Abstract:
Everybody is connected to at least one type of community or network. This could be family, work associates, social networks, and online communities. None of us behave in exactly the same way in each of those communities because what is acceptable in one may not be acceptable in other for a number of reasons. This paper argues that our identity is fluid and adaptable and can change according to offline and online environments. The fluidity of identity enables us to engage with different types of communities and networks, either as ourselves or anonymously. There are positive and negative aspects for both, but a major benefit of online anonymity is the protection of personally identifiable information and the preservation of privacy.
Keywords: identity fluidity, community identity, online anonymity
Everybody is a member of at least one community or network. Family groups, church groups, the workplace, physical social networks, online groups and social media platforms, are all different types of communities populated by individuals with something in common. Group membership with others who share similar values and interests will provide a sense of belonging and have a positive effect on self-esteem (Kowert, 2015, as cited in Kaye, Kowert, & Quinn, 2017; Ratanakosol, Pathumcharoewattana, & Kimpee, 2016) through social interaction with other members. Exposure to a number of different groups, particularly online groups with international membership, will introduce group members to cultural diversity and a greater range of different worldviews (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006). Membership of a variety of different communities will also require individuals to perform and present varied aspects of themselves (Goffman, 1956) that will be acceptable in that particular group. Feedback from other group members will enable an individual to adapt and adjust their social identity in order to maintain a favourable impression (Aresta, Pedro, Santos, & Moreira, 2015).
Our identity is a combination of how we see ourselves and how we present ourselves to others (Aresta et al., 2015). This was described by boyd (2002, as cited in Aresta et al., 2015) as an internalised version and projected version of self. It is fluid and adaptable, influenced by the individual’s personality, as well as those that they associate with, and their community membership. Our personal identity serves to both identify us in a group, and differentiate us from other group members (Buckingham, 2008; Corsaro & Eder, 1990, as cited in Mascheroni, Vincent, & Jiminex, 2015). Goffman (1956, p. 10) likened personal identity to a performance in which the audience is “asked to believe that the character they see actually possesses the attributes he appears to possess”. The front is how we present ourselves to others, and the backstage is where the performance is planned and constructed (Goffman, 1956). This backstage may also be representative of each separate community that we are members of e.g. the workplace, home, church or social groups. We behave differently in each and adapt our identity according to the group’s rules and expectations.
There are a number of different opinions about what constitutes a community. Kant had a very idealised utopian idea of community as a place where everybody would be equal and treated with respect, and all interactions “would be based on dynamic reciprocity and responsibility” (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, & David, 2004, p.318). Jung defined community as a collective unconscious, or a “set of universal symbols, responses, and mental conditions that all human being share” (Katz et al., 2004, p. 318), although it would be difficult to find evidence to support this version of community. Rousseau believed that community was an altruistic concept, with “common interests and values, which transcend the different wills of individuality” (Katz et al., 2004, p. 318). Rousseau also believed that social life, egocentric desires, and civilisation were corrupting influences due to their individualistic nature (Katz et al., 2004). Locke believed that “the power of community was in humanity, as a natural right or state” (Katz et al., 2004, p. 318), and that people cooperated, by way of a social contract. This social contract meant that the collective community yielded greater power than that of the individual members of the community (Katz et al., 2004). These definitions are indications of the dynamics involved with community participation that necessitate fluidity of identity for successful community membership (Colombo & Senatore, 2005).
Communicating with other people in the community enables us to associate with those who are similar to us, and also provides the opportunity to learn more about those who are dissimilar (boyd, 2007). Community membership also enables feelings of belonging and solidarity (Katz et al., 2004), and can be described as having strong or weak ties with other members of that community (Pearson, 2009). These ties are dependent upon the level of engagement; whether the other person is a family member, close friend, or acquaintance; the amount of time spent together; level of intimacy, and level of reciprocity (Pearson, 2009). Weak ties can strengthen over time as people get to know each other better, and strong ties can weaken for various reasons such as geographic distance, family break-up, and less time spent together with others.
Some characteristics of a physical community are similar to those of an online community in that they are a group of people who share common beliefs, interests, and similar values (Katz et al., 2004). The main differences are that physical communities enable face-to-face interaction, participation that is often involuntary, and organisational engagement, whereas participation in an online community is voluntary, accessible via technology, and self-organised (Katz et al., 2004). Membership of online communities, especially gaming communities, has been found to have a positive effect that can offset real life social isolation (Kaye et al., 2017). Identity plays an important role in any community setting and the way people present themselves will contribute towards, or detract from, acceptance within that group, regardless of what type of community it is.
Community membership that encourages belonging can increase positivity in social identity that leads to increased feelings of self-worth (Branscombe & Wann, 1991, as cited in Kaye et al., 2017). Social network sites online are a form of community that allows users to have friends, make a profile, allow comments from others, and comment on other people’s profile posts (boyd, 2007). Mobile technology such as mobile phones and tablets have made social media communities even more accessible for people (Mascheroni et al., 2015) as they can update their profiles and upload photographs moments after the photograph is taken. Hu, Zhao, and Huang (2015) found that self-discrepancy theory i.e. the actual, ideal, and ought self, and regulatory focus theory i.e. promotion-focused and prevention-focused representation influence how people reconstruct their identity on social networks. These influences could be vanity, changing from an old social network to a new one, and privacy concerns (Hu et al., 2015). Self-representation will influence how we are perceived by the other members of our social networks.
Goffman (1959, as cited in Pearson, 2009) believed that individuals perform, and shape their identity through social interactions by adapting to suit the environment and their network of associates. Performances are evident on social media platforms and social networking sites where individual users have control of what image they want to portray to others through photographs, social media posts and comments (boyd, 2006, as cited in Pearson, 2009). These social performances, particularly on celebrity profiles, are easily accessed online because they are generally available to the public (Pearson, 2009). Kim Kardashian West’s Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/kimkardashian/?hl=en) site is an example of a social media performance filled with highly-stylised fashion ‘selfies’ and ‘perfect family’ images. Instagram is just one social media site where self-promotion and the posting of selfies takes place, and according to Mascheroni et al. (2015) this type of representation is all about exaggeration as the profile owner attempts to present an ideal gendered image. Highly idealised imagery may assist with preservation of personal privacy, but it also raises questions about authenticity of representation.
Identity is formed and presented according to context and the taking on of social roles in communities (Althusser, 2008, as cited in van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Social identity theory supports the notion that a person’s identity, or sense of self, is shaped by community membership whether it is the home community, workplace, social network, or involvement with other communities like online groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Tajfel, 1978, 1979, as cited in Kaye et al., 2017). Online identities are generally fluid in nature, enabling individuals to present different aspects of self to others in relation to the particular group they are involved with, without placing themselves at risk of exposure (Pearson, 2009). According to Turkle (1997, p. 161) an online identity “is the opportunity to play ‘an aspect of your self’ that you embody as a separate self” in the virtual community that you are a member of. Crowe and Watts (2014) found that online gamers had greater power over their identity online because they could modify and personalise aspects of their avatar, including the gender, and still retain their anonymity. This gives the gamer the freedom to explore the game environment and socialise online (Crowe & Watts, 2014) with others without having to reveal their real identity.
The use of a real name or pseudonym online largely depends upon the individual community rules (van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Mark Zuckerberg, one of the original founders of Facebook, does not support anonymous Facebook membership, and believes that all Facebook users should use their real name (van der Nagel & Frith, 2015) as this promotes honesty and integrity. The premise may seem simple enough, but any regular long-term user of Facebook would know that it does not work as intended due to people duplicating the profiles of others or making profiles with obviously fake names. The use of a real name online can also have negative consequences for security reasons, as it does provide potential hackers and trolls with personal information that could make an individual’s online experience less safe (van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Having to use a real name may also inhibit people from engaging in some communities online, for example homosexual individuals may not be able to come out to their family and need to communicate with others who have had a similar experience (van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). They may be at risk of exposure if they are not allowed to use a pseudonym, while others who may be well-known community members might also prefer to use a pseudonym for online activities for privacy reasons. The adoption of a pseudonym to safeguard anonymity may be vital for people who risk exposure and loss of reputation in other communities that they are involved with.
The use of a pseudonym can be viewed in a negative way, and people who do this may be perceived as hackers, or trolls who deceive others and cause problems on social media sites (van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Online identity deception has the potential to be harmful to others, but it can also be harmful to the deceiver who attempts to troll others and disrupt group conversations (Donath, 1999). Much of online communication and presence contributes towards a community member’s reputation within that group so exposure as a troll will reveal that the person is not a legitimate participant (Donath, 1999) and this is quite likely to lead to being banned from the group. According to Marwick (2013, p. 356) our identity is “socially constructed in tandem with the people around us” and we act differently in different situations. Reconstruction of online identity according to the community can help to prevent problems by enabling the participant to interact with others in a way that is acceptable within that group.
Many people who use pseudonyms do so to enable them to fit in with the various online communities that they frequent (van der Nagel & Frith, 2015) without having to provide personally identifiable information. Two supporters of online anonymity through the use of pseudonyms are danah boyd and Bernie Hogan who believe that anonymity enables more freedom with online participation and provides greater security for internet users (boyd, 2011; Hogan, 2013, as cited in van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). Anonymity in the gaming environment preserves personal privacy and online security, and also enables obligation-free interaction within that group (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).
Gamers who are members of gaming communities online tend to have a high level of social and psychological investment in the group that raises their self-esteem and gives them a sense of belonging (Kowert, 2015, as cited in Kaye et al., 2017). These online gaming communities are often similar to offline role-play activities (Turkle, 1997) and they provide social interactions that are separate from home and the workplace (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006). They also provide an alternative means to communicate with people that they would not normally get to meet in real life. This can be seen as a negative effect as most of this social interaction takes place inside the home rather than outside, but it can also provide opportunities for collaboration and conversation, as well as providing a neutral space that is available at any time (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).
An example of an online community that uses pseudonyms, or screen names, is the KWSN Orbiting Fortress. This message board style forum is the home of The Knights Who Say Ni! (http://www.kwsnforum.com), a distributed computing team that is involved with numerous scientific research projects such as SETI@home (https://setiathome.berkeley.edu) and World Community Grid (https://www.worldcommunitygrid.org). Team members who join the message board are required to use a screen name that provides them with anonymity and preservation of privacy, and many choose something humorous that reflects the Monty Python inspired team name. When Facebook started to become popular internationally some of the team members who were also Facebook users began a Facebook group (KWSN, 2007) where members could communicate. The formation of this Facebook group changed the dynamics of the team communication because Facebook users are required to use their own name. The level of anonymity and personal privacy was reduced substantially as team members began to add each other as Facebook friends, but in many cases stronger ties were formed as team members began to communicate on a different level.
Being a part of a community, regardless of whether it is a physical or virtual online community, provides an individual with a sense of belonging and can elevate feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. Physical community membership enables group members to engage in face-to face communication and there are less opportunities for identity deception. Online communities do not enable individuals to engage in face-to-face communication, although there may be opportunities for those who are geographically close to meet up in a physical environment. Due to the nature of these virtual groups, identity deception is easily achieved through the use of pseudonyms. Facebook is one site that requires users to sign up with their real name, but not all do. There are privacy concerns with regard to using personally identifiable names on the internet and this problem can be resolved by using a pseudonym. Social networking sites allow individuals to become part of an online community, create a profile, add friends, give and receive comments, and upload photographs for others to view. Gaming and other online communities also enable individual members to create profiles and communicate with others. These sites enable individuals to perform, or show another aspect of their personality, depending upon which groups they are members of.
The ability to alter aspects of identity and self-presentation will enable us to behave in a manner that is acceptable in each community that we are involved with. We all perform differently when we are with different groups of people, regardless of whether we are offline or online, because it would not be acceptable to behave the same way in the workplace as we do when we are socialising with friends or playing games online. Online anonymity and the use of a pseudonym can make this easier to achieve while maintaining personal privacy, but sites such as Facebook prefer users to use their real name. They feel that it provides authenticity, but it can also reduce personal privacy and place some individuals at risk of hacking, trolls, or exposure of personal issues. There are many reasons why a person would choose to present themselves anonymously, and these are not always negative. Adapting our identity to fit in with different communities or networks is something that we all do in order to fit in and gain a sense of belonging.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
References:
Aresta, M., Pedro, L., Santos, C., & Moreira, A. (2015). Portraying the self in online contexts: context-driven and user-driven online identity profiles. Contemporary Social Science, 10(1), 70-85. doi:10.1080/21582041.2014.980840.
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/ papers/WhyYouthHeart.pdf.
Colombo, M., & Senatore, A. (2005). The discursive construction of community identity. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 15(1), 48-62. doi:10.1002/casp.809.
Crowe, N., & Watts, M. (2014). ‘When I click “ok” I become Sassy – I become a girl’. Young people and gender identity: subverting the ‘body’ in massively multi-player online role-playing games. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 19(2), 217-231. doi:10.1080/02673843.2012.736868.
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/ IdentityDeception.html.
Goffman, E. (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Retrieved from https://monoskop.org/images/1/19/Goffman_ Erving_The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life.pdf.
Hu, C., Zhao, L., & Huang, J. (2015). Achieving self-congruency? Examining why individuals reconstruct their virtual identity in communities of interest established within social network platforms. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 465-475. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.027.
Katz, J., Rice, R., 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. Retrieved from http://www.comm. ucsb.edu/faculty/rrice/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf.
Kaye, L., Kowert, R., & Quinn, S. (2017). The role of social identity and online social capital on psychosocial outcomes in MMO players. Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 215-223. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.030.
KWSN. (2007). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/KWSNi/.
Marwick, A. (2013). Online Identity. In J. Hartley, J. Burgess, & A. Bruns (Eds.), A companion to new media dynamics. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com.
Mascheroni, G. Vincent, J. & Jiminez, E. (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.
Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide Web’s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First Monday, 14(3). doi:https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i3.2162.
Ratanakosol, K., Pathumcharoenwattana, W., & Kimpee, P. (2016). Learning process for creating community identity. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences. doi:http://dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/10.1051/shsconf/20162601067.
Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D. (2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third Places”. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 11(4), article 1. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x/full.
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.
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.
” Group membership with others who share similar values and interests will provide a sense of belonging and have a positive effect on self-esteem (Kowert, 2015, as cited in Kaye, Kowert, & Quinn, 2017; Ratanakosol, Pathumcharoewattana, & Kimpee, 2016) through social interaction with other members.” This caught my interest. I believe strongly in participation being the key focus of a community, but I had forgotten that social participation is just as important, as opposed to just, as I am here I guess (!), commenting to fulfill a requirement/need. “Feedback from other group members will enable an individual to adapt and adjust their social identity in order to maintain a favourable impression (Aresta, Pedro, Santos, & Moreira, 2015).” – This made me giggle, as I have had to ‘adapt and adjust’ my identity online. Sort of. I just left the group, in my example. Has anyone else done this before? This action I took always makes me query just how much different my offline and online identities are. For example, if I get ‘shut down’ in a conversation in real life, I would probably say something like ‘that’s an interesting point’ and then bail as quickly as possible. The electronic version would be to leave the group. Going forwards in your article, I enjoyed the range of community definitions you quoted – identity, like community, are definitely fluid concepts that can’t be defined by one particular phrase or notion.
————————-
“Highly idealised imagery may assist with preservation of personal privacy, but it also raises questions about authenticity of representation.” – I want to be radical here, does anyone else think that we need to question if authenticity is actually an issue? I mean, if people want to fake Coachella photos ( https://news.avclub.com/influencers-fake-trip-to-coachella-somehow-more-exhaust-1834332337) then does it really matter? A well staged photo, artistically speaking, is just a well staged photo. Any further meaning is up to the individual ‘reading’ the photo. Does that person really care if you like/hate them/their photo? Should they care? Why?
As you can tell, I got a bit carried away with your article! Thanks for writing on such a fascinating topic.
Hi Ineke
Thank you for getting carried away. I really enjoyed reading your comments and I agree that a well-staged photo is just a well-staged photo, but my concern is the authenticity of representation due to the influence that these people have on others. There are some who aspire to be like their celebrity ‘idols’ despite the fact that many celebrity photos are photoshopped and overly staged to present an image and lifestyle that is impossible for an average person to attain. I could have explained that more clearly in the essay.
Hi Michelle,
You explained this idolism quite well in the essay, I was just naughty and chose to gloss over it!
I glossed over it because I feel this is a whole ‘nother essay, discussed in terms of human behaviour.
It is so sad that people cannot see a nice photo and not feel pressured to look like or do what is being depicted. Again, the internet is making this more prevalent, but ‘keeping up with the Jones’s’ has been a thing for so long. Advertising in the 50s and 60s are great examples of this.
I just had another look at the article about the fake Coachella photos and I’m amazed by the fact that people will go to those lengths to present such a misleading self-image simply to impress others in an attempt to gather more followers. I realise that the girl in the article is honest about her ‘fakery’ but many others would have done something similar and not been so honest. I just finished reading Lana’s essay “Life is a Performance: Facebook, Self-Representation and Self-Esteem” and it has me thinking more about how damaging this type of deception can be to other people who may strive to try and achieve these unattainable, seemingly exciting, lives and feel like they are failing when they can’t do so.
I initially went into reading your paper with the idea that a persons fluidity when it comes to their identity was heavily based on their self confidence, in that the more confidence a person feels the more comfortable they are just being themselves and if a person would act differently in a given scenario they were not being their true self. However on finishing your paper you’ve made me think much more deeply into the concept of identity fluidity, that it is not simply about being yourself but more about being who you strive to be in a given scenario. That this ability to act in a way that is most fitting to a situation is not necessarily an act of not being true to yourself and in some cases you may be required to act in a way that could be considered inauthentic in certain communities.
I would say that the way people present themselves online does tend to be quite inauthentic and the concept of identity deception can be concerning although I feel this is only an issue in sites such as Facebook, as you discussed, where a user is required to provide their real name etc as this provide an opportunity for malicious deception and even identity theft.
Interesting comment Aiden – I think if one is genuine in what they post in public forums, the potential for identity theft is lower. At least for the ‘everyday’ person, as most of your online friends would realise you’re posting out of character stuff. However, this is reliant on who you are friends with online and what exactly you partake in online.
The risk of identity theft has got to be higher for home/small businesses that rely on advertising via SNS’s I would think.
It’s hard to determine what is genuine online in my opinion. People have a tendency to sensationalize their reality when posting online, for example someone may go out to dinner with some people they aren’t too fond of and eat some average food however will post a beautiful photo with a glowing caption to match. This doesn’t reflect a genuine perspective of the event that has taken place.
When talking about identity theft of individuals I would think more of someone gathering information about a person and using this information maliciously. I’m interested in your perspective on identity theft when it comes to business’. Do you mean in that someone could easily impersonate a business online and damage their reputation?
It is hard to determine what’s genuine online, for sure. The better question to ask though is, ‘does it matter to me’? Do you really care if people sensationalize themselves and their life on SNS’s? Any true friends I have on SNS’s will often have told me about things before it’s on an SNS anyway. Or if not, it simply isn’t important anyway. My point is that we stress too much over stuff that just doesn’t matter (take it from an expert in stress, haha!).
“Do you mean in that someone could easily impersonate a business online and damage their reputation?”
Yup, or just steal their business by scamming. See below link, but a quick Google search (Instagram scamming) will bring up more.
https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/3/6097891/its-your-face-its-your-photos-meet-the-new-creepy-breed-of-instagram-spambot
This is true for close personal friends. I suppose it is more a concern for those who look up to and follow strangers. Even with acquaintances comparisons can be made between each others lives that are ultimately unhealthy and unproductive.
Hi Aidan
Thank you for your comment. Acting differently in different situations is really just about adjusting behaviour and your ‘public’ self to fit in with a particular group. We moderate our actions and responses according to who we are with. As you said, it does not mean we are not being true to ourselves because we may not want to reveal a certain aspect of our personal identity to others for some reason.
With regard to Facebook, I have found that it seems to be full of trolls with obviously fake identities despite the requirement to use a ‘real’ name. I get the impression that it is not difficult to have multiple accounts under different names, so signing up with a so-called real name really does not guarantee authenticity are reduce trolling.
Trolling is an interesting concept. We would hope that the way online trolls is not representative of their offline identities. It would be interesting to read about the motivations behind this behaviour. Surely users don’t troll in order to be accepted, I would argue that it would create the opposite effect.
I think that people who do troll specifically use fake identities so that people who know them personally won’t find out who they are. It’s hard to say whether they are actually like that in real life but I’m assuming that they use the troll persona online to voice opinions that they might not be able to in face-to-face communication for various reasons. As for popularity, using a fake name to troll would not affect their ‘real’ reputation so I guess it doesn’t matter if the troll persona becomes unpopular because they could still use their own identity in normal online interactions. Have you ever seen the show “Catfish” ?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx_nQwOEimE
People are duped by fake personas online (catfished) and it will quite often turn out to be somebody they know.
It is hard to determine what motivates somebody to create a fake persona simply to maliciously deceive others.
Hi Aiden
I put this in another paper so apologies if this is doubling up, but I am very interested in the notion of self presentation and fluidity of our identities through online communities as well as social media. I’ve written a rather lengthy post below but thought you might find it be interested to read some of the more in-depth theories of self presentation and networked identity that Papacharissi has written a couple of papers on.
If you do get a chance to read, would love to hear you thoughts as it seems on reading Michelle’s paper your ideas on identity fluidity are changing a little.
cheers
Steph
Hi Ineke,
That link you posted about the fake Coachella photos – wow! 🙂 It’s amazing people go through so much trouble to show they were somewhere they weren’t! 🙂 Thanks so much for sharing – it was really interesting to read!
I agree with you to an extent – if someone wants to pretend they were at Coachella (or anywhere else really) through social media, they can go ahead – it doesn’t really affect me personally. So I see your point that authenticity doesn’t always have to be an issue. I think inauthenticity can be damaging though in cases where SNS users regularly see images in their newsfeeds of people being in all these seemingly amazing places doing amazing things, when they’re actually fake/highly-idealised. As I tried to highlight in my paper, displaying these sorts of idealistic self-presentations on SNS can trigger users to make upward social comparisons, which can in turn risk damaging their self-esteem. So while the person posting the fake images might not think or care about the affects it might have on their audience and is probably more concerned about the amount of ‘Like’s they’ll get for the image, I think it would definitely help if SNS users stopped to think about the possible affects on others before they posted fake images or images that depict themselves living a far more idealised lifestyle than their reality.
Yes, the Coachella stuff was really funny, and I could appreciate it from a photographers’ perspective too. Glad you liked it.
“displaying these sorts of idealistic self-presentations on SNS can trigger users to make upward social comparisons, which can in turn risk damaging their self-esteem”
– yes, totally agree that this happens, but who is close to these people and letting it happen? It can be subtle and hard to pick up on, I am a mum and still learning this too, but surely if awareness is there then we should have fewer instances of people believing they need to follow this stuff?
“I think it would definitely help if SNS users stopped to think about the possible affects on others before they posted fake images or images that depict themselves living a far more idealised lifestyle than their reality.”
– Someone who posts fake images is not going to stop and think. The fact that they already post fake images shows that they have self-esteem issues. Or they may just be running an experiment, or have other reasons for doing so. Either way, we cannot ask them to stop and think before posting because you can never control what people think in posting or viewing images.
Perhaps the real debate should be on what our friends and family are teaching us about ourselves and our mental health. Would you agree/disagree?
Hi Ineke,
Thanks for your comment. I’ll reply to each of your comments in the order you posted them:
1. Do you mean who is close to the people making idealised self-presentations on SNS, or the people making upward social comparisons? Either way, I agree, awareness is the key issue here. I don’t think it’s a matter of controlling the user’s behaviour – an individual will make idealised self-presentations and upward social comparisons regardless (whether consciously or unconsciously).
2. No, you can’t control what people think or do when it comes to posting on SNS. My point in the statement I made was that by users simply stopping to think before they post (which I think is something every SNS user can do – stopping to think and gain an awareness before making a decision on what to post is very different from an external influence trying to control a user’s behaviour), users can foster a healthier community on SNS.
On your last point, what external influences (friends/family/teachers/etc.) have to teach us about mental health, self-esteem, social media, etc. I agree is definitely important and part of building awareness around idealistic self-presentations and upward social comparisons. But I think the onus here doesn’t lie solely with those trying to educate/build awareness around these issues. There also essentially needs to be an awareness among SNS users if we’re to build healthier communities online.
Hi again Lana, and thanks for your detailed reply.
Sorry if I’m a bit dense here, but I’m not quite understanding point 2. Can you give me an example?
Specifically I don’t understand ‘different from an external influence trying to control a user’s behaviour’, when comparing to ‘think before posting’. When you are posting on Instagram, for example, could you not be classed as the ‘external influence’? Thanks for your time in re-explaining this to me, I appreciate it!
Hi Ineke!
That wasn’t dense at all! I appreciate you taking the time to ask the questions. And I’m sorry if I’m not explaining well enough – it can be difficult to convey a message through written words sometimes over talking face-to-face!
So regarding point 2. What I’m trying to say here is that as a community of SNS users, it would be great to see people taking the time to stop and think about the possible impacts of their content before they post. Not being forced/controlled to do so, but wanting to do so to help foster a healthier, happier community online. This is of course an idealistic scenario I’m painting here – as just like in the offline space, not everyone stops to think about what they’re saying before they say it!
I hope this explains it better!
Hi Michelle,
I enjoyed reading your paper. I agree with your argument that community promotes a sense of belonging, and this in turn has positive affects on people’s self-esteem and general wellbeing. I think seeking this sense of belonging is really the fundamental reason people join and stay part of a particular community. Once someone feels they no longer belong, then they no longer feel they’re a part of that community.
I think as you point out, using pseudonyms online can be a great way of expressing different parts of our fluid identities, so that we can belong to not just one, but any number of communities that fit our various needs, traits and interests. As you also highlight, “Many people who use pseudonyms do so to enable them to fit in with the various online communities that they frequent (van der Nagel & Frith, 2015) without having to provide personally identifiable information.” I agree, as you mention, that being able to use pseudonyms online can help you to express/experiment with different aspects of your identity in a safe environment, without the limitation/worry of being able to be personally identified. This can be especially important for young people still discovering and defining their own personal identity.
“Adapting our identity to fit in with different communities or networks is something that we all do in order to fit in and gain a sense of belonging.” – I think this was a great way to sum up your paper. Whether in the offline or online space, as humans, we want to belong, and adapting ourselves to our various communities/networks is key to belonging.
Hi Lana
Thank you for your comment. Using pseudonyms online can definitely help to maintain personal privacy, and it is not always done with malicious intent. There are many reasons why people do this, and I totally agree with your statement about young people who may be trying to learn more about themselves so that they can find their place in the world. Public figures might also like to join online groups and chat anonymously simply because they would like to enjoy interacting with others without any loss of reputation, damaging publicity, or loss of privacy.
Hi Michelle,
Good point – pseudonyms I’d imagine come in very handy for public figures who want to chat anonymously. I sometimes think about these public figures like celebrities and how they, just as you say, want to interact with others genuinely and meaningfully like any other human being. Pseudonyms are definitely a great way for them to do that in an online space where they can be free of their celebrity/public status and just engage in conversation genuinely, meaningfully and enjoyably.
I agree with the notion of trying to keep anonymity out of Facebook but I myself have had to have 2 Facebook identities one personal and 1 for business although I try to keep them as sync’d as possible. It is a reality that you do need to appear as multiple versions of yourself depending on the community you are talking too. Gaming is a whole other league where identities are made up completely. When dealing with face to face vs online though I tend to wonder if video conferencing is taking on the face to face aspect so while not physical it is still hard hard to hide expressions as video technology gets better and better. I found your paper to be very topical thank you for presenting it.
Hi Graeme
Thank you for your comment. With regard to Facebook, it seems to be quite easy for people to have more than one account and use different names despite the real name/real identity requirement. I have noticed that a lot of the more nasty and argumentative political commentary that shows up on posts from Snopes, Huff Post, Raw Story and other similar sites, seems to come from people with profiles that don’t look very authentic.
I’m sure a number of people do have personal and business Facebook profiles as you have had, and they do this for very good reasons. You can still be your authentic self on both of those profiles, but you would also be different.
Video conferencing does make it hard to hide what you look like, and hard to hide facial expressions, but there again the side of your self that you present would change depending upon whether the video chat was for personal or business purposes.
Hi Michelle
Great paper, I found in many of the readings that I have done for both my own paper and previous unit that the subject of self presentation and performance in our online sphere to be incredibly interesting.
In my paper which is on how Twitter can be a good reputation management tool for sportspeople, I focus on self presentation techniques and how sportspeople utilise the tool to represent various versions of themselves, or performances as Goffman would allude to. Twitter in particular is a platform that works well for this due to it’s fluidity and immediacy, you can interchange easily between types of self from one tweet to the next.
I don’t believe that these performances can necessarily be seen as disingenuous. Fluidity of personality is who we are, we are adaptable to all situations really both on and offline and this is what makes human being the species we are and not still animals. Our cognitive and emotional behaviour allow us to be adaptable in this way. From your paper, you seem to agree that we all adapt to our audience and situation. If you get a chance to read my paper I’d be interested in your thoughts further on self presentation.
I find Papacharissi’s papers on the Networked Self and self presentation performances in various social media channels a great read (links below). Like many who write on this subject she uses Goffman’s theory that you have highlighted in relation to presentation of the self and how this is adjusted for various social channels.
In her paper ‘Without You, I’m Nothing..Performances of the Self on Twitter’ she starts off by recognising some other scholarly incites into performance and presentations of the self which are really interesting background to how both offline and now online we as humans act within our everyday lives in different ways to the same or to different audiences. It also discusses the bridge between public and private and how we manage and navigate that through social media.
Here are just some key take outs from her paper that I think can be a great start for conversation.
‘Online social platforms collapse or converge public and private performances, creating both opportunities and challenges for pursuing publicity, privacy, and sociality…..In late modernity, performances of the self are indicative of the shapes individuals take on as they claim agency and negotiate power within social structures and imaginaries.’
‘Information communication technologies, such as Twitter, further augment these tendencies by saturating the self with ever-expanding networks of people, relations, and performance stages. Gergen (1991) termed these “technologies of social saturation,” suggesting they provoke a form of performative incoherence by populating the self with multiple, disparate, and even competing potentials for being.’
So here there is disagreement or perhaps an argument that we are not being that coherent and need be aware of that when representing ourselves online.
‘Networked technologies might thus be understood as enabling access to multiple audiences, as well as multiple voices or aspects of one’s own personality……
seeking to understand and combine these multiple potential performances into a coherent narrative of the self, individuals become increasingly self-reflective and self-aware. Understanding one’s multiple potentials requires constant, intense self-reflection.’
Here she suggesting a way that we are starting to deal with those incoherences, we are becoming more adept at managing our identity online through our multiple performances.
I found this interesting as we continue to develop the way we use SNS’s with the way that the technologies change and usage changes along with that, that as ‘Individuals (we) are challenged to manage the persistence, replicability, scalability, and searchability of (our) performances fluently in environments that prompt (and in some instances reward) sharing.’
‘Performing a networked self requires the crafting of polysemic presentations that make sense to diverse audiences and publics without compromising one’s own sense of self.’ In her paper on the Networked Self she discusses how we must manage not only multiple performances to multiple audiences across multiple networks which can create a ‘context collapse’ as boyd discusses, but in the same instance we also have to make sure there is a sense of coherence through all this, so we do not appear to literally be multiple people. This would in itself start to erode trust and reputation. Reputation being one of the most important elements of the self and what helps to build and sustain trust in each of us. Solove, has some very interesting thoughts on reputation in his book ‘The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet’ in how we can manage our reputations when we are also inherently linked with others on the internet and social channels and the effect their interactions with us may have on our reputations, along with how we also manage our own reputation by our actions online.
And this leads onto further discussions that we probably may never have time for but again would love all your thoughts on some of these theories.
Marwick, A. E., & boyd, d. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse,
and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 20(10), 1–20.
Papacharissi, Z. (2012). Without You, I’m Nothing: Performances of the Self on Twitter. International Journal Of Communication, 6, 18. Retrieved from https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1484/775
Papacharissi, Z. (2011). Conclusion: A Networked Self. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (pp. 304-318). Routledge.
Solove, D. (2007). How the Free Flow of Information Liberates and Constrains Us, in The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet. Yale University Press.
Wow what an insightful post. This is such a great representation of this idea that we must have a certain level of fluidity in how we present ourselves. It’s interesting that so often, I at least run into those individuals who claim “I am who I am” and “I don’t change for anybody” but it’s pretty clear that it is entirely beneficial and very normal to behave differently depending on the environment. After all you’d hope you would act differently in a workplace compared to the pub with your friends.
Hi Stephanie
Thanks for taking the time to comment. You have made some great points and I am looking forward to reading your paper.
I feel that we all need to adapt to certain circumstances, particularly if we want to fit in with a specific group. We tend to modify our behaviour according to the expectations of others and this contributes to their perception of who we are as an individual. So, if we want to make a good impression we will ‘perform’ and try our best to become a particular type of person who will fit in. If we don’t want to make a good impression or fit in with a group, we may even go out of our way to go for the ‘shock factor’ and come across as somebody completely different. First impressions count, and we may meet somebody that we take an instant dislike to, and yet others who have met that person under different circumstances may describe them in such a way that it does seem like a completely different person.
It is a very complex subject and the articles you have listed sound like they are worth reading when I have time.
Your paper was an enjoyable read, Michelle. Your argument on belonging made me realise that most online profiles on Instagram are built based upon who they would like to target in order to get more followers – this may be due to wanting to be belonged by strangers who are active online every day. Therefore, they change their identity in order to gain followers which to me users are portraying a fake identity to fit in.
Hi Amanda
You have made a good point. The more exciting, appealing and dramatic their profile is, the more people will be interested in following them. Gathering more followers would give the profile owners a sense of belonging and being part of a community. It would be like having their own community within the larger Instagram community.
Hi Michelle, interesting comment regarding community there; do you think that Instagram actually encourages community, or is it more of a network style of SNS? What definition of community/network do you think fits Instagram as an SNS?
Ineke, you forced my old brain to think about that. Haha. Instagram probably is more of a network SNS because it is more about presentation, image, and acquisition of followers, rather than forming closer ties as people tend to do in a community. However, I feel that regular interaction between the profile owner and followers can lead to forming closer ties that feel more like a community belonging to that profile. Not sure how well I explained that but you can probably get the gist of it.