Social networks, understood as hybrid social constructions (Latour, 2008), give rise to new directions in the construction of subjectivity (Kim et al., 2018; Srivastav & Gupta, 2017). As stated in the report EU Kids Online (Smahel et al., 2020), European teenagers’ access to social networks has doubled in the past decade. In this context, disclosure has become a fundamental practice (Walrave et al., 2016) that can be seen in media profiles, flooded with realities traditionally considered private, such as the body, sexuality or affective and romantic feelings (Thorhauge, 2020). This exchange takes place in tensions between the need to show oneself and exposure to digital risks lurking in these environments, such as sexting, grooming or identity theft (Livingstone et al., 2019).

The exhibition imperative generates social capital and recognition and, therefore, margins of satisfaction (van Dijck, 2013; Walsh & Baker, 2017). At the same time, the very architecture of platforms regulates subjects’ practices towards the visibility of the self through discursive imperatives that present this as an ideal of action (van Dijck, 2013) for certifying one’s own existence under the label of ‘only what is seen is’ (Sibilia, 2008, p. 31), which moulds intentions, ideals and desires even off-screen. This suggests the emergence of other-directed subjectivities (Sibilia, 2008) as a result of their orientation towards the legitimacy of the look of others.

Subjectivity is understood in this work as the product of individuals being subjected to specific power practices and devices that take place in a situated, historically conditioned fashion (Foucault, 1990). Its construction is an intense, discontinuous process of becoming (Braidotti, 2000) that occurs in constant dialogue with one’s own experiences and the influences of the environment (Deleuze, 1995), and is plural and polyphonic as a result of the different factors intervening in its production (Guattari, 2000). Foucault’s perspective (1990) has been adopted to explore the practices of the self that subjects activate in relation to domains of knowledge and normative practices, enabling the visualisation of different forms of subjectivation that may be built (Rose, 2003). This is a perspective from which we can explore teenagers’ self-construction in disclosure practices on social networks in both territorialisation and deterritorialisation

processes through the lines of flight (Guattari & Deleuze, 2004) that emerge in this hegemonic screen-specific arrangement.

The omnipresence of these environments displaces traditional subjective configuration systems, such as the school or family (Lastra et al., 2015). A number of studies (Koskela, 2018; Walrave et al., 2016) point to the impossibility of understanding young people’s subjectivity without their experiences on social networks. However, there is still no solid knowledge on how disclosure practices on social networks mould subjectivity in adolescence. This is a stage of life characterised by profound subjective and identity changes (Erikson, 1974). In that direction, we present a state of play that explores the construction of teenager subjectivity through disclosure on social networks. Specifically, we intend: (a) to find empirical evidence on teenager subjectivity in disclosure practices on social networks, and (b) to identify the dominant knowledge trends in research on this intersection.

A systematic literature review was carried out based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. Its quality standards (Page et al., 2021) were followed to explore the scientific literature available from 2016 to 2020 regarding the construction of teenage subjectivity in disclosure practices on social networks. The search was executed in internationally recognised databases encompassing the field of education, such as Web of Science, Scopus and ERIC. Descriptors were defined through a preliminary literature search that resulted in the following: public-private, digital environments, identity, subjectivity, teenagers, disclosure, popularity and visibility, in addition to alternative and complementary terms (Table 1). Table 1 Search strategies for the different databases Database Search strategy Results Scopus (social networks) AND (identity OR subjectivity) AND (teenagers) 503 (social media AND “visibility”) AND (public-private) (intimate) AND (social network) AND (disclosure) ERIC (teenagers OR subjectivity) AND (digital environment) 379 (social networks) AND (young persons) AND (public AND private) AND (identity) “public” AND “private” AND “identity” AND “social networks” Web of Science “social networks” AND “teenagers” AND “identity” 567 (privacy AND social networks) AND (teenager) (“popularity” AND (social media) AND “visibility” AND (perception) Note. Prepared by the authors. Different search equations were applied using the selected descriptors with the purpose of having a comprehensive view of the field under study. This search yielded a total of 1,449 research studies. Duplicates were cleansed and the studies obtained were examined to determine their inclusion in the final analysis through the systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were included which: (1) came from an internationally recognised database relevant to the educational field; (2) were relevant to the subject under study; (3) had been published between 2016 and 2020; (4) were written in Spanish or in English, and (5) were empirical. A total of 81 research studies were included for final analysis, and were: (1) analysed quantitatively through univariate descriptive analyses using SPSS version 25, and (b) analysed qualitatively by inductive coding using the programme ATLAS.ti 9.

This review revealed a field of study focusing mainly on teenagers’ appropriation of digital environments (n = 23), disclosure (n = 14) and the privacy risks (n = 13). Knowledge gaps were detected regarding the public-private articulation in disclosure practices, the practices of the self that operate in the adjustment to the ideal of disclosure on social networks and the implications of such disclosure in the subjectivity. These results might be due to the fact that Facebook (19.22%) was the environment most widely studied, at a distance from Instagram (7.41%), despite the latter being perfect for observing digital practices owing to its visual architecture and its popularity among the youth. We believe that it is critical to promote qualitative research (30.86%) or mixed research (17%) versus the clear prevalence of quantitative research (45.68%) for a matter that involves investigating the construction of meanings associated with digital practices. Questionnaires stand out in the former approach (69.13%) compared with the qualitative approach, where interviews (25.92%) and focus groups (12.35%) prevail. It was seen that teenagers’ disclosure on social networks and its implications constitute an international concern, as the research studies come from institutions in 20 different countries, led by Spain (30.80%), the United States (15.11%) and the United Kingdom (7.41%), with English being the vehicular language. However, the number of studies diminishes for the age bracket under study, even though social networks have been shown to be essential in teenagers’ subjectivity (Kim et al., 2018). This is a subject of study that has hardly been explored in the area of education and poses the challenge of how to strengthen the research on the influence of digital artefacts on the self-construction of contemporary subjects and the participation of minors in a hybrid society in which increasingly disclosure practices are emerging vertiginously.

Braidotti, R. (2000). Sujetos nómades. Paidós. Deleuze, G. (1995). Conversaciones. Pre-Textos. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2004). Mil mesetas: Capitalismo y esquizofrenia. Pre-Textos. Erikson, E. (1974). Identidad, juventud y crisis. Paidós. Foucault, M. (1990). Tecnologías del yo y otros textos afines. Paidós. Guattari, F. (2000). Las tres ecologías. Pre-Textos. Kim, S. K., Shin, S. J., Shin, J., & Miller, D. R. (2018). Social networks and individual creativity: The role of individual differences. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(4), 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.153 Koskela, H. (2018). Exhibitionism as the new normal: From presenting to performing. In B. Doringer & B. Felderer (Eds.), Faceless (pp. 249-266). Angewandte. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110527704-015 Lastra, S., Saladino, G., & Weintraub, E. (2015). La construcción de la subjetividad adolescente en la era digital. Controversias en Psicoanálisis de Niños y Adolescentes, 17. https://www.controversiasonline.org.ar/PDF/anio2015-n17/1-LASTRA-ESP.pdf Latour, B. (2008). Reensamblar lo social: Una introducción a la teoría del actor-red. Manantial. Livingstone, S., Stoilova, M., & Nandagiri, R. (2019). Children’s data and privacy online: Growing up in a digital age: An evidence review. https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/childprivacyonline Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(71). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Rose, N. (2003). Identidad, genealogía, historia. In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Coords.), Cuestiones de identidad cultural (pp. 214-249). Amorrortu. Sibilia, P. (2008). La intimidad como espectáculo. Fondo de Cultura Económica. Srivastav, G., & Gupta, A. (2017). Going private in public: A study on shift in behavioral trend using Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 55-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.009 Smahel, D., Machackova, H., Mascheroni, G., Dedkova, L., Staksrud, E., Ólafsson, K., Livingstone, S., & Hasebrink, U. (2020). EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/assets/documents/research/eu-kids-online/reports/EU-Kids-Online-2020-10Feb2020.pdf Thorhauge, A. M., Demant, J. J., & Strøm Krogager, S. G. (2020). Intimacy and visual communication in social media. MedieKultur, 36(67), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v36i67.118198 van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford University Press. Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., Vanderhoven, E., Haers, J., & Segaert, B. (Eds.). (2016). Youth 2.0: Social Media and Adolescence. Springer. Walsh, M. J., & Baker, S. A. (2017). The selfie and the transformation of the public–private distinction. Information, Communication & Society, 20(8), 1185-1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1220969