How the Internet affects our Definition of who we are

25/04/2010 Clyde A 14 comments

The argument I will present in this paper centres on the transformation of a person’s identity from the unmediated offline world to the mediated online virtuality of the internet to show how the internet influences our definition of who we are. I argue that the internet influences our definition of who we are by providing a virtual world where identity deception through self-reflexive ‘hoped-for’ identities are constructed to generate desired impressions motivated by individual payoff’s, social capital and maximal distinctiveness. I have focussed my research on social networking sites (SNSs), in particular, Facebook.

Greenhow and Robelia (2009, p. 120) quote boyd and Ellison’s definition of an online social network site as:
“A web-based service that allows individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system (2007, 1)”.

Facebook is arguably the most transparent of SNS communities, and unlike other virtual environments such as UseNet and Multi User Dungeons (MUDs) where anonymity is part of the landscape, the concept of SNSs relies heavily on authenticated identity; ‘trust’ will always be a major factor in virtual friendships. For a SNS like Facebook, that began its existence at Harvard University, purely as a communications medium for intra-campus socializing (Martin, Grasmuck, & Zhao, 2008, p. 1820), and where membership meant having the correct ‘dot com’ (edu) address, transparency is less of an issue than other virtual communities as online users are already authenticated by offline friends, this inherent transparency of Facebook challenges the idea of identity deception existing within this realm.

Transparency—of social networks, of personal histories, of judgements of others, states boyd (Karaganis, 2007, pp. un-numbered) is a powerful idea that drove much of the early exploration of digital networking. By design, SNSs provide both the motive and the environment: adolescents and young adults with a need to ‘belong’, competing for popularity, and forming virtual identities through implied meanings and friendships. In unmediated environments, a body is loaded with cues about a person’s identity; gender, race, and age that are difficult to obscure, which can be used to convey a wide variety of attitudes, emotions and identity information (boyd, 2008, p. 126), The virtual self, created on the internet, does not have these cues. Jenny Sundén (2003: 3, as cited by boyd, 2008, p. 126) argued that an online participant has to actively and consistently ‘type oneself into being’ to exist and be visible online. This description of constructed identity taken a step further by Turkle (1997, p. 165) who states that “Virtual reality is not ‘real’, but it has a relationship to the real” and claims (1995, as cited by boyd, 2008) that identity work through the Internet tends to involve the creation of fictional characters unconnected from embodied reality.

As well as being a communications medium for staying in touch with friends, Facebook also provides contexts for social development and identity formation, but unlike the parallel identities that are constructed for playing in MUDS, where reality can be written into fantasy, and presented as fantasy, the confusion is created by Facebook identities which are self-reflexive constructs of reality, wishing to be presented as reality – which they are not, as described by boyd (2008, p. 125) “I see profiles as ‘digital bodies’ in that they both uniquely identify a persona and are the product of self-reflexive identity production”.

Identity, argues Palumbo-Liu, (2000, p. 767) is constructed from all your past experiences, and is manifest in its constancy, in the fact that the person always expresses the contents of his or her identity by acting in certain ways. Put differently, Identity is who you are – not who you want to be. boyd (2008, p. 129) argues that pressures faced in digital self-presentation are not wholly different from that surrounding fashion and image in unmediated contexts, where signals send information about their social identity. I agree with boyd’s summation that the ‘presentation of self’ – dressing up to go clubbing, or ‘wearing makeup’ may be similar in their respective forums online and offline, but argue that a user’s self-presentation on the internet often goes beyond ‘dressing up’, and can consciously be constructed to misrepresent and deceive, secure in the knowledge that the vital cues which authenticates offline identity are unavailable in the virtual world.

In research carried out on online self-presentation, Martin et al. (2008, p. 1828) found that Facebook identities were not the identities users established in the offline world, nor were they close to the identities users would construct in anonymous online environments; rather, they were the hoped-for possible identities users would like to, but have not yet been able to, establish in the offline world. Or, as explained by Markus and Nurius (as cited by Martin et al. 2008), a person’s conception of himself or herself at a given time can be divided into two categories: the ‘now selves’ and the ‘possible selves.’ Now selves are established identities known to others, whereas possible selves are images of the self that are currently unknown to others. (Martin, Grasmuck, & Zhao, 2008, p. 1819) By using the mediated environment of SNS to implicitly profile themselves as the ‘possible self’ or ‘hoped-for’ identity, is arguably a form of identity deception in which the internet contributes to and affects a person’s definition of who they are.

Simpson and Macy (2004), describe this ‘hoped-for’ identity as “thinking of the self in terms of unique attributes”, which, they say, “accentuates the distinction between individual and collective interests and thus activates a self-interested desire to maximize individual payoffs”. This view is supported and expanded upon by de Vries (2010) who states that personal identity is a creation malleable as well as stable and pre-established. De Vries describes malleable as freedom from unreasonable constraints on the construction of one’s own identity (Agre & Rotenberg, 2001, p7, as cited by de Vries, 2010, p. 74), and gives an example; “she finally discovered what she had always already been deep down inside – a dancer”. Facebook, in this regard, served as a vehicle that empowered the users to produce socially desirable identities that they were presumably not capable of producing in the offline world due to various reasons, including the presence of the ‘gating’ obstacles” (McKenna et al. as cited by Martin et al., 2008, p. 1829).

Ross (2009) states that Facebook operates differently to other social communities such as dating sites, which are tools to meet new people, in that ‘Facebook Friends’ are individuals known from the offline world; Facebook is not used as a tool to meet new people online. (Ross, 2009) As part of an online mediated environment, SNSs are an ideal environment for misinformation and identity deception; the deception states Steinfield, (2008) is in the implied meaning of the showing, not telling. This view is supported by Martin et al. (2008) who states that Facebook users appeared to prefer the most implicit selection of dense displays of profile photos and wall posts, followed by highly enumerated lists of cultural preferences associated with youth culture, and finally the minimalist, first-person ‘‘about me” statements. These implicit messages, together with the often exaggerated explicit messages woven into a SNS identity construct, leads to ambiguity and has the capacity to create an atmosphere of mistrust. In her PhD dissertation Taken Out of Context, danah boyd (2008) comments on this type of ambiguity:

“As rich as her profile is, it is hard to place Allie. Her self-description reveals some angst, but she is glowing in her photograph. Her self-description has stayed the same for months, making it difficult for me to sense change. I can gather from her five blog posts over two years that she is struggling to make sense of her religion, but I have no idea how pervasive these thoughts are in her daily life nor can I tell why this is the only topic that she seems to post about. I can see whom she lists as Friends, but I have no idea how she feels about these people or those she spends time with who are not on MySpace. Her profile is public, which makes it possible for me to see, but I have only the slightest idea of whom she intends to view it. For all that is revealed, there is much more that is not.” (boyd, 2008, p. 133)
Allie’s profile is an example of how implied meanings contribute to identity deception on SNSs.

Social identity is defined as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership”. (Tajfel, as cited by Simpson & Macy, 2004, p. 1377) Although the meaning of social identities cannot be fully captured as they change with evolving contexts and relationships (Omi & Winant, as cited by Abes, Jones, & McEwen, 2007, p. 2), the visual self – projected via the inclusion of large numbers of peer photographs – can be thought of as the ‘self as social actor.’ It is as if the user is saying, ‘Watch me and know me by my friends.’ By ‘showing without telling,’ Facebook users seek to make certain implicit identity claims aimed at generating desired impressions on their viewers especially in terms of the depth and extent of their social ties (Martin et al., 2008, p. 1825). These implicit group identity claims can be deceptive and are strongly associated with social capital outcomes.

The Social Identity utilitarian model presented by Simpson and Macy (2004, p. 1378) assumes that social identity leads to a “transformation of social motives whereby an individualistic self-interested orientation is matched or superseded by the motivation to maximize joint or collective interests”; maximal distinctiveness (Simpson & Macy, 2004, p. 1378) – a hypothesis they say, that social identity leads actors to make choices that maximize the differences between the in-group and the out-group while minimizing within-group differences. (Hogg, Turner, as cited by Simpson & Macy, 2004, p. 1378) Facebook users, state Martin et al. (2008) may emphasize or even exaggerate the part of their possible selves that are socially desirable but not readily discernible, such as one’s character, intelligence, and other important inner qualities. At the same time, they may seek to hide or de-emphasize the part of their selves they regard as socially undesirable, such as shyness, being overweight, or stuttering. (Martin et al., 2008, p. 1821)

The social construction of identity always takes place in a context marked by power relationships (Palumbo-Liu, 2000, p. 769). Among young adults, relationships with peers are important for generating offline benefits, commonly referred to as social capital (Steinfield, 2008, p. 434) – social capital is an elastic construct used to describe the benefits one receives from one’s relationships with other people (Lin, 1999), a view supported by Ellison et al.(as cited in Steinfield, 2008, p. 434) who suggests that intense Facebook use is closely related to the formation and maintenance of social capital, and found evidence that self-esteem may operate as a moderator of the relationship between social network site use and social capital. That is, young people with lower self-esteem appeared to benefit more from their use of Facebook than those with higher self-esteem. It is as if the Facebook users create a mediated interaction with their audience placing friends and dating partners in between themselves and others. ‘‘See me first and foremost in the context of my group.” (Martin et al., 2008) My hypothesis is that in some instances, personal identity is forfeited for ‘maximal distinctiveness’ in exchange for social capital; being popular with Facebook Friends.

I have argued that the internet influences our definition of who we are by placing us in a virtual world where identity deception through self-reflexive ‘hoped-for’ identities are constructed to generate desired impressions motivated by individual payoff’s, social capital and maximal distinctiveness. And whilst I have argued that the internet does affect our definition of who we are, my research in this topic has shown that the influence is minimal and is “not an expression of something innate in a person, it is rather a social product, the outcome of a given social environment and hence performed differently in varying contexts” (Martin et al., 2008).

Although I have shown that online profiles can and are constructed to produce socially desirable identities, not all identity constructions are malicious. The Internet, and the myriad of SNSs today provide opportunities for identity production that can be used to overcome some limitations inherent in face-to-face situations such as ‘gating’ obstacles and create the hoped-for possible selves they are unable to establish in the offline world. (Martin et al., 2008, p. 1832)

It is also incorrect to think that the online world and the offline world are two separate worlds, and whatever people do online ‘hold little consequence’ (Clark, as cited by Martin et al., 2008, p. 1831) for lives offline. Facebook identities are clearly real in the sense that they have real consequences for the lives of the individuals who constructed them, and in the Internet era, the social world includes both the online and offline environments, and an important skill people need to learn is how to coordinate their behaviours in these two realms. (Martin et al., 2008)

References:
Abes, E., Jones, S., & McEwen, M. (2007). Reconceptualizing the Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1), 1-22.
boyd, D. (2008). Taken Out of Context. University of California, Berkeley.
de Vries, K. (2010). Identity, profiling algorithms and a world of ambient intelligence. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(1), 71-85.
Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal Learning and Identity Formation in Online Social Networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 119-140.
Karaganis, J. (Ed.). (2007). Structures of Participation in Digital Culture. New York: Social Science Research Council.
Martin, J., Grasmuck, S., & Zhao, S. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816-1836.
Palumbo-Liu, D. (2000). Assumed Identities. New Literary History, 31(4), 765-780.
Ross, C. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578-586.
Simpson, B., & Macy, M. (2004). Power, Identity, and Collective Action in Social Exchange. Social Forces, 82(4), 1373-1409.
Steinfield, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of applied developmental psychology, 29(6), 434-445.
Turkle, S. (1997). Constructions and Reconstructions of Self in Virtual Reality. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(3), 158-167.

Attribution Non-Commercial
cc by-nc

View License Deed | View Legal Code
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 Australia License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/au/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
________________________________________________________________

Identity in Communities and Networks community, Facebook, identity, network identity, Social Networking

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by Nat about 2 years ago.

Clyde,
I will concede that the line is taken out of context after a re-read of the paper. It struck a cord due to the newspaper article I had read earlier that day, along with personal bad timing on participating in discussions (midnight). On saying that I did also re-read the commentary thus far and still support my original statement your paper and commentary argue well.

Upon reflection my personal experience leads me to consider the different ‘personalities’ I have from work, to home, to when I’m dealing with fellow State Emergency Service members. At work I am a sometime supervisor so I need to draw a line between how much I share or comment on general discussions in the work place, basically ensuing I play the game of work politics carefully. At home well I can be as grumpy or happy or whatever else I’m feeling as I like without the worry of shortening my career. Good support at home is a plus to achieving external goals. When it comes to SES, it depends on the role, be it team leader, advisor or pleb. If I was to start including an online presence I would personally need some boundaries, hence supporting your argument (on a personal level) that identities online are mediated thus influencing our perception of self.
Written by Clyde A about 2 years ago.

Hi Renee,
Thanks for your comments.
I’m with you on this; I just don’t understand what motivates young people to place so much personal information online. And as you state, the only winners are the people who are using this information against them.
Cheers, Clyde
Written by Clyde A about 2 years ago.

Hi Fransisca,
Thanks for your comments.
The reason it is “incorrect” to think that we live in two separate worlds, is because, as Clark (cited by Martin et al., 2008, p. 1831) states, online behavior has consequences in the real world.
But you are also correct in stating that they are two worlds; social networking is a participatory culture, and people who do not participate, are not affected by it in the real world.
Unfortunately, young people of today have been sold on the idea that placing their ‘lives’ online is harmless, possibly even beneficial. They have no concept of the ideas of ‘privacy’ or ‘personal information’, and seem quite content to exchange these valuable commodities for social currency (being popular). For them, it has become one world, because when they misbehave online, this is documented forever, and they may pay a high price for their popularity (or stupidity) – by being dismissed from their jobs in the real world.
Cheers, Clyde
Martin, J., Grasmuck, S., & Zhao, S. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816-1836.
Written by Clyde A about 2 years ago.

Hi Nat,
Thanks for your comment, but I think you may have isolated one line and taken it out of context.
The consistent description of Facebook in my paper is that it is firstly, a communications medium (1), and then, it provides a context for social development (2). Therefore Facebook operates a little differently to SNSs (3), and compared to dating sites other SNS that are not built upon a platform that has authentication anchored in the real world; you would not specifically join Facebook to meet people, primarily due to the closed community of friends that have authentication in the real world.
Facebook, Bebo, MySpace or Twitter; it doesn’t matter which is your poison, when you socialize online, you will meet strangers. That’s the reality.
1. For a SNS like Facebook, that began its existence at Harvard University, purely as a communications medium for intra-campus socializing (Martin, Grasmuck, & Zhao, 2008, p. 1820)
2. As well as being a communications medium for staying in touch with friends, Facebook also provides contexts for social development
3. Ross (2009) states that Facebook operates differently to other social communities such as dating sites, which are tools to meet new people, in that ‘Facebook Friends’ are individuals known from the offline world; Facebook is not used as a tool to meet new people online.
Cheers, Clyde
Martin, J., Grasmuck, S., & Zhao, S. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816-1836
Ross, C. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578-586.
Written by reneeh about 2 years ago.

I thought your paper really touches on the the reality sns like Facebook. You state ” Facebook identities are clearly real in the sense that they have real consequences for the lives of the individuals who constructed them, and in the Internet era, the social world includes both the online and offline environments, and an important skill people need to learn is how to coordinate their behaviours in these two realms. (Martin et al., 2008)

I know a few people who have being “rejected” in some job interviews because of the information that they have posted online in Facebook. “Employers, aware of this phenomenon, have begun to use the personal information available on SNWs to make hiring decisions”.(Donald H. Kluemper, Peter A. Rosen 2009)

I want to raise this issue as well and it’s the instant graftification that people crave and how technology is facilitating this and the consequences this has in years to now. Because of ill thought out, hasty decisions are posted for all to see the possibility of this having a direct impact at some stage in your life increases. .”People will post just about anything on social networking sites. And the information can be used against them”. David Randall and Victoria Richards

Overall I really enjoyed your paper
Renee
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/facebook-can-ruin-your-life-and-so-can-myspace-bebo-780521.html

Donald H. Kluemper, Peter A. Rosen 2009
http://www.emeraldinsight.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=4640ADB1432DA4A30CB15A29FDB087D4?contentType=Article&contentId=1806032
Written by FransiscaMS about 2 years ago.

“It is also incorrect to think that the online world and the offline world are two separate worlds, and whatever people do online ‘hold little consequence’ (Clark, as cited by Martin et al., 2008, p. 1831) for lives offline. Facebook identities are clearly real in the sense that they have real consequences for the lives of the individuals who constructed them, and in the Internet era, the social world includes both the online and offline environments, and an important skill people need to learn is how to coordinate their behaviours in these two realms. (Martin et al., 2008)”

Yes it can be true, however people are able to create different types of identities which is totally different from their real lives, what about your own opinions? Why is it incorrect? That online world and offline world are separate each others?

REF:
Martin, J., Grasmuck, S., & Zhao, S. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816-1836.
Written by Nat about 2 years ago.

Clyde
In your paper you state “Facebook is not a tool to meet new people online” yet often we have headlines of missing people who vanish while meeting someone they only met online. A very recent example is from Sydney where “Police are searching bushland southwest of Sydney as fears grow for a teenager who vanished after going to see two men she met on Facebook” (NineMSN).

Besides this small point your paper and commentary argue well, congratulations.

Ref:
Bush hunt for missing Facebook teen.(May 14, 2010). NineMSN. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1052440/nsw-teen-vanishes-after-facebook-meet
Written by Clyde A about 2 years ago.

Hi JoG,
Thanks for your comment, you do raise a pertinent point.
I personally think that we forfeit personal identity for maximal distinctiveness in most walks of life, for example something as simple as being agreeable in a conversation about climate change – because its the populist view – even though you may have doubts about whether humans really are the cause of the problem. So to respond to your question, my view is that friends in real life will often overlook these ‘hoped for’ misrepresentations, primarily because we are all swimming in the same pond; I think we all do it to some degree, and would only be judged harshly or begin to lose offline friends if our minor deceptions became outright deceipt.
cheers,
Clyde
Written by JoG about 2 years ago.

Hi Clyde, I enjoyed your paper particularly the exploration of the presentation of the hoped for self in relation to social capital.

I agree with your hypothesis that “in some instances, personal identity is forfeited for ‘maximal distinctiveness’ in exchange for social capital; being popular with Facebook Friends. I think that this is a reflection of the public nature of identity on Facebook and the anchoring of online representations in offline relationships (Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008), which places a greater emphasis on social connectedness. How do you think that real life friends respond to the presentation of the hoped for self (with its misrepresentations of identity) in the estimation of their friend – do you think that it enhances or detracts from that person’s offline social capital in this situation?

Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 1816-1836.
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago.

Thanks Clyde that makes it a clear. I agree the papers have stated there are offline consequences for online behaviours, I know from experience as well, but as well because online despite Web 2.0 and the pressure to disclose more about identity, it is still a medium for constructing one’s self as one would like to be, be it an avatar or even simple postings in a virtual community.
Written by Clyde A about 2 years ago.

Hi Pete,
Thanks for your comments.
Yes, I do think all SNSs are affected by the loosely created self-reflexive identity constructs, although this may become less and less of an issue with Web 2.0 and the idea of ‘real identity’ used in that platform.
I did not research too deeply into coordinating online and offline behaviours, but there is enough evidence, even on the daily news, where poor online behaviour has consequences in the real world.
Written by Clyde A about 2 years ago.

Hi Michael,
Thanks for your comments Michael. I must confess that I initially believed that Social Networking was akin to MUDs – not the real world and I avoided it at all costs. I’ve since learnt a lot more about this topic by preparing for and participating in this conference, and one of the lessons I learned through research was that there are very real offline consequences for online actions.
You are also correct about self-reflexivity placing oneself in the text. I am mostly attempting to argue that self-reflexivity in the context of online identity, without its cheques and balances, is often painted with the ‘hoped-for’ brush rather than with the more honest self-reflexive assessment one would paint in the real world.
Written by Peter Mullen about 2 years ago.

Hi Clyde.

Well done on putting together a well argued paper on a difficult subject. It is well researched and you make excellent use of your references. It took me a while to understand your focus on mediated and unmediated areas, however once I did it flowed well. Agree with Michael s comment about self-reflectivity.

Although you have used Facebook as your main focus/discussion point, do you think this is across all/most SNS’s? You also make a final comment about learning how to coordinate between off and online behaviors—did your research turn up focus on this point. Are schools/parents focusing on this?

The comment by Jenny Sunden (2003, 3, as cited by boyd, 2008, p.126) about ‘type oneself into being’ is for mine the most challenging one in your paper. It made me pause and reflect on what your focus was and helped to place everything into context on my second read. Well done on a very solid and thoughtful paper.

Pete
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago.

You argue very strongly and that is an asset to the paper. A couple of things. Would I be correct in reading into your paper that you are taking a postmodern approach to the topic. I do agree that online Facebook identities do have consequences for offline interactions, I have encountered that.

Also, I am not sure what you mean in the paper by self-reflexivity. Isn’t that about placing one’s self in the text? I’m not clear what you mean by that in terms of the paper. Or are you saying that the people who use Facebook have a self-reflexive way of presenting information because the posts are mostly purely about themselves? I’m just not clear on why you use that term in context of the arguement.

Comment Pages:

Online Conference on Networks and Communities

How the Internet affects our Definition of who we are

Comments

Categories

Tags

Latest comments

Meta