Digital Photography and Identity of Hong Kong Females: A Case Study of Facebook Images



The aim of this chapter is to explore how multipurpose applications of smartphones combined with growing insights of socio-cultural transformations have affected personal photography of Hong Kong females. About 80 digital photographs taken and distributed via the social networking site Facebook were analysed within the social-semiotic theory of representation and communication. The major finding is that photographic images have shown a remarkable degree of homogeneity of representational practices used by females in Hong Kong for self-remodelling. Taking photographs seems no longer primarily to provide factual evidence of a human activity (‘image as record’), but is increasingly becoming a tool for an individual’s identity formation and communication (‘image as construct’). It is argued that the increased economic and social status of Hong Kong females has spawned new ways of manipulating digital photographs disseminated over the internet.


Facebook pictures Digital photography Identity formation Art filter Collage 


  1. Barthes, Roland. 1982. Camera lucida: Reflections on photography. 2nd ed. Translated by Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  2. Bartholeyns, Gil. 2014. The instant past: Nostalgia and digital retro photography. In Media and nostalgia: Yearning for the past, present and future, ed. Katharina Niemeyer, 51–69. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1996. Photography: A middle-brow art. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cheng, Ching-shan, Chan Yee-min, & Ga, Shing-fung. 2012. Farewell, Kodak films: Mobile phones hold sway: The era of universal photography. Ming Pao Weekly, 17 March: 56–79 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  5. Cheung, Chau-kiu. 2002. Gender differences in participation and earnings in Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary Asia 32 (1): 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheung, Fanny. 1996. Gender role development. In Growing up the Chinese way: Chinese child and adolescent development, ed. Sing Lau, 45–67. Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chilvers, Ian (ed.). 1996. Collage. The concise Oxford dictionary of art and artists (2nd ed.). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chiu, Stephen, K.C. Ho, and Tai-lok Lui. 1997. City-states in the global economy: Industrial restructuring in Hong Kong and Singapore. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chiu, Stephen, and Tai-lok Lui. 2004. Testing the global city-social polarisation thesis: Hong Kong since the 1990s. Urban Studies 41 (10): 1863–1888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobley, Paul, and Nick Haeffner. 2009. Digital cameras and domestic photography: Communication, agency and structure. Visual Communication 8 (2): 123–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cobley, Paul, and Anti Randviir. 2009. Introduction: What is sociosemiotics? Special issue. Semiotica 173 (1–2): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crick, Ruth, and Kath Grushka. 2009. Signs, symbols and metaphor: Linking self with text in inquiry-based learning. The Curriculum Journal 20 (4): 447–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Croll, Elisabeth. 1995. Not the moon: Gendered difference and reflection: Women of reform. In Changing identities of Chinese women: Rhetoric, experience, and self-perception in the twentieth century, ed. Elisabeth Croll, 136–179. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
  14. D’Angelo, Frank. 2010. The rhetoric of intertextuality. Rhetoric Review 29 (1): 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Devoss, Dànielle, and Patrick Lebeau. 2010. Reading and composing Indians: Invented Indian Identity through visual literacy. The Journal of Popular Culture 43 (1): 45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedel, Tracy. 2008. (Not so) crude text and images: Staging Native in ‘big oil’ advertising. Visual Studies 23 (3): 238–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garry, Maryanne, and Matthew Gerrie. 2005. When photographs create false memories. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14 (6): 321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goffman, Erving. 1979. Gender advertisements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Halliday, Michael. 1978. Language as social semiotics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  21. Harrison, Barbara. 2002. Photographic visions and narrative inquiry. Narrative Inquiry 12 (1): 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hodge, Robert, and Gunther Kress. 1988. Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. Humphreys, Karen. 2006. Collages communicants: Visual representation in the collage-albums of Max Ernst and Valentine Penrose. Contemporary French and Francophone Studies 10 (4): 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kang, Agnes, and Katherine Chen. 2014. Stancetaking and the Hong Kong Girl in a shifting heterosexual marketplace. Discourse & Society 25 (2): 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kress, Gunther. 1993. Learning to write. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 1997. Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2003. Literacy in the new media age. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Kress, Gunther, and Robert Hodge. 1979. Language as ideology. London and Boston, MA: Routledge/Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  30. Kress, Gunther, Carey Jewitt, Jon Ogborn, and Charalampos Tsatsarelis. 2001. Multimodal teaching and learning: The rhetorics of the science classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  31. Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  32. ———. 2006. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lam, Lana. 2012a. Few women on powerful boards. South China Morning Post, 22 April.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2012b. Stealing art from MTR riders with his phone: Exhibit features images that Lai Yat-nam secretly captured with his iPhone despite photo restrictions. South China Morning Post, 26 February.Google Scholar
  35. Larbalestier, Simon. 1990. The art and craft of collage. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, William. 1997. Industrial dualism, income, and gender inequality in Hong Kong. Asian Affairs 24 (1): 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. ———. 2000. Women employment in colonial Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary Asia 30 (2): 246–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loizos, Peter. 2000. Video, film and photographs as research documents. In Qualitative researching with text, image and sound: A practical handbook, ed. Martin Bauer and George Gaskell, 93–107. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Lüders, Marika, Lin Prøitz, and Terje Rasmussen. 2010. Emerging personal media genres. New Media & Society 12 (6): 947–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Machin, David, and Joanna Thornborrow. 2006. Lifestyle and the depoliticisation of agency: Sex as power in women’s magazines. Social Semiotics 16 (1): 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Machin, David, and Theo van Leeuwen. 2007. Global media discourse: A critical introduction. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. McRobbie, Angela. 2004. Post-feminism and popular culture. Feminist Media Studies 4 (3): 255–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. n.d. Accessed October 4, 2018.
  44. Mohan, Palani. 2011. Focus pocus. South China Morning Post, 6 November.Google Scholar
  45. Ngo, Jennifer. 2011. Outdated attitudes about working women persist. South China Morning Post, 14 October.Google Scholar
  46. Philipps, Axel. 2012. Visual protest material as empirical data. Visual Communication 11 (1): 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sontag, Susan. 1973. On photography. New York: Delta.Google Scholar
  48. van Dijck, José. 2008. Digital photography: Communication, identity, memory. Visual Communication 7 (1): 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van House, Nancy. 2011. Personal photography, digital technologies and the uses of the visual. Visual Studies 26 (2): 125–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Leeuwen, Theo. 2005a. Introducing social semiotics. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. ———. 2005b. Time in discourse. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 1 (1): 125–145.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 2008. Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Leeuwen, Theo, and Carey Jewitt, eds. 2001. Handbook of visual analysis. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Vivienne, Sonja, and Jean Burgess. 2013. The remediation of the personal photograph and the politics of self-representation in digital storytelling. Journal of Material Culture 18 (3): 279–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang, Li, Pertti Alasuutari, and Jari Aro. 2014. Aesthetic and family frames in the online sharing of children’s birthday photos. Visual Communication 13 (2): 191–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Weber, Tim. 2012. Facebook buys Instagram photo sharing network for $1bn. BBC News: Technology, 10 April. Accessed October 4, 2018.
  57. Yung, Vanessa. 2012. No scone unturned. South China Morning Post, 22 March.Google Scholar
  58. Zappavigna, Michele. 2016. Social media photography: Construing subjectivity in Instagram images. Visual Communication 15 (3): 271–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zhao, Sumin, and Michele Zappavigna. 2018. Beyond the self: Intersubjectivity and the social semiotic interpretation of the selfie. New Media and Society 20 (5): 1735–1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EnglishUniversity of Hong KongPok Fu LamHong Kong

Personalised recommendations