inevitable technologies of self

I have an acquaintance who is generating an online identity on Facebook. It is visually and textually sexual using every allowable means to engage new “friends” whose responses fortify her creation. This online persona is an exaggerated and distorted version of her offline identity that lacks assurance, struggles with language, and fights obesity. It is a kind of fantasy reality that elicits admiration as she presses daily to reinforce this construction.  The example is a real, albeit negative, one that exhibits the possibilities of an online disembodied identity construction. Offline or online, we present ourselves to the world. The question might be asked, “To what extent is the identity you present online a construction”(Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Tomic,A., 2004)?

In treating the discussion of online identity construction I discover that I am secured to particular philosophic underpinnings. One of my grounding ties is some of the thinking offered by the late psychologist, Carl Rogers, who stated, “I have not found it to be helpful or effective in my relationships with other people to try to maintain a façade; to act in one way on the surface when I am experiencing something quite different underneath. It does not, I believe, make me more helpful in my attempts to build up constructive relationships with other individuals” (Rogers, 1989, p. 18).

The theme of Rogers’ life work was transcendent dialogue based upon the premise of removing barriers to knowing and being known. Rogers’ as well as Martin Buber’s works have resonated with me as I have sought to understand and practice “living dialogue” (Kramer, K.P., Gawlick, M., 2003).

With this as my favored backdrop, I consider the subject of constructing identity in the context of an online presence where I find myself and much of my social life. Fundamental definitions of identity are reworked in the cyberworld where the boundaries are unclear “between the real and the virtual, the animate and the inanimate, the unitary and the multiple self” (Wynn, E., Katz, J, 2006). It is tempting to barricade identity inside a rigid framework when it surely must be a fluid and constantly altering personal phenomena whereby “I” is not only a historical construct but one that is morphing by my interactions and my experiences. With this in mind, the “quite different underneath” that Rogers mentions does not consist of worn paradigms and boring dogma but ever fresh awareness of interior responses and new slants offered in an environment of integrity to self and others.

It has been suggested that I adopt an online persona that is different from my offline one (2004, p. 106). I am attempting this in an online community for the sake of discussion only. It is not my normal modus operandi. I see myself as a person of relative integrity and a seeker of honesty and transparency in communication. In constructing my profile for this community, I was strictly honest in what I stated. I simply left out significant details like my age and my marital status. These simple omissions create a new person who is possibly very young and very available. That was easy.

Online and offline identity construction is inescapable. We are not amorphous thoughtless blobs. If we are engaging with others there is a presentation. Erving Goffman’s view that “the character which the performer creates is not identical to the person who creates it” puts us on a stage where we perform “our online self-presentation” (2004, p. 102). This doctrine contradicts Rogers’ ideal of congruence or genuineness which I find difficult to negate (Rogers, 1989, p. 224). There is truth in Goffman’s view, but I hold hope for greater things.

Ideally, this online presentation or identity construction needs to be 1) recognized as inescapable, 2) born of the notion that my identity has roots in who I have been, who I am, and who I am becoming, 3) recognized as an identity that has inherent value and does not need defending but needs a safe space to be accurately communicated, 4) founded upon reasonable integrity, and 5) seen as one that is aided and formed in transcendent dialogue and involvement in group processes that embrace self-disclosure.
The preceding conditions assume relationship. We are not formed in a vacuum. "The sense of "I" is put together in relationship to other people! ...is something we put together with the help of others." (2004 p.96). Our identity on and off line is a co-construction with the character of that identity determined by our  intention in relationships. By engaging with others with genuineness, we are likely to construct an identity that is closer to the truth as opposed to the distorted image of my friend mentioned earlier. “Self-disclosure has been viewed as a key component in developing close relationships…self-disclosure as the process of making the self known to other persons… it builds trust which leads to closer relationships” (Bruss, O. Hill, J., 2010). I would add that the act of articulating disclosure leads to a deeper clarity of self-knowledge. The extent  and nature of disclosure is largely based on context and indiscriminate gut-spilling or a revealing of shocking intimacies is not to be equated with well-formed identity construction or effective communication.  As a potent and primary tool of connection and identity construction, self-disclosure needs to be used wisely---then fearlessly.

References

Bruss, O. Hill, J. (2010). Tell Me More:Online Versus Face-to-Face Communication and Self-Disclosure. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 3-7 

Kramer, K.P., Gawlick, M. (2003). Martin Buber's I and thou. New York: Paulist Press.

Rogers, C. (1989). Speaking Personally. In H. H. Kirschenbaum, The Carl Rogers reader (pp. 6-56). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. (1989). Theory and Research. In H. H. Kirschenbaum, The Carl Rogers reader. New York, NY:Houghton Mifflin.

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Tomic,A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: social interaction and the internet. London, England: Sage Publishing.

Wynn, E., Katz, J. (2006). Hyperbole over Cyberspace: Self-presentation & Social Boundaries in Internet Home Pages and Discourse . Retrieved March 24, 2011, from Computer Mediated Communication: http://www.indiana.edu/~tisj/readers/full-text/13-4%20Wynn.html