The Case of “Sharenting”—Parental Action Strategies in the Contested Field of Visualizing Children in Online Environments

Abstract

The discussion about the presence of children’s photos on social networks flares up again and again. At the center of this is the question of whether and which photos and videos parents may or should not show of their children on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. The discussions are supported by campaigns and actions that point to a violation of rights on the part of children by their parents.

1 Introduction

The discussion about the presence of children’s photos on social networks flares up again and again. At the center of this is the question of whether and which photos and videos parents may or should not show of their children on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube. The discussions are supported by campaigns and actions that point to a violation of rights on the part of children by their parents. One campaign that received much media attention in German-speaking countries was a photo series by blogger Toyah Diebel. On a website created especially for this purpose, ‘deinkindauchnicht.org’, she posted photos showing her and the actor Wilson Gonzalez Ochsenknecht. In all of the photos, they pose specifically as to reference subjects in classic children’s photos on social network platforms—they sit naked on the toilet, eat porridge, breastfeed, or suck a pacifier while surrounded by packages labeled ‘advertising’. Through the contextual break of adults being depicted in contrived and dramatized child poses, as well as through the resulting irritation, Diebel aims to draw attention to what she sees as the wrong and dangerous photographic practices of parents.¹

Similar advocacy campaigns for children’s image rights have also been launched by institutions such as the Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk (German Children’s Fund), which sponsored the campaign ‘Kinder haben Rechte’ (Children Have Rights). In the course of this initiative, an image campaign was also developed, featuring photos of children in various situations that were accompanied by the tagline “Dear mom, dear dad, think before you post!”.²

While drawing attention to the rights of children is appropriate and essential, it is equally important not to categorically condemn parents and their everyday photography practices. Nonetheless, well-meaning campaigns can leave such an impression. What is problematic about this is the perspective that corresponding campaigns report on seemingly objective misconduct on the part of the parents. However, the parents themselves do not have their say. The general assumption conveyed, on the other hand, is that when parents post their children’s photos online, they are acting irresponsibly and out of purely narcissistic motives. The relevance of contexts and differentiation of content are often left out of the equation.

In the following, the parents’ perspective will be shown. What are their motives and action strategies with regard to sharing children’s photos on social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram? What considerations guide their actions? The analysis draws upon 34 focus interviews conducted with parents as part of “Picturing Family in the Social Web. A comparative analysis of the growing image-based presentation of familial occasions in participative online contexts using the example of the parenthood of the so-called digital natives”, a project which was sponsored by the Swiss National Science Foundation and ran from 2014 to 2017.³

2 Theoretical Background

The term ‘sharenting’ was coined to describe the sharing of children’s photos by parents in online environments. It is an amalgam of the words ‘sharing’ and ‘parenting’. However, it is important to distinguish between a denotative and a connotative level in the meaning. On a denotative level, ‘sharenting’ stands as a “shorthand term denoting when parents share information about themselves and their children online”, or as a way to express “sharing representations of one’s parenting or children online”.⁴ While this first scholarly definition is descriptive in nature—without making a judgement about the actions—the term already has a clearly negative connotation in everyday linguistic use. On a connotative level, definitions from popular online dictionaries illustrate how the term is widely understood and used. Sharenting is described here as “[…] the overuse of social media by parents to share content based on their children. It is related to the concept of ‘too much information’”.⁵ Or, in another variant, sharenting stands for “[u]sing social media to share news and images of children […]. It carries the connotation that parents are spending too much time showing the world how happy and fulfilled their children are rather than conducting actual parenting. The term also suggests that parents are oversharing”.⁶ As the use of terms such as “too much information”, “spending too much time”, or “oversharing” clearly demonstrates, the concept of sharenting is usually used in everyday life with a distinctly negative connotation.

The fact that the birth of children leads to an increase in the importance of photos and photography in parents’ lives was documented even before the emergence of social media. Rose⁷ describes how mothers, in particular, take on the task of family photo management and send up-to-date pictures of their children to more distant relatives at Christmas, for example. As such, the role that the distribution of children’s photos plays within the contact network of families and their social environment also already becomes apparent. With the advent of online platforms, this is now happening in new contexts and extended personal networks, allowing for a greater public audience. Even in online environments, mothers are more likely to share photos of their children.⁸ This allows them to interact with other parents, and it is an important factor in maintaining and building new social relationships, as well as in creating a sense of pride and joy in their own parenting achievements.⁹ Sharing photos and exchanging views on aspects of child-rearing on social media allows new relationships to be formed with ‘peers’ that can fill some need for emotional support, especially for young mothers.¹⁰ In this, mothers are aware of potential risks and seek ways to deal with them.¹¹ Of particular importance is the aspect of privacy protection of children¹² and the perception of their needs and wishes with regard to posting pictures.¹³ Potential stereotypical portrayals of children and the resulting social implications are seen as potentially problematic.¹⁴ At the same time, mothers are confronted with increased social pressure as a result of posting photos of their children and families. On the one hand, they have to deal with the occasionally strong rejection of sharenting¹⁵; on the other, they are subject to public criticism of their appearance and of decisions made in matters of child-rearing.¹⁶

3 Methodological Approach—Researching Sharenting

The presented data were generated during the research project “Picturing Family in the Social Web. A comparative analysis of the growing image-based presentation of familial occasions in participative online contexts using the example of the parenthood of the so-called Digital Natives”, which was carried out from 2014 to 2017. A total of 34 focused interviews were conducted with two different approaches: individual and couple interviews. In total, 40 parents were interviewed.

In a first focus group, individual interviews (n = 28) took place with young parents between the ages of 20 and 35 who regularly share pictures and/or videos on social media platforms and via mobile apps. In addition to a guided interview about family photo practices, an online ethnography of respondents’ profiles was conducted. For this purpose, research profiles were created on the relevant platforms, and a friend request was sent with the participants’ consent, which they then accepted.

In addition, there was a second focus group in which couples (n = 6) were interviewed in their homes. These were also conducted with 20–35-year-old parents who regularly post visual artifacts of their children (photos and videos) on social network sites and via mobile apps. In addition to a guideline-based interview and online ethnography, these ‘home-ethnography’ style surveys also documented the use of photos in private everyday family life, as well as focused more on the negotiations regarding posting practices between parents.

4 Results—Parental Action Strategies and Sharenting as a Communicative Practice

4.1 The Quantity and Role of Private Photos in Intra- and Inter-Familial Communication

The interviews confirmed that photographic activities within families increase significantly with the birth of a child. Parents’ stated desire was to preserve the many ‘special moments’ and record milestones of their child’s development. Owning ‘good’ photographs was often described as being personally important. The birth of a child was often considered to have the similar photographic significance as one’s own wedding. Thus, professional baby or family photos were often commissioned and shot during pregnancy and/or shortly after birth, and for everyday familial life, photographic demands also increased. In some cases, people even specifically invested in new camera equipment in order to obtain higher-quality pictures and not just rely on their cell phone cameras. Regarding the storage and archiving of photos, four different focal points of use could be differentiated.

4.1.1 Visuals as Archives of Possibilities (and Guilt)

The increase in photographic activities is accompanied by the question of how to store and archive images. As photo technology has developed, material costs have increasingly become irrelevant, and the number of snapshots has thus risen. Interviewed families explained how they frequently captured scenes from everyday life, especially in the first months and years of their children’s lives. In contrast to analog image practices, however, they did not just take individual shots of the corresponding scenes, but entire photo series, which allows them to catch the right moment and, if necessary, select the best shot. This further led to an enormous increase in the number of photos. Over time, some families accumulated many thousands of pictures, and these were often distributed over various devices. Besides a possible digital camera, parents rely most often on their cell phones, which are usually within a hand’s reach and capable of storing large quantities of photos. Some parents manage to store the photos in a central place, such as on the family laptop (see Fig. 1). There, pictures are stored in the hope that one day they will be sorted and made visible again in different ways, such as in chronologically sorted photo albums. In many cases, however, these well-filled picture folders are a source of great dissatisfaction. The large mass of pictures is often contrasted by parents’ limited free time. Thus, on the one hand, the created archives are seen as having great potential for the creation of an intra-family culture of remembrance, but on the other, they are also a constant source of bad conscience, since sorting and structuring the steady stream of new photos is difficult to surmount. In turn, the created data folders form both an archive of possibilities and feelings of inadequacy.

Fig. 1

Family laptop with image folders

4.1.2 Visuals as Communication Material

Children’s pictures play a major role in communication with parents’ close social environment. With the widespread establishment of smartphones and messenger apps such as WhatsApp, sending photos and videos has become increasingly popular compared to sending just text messages. In particular, contacts who live far away can thus be more involved in their distant family’s everyday life. Especially with new families, when the children are still small and quickly master many developmental steps, there is a great need among parents to share these moments. Mothers in particular, who still spend more time at home with young children, often alone, expressed that they appreciate the opportunity to talk to others about their children’s development and share special moments. When fathers work outside the home, many mothers take advantage of the opportunity to share their children’s daily lives with them throughout the day via snapshots and short videos:

“I send him [the father] pictures of Sophie when, for example, she’s dressed funny or something like that, which he just can’t see during the day because he’s at work.” Elena

In addition to the parents among themselves, contact with the extended family is strongly characterized by the exchange of photos. In the context of family chats and groups (see Fig. 2), everyday pictures and special moments of the children are also frequently shared:

Fig. 2

Photos and videos in parental WhatsApp groups

“There [on WhatsApp] we have a lot of photos of her, where we kind of just want to show something briefly, or so, look here, new hairstyle, how she laughs, or what nonsense she does. We almost never have pictures of ourselves, so if we do, then only about her, because, of course, they [family and friends] want to know that, too. And they always want to see what new things she can do.” Luisa

As revealed in the interviews, the birth of grandchildren is often the occasion for some grandparents to engage more deeply with digital and networked technologies and to acquire a smartphone consequently.

In addition, communication within parental peer groups is also strongly influenced by visual artifacts. Longtime friends want to be kept up to date on the children’s development.

Ben: “Yes, exactly. Then we have a baby group, where all the parents from our church congregation who have recently had a baby come together to solve baby problems or if someone has something urgent to ask: ‘Hey, it’s like this with me right now. Was it maybe like this with somebody else? How did you guys handle that? What did you guys do? How did you guys deal with it?’ And stuff like that.”

I: “And what role do photos play in the group?”

Ben: “Well, for example, when Ina got something new to eat, we just took a picture and sent it.”

New contacts, for example from pregnancy classes and parenting groups, become an important place for social exchange. There is a correspondingly pronounced need to give the immediate environment, consisting of family and friends, a direct insight into one’s own family life via visual artifacts.

4.1.3 Visuals as Personal Public Relation Material

In addition to the use of children’s images in communicating with a direct and clearly defined audience, especially via messenger apps, photos are also sometimes shared with a more dispersed environment in the form of loose contacts.¹⁷ This happens via the parents’ social media channels (see Fig. 3). Depending on the virtual presence and the respective preferences of the parents, children’s and family photos are shared here with a significantly larger and thus less controllable audience. As a result, this form of using children’s images is the most heavily criticized. Critics point out that children’s privacy rights are affected here. Nevertheless, the interviews show that parents do not take the decision to share photos of their children lightly. There are sometimes intense negotiations, both between parents and within families and circles of friends, about whether and under what conditions photos of children can and should be shared and in what environments. In order to meet the various demands and attitudes, parents display a great deal of creativity (see Sect. 4.2.3). Posting a photo of a child does not necessarily mean that the child is completely and visibly depicted. Children are often only shown in sections, from behind or from a far distance, in order to protect their personal rights. Overall, a rather restrictive attitude was revealed with regard to sharing photos on public platforms and profiles. Thus, mainly only selected individual images were posted online. The focus is usually on special moments and events. For example, the birth of a child, or a greeting from a vacation or a special moment, is often communicated by photo.

Fig. 3

Images on parental social media profiles

4.1.4 Analog ‘Museums’

Overall, photography has meanwhile become a largely digitized practice. Pictures are mostly taken with cell phones or digital cameras. They are then stored in digital archives or communicated via digital channels. But families still have a great need to own and show individual photos as objects. It is not uncommon for professional photographers to be hired for this purpose. Thus, in addition to classic wedding photography and family portraits, photo sessions for pregnant moms and newborns have now successfully established themselves in the canon of professional photography. The involvement of a professional photographer is associated with the desire for special images that stand out from the mass of daily snapshots. Accordingly, these pictures are deliberately and purposefully staged in a private environment like one’s own home. Equally prominently presented are selected self-made pictures of the children, which are perceived as very well done. Such photo displays, some of which have the appearance of a museum, are primarily used to remind oneself of positive moments in family life, as well as to represent the family to guests (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

Gallery of selected family and children’s photos

4.2 Sharenting as a Communicative and Multifaceted Practice

4.2.1 Distinction of Platforms

With regard to the sharing of children’s photos via digital platforms, there are many complex and differentiated options for action. Accordingly, there are many considerations to address and decisions to be made on the part of parents (cf. Fig. 5). Exemplary questions include: Is it a tendentially public platform, such as Instagram or a messenger app like WhatsApp? Is the photo used as a public profile picture or shared with a small number of acquaintances in a private group? Is the profile, if in private mode, viewable only to direct contacts, or is it publicly visible? Each platform offers a range of different visibility, sharing, and privacy options.

Fig. 5

Platforms and possible options

Depending on the chosen platform, available settings, and number of contacts, parents can gauge if and what kind of photos and information they share:

“On Facebook, everyone is just kind of present, and you also accept a lot more friend requests, and on Instagram [in private mode, author’s note] it’s just more limited. I have 20, you [interviewed mother, author’s note] maybe have 40 contacts. That’s a bit of a smaller circle, and you wouldn’t want to follow everyone or allow everyone to follow you. And because of that, of course, there’s a bit more, yes, I can share a bit more there.” Sven

Accordingly, it is important to always consider the context of action, i.e. the platform chosen and the settings selected, in relation to shared children’s photos and the intentions and possible risks associated with them. It makes a big difference whether one uses a photo as a public profile picture or shares it with 20 contacts on a private profile. Even the chosen platform alone is not telling in terms of an assessment of the context of action. For example, a profile picture on WhatsApp is visible to anyone who knows the corresponding phone number and has an account there themselves. This can be a considerable number of potential contacts. In contrast, a photo on a private Instagram profile may be visible to only 10 people.

4.2.2 Distinction of Audiences

In addition to the differentiation of platforms and the options available on them, parents surveyed strongly considered an image’s potential target audience. Depending on the assessment of the strength of the relationship, different photos are shared. Following Granovetter,¹⁸ close contacts, such as life partners, family, and friends (so-called “strong ties”), can be distinguished from more distant acquaintances and online contacts (so-called “weak ties”) (see Fig. 6).

Fig. 6

Distinction of strong ties and weak ties

Closer contacts are given more extensive insights and access to more images in direct exchanges via messenger apps or in private groups. In contrast, content is only shared sporadically and more restrictively with more distant contacts and within personal public spheres.¹⁹

4.2.3 Distinction of Contents and Modes of Presentation

Furthermore, it should be noted that images differ in terms of how depicted children are portrayed. With regard to showing and simultaneously not showing children in pictures, a number of typical handling strategies can be observed.²⁰ Frequently observed are pictures of masked or disguised children, as well as of children who are only shown from behind, from a great distance, or only in sections. If the child’s face can be seen from the front, the face may be made unrecognizable by adding emojis or drawing over it (see Fig. 7).

Fig. 7

Creative modes of presentation

Overall, parents show a great deal of creativity when dealing with children’s photos in online environments. Their own need for exchange with their social environment is balanced against children’s personal rights, their right to their own image, and their right to privacy. Parents try to meet these different needs by adapting their photographic practices. Accordingly, the image of a child and sharenting—as a parental practice—must be viewed in a differentiated way. What is shown, or rather not shown, in the process? The formal presence of a child in an image on an online platform does not necessarily say anything about the degree of intimacy or about parent’s problematic image practices.

5 Conclusion

This paper shows that sharenting is not a phenomenon that can be generalized. Rather, it is dependent upon platforms and channels, differentiated by audiences, and aesthetically diverse. Family pictures and photos of children in online contexts have a variety of communicative functions. They serve as a means of participation in parental relationships, bridge distances between and integrate extended nuclear family members as well as close friends, and offer a visual reference point and object of negotiation in the context of parental peer relationships. In this context, the presented findings reveal that parents are not indifferent or dismissive of their children’s privacy rights, even when they share photos of them on social media platforms.

Parents are faced with a multitude of possible actions and thus decisions. Accordingly, when considering sharenting as a medical practice, specific attitudes and presentation contexts must be considered in addition to the platform. Furthermore, parents clearly differentiate between varying audiences and recipient groups of the images. Likewise, regarding the specific ways in which the photos are presented and edited, both a great creative potential and a need to protect the personal rights of children are revealed. There is a clear differentiation between close contacts (“strong ties”) and more distant acquaintances (“weak ties”), with a corresponding adaptation of the shared content in terms of quantity and presentation modes (see Fig. 8). While close contacts receive many images from different contexts, only very specifically selected photos are shared on more public platforms.

Fig. 8

Framework—Sharenting as a communicative practice

Accordingly, sharing children’s photos in networked online environments should not be constructed as fundamentally irresponsible; as we have seen in the course of our interviews parents who share pictures of their children predominantly do so under weighing of potential risks. This article shows how multifaceted the phenomenon of sharenting is and how important it is to look at the particular example together with its specific contexts of action.