The Internet as a social institution: Rethinking concepts for family scholarship

• Published date: 01 April 2023
• Author: Gina Marie Longo
• Date: 01 April 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12825

RESEARCH

The Internet as a social institution: Rethinking

concepts for family scholarship

Gina Marie Longo

Department of Sociology, Virginia

Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA

Correspondence

Gina Marie Longo, Department of Sociology,

Virginia Commonwealth University,

8257 West Franklin Street, Richmond,

VA 23284, USA.

Email: longog2@vcu.edu

Abstract

Objective: I evaluate multidisciplinary scholarship on the

Internet, the family, and adjacent institutions, comparing

their findings to Patricia Yancy Martin’s (2004) 14 criteria

of social institutions to demonstrate how the Internet rep-

resents a new social institution and how that impacts the

institution of family in the digital age.

Background: Scholars have called for investigations into

the effects of the Internet on family life. This study aims to

show how reimagining the Internet as an institution better

reveals its complexities and embeddedness in other institu-

tional spaces that shape the family and how.

Method: Using Martin’s descriptions of the 14 characteris-

tics of a social institution, I reviewed 85 peer-reviewed,

cross-disciplinary studies focusing on the Internet and the

family for themes that indicated the presence or absence of

each criterion.

Results: Data analysis revealed that the Internet functions as

a social institution, which mutually influences and shapes the

institution of family and its overlapping social dynamics.

Fifty-seven cases had all 14 criteria, and 19 cases had 13

criteria. Six had 12 criteria, and only three had 11 criteria.

Conclusion: The foundational qualities of the Internet as

an institution center the digital space as an active site of

social change, where the power dynamics, identities, and

practices of “doing family”within digital communities

extend beyond those present to others elsewhere.

Implications: This reconceptualization provides practi-

tioners with new approaches and insights into how digital

spaces impact family outcomes and influence the ways in

Author note My sincerest thanks to Susan Bodnar-Deren, Jennifer Johnson, and Tara Stamm for encouraging me to put these thoughts

onto paper. My deepest gratitude goes to Jason Turowetz, Carrie Hough, Pamela Oliver, and the Feminista Pentagon(Drs. Di Wang,

Katie Zaman, Maria Azocar, and Madeline Pape) for helping me think through these ideas. I also appreciate the thoughtful input from

the anonymous reviewers.

Received: 15 June 2022Revised: 23 November 2022Accepted: 18 December 2022

DOI: 10.1111/fare.12825

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and

reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2023 The Author. Family Relations published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of National Council on Family Relations.

Family Relations. 2023;72:621–636. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/fare 621

which groups “do”and define family across other institutional

areas, even when the Internet is not directly implicated.

KEYWORDS

conceptualization, family, institutions, internet, social theory

“And now, no one can tell you otherwise. Love is Love. #LoveWins”

Cheerios, June 25, 2015, Twitter

On June 25, 2015, millions of Internet users worldwide, including celebrities, politicians, and

large corporations, posted the #LoveWins hashtag to show solidarity with the LGBTQ+com-

munity and support the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on marriage equality. Opponents

decried the decision, using hashtags like #LoveWins, #LGBTFacts, and #Marriageequality to

join the public discourse. In the months preceding the decision, many engaged in debate on

websites, digital news articles, and forums throughout the globe, making the Internet conse-

quential in shaping our understanding of marriage and family.

If scholars are to understand the dynamic institution of family in the 21st century, then it is

vital that we theoretically consider the implications of the Internet. Work on how the Internet

challenges and reconstitutes the family is still in its earliest stages. There is even less research on

how the family informs the Internet. Although there is a lot of “digital scholarship”(i.e., studies

with native digital data, digital methods, and online publication outlets), there is a lack of

“scholarship of the digital”that places digital technologies at the heart of theoretical and empir-

ical inquiry (Barnard, 2017). A tacit yet enduring dichotomy between online and offline social

life remains (see Maddox, 2017).

As early as 2004, Hughes and Hans detailed the effects of the Internet on family life, calling

for conceptual models that examine the family and its adaptations to the Internet (p. 22). How-

ever, we still do not know the extent to which the Internet’s complexities and embeddedness in

other institutional spaces shape the family and how. Undertheorization is due, in part, to a con-

ceptual problem. Conceptualizing the Internet is usually done ex post facto, resulting from a

study’s findings rather than the study’s outset. It has been called a tool (see Topak, 2013;

Whitson, 2013), an environment (see Bacigalupe & Bräuninger, 2017; Gordano Peile & Ros

Hijar, 2016), and a communication channel (see Scheibling, 2020). These conceptions limit our

understanding of the Internet’s sociality and its influence on the family beyond the digital

space.

Instead, I argue for framing the Internet as a social institution. When we understand the

Internet in this way, we can see its susceptibility to purposeful change and its role in recreating

the family. It will enhance family scholarship and theory by fostering links between theoretical

and empirical interdisciplinary work, making the invisible digital dynamics and its

interdependence with other institutions, including family, more evident and open to critical

study (Martin, 2004).

To determine the Internet’s eligibility for such a classification, it must fit the paramete rs that

define an institution. This study employs a critical literature review of a cross-section of findings

from multidisciplinary scholarship on the Internet, the family, and adjacent institutions using

Patricia Yancy Martin’s (2004) 14 criteria of social institutions. Following a discussion on how

scholars have previously understood the Internet and the Methods section, I show how the

Internet fits all 14 characteristics of a social institution and its importance for family scholars.

Findings contribute more broadly to the theory of the Internet’s institutional impact on the

family and social theory. They provide practitioners with new approaches and insights intohow

digital spaces impact family outcomes and influence the ways in which groups “do”and define

family across other institutional areas, even when the Internet is not directly implicated.

622 FAMILY RELATIONS