhad.Instead,suchimages

areintimatelypartsofselves,thoughtheirimportandsignificancecomes,inpart

fromtravelingthroughtime–andcyberspace-withtheirownindependent

biographies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

MythankstomyrespondentsamongFilipinomigrantsinLondonandfrom

previous(1995–1997and2005)researchinthePhilippineswhoaremyon-line

‘friends.’IamindebtedtoMrs.NenaMasferréforherhospitalityandtoher,her

sonJaime,andJillDeVillafortheirreflectionsonthechallengesofcopyright.I

amgratefultoChitoFranciscoandtheMasferréfamilyforpermissiontoreprint

theirphotographs.DanielMillergenerouslyofferedmeinsightsgleanedfromhis

currentworkonsocialnetworkinginthePhilippinesandTrinidad,whilehe,Ben

Smith,ElizabethEdwards,RichardVokes,MarcusBanksandtwoanonymous

reviewersprovidedhelpfulinputonthepaper’searlieriterations.All

shortcomingsremainminealone.

24

REFERENCES:

Afable,P.(1996)‘ThepeopleofEduardoMasferré’sphotographs’,Discovery,vol

2,pp.11-19.

Best,J.(1994)PhilippinePicturePostcards1900–1920,Bookmark,Manila.

boyd,d.(2004)‘Friendsterandpubliclyarticulatedsocialnetworks.’Conference

onHumanFactorsandComputingSystems,Vienna[online]Availableat:

http://www.danah.org/papers/CHI2004Friendster.pdf(lastaccessed31August

2010).

Dalsgaard,S.(2008)‘FaceworkonFacebook:thepresentationofselfinvirtual

lifeanditsroleintheUSelections’,AnthropologyToday,vol.24,no.6,pp.8-12.

DeCoppet,D.(1981)‘Thelife-givingdeath’,inMortalityandImmortality,edsS.

HumphreysandH.King,AcademicPress:London,pp.175-204.

DeVilla,J.,Farr,M.&Jones,G.(1988)EMasferré–PeopleofthePhilippine

CordilleraPhotographs1934–1956,DevconIPInc.,Manila.

DeVilla,J.(1999)EMasferré–aTributetothePhilippineCordillera,Brier

ProjectsInc.,Manila.

DeLaCruz,D.(2009)‘Coincidenceandconsequence:Marianismandthemass

mediaintheGlobalPhilippines’,CulturalAnthropology,vol.24,no.3,pp.445-

488.

Edwards,E.,Gosden,C.andPhilips,R.(eds)(2008)SensibleObjects,Berg,

Oxford.

Gell,A.(1998)ArtandAgency,ClarendonPress,Oxford.

25

Hirsch,E.(2004)‘Techniquesofvision:photography,disco,andrenderingsof

presentperceptionsinHighlandPapua’,JournaloftheRoyalAnthropological

Institute,vol10,pp.19–39.

Lury,C.(1998)ProstheticCulture,Routlege,London.

Merrill,D.(2005)‘Ideasandconsiderationsfordigitalphotographsharing.’

Ubicomp’05,Tokyo,[online]Availableat:

http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~dmerrill/publications/dmerrill_UBICOMP2005_P

ICS.pdf(lastaccessed31August2010).

Miller,D.(2007)‘Whatisarelationship?Iskinshipnegotiatedexperience?’,

Ethnos,vol.72,no.4,pp.535–554.

Miller,D.&Slater,D.(2000)TheInternet,Berg,Oxford.

McClard,A.&Anderson,K.(2008)‘FocusonFacebook:whoareweanyway?’

AnthropologyNews,March,pp.10and12.

Slatalla,M.(2007)‘Cyberfamilias:‘omgmymomjoinedfacebook!!’TheNew

YorkTimes7June,[online]Availableat:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/fashion/07Cyber.html(lastaccessed5

November,2009)

Strathern,M.(1988)TheGenderoftheGift,UniversityofCaliforniaPress,

Berkeley.

Strathern,M.(1992)‘Partsandwholes:refiguringrelationshipsinapost-plural

world’,inConceptualizingSociety,ed.A.Kuper,Routledge,London,pp.75–104.

Tagg,J.(1988)TheBurdenofRepresentation,Macmillan,Basingstoke.

Pinney,C.(1997)CameraIndica,Reaktion,London.

26

Roces,A.(1992)CultureShock!Philippines,GraphicArtsCenterPublishing

Company,Portland.

Voida,A.andMynatt,E.(2005a)‘Cameraphoneinertia’,Ubicomp2005,Tokyo

[online]Availableat:

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.134.7492(lastaccessed31

August2010).

Voida,A.&Mynatt,E.(2005b)‘Sixthemesofthecommunicativeappropriationof

photographicimages’,ACMConferenceonHumanFactorsinComputing

Systems,NewYork,pp.171–180.

Wright,C.(2004)‘Materialandmemory:photographyintheWesternSolomon

Islands’,JournalofMaterialCulture,vol.9,no.1,pp.73–85.

27

LISTOFFIGURECAPTIONS:

Figure1:TheLaperal‘HauntedHouse’alongLeonardWoodRoad,BaguioCity,

byChitoFrancisco.(Source:BaguioCity,facebook.com)

Figure2:ABenguetBrave,1911,photographerunknown.(Source:Old

Philippines,facebook.com)

Figure3:LakayGangaoanofdap-ayBilig.Sagada,MountainProvince,1936,by

EduardoMasferré.(Source:DeVillaetal.(1988)p.128)

28

NOTES

1IdonotprovidescreenshotsofFacebookuserprofilesotherthanmyown.Facebook’srulespreventalterations,thusrequiringtheconsentofall‘friends’appearingintheimage,someofwhowouldbenon-respondents.2Embeddedvideoandpagelinksalsoappearinitiallyasstillimages.‘Liking’somethingonaFacebookprofileismorecomplex.Whenusers‘like’aphotographoracommentpostedbyanotheruser,Facebookdoesnotindextheactivitywiththeirprofilephotographonthatuser’sprofile.Writingacommentoftheirownisindexedwithaprofileimageandauser’sprivacysettlingsdeterminewhethertheactivityentersthenewsfeed.3VoidaandMynatt(2005)donotofferdetailedaccountsofrespondents’backgroundsandhistories.4DanielMiller,pers.comm.,June2009.5Itwouldbefascinatingtomapthisoutmoreprecisely,butwouldrequireoff-lineinterviewsandmorecomplexnegotiationsofconsentthanallowedbythetimeavailable.6‘Model’heresuggestsanarchetype,idealornorm,ratherthaneverydaypracticeorexperience.7AfterStrathern(1988)andthankstoDanielMillerforclarifyingthisobservation,pers.comm.,June2009.8DanielMiller,pers.comm.,June2009.9OriginallyFacebook‘groups’,thesepageshavebecome‘companysites’where,ratherthan‘joining’,Facebookusers‘like.’Visitingusersseeasmallandvaryingselectionofprofileimagesforthosewho‘like’thecontentandareabletojoinandcommentontheimagespostedbytheowner.10Bothatwww.facebook.com.11Userscouldalsojointwonow-defunctFacebook‘groups.’‘KennonRoadtakemehome:BaguioCity’hadtwoadministratorsand1,207members,andoffered243historicalimagesofthecityandaccesstoitsmembers’list.BaguioOldTimessimilarlyofferedhistoricalphotographsofBaguioCityinthecolonialera.BothhavebeenremovedfromFacebook,possiblyduetocopyrightconcerns.Noreasonhasbeenofferedandcontactdetailsrecordedfortheadministratorsdonotgenerateareply.12OldPhilippinesonfacebook.com.(Lastaccessed12June2010.)13OldPhilippinespostedthephotograph12August2009,buttheownerhasyettorespondtoanyofthesequeries.The‘wall’onthepageseemstobefillingupwithadvertising,suggestingthepageownerisnolongerregularlymaintainingthepage.14Formoredetail,seeAfable(1996).15SagadaisatowninMountainProvince,Demangbeingoneofitssubdivisions.Adap-ayisastonecirclewheremaleeldersgovernedlocalcommunitiesthroughconsensusandperformedritual(seeAfable1996).16Seehttp://www.citem.gov.ph/catalogonline/main/copages.php?ccode=6645(lastaccessed31August2010)17FourofthesevenimagesofferedontheEduardoMasferréFacebookpagealsocurrentlyappearinhighresolutiononanothersite,RobertS.Gardener’shttp://www.aenet.org/ifugao/masfere.htm(lastaccessed31August2010.)