This is a learning module for the class Contemporary Social / Mass Media Theory taught at Purdue University by Sorin Adam Matei
Identity theories and social media
What cultural and intellectual forces account for the social and intellectual ethos that fuels the social media revolution? Was the Facebook or blogging revolution a simple effect of new technologies becoming available? How does new media, in turn, influence the intellectual outlook and cultural patters of modern life? What kinds of social groups do the social affordances of the social media produce? How is the presentation of the self influenced by a constantly networked world? Is this a communitarian, or individualist ethos? Is the ”social” aspect of media equivalent to ”communitarian”? Or are we dealing here with an altogther different kind of community, possibly one that is closer to that of ”communitas,” a temporary state of affairs that appear only during ”ritualized” encounters.
These issues can be approached from two different directions. One would look at the unique role technologies play in altering and shaping our experiences. Medium-theory, proposed by Joshua Meyrowitz, author of No Sense of Place, affirms that technologically-mediated communication is a sui generis context that exists outside and is opposed to ordinary individuals. Or, according to Sherry Turkle, our sense of self and deeper understanding of our own ego is shaped by our own image as seen on a computer screen (The Second Self and Life on the Screen). In her view, media impelles on us a second sense of selfhood.
At the other end of the spectrum, technology itself is seen as a consequence of cultural and social choices that precede it. Technology is society incarnate. Social media would thus become a consequence of a game that has already been played.
Readings
Macrolevel analyses of the influence of different communication technologies are more difficult to test and apply than the results of focused studies of particular media messages. Nevertheless, “medium theory” is of potentially great significance because it outlines how media, rather than functioning simply as channels for conveying information between two or more social environments, are themselves social contexts that foster certain forms of interaction and social identities.
This article uses a medium-theory perspective to address one variable related to “technological communities”—the changing boundaries between “them” and “us.” The ways in which oral, print, and electronic modes of communication each foster a different balance between strangers and “familiars” are outlined.
Premises:
- changes in social structures [are] encouraged or enabled by new forms of communication
- how the choice of one medium over another affects a particular situation or interaction
- how the addition of a new medium to an existing matrix of media may alter social interactions and social structure in general
Major question: How do the particular characteristics of a medium make it physically, psychologically, and socially different from other media and from face-to-face interaction, regardless of the particular messages that are communicated through it?
Major conclusion: Each shift in communication is accompanied by a shifting sense of place, by a change in our perception of what George Herbert Mead (1934) called the “generalized other,” those others who seem significant enough for us to imagine how they may be imagining us. Each shift also is accompanied by a new sense of what I have called the “generalized elsewhere” (Meyrowitz 1989), that general imagining of how our locales may be viewed from the outside. [While] printing creates smaller units of interaction at the expense of the oral community, it also bypasses the local community in the creation of larger political, spiritual, and intellectual units. [At the same time] the current postmodern trend is toward integration of members of all groups into a relatively common sphere of experiential options-with a new recognition of the special needs and idiosyncrasies of individuals. Electronic media, therefore, foster a broader, but also a shallower, sense of “US.” The effect of these boundary changes is both unifying and fractionating. The forms of group identities and place-defined roles characteristic of modem societies are bypassed in both directions: Members of the whole society-and world are growing more alike, but members of particular families, neighborhoods, and traditional groups are growing more diverse… Just as there is now greater sharing of behaviors among people of different ages and different sexes and different levels of authority, there is also greater variation in the behaviors of people of the same age, same sex, and same level of authority…. Just as modem European nations developed with the help of printing in the vernacular, which bypassed the face-to-face communication of the feudal system and its network of oral oaths of allegiance, new technologies are fostering the rise of a system of quickly changing neofeudal alliances on a global scale.
Framework: Technological determinism?
Sherry Turkle, Who Am We? (fragments from her book, Life on the Screen)
There are many Sherry Turkles. There is the “French Sherry,” who studied poststructuralism in Paris in the 1960s. There is Turkle the social scientist, trained in anthropology, personality psychology, and sociology. There is Dr. Turkle, the clinical psychologist. There is Sherry Turkle the writer of books – Psychoanalytic Politics (Basic Books, 1978) and The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit (Simon & Schuster, 1984). There is Sherry the professor, who has mentored MIT students for nearly 20 years. And there is the cyberspace explorer, the woman who might log on as a man, or as another woman, or as, simply, ST.
All of these Sherry Turkles have authored a new book, Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet, published November 30 by Simon & Schuster. Life on the Screen tells how the computer profoundly shapes our ways of thinking and feeling, how ideas carried by technology are reshaped by people for their own purposes, how computers are not just changing our lives but changing our selves.
Our conscious presentations of self are often meant to be scaffolding, which–as Goffman points out–can be taken down once it has performed its purpose. For instance, we put up a front in a job interview or our first date with a potential partner, knowing that we can gradually relax the front if the initial contact is successful and leads to commitment.
But on the Internet, our front is being presented to the entire world for all time, and therefore can never be relaxed. We also have to worry, even more than real-life performers, over the essential question of whether we can sustain our performance.
Is Google making us Stupid? Nicholas Carr (see also the book The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains )
A new form of hyperlink is emerging, the “hypertie,” which bridges the gap between links created in computational media and those authored in the physical world when people interact with one another and the objects around them. The hypertie is an innovation in the interaction order, the result of the merger of existing social practices of association with the technical affordances of mobile networked information systems and the existing hyperlink infrastructure. A new era in social life is arriving when the ties that bind people can be inscribed with decreasing effort into forms similar to the ways hyperlinks create connections between resources on the Internet and World Wide Web. New mobile devices represent a novel innovation in an otherwise slow-to-change realm of social interaction—face-to-face encounters. The result is a shift from a social world in which much is ephemeral to one in which even the most trivial of passings is archival.
The explosion in social networking sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Bebo and Friendster is widely regarded as an exciting opportunity, especially for youth.Yet the public response tends to be one of puzzled dismay regarding a generation that, supposedly, has many friends but little sense of privacy and a narcissistic fascination with self-display. This article explores teenagers’ practices of social networking in order to uncover the subtle connections between online opportunity and risk. While younger teenagers relish the opportunities to recreate continuously a highly-decorated, stylistically-elaborate identity, older teenagers favour a plain aesthetic that foregrounds their links to others, thus expressing a notion of identity lived through authentic relationships. The article further contrasts teenagers’ graded conception of `friends’ with the binary classification of social networking sites, this being one of several means by which online privacy is shaped and undermined by the affordances of these sites.
Claims about the emergence of a new type of social aggregation–“virtual community”–cover a type of ideological discourse about social interactions. The main cultural resource fueling this ideology is the counterculture and its social project. Virtual community, both as a discursive and as a social practice, is a culmination rather than a resolution of the modern conflict between community and individuality. Presenting virtual community as a panacea for modern social tensions, especially that between individualistic and communitarian ideals, hides from sight not only some of the negative aspects of on-line social life (cliquish behavior and incivility) but also the role played by communication technology in fragmenting modern society.
The present thesis applies the Goffmanian framework regarding self-presentation to a study of online interactions, specifically within the context of an online dating website. I aim to show that, like face-to-face interactions, online interactions with others influence performances of self. Additionally, the context itself and those interacting within it produce and enforce social norms and rules that further constrain individual behaviors. One’s self is produced through the use of self-presentational performances that are either publicly validated or discredited by interested parties based upon the context interaction occurs within (Branaman & Lemert, 1997). Feedback from others thus plays a large role in shaping one’s self. Goffman’s explication of the self is dynamic: thus, my research question is two-fold: ‘What impact do other daters have upon the way one chooses to self-present?’ and ‘How do the social norms of a particular site of interaction influence presentations of self?’
Related articles by Zemanta
- Purposely shaping interaction in social spaces :: Blog :: Headshift (headshift.com)
- Is social media making many ad agencies look and act the same? (fuelingnewbusiness.com)
I think that the emerging phenomena of real-time social mirror worlds pose some interesting questions about identity construction when both real and virtual life both share the same time/space indices.
Meyrowitz (1997) describes medium theory “as the image of media as environments”. The distinguishing feature of medium theory from other media theories is its emphasis on specific characteristics of a medium or various types of media. Essentially, different media have certain characteristics which make them unique. In the case of electronic and print media, both types of media have specific characteristics which distinguish one from the other. It is this difference that medium theorists are interested in. As a result, medium theorists seek to find answers to questions related to how the different characteristics or features of certain medium (for example print media or electronic media), render that particular medium socially, physically or psychologically different in comparison to other types of media as well as the difference that exist when compared to face to face interactions. These differences are what are examined and not the message itself that is being communicated (Meyrowitz, 1997).
The questions that medium theorists are interested in which is the characteristics of a medium which makes it socially, physically or psychologically different from another are applicable to the macro level or cultural changes as well as the micro level or individual situations. As it relates to macro level or cultural change, the issue is here is in what ways the introduction of a new medium to other existing media result in changes in social structures as well as social interactions. (Meyrowitz, 1997). In my opinion I am sure that with the widespread use and popularity of social media in today’s society there is no doubt in my mind that the introduction of Facebook, Twitter, Skype and other social networks has resulted in drastic changes in the way we socialized and communicate with friends and associates. Even with the use of cellular phones, and the added feature of texting, I find that some people prefer to text than actually make a phone call. So even within one particular medium there is evidence of changes in social interactions and the communication style of individuals due the introduction of new media or new features of a medium.
At the micro level the issue is how the use of one medium as opposes to another impact how people interact with one another. For example how does the choice of making a phone call as oppose to emailing impact social interaction (Meyrowitz, 1997). Again if I may put myself in this situation, the way I communicate and interact with someone while speaking on the phone is certainly different from sending an email. The nature and structure of the conversation is totally different in each situation. I am in agreement with the idea that media is more than just a channel or conduit which allow information to be shared between different people or social environments, instead media provide various social environments which supports various types of interactions as well as social identities (Meyrowitz, 1997).
In answering the basic question of whether identity theories are relevant in social media I would have to say, yes.
In Meyrowitz (1997) the focus is given to “medium theory” which essentially looks at how the medium itself facilitates in the exchange of information, rather than the content of the information a given medium carries. Medium theory examines the characteristics of a medium that make it physically, psychologically, and socially different from other media (Meyrowitz, 1997). Meyrowitz also argues that in place of the dichotomy of traditional society verses modern world of strangers, there is a trichotomy, a third manifistation of the balance of “them” versus “us”.
Sherry Turkles (1993) paper has the premise that we are moving away from a culture of calculation and toward a postmodernist culture of simulation. The article states that computers have gone beyond simple calculation devices and have become a medium for people to simulate portions of their lives. The example of multi-user dungeons (MUDs) is given as a social virtual reality. Users create their own virtual identity to interact with other people; the anonymity of virtual environments gives users the ability to explore and play with their self-identity.
When applying medium and identity theories to social media both Turkles and Merowtiz have valid arguments. In the case of Meyrowitz’s third paradigm of a balance between “them” versus “us”, in social media this especially seems to be true. Although, Internet usage may seem to be driving people apart as in the Kraut, Paterson, Lundmark Keisler, Mukophadhyay and Schelerlis (1998) HomeNet study described. “Them” versus “us” being medigated by social media seems true especially when examining Internet sites such as Facebook and Twitter. In the case these two sites there is an ability to create and join groups of a user’s own interest area. These websites also allow users to send messages to be sent in bulk, giving people to communicate in groups as well. For these reasons the “them” verses “us” is balanced by social media.
Sherry Turkles paper about self-identity is also very relevant to social media. In the article MUDs seem to be an early form of social networking, where everything is conveyed by text. The idea of a person’s online identity not being the same as a person’s “real” identity seem relevant in the current implementation of social media as well. Oram (2009) points out in his article that users of social networking sites are increasingly being expected to disclose their real identities and cross link them to other profiles they may have created. Although, this may be the case there still is an “editing” of ones online persona. My belief is this editing takes place because of the permanence of online postings.
How we “present” ourselves online is so important to understand – from the perspective of the presenter, the presentees and the social ecosystem overall. Do we engage with social networking, blogging and other sites as if we were actors in a drama giving the performance of our lives? Sociologist Erving Goffman says we relax this performance in front of our confidants. But do we ever let down our guard online?
Researcher Sherry Turkle says we operate online under many different “selves,” each part of a multiple, distributed system…much like the Microsoft Windows operating system. Turkle says people who adopt virtual personae that are very different from their physical personae do so for self-discovery and even self-transformation, but that this transitional state or “liminal moment” may not bring about the desired change in the true self.
It was always my understanding that wanting to be someone different (better?) and becoming that person usually requires months, if not years, of intense psychotherapy. Can a simulated environment really create conditions that allow a person to transcend their foibles in both the virtual and physical realms?
Can being “out of your element” help you to cognitively restructure your sense of self as it relates to the outside world, to familiars and strangers? To me, role playing and posturing might allow us to change certain attitudes and behaviors, but I seriously doubt that a mere computer can simulate conditions such that it affects our basic drives, our basic motivations. We still want what we want. However, maybe the social interaction of cyberspace does allow us to see more clearly where we “are” in the scheme of things.
The computer, according to sociologist Joshua Meyrpwitz, helps us to make “new mental separations” (i.e. between the people of a country and their government) as new technological communities change the boundaries between “them” and “us.” The computer – like other forms of new media from the telephone to the television – not only channels communication but also is a social context that fosters “certain forms of interaction and social identities” (Meyrpwitz, 1997). While prefacing that changes in social structures encouraged by new forms of communication are hard to predict, Meyrpwitz sees the Internet making permeable those physical spaces that were previously bounded. These boundary changes, in turn, both unify across boundaries as well as splinter within boundaries. Globalization, combined with a strengthened sense of individualism, is making it more difficult to gauge people based on previous reliable behaviorally predictive demographics.
Meyrpwitz’ Medium Theory, on a macro-level, seems to mirror the sense of multidimensionality within Turkle’s Window’s operating system metaphor. I am beginning to see how the ability to be virtually anywhere, anytime, anyplace with anybody has the power to redefine for us our sense of “place” both physically and psychologically.
“Windows have become a powerful metaphor for thinking about the self as a multiple, distributed system,” Turkle writes. “The self is no longer simply playing different roles in different settings at different times. The life practice of windows is that of a decentered self that exists in many worlds, that plays many roles at the same time.” Now real life itself may be, as one of Turkle’s subjects says, “just one more window.”
I disagree with Turkle’s assertion. I think that while individuals can obviously create a variety of online personas that differ from their “real life” personas, all of these personas still trace back to one individual. That individual is more than “just one more window.” I think of the individual more of as the director orchestrating the actions of personas. Without the director, the orchestra ceases to function.
According to Turkle, people who participate in online role playing activities construct new selves through social interaction. She said, “Play has always been an important aspect of our individual efforts to build identity. The psychoanalyst Erik Erikson called play a ‘toy situation’ that allows us to “‘eveal and commit’ ourselves “in its unreality.” I agree with this portion of her article. Also, I share Goffman’s opinion that “we present a front in all our behavior before others,” but that this front is not usually a result of out-and-out deception or because we are deceiving ourselves. Rather, we just have learned to employ certain behaviors in certain situations to present our true selves in a “stylized manner.”
As websites, especially social networking sites, become more interconnected, our profiles become cross-linked and Internet users will find that maintaining separation between various personas is nearly impossible. As Oram says, “We can’t conceal our true selves for long.”
Turow and Tsui make a similarly astute point in noting “a shift from a social world in which much is ephemeral to one in which even the most trivial of passings is archival.” Our comments, social ties, personas, etc. online can be read, collected, searched and analyzed to reveal patterns and connections. The two authors describe “webs of associations that trace the connections between tens of millions of users.” With much personal information about individuals becoming available and traceable online, how can Internet users trust that their various personas will remain separated?
I see the Internet as moving all users toward Bell’s concept of “life logging,” with individuals having little choice but to watch as traces of their lives remain permanently online.
With the introduction of each new form of popular media, there is without a doubt a shift in how the individual communicates his or her identity. Within the realm of social media, the presentation of self is more important and valuable than ever before. By its very nature, social media puts so much potential to influence in the hands of the user and the content the user creates reflects critical elements of identity. The identity theories that arose in the late 1990s that attempted to predict the power the Internet would have on how individuals express themselves through this new media only scratched the service, given the lack of foresight into what would evolve out of the interconnection of computer networks.
Meyrowitz’s medium theory accentuates the importance of looking at the actual “characteristics of each individual medium” or “each general type of media” as opposed to the messages transmitted through the media in question (1997). He distinguishes between a micro-level and a macro-level. The former looks at how the choice of media platform can change a particular interaction. Users of contemporary social media networks do not necessarily use these more novel platforms in the same manner they would utilize the traditional methods of communication. A message to a coworker in upper management, for example, would be received best via a telephone call or an email. Even more tech-savvy individuals would probably avoid communicating to such an individual via a tweet or Facebook wall post. Each mode of interaction has different implications and oftentimes unspoken meanings and levels of formality behind it. The latter macro-level looks to see how the addition of a new media platform interacts and changes the overall social structures present. YouTube has changed the way video messages reach and affect a public and have even forced the traditional television industry to adopt new strategies and change how their models of communication work. Additionally, the aforementioned social networking platforms have definitely changed how and why we choose to send particular messages. Social networks, microblogs, and other such services have made users more aware of the value of identity and the idea that no longer does a message exists only in one particular moment. Now elements of self and our creations have the potential to exist forever.
I believe that Turkle’s view (1996) that identity is much more complex and powerful in the age of the Internet to be a very lucid and accurate one. Her claim that “computer screens are the new location for our fantasies, both erotic and intellectual” comes across as a bit brash, but much truth can be drawn from this. Her research on the MUD and SimLife identities of the 90s computer games closely mirror the virtual environments and identities found in contemporary social networks like World of Warcraft and Minecraft. More now than ever, as players engage and immerse themselves in these virtual fantasy worlds, “they become authors not only of text but of themselves, constructing new selves through social interaction” (1996). The more modern MMORPGs, like World of Warcraft, not only have the text function, but also the ability to craft a physical character, complete with various weapons, armor, and distinct physical features. Details such as cheekbone structure and eye color can even be altered. The concepts are the same, but the potential to become more engulfed and intertwined with a faux identity is much higher.
Sources:
Meyrowitz, J. (1997). Shifting worlds of strangers: Medium theory and changes in “them” versus “us.” Sociological Inquiry, 67 (1), 59 – 71.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1997.tb00429.x
Turkle, S. (1996). Who am we? WIRED (4.01). Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle.html
A very interesting part about the social media vs. identity discussion is whether social media constitutes and structures online norms or our offline behavior and norms influence the structure of online behavior and norms (Kalinowski 2009). I believe that it is both. Livingstone (2008:7) argues that teenagers’ (identity) choices are constrained by the norms and practices of their peer group and by the affordances of the technological interface (e.g. different kinds of social media). So, depending on which norms and practices are constituted offline in peer groups, public spaces and other sites of social interaction, then arguably we will seek to fulfill our differing social needs, which cannot be fulfilled offline, by seeking out online media for gratifications.
This somehow speaks to a fundamental part of the human being: needs. Therefore I look at the relationship between offline and online behavior as being intertwined, i.e. with online behavior becoming embedded in offline behavior. I also compare gratifications with affordances in the sense that in order to seek gratification, we must also find a media that has the affordances which can then create possibilities for gratification. This however, becomes much more intriguing when we look at Web 2.0. This framework facilitates user-generated content and real-time creativity (O’Reilly 2007). Within this overarching framework, we find social media. In the sense that social media is social, and we arguably seek to use these as a way to express our identities in a way that is not possible offline, or we seek to explore new sides of ourselves that might not be in accordance with offline norms, the relationship between offline and online norms might seem to be in opposition.
Returning to my argument, however, I think that the relationship is intertwined, because online social communities inherently constitute the same roles as in real life. The site of interaction is just web-based. Therefore, I am fond of thinking that social media might as well create norms and practices that may bring us back to social needs which can only be fulfilled offline, such as face-to-face, real life interaction. And turning the relationship the other way around: “technologies can be understood as artefacts which may be both shaped by and shaping of the practices humans use in interaction with, around and through them” (Hutchby 2001:44). So, to end this, I want to state that as long as the practices which we engage in are social in nature, then social media becomes another expression of ourselves and thereby another affordance that, arguably, extends our repertoire of sociality. Media is thus another setting or environment for social interaction (Meyrowitz 1997:60). How we then should measure how social media creates different settings for social interaction becomes a matter of breaking down the different social media into parts to discover how we use these for social interaction so that we might look deeper into the intertwining of offline and online constituencies for social interaction.
References:
Hutchby, I. (2001) ‘Technologies, texts and affordances’, Sociology, 35(2): 441-456.
Kalinowski, Christina (2009). Goffman Meets Online Dating: Exploring the ‘Virtually’ Socially Produced Self. Master’s Thesis. US: Purdue University.
Livingstone, Sonia (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. In New media & society, 10 (3). pp. 393-411
Meyrowitz, Joshua (1997). Shijting Worlds of Strangers: Medium Theory and Changes in “Them” Versus “Us”. In Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 67, No. 1, February 1997, 59-71.
O’Reilly, Tim (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software. In Communications and Strategies, No. 1, First Quarter 2007.
” So, depending on which norms and practices are constituted offline in peer groups, public spaces and other sites of social interaction, then arguably we will seek to fulfill our differing social needs, which cannot be fulfilled offline, by seeking out online media for gratifications.” This is a very intriguing idea… Norms as mediators of needs… Can we restate this a little bit more forcefully? Can we say that needs are the product of media experiences and social norms, that in the end needs are the product of norms? Hm, this really sounds interesting…
I for one, am not willing to substantiate the claim that the media drives people’s needs. Along with the research by Katz, et al. (1973), I believe that people go into every situation with needs, and the choices that they make in life are based on those needs. Media experiences are and media choices fall in line with this as well, in my opinion. We as people are not able to distance ourselves from the basic needs that drive our survival engine. People need the following: physiological (food, water, sex…), safety, belonging, esteem, and self-actualization (Maslow, 1943). As we go through life, we try to seek out and fulfil these basic needs. However, as time has marched on, the way that these needs are being addressed has changed. 200 years ago, most of these needs were addressed within the small group of people that you knew and had daily interactions with. This was due to the limited travel opportunities to meet new people and the small amount of media that the individual was exposed to. Today the way we meet these needs could be very different, depending on the exposure to new technologies. For some in the modern world, many of Maslow’s needs can be fulfilled through social media, some exclusively!
1. Physiological- These needs cannot be fulfilled through social media.
2. Safety- People can satisfy safety needs through the use of social media. Job search boards, networking sites, etc… are ways to satisfy this an aspect of safety needs.
3. Love and belonging- Specific group sites (grief groups, LinkdIn groups), online dating sites, etc…
4. Esteem- people use blogs and social media sites to gain esteem, by acting as an expert or an opinion leader on a variety of topics.
5. Self-actualization- There are some individuals that feel that they can accomplish all that they can through the use of media and social media. Many people publish poetry, articles, and other works exclusively online. They may feel that this is the best way to get their message out and they may reach their full potential through this medium.
All of this being said, I do believe that the use of social media can help define what it is that a person is looking for to fill the above listed needs. A person may believe that they enjoy the company of older friends, but through the use of social media and the internet, discover that they have more in common with younger persons. The need for companionship was inherently there, the medium just helped define that need and scope down the problem. So while I do agree that we may use online resources to fulfill offline needs; the basic need, according to Maslow, is inherently there.
Through this reasoning, by people seeking out inherent need fulfillment on the internet, people drive what is contained on the web. The social media exists because, we as people need to express ourselves and this medium is merely a reaction to that need, not a cause of the need.
As explained in the Meyrowitz article, “Shifting Worlds of Strangers: Media Theory and Changes in “Them” Versus “Us” (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1997.tb00429.x/pdf) medium theory makes the assumption that different types of media interact with the user and the masses in different ways, tasking theorists with the job of distinguishing what characteristics are unique to each form of media. With the development of social media and ever-growing penetration of Web 2.0, it is important to consider how the presence of anonymity during interaction sets this platform apart from more traditional media. As Turkle explains clearly in the “Who Am We?” article (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle_pr.html), the internet allows people to create a “self-image” like never before, putting users in ultimate control over the way that they portray themselves to a worldwide audience.
One example that Turkle uses is that of a 23 year-old graduate student named Stewart who is heavily involved in on a MUD or online role-playing world. In this world, Stewart has 4 completely different characters, a sexy female, a powerful male, a friendly rabbit, and a secret character that he was unwilling to reveal, all of which are very far from who he is in real life. He maintains an anonymous connection between his real life and the “lives” of each character on this online world. This example shows how one important role of the internet is that it allows users to take on different roles that they wouldn’t be able to in the outside world, in Stewart’s case, gender-swapping. This allows connections to be made between the assumptions of internet medium theory and uses and gratifications theory as one can go online to fulfill desires and even needs that their “real life” won’t allow them too. The internet helps people to break out of their comfort zone, allowing them so safely approach new ideals without social implications that may exist off the screen, thus fulfilling their needs with less risk.
Unfortunately, these pseudo lives that are created online often fail to fulfill offline needs. In Stewart’s case, the typically very reserved and unsocial student was able to propose to another online character and become “married” in this MUD. People even met up in the real world (Stewart did not attend)to celebrate the wedding, making Stewart feel as if he was hosting a party, something he felt he could never do in reality. Though this admittedly boosted his online self-esteem, he found that this did not translate to an actual boost in real-life self esteem, as he still felt disappointment will interacting with those offline. This contradicts some of the findings from last week’s discussion about Facebook stemming from this article (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x/pdf), with regards to how participation in social networks can lead to a boosted opinion of one’s self and a heightened sense of popularity. It could be hypothesized that this did not take place in Stewart’s case because the relationships that he had formed originated online with no offline basis. As further discussed in the aforementioned Turkle article, relationships created and formed online tend to grow very rapidly, however if there is no real life interaction to begin with, they often fail to move into the second phase, or an offline relationship, that would actually impact the sense of one’s “real self identity”. According to Turkle, people “fall in love with their dreams, become addicted to them” and the ability to become someone they can’t be in real life (“Turkle, 2004). They use these online worlds to fulfill these dreams.
This sense of control over identity is one of the most important impacts that the internet has in the social realm. The internet gives users the ability to become whoever they want to be, whether at an anonymous level, as in Stewart’s case, or not, for example through a Facebook profile. While this can provide a means of fulfillment and escape, it is important to remember that often times this internet identity is unable to make the transfer into the real life social realm. The Meyrowitz article mentions that something a macro-level medium theorist may look at how the use of the telephone has impacted letter writing and social interaction. In this new internet-era, this question needs to again be considered looking at not only how the internet has impacted other media but also how the internet has changed the way that relationships and identity are formed and maintained in “real life”.
If medium theory and uses and gratificaitons are, indeed, part of the same theoretical family, what family would be that? And what makes medium theory different, after all, from U&G?
One of the interesting parts of this weeks reading was the move beyond the tradition of the conduit metaphor that is deeply rooted in academia and the language used to describe mass media (Reddy, 1979). Therefore I also especially liked Meyrowitz’s (1997) medium theory where the environment created by mass media is the subject of investigation. Central to the concept of medium theory is that media acts “as settings or environments for social interaction” (Meyrowitz, 1997: 60). Medium theory can be said to follow the idea of attributes proposed by Eveland (as cited in Sparks, 2010) but differs by seeing the differences between “particular characteristics of each individual medium or of each general type of media” (Meyrowitz, 1997: 61) as particularly interesting. Mediums should be seen as more then just senders of messages that can be interpreted by the receivers; they can also be seen as structures or environments that afford certain social interaction depending on their characteristics.
Medium theory operates on both the micro- and macro-level where it tries to explain how different mediums influences social interactions or how additional mediums can influence and change social interactions (Meyrowitz, 1997). An example of a micro-level influence could be how Facebook’s message system reveals when the participants in a thread have read any posts, thus it can be said to nudge or afford people to respond quickly. This example also illustrates my point of critique of the medium theory, as I would argue that this reflects a one-way influence from mediums to social interactions. In Goffman’s understanding people “associate certain behaviours as appropriate in certain circumstances” (Oram, 2009: para 5) but it is not the structure or environment of Facebook that solely create these appropriate behaviours, they create the environment that affords certain behaviour but the nudging can be said to stem from the traditional norms of responding instantly in face-to-face interactions. I would therefore argue that it is as much the norms and social interactions outside of mediums that impact how they are used, as it is the environment affording certain behaviour. This of cause does not mean that any behaviour is possible as there are structural limitations in e.g. the use of Facebook and therefore medium theory can be seen as interesting as it can explain how these structures influences social interactions.
This raises an interesting notion if we look to Turkle’s (n.d.: para 18) understanding of mediums like virtual worlds and MUDS as she sees them as “endow[ed] artificial objects with properties, such as having intentions and ideas”. Such an understanding opens up for the idea of agency in the structures of technologies when people interact with them, much like how Meyrowitz (1997) sees mediums influence and afford certain behaviours depending on the circumstances and environment they create.
Works Cited:
Meyrowitz, J. (1997). Shifting Worlds of Strangers: Medium Theory and Changes in “Them” Versus “Us”. Sociological Inquiry , 67 (1), 59-71.
Oram, A. (2009, Oct 26). What sociologist Erving Goffman could tell us about social networking and Internet identity. Retrieved Oct 14, 2012, from O’reilly Radar: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/what-sociologist-erving-goffma.html
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony, Metaphor and thought (pp. 285-310). New York: Cambrigde University Press.
Sparks. (2010). The Impact of New Media Technologies. Retrieved Oct. 4, 2012, from The Impact of New Media Technologies: http://www.wadsworthmedia.com/marketing/sample_chapters/049556785X_ch11.pdf
Turkle, S. (n.d.). Who Am We? . Retrieved Oct 14, 2012, from Wired: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle_pr.html
Excellent definition of medium theory “Mediums should be seen as more then just senders of messages that can be interpreted by the receivers; they can also be seen as structures or environments that afford certain social interaction depending on their characteristics.”
According to Sherry Turkle (1996), our sense and understanding of self comes largely from how we view ourselves via the lens of the computer screen.
Turkle has done much research on the sense of self using MUDs, the predecessors to many online games such as MMORPGs. And we still continue to see much of what Turkle has discovered emerging in modern MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft.
Turkle suggests that MUDs “provide an unparalleled opportunity” to play with identity. We too see this in MMORPGs, where your very first step is to create a character that is “uniquely you”. Most games, like World of Warcraft or Skyrim provide the opportunity for you to customise even the most minute detail of your character.
Identity in gaming is a particular research interest of mine, and World of Warcraft provided a fascinating arena of study when I was doing my undergraduate research.
Much of my research also supported Turkle’s views of how the online arena is a “context for discovering who one is and wishes to be”. Although World of Warcraft is a fantasy world with fantasy races such as trolls, orcs and night elves, players were surprisingly attached to their characters and identified strongly with the racial identity of the race they had chosen. For example, feelings of enmity were strong between the two factions of the Alliance and the Horde.
Another interesting point that I discovered in my research that again relates to Turkle’s views of how we construct our selves, is that occasionally, players would try to break away from stereotypical views of their characters. On a role-playing server where I did my research, some players would describe themselves as a “clumsy night elf”, or a “dwarf that doesn’t just care about gold”.
To me, it was fascinating how real life framed the virtual world, and how in the virtual world, players tried to break away from this image. The identity that we place upon the image of the “elf” or the “dwarf” is created from certain images that we have in real life, ie, elves are elegant (eg Lord of the Rings) and dwarves like gold (eg fairytales). Yet, players try their hardest to create a character that is uniquely theirs, despite being placed into a racially-stereotypical “box”.
Sources:
Turkle, S. (1996). Who am we? WIRED (4.01). Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle.html
The effects of the Internet and social media on our thought processes about ourselves and the world around us are a topic that is very interesting to me. I really enjoyed reading the articles in this unit, and I think that the diversity in both the sources from which they come (many of which are not strictly academic) and the perspectives that they bring is indicative of the fact that these technologies are still relatively new, and we are not quite sure what to think of them yet. Of particular interest to me were the articles that focused on the construction of self and identity in online contexts. From Turkle to Livingstone, each of the authors brought a slightly different approach, but together I think they present a fuller picture of the various ways in which we construct identity online.
I think that medium theory, as presented by Meyrowitz (1997), offers an interesting framework for thinking about the rest of the articles in this unit. This theory’s focus on the specific characteristics of a medium and their effects on communication and interaction is certainly a strong influence for those who argue that the Internet is changing us. Historically, society has shifted from oral communication, to print communication, to electronic communication through TV and radio, to today’s communication through the Internet. However, I believe it is more complicated than simply thinking about the Internet as a whole as a medium. The Internet offers so many different methods of communication that it is more useful to think of the Internet as a collection of different media, as I believe the authors in this unit have done.
For example, Turkle (1994) studied the effects of the Internet on identity, but through the specific medium of multi-user dungeons, or MUDs. These MUDs are simulated environments that allow users to create different characters and interact with other users’ characters. This is obviously very different from other online media in which users communicate using their offline identities. Turkle argued that the anonymity of these environments allow users to experiment with their identities and play out multiple, distributed aspects of their selves, including different personalities, appearances, genders, and sexualities. Through several examples, Turkle showed that these online identity “experiments” can have both positive and negative effects on offline perceptions of self and identity.
However, not all online contexts are quite so anonymous. While some Internet users do still participate in MUDs and other more sophisticated role-playing environments, it is much more common for today’s Internet users to communicate through social media in which their offline identity is clearly on display. I would argue that these social media sites are a different kind of medium than the MUDs that Turkle studied, and while they can also have a significant influence on identity, they do so in different ways. For example, Livingstone (2008) found that teenagers used social media like MySpace and Facebook to express their identities as well as their positions and embeddedness within an offline peer group. A site like MySpace with highly customizable profiles allows teens to express “identity through display,” whereas a site like Facebook with a cleaner layout that emphasizes relationships allows teens to express “identity through connection.” While these different sites offer different means of expressing identity, neither would be possible without the connection to an offline identity, making these sites very different from MUDs.
Overall, these two authors studied very different contexts (different media) and came to significantly different conclusions about the construction of identity online. A complete picture of online identity likely includes elements of both. In some online contexts, anonymity allows us to experiment with multiple, unexplored aspects of the self, and in other contexts, our offline identity is very present and has a strong influence on the type of information disclosed. Livingstone (2008) offered a connection between these two kinds of contexts with her finding that some teens wanted a way to disclose different kinds of information to different groups of friends, which would potentially allow them to maintain multiple identities online. However, as Oram (2009) noted, things like Google search now make it difficult to keep these identities separate, and “we can’t conceal our true selves for long.” Online identity is certainly still a complex topic, and this tension between anonymity and visibility will likely continue to shape online interactions as social media continue to grow in popularity.
References
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10(3), 393-411.
Meyrowitz, J. (1997). Shifting worlds of strangers: Medium theory and changes in “them” versus “us”. Sociological Inquiry, 67(1), 59-71.
Oram, A. (2009, Oct. 26). What sociologist Erving Goffman could tell us about social networking and Internet identity. Radar. Retrieved from radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/what-sociologist-erving-goffma.html
Turkle, S. (1994). Who am we? . Wired. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle_pr.html
The idea of constructing the self within the rapidly changing media landscape is an intriguing notion. From this week’s readings, I would like to examine and challenge the ideas surrounding the construction of self-identity as presented by Sherry Turkle and Erving Goffman.
Turkle presents the computer screen as a place of self-projection, and suggests that individuals can use virtual space to explore real-life problems and potential solutions, experiment with new or underdeveloped facets of personal identity, or live out one’s wildest fantasies. She goes on to say that the experience of splitting the experience of the self into multiple areas results in a “decentered” self-identity. This is not to say that a given individual is playing different social roles depending on the place and time; rather, Turkle suggests that, in today’s media-focused world, a given individual is engaged with multiple roles simultaneously. The author presents “real life” as just another window, or setting in which the individual plays a specific part (Turkle, n.d.). From “Who Am We?,” there is no sense of an overarching self that encompasses all of these different social roles.
The piece by Oram presents a review of Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective. Here, Goffman discusses the idea of life as a series of performances, where a given individual is always presenting a specific front during interactions. These fronts are referred to as scaffolding, used to support a particular image that the individual wants others to have of her. It is suggested in this piece that these personas are easily dissembled and discarded when they are no longer of use, though Oram does raise the concern that this decision would be more difficult today, considering the persistence of information posted in online profiles (Oram, 2009). As with Turkle, there is no sense here that all of these separate performances make up a whole “self.”
I would like to suggest the multiple frames perspective as a contrasting view to these two perspectives on identity creation and management in virtual space. The first conception of the multiple frames perspective was presented by Goffman himself (1974), and the idea was later expanded. This view suggests that individuals have multiple constructs, or frames, through which they view the world. Each of these frames are connected to a specific collection of knowledge and world assumptions, and individuals can move easily between frames when necessary (Consalvo, 2009). This perspective allows for a conceptualization of the individual as a whole self, as well as the individual’s various roles that are enacted in a given context. For example, my overall self includes labels and roles such as student, daughter, friend, teacher, terrible cook, video game player, and Supernatural fan, among others. Depending on the context in which I find myself, one or more of these labels might become more salient. When I enter my Com 114 classroom on Tuesday morning, I am primed to think about the day’s activities and what questions my students might have; when I enter the classroom for our Mass Communication class, I reflect on the readings for that day and prepare for discussion; when I get home on Wednesday nights, I call my best friend from home so that we can sync our Hulu Plus accounts and watch the latest episode of Supernatural together. Each of these roles requires a different set of information to be salient and readily available, but one frame being salient does not mean that I cannot experience other frames at the same time; I may, for example, discuss Supernatural with my Com 114 class. The multiple frames perspective allows for the idea of a whole self, which is made up of the combination of social roles and knowledge sets from various areas of life. In my opinion, this overall self is lacking from both Turkle and Goffman’s ideas, but is an important idea to keep in mind as we consider the effects of and our experiences in the current and future media landscape.
References
Consalvo, M. (2009). There is no magic circle. Games and Culture, 4(4), 408-417.
Oram, A. (2009). What sociologist Erving Goffman could tell us about social networking and Internet identity. O’Reilly Radar.
Turkle, (n.d.) Who Am We?, Retrieved Oct 24, 2013, from Wired: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle_pr.html
How social media affects our presentation of self and our identity and consequently, people’s perception of us is an important question to ask. According to Goffman (1959), our presentation of self in face-to-face interaction is, to a certain degree, a consciously controlled process in which we attempt to shape people’s understanding of who we are, through verbal and non-verbal symbols that we deliberately transmit to them. These may include, the way that we dress and the vocabulary we use for example. Yet at the same time, Goffman also indicates that in the course of our interaction with others, we also contribute to the image that they create of our persona, by allowing them to pick up on a host of nonverbal cues that we unknowingly project and to which we have no ability to control such as, averting eye contact, or unconsciously crossing our arms in a defensive manner for example.
Therefore, our presentation of “self” in Goffman’s view is a process that is controllable by us and subject to our manipulation, precisely because of our active involvement in managing the intentional expressions that we project to others, the same expressions on which they rely in their interactions with us in return. Yet at the same time, our presentation of self is a process that is ultimately limited by our inability to regulate the totality of expressions we project thereby, allowing others to, in essence, double check the authenticity of what we intentionally portray, through assessing the alignment of our unintentional cues with our intentional ones and judging us accordingly.
What is more, for Goffman (1959), this process of deliberately attempting to shape one’s perception in the eyes of others by manipulating and managing symbols, exemplifies a person’s attempt to visualize, construct and play a role that depicts him or herself in a convincing and positive manner to others. Goffman sees this role-playing performance that we put on for people we interact with as one that is akin to the actions of an actor in a theatrical production in which, the actor also plays a role with the ultimate goal of convincing his audience that he is indeed the character that he is playing. Moreover, similarly to an actor’s ability to portray more than one role in more than one theatrical production, people are also able to portray more than one perception of their self to others depending on the social situation in which they find themselves in and depending on the type of people they are interacting with. Furthermore, much like the environmental constraints that the actor finds himself subject to on stage, given the limits of the space in which he performs and the limits of the props that he uses to infuse depth into his portrayal to make his role as authentic as possible to his audience, a person in real life is also limited by his environment mainly the social situation in which he finds himself in and the social norms of his society both of which, affect and limit the authenticity and the nature of his portrayed persona.
Goffman then, indicates that people’s social context and social environment play an important role in setting boundaries and limits for the impressions that people can depict to others within their social setting. In fact, Goffman even suggests that in some instances, a person’s projection of his persona is merely an unconscious representation of what is primarily expected of him given his social status, or the group that he belongs to, or even the social norms of his society hence giving the social context, structure and environment a central role in a person’s construction of himself.
Of course, since Goffman was primarily concerned with face-to-face interactions, the question that begs to be asked is whether Goffman’s theory is in any way relevant or applicable to our expressions of self and identity on social media channels? In my opinion, we could presumably suggest that it is indeed applicable because, people do stage and manage their online presentations of their self on social media, with the intention of deliberately communicating a certain impression of their character to others.
Thus by creating, personalizing and managing their profiles on different social media channels, and within the limits of these channels’ structures, people are in fact manipulating their online image and managing the intentional cues others are exposed to and to which others rely on in shaping their inferences of and interactions with these people.
Indeed, a person’s management and control over the symbols he presents online, which range from choosing a pseudonym for his profile for example, to his choice of pictures and personal information he shares, appears to be a carefully calculated move on the individual’s part to play a certain role for others. However, this deliberate move, much like face-to-face interaction, is more often than none restricted by the environmental context of the social media channel being used and the norms within that social media channel in question.
Additionally, since it is not uncommon for people to create different profiles on social media, with each profile being tailored for a different crowd, one could suggest that this is indeed a demonstration of the idea of role playing that Goffman alludes to in his theory. For example, many people today have more than one Facebook account, one dedicated for family and friends, and another more polished account that is dedicated for work, school and more professional social structures and relationships. Thus, each profile could be taken as a representation of a different role being constructed and intentionally played by the individual for a particular audience and a particular purpose. Of course, the question of whether people can in reality control and maintain a separation between their different accounts and different representations online is a legitimate one, given the fact that anything shared online is always at risk of being exposed to others regardless of the security settings used. Still, we could say that in our face-to-face interactions as well, our different personas are also at some risk of being exposed at one time or another if our different audiences happen to cross paths, and if we are then forced to choose to adopt one role over another when that occurs. Finally, in terms of the non-verbal cues we unknowingly project and whether they translate to our online interactions, I would assume that even though a considerable number of non verbal physical cues we project are lost in our online interactions, there are still some signals that we unintentionally communicate through social media channels, which might be similar in a way to unintentional symbols that people pick up on to formulate a more comprehensive perception of us. For example, things like how fast we reply to messages from others, how we choose to reply to these messages? If for example, we choose to use abbreviations when doing so or not? Whether we use icons when communicating through social media and what kinds of icons we use? Collectively, all of these might communicate something about us to which we are not consciously aware of or intentionally trying to control and as such, might be similar to the cues we inadvertently transmit to those we are in contact with in our physical face-to-face interactions. Of course, whether the above presumptions presented here are true or not remains to be seen since they are but a simple attempt to explore whether Goffman’s theory with regards to self-presentation might be applicable to social media? And so, for these assumptions to be taken seriously it would require a more in depth analysis of the issue.
Take a Dip: The Shallows Have Always Been a Pond
I really enjoyed this week’s readings because (1) they got a little more philosophical (Carr) and (2) they covered a subject I am interested in, that is, the different types of hyperbole that surround discourse on identity in virtual or online communities. I also intuitively prefer to move away from conduit metaphors (Reddy, 1979) and instead align myself with the theories that see media as the setting or environment for social interaction (Meyrowitz, 1997). I view media as a landscape where we interact and not really as containers that embody the social. This being so, I want to position my reflection this week as a sort of response to the Carr piece, with references to the other papers also. I should also say that I really, really enjoyed the Carr piece and am fond of many of the references he makes in it. However, the main takeaway that I got to thinking about as I read Carr (whose recent book, based on this article, is titled “The Shallows”) – that Google and the internet is in some way, shape, or form altering our intelligence to make us “stupid” – is that it is really an age-old argument (as Carr notes) that goes back to Plato. I disagree with Carr, and I would like to argue that technologies (the hammer and Google included) are rather enabling devices that act as constraints and affordances on our intelligence in tandem, and that to read it as being a case of one or the other would be a type of fallacious reasoning that does a disservice to nuanced philosophies of technologies that have developed over the course of the 20th century (Ihde, Mumford, Simondon, etc.).
The brain might be plastic, yes, but to say that just because our ability to “recall” information might be hampered, or our patience to sit down and read a long book may be altered, does not imply that we have become stupid in the sense of a general decline in our intelligence. On the contrary, humans learn to adapt and discover new ways of using tools as they progress, creating new types of knowledge and intelligence that replaces the old type. Carr makes a big leap when he says “thanks to the growing power that computer engineers and software coders wield over our intellectual lives, Taylor’s ethic is beginning to govern the realm of the mind as well” (Carr, 2008). There is an implicit assumption here that all technological advancements are of the Taylor kind, and this is simply not the case. There are areas online, to say nothing of technology in general, where it is not designed “for the efficient and automated collection, transmission, and manipulation of information” (Carr, 2008). Simply put, not all technology is about measurement.
As Metei’s article points out (2005), there are individuals and groups that use technology and onlione environments to further their own ideological stances, which might not necessarily be a form of Taylorism. The virtual world affords places for other modes of life and thinking, and it is not necesearlyi a case of deep and shallow technology. Technology covers all human interaction and has done so according to constraints and affordances for centuries. Take a dip, Carr, the shallows have always been a pond.
Carr, N. (2008). “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/
Matei, S. (2005). “A Sounding Board for the Self: Virtual Community as Ideology.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication. Vol. 35 (4). 345-365.
Meyrowitz, J. (1997). Shifting Worlds of Strangers: Medium Theory and Changes in “Them” Versus “Us”. Sociological Inquiry , 67 (1), 59-71.
Reddy, M. J. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language. In A. Ortony, Metaphor and thought (pp. 285-310). New York: Cambrigde University Press.
Turkle, S. (1996). Who am we? WIRED (4.01). Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle.html
Excellent set of comments this week, very deep and very detailed. I really liked how @Reham explained in greater detail Goffman, @Brad’s attempts to critically assess the literature, @Jessica’s probing of the idea of framing, and Adrew’s Innis/McLuhan Canadian school inspired philosophical meditations about the idea that the medium constitutes the message. The bigger question that remains to be addressed is that of the philosophical assumptions behind these theory, especially that which seems to suggest that technology determines use, comunication, and social interaction. Is there a certain nuance of technological determinism in these readings?
How is the presentation of the self influenced by a constantly networked world?
I was particularly drawn to a few of the readings from this week to answer the question of how the presentation of self is influenced by a constantly networked world. Firstly, I think that mediation is a helpful tool to answer the question of how new media influences modern life. Mediation, mentioned in Livingstone (2008), posits that the effects of messages are influenced by affordances and constraints of the media in question. This makes mediation a very helpful tool in the study of mass media, because it accounts for the variability that occurs over differing media. Further, Medium Theory from Meyrowitz (1997) explains how forms of media can become their own social contexts, that in addition to functioning as a channel between information and culture, operates as a distinct context. Matei (2005) delineated between viewing the effects of new media through ideals of an inherent virtual community and viewing new media as a medium, where the conception of virtual community becomes a variable for analysis.
These tools can help guide possible answers to the above question. Goffman’s presentation of the self certainly does not diminish—it is simply occurring upon a new medium. It is not outdated, as Oram (2009) claims, it was just conceptualized during a previous time. Mediation tells us that operations such as presentation of the self, change according to the affordances and constraints created by the platform they are being performing on. These factors become all the more complicated when the structure of society is not only shaped by new media, but becomes a structure in and of itself. It is also important to divorce new media from any supposed inherent effects that are assumed without question as to their origin. Taking all of this into account, answering the question of presentation in new media becomes a possibility.
Finally, any answers to the question of presentation of the self in new media must be specific. By that I am referring to Smith’s hyperties (2009), which are described as a convergence of links formed computationally and physically. “Constantly networked” needs to be explicated and localized in order to successfully examine variations of the presentation of the self. Hypertie data, gathered from newly developed technologies such as “Spotme,” “Trace Encounters,” and “Life-Logging,” are ideal variables because there is a mandatory distinction between physical, online, and mixed (hypertie) tie-signs. The process would no doubt be complex, but it could promise a comprehensive analysis of how people present their selves when they are constantly connected.
One interesting question raised in the discussion is that whether the presentation of our identity in the virtual world is true to ourselves, or it is opposed to our real identity in the concrete world.
Goffman regarded that the real identity of ourselves arises out of our everyday self-presentational performances. And as Oram (2009) was discussing this premise, he showed his disagreement that “Usually we simply associate certain behaviors as appropriate in certain circumstances; some stylization is inherent in our interactions.” With this, he believes this performance in front of others is still true to ourselves. And I do not quite agree with this point. This “appropriateness” in certain circumstances is determined by the outside force, maybe the implicit cultural codes or the external expectation from the environment, not the actual desires of ourselves. It is something we inherent, but we inherent it as we learn more about the world or interact more with the world, which is still a form of how we present ourselves in front of others. And to approach Goffman’s interpretation of our identity, I would like to understand it from two sides: one being the unpresented “us” and the other being the presented “us”. The unpresented us is kept to ourselves alone, and no other ones have the chance to meet this part of us. And the presented us is our performances in front of others. Both the two parts are concrete elements of our identity.
And as for the question mentioned at the beginning, Meyrowitz (1997) argues in the Medium Theory that the relationship between self and others is linked closely to the special contexts created by different communication forms. “Each evolution in communication forms has involved a shift in social boundaries and hence a shift in the relationship between self and others” (Meyrowitz, 1997, p.62). And different from the Medium Theory, Sherry Turkle (1996) focused on studying how our identity is affected by the communication technology, which has expanded the scope of understanding ourselves. And I won’t view these two theories as contradicting against each other. The Medium Theory focuses on the different characteristics of each medium and the influence of these characteristics (Meyrowitz, 1997). This could be linked to the Uses and Gratification theory that the audiences choose the media based on their needs and desires. Probably, the choice of the different communication medium can reflect the differences in users’ identities. In this way, the medium theory serves as an umbrella to help understand people’s identity based on their choice of the medium and then how the medium is shaping their identity could be further examined, as suggested by Sherry (1996). And when reflecting on the influence of the technology on people’s identity shaping, I feel the influence is definitely present. The Hypertie discussion (Smith, 2009) aligns with the concerns a lot of people hold today. New generations are sacrificing real and deep conversations to merely connection and they are expecting more from technology and a lot less from “us” around them physically. Nicholas Carr (2008) discussed how our reading habit is skewed by the internet, which is a real change in myself as well. The technology has affected the way we process information, the way we interact with people, the way we express ourselves, and the way we build our relationships with others. We rest our identity on the different platforms and define ourselves in the technology. And this is a very risky question to ask ourselves—what if the technology one day betrays us? Like in the movie “Her”, the man fell in love and developed an unlikely relationship with his operation system which can meet all his needs, but only to discover that his “lover” is dating thousands of people similar to him at the same time. It is important to understand how our identities are developing in the technology, but meanwhile it is still necessary to live our identity alive in the concrete world.
References
Carr, N. (2008). “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/
Meyrowitz, Joshua (1997). Shifting Worlds of Strangers: Medium Theory and Changes in “Them” Versus “Us”. Sociological Inquiry, 67 (1), 59-71.
Turkle, S. (n.d.). Who Am We? . Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle_pr.html
Oram, A. (2009, Oct 26). What sociologist Erving Goffman could tell us about social networking and Internet identity. Retrieved from http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/what-sociologist-erving-goffma.html
Smith, M. (2009). From hyperlinks to hyperties. The Hyperlinked Society: Questioning Connections in the Digital Age Joseph Turow and Lokman Tsui, Editors, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press
Social media is capable of creating new communities but these communities are populated with people who are highly aware of their own individuality. This self-awareness bonds these communities of like-minded people but it also undermines them.
Meyrowitz (1997) attributes the rise of the individual to electronic media. He is writing in a time when the Internet and social media are in their infancy but already the effects are starting to be seen. He attributes this to people’s ability to permeate “spatially segregated institutions” (p.65) via electronic information thus breaking down the notion of dividing the world into certain spheres for certain people. Greater availability of information and information sharing leads to greater differences amongst people but has a general homogenizing effect.
Oram (2009) also talks about the breaking down of separate spheres but it is not necessarily a positive thing. He sees the rampant individualism of the Internet as something equally as restrictive as the separate social spheres of the pre-electronic era. Oram compares online behavior with Goffman’s idea of life as a performance. Usually, there is a front stage, where the action happens, and a back stage where the performers can relax their onstage personas. The Internet’s constant presence and pressure has taken away the back stage and now people must be able to sustain their performance all the time. There is more freedom of expression but less freedom to change.
Turkle (1994) also sees the limitations of Internet individualism. She talks about a grad student named Stewart who is able to create his ideal self through his MUD character and be part of a community. Rather than feeling fulfilled by this character, Stewart feels worse about his abilities outside the virtual world. Being able to express himself ends up hurting him more than if he did not have such a platform.
Social media is able to promote both community and individualism but whether these two opposing ideals are reconcilable has yet to be seen.
References
Meyrowitz, J. (1997). Shifting Worlds of Strangers: Medium Theory and Changes in “Them” Versus “Us”. Sociological Inquiry, 67, 59–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1997.tb00429.x
Oram, A. (2009). What sociologist Erving Goffman could tell us about social networking and Internet identity. Radar. Retrieved from http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/what-sociologist-erving-goffma.html
Turkle, S. (1994). Who Am We?. Wired. Retrieved from http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle_pr.html
Great post, very to the point… Nice conclusion, too…
Trukle (1996) suggested that people no more focus on intelligence calculated and computed by a computer machine. From the post-modernist perspective of simulation, the intelligence is created and recombined through the interactions of sub-channels, where multiple selves exist. I agree with her statement that a physically alive self turns to a decentered self in front of a computer screen. Multiple interactions, surrounding a decentered user, are possible with multiple channels. Moreover, anonymity of the Internet enables one to create several selves at one place. The author gives an example of the multiple selves. Playing an online game, Doug, a college student, assumes the role of several characters: a seductive woman, a macho boy, a rabbit, and furry animals. These characters refer to unrealistic images that can be normally accepted in online game interfaces (e.g., role-play games).
As mentioned by Trukle (1996), Internet identity could vary with multiple interactions in several windows at one place. However, it is difficult for a user to control several selves using social media. Sub-channels are closely linked to each other and connected to other sub-channels: hence, they can overlap. For example, all my close friends are connected to me through different social medias, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram, which motivates me not to post unrealistic information about myself on the social media sites. Self-presentation, including profile information, comments, and pictures on social media, is tend to similar with a real self-image (Zhao & Martin, 2008). Moreover, connected viewers recognize a user and his/her beliefs based on the user’s self-expressions. I believe that self-identity, as revealed in social media, is close to “socialized identity” because it is impossible for normal users to post pictures and comments without consciousness of the fact that connected others are watching their activities. This socialized identity on social media is similar to Goffman’s dramatic perspective of self-presentation (Oram, 2009). Goffman considered a life as a stage performance and other people around one’s life as audiences. His dichotomized perspective looks a little bit exaggerated, however, as it explains how self-presentation looks like on social media sites. Accordingly, any postings on social media sites could reflect our performance while connected others could be considered an audience.
I would like to mention the dilemma of online identity, as suggested by Oram (2009): “The artificiality of our participation online, and the limited scope of available media, suggest that the Internet will never let us show our true selves”. In my opinion, people experience dilemma in presenting identity not only in social media, but also in a real world because we are limited to presenting our true selves both in a virtual world and real world. For example, social media gives greater chances to interact with diverse peoples at one place while daily basis face-to-face interactions do not offer such interactions. On the other hand, communication on social media sites is based on texts and pictures while face-to-face interaction has enough communication tools, including non-verbal expressions. Both ways are limited in some ways to show our true selves; thus, people try to stylize themselves in a real world (e.g., manage first impression in a job interview) and control profile information and pictures online. Most people want other people to see them in a way in which they want to show themselves.
What is a true self? I believe people have their own self-identity, but at the same time, their identity needs to be acknowledged and accepted by other people in social context. Then, what is a true self in social media? Could we really say social media is in the social context? How reliably can self-reported perspective approach a self-concept in social media? It is difficult to define the meaning of true self in a social media setting. Because people try to control their self-expressions, as they believe that they are showing their identities through their self-expressions.
Turkle, S. (1996). Who am we? WIRED (4.01). Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle.html
Oram, A. (2009, Oct 26). What sociologist Erving Goffman could tell us about social networking and Internet identity. Retrieved Oct 14, 2012, from O’reilly Radar: http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/10/what-sociologist-erving-goffma.html
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empowerment in anchored relationships. Computers in human behavior, 24(5), 1816-1836.
The second part of the comment is very interesting, very germane for our discussion. What do you mean, however, by your first sentence, and what is the meaning of the first part of the comment, in general? What does “intelligence” mean in the sentence “Trukle (1996) suggested that people no more focus on intelligence calculated and computed by a computer machine. From the post-modernist perspective of simulation, the intelligence is created and recombined through the interactions of sub-channels, where multiple selves exist. “
I agree with Andy Oram (2009), when he states that Goffman’s underlying framework is still valid today. However, I propose a different application of Goffmans perspective, when analyzing how individuals present themselves on social media.
Goffman (1959) is concerned with how individuals present themselves to another based on values, norms and expectations. The theory is focused on face-to-face interactions, and states that individual actors play certain roles depending on the situation they are in. Goffman draws a distinct line between what is public and what is private, and describes how individual’s identities are made up of front-stage and a back-stage. In any situation, actors consider certain behavior appropriate determined by the context the behavior unfolds in. Therefore the individual “performs” on the front stage in alignment with the expectations of a situation or “frame”. Contrary to what happens on the front stage, individuals can be themselves reserved from judgment on the back stage. Only confidants are allowed here, as back region are typically out of bounds to members of the audience.
Although Goffman’s framework was conceived well before the dawn of the Internet, I believe that it stills holds value when applied to present day social media. Livingstone (2008) found that teenagers use both Myspace and Facebook to express their identities, but also noted how they used each network differently. While teenagers on Myspace applied ”identity through display” logic, teenagers of Facebook applied “identity through connection” logic. This implies that there are certain norms and expectations that shape how individuals chose to present themselves on social media. Thus, it could be argued that teenagers do put on a front stage when engaging with peers on social media. This trend can also be seen, if you look at how individuals behave on different social networks in general. The content shared, style of writing and nature of interacting is widely different depending on the network. LinkedIn features strictly professional content, whereas Facebook is shaped by much more personal and private interactions. Content that may be very common on Facebook might be deemed inappropriate on LinkedIn and likewise the other way around. In a sense, each network holds a set of norms, values and expectations, which each user must oblige to in order to uphold “face”. The individual must as a result put on different front stage acts on each network. Granted, it can be argued that the personal characteristics of content shared on Facebook blur the lines between the front stage and the backstage, but in regards to LinkedIn, I would argue, that a front stage performance does occur.
References:
Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday life., New York, Doubleday
Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media & Society, 10(3), 393-411.
Oram, A. (2009). What sociologist Erving Goffman could tell us about social networking and Internet identity. O’Reilly Radar.
For Jessia Snitko
When did it become the social norm to take a picture of your food and share it with 400 of your closest friends? Our parents certainly did not snap a photo of their dinner Friday night, have the film developed on Saturday, and then pass it around school on Monday morning. As new media are developed, social interactions evolve with them (Meyrowitz, 1997). Social networking sites have become environments in which we can share information, find long-lost friends, and join virtual communities of like-minded individuals.(Matei, 2005)
Due to the popularity of social media in our generation it has become increasingly easy to share information, leading to an increase in self-disclosure. Users of social networking sites generally do not seek out strangers and befriend them, but casual acquaintances know more about each other than ever before.(Livingstone) These relationships online rarely transfer to an increase in offline relationships primarily because “there is a limit to the number of people with whom one can feel truly connected.”(Meyrowitz, 1991, p.66) Just because you re-tweet something witty from a coworker, does not mean that you will feel comfortable having lunch with them. Nevertheless, virtual social interaction between acquaintances is increasing, possibly due to the growing visibility of “tickets to talk.”(Smith, 2009) A friend of a friend may share a music video of your favorite artist and because you see you share a common interest, you feel comfortable commenting.
Although social networking site users rarely seek out strangers, the same cannot be said for participants in virtual worlds or MUDs (Turkle, 1997) where the sole purpose is to create an identity and interact with other created identities. Unlike social networking sites, where you present a stylized version of the “you” that people are familiar with (Oram, 2009), the anonymity of social virtual realities provides the opportunity for individuals to experiment with various facets of their personality.(Turkle, 1997; Matei, 2005)
The popular opinion of participation in virtual worlds is that it is detrimental- an already withdrawn individual can become even more reclusive by participating more in their life on-screen than in their life outside their bedroom.(Turkle, 1997) My belief however is that virtual worlds, when used correctly, can be beneficial tools for personal growth and realization. Take, for example, the woman from Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet (Turkle, 1997) who was never comfortable speaking up for herself until playing a strong male character on a MUD. She realized that a firm man was treated with authority and eventually found a happy medium between “firm and rigid” and utilized it in her everyday life.(Turkle, 1997)
Before the widespread use of social media like networking sites and virtual realities, individuals had limited access to tools with which they could form and realize their selves. In modern times, we are able to examine other’s presentation of themselves to develop a sense of social norms and expectations (Kalinowski, 2009) as well as apply other user’s feedback to constantly update and develop the “self” that we display.
Kalinowski, C. (2009) Goffman Meets Online Dating: Exploring the “Virtually” Socially Produced Self. Masters Thesis. Purdue University
Matei, S. (2005). A Sounding Board for the Self: Virtual Community as Ideology. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35(4), 345-365.
Meyrowitz, J. (1997, January). Shifting worlds of strangers: Medium Theory and Changes in “Them” Versus “Us”.Sociological Inquiry, 67(1), 59-71.
Oram, A. (2009, October 26). What sociologist Erving Goffman could tell us about social networking and Internet identity . InRadar: Insight, Analysis, and Research about Emerging Technologies . Retrieved October 19, 2014
Turkle, S. (1997). Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. N.p.: Simon &Schuster.