Within this reflective analysis essay, I will be considering the topic of ‘Digital Selves and Identity’ and more categorically engaging with related issues such as, defining ‘identities’, the concept of ‘technological identities’ and the apparent deconstruction of ‘stable identities’, that has ultimately reproduced ‘fluid identities. These concepts will be discussed in relation to the rise of technology in a seemingly ‘post-modern’ age, and my own personal digital practice and first-hand experience in relation to these concepts. I will be critically reflecting upon, analysing and interpreting my own individual use of digital practice whilst engaging with compatible and contradictory theories and debates surrounding the topic. I will discuss whether my own practices in the technological sphere confirm or contradict research that has been previously put forward by social theorists, and ultimately whether the arguments and theories developed from them aid our understanding of digital practice and experience, or simply conflict and distort understanding of this new phenomenon further?
It is not formidable to argue that technology is increasingly becoming part of our everyday lives. A vast majority of individuals use it within their jobs, to shop, manage finances, build relationships, to even have counselling sessions – activities that previously you would leave the house to complete. However, it has prevailed a recent sociological issue that the idea of technology and identity are increasingly beginning to morph and become interconnected. Some social theorists have argued that whilst this may be how the trajectory of society is now operating, it cannot provide a positive impact on society. On the contrary, other social theorists have recognised that with the shift from an industrial society, to modern and now post-modern society – we need to appreciate that our identities will develop throughout different various times, places, contexts, and means. The idea of our ‘digital selves’ becoming a part of our embodied, physical identities is progressively becoming more controversial and needs to be addressed within the sociological sphere.
In my own digital practice and experience of ‘digital self’ and ‘identity’, I view social media platforms, for example, ‘Facebook’, ‘Twitter’, ‘Instagram’ and ‘Snapchat’, are all paramount in beginning to understand the concept of ‘profile work’, a theory developed by symbolic interactionists Goffman and Garfinkel. These platforms have only been introduced within the last 10-15 years, and as of 2017, ‘81%’ of the entire population of the USA ‘has a social media account’ [eMarketer, 2017]. I, myself, have an account and am active and present on these social media platforms, as do arguably the majority of my family, friends, and acquaintances. I use ‘Facebook’ for nothing other than keeping up-to-date with ‘friends’ and ‘family’ that share pictures and statuses to their profiles. However, from observing others interactions Facebook, I am able to recognise that the statuses and pictures uploaded are arguably posted in order to construct a preferred identity of one’s self, in a light they wish to be perceived in. The statuses and pictures are typically flattering and favourable to one’s self, never showcasing an unfavourable picture or posting a status that would paint their personality negatively. My experiences engage thoughtfully with the concept of ‘profile work’ – which explores social media platforms as a means of ‘showcasing’ an idealistic identity of one’s self – by tweaking and manipulating one’s self-image through strategically selecting content that will benefit the self-image. I agree that ‘profile work’ is above all prevalent in image-heavy applications, such as ‘Instagram’ – essentially an application that allows users to post pictures to their profiles. It is very much inconceivable that individuals would choose to post ‘unflattering’ and ‘uninviting’ pictures of themselves – the aim is to build a profile/identity that is attractive to other individuals and sets a worthy impression of one’s self. Additionally, I also recognise that applications like ‘Snapchat’ potentially reinforce an expectation to visibly appear in a certain way. For example, the app offers ‘filters’ which are used to ‘enhance’ selfies. In this respect, I perceive digital identity as being incredibly distorted and a deviation from the reality of an individual’s identity, to a creation of a ‘modernistic’ realm in which individuals adopt, to express ‘ultimate’ versions of themselves.
It is realistic to argue that individuals are now able to manage, shape and control their own self-image/identity to manipulate ways in which others perceive them. However, we need to recognise that this is not a recent and unfamiliar concept. Individuals did this beforehand, without the aid of technology. In my own experience, when removing the concept of technology away from every-day practices, I realise I am able to construct my identity through means such as ascribed characteristics, image/dress, actions, and behaviour. Additionally, my identity can be also altered depending on what social situation. For example, in a classroom, my behaviour, and consequently my identity, is altered to suit the environment. Whereas, my identity when I am socialising with friends or at home with family, I will exhibit an alternative to my identity. This relates to ‘stable identities’ – a concept which characteristics identity as a ‘given’, dubbing identity as ‘relatively stable and continuous throughout one’s life course’ [Kirton, A. 2018]. Identity is depicted as a ‘stable bed’, in which we can rely on – characteristics of a stable identity cannot be altered – for example gender, class, sexuality and nationality. The characteristics, attributes, attitudes, and behaviours that accompany gender are associated with deep-rooted, pre-existing ideas of masculinity and femininity. This provides individuals a permanent and reliable set of foundations in which to mould their identities on, a ‘sphere of phenomena in relation to who you are as a person’ [Kirton, A. 2018]. Despite this, postmodern social theorists such as Zygmunt Bauman argue that our once ‘stable bed’s’ of identity are now progressively becoming fragmented and detached. This idea questions whether a ‘stable’ identity was ever once reality in society – and that ‘fixed’ identities are purely imagined. Personally, the notion of a ‘fixed’ identity is largely problematic, as developing and evolving for all living creatures is an essential and natural part of advancing through society. The ability to be ‘fluidly flexible with identity’ is a necessary part of ‘identity play’ and constitutes individuals being functional members of society [Bauman, Z., Tester, K., 2001].
When analysing my own digital practice utilising social media platforms, I can distinguish that my online social media presence is not the ‘whole’ or ‘complete’ version of my identity. Critically, I appreciate that whilst I subconsciously attempt to construct a more favourable edition of myself through technology, there is no issue recognising my identity is not limited to the technological edition of myself. Technology enables us to do things we cannot do offline– separating what some sociologists would consider the ‘meat’ from the body. I will, like other individuals, always hold a physical embodiment of my ‘true self’. Within the current modern technological society, individuals inhabit today – I believe the ‘digital self’ and ‘physical self’ can exist in harmony, technology is just an ‘extension’ to our personalities – another mode in which to express our identities. Furthermore, some social theorists agree with this notion of society – arguing that technology is a ‘supplementary performance of our identities’ [Burke, P., Reitzes, D. 1981]. There is now an inseparable distinction between the real, natural and stable and what individuals consider to be artificial and constructed. We are neither one and you cannot understand the ‘individual’ today without acknowledging both components, as they are related in numerous ways [p.45].
In terms of my own experiences with social media, I have viewed it being utilised as a tool for an individual to hide behind and disguise themselves – not an extension of their identity but ultimately removing their original identity as a whole. This could be in terms of ‘catfishing’ – defined as ‘a deceptive activity involving the creation of a fake online profile for deceptive purposes [Harris, 2013. Smith, L, R., Smith, K, D., Blazka, M. 2017], or in terms of individuals using social media platforms to ‘cyberbully’ others. A definition of this would be – ‘an aggressive, intentional act carried out by a group or an individual, using electronic forms of contact, repeatedly and over time against a victim who cannot easily defend him or herself’ [Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009. Smith et al, 2008, p182]. The idea that individuals can effectively construct a whole raw identity over a social media platform is understandably problematic in my assessment. It allows individuals an opportunity to execute this form of bullying with potentially no consequences, as they could possibly be left held unaccountable for the behaviour. This is where I begin to view digital identities as precarious in some respects, the lack of accountability is unsettling. A social theorist that confirms my own experiences within digital culture, Penny Harvey, argues that the ‘technological age’ is ‘disruptive’ to the harmony of individuals within society and that social media platforms only provide a ‘temporary technical fix’ to a larger, deep-rooted issue [Harvey, P. 2013].
Contradictory to this, utilising a Marxist concept, technologies can be seen to be developing around different modes of production. For Marxists, the industrial revolution has implications for social arrangements, because we are now required to inhabit urban environments etc., our relationship dynamics with employers and co-workers have therefore adapted accordingly. As the shift from the industrial revolution to postmodern society took place, individuals separated into ‘different spheres of life’ [Kirton, A. 2018] and technological developments allow us to continue to connect and obtain these relationships with individuals, although alternatively through a different mode. Some social theorists dispute that due to the shift in society, it has resulted in an unstable, conflict-ridden and tension-filled society – consequently, there is no sense of social cohesion, harmony or solidarity. The once ‘stable identities’ that were characterised by ethnicity, class, religion etc have been reinstated with destabilisation of social order, as individuals are consumed with ‘fleeting, temporary individuality’[Kirton, A. 2018].
On the other hand, the shift in society has been perceived positively by others. Technological development could be part of the solution – not the problem. Some establish that digital culture is ‘marketed, sold and embraced’ by individuals as a way of presenting and achieving a personal goal – perhaps to earn a sense of connection, solidarity, and community? Previous research on social self-identity has shown that on online social media platforms, ‘social identity and relational identity potentially have similar effects as cohesion, commitment and positive evaluation’ towards peers [Pan, Z. et al. 2017].
To conclude this reflective analysis essay, I consider thereafter evaluating ideas of others, formulating alternate theories, and exploring relevant theories and concepts in relation to my own first-hand experiences in regard to digital culture, that the vast majority of research conducted holds a valuable place in the social inquiry. The central question to this reflective analysis was ‘to what extent my own practices and experiences confirm or contradict the arguments put forward’, and the theories and arguments that have been considered and analysed have largely affirmed my own thoughts and reflections on the topic. Whilst theories such as the ‘stable identity’ and Penny Harvey’s pessimistic view of technology may be negative, they do supplement the social inquiry with an invaluable enrichment of insight to how some individuals may perceive digital identity. Ultimately, I believe it fundamental to perceive digital identities in a practical and constructive light, recognising that the digital age is very much prevalent, and individuals utilise this positive advantage, however they perceive is suitable.