Understanding the concept of identity first of all is important in analysing the pros and cons of exploring identity online as it is often argued that there are differences in the ways in which people present their identity offline verses through computer mediated contexts. Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs (2006) express that one’s identity pertains to their aspects of self. Moreover, there are three aspects of self which are the ‘actual self’ which describes the actual attributes possessed by an individual. The ‘ideal self’ which describes that attributes an individual would ideally possess and lastly the ‘ought self’ which describes the attributes that an individual ought to possess. In their study concerning online dating Ellison, Heino, & Gibbs Walther et al.’s (2001) ‘Hyper personal’ theory for example, explains that the problems associated with an absence of social cues and social presence online can be easily overcome. The Hyperpersonal theory suggests that the message sender has a greater ability to strategically develop and edit self-presentation. The ability for people to present themselves appropriately can thereby lead to more intimate and close relationships. However, in turn, it can also lead to idealisation which is unhealthy because if people stray too far into the fantasy side of the online world then it could lead to relationships that do not live up to expectations in the offline world. Whitty (2003) argues however that online spaces allow people to feel freer than in face to face communication thereafter in relation to forming romantic relationships, people are more willing to flirt, to express themselves and to engage in sexual activities. Thereafter online spaces can feel like a more creative and therapeutic space compared to the offline world. Similarly, Suler (2004) discusses the concept of ‘disinhibition effect’ by which is the nature for people to say and do things in cyberspace that they would otherwise not do in person. This allows people to loosen up, feel less restrained and to express themselves more openly and freely. Suler (2004) notes in addition that the disinhibition effect works in two opposing ways however in that the on the negative side, the anonymity of cyberspace allows people to say rude, harsh, hateful things that they may not say in face to face
One identity is the person an individual is online, and the second identity is the personality an individual is in real life. Most online personalities are more open and talkative. Online, people are not afraid to say what is on their mind. What they share is open to the world, but is behind a screen and typed up, so there is no face-to-face conversation or debate going on. Not having anyone to say what is on the individual’s mind in person lets down the guard of what others think of the specific
Individuals conceived between the years of 1980 and 2000, as indicated by this article, experience serious difficulties finding their actual self due to the online networking outlets; they regularly depict another person life of a fantasy dream American life on the web. As today’s more youthful era makes the transition to adulthood, trying to accommodate between online and offline characters can be hard. “Van den Bergh asked 4,056 individuals, ages 15 to 25, when they felt they were or weren't being genuine online or logged off, with companions, folks, accomplices or employers.” Through this research he found,
Staples’ Article “What Adolescents miss when we let them grow up in cyberspace” explains how children are constantly living their lives through cyberspace such as email, chatroom, and instant messages, causing them to “miss” essential real-life social development skills when they grow up in “cyberspace” that would be vital to them when they enter adulthood. There are many examples, however the three most significant examples that support this idea is: Research is supporting that continuous use of cyberspace is isolating young socially connected people;Staples uses Prof.Robert Kraut a researcher at Carnegie Mellon university idea that people let real-world relationship get replaced by the ones made in cyberspace; and Staples’
Over the years people have all safeguarded their personal identities for the risks of emotional pain that others can cause, the recent use of the online identity being another fortification to this protection. However this has lead people to confuse which identity is their personal one and which is their online one, because of the development of taking technology with you. This can harm one’s relationships with close friends and family that sometimes get confused for the others. With the consequences of bring aspects of online identity into personal identities, many people find it hard to maintain the boundaries of these two. The first step is to understand the problem so one can better see how each identity can fix into its place and still be able to protect them from any positional emotional scarring.
In an article called “Relationships, community, and Identity in the New Virtual Society” Arnold Brown explains two different identities one that he calls “found identity” and the other “made identity” (34). The found identity is one that is created by one true self, it’s based off your background, your religion, your sex, everything that truly defines who you really are. And then there’s your made identity the one you make for yourself and how you wished to be seen. As technology advances, the easier it will be for young girls to create these made identity’s of out these famous celebrities, having them focus on things that don’t matter instead of valuing who they really are.
In the past, individual’s identities were often assigned to them by the hegemonic culture, largely based on their conceptualization of sameness. The hegemonic culture dominated identity discourse by drawing distinct boundaries between racial and cultural groups, separating and defining them. Modern discourse however, has seen individuals taking the power of assigning identity signifiers for themselves often in periods of great social change. While times of resistance are often the most easily recalled examples of this, subtle trends in society a tremendous impact, often without the conscience knowledge of the society. In the past two decades, Western Culture has been witness to a radical transformation in identification processes. Technology has become increasingly pivotal to popular culture, and as such, it has had a profound influence on the way we create and affirm our sense-of-self. Identification categories have become less rigid compared to thirty years ago, and people are on average more open to identifying across boundaries. The process of blurring identity lines between distinct groups has re-distributed the power of assigning signifiers from the hegemonic element of popular culture to the individual. Means of instant information distribution and exchange, discourse and academic retrieval, such as instant messengers, social networking sites, Wikipedia, et al are perhaps some of the most influential because of their instantaneousness. While the lines have become blurred on a social level, individual identities are often affirmed.
“All the world 's a stage, and all the men and women merely player… ” (2.7.146-47). Shakespeare’s poem pointed out everyone is only actors on the stage of this world. Goffman (1959) has a similar theory with Shakespeare that everyone is a performance; at any given moment, we play different roles. Through social media, everyone can carefully select what role that we want to project on virtual sphere.I argue that my identity changed varies different platform. In this essay, I discovered who am I online, what roles I was playing and how did I manage the impression I crave to give others on Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and Line.
Multiple identities have been increased by the creation of cyberspace communications according to "Cyberspace and Identity" by Sherry Turkle. Turkle uses four main points to establish this argument. Her first point is that online identity is a textual construction. Secondly she states that online identity is a consequence-free moratorium. Turkle's third point is online identity expands real identity. Finally, her last point states that online identity illustrates a cultural concept of multiplicity. I disagree with many aspects of her argument and I have found flaws in her argument. Technology is an area that does not stand still and consequently outpaced Turkle's argument.
Before the internet, our characteristics such as style, identity, and values were primarily exposed by our materialistic properties which psychologists define as the extended self. But people’s inferences to the idea of online self vs. offline self insisted a translation to these signals into a personality profile. In today’s generation, many of our dear possessions have been demolished. Psychologist Russell W belk suggest that: “until we choose to call them forth, our information, communications, photos, videos, music, and more are now largely invisible and immaterial.” Yet in terms of psychology there is no difference between the meaning of our “online selves” and “offline selves. They both assist us in expressing important parts of our identity to others and provide the key elements of our online reputation. Numerous scientific research has emphasized the mobility of our analogue selves to the online world. The consistent themes to these studies is, even though the internet may have possibly created an escape from everyday life, it is in some ways impersonating
...clude the sense of human identity. People who express several aspects of self cannot develop the “aesthetic self,” as they have no experience in sharing the real feelings to others. People who express several aspects of self cannot develop the “aesthetic self,” as they have no experience in sharing the real feelings to others. Turkle’s analysis of the computer as a reminiscent object and the human relationship with the object helps us to understand online identity. Undoubtedly, technology has changed the way of leaning and thinking that helps to find the identity of individuals. As we are highly depend on technology and computer in recent times, the dependency and relationship with computer and technology are the potential to severely influence our formation of identity. As Erik Erikson and Turkle rightly said, internet has provide a safe place to find our identity.
Communicating online too much could hinder our ability to socialize effectively in the real life and interpersonal relationship. People in today’s generation love to communicate on the Internet. Due to the incredible convenience the Internet provides, people became socially dependent on it, therefore their time became preoccupied in front of the computer. Kids who grew up during the computer age show that they lack social skills. They would also feel uncomfortable and awkward when talking to people face to face. This is because they mostly isolate themselves in front of the computer chatting and meeting with people online. Due to lack of knowing other persons’ body cues, facial expression, miscommunication can occur. They are often unaware of the other member’s main idea and simply misinterpreting them.
To begin with, we technically are not born with identity; it is a socially constructed attribute. Identity is a transient thing, which changes over time as we grow and mature. The self-concept, which is our own personal understanding of who we are, combines with self awareness to cultivate a cognitive representation of the self, called identity (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 2010, p.118). In other words, who we are is controlled by internal and external factors that combine to make us who we become. Bring new media outlets into the equation, such as the internet, and media is now regarded as an "extension of everyday life and a tool of cultural change" (Singh, 2010). Thus, identity formation, as a social concept, is being transformed in new and even more global ways.
The human need for affiliation creates the challenges and rewards of finding acquaintances, forming close friendships, as well as intimate relationships. Through technological advances cyberspace, or the internet, has become a place of multiple opportunities for people to be able to fulfill that need for affiliation. Websites, chat rooms, and online communities are just some examples of virtual platforms for people to seek others, come together, and find that special someone. These opportunities can result in positive outcomes allowing people to achieve what or whom they were seeking, but they can also result in harm to themselves and others, resulting with damaging consequences. Cyberspace does not come with a warning label. People who use the internet as a means to seek relationships are at risk of being exposed to positive as well as negative results. Being made aware of some of those risks and dangers, and realizing that forming relationships on the internet is not all fun and games, may be ways to help promote a positive future for cyberspace as a place to form successful relationships.
This paper aims to explore the different reasons behind people having different personas in Twitter and real-life through a look at how the social networking site provides a unique opportunity for self...
“In order to maintain a positive on-going relationship in any difficult face-to-face circumstance, an individual must learn the appropriate socialization rituals. Knowing these rituals and being able to play a proper front stage role is crucial in order for an individual to get along with others (Brignall and Valey, 2005).” With the relatively recent rise of social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook, the means for maintaining relationships through these platforms rather than speech communication and face-to-face communication are becoming much more apparent and widespread throughout society. However, it is difficult to maintain these relationships without knowing proper social skills especially if these skills are not practiced or introduced to an individual. Although, “Communication frequency and self-disclosure play a role in computer-mediated communication and the formation of online friendships just as they do in face-to-face interactions and offline friendships (Subrahmanyam and Greenfield, 2008).” Yet, in our vast digital world that we reside in today, the ways in which we choose to communicate are becoming hindered by our participation in online communication. “We must have a philosophical understanding of the purpose and importance of communication to individuals and based upon this understanding, shape our attitude and value toward the communication process (McFarlane, 2010).” It is extremely crucial to understand communication’s importance and to not tuck the original beliefs and values regarding the tool underneath the rug, resorting and succumbing to communicating poorly in a fashion that mimics what we have now experienced via our devices. “As with any social change, we also believe there is a need to study and understand the impacts that change might have, regardless of whether such changes are viewed as positive or