Category: Identity in Communities and Networks

The stream focuses on the place of identity in communities and social networks.

Growing Up In The Social Network

Abstract: This paper explores the role that online communities and the social network play in the development and implementing of identity from adolescents through to young adults. This is done primarily through the analysis of the various features and benefits of platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Blogger as well contributing factors to identity development such as community design. Various identity theories are also briefly explored to allow for an understanding of how identity development in the Web 2.0 era is changing for adolescents and young adults and becoming a key determinant in the sustainability of online communities and networks.

 

Keywords: social networks; community; social media; identity; Facebook; Instagram; Blogger; community design; identity theory

 

 

As online communities and networks expand and the number of adolescents accessing the internet continue to increase (Johnson, 2006), the role that Web 2.0 communities play in developing and implementing identity online and offline is becoming commodious. Communication is a key driving source for why and how we utilise social networks. Donath (1996) states that communication is essential for evaluating an interaction and that knowing the identity of whom we are communicating with is also essential; however, she also notes that identity can be ambiguous. In the physical world we can link our identity to our physical bodies, whereas online our identities are linked to the pictures and words we choose to post. For young people, being exposed to a multitude of content on a regular basis, during a time where their identity and self-awareness is developing, can be overwhelming but also formative of their personalities, values, attitudes and beliefs as well as how they interact in communities both online and offline. Throughout this paper I will be arguing that social networks and communities are important platforms for the growth of identity in young people in the developing digital era. I will be doing this by analyzing the features and benefits of different platforms including Instagram, Facebook and Blogger, as well as interpreting the ways in which social networks develop communities and how these communities and networks are relevant to the identities of their users.

Building Communities and Community Identities on Social Networks

 The internet, and now the rise of social networks, allows social humans the ability to learn, connect, educate, share and influence. As Papacharissi (2011) explains, networks exist to spread knowledge and that we live in an information network that continuously expands out to other users. Through these information networks, one can develop their online identity. For children who are only just beginning to form a concept of their own identity, the new multimodal forms of learning (Burke, 2013) which consist of both virtual playgrounds and school playgrounds give children great opportunity in exploration of others and themselves. Chatrooms and online video games are lending the features of avatars and anonymity at a young age and utilizing ‘play’ to create community and engagement (Burke, 2013). Buckingham and Willet (2006) analyse the online community consisting of ‘gURLs,’ which they define to be female tech savvy web users and creators that empower their thoughts and interests through their online platforms and through features of blogging websites such as text and banners; it is considered a space where girls can speak their own language and develop their online presence and identity. There are many different communities out their depending on an individual’s identity or their interests and the various digital platforms, such as online games and blogs give users the ability to express themselves through narrative and images.

Influence, whether it be from mass media created content or convergence culture within social networks, is another defining factor of identity online as much of the content one submerges themselves in is user-generated, or mass media generated, changing the inner values or desires of the user, therefore altering the content they wish to post which then in turn alters their online persona. Online communities thrive based on their community design, something that is prevalent amongst social media platforms, most recognizably on Facebook and Instagram. Design affects how people interact and how they influence one another and even the user’s interests, based on the content that they are exposed to. The design and interaction that user’s come into contact with on these platforms is what ultimately makes them want to continue using them; they may feel a sense of belonging or community or they may feel influenced or motivated by the design of the platforms to continue logging in and creating content and having an online identity. Ren, Kraut and Kielser (2007), explore the difference between identity-based attachment and bond-based attachment, these are essentially the reasons why people continue to be a part of particular communities. If you have an identity-based attachment, you become a part of and stay in the group because you identify with the group as whole; whereas bond-based attachment refers to a singular connection with an individual in the group. These two identity characteristics along with community design are dominant determinants of identity development and community construction.

Despite being one of the biggest social media platforms in the world, Papacharissi (2011) does not see platforms such as Facebook as communities but rather as social venues where communities come to meet. So what makes a community? The ability to socialize, create meaningful connections to others, provide entertainment, and allow for support and empathy to be put out into the online space are all building blocks of a community online. When you log on to Facebook the page reads: “Facebook helps you connect and share with people in your life.” This means hat you can bring your offline ommunity online but Facebook allows for this and so much more; you can now connect with people you do not know, businesses, celebrities, charities and whatever else resonates with you as an individual, which all helps to build your profile even larger.

With youths being such a heavy part of our online communities, it is unsurprising that many of them have taken up another aspect of online community collaboration, or remix culture. There are entire genre communities on platforms such as Blogger and YouTube that allow creative liberty to their users, whether it be in the form of mash-ups or through the creation of memes. These forms of creation constitute significant cultural, social, technological, and learning behaviors (Ahn et al., 2013) and as the digital sphere continues to develop it is not surprising that digital culture, along with its remixing and remediation, is becoming a part of the everyday lives of young users. As teachers urge their students to participate in class, adolescents may be just as motivated to be a part of the participatory culture taking place online. It is strongly argued also that youths cannot possibly gather the knowledge of permissive copying practices when in fact studies have found that children as young as five years old develop concepts like having ideas and voicing negative reactions to copying (Ahn et al. 2013). Essentially, this is evidence of how youths can begin developing their core understandings and values and how they can be integrated into the online social networks that they will both contribute and interact in as they develop.

You can put a definition on to what one believes community means, however the widespread nodes of the internet have allowed communities and henceforth individual users to define themselves as whatever they want to be. There is something for everyone. Young people are increasingly going online, whether to escape reality or to establish their identity in the social network. In 2004 Slater explores the idea of disembodiment from identity, that perhaps users are detaching themselves from their bodies which contains the benefits of textuality and anonymity; you can be whoever you want to be, and nobody has to know that it is you, if you do not want them to.

 

Factors of Online Communities that Influence Online Identity

 Of course our identity is firmly rooted in where we geographically come from and the cultural norms that have intrinsically shaped our values, attitudes and beliefs throughout our lives. In connection to the online sphere and social networks one can see how geographic location can impact the development of building communities online; in China, online social networkers use different platforms as compared to western users, this is primarily a result of the restrictions on internet usage but also, many of the platforms that they use such as Weibo and WeChat are designed to be appreciated by these culturally relevant users as they are utilised not only by Chinese influencers and brands but they are largely utilised across the country. If everyone in you know is Weibo then you too will most likely use Weibo to talk to them. Other cultural factors of online communities can be interests, typically music or photography; religious values and beliefs as well as the user’s propensity for privacy. How much a user wishes to share about themselves or their online identity depends entirely upon the user. Facebook does not require their users to fill out all of their profile characteristics, but rather what you want people to see. This can then be further manipulated based on the user’s security preferences. There are now so many different platforms out there to be explored by youth today based on individual factors, such as age, location and interests. For example, anyone can make a Musically account, where you film yourself parodying songs that you like or are culturally relevant in the moment. These videos can then be shared to Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and YouTube and depending on the audience of your profile, enjoyed. Popularity of specific applications and platforms is generated from use, inviting friends via the platform, and word-of-mouth. Boyd (2007) found that teens admire the ability to visualize how their social world would look through their networked collection of profiles; they can visualize all of their friends online so they would in turn want their friends to visualize them.

Taking a look at Facebook, approximately 940,000 users in Australia are between the ages of thirteen and seventeen and with Instagram approximately 1 in 3 Australian’s are users (Cowling, 2018). These are fast becoming prime platforms for young people to begin building their online identities and join online communities. These platforms have been so successful as a result of their customizability. The notion of building your own profile including a profile picture, facts about yourself and your interests and then hyperlinks to your other profiles and platforms is once again of interest to a wide range of internet users. It is appealing because you can make your profile accurate to your offline profile or you can live your fantasy and take on the identity of whoever you please. Young users are wanting their profiles to reflect their interests and who they are and by giving youth the opportunity to share this journey with their peers it may make it easier for other young people to help form their identities, when they may be struggling with who they want to be and who they want to be seen as online. Teens and young adults often face the question of ‘who am I?’ With a vast array of environments, knowledge networks and social networks, users aren’t limited and they can explore different customs, societies and interests without fear of being reprimanded or put down which they may fear in their offline life.

The way in which communities formed online impact one’s identity, sense of self, or sense of purpose online can be seen as a reflection of how users interact online and how they build their profiles. Social networking sites are, like we explored before, social venues where users can come to gather. A private community may require a user to apply to join; the private group can then assess the user’s profile to see if they would be an appropriate participant for their group. A private community can be created through a private Facebook page or Instagram profile (that uses hashtags and private messaging to communicate and share) or it can be created through blogging platforms such as Blogger, WordPress and Tumblr which can put passwords on their user’s blogs, and can be only be accessed if the site owner gives you their password. Private communities such as these are useful tools for young users and content creators to be a part of the current phenomenon of whatever platform is currently trending yet it also allows for their safety when sharing their profiles online. Private communities are often policed or monitored closely to watch for bullying and negativity and with most users having a shared common interest there may not be any space for poor behaviour. An example of this would stem from community Facebook pages. High schools, universities and suburbs can have their own profiles where offline community participants can congregate online to voice their thoughts or share events. Facebook has the feature of a group mediator whom has the ability to add and remove users from the profiles, as well as delete comments and images if they infringe on the set rules, which the feature of pinned posts/notices is useful. Public communities, whilst harder to monitor, may also allow for more freedom in terms of self-expression and content creation, even if that does include remixing. Both of these communities need participation, content and discussion to maintain their relevancy and the more the platforms allow their users to share about themselves, the bigger they grow.

 

Creative and Emotional Privacy for Young Internet Users

            Being a participant in online communities and of social media has become almost a compulsory act for teens and young people who are wanting to engage within the sphere of their universe, but what is it costing them (Hodkinson, 2015)? Hodkinson (2015) uses the analogy of the bedroom like that of an online space or profile for a young user; it is about ownership of space or having something of one’s own. These users are bearing all to people they do not know in offline in their safe spaces but who is to know if these spaces really are safe. I think that in an atmosphere where an individual can fully be themselves, it is important to them that the interaction that they receive on their pages or content is appeasing to them. Young people could always have more urgency towards their safety as a result of internet predators. We must think of these online spaces as teens think of their bedrooms; as a private space for them to be themselves, artistically or emotionally, and trust that they would not interact with potentially sour trolls online.

There is a sense of territory, particularly on spaces such as Blogger, where almost everything is customizable; ownership and territory are not limited to young users, however it is increasingly important that we come to acknowledge the creative and emotional importance of these spaces, rather than limit what young users can do, explain how they can protect themselves whilst also having their own space online, just as one would do if they were to rent or buy a home offline.

As social networks expand to hold multiple purposes for its users, whether it be for information, communication, content creation, business and economic purposes and even for emotional expression and connection to the world, it is important to recognize that digital media and social media communities are becoming a part of growing up and identity development. Through the establishment of both private and public communities online, on platforms such as Instagram, Facebook and Blogger; people now have access to a variety of ways in which they can build and expand upon their online profiles. There are new ways for them to explore the type of content that they want to put their name to and a variety of ways for them to remain safe whilst doing it. Overall, identity can be developed and expressed through the features and allowances of digital media platforms and communities can be built online based off these identities. Online communities are there to help engage users, create discussion and develop bonds and social network identities are explorative of how we as users wish for others to understand our online presence; they can help to create friendships, reinforce or explore cultural values and societal norms and can influence our overall interests therefore shaping our identities and the communities that we are a part of.

 

 

References:

 

Ahn, J. , Subramaniam, M. , Fleischmann, K.R., Waugh, A. , Walsh, G. and Durin, A. (2012). Youth identities as remixers in an online community of storytellers: Attitudes, strategies           and values. Proc. Am. Soc. Infor. Sci. Tech., 49:1-10. doi:10.1002/meet.14504901089

 

Boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in    Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital    Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge, MA.: MIT PRESS.

http://www.danah.org/papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

 

Buckingham, D & Willett, R. (2006). Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and New     Media. Retrieved from http://link.library.curtin.edu.au/p?pid=CUR_ALMA2186270010001951

 

Burke, A. (2013). Children’s Construction of Identity in Virtual Play Worlds: A Classroom          Perspective. Language and Literacy; Toronto. Volume 15 (issue 1). 58-73.

https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1428558472?accountid+10382

 

Cowling, David. (2018). Social Media Statistics Australia – January 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics-australia-january-2018/

 

Donath, J. (1996). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. Communities in Cyberspace.        Kollock, P. and Smith M. (eds). London: Routledge. Retrieved from:                                     smg.media.mit.edu/People/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

 

Johnson, G. (2006). Internet Use and Cognitive Development: A Theoretical Framework. E-    Learning and Digital Media, volume 3 (Issue 4). 565-573.                                                             https://doi.org/10.304/elea.2006.3.4.565

 

Papacharissi, Z. (2011). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Networked       Sites.

 

Ren, Y. , Kraut, R. , Kielser, S. (2007). Applying Common Identity and Bond Theory to Design of        Online Communities. Organization Studies. Vol 28 (issue 3). 377-408.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607076007

 

Slater, D.  (2002). Social relationships and identity online and offline. Retrieved from                           https://dourish.com/classes/readings/Slater-SocialRelationshipsIdentity.pdf

“Influencers of Instagram:” Shaping style and lifestyle trends for an online community

Instagram has become a dominant platform of social media for individuals to visually fashion a desired aesthetic as a construction of identity. Instagram is a visually performing platform where individuals who utilise the platform can develop a face for a community. I propose to define community within this study to refer to the Instagram accounts a user followers and those Instagram accounts following their Instagram page and retrieving their content. This proposal aligns with the attributes of social media and the participation invoked by network structures, along with theoretical conceptions of community within virtual contexts. The internet fosters participation by users across all platforms by breaking down and eliminating traditional communication barriers such as time and space. Definitions of online communities all revolve around the indistinguishable point that the internet has revolutionised the way people communicate with others and how we maintain and develop relationships with people online. Pearson (2009) exclaims that online, users can claim whoever they wish to be, while Wellman and Guila (1997) examine virtual communities to assert the notion that social network analysts have needed to educate traditional, place-oriented, community sociologists that community can stretch well beyond the neighbourhood. Within Katz (2004) review of theoretical concepts of communities and considerations of how new communication technologies affect traditional notions of community, the author segregates an idea of the social network community. The social network “is sustained by personal communication technologies and cyberspace and deviates widely in its social implications from the traditional community” (Katz, 2004, p. 331). To explore definitions of community within an online, social context among the platform of Instagram can illuminate how individual’s construct a particular identity that generates a specific community whereby people visually communicate.

Adopting these definitions of community realises the fact that traditional community ties have shifted from geographically focused to beginning to think about individual’s personal communities and individual social networks. Emanating from Katz’ definition of a social network as reviewed above, this paper shall attempt to examine some of the social implications that have developed from people specifically forming deliberate communities to connect with on Instagram. Communities within the application of Instagram are formed through the following and receiving of a following by other users ensuing a visually oriented community, which fosters content creation to revolve around aesthetic themes. It is a deliberate and honestly enlightening action into how an everyday person shapes their identity in the way that purposely following accounts on Instagram is a self-conscious decision that tailors a defined community based around a certain type and ‘style’ of content an Instagram user would like to see each day. Adami and Jewiit (2016) examine visual social media tracing themes that become pertinent to visual communication and social media: emerging genres and practices; identity construction; everyday public/private vernacular practices; and transmedia circulation, appropriation and control. I will draw on some these themes to theorize Instagram as a visual platform, specifically identity construction to begin a discussion on how centralized persons with a major Instagram following can foster sub-culture specific communities that can be identified through individuals personal Instagram’s ‘aesthetic’ to develop an identity online.

Instagram is a mobile oriented application which ultimately means it is a network that can be accessed, updated and kept up to date within any space and at any point in time as communication has become instantaneous. In Australia, 81% of young adults aged 18-29 have an Instagram account with usage continuing to grow, rising from an average 23 to nearly 38 times per week with an average of nearly 27 minutes spent using the platform (Sensis 2017). Young adults and teenagers are the key demographics associated with this study as this age group permeates care in self-presentation and identity management on Instagram while treating it as a fundamental daily activity. Drawing on Mascheroni, Vincent, and Jimenez (2015) study of teenage girl’s construction of identity online, the authors state mobile communication as serving an important role in the process of self-presentation providing full time access to peer culture. Peer to peer culture on Instagram is a key aspect of deliberating what drives these users to share, post and consume on Instagram as a full time, ongoing project of self-identity that is accessed and updated multiple times a day, interrupting daily life to examine and potentially maintain a specific image to ones following. Understanding the patterns of identity construction within Instagram’s platform structures and as a process embedded in peer cultures across all mediums of social media is to understand that identity plays a key role in virtual communities (Donath, 1999). It is important to examine how individuals tailor an image of themselves within the presence of others online. Goffman’s (1959) theory of self- presentation provides much of the foundations for some late identity studies within the context of virtual communities. Goffman’s (1959) study (as cited by Mascheroni, Vincent, and Jimenez, 2015) demonstrates that in the presence of others, individuals engage in a constant, particular self-presentation aimed at controlling how co-present actors will denote impressions of themselves. “Self-presentation is about social rituals of “impression management” and involves learning how to deal with other’ responses and maintain expressive control by putting on a “face” (Mascheroni, Vincent, and Jimenez, 2015). This theory provides solid foundations to further identity management within contemporary communication among virtual communities as it has become a 24 hour, 7 days a week task to monitor social identity as the pace of the virtual world is rapid and constant.

As stated previously, using Adami and Jewiit’s (2016) themes to explore visual communication from Instagram users to construct a “face” for their networked communities within this platform. “The emergence of new genres and practices among social media platforms make available the creation and sharing of multimodel artefacts to an unprecedented number of people” (Adami and Jewitt, 2016). Among Instagram this quote becomes relevant through visual commentary by users: Calkin (2015, p.2) explores Instagram as a primary space for self-actualisation with Instagram providing us with a structured platform to reconstruct our histories and lived experiences through a photographic profile and with commentary. With deliberate and thoughtful processes while synonymously examining content co-present Instagram users share on their profiles, users post pictures with rhetorical captions if desired to align with the specific sub-culture of their community within Instagram. This behaviour is accurately contextualised in Adami and Jewitt’s (2016) second theme of visual communication that regards identity construction, suggesting: “As we express identities through the clothes we wear or the furniture of our rooms, so too we express our identities through visuals shared online.” Visually identifiable sub-cultures are difficult to specify and contextualise within this theorized discussion as there is no defined list of sub-cultures that are visually distinguishable across teenagers and young adults, however it is extensive. Sub-cultured communities that can be tailored visually through photographs online usually characterise themes that present visual cohesion and are ‘aesthetically-pleasing’ such as fashion and culture; art and design. However, this is a very limiting justification as it does not internalize individual’s identities and communities to the specific aesthetic they are striving for while utilizing Instagram. The notion of fluidity is important when thinking about the aesthetics of Instagram and accepting the lack of definition we are able to ascribe sub-cultures of communities within Instagram to. Fluidity reflects the nature of the internet as it is so ambiguous, as are individuals when using social media. It is illuminating to note that one day someone will follow an array of, for example, architecture Instagram pages: these accounts sharing multimodal content of interiors and houses, all agreeably aesthetically pleasing, with all accounts reflecting a specific theme of visual content that this individual wishes to consume each day, to unfollowing all of them the next day and following a range of supermodel’s public Instagram accounts instead. To complicate the discussion further the opposite could just as easily occur, with said user following these supermodels within the same space and time as they followed the series of architecture pages, suggesting they are interested in both visual communities within Instagram. As inadequate and vague this example is it completely viable within an online context. The internet is ambiguous and allows individuals to be fluid and fluctuate between content that they consume and create with the ability to deconstruct and reconstruct these identities.

Characterising behaviour on Instagram to contextualise self-presentation exposes the fact that private individuals communicate daily through the public publishing of visuals (Adami and Jewitt, 2016). The everyday practices of self-actualisation have shifted to be monitored across both online and offline modes of communication. This shift is everyday vernacular practices is a primary theme in visual communication, with individuals having to accommodate for their literal physical appearance as well as their identity and physical ‘aesthetic’ within their social networks. Our identities are politically chosen (Weeks, 1985, as cited by Calkin, 2015, p.2). What political objective does this ever constant monitoring of how people perceive our Instagram’s fulfil? Denoting simple actions, such as how many ‘likes’ an individual has on their photo from their community, determines the following and therefore the influence a user has to a certain number of other Instagram users. This initiates discussion about Instagram communities and the influencers of style to people’s perceived identities within this platform because Instagram is image laden media. The individuals with a major following on Instagram, exorbitantly more than the average user, have been colloquially termed within the Instagram community as ‘influencers,’ however the term has become recognised as of late to the private sector. Influencers shape lifestyle trends and act as an idealised ‘person-centred environments’ for specific Instagram communities.

In harmonizing studies that exclaim the roads mapped via the internet exponentials the relaxation of communal constraints, studying identity construction on Instagram explores new effects of the tailored self online. These influencers are popular to a specific community as they provide image laden content across their Instagram profile that ultimately shapes a certain type of lifestyle and aesthetic. The term influencer comes from the aesthetic shaped over time on their profile that people idealise and review as aesthetic. The content tends to reflect a specific sub-culture that can be visually prescribed. Donath’s (1999) early theories of identity within virtual communities stating “care of one’s own identity, one’s reputation, is fundamental to the formation of community” can be theorized within the modern context of Instagram. She recognises that individuals become attuned to the nuances of signature styles, which is exemplary within the platform of Instagram as people follow those people and accounts where their personal style resonates with their own. This theory of identity creates a two-way spectrum that proves summative to an extent of the way sub-culture communities on Instagram tailor and influence individual’s self-presentation and shape their online identity. The interesting fact about ‘influencers’ is they gain their following naturally due to the ‘success’ of the aesthetic of their Instagram account. They have fostered a community around a specific nuanced signature style of visual content that a large cohort of people has followed and taken to be beneficial content in the shaping of their own identity on Instagram. Donath’s (1999) theories were written a decade before Instagram was founded and nearly two decades before the idea of ‘influencers’ was even termed as it is a recent trend that has been denoted to some personalities online. Donath’s, as well as an extensive number of scholarly theories regarding identity construction within virtual communities has proved efficient and exemplary to the medium of social networked communities on Instagram.

This study serves as a brief touch on the surface of a trend within Instagram that is extremely deep and equally diverse. Focusing on Adami and Jewitt’s (2016) visual communication themes among identity theory served as viable foundations to extend Goffman (1959) theory of self-presentation to actualise into the context of how Instagram’s network structure encourages users to visually present one’s own identity and reputation to appeal to their constructed community. The structure of this study neglected discussions of communication within the platform and among users and followers, however, for the purpose of diverting the study to define ‘influencers’ as fostering communities through the visual and construction of a ‘face,’ it could be disregarded. Using Instagram and as the platform to examine virtual identities and inserting the vague notion of what is “aesthetically pleasing” within virtual communities is a relatively new chapter of studying social networks as it focuses on what a visual community could mean in the vast sphere of virtual communities but is a relevant topic to further as they have not been deemed influencers for no reason.

 

 

Reference List

Calkin, M. (2015). Making Pretty: Examing Contemporary Identity Construction through Instagram. (Thesis dissertation). Retrieved from http://sfsu-dspace.calstate.edu/handle/10211.3/162807

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Hodkinson, P. (2015). Bedrooms and beyond: Youth, identity and privacy on social network sites. New Media and Society. DOI: 10.1177/1461444815454

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.  http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf

Mascheroni, G. Vincent, J. and Jiminez, E. (2015). “Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-nakend selfies”: Peer mediation, normativity and the construction of identity online. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(1), DOI: 10.5817/CP2015-1-5

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday. 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

Sensis (2017). Sensis Social Media Report 2017: Chapter 1 – Australians and social media. [Fact Sheet]. Retrieved from https://www.sensis.com.au/asset/PDFdirectory/Sensis-Social-Media-Report-2017.pdf

Turkle, S. (1997). Constructions and Reconstructions of Self in Virtual Reality. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Construc%20and%20reconstruc%20of%20self.pdf

Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociological Inquiry, 67(1).
http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Multiple%20Subjectivity.pdf

Van Der Nagel, E. and Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3), Retrieved from http://www.ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5615/4346

Conflict, Authenticity and Deception: The Impact of Trolls on Communities and Networks

Abstract

This paper will discuss how identities within technologically mediated communication channels have drastically impacted communication between online community members. This communication failure has resulted in conflicts within online communication sites, such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter. This paper discusses the lack in social capital which will eventuate in conflict and friction within an online community. The focus on identities highlight the differences that are perceived by other community members including trolls by utilising examples such as the Madeline McCann case and the Australian Republic Movement. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences in dealing with all aspects of authenticity and deception.

 

Keywords: Conflict, social network, identity, community, authenticity, deception, social capital.

 

Introduction

Conflict is applicable in all forms of communication, both online and offline, which often stem from within a form of a community. Typically, this conflict is due to a clash of identities with individuals or group of identities in specific community, were levels of support differs from community members. Communities are defined as a group of people that depend on social involvement and communication. (Katz et al., 2004, p. 217) This is evident through the traditional face-to-face discussions most commonly used today or alternatively through an internet-mediated communication channel, such as Facebook Messenger, Instagram or YouTube. But either way, conflict is inevitable within communities where identities express member opinions over a thread of time or a subject matter. This paper will argue that the lack of social capital will create conflict (friction) in an online community from identities that are empowered by community member differences through online communities. These differences are based on interpersonal comparisons reflecting past experiences within the aspects of authenticity and deception with a focus on trolls within social media.

 

Expression of Identity on Social Media

Before we dive deeper into how conflict manifests through social media and trolling. Jensen based his media definition as the “socially formed resources that enable human beings to articulate an understanding of reality, and to engage in communications about it with others” (2008, p.45). This definition best describes the differences in traditional communications whereas digital interactions utilises modern technology mediated devices enabling online communications. With this understanding, it is essential to note that the main difference between offline and online communities is that online communities are not bound by geographical locations and are asynchronous. Some communities are started offline with face-to-face contact and then precede to move online, a common example would be a group chat through Facebook messenger. This community is formed offline in a social physical space, which then moved online for convenience and accessibility before meeting offline again. Sole online communities, in comparison are formed without any face-to-face contact and communication is sent to multiple members, often being instantaneous, resulting in zero-time delay between messages. These online communities have no intention of progressing offline to remain anonymous and create their own performed identity.

A large majority of these online communities are commonly held on Web 2.0 platforms. Boyd and Elision define social networking sites as “web-based services that allow individuals to; construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system; articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection; and view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system” (2007, p.4). Social networking sites such as Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, allows ‘friends’ that embodies a weaker bond in a relationship between members. Hence the membership process of a social networking site, members have an opportunity to protect their personal interest by not disclosing informative data on their profile. These social networking sites in the main do not verify any information, reinforcing the view that a members ‘online self’ may be different to their ‘actual self’. This process provides choices for members to participate within an online community, creating an opportunity for friction or conflict to arise.

Online community membership grants you several choices in order to express a non-verbal expression; whether the message remains authentic or deceptive about your identity online. Within these communities, members can remain individualistic within a group or provide support to other group members which requires time or expertise in the online community. Jensen (2011) defines this choice of social interactions as relations of availability, accessibility and performativity. That is “What is known……? Who knows what……? and Who says and does what – in relation to whom?” (Jensen, 2011, p.50). As an example, conflict may can stem from the use of Facebook to market an event, where the invitee loses control with unexpected attendees via mass communication to unintended participants. This concept underpins the notion that our online identity comes with a choice.

Further Pearson states that “Online, users can claim to be whoever they wish. Like actors playing a role, they can deliberately choose to put forth identity cues or claims of self that can closely resemble or wildly differ from reality” (2009, p. 1). Pearson then goes one to argue that our identity is like a performance, everchanging to suit the situation, meaning that our identity is not fixed at any point in time, but is instead a fluid construct that is evolving into what we deem appropriate. A key concept to this argument is that members of an online community may hide their true identity in full or part, where misaligned intentions can create conflict within an online community. This concept may lead to conflicts within social networks as it opens the door to deceptive conduct within the community, disturbing the flow of interaction (Coles & West, 2016).

 

Identity and the Community

A key feature of a community is that it must itself have a sense of identity, which are known to the members within the community (Kendall, 2011). Furthermore a community itself “confers identity and participant identities also play an important part in the formation and continuation of communities” (Kendall, 2011, p.318). From the above quotes, it can be applied that members may not contain similar knowledge and attitudinal elements of a ‘real community’ but in fact be dissimilar. This contradiction as described by Kendall (2011), directly relates to online communities – where conflict and/or friction between members may arise. Further, members are concerned about the ability of a community to mask their identity, which can relate to whether a participant is authentic or deceptive while engaging online. This was evident in the case of Madeline McCann where communities clashed over the parent’s involvement her disappearance. These communities were recognised as either Anti-McCann’s or Pro-McCann’s. These groups clashed over twitter, creating friction and conflict between the participants, that lead to different group identities within the one community. Both identities used emotive language to enhance their identities while at the same time strengthening the divide between the two groups (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

Emotional baggage held by group members can also lead to different identities that share common threads in the most part but be polar opposite on other views. This is particularly most noticeable with identifiers such as a person race and gender (Kendall, 2011). Donath raises the point that “knowing the identity of those with whom you communicate is essential for understanding and evaluating an interaction” (1999, p.1) particularly where the evaluation outcome is subjective. This was demonstrated with the differing opinions on how the Republic Movement in Australia provided alternative methods to select their head of state, appointment versus election (Charnock, 2001). Kendall (2011, p.318) further stated that group members can “mask their identity, or to present a deliberately deceptive identity”, to notionally benefit their members where they feel best represents themselves, authentic or not. As in the Republic Movement, the perception bias of this selection can create friction and prevent the movement progressing within the political online community.

 

Social Capital

It is important to consider the level of social capital required to create and maintain any social network. Figure 1, as shown in the Appendix represents a framework for the creation and maintenance of online communities is grounded on sociological and information technology concepts (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003). The framework demonstrates the connection between social spaces, social capital and identity for members in the social formation of relationships. Overall social capital can be beneficial to online communities as it creates trust and honesty between members, which is vital for the survival of the online community. Eklinder-Frick, Eriksson & Hallén (2015, p.2) defines social capital as a “resource in society, where it is associated with trust and social cohesion”. Even with idiosyncratic opinions – online communities can thrive as long as trust and honesty prevails in the community. However as stated by Annen (2003, p.451) social capital is described “as a player’s reputation for being cooperative within a social network”, where any conflict within this framework can only assume the greater good will be accepted from members in determining the final outcome. But unfortunately, this is not likely to occur where cooperation is required and not forthcoming in communities where controlling behaviours from individuals does not conform to typical norms. A lack of cooperation will further discourage trust and create conflict / friction with differing knowledge and attitudinal elements over time. This is reinforced by Annen (2003) where control over a community is only developed over time and through regular communications. A lack of participation by members due to conflict will lead to poor online community performance.

 

Authenticity

When members participate in online communities, a conflict or friction situation is bound to occur given the membership process for social networking sites, even if the members are being authentic to themselves. This is due to the fact that every member’s idiosyncratic opinion originates from distinct cultural backgrounds and past experiences. According to Buendgens-Kosten, authenticity in its broadest sense is “related to the notions of realness or trueness to origin” (2014, p.1) and is referenced to the characterisation of language to the quality of text (spoken or written). So, while it is important to remain authentic to one’s self while participating in online communication sites, it is critical to remain cautious to the dangers of the internet as it is related to members cultural backgrounds and limiting the amount of identity performance taken place. This is done in a hope to avoid being characterised as a troll, who are aggressive, disruptive and deceitful (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017).

 

Deception

Social networking sites also allows for fake accounts to be created, where impersonation between members can occur with no mechanism to actualise the authentic identity. Regrettably, indirect trust is assumed for social networking sites without any verification. This deceitful tactic is most commonly known as catfishing, where one individual lures someone into a relationship through a false or factious persona. This is a downfall of online communities with no way to authenticate your identity within these communities. This idea of social caption and trust are closely linked as deceitful communication tactics represents a lack of social capital, allowing the likes of trolls and catfishes to “create conflict for amusements sake” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.76) which further reinforces the need for members to protect their identity online. As an example, Stone (1992), shows a woman who was supposedly talking to a ‘fully disabled old lady’ named ‘Julie’, who in actual fact turned out to be a “middle aged male psychiatrist” who simply wanted to talk to other women as a woman (Stone, 1992, p.2). In this case while the intent was not malicious the tactic demonstrate deception, mis-trust and potential conflict.

Deception can also be found in social networks through the concept of trolling. This is where someone pretends to be a genuine member of a community, by sharing the passion and identity of a group, but then deliberately attempts to “disrupt the community by baiting participants” (Kendall, 2011, 319). Baiting is the process in which a member of the online community deliberately posts to anger or disrespect other members of the community. The consequences of such trolling, as stated by Donath (1999, p.71) is that; “Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community.” Furthermore, in an online community that has become sensitised to trolling “the rate of deception is high – many honestly naive questions may be quickly rejected as trollings” (Donath, 1999, p.71). This extract reinforces the damage that trolls can have on a online community, but also the level of conflict or friction that can arise between the troll and the impacted existing members.

Trolling is a common problem today with some serious cases punished by criminal conviction, however these consequences are the exception rather than the rule (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). This has resulted in the spreadability of trolling, which has in the majority been unpoliced. The increase in trolling has followed the rise in social media networks, with the number of social network users purported to be 2.46 billion as of 2017 (Statista, 2018). With this significant statistic, it’s only a matter of time before conflict rises between users, with social capital and trust being eroded from online communities. An example of trolling was evident in the aftermath of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007. This case saw a group of trolls on twitter, under pseudonyms, posting about how the parents were responsible for the abduction of their daughter (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). These tweets were often “abusive and antagonistic and are also known to engage in verbal attacks against anyone who takes to Twitter to support the McCanns” (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017, p.71). The consequences of trolling through online communities, can often lead to the polarisation of beliefs, attitudes and values amongst the community, making trolling not only unpleasant but also very unethical where it has the ability to cause great harm (Coles & West, 2016). The actions of trolling has the potential to generate vast amounts of conflict and friction with communities, which can span years. This is evident in the McCann case with the hashtag on twitter receiving 100 tweets every hour (Synnott, Coulias & Ioannou, 2017). Deception and indirect trust are key concerns for members within online communities today, without a foundation of authenticity.

 

Conclusion

This paper discussed the key elements that formed the creation and maintenance of online communities which highlighted the importance of identities, social capital and the relationships built in the social formation of an online community. With these concepts, frameworks and constructs, I have argued that conflict and or friction can apply in all forms of online communities where authenticity is non-existent. This conflict is substantially due to the expression of idiosyncratic opinions within communities that impact community identities over a thread of time and subject. This paper argues that the lack in social capital will create conflict and friction where differences exist in attitudes between members on the basis of past experiences in dealing with the all aspects of authenticity and deception.

 

 

Appendix

Figure 1: A conceptual framework for the creation and maintenance of social networks (Vivian & Sudweeks, 2003).

 

 

References

Annen, K. (2003). Social capital, inclusive networks, and economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50(4), 449-463. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00035-5

Baym, N. K. (2011). Social Networks 2.0. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 385-405). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Buendgens-Kosten, J. (2014). Authenticity. ELT J., 68(4), 457-459. doi:10.1093/elt/ccu034

Coles, B. A., & West, M. (2016). Trolling the trolls: Online forum users constructions of the nature and properties of trolling. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 233-244. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.070

Charnock, D. (2001). National identity, partisanship and populist protest as factors in the 1999 Australian republic referendum. Australian Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 271-291. doi:doi:10.1080/10361140120078826

 

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge.
http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Eklinder-Frick, J., Eriksson, L. T., & Hallén, L. (2015). Social Capital, Individuality and Identity. Paper presented at the IMP Conference, Kolding, Denmark. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:820088/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Jensen, K. B. (2008). Media (Vol. 9). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Jensen, K. B. (2011). New Media, Old Methods –Internet Methodologies and the Online/Offline Divide. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 43-58). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice Annals of the International Communication Association (Vol. 28, pp. 315-371): Routledge.

Kendall, L. (2011). Community and the Internet. In M. Consalvo & C. Ess (Eds.), The Handbook of Internet Studies (pp. 310-325). Hoboken, NK: Blackwall Publishing Ltd.

Pearson, E. (2009). All the world wide web is a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday, 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

Statista. (2018). Number of social network users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions) [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from

https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/

Stone, A. R. (1992). Will the real body please stand up? In M. Benedikt (Ed.), Cyberspace: First Steps (pp. 81-118). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Synnott, J., Coulias, A., & Ioannou, M. (2017). Online trolling: The case of Madeleine McCann. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 70-78. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.053

Vivian, N., & Sudweeks, F. (2003). Social Networks in transnational and Virtual Communities Informing Science, 1-7.

 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Online LGBT+ Communities and Exploration of Alternative Identities

Abstract

With the evolution of online spaces, the way young people develop and explore their identities and various communities has changed drastically. For those in minority groups, like the LGBT+ community, the evolution of online spaces has become a place where they can learn and experiment with the identity and engagement with communities in a space that is safer than doing so in offline environments. The main argument is that online spaces provide LGBT+ youths with a place where they can effectively explore and develop their gay or queer identity through experimentation online and participating in supportive online communities. Anonymity, cyberbullying, and privacy are topics that are also referenced and addressed throughout this paper, in relation to youth (especially those in the LGBT community) and their online practices.

 

 

Introduction

The development of online spaces and social media has provided young people with a way to explore their identity through online communities, especially within minority groups like the LGBT+ community. Throughout this essay we will be using some terms whose definitions are often argued about. When discussing ‘youths’ this age range directly references those between the ages of 13 (which is the age restriction for many social networking sites or SNSs) to 20. Identity will be referenced as the character and intricacies of a person who make up who they are, which can be subject to change over time and with new experiences. What qualifies as a community is often debated between scholars, but in the context of this essay we will take community to mean a network of people, connected by a common interest, demographic, or location. In this paper I will argue that the evolution of online spaces and communities provides youths, especially those in the LGBT+ community, with a safe space to research, experiment with, and develop their identity, alternative communities, and societal constructs. Van Der Nagel & Frith (2015) assert that the freedom the web contains, with options like pseudonymity and anonymity, provides “important avenues for productive identity play, self-exploration, and behaviour contextualisation online”; Greenhow & Robelia (2009) “analysis revealed that SNSs … allowed students to formulate and explore various dimensions of their identity and demonstrate twenty‐first century skills”. Engaging with other people and different information online is a healthy way for teens and young people to broaden their knowledge, interact with others, build relationships, experiment with identity, break away from perceived limitations, and test social boundaries. While the internet can obviously provide some dangers in regard to privacy, especially to children and teens that may be vulnerable, the positive effects of engagement in online spaces far outweighs the negatives.

 

Gain knowledge on different communities

Adolescence is a time of change not only physically but mentally, where young people are exposed to new and exciting experiences and try to find how they fit in with those around them, and how they wish to construct and portray their identity. Many young people may identify as a minority and are overwhelmed by not fitting in with those around them, and lack access or have limited access to discourses that sway from the majority in their physical communities. However, many young people become interested in different subcultures, race, gender, sexual orientations, religions and more, and want to seek out more information on what interests them. Furthermore, many are not in an environment where it is safe or acceptable to pursue information on alternate lifestyles. However, with the development of the internet and online spaces, young people have an infinite supply of information at their fingertips, where they can pursue information about their interests in a way that is exclusively controlled by them. The LGBT+ community, among many other minority groups, have benefitted greatly with the introduction of the internet, Subrahmanyam, Greenfield & Tynes (2004) saying “the virtual world of teen chat may offer a safer environment for exploring emerging sexuality than the real world.” LGBT+ support has grown exponentially over the last few years, and many websites, like Tumblr, are hubs for those within the community. The internet not only provides support in exclusively online spaces, but can help facilitate engagement and understanding with offline communities as well. In a study conducted on sample group of 16-24-year-old LGBT youth, “results suggest that LGBT youth are motivated to fill gaps in their offline sexual health resources with online information. Further, participants perceived the Internet as an efficient way to discover offline LGBT events and services relevant to sexual health.” (DeHaan, Kuper, Magee, Bigelow & Mustanski, 2013). From these studies, we can see how young people can access information on subcultures and minority groups in order to help form their identities, with “results indicating that new media enabled participants to access resources, explore identity, find likeness, and digitally engage in coming out.” (Craig & McInroy, 2014).

 

Participate in different communities

Expanding on the previous argument, online spaces and communities allow for young people to engage with communities that they otherwise wouldn’t, and express parts of their identity they may otherwise be embarrassed about in an offline situation. It is true for all ages that many people struggle to find an offline community where they feel they fit in and that has the same interests, however during adolescence where hormones are heightened, and an onslaught of changes can cause a feeling of alienation, this can feel overwhelming to many young people, especially those who may identify with a minority group like the LGBT community. Fear of judgement and the prospect of not fitting in, or being bullied, weighs heavily on teenage shoulders, and having the ability to pursue recreational interests online allows them to engage with communities they may not otherwise, because of geographical constraints or simple lack of confidence. “Peer victimization and unwanted sexual experiences were more commonly reported by LGBT than non-LGBT youth” (Ybarra, Mitchell, Palmer & Reisner, 2015) which causes many LGBT teens to be too afraid of openly coming out or engaging with offline community activities. Having the ability to use a pseudonym or remain anonymous online, also adds that layer of comfort for teens who may be struggling to identify or engage with their community offline and want to keep their online practices separate. Online communities can provide emotional support for young people in the LGBT community and often helps them form friendships, Ybarra, et. al, (2015) reporting “LGBT youth were more likely than non-LGBT youth to have online friends and to appraise these friends as better than their in-person friends at providing emotional support.”

 

Break away from forced identity

In a similar vein, the internet not only allows you to develop your identity but can also act as a medium for you to break away from it; the internet can allow young people to break away from physicality and interact with others free from their insecurities. As noted above, anonymity is a tool that allows people to separate themselves from their offline identity, and experiment with new facets of themselves away from limitations based on their appearance, that they may place on themselves or have placed on them by others. Of young people, Valkenburg and Peter (2011) say “online anonymity may lead to less concern about their physical appearance (eg, pimples, blushes), which may facilitate adolescents’ online self-disclosure and self-presentation, and, as a result, their opportunities for approval and social acceptance. Further than just blemishes, minority groups that are discriminated against can break away from the prejudice they may face because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, socio-economic status, or location, and interact with others on the web as someone completely different. The same can be said for those in majority groups who wish to gain information about the experiences of those who may face different treatment to their own. This allows young people to interact with others differently from how they normally would, helping them gather more information on how identity impacts the interactions you have in different communities. Having the option to break away from the identity forced on you can be a helpful way for young people to view their identity separate from factors they can’t control, and analyse the way in which they act and react to those around them.

 

Experiment with identity

Generally, everyone experiments with their identity and self during adolescence, and experimentation is essential in both emotional and physical development as well as finding out how they wish to fit into society; Boyd (2007) says “learning society’s rules requires trial and error, validation and admonishment; it is knowledge that teenagers learn through action, not theory.” Pearson (2009) says that identity is performative, changing depending on your environment, and as online you are represented merely by pixels, “these performances exist within the imagination of users who then use tools and technologies to project, renegotiate, and continuously revise their consensual social hallucination”. In other words, “SNS platforms provide areas which are disembodied, mediated and controllable, and through which alternate performances [of identity] can be displayed to others” (Pearson, 2009).  Having the freedom to explore and craft the identity that they want and translate that into the online space, can help teens to figure out if that is a side of their identity that they want to present more of the time. In the LGBT+ community, many young people may have multiple social media accounts, one for their more subdued identity, and one for the part of their identity that is overtly gay. These can be spread over different websites or within the same one, for example a more openly gay persona is displayed on Tumblr than on Facebook. This can sometimes be for safety reasons, shielding their sexuality by having a different profile, and redirecting people in your offline communities to the less controversial profiles. Testing out their different personas and experimenting with how they present themselves online can help to get an idea of how they would like to present themselves as a whole, especially as they become more comfortable with their sexuality or find themselves in a more supportive environment. In Gray’s (2009) study of LGBT+ youth “many shared the belief that their identities expressed inherent desires that they were born with but that remained buried under the baggage of community norms”, which internet exploration and experimentation helped them to come to terms with.

 

Risks of exposure to infinite publics

One of the main issues with having such a free and open space as the internet, is privacy issues. While most SNSs provide privacy features, many young people choose not to enable these features, allowing strangers to follow their profiles and potentially gather information that could come to harm them in both online and offline spaces. Two factors could potentially be affecting why young people are choosing to have open profiles; O’Sullivan (2012) discusses the “online disinhibition effect”, which has been observed that “we reveal far more personal detail and seek more private information from others when we communicate using these technologies [online spaces] than we would in person”; In a small study conducted by Gershon (2012), interviews with two groups of students revealed that many didn’t understand how public their digital writing [and posting] was. Pearson also discusses how identity and relationships are performative, with a front stage performance meant for the public, and back stage meant as private or intimate, saying “online, these mediated environments mean that there is a blurring between front–stage and back–stage: what feels like an intimate space can be under the watchful electronic gaze of a large unknown audience; what is being acted out as a front–stage performance could have no witnesses.” (Pearson, 2009). Whatever the cause, this lack of understanding or disregard for privacy among young people, is an especially concerning topic when considering people who want to physically harm or violate children get unlimited access to photos, information, and the identities of vulnerable young people.

 

Cyberbullying and anonymity

Cyber-bullying is often contributed to the fact that when online, a sense of responsibility for one’s words or actions is lessened by the fact that the people are separated by a computer, and so the sense of accountability is somewhat reduced, especially in teens who are just learning how to properly communicate and navigate the world and others around them. Van der Nagel & Frith (2015) say:

“Flaming, trolling, and doxing are all negative consequences related to anonymity and pseudonymity online. As many people have argued, the ability to comment under disposable identities, or even under no identity in the case of anonymous comment sections, can encourage people to act in uncivil ways.”

Trolling has become a fixture on almost every social media site, where people write provocative comments for the sole purpose of getting a reaction out of someone, which arguably fosters unhealthy interaction and teaches young people that it is something normal and even common to want to evoke negative reactions from people with differing opinions. Performing, or being the victim of online cyber-bullying and bullying practices like trolling, can negatively impact a young person’s formation of identity by teaching unhealthy ways of interaction and lowering confidence.

 

Learn about and form relationships

Many arguments against use of SNS’s claim that if we are only interacting through devices then ‘real’ relationships are not able to be fostered, as young people don’t learn to communicate face to face, or form ‘real’ bonds. However, Maczewski (2002) notes that the net generation, those growing up surrounding by the internet and technology, “Rather than losing social skills, N-Geners are actually developing these skills at an earlier age than their parents’ generation. N-generation children have a new medium to reach out beyond their immediate world… learning precisely the social skills which will be required for effective interaction in the digital economy.” Although written before the spread of SNS’s, Wellman & Gulia’s (1997) research into online vs offline communities also discount the negative argument, saying they basically function in the same ways, and that “people on the Net have a greater tendency to develop feelings of closeness on the basis of shared interests rather than on the basis of shared social characteristics such as gender and socioeconomic status”, which can “foster high levels of empathetic understanding and mutual support”, which is a deeper and more useful connection than a community that is only joined by location. The internet also provides a space where those with difficult lives can turn to in order to experience relationships that are healthier or more supportive, a pattern which has been observed by Wolak, Mitchell & Finkelhor (2003); their studies found that teens who are highly troubled and have difficulty in relationships with their parents, two occurrences which are not uncommon with LGBT+ youth, were more likely to form online relationships. In these situations LGBT+ youths can turn to those with similar interests or situations online, in order to form supportive relationships and develop their ability to communicate in a healthy way. Giving teens full control over their online interactions can be stressful and frightening for their guardians, however, allowing teenagers to experiment with boundaries in an online environment could be beneficial in learning social etiquette in an environment that is safer than it would be offline. Exposing teens to a safe, removed environment where they may encounter opinions and discourses different from their own, and allowing them to interact as they please provides an experience that may otherwise be dangerous to them in ‘real’ life.

 

Conclusion

We can see how youths, especially LGBT+ identifies, use online spaces as an environment to explore, experiment, and develop their own identity, learn social boundaries, and participate in alternative communities. Online, where a person can share as much or little of their information as they like, LGBT+ youth can be shielded from backlash and potentially dangerous situations they would otherwise encounter if attempting to perform the same activities in their offline environments. Learning about their identity through research, performance, and engaging with online communities can help LGBT+ come to terms with themselves, and inform them on how they want to present themselves in their offline, everyday lives.

 

References

boyd, danah. (2007) “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning – Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (ed. David Buckingham). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

 

Craig, S., & McInroy, L. (2014). You Can Form a Part of Yourself Online: The Influence of New Media on Identity Development and Coming Out for LGBTQ Youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 18(1), 95-109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2013.777007

 

DeHaan, S., Kuper, L., Magee, J., Bigelow, L., & Mustanski, B. (2013). The Interplay between Online and Offline Explorations of Identity, Relationships, and Sex: A Mixed-Methods Study with LGBT Youth. Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 421-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012.661489

 

Foster, D. (2015). Private Journals versus Public Blogs: The Impact of Peer Readership on Low-stakes Reflective Writing. SAGE Journals, 43(2). http://journals.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/doi/10.1177/0092055X14568204

 

Gray, M. (2009). Negotiating Identities/Queering Desires: Coming Out Online and the Remediation of the Coming-Out Story. Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 1162-1189. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01485.x

 

Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 119-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439880902923580

 

Maczewski, M. (2002). Exploring Identities Through the Internet: Youth Experiences Online. Child and Youth Care Forum, Volume 31(Issue 2), 111–112. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015322602597

 

O’Sullivan, L. (2012). Open to the Public: How Adolescents Blur the Boundaries Online Between the Private and Public Spheres of Their Lives. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50(5), 429-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.03.001

 

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday. 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

 

Subrahmanyam, K., Greenfield, P., & Tynes, B. (2004). Constructing sexuality and identity in an online teen chat room. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25(6), 651-666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2004.09.007

 

Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. jahonline.org. Retrieved 2 April 2018, from https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(10)00426-X/fulltext

 

Van Der Nagel, E. and Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3), Retrieved from http://www.ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5615/4346

 

Wolak, J., Mitchell, K., & Finkelhor, D. (2003). Escaping or connecting? Characteristics of youth who form close online relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 26(1), 105-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-1971(02)00114-8

 

Ybarra, M., Mitchell, K., Palmer, N., & Reisner, S. (2015). Online social support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among U.S. LGBT and non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 123-136. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.08.006

 

Identity as a performance: How identities are formed within the fashion community on Instagram

Abstract

This paper will argue how identities online can be shaped by their chosen communities, focussing on the fashion community on Instagram. However, these identities can sometimes be false and deceptive, which can be due to the demands and expectations within the community. Instagram has been influential within the fashion community as it is photo based, easily allows users to stay connected and create new connections. It allows users to develop a fan base and influence which can lead to being discovered and endorsed by fashion brands. Using definitions and ideas, this paper will examine the relationship between the two concepts focussing on how identity can sometimes be deceptive and the motivation behind this within the fashion community on Instagram.

Keywords: virtual community, community, identity, online identity, social media, Instagram, performance, deception, fashion, hashtags.

Introduction

The concept of what makes a community has been challenged since the development of new communities mediated through electronic communication technologies along with the way users can portray an identity. Traditionally the idea of community is considered to consist of four concepts; a place to live, a spatial unit, a way of life and social system (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta & David, 2004, p. 317). There has been an emphasis on a physical basis for a community to function throughout the years along with the inherent unity to the self, the norm of one body, one identity (Donath, 1999). However, the emergence of new virtual communities has caused the concept of communities to be challenged and redefined. Communities on Instagram can stay connected through the use of hashtags. The virtual community has allowed users form new identities different to their physical ones. However, social media communities can allow users to portray a chosen identity online which can sometimes be false and deceptive for their own benefit.

Virtual Communities & Hashtags

Katz et al. (2004) suggests that the majority of community constructs rely on social interaction and in essence, a community is a social system. This allows the concept of community to go beyond the physical definition, where a community exists only by having a geographic location (Katz et al., 2004). The physical community occupies its own physical setting and many consider the physicality of community formation important for the sense of belonging. Members within physical community’s form groups with people who exercise local autonomy in meeting their needs in a specific locality (Katz et al., 2004). The virtual community refers to communities mediated through electronic communication technologies such as social media, multiuser domains (MUDs) and internet relay chat, and also sustained through personal communication technologies such as messaging, mobile phones and email (Katz et al., 2004). The “virtual” part of a virtual community suggests a place without a geographic location which is what a traditional community is based around, and it means the primary form of communication is electronic or enabled by technology (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Virtual communities continue to provide a social system and social interaction.

Dennis, Pootheri & Natarajan (1998) characterise virtual communities as groups of people with shared interests or goals where electronic communication is a primary form of interaction. Groups might meet regularly online to discuss a subject of interest to all members. It is argued that virtual communities are worthy of being considered a community despite not having a geospatial location like a traditional physical community. This is because of the nature of virtual communities linking large groups of people to share, ideas, feelings and desires (Katz et al., 2004). The virtual community provides ties and homogeneity by interest rather than physical location and locally isolated. Ridings & Gefen (2004) describe virtual communities as “groups of people with common interests and practices that communicate regularly…in an organized way over the internet through a common location or mechanism”.

A community is described to become “a metaphor for the primary ties outside of the households that provide us with larger social systems”. Virtual communities allow users to create and preserve ties among people who are physically separate (Katz et al., 2004). The removed physical aspect of a community also removes the traditional belief that there is an inherent unity to the self, there is one body, one identity (Donath, 1999).

Instagram is a social media platform which allows users to find and create social ties by the use of hashtags. The use of hashtags allows users to expose their brand or persona to large targeted audiences. Hashtags can be chosen to relate to a certain topic or interest, so users who relate can easily find the content and increase engagement. Hashtags help organise and categorise photo and video content which assists the process of discovery and community engagement (Loren, 2017).  Hashtags are not limited to a geographic location, which easily allows communities to form and create new connections around the world. The fashion community, like many others, is based on shared social practices and interests, unlike physical communities which are based on shared social and physical boundaries.

There are different types of hashtags including branded hashtags and community hashtags (Loren, 2017).  The use of community hashtags helps connect like-minded user around a specific subject, such as #evachenpose or #ootd. These types of hashtags can improve the searchability of a user’s posts, gain followers and grow the user’s own personal community (Loren, 2017). For example, the #evachenpose hashtag was created by Eva Chen, a fashion based instagramer and director of fashion partnerships at Instagram with 882k followers, which includes a photo of the user’s shoes, handbag and piece of fruit in the backseat of a car, which can be used sometimes as an alternative to the traditional #ootd (outfit of the day) post. This hashtag has accumulated 29.1k posts over a number of years. The #evachenpose appeals to users in the fashion community, people who like handbags and shoes and people who follow the Eva Chen Instagram (@evachen212). Chen has developed her own Instagram community and following which can be maintained and developed through the hashtag.

Instagram also allows users to ‘follow’ hashtags allowing them to stay up to date with other users in the community. Users can interact with each other by messaging each other, commenting on each other’s posts and ‘liking’ pictures and videos people post. A community is achieved through the member-generated content and the self-sustaining process it creates: “as more members generate more content, the increased content draws more members” (Ridings & Gefen, 2004). Hashtags can be utilised by the user to describe and portray their chose identities and connect to different communities.

Identity as a performance

Virtual communities allow users to put forth identity claims of the self which can be accurate or false to reality. Social media networks act as a stage in which the user can ‘perform’ and identity. Pearson (2009) puts forward that “identity-as-a-performance is seen as part of the flow of social interaction as individuals construct identity performances fitting their social environment”. Social networking platforms offer spaces which are disembodied, mediated and controllable, and also allow alternate performances for other members of the community (Pearson, 2009).

These performances by users online exist within their imagination who then use tools and technologies online to project and renegotiate their chosen identity (Pearson, 2009). Users create not only their online selves but also their staging and setting in which these selves occur by manipulating online communicative codes. However, these stages maybe social media networks which the user has chosen to be a part of. According to Schwartz & Halegoua (2015) through selected “images, videos, status updates, profiles, friend lists, visible conversations, tastes and interests, and comments that appear on their profile, social media participants present a highly curated version of themselves”. The ability to select what other people see can allow a user to put forward different identities and personas depending on the community they want to be part of and different to who they are offline. For example, if the user chooses to be a part of the fashion community on Instagram, they will then perform an identity suited for that community and follow those social cues and renegotiate their chosen identity.

 

Deceptive identities online

The online virtual community and the user as the performer, are disembodied and electronically re-embodied through the cues and signs they choose to represent their identity (Pearson, 2009). These cues and signs online can be dependent on the virtual community the user is part of. However due the fluidity the user has over the self online, the identity they perform can be inaccurate or misleading to their audience. A user can put forward as many personas online as they have time and energy to create them (Donath, 1999).

Some Instagram accounts can be fake using stock images or images of someone else without their permission. These accounts can also pay for fake followers and engagement. Purtill (2017) reported the company Mediakix created two fake Instagram accounts, @wanderingggirl and @calibeachgirl310, from scratch using stock images and secured four paid brand endorsement deals between them worth US$500 in total. This was a stunt to prove how easy it was to become an Instagram influencer. According to Purtill a user can become a fake influencer by;

  1. Finding photos: Stock images can be used or photos can be taken by the user.
  2. Purchase fake followers: It can cost around US$3-8 per 1000 followers through easy-to-find websites.
  3. Purchase engagement: It can cost 12 cents per comment and between US$4-9 per 1000 likes.
  4. Make money: get into contact with brands for endorsements.

This shows how easily users can grow and develop their Instagram accounts or several, depending on how many identities they wish to have or communities they are part of. Aspiring fashion influencers seek to accumulate a fan base which will enable fashion brands to find models and influencers to represent them. Celebrities and models are often chosen by fashion brands based on how relevant they are on social media which provides a better and more engaging story for the public (Payne 2016). This is a motivation for users to put forward deceptive identities so they can get more endorsements and influence. They can put forward as many as they desire and have the energy for. However, it can be difficult for other users to see what is ‘false’ and what is ‘true’ on Instagram.

A user can be deceptive by using items and content which do not belong to them and create a false identity. For example, users can hire clothing or bags for content to appeal to a community and its members. Instagram provides a platform for individuals in which normal societal cues are not available which allows deception to be easier. Assessment signals that help users determine deception are unavailable online (such as government issued identification) or it is not required to verify the identification of online identity (Tsikerdekis & Zeadally, 2014). According to Tsikerdekis & Zeadally (2014), conventional signals are used which are not verified and can represent deceptive information. Ways in which a user is deceptive includes information about the user’s identity, content of their posts or profile page and the channel in which communication takes place (e.g. messaging, video chat). The manipulation of any of these three categories reflects deception. Instagram allows profile management, the absence of identity verification and focuses on content which creates an environment which can be subject to deception within the three categories put forward by Tsikerdekis & Zeadally (2014). Users develop identity goals, which are used to avoid shame and embarrassment, project a more favourable image and increase social desirability (Grossman, 2017).  On Instagram, this might include creating a fake profile with false information to increase self-worth and appeal to users within a community, such as using an alternative profile picture or content. They construct their identity based on their social setting and follow communicative codes within that setting.

Conclusion

Instagram allows for identity to be a performance which can differ in communities. Identity on Instagram can also be false and deceptive depending on the user’s desires. The virtual fashion community on Instagram is maintained through electronic communication tools, such as messaging, commenting and ‘liking’ content. Instagram allows the formation of virtual communities through communicative tools and hashtags. False information can easily be concealed through strategic editing and omission of information. These tools can also shape the user’s identity performance online within their chosen communities. The traditional idea of having one body and one identity has changed with the emergence of social media, such as Instagram. Users now have the ability to create and maintain as many identities as the have the time and energy for.

References

Dennis, A. R., Pootheri, S. K., & Natarajan, V. L. (1998). Lessons from the early   adopters of Web groupware. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1998.11518186

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp. 29-59). New York: Routledge.            http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html

Grossman, M. (2017). Study of social media users: The relationship between online deception, Machiavellian personality, self-esteem and social desirability. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from https://search-proquest.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1946736580?accountid=10382

Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication and Community: Communication Yearbook 28 (pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.      Available: http://www.comm.ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasgupt David2004.pdf

Loren, T. (2017, March 30). The ultimate guide to instagram hashtags in 2017 [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://later.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-using-instagram-hashtags/

Payne, C. M. (2016). Visual storytelling: Fashion brands engagement through instagram. Available from Proquest Dissertations &These Global. Retrieved from https://search-proquest com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1886812809?accountid=10382

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday 14(3). http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/artile/viewArticle/2162/2127

Putrill, J. (2017, August 18). InstaFraud: How fake instagram ‘influencers’ are gaming brands for money. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved from  http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/how-fake-instagram-influencers-are-gaming-brands-for-money/8821440

Ridings, C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual Community Attraction: Why People Hang Out Online. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(1).  Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083  6101.2004.tb00229.x/full

Schwartz, R., & Halegoua, G. R. (2015). The spatial self: Location-based identity performance on social media. New Media & Society, 17(10), 1643-1660.http://10.1177/1461444814531364

Tsikerdekis, M., & Zeadally, S. (2014). Online deception in social media. Communications of the ACM, 57(9) 72-80. https://doi.org/10.1145/2629612

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

 

Over-sharing in an online environment and its relationship to building communities and networks of virtue friends

<a href="https://www.freestock.com/free-photos/happy-group-friends-gossiping-cell-phone-101409499">Image used under license from Freestock.com</a>

Abstract

With the expansion of social media platforms and the increase in user numbers, people are sharing personal information on an unprecedented scale. Consequently, the term “over-sharing” has been used to describe the online habits of many social media users. This conference paper draws on academic research to argue that social media users have developed online communities and social networks built on “virtue friends”, creating an environment where over-sharing is simply a normal and characteristic behaviour pattern of those seeking to maintain and build strong connections.

Introduction

Social media platforms today have given people the ability to craft their own identity, expand their social networks and feel as though they are part of a real but online community – all of which are intrinsically linked in contributing to a person’s online behaviour. As online connections turn into virtue friendships, over-sharing has become an expected and normal pattern of behaviour.

This paper will seek to define virtue friendship and explain why this level of friendship can be achieved in an online environment. It will also seek to explain why people look to build social networks and be part of online communities, including to illustrate what over-sharing is and investigate what motivates people to do it. This paper will combine all of these to demonstrate that over-sharing is nothing new, but rather a pattern of behaviour that has always been there between virtue friends. However, it is a behaviour that has seen greater visibility with the expansion of social media platforms.

Virtue friendship

Social media has generated much debate on whether the connections people form on platforms such as Facebook can be defined as virtue friendships, the highest level of friendship that can be reached according to Greek philosopher Aristotle. In his teaching, Aristotle believed that this kind of friendship was “based on mutual admiration of our friend’s character and sharing of the same values” and “based on mutual concern of each person for the other for his own sake” (Kaliarnta, 2016, p.66).

Aristotle’s view is consistent with more contemporary research on identity, networks and community as evident in Zizi Papacharissi’s book titled A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, which was a collection of academic research papers on social media platforms. It concluded:

“Social network sites carry the expectations of sociability, meaningful connection to others, conviviality, perhaps even empathy and support…there can be no question that “community”, with all its affective and historical complications, will continue to frame popular understanding of MySpace and Facebook” (Papacharissi, 2011, p.106).

Through these descriptions one can draw the conclusion that people seek to build and maintain virtue friendships in both the offline and online environments. However, many researchers still believe that this level of friendship is unattainable online.

In 2012, a group of researchers published in the journal Ethics and Information Technology three key reasons as to why virtue friendship could not be achieved online. The authors expressed concern that people would only present a certain aspect of their character online, rather than reveal their complete self, which prevented the ability to build close connections. The same researchers also believed that people would be unable to pick up on subtle behaviour patterns that people exhibit when having one-on-one physical interactions in an offline environment ‑ something that would arguably allow people to gain more of an insight into another person’s character. Additionally, there was a belief that social media was changing the way people interact with one another. Specifically, that people were satisfied with having very brief connections online, rather than developing the traditional type of friendship that one would expect to achieve in an offline environment (Kaliarnta, 2016).

In contrast to the argument that virtue friendship cannot be achieved online—and in support of the thesis of this paper—researchers argue that social media platforms do the exact opposite by expanding the avenues by which people can learn about others through their online communities and social networks without having to engage in direct communication. A person’s behaviour—in terms of what they say and do—can be observed on multiple social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, and assists in building a more accurate picture of that person’s character (Kaliarnta, 2016). To illustrate this in more detail, a person may want to portray themselves in a particular light on Facebook. However, this presentation will be undermined by their own actions on other social media platforms, therefore allowing for a more accurate assessment by others. In other words, a person’s digital footprint tells a story—no matter how fragmented the information is—about where they work, what they say, what they do, what music they like, where they go for holidays, what their political affiliations are, with whom they socialise, and whether or not they are in a relationship (Power of positivity, n.d.). All this and more can be determined by observing the online activities of others without the need for any one-on-one interaction in an offline environment. This personal information, which is available from multiple social media platforms, demonstrates that virtue friendship can be achieved, or perceived to be achieved online, through the ability to determine another person’s character through their digital footprint. This was the very character Aristotle said was important to building virtue friendships. Interestingly, research has shown that an estimated 70 per cent of Facebook users have people they already know offline as Facebook friends (Kaliarnta, 2016, p76). These findings support the argument that social media platforms are being used by people to develop the connections they have offline and online and turn them into virtue friendships.

Over-sharing

The concept of over-sharing is not new at all. In the 1988 book ‘Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research, and interventions’ it was stated that “disclosure of inner feelings and experiences to another person fosters liking, caring, and trust, thereby facilitating the deepening of close relationships” (Duck 1988, p. 372). This assessment illustrated that even before social media existed, virtue friendships were built on over-sharing and that it was the normal character behaviour for people seeking to build virtue friendships and find a sense of “belonging”. Stefano Tardini and Lorenzo Cantoni’s 2018 research paper defined belonging as being part of a community (Tardini & Cantoni, 2018, p.373).

Since the introduction of social media platforms, over-sharing has become more pronounced and has received a significant amount of negative publicity. In Oversharing: A Critical Discourse Analysis, it defined over-sharing as:

“a new word for an old habit made astonishingly easy by modern technology. It is yet another product of digital advances that allow people to record and transmit their lives—in words, videos, and graphics—to anyone with internet access” (Hoffmann, 2009, p.2).

This definition is consistent with other research that concluded over-sharing was:

“to divulge more of their inner feelings, opinions and sexuality than they would in person, or even over the phone. Text messaging, Facebooking, tweeting, camming, blogging, online dating…are vehicles of this oversharing, which blurs the boundary between public and private life” (Agger 2015).

Though these definitions are contemporary and are well founded, they are simplistic and do not acknowledge other research that has identified numerous phycological factors as to why people over-share on social media.

Over-sharing, belonging and community

The 2011 review Why do people use Facebook? brought together several studies that looked at the psychology behind what motivated people to use that particular social media platform. The review found that 1) a need to belong and 2) a need for self-presentation were the two key factors driving people to use Facebook (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2011, p.245). This view is consistent with American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which identified five key areas as to what drives a person’s motivation in life. These were physiological, safety, social or sense of belonging, esteem and self-actualization needs. Maslow’s held that:

“people act to satisfy the lower needs before satisfying their higher needs. A starving man for example, first devotes his energy to finding food. If the basic need is satisfied, he can spend more time on his safety needs, such as eating the right foods and breathing good air. When he feels safe, he can take the time to deepen his social affiliations and friendships. Still later, he can develop pursuits that will meet his need for self-esteem and the esteem of others. Once this is satisfied, he is free to actualize his potential in other ways. As each lower level need is satisfied, it ceases to be a motivator and a higher need starts defining the person’s motivational orientation” (Andreasen & Kotler, 2008).

In 2012, belonging was also defined as “the experience of being valued, needed, or important with respect to other people, groups, or environments, and the experience of fitting in or being congruent with other people, groups, or environments through shared or complementary characteristic” (Zhaoa, Lua, Wang, Chauc, Zhang, 2012, p.4), which is also consistent with Tardini and Cantoni’s definition of community. These definitions support this paper’s argument that social media users developed social networks and online communities built on virtue friends.

The review by Nadkarni and Hofmann uncovered that social media had also been an excellent tool for those who struggled to make connections offline. One of the studies highlighted in the review identified that “people with low or high levels of neuroticism were inclined to share more basic information” (Nadkarni & Hofmann, 2011, p.245).

The journal Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control published by Keith Wilcox and Andrew Stephen in 2012 conducted research into social networks, self-esteem and self-control. This study complimented and extended on the research by Nadkarni and Hofmann. The research concluded that people seeking “strong ties” online experienced an increase in self-esteem and confidence the more they browsed online, resulting in a reduction of self-control (Wilcox & Stephen, 2012). This research did not focus specifically on over-sharing but looked more broadly at the implications of a person having reduced self-control. While Nadkarni and Hofmann’s research demonstrated that some people over-share because social media platforms give them the confidence to express themselves and build connections through those platforms, in Wilcox and Stephen’s study it appears that over-sharing could be a behaviour exhibited when a person experiences an increase in self-esteem and confidence that leads to a lack of inhibitory self-control when seeking to build strong connections. These findings support this paper’s thesis that over-sharing is simply a normal characteristic behaviour that one would expect to see on social media platforms. The combination of building a social network and online community of virtue friends, having greater self-confidence, a desire to belong, and a reduction of self-control have created an environment of over-sharing.

The research so far reviewed in this paper has confirmed that it is a combination of variables that have contributed to an environment of over-sharing, with the search for belonging a common thread that connects all of them together. Several studies have introduced the concept of “social capital” to explain the connections people make and the behaviours they exhibit online today. It has been defined as:

“the core idea of social capital theory is that networks have value…social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups…Human capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Bartkus & Davis, 2009, p.18).

In 2007, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication published the findings from a comprehensive study that examined the relationship between Facebook and social capital. The findings in this study again supported the results in other research identified in this paper that concluded that building strong connections had a direct relationship with self-esteem. Additionally, the journal paper supported Nadkarni and Hofmann’s conclusion that online networks were helping those who would otherwise struggle to build strong connections or find a voice, as well as encourage more self-disclosure (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007, p.1146 & 1147). This reference to greater self-disclosure can be interpreted as over-sharing. Regardless of whether you accept this interpretation or not, the finds support the argument of this paper that over-sharing online is expected behaviour between virtue friends. It also highlights that virtue friendship can be achieved in an online environment.

Conclusion

From research identified in this paper, it is evident that social media platforms have enabled people to grow their social networks widely with apparent aim of cultivating virtue friendships, the extent of which may at times seem limitless. The ability to determine a person’s character through the sharing of personal information on multiple social media platforms has been recognised as the conduit to achieve this. Through their quest for belonging, users have identified with a community and it has given those who lack confidence the means to share their stories with a wider audience. Even though over-sharing has been seen by some to be about depicting a false representation of one’s self, research has demonstrated that for others it has been about getting oneself known by actively connecting to a wide social network which over-sharing facilitates. Over-sharing is now seen as the norm if one is seeking to build strong connections in both offline and online environments, and a way of reaching-out to the world. A person’s desire to belong and build strong connections is clearly evident by the growth in the number of people joining social media platforms.

References

Agger, B. (2012) Oversharing: Presentations of Self in the Internet Age. Summary retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781136448270

Andreasen, A., Kotler, P. (2008). Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations. New Jersey, United States of America: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Bartkus, V., Davis, J. (2009). Social Capital: Reaching Out, Reaching In. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.  Retrieved from http://link.library.curtin.edu.au/p?pid=CUR_ALMA51115531750001951

Bernstein, E. (2013). Thank You for Not Sharing –  What Triggers People to Reveal Too Much; Avoiding the Post-Conversation Cringe. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323826804578466831263674230

Duck, S (1988). Handbook of personal relationship: theory, research, and interventions. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/uwcssc/sites/default/files/Reis%20%26%20Shaver,%201988.pdf

Ellison, E., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook “Friends:” Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Site. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x

Kaliarnta, S. (2016) Using Aristotle’s theory of friendship to classify online friendships: a critical counterview. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10676-016-9384-2.pdf

Nadkarni A., Hofmann, S. (2011). Why Do People Use Facebook? Review. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007

Papacharissi, Z. (2011). A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=574608#

Power of positivity (n.d.) What Do Your Social Media Updates Reveal About Your Personality? Retrieved from https://www.powerofpositivity.com/social-media-updates-personality/

Tardini, S., Cantoni, L. (2018) A Semiotic Approach to Online Communities: Belonging, Interest and Identity in Websites’ and Videogames’ Communities. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266218884_A_SEMIOTIC_APPROACH_TO_ONLINE_COMMUNITIES_BELONGING_INTEREST_AND_IDENTITY_IN_WEBSITES%27_AND_VIDEOGAMES%27_COMMUNITIES

Wilcox, K., Stephen, A. (2012) Are Close Friends the Enemy? Online Social Networks, Self-Esteem, and Self-Control. Journal of Consumer Research. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1086/668794

Zhaoa, L., Lua. Y., Wang, B., Chauc, P., Zhang, L. (2012). Cultivating the sense of belonging and motivating user participation in virtual communities: A social capital perspective. International Journal of Information Management. Retrieved from https://doi-org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.02.006

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Image used under license from Freestock.com

Beauty Influencers and Their Changing Identities

Abstract

This paper explores how within the beauty community, specifically looking at the YouTube and Instagram community of influencers that have amassed millions of followers, beauty influencers are shaped by the community as they make changes to their identities based on the platforms they are on. The platforms explored are Instagram and Twitter, discussing the infrastructure and community each platform has and the power they have. Examples of beauty influencers and their scandals are used to illustrate this point. The community and individuals who participate in the community are discussed briefly, in terms of what role they play and what power they have individually and collectively. Overall, Instagram is found to lean towards community and Twitter towards infrastructure to influence change within identity in beauty influencers.

Keywords: identity, Twitter, Instagram, social media, beauty influencers, power, beauty blogging

Introduction

The beauty industry has benefited from the fast paced and ever growing community it has attracted online. The dynamics the community present many questions as to how they continue to work and grow. In this paper, I aim to look at identity in communities and networks and will focus on the online beauty community, specifically looking at the YouTube and Instagram community of influencers that have amassed millions of followers, and I argue that beauty influencers are shaped by the community as they make changes to their identities based on the platforms they are on. The theme of power will be explored as it is a concept that ties into all aspects of this paper. First, I will compare both platforms of Instagram and Twitter, discussing their differences and similarities. Next I will examine each platform individually starting with Instagram and the relationships between individuals and influencers and how this relation shapes an influencer’s identity. Finally, I will explore Twitter and its infrastructure and, community and how it can impact how an influencer creates their identity. For the purposes of this paper, I will only discuss influencers who have a relatively large following, English and Western sector of the beauty community. This will help narrow the paper and explore influencers who do alter their identity at a larger scale.

Definitions

Key concepts such as community and identity must be defined to create a framework for this essay. According to Sanders (as cited in E Rice et al., 2004, p. 4), community is made up of four elements, which include “a place to live, a spatial unit, a way of life, and social system”. E Rice et al. (2004) further states that virtual communities though may not fit into past definitions of communities which were made more for physical communities, still are communities as they are based on different ideas compared to physical communities. They are more focused on the individual conveying their identity as true as possible without general regard to social rules in physical communities. Virtual communities are based on “shared social practices and interests”, and physical based on “shared social and physical boundaries” (E Rice et al., 2004). A more recent definition by Preece (as cited in Cavanagh, 2009, p. 2) states a community’s characteristics include “shared goals, common interests, shared activities and governance, mutual satisfaction of needs, co-operation, enjoyment, pleasure and location as common understandings of community”. This definition of community can be used to define and lay out characteristics of the beauty community. The beauty community of influencers all have a shared interest in beauty, with a focus on cosmetics and they all have a mutual understanding and passion for it. They share social boundaries in the form of grouping together influencers who have the same style of makeup or content and the social practices are very similar across influencers, sharing their makeup or lifestyle surrounding the topic of beauty. Instagram’s algorithm pushes this further by recommending similar beauty accounts to a user based on who they follow, as they post similar content. This showcases that the beauty community has characteristics of a typical community and it is not a new concept of a community. Twitter showcases this as well by the hashtags displaying several users posting makeup looks or tweets relating to beauty, showing their participation and shared interests. Dyrberg (1997) defines identity as the final product of identification, one that happens due to the existence of complex power relations. Such a definition is relevant to beauty influencers that make a brand out of their name, their identity is formed through power relations and what they do.

Instagram and Twitter

Both Twitter and Instagram have its differences and similarities in the way the community and platform encourage for aspects of identities. Both Instagram and Twitter have a like function which usually means that the viewer is showing their approval of the post (Anagnostopoulos, Parganas, Chadwick, & Fenton, 2018). The way one responds to post however, are different, as on Instagram, the comment stays within the post, while on Twitter, a new tweet is made but is attached to the original tweet (Highfield & Leaver, 2014). This difference can cause an influencer to alter their identity differently, as on Instagram, comments may have little effect due to the grouping of all the comments. Whereas on Twitter, each individual reply is a tweet on its own, creating a more sense of self for the individual as beyond their username, their display name and profile photo are shown, which might have a greater effect on how the influencer takes feedback from their posts and decides to alter from it. It might also affect the way a commenter makes their comment and what kind of message they decide to leave. Those on Instagram are only identified by their username in the comments but on Twitter, more of their identity is shown. The way comments are made on both platforms and how they can affect alterations in identity can be seen through the example of Samantha Ravndahl, who posted a photo of her in Japan and including in the description her experience and what lessons she has learnt through the trip (Ravndahl, 2018). Immediately, her post received negative comments, calling her privileged and uncultured. Ravndahl turned the comments off on that post and has never since posted anything on her Instagram of similar content. She also posted the same photo and caption to Twitter and received some negative comments but also received drastically different, positive comments. This shows that bad comments in her Instagram post gave little care in leaving a negative comment, whereas on Twitter, those who left comments realised and understood the content Ravndahl was posting. This example shows the differences between the two platforms and displays the different aspects of them. Conversely, influencer James Charles receives many positive comments on both platforms but projects drastically different identities on both platforms, with Twitter, he creates an identity of being relatable and tweets about everyday things, however with Instagram, he focuses more on makeup, fashion, and lifestyle, thus creating a professional version of himself. Both influencers show even on different platforms, communities can be similar or drastically different and how an influencer may want to alter their identity differently across platforms.

Instagram

The beauty community on Instagram are often mocked by influencers on other platforms, from their wavy brows to breast insert blending sponges, one may look at them and not understand how they work. The community can be broken up into four dominant users; brand accounts, influencer accounts, update accounts and, individual accounts. This paper will focus mainly on influencer and individual accounts, looking at the relationships and community formed around influencer accounts. Individual accounts can be viewed as the everyday participant on an influencer’s Instagram posts. These accounts may view their interactions on posts having little to no impact, however Granovetter (1973) argues that their interactions is tied to bigger aspects of social structure and that they have little to no control of this. Such interactions can also be viewed as weak ties, which are relationships people have that hold lesser value than strong ties which are ties that have a relationship that holds a strong bond. The interactions consist of commenting or liking an account or post and, viewing these posts, and the way they do this affects the community they form by influencing the social cues. This in turn impacts the influencer users who take the feedback they receive from the individual users to alter their posts/account and in turn they tweak their identity to fit the community.

Since Instagram is limited to photos, videos and a text description, this impacts how an influencer can build and present their identity. Highfield and Leaver (2014) point out that compared to other platforms, Instagram encourages “standardised bits of information”, instead of giving an extensive story. This is due to the limitations of the platform, one is only allowed to post media and text is only an option in captions and though one can share text via images, it still is a media format. This is also brought over to Instagram stories where stories are limited by time. This forces influencer to share a snippet of what they want to. Such standardised information is reflective of influencer accounts, with majority of their posts being photos at an event, a restaurant, the beach and, so on. This limit influencers on what and how much they can share about their identity. Thus, each post is important in helping to build and alter their identity, with help from comments and feedbacks from their followers, the individual users. This creates a feedback loop, allowing influencers to create and enhance any aspects of the presented identity that received approval to grow more. Thus, this shows how influencers are influenced by individual accounts and how they are shaped by the community and don’t shape themselves, they might create an identity initially, however are eventually shaped by the community. Such can occur through comments as help represent the community and are part of the influencer’s identity as they take on their suggestions and whenever you visit their page, the comments reflect aspects of the influencer, again showing that individual users shape influencers. This relationship works as individual users get content that they desire and the influencer gets more likes, comments and, views on their posts, thus increasing their influence on people. This reveals that identity of influencers are in the hands of their followers and the community. Due to the strong ties influencers and individual accounts have, in which individual accounts help to provide influencers the power they have, they almost force influencers to change their identity or fear losing their power. This is displayed by beauty influencer James Charles who has had his identity damaged by a racism scandal, which will be discussed later in detail, tries to the best of his ability to prevent another racist scandal to his name appear again in fear of losing his reputation (Charles, 2018). It must also be noted that influencer accounts can become individual accounts on other’s Instagram pages. This allows influencers to experience a similar role to individual accounts, but will never fully experience it as their power and influence will translate in their interactions as their fans will back them up.

Twitter

Twitter in the beauty sphere is perceived to be a smaller platform compared to Instagram, but serves a purpose for some influencers. Like the analysis done on Instagram, I will only look at influencer accounts and individual users. Twitter has a different dynamic compared to Instagram, due to the limitations of the platform, where each tweet is limited to 240 characters. Veletsianos (2012) observes that the social networks within Twitter is a result of user’s connections with one another. Twitter not only separates each tweet from another, making each unique and a post of their own, but also structures each tweet consistently, having aspects such as date and time, username, text, and if added, links, photos, videos, hashtags and, mentions (Highfield & Leaver, 2014). This consistency leads to the platform easily being used for conversation and collaboration (Gruzd, Wellman, & Takhteyev, 2011). An influencer typically has several thousand followers and interacts with their fans. Interactions include, likes, replies, follows and, retweeting/quote tweeting. Such interactions can be easily seen on the influencer’s and individual’s page. Interactions and posts are quick and fast paced, this simulates the everyday life more in comparison to other social media platforms. The community works and is active as those who participate use Twitter to keep in touch with people, in this case to learn more about an influencer’s life (Gruzd et al., 2011). Influencers can receive tweets and comments about a tweet they posted from individuals, either positive, negative or neutral. Due to more direct, public and accessible conversations, Twitter becomes a more social platform, actively displaying strong connections influencers may have.

The nature of Twitter may cause influencers to alter their identities in terms of the relationships they show publicly. This is especially relevant as in the beauty influencer industry, the friendships one makes are also business relationships, so they might want to boost each other’s following count by faking the strength of the relationship. The community here plays a part as they can be happy to see the close relationship and encourage is by following the other influencer, thus leading to both influencers gaining more power through influence. This displays the power community has on identities of influencers, if they enjoy the identity they showcase, they encourage it and follow them. A way the platform shapes influencers is the nature of the platform. It restricts influencers with the character limit and the fast-paced tweets. Information is spread quickly (Milstein, Lorica, Magoulas, Hochmuth, & Chowdhury, 2009) and can cause influencers to rethink their tweets or count on the fact that Twitter moves quickly and tweet controversial things, as it is a platform of instantaneous posting. This can be seen through the example of James Charles, who got himself into trouble by posting a racist and ignorant tweet, joking about Ebola and Africa. Charles was quickly reprimanded by many and called out for being ignorant and racist and soon after, he apologised (Tea, 2017). Charles was blind to how fast information can spread and how it doesn’t just pass and was reminded of this through his ignorant and racist tweet. After such an event, Charles is no longer seen to be joking about race or Ebola and he has yet to post a tweet without much thought. This shows the power and immense influence of the community and how they can collectively create power in numbers and use it against people who are ignorant and racist. It showcases the way a community and dynamic of a platform can cause an influencer to tweak parts of their identity to fit the platform and its user’s demands.

Conclusion

Overall, both Twitter and Instagram’s community and platform play a part in how an influencer constructs and changes their identity. After exploring both platforms and discussing their similarities and differences, both platforms either lean towards community or platforms in how they influence change. Twitter leans towards the way the platform is constructed and Instagram leaning more on the community. However, both platforms use both platform and community to influence the change. Beauty influencers gain more out of changing their identity power and influence. A little was discussed about the community and the relationship they hold with influencers and the power they have in numbers and individually.

References

Anagnostopoulos, C., Parganas, P., Chadwick, S., & Fenton, A. (2018). Branding in pictures: using Instagram as a brand management tool in professional team sport organisations. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1-26. doi:10.1080/16184742.2017.1410202

Cavanagh, A. (2009). From Culture to Connection: Internet Community Studies. Sociology Compass, 3(1), 1-15. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00186.x

Charles, J. (Director, Producer) (2018, March 30). SHANE DAWSON AND RYLAND DO MY MAKEUP [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/CeCgsmTjHjk

Dyrberg, T. B. (1997). The circular structure of power: politics, identity, community: Verso.

E Rice, R., Katz, J., Acord, S., Dasgupta, K., David, K., Dasgupta, S., & David. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice (Vol. 28).

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. doi:10.1086/225469

Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an Imagined Community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318. doi:10.1177/0002764211409378

Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2014). A methodology for mapping Instagram hashtags. First Monday, 20(3). doi:10.5210/fm.v20i1.5563

Milstein, S., Lorica, B., Magoulas, R., Hochmuth, G., & Chowdhury, A. (2009). Twitter and the Micro-Messaging Revolution : Communication, Connections, and Immediacy–140 Characters at a Time. Sebastopol, UNITED STATES: O’Reilly Media.

Ravndahl, S. [SsssamanthaaMUA]. (2018, January 4). Feeling pretty blessed and grateful [Tweet]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/SsssamanthaaMUA/status/948739378238578688

Tea, H. F. T. (Producer, Editor) (2017, February 16). JAMES CHARLES: IGNORANT COVER BOY? [YouTube video]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/9dTbq5pdYC4

Veletsianos, G. (2012). Higher education scholars’ participation and practices on Twitter. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 336-349. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00449.x

 

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Identifying Generational Differences in the Formation of Identity in Online Communities and Networks

Abstract:

This paper is to examine the generational differences in the formation of identity in online communities and networks. A focus on Erik Erikson’s theory of identity formation and Erving Goffman’s theory on the presentation of self is used to understand the emerging influences on identity formation. The generational differences are explored through looking at ideas of forming identities before we are born following through to digital footprints. The theme that online networks and communities can have both a positive and negative effect on identity is explored. The paper uses implications of new technology as a way to highlight the argument that identity formation has become more complex than it previously has been. In the article adolescents are referred to this can be assumed for the purpose of this paper children aged 10-19. Older generations for the purpose of this paper is referring to those who did not grow up in a fully digital world (30+).

Keywords: generation differences, online identity, identity formation, presentation of self, social networks, online communities

 

Identifying Generational Differences in the Formation of

Identity in Online Communities and Networks

The appearance of generational differences in the formation of identity online is becoming apparent because online spaces are more accessible from a young age. The rapid shift in modern technology and online spaces can be held accountable for this. Online communities and networks as a whole can be a positive experience opening minds and educating opinions. There is also a dark side to networks and communities where people can be bullied anonymously and unrealistic body images portrayed can have detrimental effects on young children/teenagers as they go through the important stages of identity formation. Where immediate surrounding were once the only aspect shaping our identities this is no longer the case in an online world. In relation to this, this paper will explore how forming our identities before we are even born and the exposure to online spaces from a younger age impacts on identity formation compared to older generations. Anonymity online and the rapid shift in new technologies will be used to outline the difference in generational experiences of forming identity. Our digital footprints follow us well past the point we leave our online identities, knowledge of digital footprints have strong impacts on ones presentation of self.

 

Defining Networks and Communities

A community in the general sense is a group of individuals who have a common center to participate in discussion and activities (Coyle, 1941). Communities can be large or small and take many forms such as forums, pages, groups, blogs and chatrooms on or offline.  Similarly, to communities, a network (most commonly associated with social networks) can be defined as the linking of groups and individuals online (“What is a Network,” 2016). Networks and communities work together to create spaces for like-minded individuals. Within these spaces expression of individual identity is encouraged and almost always positively welcomed, however, some online spaces can lead to identity confusion.

 

Discussion

With the advancement of new online platforms for networks and communities the idea of online identities and presentation of self has become more complex. Our youth is an important time to discover ourselves as we begin to decide what we identify with. Our identity refers to ones core values, beliefs and background with many aspects of life having both positive and negative effects on this (Kasinath, 2013). During adolescence, and in the current climate of online culture, it can be difficult to distinguish right from wrong and how you define yourself. With so many outside influence, adolescents can easily be swayed in their opinions, causing them to conform to social pressures from a young age. This continuous pressure during the adolescent stage can lead to identity confusion (Kasinath, 2013). Kasinath (2013) states that when we are in infancy we form a sense of self but as we grow into adolescence we seek to answer the question of who we are. A psychological theory formed by Erik Erikson about the formation of identity follows eight stages of crisis to be resolved by the individual (Kasinath, 2013). It can be argued that older generations were able to overcome these stages more successfully as they were not strongly influenced by negative outside factors and the influence of social media. This is not to say that today’s adolescent generation is worse off than older generations, just that there are visible differences between how their identities are formed. People often use social media to document the highlights of their life, leaving a digital footprint in the process. Leaver and Highfield (2018) explore the way in which people share information about others who cannot speak for themselves and how this information creates a digital footprint. With the rise of technology platforms such as Instagram have rapidly gained popularity and visible networks and communities are visible on Instagram through followers, following and hashtags. It has become a rite of passage for many expecting mothers to post a photo of their ultrasound images to social media using distinctive hashtags where the image can appear in a collective space of similar images (Leaver & Highfield, 2018). Little do many parents know the information they are sharing about their child can hold some very specific and personal identifying factors and this is likely to follow them into the future staying with their online identity forever. Information such as this helps social networking sites who data mine to make predictions and assumptions about their future audiences before the user has even known themselves (Leaver & Highfield, 2018). This initiation of an identity before children are even born is something emerging in social culture now, with the first generation to grow up fully digital now entering adolescence the depiction can be made between generation identity gaps.

In the years 1994-1995 online networks and web-based communities, in the form of notice boards and forums, began to appear but were still foreign to most (Lake, 2009). During the early years on the web, when online networks and online communities began to form, individual presentation of the self online consisted of multiple avatars and identifying handles not directly linked to their offline presentation of self (Leaver & Highfield, 2018). However, this is very different to what we see today, Leaver and Highfield (2018) stating the shift towards presentation of an ‘authentic self’ as the realname web. This shift between generations can be explained by the ages technology is introduced to us when the older generations began using social networks and online communities they had already formed an identity offline and to have an online identity felt like it needed to be privatised and different to their offline presentation of self. Adolescents now have formed their online and offline identities simultaneously which has resulted in a more authentic and real presentation of self online. If we look more deeply into the theory of presentation of self by Erving Goffman, the idea is explored that we present different versions of ourselves in different situations (Kuznekoff, 2012). The appeal of multiple presentations of self is that you can use different presentations to seek benefits (Urick, 2014). The idea that our identity is a performance and our online identities are an extension of ourselves reflects in the way that social media and being a part of an online community has taken over the way we think. Often adolescence will think about their decisions not based on who they will see in person but who will see their online posts from the event. Older generations built relationships based on face-to-face communication where technology has pushed for a shift toward online communication. This means our online presentation of self feels more important than ever and can have some serious implications. As with any performance such as an actor or actress the audience has free will to interpret the meaning (Kuznekoff, 2012). Thus meaning that rather than just freely being yourself the thought is often playing on your mind of what others think of you, this constant pressure adolescents are facing can lead to anxiety, depression and body image issues. Cyberbullying is also a major impact that has been on the rise in more recent years as social media and online communities become a prevalent part of teenager’s lives. In a study by Van Der Nagel and Frith (2015) it was stated that anonymity is useful in allowing exploration of identity without fear of judgment, however, it does open the doors for cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is the act of sending online messages, comments, photos or posts in order to offend or hurt someone’s feelings (Kuznekoff, 2012). With constant access to the online space when bullying in the playground was once escapable it is now much harder to do so when it follows you home.  This can largely impact on the way people form their identity as they see this as part of themselves when they can be much more that what the bully is reducing them to. However, online communities can provide a safe haven for like-minded individuals to escape from reality and thus help them further develop their identities in this sense. Anonymity has often been seen in a negative light due to bullying but it has been found to be an important feature in navigating identity exploration in an online world (Van Der Nagel & Frith, 2015). This suggests that one generational difference in forming identity is that it has become a more complex process of exploration and navigating the online space to form a strong identity compared to what may seem a straight forward path for generations who did not grow up online.

As discussed our online presentation of self is often an extension of our offline identity and in the era of realname web the link between online and offline is synonymous. This means anything online linked to your name creates a digital trace which stays with you forever, even after you pass (Leaver & Highfield, 2018).  What makes up your digital footprint can be seen to make up part of your identity and lead people to make assumptions about you based on what a simple search of your name presents. It can be assumed a generation who has grown up digital will have a larger digital footprint than their elders and there are implications that this can have on present life and legacy. When anyone can link your name to an online identity through a simple google search, it is safe to assume potential employees have easy access to much of your online presentation of self. Depending on the circumstances this can be either a negative or a positive implication of a digital footprint. The pressure younger generations have to keep their digital footprint clean can often be a burden on identity formation as it hinders them expressing their true selves. In Bennett’s study (as cited in Kuznekoff, 2012) it was found that 90% of employers use social networking sites to determine potential employees and 70% had rejected a potential employee due to their social media. This leads to the idea of privacy being an issue for young children who don’t understand the concept of how data spreads and remains online forever (Kuznekoff, 2012). Young children enter private details into online networks and communities having no idea where this information might end up in the future, making them vulnerable to online attack (Gray & Christiansen, 2010). Similarly, to how data mining can use ultrasound images to predict future users, adolescents information can be data mined from networking sites and online communities allowing targeted advertising and suggested friends to be directed straight towards you (Kuznekoff, 2012). These suggested friends may be complete strangers and for a young child on social media this presents many threats. As we age identity can be in constant movement and having documentation of each small and embarrassing part of your identity is not often thought of until a reminder of your twelve-year-old self is brought back onto your Facebook timeline. As we change our identity it is not unusual to no longer identify with specific things and when these things are attatched to your name online it can be hard to escape these labels. Older generations are able to grow and move forward without this reminder of their past, while it is not to say this is positive or negative we can conclude that the experience of a digital footprint is vastly different between generations. Once we pass and our online presentation of self lives on creating a timeline from beginning to end of our online lives we no longer have control or say over what stays and goes, or maybe it is hard to say that we ever did have control.

 

Conclusions

This paper has explored the rapid shift in modern technologies that has allowed children to explore online communities and networks earlier than ever before. This has impacted on the way adolescents form their identities in an online world compared to older generations who were not exposed to online networks and communities until later in life. The road to forming identity has become seemingly longer and more complex with the addition of online networks and communities. This is not to say it is harder for younger generations to form their identities but the experiences between generations is vastly different. Outside influences, such as bullying, could once be escaped but the shift toward and online presence has made these influences more prevalent. However, there are negative influences on identity within networks and communities, there can also be strong positive influences in communities that help people find inspiration that guides identity development and open minds to new ideas. The role that this has on forming identity online can be seen in a physical presentation of self on and offline. Digital footprints are an important aspect in the appearance of generational differences. Younger generations are faced with their young identity following them through their lives even if they no longer identify with this presentation of self. This digital footprint has been proven to impact on individuals search for a job where potential employees make judgments based off this. Younger generations exploration of identity online can take many forms, most of which, are logged and will always be an accessible part of them. Our identities are no longer shaped by our immediate surroundings but by a variety of influences within these online networks and communities.

 

References

Coyle, D. C. (1941). What Is a Community? The American Journal of Nursing, 41(11), 1290-1290.

Gray, D. M., & Christiansen, L. (2010). A call to action: The privacy dangers adolescents   face through use of facebook.com. Journal of Information Privacy & Security, 6(2), 17-32. doi: 10.1080/15536548.2010.10855886

Kasinath, H. M. (2013). Adolescence: Search for an identity. I-Manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, 7(1), 1-6. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-           com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview/1476284556?accountid=10382

Kuznekoff, J. H. (2012). The online presentation of self: Re-examining goffman’s   presentation of self across contemporary CMC contexts. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/ docview/1034564908?accountid=10382

Lake, M. (2009, July 5). Timeline: the evolution of online communities. Computer World. Retrieved from https://www.computerworld.com/

Leaver, T., & Highfield, T. (2018). Visualising the ends of identity: pre- birth and post- death on Instagram. Information, Communication & Society, 21(1), 30-45. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1259343

What is a Network? (2016, Jun 29). Progressive Digital Media Technology News   Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/docview   /1800380713?accountid=10382

Urick, M. J. (2014). The Presentation of Self: Dramaturgical Theory and Generations in Organizations. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 12(4), 398-412. doi: 10.1080/15350770.2014.961829

Van Der Nagel, E., & Frith, J. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3), Retrieved from http://www.ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5615/4346

PDF download: Hannah Bluett NETS2002 Conference Paper

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Building and Playing with Online Personas Through Social Networking Sites (SNS)

by Elli Coppard

                                                         Abstract

This paper explores the concept of online identity and its formation across popular Social Networking Sites (SNS). With the aid of several academic texts, the concepts and ideas concerning online identity will be addressed and developed further. Concepts that will be addressed include the likes of identity construction, anonymity, the World Wide Web, and women’s identities online. The construction of one’s identity takes on many differing forms including selfies, blogging, and usernames. Through the exploration of academia, the methods at which the manufacturing of an identity impacts a person’s live will be brought to light. Furthermore, the impact these types of self-expression are having on technology and communication in today’s social context.

Keywords: Social Networking Sites, Identity, Anonymity, Self-expression, Selfies, Online Communities, Internet, Technology, Communication

The construction of online identity is a relatively novel concept that has been at the forefront of academic writing within the field for the last decade. The ability to present a constructed representation of oneself online allows for users to portray an idealized version of themselves. Furthermore, the inclusivity of popularized Social Networking Sites (SNS), formerly seen through Myspace and now exercised through the likes of Facebook and Instagram, have provided users to successfully facilitate interactions between friends, strangers, and colleagues previously unheard of.

Through understanding and addressing key concepts within the various scholarly texts, the acceptance and opportunities resulting from these online constructions is transparent across all articles. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how SNS, most notably Facebook and Instagram along with progressions in the World Wide Web have enabled users to construct their identities online and communicate effectively with fellow users in a collected, unified, and accepting medium.

                                                 Scholarly Review
In Donath’s (1999) text which addresses how identity is established in an online community, the idea of deception comes into play. Identity can be exhibited through the means of an account name or basic ID, as well as through voice and language. (Donath, 1999). Similarly, identity can be achieved through the means of gaming and role playing, as discussed in Turkle’s (1997) text. Both texts emphasize the ease acquired from constructing your own

identity online. Turkle explains, “the degree to which [you] bring the game into [your] real life is [your] choice.” (Turkle, 1997, p. 162). Likewise, Donath explains how online forums have enabled people to construct their identity accordingly and ultimately explains how these constructions “are more subtle identity manipulations, similar to the adjustments in self-presentation we make in many real world situations.” (Donath, 1999). Donath and Turkle have outlined the ease and affordances that come from constructing an identity online. The level of involvement in the process is down to the user themselves, and the representation of their identity can be as overt as desired.

Before SNS were a platform for self-presentation and identity sculpting, sites such as Myspace and SimLife were the catalysts for self-exploration and construction. Prior to online identities being dispersed amongst accounts, Turkle (1997) looked at how identity can be constructed through Multi-User Domains. This was the beginning of users being able to access multiple domains online. Given the result of this progression it can be said that a “distributed self undermines many traditional notions of identity.” (Turkle, 1997, p. 74). As well as this, boyd (2007) suggests that identity can now be seen as a social process, one that is fluid and contingent on the situation. (p. 14). It can be said that social context bares relevance on how identity can be constructed and how your chosen SNS can affect the means at which you manufacture yourself online. Instagram encourages a more pictorial approach, whereas Facebook a mixture of pictorial and written expression. Therefore, your identity reflects the demands of the given platform of which it is operating within. Conclusively, this advancement has changed how users perceived themselves online. Progressing forward towards today’s context and popular SNS such as Facebook and Instagram have enabled users to “write themselves and their community into being.” (boyd, 2007, p. 2). Once more, the construction of one’s identity online is made easier through the advancements in technology, which has enabled users to not only actively participate in the construction of their online identities, but to present that construction across as many social platforms as they choose.

With increasing availability surrounding how to construct an online identity across popular SNS, the concept of anonymity is raised and its relevance within the oversaturated online world. Frith and Van Der Nagel (2015) illustrate the importance of anonymity in an online space where it is usually a free-for-all to be noticed. The text explores users need for anonymity and pseudonymity online, as they state, “real names can make people feel less safe and can inhibit behavior they engage in online.” (Frith & Van Der Nagel, 2015). The concept of the real identity is central to understanding this text. The attitudes and behaviours users engage in, usually within online chat rooms or forums, is reflexive of a user’s personality. The option to remain anonymous or operate under a pseudonym enables users to feel safe (Frith & Van Der Nagel, 2015). This text reinforces the idea that different identity practices are shaped by specific contexts of use. It also highlights the significance of pseudonymous and anonymous identities on popular SNS as it has allowed users to further explore themselves by allowing certain practices to commence, which otherwise could be deemed inappropriate or unacceptable.

Anonymity can present a sense of security for an online user. The virtual domains the internet provides for users holds no prejudices. The physical domain of the internet however has long been recognized in a simple bedroom analogy referenced within Hodkinson’s (2015) text. Firstly, there is said to be a strong link between the complexities and privacy of both a young person’s bedroom and that of their online identity. (Hodkinson, 2015). Hodkinson identifies this relationship as he explores the spatial analogy of a teenage bedroom as a means to conceptualise the intimacies of one’s identity online. (Hodkinson, 2015). Especially concerning the early online platforms such as Myspace and LiveJournal, the bedroom analogy was accurate in addressing the similarities as teenagers showcase their identities within the confines of their bedroom. Similarly, this construction of identity is transferred to an online medium through SNS. (Hodkinson, 2015). The bedroom analogy has transferred to other scholarly pieces such as Paecheter’s (2013) text which highlights that “online communication takes place within a ‘glass bedroom’: a place in which intimate conversation and exchanges occur…” (Paechter, 2013, p. 114). Within contemporary convergence, SNS are allowing those outside the bedroom to engage or not with what is going on inside (Paechter, C. 2013, p. 114). Ultimately, young people online are continual constructing their identities through the platforms disposable to them. Traditionally, these ties were seen as intimate and private as one’s sleeping quarters. Contemporarily, users are still constructing themselves online, but with a slightly more liberating acceptance of who is in their space.

Through the construction of an online identity, there comes into play a performative aspect to the process. Pearson (2009) highlights the importance performance plays within SNS. Similar to the bedroom analogy previously discussed, Pearson explains how SNS can be seen as performative spaces which create a kind of ‘accessible privacy’. A user can choose to open the door to a private or intimate aspect of their constructed identity (Pearson, E. 2009). The concept of play within SNS is once again referenced within Turkle’s (1997) text sharing that, “the possibilities the medium offers for projecting both conscious and unconscious aspects of the self encourages users to engage in such play.” (Turkle, 1997, p. 163). The freedom provided by such online platforms allows for users to construct their identity within their own limitations or freedoms. Online domains such as Reddit allows for anonymity to be readily exercised online, allowing users to engage in free thought and open communication with others. Furthermore, operating under complete or partial anonymity allows users to engage in positive interactions with other users whom share similar likes and attitudes. This is some ways users can uphold their chosen identity through the means of performance. Pearson explains, “online performance allows individuals to play with aspects of their presentations of self, and the relationship of those online selves to others without directly risking privacy.” (Pearson, E. 2009). The opportunity to operate under a chosen identity provides freedom for users to present themselves as they so wish. Users are able to communicate and interact with other users at their discretion and without fear of judgement or other ramifications. Correspondently, Frith and Van Der Nagel’s research stated that through SNS, the presentation of self was more fluid because people were freer to switch identities on a whim and construct a new identity through text. (Frith & Van Der Nagel, 2015) In essence, every online user is performing to some degree. Pearson has cast light on the ways in which users operate and uphold their identities online through performative behaviours. He finalizes with the notion that, “the audience and the performer are disembodied and electronically re-embodied through signs they choose to represent themselves.” (Pearson, 2009). Thus, the opportunities provided by SNS such as Facebook and Instagram have enabled users to construct their identities completely dependent on how much or how little they wish to display online.

The disparities between gender is an angle many scholars have written about as of late, especially concerning how women construct their identities online. Jimenez et al.’s (2015) text focuses on a 2014 study examining children aged 11-16 in three European countries with how they develop and present their online identities and their interactions with peers. (Jimenez, et al. 2015). The study revealed both genders placed importance on taking selfies and photos in the representation of their online identity. Regarding female adolescents, the study found a higher emphasis on sexualized imagery in the construction of their identities. Though when interviewed, it was found that “girls, instead, discuss the liberating, empowering feeling associated with selecting and controlling their online appearance.” (Jimenez, et al. 2015). In addition, Hawisher’s (2000) text explains how women view their identities online as an empowering concept. (Hawisher, 2000, p. 546). Analysing women’s involvement in how they choose to construct their identities showcases the differences and priorities amongst the genders. Hawisher’s (2000) text reflects on how women represent themselves visually on the web. Women typically choose to sexualize themselves in photos more so than men through the opportunities provided to them through popular SNS, most notably Instagram. This is another way SNS has enabled users to construct identities in ways previously unheard of. Instagram has provided opportunities for women to pictorially portray themselves and their online personas in a way which garners attention, followers, and financial rewards too. Women are now being represented through online advertising in ways that seem familiar but with visual immediacy of the web, it has forever changed the viewing experience like never before (Hawisher, 2000, p. 549).

It is clear that through technological developments to the World Wide Web and the emergence of platforms such as Instagram, the distribution of identity is increasingly apparent. With that in mind, Paechter’s (2013) text argues in favour for the inclusivity of social networking and the idea that identities are now collaboratively constructed (Paechter, 2013, p. 111). This text leads on from the notion that young adolescents mainly construct their identities pictorially, with the use of front facing cameras and the rise of the selfie. A selfie is cardinal to how you wish to construct your identity as it provides a means to visually present yourself online. The emergence of the selfies provides adolescents with the opportunity to manipulate and distort images of themselves to comply with their chosen online identity. These opportunities can be seen as a direct result of new technologies, making the manipulation of identity easier. These technologies have arisen from a perceived need and will continue to adapt by the users themselves to suit their purposes (Paechter, 2013, p. 112).

Through this, it can be understood that the process of constructing one’s online identity is a continual process for both men and women. A process which adapts in accordance to the technological developments in today’s virtual world. Particular concepts, however, such as sexuality and empowerment resonate more with women than men. Jimenez, et al.’s text prioritizes what it means for young adolescence to perceive their desired image online. Both Paechter and Hawisher’s texts elicit the ideas of technological immediacy and the continual changing landscape of the digital world, and the access it provides for uses to construct and distribute their online identities.

With the birth of Web 2.0 and the selection of popularized SNS, constructing one’s identity online has never been more accessible and fundamental to one’s development. Jimenez et al.’s (2015) text confirms the importance of online involvement stating, “constructing an autonomous identity is a fundamental task for adolescents and pre-adolescents.” Within the digital world, participation online tends to follow both cultural and linguistic lines (boyd, D. 2007, p. 5) , meaning the digital language and behaviours of users will continue to evolve as our culture responds to the continual progression in technology. As Turkle (1997) points out, “we are now a part of a culture of simulation.” (p. 78). In essence, our attitudes towards online identity has now become embedded in our daily lives and functioning’s as young people. It is known that users have benefitted greatly through performing in mediated spaces, such as those found in Web 2.0 and other SNS as explained in Pearson’s (2009) text. Furthermore, Hawisher (2000) explains “the web with its graphical interface makes possible … to represent one of our many selves more graphically to the rest of the online world.” (p. 546). Moreover, the media of all stripes have enabled the development of mediated publics, for which users can convene and construct themselves as they desire online. (boyd, D. 2007, p. 8). Platforms such as Instagram and Facebook provide opportunities for users to put out an identity which is fully mediated, constructed and maintained in accordance to the individuals own desires and intentions.

                                                       Conclusion
Through the analysis and understanding of the academic writings regarding online identity, the concepts of construction of one’s identity, anonymity, gender disparities, and the motivation to engage online have been addressed and understood. Constructing an online persona has never been more accessible and pertinent to a young person’s growth and
understanding of themselves as well as their interactions with others, both online and offline. The progression in popular SNS allows for users to engage with others across multiple platforms, as well as interact with others with the safety and security provided to them by anonymity. To understand how online identity is influencing users, conducting further research on this topic is recommend as it will provide stronger insight into the key concepts discussed throughout this paper.

                                                          References
boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked
Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur        Foundation Series on  Digital Learning Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://www.danah.org/paper/WhyYouthHeart.pdf

Donath, J. (1999). Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community. In P. Kollock, & M. A. Smith (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace (pp.29-59. New York: Routledge.
Retrieved from    http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeceoption.html

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday. 14(3). Retrieved from         http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2162/2127

Turkle, S. (1997). Constructions and Reconstructions of Self in Virtual Reality. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the Internet. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Retrieved from
http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Construc%20and%20reconstruc%20of%20self.pdf

Turkle, S. (1997). Multiple Subjectivity and Virtual Community at the End of the Freudian Century. Sociology Inquiry, 67(1). Retrieved from
http://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/pdfsforstwebpage/ST_Multiple%20Subjectivity.pdf

Frith, J., and Van Der Nagel, E. (2015). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the social practices of r/Gonewild. First Monday, 20(3). Retrieved from http://www.ojphi.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5615/4346

Hodkinson, P. (2015). Bedrooms and beyond: Youth, identity and privacy on social network sites. New Media and Society. doi:10.1177/1461444815454

Jiminez, E., Mascheroni, G., Vincent, J. (2015). “Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-naked selfies” : Peer mediation, normativity and the construction of identity online. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(1), doi:10.5817/CP2015-1-5, doi:10.5817/CP2015-1-5

Hawisher, G.E. (2000). Constructing Our Identity through Online Images. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(6), pp. 544-552. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40016832

Paechter, C. (2013). Young women online: collaboratively constructing identities. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 21(1), pp. 111-127, doi:10.1080/14681366.2012.748684

 2018 Elli Coppard. All rights reserved.