SMSXXX10.1177/2056305116641976Social Media + SocietyDavid and Cambre 641976research-article2016 SI: Selfies Social Media + Society April-June 2016: 1 –11 Screened Intimacies: Tinder © The Author(s) 2016 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav and the Swipe Logic DOI: 10.1177/2056305116641976 sms.sagepub.com Gaby David1 and Carolina Cambre2 Abstract This article seeks to amplify discursive constructions of social connection through technology with an examination of the proposed and presumed intimacies of the Tinder app. In the first half, we ethnographically examine the sociotechnical dynamics of how users navigate the app and take up or resist the subject positions encouraged by the user interface feature of swiping. In the second half, we provide a discussion of the implications of the swipe logic through post-structural conceptual lenses interrogating the ironic disruption of intimacy of Tinder’s interface. Keywords Tinder, acceleration, swipe, intimacy, mobile, images, dating, profile pictures Introduction In 2014, the then 2-year old Tinder had already been hailed embraced volatility, ethereality, airiness, speed, and feath- by Rolling Stone Magazine as having “upended the way sin- eriness; or levitas? Is it through this levitas that intimacy is gle people connect” (Grigoriadis, 2014), inspiring copycat paradoxically being conveyed? apps like JSwipe (a Jewish dating app) and Kinder (for kids’ In the first half of this article, we discuss the limits and play dates). Sean Rad, cofounder and CEO of Tinder, whose possibilities afforded by the Tinder app and how they are app manages to gamify the search for partners using loca- taken up by users, while in the second half we discuss the tion, images, and messages, had intended it to be “a simpli- swipe logic through the conceptual lenses of Massumi’s fied dating app with a focus on images” (Grigoriadis, 2014). (1992) interpretation of molarization and Virilio’s (1986) The name itself, playing on an earlier tentative name dromology. We examine online discourses, interactions in Matchbox and the stylized bonfire icon that accompanies the the mobile dating environment, interview data, and user brand name, insinuates that once users have found a match, interfaces (UIs) to interrogate what we understand as a sparks will inevitably fly and ignite the fires of passion. In a screened intimacy manifested through a swipe logic on literal sense, anything that can be ignited by a match can be Tinder. For us, the term swipe logic describes the pace, or considered tinder, and as it turns out, not only users’ time but the increased viewing speed encouraged by the UI of this also their profiles are indeed the tinder to be consumed. As app, and that very pace that emerged as a prominent feature we will explore here, this ignescent quality may no longer be of the discourses examined both online and off-line. restricted to circumstances of intimacy understood as close- Throughout, we are mindful of how intimacy is being nego- ness. Rather, tindering relations might mean that even the tiated and redefined through online practices; we trace airiest of connections is flammable. emerging discursive juxtapositions between depth and sur- In traditional Western conceptions of intimacy, what is it face, solidity and ethereality, and temporally between dura- that Tinder disrupts? Traditionally, intimacy was character- tion and volatility, instability, and movement. Following ized as closeness, familiarity, and privacy from the Latin intimatus, intimare “make known” or intimus “innermost” 1École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, France (“Intimae,” n.d.). However, we wonder whether the notion 2Concordia University, Canada of the intimate as a certain kind of closeness (and duration) has been discursively modulated and disturbed through the Corresponding Author: Carolina Cambre, Concordia University, Sir George Williams Campus, ubiquity, immediacy, and acceleration of connection pro- 1455 De Maisonneuve Blvd. W. Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada. vided by Tinder. Has the nature of intimacy ironically Email: [email protected] Creative Commons Non Commercial CC-BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 Social Media + Society media theorist Erika Biddle (2013), we are interested in how direct observation, eight open-ended face-to-face interviews “relational and fluctuating fields of affinity . engage on an with Tinder users (heterosexual males [4] and females [4] informational plane” and work to “produce new forms of aged 19–43 years) were conducted in Paris (translated by the social control and subjectivization” (p. 66). We, thus, engage authors). All participants volunteered in response to a call on the microsociological aspect of the “swipe” gesture to Tinder for participation. develop ideas around what we situate as screened relations These accounts are taken together with the popular dis- of intimacy to highlight aspects of speed, ethereality, frag- courses in blogs, websites, and Internet commentary including mentation, and volatility. We use screened to acknowledge social media platforms, such as Tumblr and Instagram, through the mediatization and depersonalization that is encouraged which users additionally publish individual exchanges. In as a result of the speed of profile-viewing enabled by the sum, the iterative process between practice, reception, and the swipe logic and thus as a top-down discursive hindrance to resulting discourse-coalition informs our reflections and sub- intimacy. At the same time, we acknowledge the possibili- sequent conceptual analysis. ties of obtaining meaningful connections where the affec- tive impulses behind users’ screened intimacies can create What Is Tinder, and How Is it opportunities for their own bottom-up gratifications. While other dating apps have subsequently incorporated Perceived? the same swipe pattern, we take Tinder as exemplary for A preliminary assessment of Internet-based commentary three reasons: first, its popularity: a 2014 estimate claims about Tinder in blogs, news, and popular media sites, not to 50 million people have subscribed to the service (Guiliano, mention the now infamous “Tinder Nightmares” Instagram 2015); second, it is a useful example of a location-based real- account, presents a narrative of less than satisfying results time dating (LBRTD) application that provides affordances for many users. The latter is dedicated to awkward or down- for self-presentation; third, because we believe there is a right distasteful encounters on Tinder and has “455,000 plus need to continue to critically examine how discursive and followers” (Garnsworthy, 2014). Generating copycat sites algorithmic regulatory conventions are interrelated. In this such as Tinder Nightmares Egypt (http://websta.me/n/tinder- exploratory phase, we favored a non-exhaustive, empirical nightmareseg), the publicizing of everything from the ridicu- micro-study as a way to gain some traction in the area. lous to the offensive has also produced a bewildering assortment of advice columns such as the blog TinderLines Methodology (http://tinderlines.com/) collecting memorable and comic pick-up lines. A student interviewed by The Huffington Post Triangulating interview data, participant observation, and a shrugged off the nightmare stories saying, “People don’t survey of popular discourses from the broad range of sources think of [Tinder] as online dating, they think of it as a game” mentioned above allowed the theme of swiping to emerge. or “as a beauty contest plus messaging,” while others see it Following Foucault’s (1978) rule of “the tactical polyvalence as a “judging app” (Bosker, 2015). While opinions on the of discourses,” we understand discourse as a multiplicity uses and misuses of the app vary, few disagree that while of elements “that can come into play in various strategies” computerized dating services have been around since the (p. 100). And because we hold “discourse as a series of dis- mid-1960s, Tinder has irretrievably altered the digital dat- continuous segments whose tactical function is neither uni- ing-scape, processing more than “a billion swipes left and form nor stable,” (Foucault, 1978, p. 100) we reject the right daily” (Bilton, 2014).1 divisions between accepted and excluded discourse in order Those who sign up are given a limited number of images to recognize mid-range discursive possibilities like divergent (6) (from Facebook) and words (500) to present themselves. narratives and story-lines, and discourse-coalitions or actors Immediately profile pictures appear and, as journalist Holly grouped around sets of story-lines (Bingham, 2010). More Baxter (2013) notes, “You can scroll through hundreds of specifically, we examine a specific story-line, that of the faces as you procrastinate on your morning commute, or in a swipe logic, within a discourse-coalition. tedious lunch hour al desko.” In order to have a match, both By examining this gestural feature in relation to intimacy, users must swipe right. After matching, a pop-up animation this article contributes to the growing literature on hook-up shows both users’ photographs and enables direct