Abstract
The study explores users’ online presentation and participation in social networking sites (SNSs). The major purpose is to find out as to how people participate in online media and ensure their presence in the context of ‘we’ and ‘they’ in SNSs. By adopting purposive sampling method, a total of 150 respondents have been selected in the age group of 15–22 and data has been collected by using both qualitative and quantitative techniques. In this study, attempts have also been made to assess as to how people consider their presence in different online groups and SNSs. In order to measure online users’ participation in SNSs, their motivation to use SNSs and their tendency to present themselves in SNSs, different categories, emerged from the research, have been deliberated upon. Questions concerning reasons for online users to participate in defined online activities and ensure their presence by presenting themselves in different groups have also been considered.
Introduction
Successful interaction in social networking sites (SNSs) depends not only on the user’s commitment for the group but also efforts to facilitate the member’s social interaction as a member of the group. A useful online discussion is a collective good for the whole; the contribution costs are restricted to active members, discussion benefits are distributed among all active and passive member (Matzat 2010). Although the question social relation is one of the major challenges, which many researchers and social scientists have addressed at different point of time, SNSs as a phenomenon deeply embedded with the offline societies is highly unexplored area. Nevertheless, the extension of space from physical to virtual space brings both offline and online individual social relation together by bringing symmetry between the two.
Online interaction is often embedded in offline networks. It can lead to new contacts that are transferred to the offline world in unplanned ways; alternately, users can maintain existing offline contacts via online communication. Furthermore, some online SNSs are naturally affiliated with offline social interaction, and some intentionally create opportunities for offline meetings among members. The debate on the embeddedness of online social relation in offline social groups is not proved yet. However, experimental research on computer-mediated social relation in small groups has shown that communication between members increases trust and preceding communication between members increases the contribution rate, reducing free rider problems (Riegelsberger, Sasse & McCarthy 2003 as cited in Matzat 2010, p. 1174). Much less field research has been conducted on the effects of communication between members of large or longer-lasting online groups (ibid.). The situation in large online groups is different from the interaction presented in small laboratory groups for two reasons. First, one cannot expect all members in large groups to communicate with one another outside the group. Members in large SNSs may wish to share their knowledge even if they do not know any other member. Second, in longer-lasting virtual SNSs, the consequences of communication (even among those members who have communicated with one another) might be weaker because the time lag between the preceding communication and the subsequent online interaction can be large (ibid.). Despite of the fact that these things exist in one fashion or other for over 25 years, little scholarly research has empirically addressed the reason behind, people joining online social groups or choosing to remain a patron of one. Indeed, Wellman (1997) specifically calls for research to examine whether online relationships are based on shared interests, similar social characteristics, or the need for frequent communication. Accordingly, the purpose of this exploratory research is to examine, based on first-hand accounts, as to how people participate and present themselves in online SNSs.
Review of Literature—Social Construction of Self
The idea of self is fundamentally a social phenomenon and has been central to sociology and social psychology. Mead argued that human communication and role taking (viewing oneself from the perspective of another person and, ultimately, from the perspective of society as a whole) were essential to the development of self. As Mead defined, we first see ourselves and come to experience ‘self’ when we see ourselves from the perspective of others. As Mead puts it:
The individual experiences himself as such, not directly, but only indirectly, from the particular stand point of other individual members of the same social group, or from the generalised standpoint of the social group as a whole to which he belongs for he enters his own experience as a self or individual, not directly or immediately, not by becoming a subject to himself, but only in so far as he first becomes an object to himself just as other individuals are objects to him or in his experiences; and he becomes an object to himself only by taking the attitudes of other individuals towards himself within a social environment or context of experience and behaviour in which both he and they are involved. (Mead 1934, p. 138)
The newborn infant, Mead would say, initially is not a self. The baby begins to experience itself as an object only when it recognizes that it is an object to the parents. Only through the responses of the parents or other significant others does a child come to experience itself as a self. The kind of self depends on how parents and other significant others respond to it. In adult life, Mead would argue we continue to experience ourselves indirectly by taking the attitudes of other people and of the ‘generalised others’ towards ourselves. Similar to Mead’s idea was Coolly’s use of the concept the ‘looking glass self’ to describe how the self develops in the context of the social environment. According to Cooley (1909), we develop a concept of self from the reflection we get from other people.
Going beyond Mead’s claim that the self arises in the context of social experience, Erving Goffman makes the more radical claim that the self is the product of performance in social interaction. Goffman argues that self presentation is a crucial determinant of an individual’s very sense of self. In contrast to the common sense view that self presentation either expresses the self or false image of the self, Goffman emphasizes that the self is shaped in the process of self presentation.
The general notion that we make a presentation of ourselves to others is hardly novel: what ought to be stressed in conclusion is that the very structure of the self can be seen in terms of how we arrange for such performances in our Anglo-American society. (Goffman 2001, pp. 175–182)
He explained that self presentation again essential aspect of social interaction and that the self is a dramatic effect rather than the cause of the performances (ibid.).
Defining the self as a personal intra-psychic structure and identity as the self presented in social interaction, Blumstein notes that a commonsensical way of understanding the relationship between self and identity is to think of the self as the basis of identity. Blumstein challenges this causal ordering, arguing that identity actually affects the self (2001, pp. 183–197). If we project certain identities frequently enough, as we tend to do in intimate relationships, we tend to become the person that we have enacted.
The central premise of the micro structure perspective is that human behaviour cannot be adequately explained by stable internalized personality traits of but must instead be understood in the context of social forces and situational experiences in everyday life. Risman (2001, pp. 198–209) points out that the macro structural perspective ‘suggests that selves are constantly constructed and sustained by the situational experiences in everyday life’.
Moving from a micro structural to a macro structure level of analysis, Kohn and Slomczynski (2001, pp. 210–218) examine the relationship between social class, jobs and personality. Exemplifying an approach that distinguishes sociological from psychological social psychology, they argue that social psychologist must move beyond studying the effects of inter-personal environment on human life and begin paying attention to the impact of the concrete conditions under which people live and work. Particularly, their work focuses on how the different levels of occupational, self direction characteristics of middle class and working class jobs produce differences in values, orientations and cognitive functioning. The central thesis of Kohn’s research is that ‘members of more “advantaged” social classes would be more intellectually flexible, would value self direction more highly for their children, and would have more self directed orientation to self and society then would members of less advantaged social classes’ (ibid.).
Another work that examines macro structural effects on the self focuses on how social categories, such as social class, race and gender affect one’s evaluation of self. The most central in this tradition is Morris Rogenberg’s research on social determinants of the self concept, noting the unequal evaluation of many social identity elements in society. Rosenberg was particularly interested in deciphering how the unequal prestige accorded to social identities would affect a person’s self-esteem. Studying the relationship between social class and self-esteem, for example, Rosenberg found no relationship for children eight to eleven years old, a modest association for adolescents and a considerably larger relationship among adults (1979, p. 129). He explained these findings using three principles of self-esteem formation, (a) the principle of reflected appraisals; (b) social comparison, the evaluation of ourselves on the basis of comparison to others and (c) self attribution, the evaluation of ourselves on the basis of the outcomes of our behaviour. Young children, he explained, are often in socio-economically homogenous backgrounds and, accordingly, evaluate themselves on the basis of appraisals of and comparison with others from similar socio-economic background. On assessing their worth on the basis of their achievements, furthermore, children rely on their own scholastic achievements rather than the socio-economic success of their parents. Adults, conversely, are more likely to work in socio-economically heterogeneous environments, to be more aware of socio-economic inequality than children, and to evaluate themselves on the basis of their socio-economic achievements. Accordingly, among adults self-esteem is positively related to social class (ibid.).
Generally the idea that a person’s definition of self is powerfully influenced and constraints by social roles, social power and social status are central to the sociological view of the self. A theme emphasized in Erving Goffman’s work is that the image that an individual is able to present and accepted by others in social interaction, is in large part determined by the person’s social categories, social status and resources. An individual is socially constrained to express a ‘workable definition of himself’—in other words, a definition that others will be prepared to accept (as cited in Goffman 2001, pp. 175–182).
Goffman’s Asylums (1961), a study of the self in the context of institutions that strips the individual of autonomy, demonstrates how dependent we are on certain props (control of material resources, space, privacy, autonomy and respect from others) to sustain an image of ourselves as competent and worthy person. Under such conditions of deprivations, however, individuals may employ a verity of techniques to resist complete degradation. David Riesman’s classic The Lonely Crowed (1961), for instance identified three distinct types of selves: the tradition directed individual, the inner directed individual and the other directed individual—which he believed to be predominant at particular point in history and provided a theory of how changing social and cultural conditions produced these different types of selves. The institutional self believes in individualism, defining individualism as a resistance of social influences that divert a person from achievement, adherence to ethical standards and other institutional goals (Turner 1976, pp. 994–995).
The analysis of the self in the context of the conditions of late modern, post-industrial or post-modern society is a theme that has been persuaded by a number of sociologists in recent decades (Gergen 1991). In the extract from The Saturated Self (1991), Kenneth Gergen argues that the multiplication of mass media, information and communication technologies in postmodern society has multiplied the relationship involvements, demands, choices and standards of evaluation of individuals. The self, he argues, is ‘populated’ by ‘multiple and disparate potentials for being’ (1991, p. 69), casting the individual into doubts about the viability of any particular investment of self the individual makes (1991, pp. 73–74).
Research Objectives
There are two major objective of this article.
To find out as to how major attributes contribute for individual participation in online SNSs and to explore the dilemma faced by individual users in the context of a physical versus virtual space.
To understand individual behaviour in a close SNS in the context of ‘we’ and ‘they’.
Research Methodology
In this research, I have focused on 150 respondents having profiles in SNSs like Orkut and Facebook. In our respondent group of 150 SNS users there are equal presentations of both male and female in the age group of 15–22. On the basis of purposive sampling the respondents were selected and all of them are in the late stage of schooling and early stage of college. To understand both online and offline behaviour, the selection of the samples was strictly meant to meet the first objective of the study. Combined with both quantitative and qualitative approaches, this study employed unstructured interviews, and content analysis of respondents’ SNSs profiles. Active participation of the subjects is also an important criteria adopted in the study to understand the individual perception about online social interaction. However, the analysis of subject’s involvement in online social groups and study of these social groups was helpful to understand subject’s presentation of self in Internet-based communication.
Negotiating Space: Physical versus Virtual
As we have been discussing that virtual space is an extended space, so all activities are defined with a pre-conceived notion of social interaction and communication. While constructing the notion of any virtual activity, this is always in our imagination that how to bring the interest and overcome the barriers of physical space social interaction in virtual social communication. So, all activities are defined with an objective to create an alternative to the physical social space with a common set of interests. This section will primarily deal with the e-activities and the negotiation between physical and social activities.
As mentioned in the Table 1 all the activities are categorized into five major heads to get a holistic picture of what they do in online. As it is found that, checking updates and commenting on the same takes major portion of time (47.6 per cent) when one come to online. Checking someone’s status and his/her updates and commenting on others updates is one of the major activities that one does first when come to online. Next to checking updates, checking for online friends is the most important thing that one does first after coming to online. 17.2 per cent respondents viewed that they check for their online friends when they come online. Again this carries the basic thrust of the physical space and social groups, whenever anyone gets some free time he/she explores that who else are there to start gossiping and discuss over the issues. Similarly 12.4 per cent of respondents mentioned that they do all kind of activities when they come to online and 13 per cent respondents said that they usually participate in online discussions or initiate one when they are online. Although people signs in an online social group most of them prefer to involve in one-to-one communication than any group discussions. Here again it is carrying the legacy of the concept of personal space in online social groups.
Activities of Respondents after Coming Online
Most Time Consuming Online Activity
While understanding which is the most time-consuming online activity, it has been found that participation in online discussion takes most of the time among other activities. 37.3 per cent respondents viewed that they spend most of their online time in participating online forums and group debates. Following to the online discussions, charting with friends and check of other members updates and commenting on them, takes most of the time as viewed by 26 and 22 per cent respondents respectively. Only 14 per cent respondents viewed that search for friends in social groups is one of the most time-consuming online activity.
The moment one turn the Internet on, how hours flew by is still to be traced out. Although, reasons could be umpteen in numbers but, amongst all 37.3 per cent respondents have voted out that participating in online discussions ate away most of their time. These 37.3 per cent consists of 36 per cent males and 38.8 per cent females. However, interestingly, nearly same percentage of females, around 37.3 per cent also admitted that most of their time is consumed during Internet chatting and in this category, males were outnumbered as they were only 16 per cent of all.
Coming to the task of checking updates, comments and activities on Internet, we see that males are more prone to this than females. As evident from the chart, 29.3 per cent of males are keen on checking updates on regular basis and thus finds it most time-consuming activity, whereas only 14.7 per cent females like to keep a regular eye on recent updates. Nonetheless, there are quite a substantial number of males as compared to females, whose time flew while checking for online friends. In this section, there are 18.7 per cent males and 9.3 per cent females. Although both male and female are agreeing on the time spend on online discussions but there is a huge discrepancy among both of them in other personal interactions and commenting on the group members.
Common Features in Most of the Online Social Groups
As it has been observed that online social groups are the extension of offline social groups, so most of the online social groups contain similar kind of characteristics like group membership, group barriers on the basis of insiders and outsiders and group leadership. Apart from being a member there are other activities like writing blogs, creating discussion forums and anchoring the same etc., which determines the importance of any online social groups and that works as a determinant factor to be a part of the group. Coupling with the number of features the social networking operates in a manner to increase the participation and membership. The data given in the Tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 are an attempt to explore most common online activities and how an individual set the criteria to be a part of any particular group. The extended space is redefined by the instinct of the individual while setting the criteria for himself/herself to be a part of any online social groups.
Most Common Online Activity that Repeats in all Social Networking Sites
Out of Personal Interest on Groups Focus and Discussions
By Considering the Number of Membership of Any Group
Subsequent to the previous data, the data given in the Table 3 zeroes down to the question of most common online activity that repeats in all SNSs. The answers of the respondents are striking as contrary to the popular belief that males are inclined towards participating in online discussions, majority of the male respondents (49.3 per cent) have said that they spend most of their time in becoming members of different types of groups present on virtual media. Majority of the females (45.4 per cent) are busy spending their time on online forums doing group discussion. However, it is also seen that females do not lag behind males in networking online, as 41.3 per cent of them have said that it interests them most to join different virtual groups. When it comes to creation of new discussion forums and writing down blogs, the trend seems not so popular. According to the Table 3, very less number of females and males are interested in this kind of activity. Only 9.35 per cent males and 8 per cent females do it. A total of 12 per cent males and 5.3 per cent females are interested in creating a new group.
When people join several different groups, they are motivated by various factors ranging from personal to professional. Now, when respondents were asked to find out whether personal interest is the motive behind joining several groups or not, a mixed reaction came forth. Around similar number of respondents put ‘personal interest’ in the scale of 20, 40 and 60 per cent. Statistics says that 28.7 per cent respondents gave it a 20 per cent score, whereas 29.3 per cent gave it a 40 per cent and 24.7 per cent gave it a 60 per cent. For 4.7 per cent, it is only their personal interest, due to which they join various online groups. In addition, other 12.7 per cent respondents feel that personal interest is quite a strong motivation to be present in online groups.
Coming to further bifurcation of males and females over the motivation factor, it is evident here that maximum females (34.7 per cent) consider personal interest as an average motivator. They have given it a 60 per cent score. On the contrary, very few females (2.7 per cent) think it is the only motivation behind joining these online groups. For males, the variation is more or less same as females as we see that maximum males, that is, around 30 per cent consider personal interest as an average motivator.
Keeping aside personal interest as a motivational factor of joining the e-groups, we see that there are respondents who see the number of members of any group and then take their decision. We see that maximum respondents do not consider much the number of membership of any group to join it. Only 6.7 per cent of males and females consider it an exclusive factor responsible behind their joining the e-groups. There are around 14.7 per cent respondents (12 per cent males and 17.3 per cent females) who consider number of membership of any online social before joining the same. Maximum respondents, that is, 36.7 per cent respondents, including 32 per cent males and 41.3 per cent females have given it a mere 40 per cent. This would be pertinent to note that number of membership cannot be a strong lure for people joining the online groups and forums. There is a strong connection between interest and benefit attached to it.
On the Basis of the Group’s Discussion and Activities
The present research findings, as shown in the Table 6, highlight that personal interest and familiarity of the issues discussed play a major role to be a part of the Internet social group. In a five point scale the respondents pointed out that personal interest and familiarity of the issues of discussion attract them to be a part of the online social group. While 22 per cent of respondents marked it as the most important with 38 per cent opined that it is an important factor of joining in a virtual social group. More than 80 per cent of the respondents ranked it in the top three points of the scale which indicates the importance of the personal interest and specific discussions of the social groups generates interest among the individuals to be a part of the group.
After witnessing the importance of personal interest and the number of membership to be a part of cyber social group, it was found that any particular groups’ discussions points/topics and the activities also attracts the young netizens to be a part of a online social group. Basis the data given in the Table 6, 30.7 per cent male respondents are in favour of joining online groups on the basis of the topic of discussion and going on for activities aligned with their personal interest and familiarity of issues; however, there were not many females who were in motion for it. Maximum females think it is on an average on their fulcrum of motivational factor as 29.3 per cent say that they would give this option a 60 per cent score. There are 28 per cent males and 26.7 per cent females think that it has only 40 per cent significance in their list of motivational factor. Contrary to 20 per cent females who consider discussions or activities they are familiar with and the issue/topic is in accordance with their personal interest, there are only 8 per cent males who think on the same line.
From Being a Member to Ensure the Presence of Self: Learning in Online Social Groups
Online social groups are varied and that they are characterised by their social conditions of emergence and evolution, which determines the specific activity of each one and individual participation in these social groups. The various types of online social groups stand on the continuum expressing the relationship between the strength of the social bond and the intentionality of the gathering. The dynamics inherent in the life of a community often leads to the evolution of these parameters and, consequently, to a change in the type of activity or to the emergence of another type of community. (Henri & Pudelko 2003)
Consequently, the participation in these online social groups leads to various kinds of learning. To analyze the online social group’s activity, it is necessary to concurrently take into account the process of participation (communication and action) and the process of reification (use and production of intermediary objects) (ibid.). In the process of participation and reification, individual members of the online social group try to strengthen his/her identity in the group. While in the process of learning and ensure the presence of their identity in online social groups, different individual adopt different methods to prove the same. From the journey of selecting a online social group and criteria’s for the selection to ensure the presence of the identity, it is a long journey of learning in online social groups. The data given in Table 7 is an attempt to understand how members of online social groups make their presence felt among other members of the group.
We have seen that majority of population in the selected sample are interested in joining various online groups but the challenge floats when it comes to show their identity in myriads of group one joins. Identity is being understood as the way of expressing an individual’s presence by undertaking different activities as a member of the online social group. Respondents, when asked as to how they show identity in online groups, majority came forth with the ideas of participating in e-discussions. Here, 51.3 per cent respondents comprising 46.7 per cent males and 56 per cent females said that they find participation in e-discussions an easier way of showing identity in terms of making their individual presence felt in online groups (Figure 1).
The Ways One Show His/her Identity Felt in Online Groups
However, quite a good number of respondents also believe in initiating a discussion rather than participating. On one hand, 40.1 per cent males and 26.6 per cent females like to initiate some focused discussion thereby showing their online presence/identity out of total 33.4 per cent. On the other hand, when it comes to creating e-groups, maximum lag behind as only handful respondents, that is, 5.3 per cent came forward to choose this option as a way to show their identity online. Only 10 per cent respondents like organizing and moderating e-activities and events in order to be in the limelight of cyber space. These 10 per cent has 12 per cent males and 8 per cent females. Thus, we see that respondents like to participate and not to initiate much and/or lead discussion forums in online social groups.
Role of Online Social Groups and Development of Self
As we have been discussing so far, identity statements on online social groups closely resembling to those found in face-to-face interaction and extension of the offline identities or any identity the subject want to pursue (Table 7). Online social groups give and give off impressions that may or may not be related to the intentions of their creators. They can be embedded in and linked to networks of relationships and activities. They can be used to bolster real-life communication, can be compared to old-fashioned physical objects and can invite response and create dialogue. In all these ways, they resemble traditional, face-to-face identity statements as indicated by the list of activities highlighted by the respondent in expressing their identities while being in online groups (Table 7).
People usually progress through five successive stages of group membership: They start as visitors, then become novices, regulars, leaders and finally elders (Christensen & Levinson 2003). Although these stages are very much true in the case of offline social relation, the same stages have found a special position in case of online social group building as well. Online features and programmes specifically designed by keeping in mind of the fact that what are the major challenges in offline or real social groups and to build a pool of sustain membership. To make a social group friendly for both newcomers and veterans, the unique needs of these diverse segments of the online population these are the basic stages considered at the early stages of planning. Initial conditions are crucial, because the features, programmes and policies established early on in the social group’s life will shape how the social group develops in the future.
Presentation of Self in Online Interaction and the Concept of ‘We’ and ‘They’
People created the intrinsic online social group pages specifically to state their identities, and therefore, they thought seriously about the effect that information on the group would have on readers. In contrast, people with extrinsic pages dismissed the possibility of their personal web pages (no matter what the content) being read as identity statements. Because they had not intended to reveal identity, they assumed that they had not revealed identity (Walker 2000). Considering Walker’s idea of intrinsic and extrinsic pages, one of the respondent’s profile highlighted (Figure 2) how he feels and expresses about himself in front of other group members in SNSs. To quote:
Hi I am a simple and average guy who believe that life is not only bed of roses every step you have to strive for survival but enjoy and let make everybody happy becoz Gum Apne Hain Khushi Sabke Liye (Sorrow of life is for self consumption while happiness need to be shared by others)…
May be it is always difficult to present your inner self in front of other members being in a physical space, but people feel it easy to express in online social groups. For some respondents, the online social groups is also as important as the offline social groups while revealing their identity but at the same time they also take it as a space driven by their instinct than the socio-cultural taboo of face-to-face social groups.
For some of the respondents the visitors of their personal pages could infer identity from a list of information or links, while some others thinks that they did not care what impression strangers received from their personal pages. These reactions indicate more than a casual attitude towards the reactions of strangers, though. Their responses show that not only they had not considered that strangers might read their pages as identity statements, but that they also had not considered that their friends and families might read the pages as identity statements. This is not to say, of course, that they did not care how friends and family members saw them. They simply assumed that their personal pages would not change others’ impressions of their identities. The communications on the pages is strictly instinct driven by the user, what is difficult to show in any face-to-face social groups.
Concept of ‘We’ and ‘They’
Concept of the ‘other’ has always been there within us since time immemorial and it is not confined to a real space but virtual. When this concept of ‘we’ and ‘they’ was dealt with during the survey, proximity and commonality were the factors that played a major role in deciding who is ‘we’ and who is ‘others’ as majority has said that they feel comfortable in sharing their views and secrets amongst the members of their own online social group.
While presenting their self in the online social groups, there is a common concern of who are the viewers of the profile. Unlike the physical social groups, in online social groups, there is a chance that strangers can also view the personal individual profile. Most of the respondents viewed that concept of ‘we’ and ‘they’ work as a safety valve in online social groups. While interacting with the online social group members, most of the respondents consider them as insiders and treat them accordingly but for others they treat as strangers. The Table 8 gives a holistic picture of how the concept of ‘we’ and ‘they’ work in online social groups.
As mentioned in Table 8 and Figure 3, more than half percentages of the male respondents have said that they do not feel comfortable in sharing things with those who are not in their online social group and thus, being considered by them as ‘outsiders’. It is also the view of 38.7 per cent females. Hence, we see that there is a clear demarcation between feelings for members within the online social group and those outside the online social group. This leads to another question as to who all has this feeling of ‘we’ for those belonging to same online social group and ‘others’ for those from different online social group. We see that 31.4 per cent respondents including 34.6 per cent females and 28 per cent males have this feeling.
Concept of ‘We’ and ‘They’ in Online Social Groups
Contrary to the earlier feelings are those who despite carrying the concept of ‘others’ with them are not hesitant when it comes to interaction. Although numbers of respondents are less in this category, still there are 18.7 per cent females and 12 per cent males making it a 15.3 per cent of the respondents who support this stand. Moreover, very less numbers of respondents (8.7 per cent) feel like verifying the authenticity of the individuals who are not member of the online social group while interaction. Thus, we see that the world of ‘others’ is enveloping the cyber world also, although with different factors affecting it.
Growth of SNSs and Individual Self
While going through SNSs, the profiles of individual users depict stories which do not necessarily convey what an individual intends to tell. Like the real world phenomena, SNSs represent the archives of an individual’s life which give a fragmented picture of who the individual is. However, a consolidated view could be formed on the basis of the individual’s presentations in a particular SNS over a period of time. As mentioned in literature and further, analyzing the data of individuals’ demonstration of their self and identity in the online groups (Table 8), the notion of ‘we’ vs. ‘they’ is documented and archived through SNSs.
Post understanding the usage pattern of the individual’s social networking profiles, we have established that the profile analysis of the users gives an unsaid story of an individual, captured through the momentary actions archived in SNSs. The temporal physical activities and individual presentation at a physical space always draw attention for limited time and remain as the transitory effects of the individual’s life cycle.
However, in case of SNSs, every mood of the individual, though very selectively anchored by the user, gets reflected in SNSs. This may be a temporary reaction of the individual but due to the high archival order of SNSs, each individual manifestations are well documented and subjected to be reviewed by external entities. This is one of the most crucial phenomena in the formation of ‘cyber self’ which differs drastically than the ‘self’ an individual possesses in physical space. To quote one of my respondents and matching the same with his online SNS activities we could see how the archival memory of SNS helps to have a consolidated view of an Individual.
‘I always want to be among my friends as I would never see myself alone. I am an individual who wants to spends every single moment of his life sharing with other.’
However, while analyzing the SNS of the same individual, it is interesting to note some of the updates say:
‘life has given me everything, but I have never realized the same amongst the crowd. Want to feel every second of my life while staying with me, myself and only’
and in some other post this is also found,
‘wish life to become a solitaire boat sailing in the blue see, it’s just about the boat and its life, no sound of the others around’
This is fascinating to observe that how the individual’s presentation of self, differs both in physical and virtual space.
Discussion and Conclusion
The study is an attempt to understand the major attributes of an individual’s participation in SNSs and how he/she approaches the concept of the ‘others’ in a virtual space in the context of ‘we vs. they’. As we have been discussing the major ways of individual participation in the SNSs, it more or less corresponds to the aspects of physical space and essentially draws from the behaviors one exhibits in physical space. The selective withdrawal from physical space and active participation in virtual space, gives more freedom to an individual, which in turn culminates into the range of activities like curiosity to find more friends, active participation in online discussion groups or expressing consent or vice-versa.
As we have rightly noticed, most of the time spent in virtual space is tend to be spent on the expression of an individual’s opinions through different online forums and discussion groups. To bring the physical and virtual analogy, these findings bring some interesting observations like, in virtual space through the SNSs individuals tend to be more expressive than in physical space. This might be considered as the one of the most important attribute of the virtual space. When the network is more constrained like in physical space in terms of the nature of social relations, creation of social relation and hierarchy of social relation, the individual’s presentation becomes more constrained. However, contrary to physical space network, in virtual space, the network becomes more liberated through the SNSs, in terms of the social relation an individual shares with the network which he/she created for some specific purpose. And with less hierarchical structures, an individual becomes more liberated in expressing himself/herself, which is also shown in terms of time spent while being in SNSs.
Secondly, the expression of ‘self’ closely resembles with the expression of self in physical group and could also be considered as the extension of physical space. The self-created virtual networks are always being considered as the ‘we groups’ by the individual than anybody outside the network. This essentially talks about the ‘we’ vs. ‘they’ relation as the extension of physical space to the virtual space.
Finally, to conclude, the paper needs further interrogation on how the temporality aspect of the space works, given the major scope to understand an individual self, both in physical or virtual space. As there is a limited scope of memory archival in physical space, an individual’s small time ‘self’ manifestation is being ignored or never gets stored in the public memory and at times the same also goes unnoticed from the individual’s memory as well. However, as noticed in the study, due to high opportunity of memory archival through the internet mediated SNSs, the smallest manifestation of individual ‘self’ could be documented and interpreted to understand the individual self-presentation in virtual space. The high archival value of the virtual space needs to be verified more in-depth to understand how the systematic documentation of the every single individual contribute to understand individual ‘self’ in the context of physical and virtual space.