{"id":325,"date":"2019-04-28T19:59:48","date_gmt":"2019-04-28T11:59:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/?p=325"},"modified":"2019-04-28T20:11:29","modified_gmt":"2019-04-28T12:11:29","slug":"communities-networks-and-people-shaping-our-identity-to-fit-the-environment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/2019\/04\/28\/communities-networks-and-people-shaping-our-identity-to-fit-the-environment\/","title":{"rendered":"Communities, Networks and People: Shaping our identity to fit the environment"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Communities, Networks and People: Shaping our identity to fit the environment<\/a>Download<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Abstract:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Everybody\nis connected to at least one type of community or network.  This could be family, work associates, social\nnetworks, and online communities.  None\nof us behave in exactly the same way in each of those communities because what\nis acceptable in one may not be acceptable in other for a number of reasons. This\npaper argues that our identity is fluid and adaptable and can change according\nto offline and online environments.  The\nfluidity of identity enables us to engage with different types of communities\nand networks, either as ourselves or anonymously.  There are positive and negative aspects for\nboth, but a major benefit of online anonymity is the protection of personally\nidentifiable information and the preservation of privacy.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords<\/em>: identity fluidity, community identity, online\nanonymity<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Everybody is a member of at least one community or\nnetwork.  Family groups, church groups,\nthe workplace, physical social networks, online groups and social media\nplatforms, are all different types of communities populated by individuals with\nsomething in common.  Group membership\nwith others who share similar values and interests will provide a sense of\nbelonging and have a positive effect on self-esteem (Kowert, 2015, as cited in\nKaye, Kowert, & Quinn, 2017; Ratanakosol, Pathumcharoewattana, &\nKimpee, 2016) through social interaction with other members.  Exposure to a number of different groups,\nparticularly online groups with international membership, will introduce group\nmembers to cultural diversity and a greater range of different worldviews\n(Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).  Membership\nof a variety of different communities will also require individuals to perform <\/em>and present varied aspects of\nthemselves (Goffman, 1956) that will be acceptable in that particular\ngroup.  Feedback from other group members\nwill enable an individual to adapt and adjust their social identity in order to\nmaintain a favourable impression (Aresta, Pedro, Santos, & Moreira, 2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our identity is a combination of how we see ourselves\nand how we present ourselves to others (Aresta et al., 2015).  This was described by boyd (2002, as cited in\nAresta et al., 2015) as an internalised version and projected version of\nself.  It is fluid and adaptable,\ninfluenced by the individual\u2019s personality, as well as those that they associate\nwith, and their community membership. \nOur personal identity serves to both identify us in a group, and\ndifferentiate us from other group members (Buckingham, 2008; Corsaro &\nEder, 1990, as cited in Mascheroni, Vincent, & Jiminex, 2015).  Goffman (1956, p. 10) likened personal identity\nto a performance in which the audience is \u201casked to believe that the character\nthey see actually possesses the attributes he appears to possess\u201d.  The front<\/em>\nis how we present ourselves to others, and the backstage<\/em> is where the performance is planned and constructed\n(Goffman, 1956).  This backstage<\/em> may also be representative of\neach separate community that we are members of e.g. the workplace, home, church\nor social groups.  We behave differently\nin each and adapt our identity according to the group\u2019s rules and expectations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are a number of different opinions about what\nconstitutes a community.  Kant had a very\nidealised utopian idea of community as a place where everybody would be equal\nand treated with respect, and all interactions \u201cwould be based on dynamic\nreciprocity and responsibility\u201d (Katz, Rice, Acord, Dasgupta, & David, 2004,\np.318).  Jung defined community as a\ncollective unconscious, or a \u201cset of universal symbols, responses, and mental\nconditions that all human being share\u201d (Katz et al., 2004, p. 318), although it\nwould be difficult to find evidence to support this version of community.  Rousseau believed that community was an\naltruistic concept, with \u201ccommon interests and values, which transcend the\ndifferent wills of individuality\u201d (Katz et al., 2004, p. 318).  Rousseau also believed that social life,\negocentric desires, and civilisation were corrupting influences due to their\nindividualistic nature (Katz et al., 2004). \nLocke believed that \u201cthe power of community was in humanity, as a natural\nright or state\u201d (Katz et al., 2004, p. 318), and that people cooperated, by way\nof a social contract.  This social\ncontract meant that the collective community yielded greater power than that of\nthe individual members of the community (Katz et al., 2004).  These definitions are indications of the\ndynamics involved with community participation that necessitate fluidity of\nidentity for successful community membership (Colombo & Senatore, 2005).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Communicating with other people in the community\nenables us to associate with those who are similar to us, and also provides the\nopportunity to learn more about those who are dissimilar (boyd, 2007).  Community membership also enables feelings of\nbelonging and solidarity (Katz et al., 2004), and can be described as having\nstrong or weak ties with other members of that community (Pearson, 2009).  These ties are dependent upon the level of\nengagement; whether the other person is a family member, close friend, or\nacquaintance; the amount of time spent together; level of intimacy, and level\nof reciprocity (Pearson, 2009).  Weak\nties can strengthen over time as people get to know each other better, and\nstrong ties can weaken for various reasons such as geographic distance, family\nbreak-up, and less time spent together with others.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some characteristics of a physical community are\nsimilar to those of an online community in that they are a group of people who\nshare common beliefs, interests, and similar values (Katz et al., 2004).  The main differences are that physical communities\nenable face-to-face interaction, participation that is often involuntary, and\norganisational engagement, whereas participation in an online community is\nvoluntary, accessible via technology, and self-organised (Katz et al., 2004).  Membership of online communities, especially\ngaming communities, has been found to have a positive effect that can offset\nreal life social isolation (Kaye et al., 2017). \nIdentity plays an important role in any community setting and the way\npeople present themselves will contribute towards, or detract from, acceptance\nwithin that group, regardless of what type of community it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Community membership that encourages belonging can\nincrease positivity in social identity that leads to increased feelings of\nself-worth (Branscombe & Wann, 1991, as cited in Kaye et al., 2017).  Social network sites online are a form of\ncommunity that allows users to have friends, make a profile, allow comments\nfrom others, and comment on other people\u2019s profile posts (boyd, 2007).  Mobile technology such as mobile phones and\ntablets have made social media communities even more accessible for people\n(Mascheroni et al., 2015) as they can update their profiles and upload\nphotographs moments after the photograph is taken.  Hu, Zhao, and Huang (2015) found that\nself-discrepancy theory i.e. the actual, ideal, and ought self, and regulatory\nfocus theory i.e. promotion-focused and prevention-focused representation influence\nhow people reconstruct their identity on social networks.  These influences could be vanity, changing\nfrom an old social network to a new one, and privacy concerns (Hu et al.,\n2015).  Self-representation will\ninfluence how we are perceived by the other members of our social networks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goffman (1959, as cited in Pearson, 2009) believed\nthat individuals perform<\/em>, and shape\ntheir identity through social interactions by adapting to suit the environment\nand their network of associates.  Performances\nare evident on social media platforms and social networking sites where\nindividual users have control of what image they want to portray to others\nthrough photographs, social media posts and comments (boyd, 2006, as cited in\nPearson, 2009).  These social\nperformances, particularly on celebrity profiles, are easily accessed online because\nthey are generally available to the public (Pearson, 2009).  Kim Kardashian West\u2019s Instagram<\/em> (https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/kimkardashian\/?hl=en) site is an\nexample of a social media performance filled with highly-stylised fashion\n\u2018selfies\u2019 and \u2018perfect family\u2019 images.  Instagram<\/em> is just one social media site\nwhere self-promotion and the posting of selfies takes place, and according to\nMascheroni et al. (2015) this type of representation is all about exaggeration\nas the profile owner attempts to present an ideal gendered image.  Highly idealised imagery may assist with\npreservation of personal privacy, but it also raises questions about\nauthenticity of representation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Identity is formed and presented according to context\nand the taking on of social roles in communities (Althusser, 2008, as cited in van\nder Nagel & Frith, 2015).  Social\nidentity theory supports the notion that a person\u2019s identity, or sense of self,\nis shaped by community membership whether it is the home community, workplace,\nsocial network, or involvement with other communities like online groups\n(Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Tajfel, 1978, 1979, as cited in Kaye et al., 2017).  Online identities are generally fluid in\nnature, enabling individuals to present different aspects of self to others in\nrelation to the particular group they are involved with, without placing\nthemselves at risk of exposure (Pearson, 2009). \nAccording to Turkle (1997, p. 161) an online identity \u201cis the\nopportunity to play \u2018an aspect of your self\u2019 that you embody as a separate\nself\u201d in the virtual community that you are a member of.  Crowe and Watts (2014) found that online\ngamers had greater power over their identity online because they could modify\nand personalise aspects of their avatar, including the gender, and still retain\ntheir anonymity.  This gives the gamer\nthe freedom to explore the game environment and socialise online (Crowe &\nWatts, 2014) with others without having to reveal their real identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The use of a real name or pseudonym online largely\ndepends upon the individual community rules (van der Nagel & Frith,\n2015).  Mark Zuckerberg, one of the\noriginal founders of Facebook<\/em>, does\nnot support anonymous Facebook<\/em>\nmembership, and believes that all Facebook<\/em>\nusers should use their real name (van der Nagel & Frith, 2015) as this\npromotes honesty and integrity.  The\npremise may seem simple enough, but any regular long-term user of Facebook<\/em> would know that it does not\nwork as intended due to people duplicating the profiles of others or making\nprofiles with obviously fake names.  The\nuse of a real name online can also have negative consequences for security\nreasons, as it does provide potential hackers and trolls with personal\ninformation that could make an individual\u2019s online experience less safe (van\nder Nagel & Frith, 2015).  Having to\nuse a real name may also inhibit people from engaging in some communities\nonline, for example homosexual individuals may not be able to come out to their\nfamily and need to communicate with others who have had a similar experience\n(van der Nagel & Frith, 2015).  They\nmay be at risk of exposure if they are not allowed to use a pseudonym, while\nothers who may be well-known community members might also prefer to use a\npseudonym for online activities for privacy reasons.  The adoption of a pseudonym to safeguard\nanonymity may be vital for people who risk exposure and loss of reputation in\nother communities that they are involved with.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The use of a pseudonym can be viewed in a negative\nway, and people who do this may be perceived as hackers, or trolls who deceive\nothers and cause problems on social media sites (van der Nagel & Frith,\n2015).  Online identity deception has the\npotential to be harmful to others, but it can also be harmful to the deceiver\nwho attempts to troll others and disrupt group conversations (Donath,\n1999).  Much of online communication and\npresence contributes towards a community member\u2019s reputation within that group\nso exposure as a troll will reveal that the person is not a legitimate\nparticipant (Donath, 1999) and this is quite likely to lead to being banned\nfrom the group.  According to Marwick\n(2013, p. 356) our identity is \u201csocially constructed in tandem with the people\naround us\u201d and we act differently in different situations.  Reconstruction of online identity according\nto the community can help to prevent problems by enabling the participant to\ninteract with others in a way that is acceptable within that group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many people who use pseudonyms do so to enable them to\nfit in with the various online communities that they frequent (van der Nagel\n& Frith, 2015) without having to provide personally identifiable\ninformation.  Two supporters of online\nanonymity through the use of pseudonyms are danah boyd and Bernie Hogan who\nbelieve that anonymity enables more freedom with online participation and\nprovides greater security for internet users (boyd, 2011; Hogan, 2013, as cited\nin van der Nagel & Frith, 2015). \nAnonymity in the gaming environment preserves personal privacy and\nonline security, and also enables obligation-free interaction within that group\n(Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gamers who are members of gaming communities online\ntend to have a high level of social and psychological investment in the group\nthat raises their self-esteem and gives them a sense of belonging (Kowert,\n2015, as cited in Kaye et al., 2017). \nThese online gaming communities are often similar to offline role-play\nactivities (Turkle, 1997) and they provide social interactions that are\nseparate from home and the workplace (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006).  They also provide an alternative means to\ncommunicate with people that they would not normally get to meet in real\nlife.  This can be seen as a negative\neffect as most of this social interaction takes place inside the home rather\nthan outside, but it can also provide opportunities for collaboration and\nconversation, as well as providing a neutral space that is available at any\ntime (Steinkuehler & Williams, 2006). \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An example of an online community that uses\npseudonyms, or screen names, is the KWSN Orbiting Fortress.  This message board style forum is the home of\nThe<\/em> Knights Who Say Ni!<\/em> (http:\/\/www.kwsnforum.com), a distributed\ncomputing team that is involved with numerous scientific research projects such\nas SETI@home (https:\/\/setiathome.berkeley.edu) and World Community Grid (https:\/\/www.worldcommunitygrid.org).  Team members who join the message board are\nrequired to use a screen name that provides them with anonymity and\npreservation of privacy, and many choose something humorous that reflects the\nMonty Python inspired team name.  When Facebook<\/em> started to become popular\ninternationally some of the team members who were also Facebook<\/em> users began a Facebook<\/em>\ngroup (KWSN, 2007) where members could communicate.  The formation of this Facebook<\/em> group changed the dynamics of the team communication because\nFacebook<\/em> users are required to use\ntheir own name.  The level of anonymity and\npersonal privacy was reduced substantially as team members began to add each\nother as Facebook<\/em> friends, but in\nmany cases stronger ties were formed as team members began to communicate on a\ndifferent level.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Being a part of a community, regardless of whether it\nis a physical or virtual online community, provides an individual with a sense\nof belonging and can elevate feelings of self-worth and self-esteem.  Physical community membership enables group\nmembers to engage in face-to face communication and there are less\nopportunities for identity deception.   Online communities do not enable individuals\nto engage in face-to-face communication, although there may be opportunities\nfor those who are geographically close to meet up in a physical\nenvironment.  Due to the nature of these\nvirtual groups, identity deception is easily achieved through the use of\npseudonyms.  Facebook<\/em> is one site that requires users to sign up with their real\nname, but not all do.  There are privacy\nconcerns with regard to using personally identifiable names on the internet and\nthis problem can be resolved by using a pseudonym.  Social networking sites allow individuals to\nbecome part of an online community, create a profile, add friends, give and\nreceive comments, and upload photographs for others to view.  Gaming and other online communities also\nenable individual members to create profiles and communicate with others.  These sites enable individuals to perform<\/em>, or show another aspect of their\npersonality, depending upon which groups they are members of.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ability to alter aspects of identity and\nself-presentation will enable us to behave in a manner that is acceptable in\neach community that we are involved with. \nWe all perform differently when we are with different groups of people,\nregardless of whether we are offline or online, because it would not be\nacceptable to behave the same way in the workplace as we do when we are\nsocialising with friends or playing games online.  Online anonymity and the use of a pseudonym\ncan make this easier to achieve while maintaining personal privacy, but sites\nsuch as Facebook<\/em> prefer users to use\ntheir real name.  They feel that it\nprovides authenticity, but it can also reduce personal privacy and place some\nindividuals at risk of hacking, trolls, or exposure of personal issues.  There are many reasons why a person would\nchoose to present themselves anonymously, and these are not always\nnegative.  Adapting our identity to fit\nin with different communities or networks is something that we all do in order\nto fit in and gain a sense of belonging.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Creative<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

References:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aresta, M., Pedro, L., Santos, C., &\nMoreira, A. (2015). Portraying the self in online contexts: context-driven and\nuser-driven online identity profiles. Contemporary Social Science, 10<\/em>(1),\n70-85. doi:10.1080\/21582041.2014.980840.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

boyd, D. (2007). Why Youth (Heart) Social\nNetwork Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D.\nBuckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning\nYouth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume<\/em>. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Retrieved\nfrom http:\/\/www.danah.org\/ papers\/WhyYouthHeart.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Colombo, M., & Senatore, A. (2005).\nThe discursive construction of community identity. Journal of Community\n& Applied Social Psychology, 15<\/em>(1), 48-62. doi:10.1002\/casp.809.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Crowe, N., & Watts, M. (2014). \u2018When I\nclick \u201cok\u201d I become Sassy \u2013 I become a girl\u2019. Young people and gender identity:\nsubverting the \u2018body\u2019 in massively multi-player online role-playing games. International\nJournal of Adolescence and Youth, 19<\/em>(2), 217-231. doi:10.1080\/02673843.2012.736868.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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

Goffman, E. (1956). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life<\/em>. Edinburgh: University of\nEdinburgh. Retrieved from https:\/\/monoskop.org\/images\/1\/19\/Goffman_\nErving_The_Presentation_of_Self_in_Everyday_Life.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hu, C., Zhao, L., & Huang, J. (2015).\nAchieving self-congruency? Examining why individuals reconstruct their virtual\nidentity in communities of interest established within social network\nplatforms. Computers in Human Behavior, 50<\/em>, 465-475. doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2015.04.027.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katz, J., Rice, R., Acord, S., Dasgupta,\nK., & David, K. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of\nCommunity in Theory and Practice. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Communication\nand Community: Communication Yearbook 28 <\/em>(pp. 315-371). Mahwah, NJ:\nErlbaum. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.comm. ucsb.edu\/faculty\/rrice\/A80KatzRiceAcordDasguptaDavid2004.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kaye, L., Kowert, R., & Quinn, S.\n(2017). The role of social identity and online social capital on psychosocial\noutcomes in MMO players. Computers in Human Behavior, 74<\/em>, 215-223. doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.chb.2017.04.030.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

KWSN. (2007). Retrieved from https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/groups\/KWSNi\/.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marwick, A. (2013). Online Identity. In J.\nHartley, J. Burgess, & A. Bruns (Eds.), A companion to new media\ndynamics<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/ebookcentral.proquest.com.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mascheroni, G. Vincent, J. & Jiminez,\nE. (2015). “Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-naked\nselfies”: Peer mediation, normativity and the construction of identity\nonline. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on\nCyberspace, 9<\/em>(1), doi: 10.5817\/CP2015-1-5.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pearson, E. (2009). All the World Wide\nWeb\u2019s a stage: The performance of identity in online social networks. First\nMonday, 14<\/em>(3). doi:https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5210\/fm.v14i3.2162.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ratanakosol, K., Pathumcharoenwattana, W.,\n& Kimpee, P. (2016). Learning process for creating community\nidentity<\/em>. Les Ulis: EDP Sciences.\ndoi:http:\/\/dx.doi.org.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au\/10.1051\/shsconf\/20162601067.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Steinkuehler, C. & Williams, D.\n(2006). Where Everybody Knows Your (Screen) Name: Online Games as “Third\nPlaces”. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication<\/em>, 11<\/em>(4), article 1. Retrieved from http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/j.1083-6101.2006.00300.x\/full.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turkle, S. (1997). Constructions and\nReconstructions of Self in Virtual Reality. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture\nof the Internet<\/em>. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
\nRetrieved from http:\/\/www.mit.edu\/~sturkle\/pdfsforstwebpage\/ ST_Construc%20and%20reconstruc%20of%20self.pdf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

van der Nagel, E. & Frith, J. (2015).\nAnonymity, pseudonymity, and the agency of online identity: Examining the\nsocial practices of r\/Gonewild. First Monday, 20<\/em>(3), Retrieved\nfrom http:\/\/www.ojphi.org\/ojs\/index.php\/fm\/article\/view\/5615\/4346.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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.… Continue reading Communities, Networks and People: Shaping our identity to fit the environment<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":27,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[171,169,167,168,170],"class_list":["post-325","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-identity","tag-communities-and-networks","tag-community-identity","tag-identity","tag-identity-fluidity","tag-online-anonymity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/325","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/27"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=325"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/325\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":336,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/325\/revisions\/336"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=325"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=325"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/networkconference.netstudies.org\/2019Open\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=325"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}