An investigation into the individuality of Identity construction.
Jonathon Toon
300164039
What is Identity? Identity is the condition of how we convey ourselves; it is the sense of oneself, the strive for variation, and the fight to reduce sameness. As individuals how we consider our personal identity in modern society has changed dramatically within the last ten years. Spurred on by the marriage and integration of digital technologies with design ideologies in our daily lives, we no longer view ourselves as subject to the tangible persona we carry in the “real” world. The attention we put into crafting the digital representations of ourselves is increasing in priority, as we become constantly more involved in online communities, rejecting how we view ourselves as physical individuals in favor for the digital alternative.
Within this essay I plan to research how design, not in terms of visual aesthetic, but in the context of interaction, has influenced the creation of the online identity. I intend to address two issues behind identity construction using the open community, Facebook, the first issue being the motives given in joining the community, and secondly the aspect of choice, the methods Facebook users use to construct their identities. With these points I wish to illustrate the overall argument that in using social media we have begun to take on the role of the designer, by intelligently constructing our identities in these virtual spaces, as individuals influenced by community experience and interaction, as opposed to a common view being establish that we are simply self-centered consumers of digital information.
My reason for analyzing online identity within the social networking site Facebook, is because the perspective covered is more relatable to the individual, for the goal of social networking consists of basic human conversation and narrative. Other models of identity do exist though, an example would be in gaming culture, where a virtual identity, or a “spatial medium” allows for players to control three dimensional in-world characters, to achieve in-game goals. “Identification with the character has little to do with the character’s appearance. Instead one connects it to the way the character functions and fulfills its tasks in the game.” (Hilde, G. C., Rettberg, W. J., Tronstad, R., 2008, p. 249) This quote embodies my reason for omitting this example from my analysis, as the concept of virtual identity is abstracted to much from the individual, not to mention the demographic is lesser than that of social networking.
Facebook, like so many other online successes such as Google, or YouTube, is now home to over 60 million users with over 70% of users are outside the United States (Facebook, 2010). It was originally designed in 2004 by two Harvard University undergraduates in order to let fellow Harvard students interact, and to establish relationships with each other on campus. The users of “the Facebook” as it was called, were able to construct identities by uploading personal details onto their profile pages, including what they were currently doing (status updates), whether they were dating (and whom), what music they had in rotation, as well as post up personal photos (Thompson. C, 2008).
We can see now that the evolution of “the Facebook” concept has expanded to the world, beginning to give more possibility to the idea that users are intelligently designing their identities by spending large portions of their daily schedule editing their online profiles, as well as interacting with fellow users. With this information becoming more obvious, the question must be asked, is there purpose behind a user’s motive to construct an online Facebook identity, what is it that motivates us to spend this large amount of time on a social network? Moreover, why are we choosing Facebook, a widely public community, over more anonymous alternates like Myspace?
In looking at the physical world we see it is built on human interaction and communication. This is because such things are staple tasks we must commit to as we inhabit dense spaces, constantly surrounded by outlets of correspondence on visual, oral and emotional levels. Given society’s recent hybridization with the Internet, it is no surprise that we have begun to see a similar scenario unfold online, a change in direction in communication (van Kokswijk, 2007). New environments are being designed online daily, so now the individual finds it just as necessary to join these new environments, to interact and to socialize.
In challenging this statement Baumeister and Leary (cited by Gangadharbatla, H. 2008) argue that this “necessity “is nothing but a motivation to cultivate a self-importnt image, as social networking offers a place where the human need to belong can be fulfilled by creating an identity and using services provided by websites to learn about other individuals, gain approval from peers, voice an opinion, or influence others. Also cited by Gangadharbatla(2008) a supporting aspect of this put forward by Tajfel is that a” social network implements a collective self-esteem, where the knowledge of a membership in a social group together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership gives a sense of value” (para. 17).
These statements definitely contain truths concerning the aspects of community and human nature within social networks for it is an inarguable fact that humans need healthy correspondence and emotional reassurance. However, one must not get the misconception that we use social networking for explicitly objective means of self-fulfillment. It would be ignorant to suggest that such cases don’t exist but the motives of identity construction go deeper than that.
Ironic as it is though individualism actually depends on these aforementioned aspects, as Rosenberg states (cited by Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., Martin, J. 2008) the construction of identity, ones reference to oneself, is a public process, as they come to be shaped through social interaction and participation (Silverstone. R, Liestol. R, Morrison. A, Rasmussen. T, 2003). Given the citations above, we begin to see that the creation of an identity is a gradual process, as the user develops knowledge by experiencing, and interacting.
As a case in point, why are users choosing such open outlets as Facebook to construct identities instead of other social network services like Myspace, a predecessor that focused more on user individuality and anonymity through detailed customization. It seems to be that the individual seeks more provoking and dynamic communities despite expecting a more anonymous setting to be less intimidating and more liberating. Statements by McClard & Anderson (2008) seem to coincide with this theory as “Facebook, unlike MySpace, is dynamic rather than static; it constantly updates itself, providing an online presence in which one’s online identity is not reduced to a list of facts” (p. 12).
The next area that addresses my theory that we intelligently form our identities, is found in the subject of choice, the methods, and deciding factors in which an identity is presented. This is because as the individual sculpts an identity they are forced to take on the responsibility to make moral decisions, based on their social interaction, determining how they are viewed. What we are confronted with is two aspects of choice, whether we use our Facebook identity to reflect our actual self, an identity that refers to our human and emotional aspects in the physical world, or rather our ideal self, how we would like to see ourselves and how we would like others to perceive us in reality.
When forming an identity on Facebook, users are encouraged to construct accurate representations of themselves to maintain public authenticity; however participants do this to varying degrees, as social and technological forces shape overall user practices (Ellison, N, B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C., 2007). An argument against this Facebook model of the actual self put forth by Wollam (2008) states that while Facebook seeks to promote a pseudo authentic community, most users ignore this by fabricating their identities and deducting all personal details apart from the most essential qualities by which they wish to be known, because the individual cares more about self-representation than the collective goal of interaction. In illustrating this point of view van Kokswijk(2007) says that “identity is a pure construct of the individual, that may or may not reflect reality, as the ability to assume an alias, a new identity and masquerade as something you are not, is a liberating experience.”
Grossman(2007) counter acts this though, by stating that because of the open format, severe identity fabrication on Facebook is simply a waste of time and is self-defeating, as “identity is not a performance or a toy on Facebook; it is a fixed and orderly fact� (para. 4). In short, Grossman is not deterring individuality or identity, but is rather supporting more the side of the actual self, not in the sense that we must all present ourselves realistically online, but just not to over fabricate.
Such circumstances as these may be observed on Facebook as a user with physical ailments may compose their photo uploads in a certain way to ensure they are presented more attractively, while an introverted person could interact frequently and post often engaging status updates online without feeling physically intimidated, when another user who may experience a lot of condemnation and prejudice in society can omit certain political, religious, and ethical information allowing them to act freely without any hindrance.
The point here I am trying to make is not to argue whether fabrication of ones identity is a good or bad thing, but rather to show how this concept of choice embodies the fact that the individual has the power to totally re-construct themselves in a new world, a free world. In turn the examples given exemplify the fact that we consider this construction not as a consumer being told how to act and what to do, but rather as individuals influenced by aspects of human nature.
In summary my investigation has taken us through the motives of identity construction and we have seen that the task of interaction within a social network is essential, as identities are fluid entities that constantly change, thus we require social stimulus through the engagement in an active community in order to grow. In linking to the fluidity of an identity we have also seen that its creation is more than a mere slapped together persona, as the individual assumes responsibility of his or herself in order to refine the bounds of their identity based upon how they wish to be viewed by others. So in referring back to my original statement, we see that we are not consumer-driven self-centered people. By using the online community, Facebook, I have been able to illustrate that infact we intelligently design our identities, as individuals who take it upon ourselves to analyze and construct our personas, based off what we have learnt through our interaction with dynamic environments.
Bibliography: Hilde, G, C. & Rettberg, W, J. (2008). Digital Culture, Play, and Identity: A World of Warcraft Reader. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Facebook. (2010). Statistics. June 6th, 2010, http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics.
Thompson, C. (2008, Sept 5). Brave New World of Digital Intimacy. NYTimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?_r=1.
van Kokswijk, J. (2007). Digital Ego: Social and Legal Aspects of Virtual Identity. Netherlands: Eburon Academic.
Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook Me: Collective Self-esteem, Need to Belong, and Internet Self Efficacy as Predictors of the I-Generation’s attitudes toward Social Network Sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 5‐15. April 25th, 2010. http://jiad.org/article100.
Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 1816–1836. April 20th, 2010. http://bit.ly/ciHLHh. (URL shorten because it was too long).
Liestol, G., Morrison, A., Rasumussen, T., (2003). Digital Media Revisited: Theoretical and Conceptual Innovation in Digital Domains. London: The MIT Press.
McClard, A. & Anderson, K. (2008). Anthropology News. Focus on Facebook: Who Are We Anyway? http://www.aaanet.org/issues/anthronews/upload/49-3-McClard-and-Anderson-In-Focus.pdf.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), article 1. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html.
Wollam, J, A. (2008). Facebook: Encouraging (In)Authentic Identity Construction? June 4th, 2010, http://www.scribd.com/doc/9713634/Facebook-Encouraging-inaUthentic-Identity-Construction.
Grossman, L. (2007, Aug 23). Nerd World: Why Facebook Is the Future. Times. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655722,00.html.