The responses to the post, "Here's one definition of digital identity. Do you agree with it?" have been insightful and gone a long way toward getting the conversation going. There is one aspect of identity, particularly digital identity, that has been barely touched on in your responses, that is the question of the "social construction" of identity. Some of you, particularly those of you who write about a "true identity" may be uncomfortable with the idea that identity is socially constructed. However, I think this is a part of identity, especially in terms of identity in a digital world, we need to think and talk about. Please read the following article and tell us how, if, this changes your concept of identity in a digital world. You might also want to tell us how/if socially constructed identity is different in a digital environment from a "real world" environment. If you are logged on to your UTRGV account, you should be able to access the article through the Stable URL. You can also access it by going to the library website and highlighting an pasting the title and authors. I look forward to reading your responses.
Mark Noe (as has been pointed out, though the comments include names, posting do not. So, when you make a post, please identify yourself.)
A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical
Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory
Author(s): Michael A. Hogg, Deborah
J. Terry and Katherine M. White
Source:Social Psychology Quarterly,
Vol. 58, No. 4 (Dec., 1995), pp.
255-269
Published by: American Sociological
Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2787127
As I was reading through the two theories, I couldn't help but feel that both were right in their own way. I believe that a person can come into their sense of self based on their awareness and or by their environment. This also depends on the mindset of the individual. Identity Theory, reminds me of a high school environment, where a person is labeled a particular way, with or without their knowledge. And, in turn, end up acting according to their label. Example: the kid who loves sports is labeled as a "dumb jock," or the girl who prefers to do alone is labeled as the "emo kid." Now, if the persons decided to accept or reject these titles, along with the possible backlash of the environment, then the person could self aware enough to give themselves their own identity. However, this isn't always the case in high school. But, in Social Identity, its almost like a person is attempting to find or fit into a group that they relate to. Or, the person, depending on their mindset, can place themselves in a group where they want to be labeled. Honestly, I feel like the two theories are logical and real. They both happen in different parts of a persons life, whether they want to admitted it or not, but then again the awareness of this notion goes based off of the persons sense of self.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Rachel. One of the theories mentioned the concept of fitting in. When I signed up for Facebook, I did so because it was the popular thing to do, in 2007 or 2008.
DeleteThe article I just posted does make it a point discuss the importance of social construction as it pertains to digital identity. Particularly, it claims that social limitations within a digital space essential dictate which aspects of what it calls an "actor's" identity is presented through a digital medium. These limits can be whether the digital space is commercial or organizational, intended for base social interaction (dating) or something other (professional blogs), and whether interactions are intended to be one on one or with an audience.
ReplyDeleteThe underlining question is once again what is meant by the word true. Do we mean complete? If so, the answer is a resounding no because representations (though multi-dimensional in creation and processing) are singularly dimensional in transmission. The actor then is limited to choosing which aspect of a multi-dimensional "truth" should be represented most.
However, if we ask: Do we mean accurate? Then the answer might just be yes. Given the complexity of what the article I posted calls body-to-body interaction in rich-media/non-mediated settings, accuracy of certain aspects of identity might be all needed to constitute a true self in the digital sphere.
The article, although complex, is based on, to my understanding, the concept of physical interaction. Like James Paul Gee mentions in one of his articles, depending on the "actor" as you said, the person may "choose" to adapt that persona of the group. If they reject it, like the article mentions, will the person be subject to backlash, like the kids in high school, or will they create their own identity in spite of it? Also, the digital world plays by another set of rules within the cyber community. If you have a profile that everyone is aware of, like Face Book, it is more of a crowd setting where people already known you; or you can also reinvent yourself by catfishing people. However, if you are in a virtual reality, like in a game, it is totally different. The "profile" or avatar looks nothing like you personally, but it can be shaped and molded to what you would like to be or want to be: Wizard, Healer, Captain, Weapons Expert, ect...
DeleteThe two theories seem to agree that identity is heavily founded upon society and one's own self-concept of what is considered normal and acceptable behavior. As far as changing my mind about what constitutes a digital identity, I feel as if it has strengthened my idea that it is based heavily on what the individual creates for himself or herself (like a social profile that highlights all of the things they are proud of, such as a healthy lifestyle, grand vacations, etc.) Digital identity follows many of the social constructs of real-world identity; society decides what is acceptable and the individual tries to form a life that follows those tenants. Whether the individual is doing that online or not, the discourse is still one that heavily involves social constructs.
ReplyDeleteBoth of these theories are right, in their own ways. I do believe that an influential factor in developing an individual's identity is their environment. When I first signed up for my Facebook account in 2007 or 2008, I did so because it was the popular thing to do, at that time. I found myself posting pictures of my day and updating my status every time I had a meaningful thought. I was trying to fit in and figure out how to use this social network site and how to feel accepted by an online community. Now, I don't post status updates for recognition or likes or to be accepted. I post pictures or status updates because I want to share something, regardless of whether or not people "like" it or comment on my status. After reading this article, I don't see how digital identity is different from a real-world identity; an online community of users decides what norms are acceptable within their community, and there are also real-world identities with their prescribed norms. In the article by Hogg, Terry, and White, the authors state that a characteristic of identity theory is that, "the social nature of self is conceived as derived from the role positions that people occupy in the social world" (258). Therefore, a digital identity is constructed by real-world influences. I do agree with Ivonne that a digital identity follows many of the social constructs of real-world identity. These theories are relevant for a more thorough understanding of what a digital identity is.
ReplyDeleteI planning to read this article as well. I may be one of those people who would be uncomfortable with the idea of idenity being socially constructed. As someone who was bullied as a child and someone who tried the whole be what they want you to be maybe they will leave you alone thing. It didn’t work. But going through these things of trying to be like others did help me firgure out who I was and when to stay true to myself. it also helped me to have empathy for others. So I think our idenity is socially constructed in a way because by interacting with people we figure out who we are and what we want to show to world and also what we keep to ourselves.
ReplyDeleteNo one is completely individual. There are so many factors that are outside of our own control that affect us deeply--factors that we may not even realize actually shape who we are. For example, the way we were raised. I grew up in a religious, primarily English speaking home. Although I do not practice religion as I once did as a child, many of the values and morals I learned are still very much imbedded in me and they do affect the way in which I behave, even if I don't always realize it. Furthermore, since my parents did not teach me Spanish, my identity as a Hispanic has always felt rather incomplete and I do struggle with identifying with those individuals who have grown up with their culture infused in their everyday lives. Growing up, I never realized how these things have affected my identity, but they do have an impact in how I am treated and behave socially, thus, affecting how I view myself and how others view me.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, we see that the two theories support this idea that we are affected by outside forces. Not only that, but the theories show how we do not just have one pure identity, but rather, multiple selves that differentiate and reside in diverse contexts.
With identity theory, society is seen as complexly differentiated but organized. The self reflects this concept. We hold certain role identities that instruct how we behave, how others see us, and thus, how we see ourselves. We acquire much of our self-meaning and satisfaction through our success in playing out these roles. As a teacher, if I am seen as occupying this role at a very low standard and other teachers relay this feeling to me, my self-concept and identity as a teacher is not going to be positive. I may have felt that I was a good teacher but if the community I belong in disagrees, that is going to have a vast effect on how my identity shifts with this new knowledge. Along with role identities, the article mentions hierarchies and how if we fall on the lower part of this social hierarchy, our identity to society and to ourselves is shaped partly by that position. On the other hand, social identity theory seems to be based much upon generalization--dehumanizing and categorizing individuals. With this theory, roles that individuals hold are determinants of how they will behave because of stereotypes and expectations. Rather than being individuals with certain roles, it seems that this theory puts individuals into a position in which the role dictates who the person is.
To me, identity is far too complex to say it is one or the other. In some cases, people will adopt behavior that correlates with one, sometimes both theories. The fact remains across both, however, that society does play a large role in how we identify ourselves and how others identify us. As much as we would like to think that we are a certain person because of who we are in spite of others, it is others that have probably played the biggest role in our identity creation.
Digital identity is very much affected in similar ways. For example, if I read an online blog from a person who is highly accredited and has built a reputation and another online blog from a person who just started blogging two days ago, chances are that I am going to find the more experienced blogger credible because they have consistently proven to perform satisfactorily in their role and have made their way to the top of the hierarchy.
Rebecca,
DeleteI do concur with your statement in regards to that we are neither or the other but a mixture of both. It is very difficult for us to have one true identity of our own that no one could mimic because it is not socially acceptable, and will be stepping into a dangerous realm in which it could affects us very negatively in our society. The identity that we identify today is within the realm of what it is acceptable in our physical society and digitally. Another other form of identity that we engage whether is physical or digital is not socially acceptable and depending on the person might be illegal.
Like you said, no one is completely individual which is true because we are socially constructed whether it is physical or digitally to behave in a manner that is ethical and correct, and throughout society progresses we update that ethical code of conduct, just like gay marriage. Gay marriage was a social suicide back in the early 1900s, but now we learn to accept that aspect of society and often cast out those individuals who do not agree with LGBTQ rights. Great discussion Rebbeca!
Erix Flores
ReplyDeleteThe two theories that are being discussed in the article are true up to a point. Our identity is both based on what is acceptable in our society and what we chose to be within what is acceptable in society. It is very difficult for a person to chose to have an identity that does not revolve on what is acceptable in our current society.
As how it goes in the digital identity. The digital world has evolved to a manner in which our society works. Before, when the internet was being implemented to the mainstream the digital identity was up to the individual's choice since it was not regulated as much as it is today. Moreover, people who engaged in the digital society back then were free to be whatever they wanted without the fear of being rejected by the digital population and not suffer any form of repercussions. If you really think about how free was the internet back then it sounds really dangerous and scary due to the illicit activities that some individuals engaged. However, nowadays, people think twice into engaging activities that might not be socially acceptable in the digital population due to the massive rejection of the digital society. As a person who engages in the digital society I have first hand seen YouTubers, bloggers, writers, celebrities, TV anchors have their lives crumble apart due to engaging one aspect of activities that is not socially and digital acceptable in the mainstream media.
To conclude, I do believe that we indeed have a choice into choosing our digital identity within the realm of what is socially acceptable in the mainstream society and digitally, but one wrong move, comment, or action could ruin your career or even life.
I am definitely comfortable with the idea of identity being a socially constructed entity. As discussed earlier in the course, we put out different versions of ourselves into different spaces online and in different contexts. Some of these versions are not voluntary
ReplyDelete(i.e. IP address, bank account numbers) mostly those things that we are not able to change. Otherwise, I do believe we have the ability to choose the other versions of ourselves to an extent. We may put out a certain aspect of ourselves and have intentions of how we want it to be received but even the smallest thing can affect how the message or version of ourselves is received. Therefore in that regard, we cannot choose.
I do like the two approaches to digital identity one being what is acceptable and the other being what we chose is acceptable but these two can be dissected. On the one hand, we are aware of what is 'generally' accepted in the public sphere but, online there are certain spaces where deviance is acceptable and can influence what a person deems is acceptable. This again goes back to intention on the users/person part.
I think it is safe to say that if there is one thing that has stuck to me about this course is that society and our identity is constructed and can be malleable to fit our personalities however many times we may change.
DeleteI completely agree with you!
DeleteI love how you say "these versions are not voluntary". I think that is so true. I mean, come on, when we are born, our numbers (e.g. social security) are more important than our actual names.
Also, I think that as we grow up we are already being showed different versions of who we are supposed to be.
I also agree that we do have a choice in who we want to be.
Hi guys, Priscilla here! (: Here are my two cents on this article:
ReplyDeleteFirst, as pointed out in this article, there are two different theories: identity theory and social identity theory. I agree with this viewpoint because as the article points out, “Identity theory…sets out to explain individuals’ role-related behaviors, while social identity theory…sets out to explain group processes and intergroup relations” (255). This makes so much sense because as I had previously posted on what we think about the term identity, I believe that we all have more than one identity.
In reading the article I learned that our identities come from our surroundings, e.g. the social world around us (digital or real). The article didn’t change my concept of identity, rather, it added new information to what I previously thought. Yes, the two theories have their differences, but, they also have their similarities. In the end, it just comes out to which type of identity theory you want to focus on.
I do believe that identity is constructed differently in the digital world versus the real world. As I have mentioned before in a different blog post, there are two (sometimes more) personas that make up who we are. The person we believe ourselves to be, and the person society believes us to be. The way we see ourselves isn’t always the way society sees us and vice versa. This is because we don’t always act the same way when interacting with people digitally and in person. The way we interact in the digital world is “more real” because we aren’t as afraid of what people may think. When we interact with people in the real world, we act in a certain way that we believe is the “correct” way to act in front of people.
As one of the people who posted in previous comments about "true/real world identity" I’m trying to go back and reflect what I meant by it. When I say “real world” I am talking about the roles one plays and the social groups one is a part of outside the virtual world. Behind a laptop, one may adopt different roles or social groups but more likely than not the real world identity and digital id will overlap. For example, a journalist will play the role of informer on his live stand-ups and also on the breaking news tweet.
ReplyDeleteAs stated in the article regarding similarities, “both theories address the structure and function of the socially constructed self (called identity or social identity) as a dynamic construct that mediates the relationship between social structure or society and individual social behavior... identity theory discusses the organization of behavior in terms of roles, while social identity theory talks of norms, stereotypes, and prototypes.” It’s my understanding both theories are defining the same thing but the context is different.
Identity theory focuses on the individual while social id theory does it in the context of a group.
To the question “how is socially constructed identity different in a digital environment from a real world environment,” I believe the cyber identity/digital identity gives you leverage to edit identity more accurately. Like a mirror, one can be more careful. Delete posts, photoshop images, enhance life events etc. However, like all things it can have it’s pros (for example; job hunting) and cons (for example; overly critical of ones self).