Edit Profile – The Construction of Identity on Social Media

The uptake of social media in civil societies around the world has been unprecedented in terms of rapidity and saturation. According to van Dijck in ‘December 2011, 1.2 billion users worldwide’ interacted through social media (2013, p.4). The ability to construct identity is the foundation of online social media, which offer users unprecedented levels of control over how they present themselves online. This control, which can be used for anonymity, has been integral to the utilization of social media platforms for generating social, political and cultural change. Throughout this discussion I will critically analyse the identity construction function of social media by analysing my own online personae.

Create Infographics

According to Papacharissi social networking sites are primarily platforms for ‘self presentation and identity negotiation’ (2010, p. 304), that enable users to construct a virtual or ‘networked’ self (2010, p. 304). Smith and Watson have also suggested that online identities are co-constructed, because they are influenced by many different factors, which are beyond the control of individual social media users (2014, p. 71). These factors include contextual factors, such as the type of platform being used and the purpose for which the platform is being used, as well as social factors, such as the influence of peers, other users and cultural expectations (Wilkinson & Thelwall 1010, p. 2313).

Wilkinson and Thelwall explored the signficance of contextual factors to identity construction in their analysis of the 2008 global ‘eclipse’ of Myspace and Facebook, in which Facebook displaced Myspace as the most used social media network in the world (2010, p. 2313). Those authors identified differences in how users constructed identity on Facebook and Myspace, suggesting that Myspace promoted artistic expression by allowing users to customise their profiles using graphics and music (2010, p. 2312), whereas Facebook emphasised utility, information sharing and using friends as ‘identity marker[s]’ (2010, p. 2313). Therefore, Facebook’s displacement of Myspace appears to support the idea that online identity is co-constructed, and that users define their online (and perhaps their offline) ‘self’ not just by their personal expressive choices, but also by their social interactions. This focus on social interaction is evident from my own experience of Facebook, which actively promotes the public expression of familiarity through 'tagging', 'friending' and 'liking'.

Create Infographics

Just like the old adage, identity is ‘not what you know, but who you know’ (Kiisel 2012). This idea is evidenced by the phenomenon of the ‘profile image’, the cornerstone of online identity, because many users, myself included, set ‘profile images’ depicting themselves with other people. The reasoning behind my decision, which may be indicative of the logic of other social media users, is two-fold. Firstly, the group ‘profile image’ connotes that a user has an active offline social life or is ‘popular’, which in this era of celebrity culture is a socially desirable characteristic (Marshall 2010, p. 41). Secondly, the ‘profile image’ represents the most exposed part of the online identity, being visible to those outside of the users’ chosen social media community. As such, selecting a ‘profile image’ that depicts multiple people provides some anonymity and protection to the user. Further, the ‘profile image’ demonstrates not only the co-constructive nature of online identity, but also the potential for the collectivization of online identity and the integration of online and offline ‘selves’.

The control social media users have over how much or how little they reveal of their offline ‘self’ also relates to the debate regarding whether online identities can be authentic. This reference to ‘identities’ plural is important because although users may maintain cross-platform coherence, each platform gives rise to an identity that is essentially unique. It has been found that ‘users are well aware of both their own self-representation and their audience expectations’ when constructing identity on social media (Matic 2011, p. 20). However, it could also be said that social media has merely highlighted or extended the performative nature of identity by bringing different social contexts into the one metaphorical location (Orenstein 2010). The ‘self’ I present in my University class is different to the ‘self’ I present professionally, or in social situations. It seems that social media has created a convergence (or perhaps collision) of these traditionally separate private and public spheres (Marshall 2010, p. 40; Fuchs & Trottier 2013, p. 9).

GLOBAL DIGITAL STATISTICS 2014 from we20

(We Are Social Singapore 2014, slide 9-11)

Users have responded to this convergence in two key ways. Some have separated their spheres by confining each to certain social media platforms. For example I confine my public sphere to Twitter. This specialization of social media platforms appears to be a feedback process, in which users and creators shape the purpose for which platforms are used (Papacharissi 2009, p. 207). Another way in which users negotiate the issues brought about by convergence of social spheres is through the utilization of privacy settings. The refinement of privacy settings on social media platforms has enabled users to create multiple variations of their identity within a single platform, by providing increased control over information (Papacharissi 2009, p. 207). On my Facebook I am a member of multiple disparate communities (‘groups’), in which I am able to present a different version of my ‘self’. The importance of control over information highlights the importance of non-disclosure in relation to online identity, because in informational terms discretion is just as significant as disclosure.

Overall, identity construction is the foundation of social media, as it forms the basis of all online interaction. In my analysis of my own social media use, it is clear that I have constructed a different identity for each platform, and even variations of that identity within each platform. Additionally, each identity has been co-constructed within a social and cultural context that has drawn in aspects of both my online and offline selves (Smith & Watson 2014, p. 71). Although these identities may be incomplete and unauthentic, each identity serves the fundamental purpose of enabling online interaction, which ultimately is what social media is for.

Word Count - 986

Reference List:

Alexa 2014, ‘The top 500 sites on the web’, retrieved 28 July 2014, <http://www.alexa.com/topsites>.

Fuchs, C and Trottier, D, ‘Social Media, Surveillance & Society’, The Privacy & Security Research Paper Series, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 1-25, <http://www.projectpact.eu/privacy-security-research-paper-series/privacy-security-research-paper-series/%238_Privacy_and_Security_Research_Paper_Series.pdf>.

Kiisel, T 2012, ‘It’s Not What You Know, It’s Who You Know?’, Forbes, 2 May, retrieved 28 July 2012, <http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel/2012/05/02/have-you-got-klout/>.

Marshall, PD 2010, ‘The promotion and presentation of the self: celebrity as marker of presentational media’, Celebrity Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 35-48.

Matic, I 2011, ‘The Social Construction of Mediated Experience and Self Identity in Social Networking’, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, vol. 5, no. 11, pp. 13-21.

Orestein, P 2010, ‘I Tweet, Therefore I Am’, The New York Times, 30 July, retrieved 28 July 2014, <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/magazine/01wwln-lede-t.html?_r=0>.
Papacharissi, Z 2009, ‘The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld’, New Media Society, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 199-220, retrieved 6 August 2014, Sage Journals.

Papacharissi, Z 2010, A networked self: identity, community and culture on social network sites, Routledge, New York.

Smith, S and Watson, J 2014, ‘Virtually Me: A Toolbox about Online Self-Presentation’, in Poletti, A and Rak, J, Identity Technologies: Constructing the Self Online, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 70-95.

Van Dijk, J 2013, The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media, Oxford University Press, New York.

We Are Social Singapore 2014, ‘Global Digital Statistics 2014’, retrieved 30 July 2014, <http://www.slideshare.net/we20/global-digital-statistics-2014-32564492?related=2&utm_campaign=related&utm_medium=1&utm_source=8>.

Wilkinson, D and Thelwall, M 2010, ‘Social Network Site Changes Over Time: The Case of Myspace’, Journal for the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 2311-2323, retrieved 27 July 2014, Wiley Online Library.