One Does Not Simply Post Their Way To Identity

One Does Not Simply Post Their Way to Identity

A qualitative analysis of the “narrative of the self”

using Facebook relationship statuses.

Authors: Coral Eisenbruch, Erwin Spil, Oscar Törnqvist and Layne Austin
Copyright by: Coral Eisenbruch, Erwin Spil, Oscar Törnqvist and Layne Austin
Course: Image, Identity and New Media
Course instructor: Patrick Prax
University: Uppsala University, Sweden

Last date of modifying: 15-3-2012
Contact information of the authors:
E-mail: contact@erwinspil.com, ceisenbruch@gmail.com, tornqvist_18@hotmail.com and layne.da22@gmail.com

Introduction

The focus of this paper is to explore identity using Facebook relationship statuses while making the assumption that people are creating an alternate identity by using the relationship status option. Combining this line of thought with a series of in-depth interviews will be the central focus throughout this research and will provide a narrative.

The "narrative of the self" is a part of a sociological identity concept known as “the reflexive project of the self”, developed by Anthony Giddens, and gives this case a structure. This is due to the fact that, as previously discussed in class, there are three types of identity: 1) the way others see a person’s identity, 2) the way a person wants others to see him or herself, and 3) the way that a person sees him or herself.

We believe that the ‘story’ people tell with their ‘relationship status’ changing is one that attempts to control how “Facebook friends” see their identity through social networking, explained with the concept of the "narrative of the self". We make the assumption that Facebook relationship statuses change the dialogue between individuals and their friends (mediated and non-mediated), which changes their ‘assumed identity’. This theory shall be tested through topical observations of four people (each researcher analyzes one person), followed by an interview with questions about their habits regarding discussing their relationship in real life, and the reactions of their friends in real life versus on Facebook. These steps assist in making an astute observation about what kind of reflection this makes on people and their ‘true’ identity (or the way they see themselves) versus their ‘assumed’ identity (or the way they want others to see them). Basically, the ultimate hypothesis we test is: people create an ‘alternate’ identity on Facebook that differs from their ‘real’ or ‘true’ identity.

Theoretical Framework

The connection between the narrative of the self as a means of discovering self-identity and romantic love is one Giddens makes many times over. According to Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction by David Gauntlett, “Giddens links the rise of the narrative of the self with the emergence of romantic love… ‘Romantic love introduced the idea of a narrative into an individual’s life,’ Giddens says (1992: 39) – a story about two individuals with little connection to wider social processes” (Gauntlett, 2008, p. 100). Many of the defining moments of a person’s life, with which they write their biography, can be based upon their romantic relationships according to many media outlets such as classic novels, films and television series. Facebook, especially with the introduction of the new timeline, is no exception. In the article At a Crossroads: ‘Personhood’ and Digital Identity in the Information Society, identity is assigned to be social, subjective, valuable, referential, composite, consequential, dynamic, contextual and equivocal. Identity as a definition is extensive and managing your identity is changing with the emergence of social networks. “Each modern personal identity exists simultaneously in the physical world and in the electronic world, and things that happen in one world can spill over into the other” (Rundle, 2007, p. 49). The use of the word ‘can’ is of major importance here. Things might happen in one world but this does not mean that it happens in the other world too. Moreover, there is a shift from two worlds (online and offline) to, what Kaliya Hamlin names ‘Identity Spectrum’. This identity spectrum is defined as the range of identities that we all use in life, online and offline. Instead of online and offline we now have anonymous, pseudonymous, self-asserted, socially validated and verified. Additionally, Elana Sandler, contributor to Psychology Today, stated in the article Facebook, Emotions and Identity, “Dr. Gwenn O'Keeffe says in the AP piece, Facebook only presents self-selected information. When we build our profiles and comment on friends' status messages, we make conscious choices about how to construct an online identity” (Sandler, 2010). Her study focuses mostly on the analysis of emotions and how Facebook affects depression in its users, but the initial study focuses on building an identity through statuses and profiles.

Through the option of posting one’s ‘relationship status’, Facebook users can add their romantic love to their constructed identity and biography (or Facebook profile). By doing this, Facebook users are constructing an identity that other users can interpret. An individual literally links his or her account to their partner’s account, which can be interpreted as linking his or her identity to that of the partner. Gauntlett further states that “the rise of this ‘mutual narrative biography’ led individuals to construct accounts of their lives, so that, even if the relationship with their partner went awry, a story still had to be maintained. And so now the biography of the self has taken on a life of its own, encouraged by a range of narratives suggested by popular media” (Gauntlett, 2008, p. 100). He uses feature films and novels as an example, however Facebook profiles and news feeds can be applied in this case as well. Both individuals have a Facebook profile, network of Facebook friends, and relatively constant updates and insights that create a timeline (or biography) of their daily events. Furthermore, Facebook creates a platform upon which individuals need to constantly feed the story to their audience- or network of Facebook friends. “The existential question of self-identity is bound up with the fragile nature of the biography which the individual ‘supplies’ about herself. A person’s identity is not to be found in behavior, nor – important though this is – in the reactions of others, but in the capacity to keep a particular narrative going. The individual’s biography, if she is to maintain regular interaction with others in the day-to-day world, cannot be wholly fictive. It must continually integrate events which occur in the external world, and sort them into the on-going ‘story’ about the self” (Giddens, 1991: 54).

Our four interviews will hopefully provide investigative evidence that, at least in the case of this field of research, these concepts should apply and therefore proof that we create an alternate identity on Facebook. It is evident to note that this is not representational, and four individuals provide an incredibly microscopic selection of the general population, but we believe that the qualitative responses will make up for the lack of quantitative research. Identity can be investigated on either a macro or microscopic level, and these series of interviews will give us much more in-depth and relatable anecdotes.

Method

The method used to collect this data is primarily interviews and topical observations. This method was chosen because the research is meant to be qualitative in nature and not representative of a whole. This is a case study of young adults aged 18-25 who are all active on Facebook. Each case will be will be in a different ‘place’ in their relationship, on Facebook and in reality. One will be in a relationship and have it posted on Facebook, one will be in a relationship and not post it on Facebook, one will be single, and one will have their relationship posted, but not declare their partner. This way, the data collected can be compared to different situations. It was considered to collect the data quantitatively, by collecting the amount of Facebook ‘likes’ and “comments” on relationship status updates, however, this method would not produce the information that this research is seeking. The aim is to find the ways that Facebook fosters a personal, shared narrative, and finding the quantity of Facebook responses will only tell the perceived popularity. This is why the analysis will be focused on only four people, less cases but a more in-depth analysis and interviewees who are accessibility and coming from a range of relationship statuses.

The interview questions which seek to find the ways in which Facebook is used and interpreted will then be compared to what outside viewers can see on the individual’s Facebook page. The analysis will include the time the person spends on Facebook and frequency of Facebook posts. Number of friends, their frequency of interaction and the quality of interactions (especially pertaining to their relationship) will also be looked at. Once the data is collected, the research will be conducted through the frames of Gauntlet’s narrative theory, and then compared to the narrative on Facebook and how the information has been recorded. Each interview will be recorded separately by each individual researcher, but reported in a topical format.

Interview Results

These questions range from quantitative data regarding the usage of Facebook by the interviewee, to more qualitative questions that ask the interviewees their opinions on identity and Facebook. The interviews wielded some very unexpected results and told a different story from the assumed hypothesis.

Demographics

All four interviewees are ages between 18-25, and have various different backgrounds. The first interviewee is a 23 year old woman who just finished college, and lives and works with her fiance. The next interviewee is a 22 year old man who studies abroad in Uppsala, Sweden, where he met his current girlfriend. The third interviewee is a 23 year old man, also studying abroad in Uppsala, Sweden, whose girlfriend is from his home country. The final interviewee is a 23 year old woman, studying abroad in Uppsala, whose boyfriend is from Sweden.

Facebook Usage

All four interviewees gave various high ratings for the use of Facebook as a means of social networking and communicating with friends- on a scale of 1 to 10, none gave lower than a 6. According to Interviewee #1, “Honestly, I communicate with my most important friends usually through Tumblr. They can put all of the things they are interested in there, and talk about their lives more freely, so I don't really use Facebook for anything other than events.”

Interviewee #2 has a similar rating, but a different response- “Facebook is an important tool for social networking and communicating with friends and family. But an important fact is that the majority of my Facebook contacts aren’t real friends”. The interviewee continues by stating: “why should I communicate my relationship with people who aren’t a big part of my life? I believe that the people who I consider to be good friends, know that I am in a relationship through real life contact”.

Interviewee #3 didn’t have much to say about his rating, and Interviewee #4 clarifies with her activity on Facebook being highly influenced by the fact that she comes from the USA and studies in Sweden. She states “I don’t talk as much to the same people in real life as in Facebook because they live 12 hours away. I talk more to people back home than people here [in Uppsala] on Facebook.”

These ratings lend themselves to the future questions about the posting of a relationship status. Interviewee #1 and #4 post their status on Facebook, however #2 and #3 do not. The next questions focused on whether or not the decision to post a status on Facebook was mutual, or if one party had more influence; this question was only relevant to #1, and she responded “Actually… we were afraid of putting our relationship status on Facebook,” she said. “Because of how not normal it was. We didn’t want to be judged.”

Which may sound strange, but at the time, she was 20 and her fiancé, 19. A bit too young perhaps (in the eyes of her Facebook friends, at least) to be engaged- but she doesn’t feel that way. What worried her and her fiancé the most was the type of response they would get on Facebook. They made a mutual agreement to post the change, stating humorously that they “got home and snuggled up in bed, and readied ourselves for the onslaught of CONGRATS we were gonna get and changed it.”

Social Influence

However, when asked if there was a social pressure to post the status on Facebook, everyone had something to say. Interviewee #1 responds, “all close friends were told that day”, inferring that the Facebook change was just for the “272 friends” who are “acquaintances, or people I see at conventions or events.” She received 23 “likes” to the status, and 14 comments- a few with irrelevant feedback. While being in a relationship with a partner who is active on Facebook too, Interviewee #2 intentionally decided to not show his relationship status, mostly for privacy reasons. “Nobody asked why I didn’t change it, there was no social pressure whatsoever. But if I changed it I will probably get some likes and some positive comments”. When asked if he is in a relationship on Facebook, Interviewee #3 answers no. He justifies this action by saying that he felt no ‘need to’ and that the relationship existed before both of them started their Facebook accounts. He says that “we don’t feel the need to tell the world that we’re together. Those who need to know already do.” When Interviewee #4 began dating her Swedish boyfriend, she posted online about 3 days later “to show friends back home.” Her boyfriend is still hesitant to change his relationship status, so a she also made a post with a picture of him to show her friends at home what he looks like and to answer “all the questions at once.” She said that all the individual questions on the public “wall” were awkward to answer and she wanted to disclose all the information at once. Most of the people who asked about her relationship in real life were the ones in Uppsala who interact with her on a daily basis. She also said that many of the posts on Facebook from friends at home were positive.

Personal Influence

Further questions were posed regarding how the interviewees viewed relationship statuses of their Facebook friends. Interviewee #1 tells an interesting story: when asked, she says she doesn’t really look at a new Facebook friend’s “relationship status”… but it does affect her opinions and views on the person when she notices discrepancies between “Facebook relationship” and real relationship. She told an anecdote to this effect: “there's this one guy that I work with that told me he had a girlfriend. But then when I added him on Facebook he was single so I was confused, but I understand Facebook doesn't determine everything... But then we went out later together to a bar and he went home with 3 girls...THAT changed my opinion of him.” Interviewee #2 gave some insight on his opinions- “At the moment I don’t check the relationship status when accepting or declining a friend request”. There is no personal interest at the moment because the interviewee is currently in a relationship. “Yes, when I was single I checked the relationship status of a new ‘friend’, being in a relationship is a big part of a person’s life since it influences the way a person acts”. Interviewee #3 adds that he doesn’t use Facebook to check relationship status, and he does not treat people differently whether they are in a relationship or not. He feels however, that people treat him differently based on his relationship status, but this tend to “fade away”. Finally, Interviewee #4 responds a bit more typically: When the interview moved to her opinions of the importance of Facebook relationship statuses, she was very blatantly honest. She stated that relationship statuses on Facebook absolutely do effect her opinion of the friend. She specifically mentioned when ex-boyfriend’s have a relationship, the interviewee said that she can’t help but look at the pictures and see why they are together, and with a laugh she said “if the girl is ugly or not.” Honesty was a big part of her opinion of Facebook (and part of her discomfort with her boyfriend’s not wanting to disclose the relationship on Facebook). “You don’t want to market yourself incorrectly. You don’t want to be in limbo and make people snoop. I do look at relationship changes and how people react to it. It does make a difference. You want to know what people think and you want to know who your friends are dating.” And when asked if relationship statuses on Facebook ever open up any interesting dialogue that probably wouldn’t take place in real life, Interviewee #1 admits “Oh yeah, all the time people are nosy. I'm nosy sometimes. When someone's in a relationship that you met as NOT [in a relationship] you wanna know how they met,” she says.

Facebook and Identity

Continuing on to more theoretical questions, the interviewees provide some of their opinions on Facebook and identity. What is the difference between communicating your relationship status with someone in real life versus online (on Facebook)? Interviewee #1 explains, “When you communicate you've met someone and that you've decided to start dating them to a another person, it's an open communication. That person is expected to respond with something. When you communicate to Facebook that you've met someone or are engaged to me, it's like a statement. There's no expectation for people to respond, it's just like a milestone for you to put on your Facebook. Slap a 'in a relationship" sticker on her life sticker book.

“For example, I was out with a friend who told me she was dating this guy. I was excited for her and she showed me a picture and asked, "isn’t he cute?" He wasn't. I didn't know what to say- I didn't want to lie. But I hesitated too long, so I couldn't say yeah. So I said no. And she got all defensive. On Facebook, I can look at the guy, determine he's fugly but not have that problem with hesitation...” she said. Interviewee #2 simply agrees that a relationship status is a big part of somebody’s life. Interviewee #3 doesn’t comment, but Interviewee #4 brings up an interesting point. Their relationship, according to her, has many cultural differences in regards to showing Facebook statuses and is causing a bit of a divide. “For me I think it’s really important because I am so far away and I like to show off I guess…. he said that he doesn’t like to show off due to his culture. I want to show what he looks like… that I’m happy, that I’m in a relationship, even go as far as show off that he’s hot. I’d say it’s both for me and the viewer (and I think it’s a cultural American thing). Also I hate to say it but there were guys back home hitting on me and I wanted an easy way to let them know that I’m taken.”

Finally, the grand finale: Do you realize or believe that someone’s Facebook identity is separate from his or her real identity? Does the appearance of a “relationship status change” on Facebook limit the way you interact with that person in real life? Or do you see Facebook as their actual identity? The problem here is, once it's a "status" on Facebook you get this issue where now you're "the girlfriend of" so and so. The interviewer made the statement “Being in a relationship is nice but people shouldn’t just objectify someone like that”, and Interviewee #1 responded with the following:

“Yeah, that can happen. I hate that. It's happened to be a lot with the Genius team and Dwayne- they see me as Dwayne's girlfriend, like when I get invited to things. But I do think that there's an identity you can have on Facebook and one that you really have. Now, the lines get blurred all the time. Just because of work, I feel like the person that I am publicly on Facebook is NOT the person that I am. Relationship status wise on Facebook does really tend to determine whether or not I think you're single. Like with that guy, he wasn't in a relationship with his so girl friend so I wondered, is he cheated on her? Are they in an open relationship but don't want that one Facebook? I had all these questions based off what he told me in real life and what his identity on Facebook displayed.” Interviewee #2 states, “My Facebook profile is me, but in a really small amount. Of course people tend to be more positive but I never realized that you could pretend to have a online identity which is totally different than your real life one, perhaps in games but not on Facebook”. The interviewee emphasizes even more on this aspect: “I believe that when you are in a relationship you can’t have your relationship presented as single. You can choose to show it or not, but don’t provide false information”. Interviewee #3 separates Facebook identity from ‘real identity’, and says: “unless you know the person deeper, you won’t know why, for example, a person presses the ‘like’ button on certain updates. The number of likes and comments is only important if you make it important. The Facebook relationship should be a thing between two persons, and both persons need to decide together whether they should change their relationship statuses or not”.

This concludes the interviews, and the following discussion will elaborate on what was learned by these responses.

Discussion

With the responses from Interviewee #1, a very simple conclusion can be made. This woman knows there are both a Facebook identity, and a true identity- and she uses that to her advantage. She communicates to the people who truly matter to her, and who know her true identity, without the convoluted social network that is Facebook- choosing to leave that identity to the “272” people who know of her, but don’t choose to get to know her. She posted the relationship status, despite having told all her close friends and family, because she figured she may as well keep up the Facebook identity and use it like the tool it is. In this way, she defies Gauntlett when he said “People’s everyday actions, then, reinforce and reproduce a set of expectations– and it is this set of other people’s expectations which make up the ‘social forces’ and ‘social structures’ that sociologists talk about. As Giddens puts it, ‘Society only has form, and that form only has effects on people, in so far as structure is produced and reproduced in what people do’ (Giddens and Pierson, 1998: 77)” (Gauntlett, 2008, p. 99). Society may have rules and structures that should be affected- but it’s up to her whether or not she’ll conform to them. When it comes to Facebook’s social structure, she follows it only far enough that she doesn’t lose her true identity in the creation of the Facebook façade. Gauntlett interprets Giddens to say that “If we all have an ‘ideal self’ which is the aspirational heart of self identity, and which informs our construction of narratives of self-identity, then the mass media must surely play a part in its development in modern societies” (Gauntlett, 2008, p.102). She concedes that, and she knows that Facebook is actively involved in the way people interact with one another- but she works hard to, as aforementioned, stay out of those stereotypes.

The data provided by interview #2 leads us to draw the conclusion that the previously stated hypotheses should be refuted. In the case of interview #2, the interviewee clearly states that he doesn’t create an ‘alternate’ identity on Facebook. The interviewee does select which information to show and he does make conscious choices, but not with the goal to construct an online identity but to optimize Facebook as a communication platform and remain privacy to a certain extend.
It is interesting to notice that the interviewee rationalizes his actions and information on Facebook. Self-awareness and rationalization are seen as more important than conducting identity by emphasizing on the narrative. Hence, Facebook is not linked to an alternate identity and is also not a mirror of own identity, Facebook is used practical and doesn’t reflect a person’s identity in away Gidden’s supposes.
The data from Interview #3 goes in the same line as the three other interviews’ conclusion. The interviewee makes it clear that he does not define his Facebook account as a reflecting part of his identity, and goes against this paper’s hypothesis and Gidden’s idea of narrative of the self. He defines Facebook as a means for communicating with friends and family. Interestingly enough he says that his relationship is a big part of his life. One could understand this sentence as it’s a part of his identity (the idea of a shared identity in a couple). What’s even more interesting with this is that he feels no need to post his relationship on Facebook, after defining his relationship as important.

In the fourth interview, the data reaped results that continue to support the conclusions made from the other interviews. This particular interview did have results that supported our hypothesis, considering her openness about showing her friends her boyfriend, but her primary use is to simply communicate and not write herself into existence. The subject was highly aware of her use of Facebook as a means of communication, and not necessarily as the development of an alternate identity. She made clear that her primary use of Facebook was like a massive telephone, and considering her situation of living in a different country, the “identity” she creates is made to reflect reality. The primary people she communicates with live far away, so she is aware that an accurate representation of herself is necessary.

Conclusion

Gidden’s "narrative of the self" is a good starting theory upon which we can analyze the way people use Facebook, but it's much more complex than just one person creating an online identity. According to these four interviews, people tend to use Facebook in various ways- and it doesn’t necessarily affect their true identity, as Giddens argues. Facebook is simply a tool that people use to communicate, and whether or not their identity is reflected must be taken on a case-by-case basis. While the interviewees are aware of the fact that Facebook can be mistaken as someone’s true identity, they choose not to let Facebook become their identity. In this study, we made the discovery that perhaps it is the “Facebook friends” who make the “narrative of the self” out of Facebook profiles- and relationship statuses are an interesting micro case study on the multi-faceted platform of Facebook.

Further Research

1. See how many of our Facebook friends post their relationship status.

2. How often does it change, and what are the responses.

3. Interview someone regarding their response to a relationship change on Facebook, and their response in person.

4. Discuss the use of Timeline in creating a narrative biography.

5. Analyze couples who share one Facebook profile

In future research we could analyze the extent of the relationship status change and how influential it really is on someone's Facebook profile. This is a real life event that has been trivialized by turning into a graphic on a News Feed- we establish in our theoretical framework that romance is a key factor in identity, so why do people respond the way they do?

A possible hypothesis we can make out of this interview, is that how we use Facebook depends a lot how we define intimacy.

Literature List

Rundle, Mary. OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. At a Crossroads: “Personhood" and Digital Identity in the Information Society. 2007. Vol. 7. Pdf.

Hamlin, Kaliya. "Introduction to the User-Centric Identity Community." Internet Identity Workshop #10. CA, Mountain View. 17 May 2010. Lecture.

Gauntlett, David. Media, Gender and Identity: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. Print.

Sandler, Elana P. "Promoting Hope, Preventing Suicide." Facebook, Emotions, and Identity. 30 Mar. 2011. Web. 08 Mar. 2012. .