The Self and the Culture of Social Network Sites - Term Paper Example

? Psychology of the Self and the Culture of Social Network Sites Outline Introduction Background of the Study Objectives of the Study Significance ofthe Study Review of Related Literatures a) Understanding the Concept of the Self b) A Cultural Interpretation of Technology c) An Overview of the Culture of Social Network Sites d) The Impact of Social Network Sites on the Self: Understanding the Virtual Self Analysis Conclusion Introduction Background of the Study From the psychological point of view, an individual has many selves in itself. According to James (1950), the self is divided into “I” and “me” where the former part of self is the subject knower while the latter self is the identified object. The “I” part of the self is that is beyond the “me”. The “me” controls and disciplines the “I” to follow the established laws by the community. The “me” is a consequence of the interaction of individuals with his or her environment. On the other hand, Cooley stated that there exist multiple self for the reason that people change themselves based on whom they interact with (McIntyre, 2006). Yeung and Martin (2003) discussed the three (3) key elements of the looking – glass self theory in which the first component is how an individual visualizes him or her to seem to others, the second part is how a person thinks others’ reaction to that appearance, while the last domain is how an individual alter the self through how others judge him or her. Meanwhile, Nowak, Vallacher, Tesser and Borkowski (2000) proposed that the self is dynamic. Indeed, the self continuously evolves and develop on the basis of the unceasing interaction in the society that adds up to how others would psychologically perceive a person. On the one hand, given the technological advancement, the culture of social network sites has emerged. This has allowed for the individuals to have a representation of themselves in the virtual environment. In this regard, another form of the self is formed. Objective of the Study This study endeavors to contribute to the existing knowledge base on psychology and culture through examining the concept of the self which exists in the fairly new culture of social network sites today. Specifically, this research investigation aims to answer three points. First, it intends to comprehend the concept of the self. Second, it aims to grasp an understanding of the culture of technology, in particular, the culture of digital innovation. Third, it intends to know how the self is represented virtually in different social networking sites. Through looking at this specific topic, it generally targets to psychologically look at and evaluate the self in the digital age. Significance of the Study With the conduct of this research investigation, supplementary knowledge regarding the self within the culture of social network sites is contributed to the field of psychology. To understand the self is very complex given that the self emerges to have multiple facade. The culture of social network sites is fairly new to the generation today. This means that aside from having the self as how the subject sees himself or herself, the self is also seen by others differently in a virtual way. Similarly, in this day and age of technological innovation, there is also another concept of the self, the virtual self. Given this, this paper sees the significant need to answer how the self is influenced by the culture of social network sites. Review of Related Literatures This part of the paper aims to offer a general idea of the literatures concerning the area of psychology of the self and culture of social network sites. In particular, this review of literatures intends to present a cursory outlook at how such available information can help understand and explain the problem of how the self is represented in this day and age of digital age. In this examination of the related literatures, the reviewed books as well as articles are just portions of the entire collection of information related to the impacts of culture of social network sites on the self. Meanwhile, in order to better understand the relationship of the self and the culture of social network sites, this section presents the four (4) segments: a) Understanding the Concept of the Self; b) A Cultural Interpretation of Technology; c) An Overview of the Culture of Social Network Sites; and d) The Impact of Social Network Sites on the Self: Understanding the Virtual Self. Through dividing and categorizing the following, this part of the paper aids at providing an outlook on how to comprehend the topic under study. a) Understanding the Concept of the Self In the field of psychology, the concept of the self is one among the most significant ideas for the reason that it is focused on understanding how one’s individual identity is represented in everyday lives. For James (1950), the self can be understood in two (2) different selves which are the “I” and the “me”. The distinction originates from the fact that the “I” happens to be the subject knower while the other self as “me” is the object that is identified (James, 1950). On the one hand, according to Mead, the “I” part of the self is the reaction of an individual towards the ways of behaving of the community. “I” is something that behaves based on the values that they have learned on the society (Miller, 1973). The “I” is something beyond the “me” for the reason that this is the part of the self that is beyond any restrictions from any entity but his own. In contrast to “I”, Nielson (2002) stated that the part of the self that holds back the “I” from breaking the rules established by the community is the “me”. According to Inghilleri (1999), the “me” part of the self is an impact of the individual’s interaction with the others. Goffman (1972) argued that the individual’s sense of self is something that is not created by his or her own self but is a result of how his or her significant others have shaped him or her to be. It is the case that human beings learn from their experiences of the environment. The individual self is affected by attitudes of others towards him or her. Through the process, the self internalizes others’ attitudes which in the process create the “me”. Meanwhile, it is the case that there exist multiple selves aside from the “I” and the “me”. This is for the reason that how others see an individual is manifold. In fact, Charles Horton Cooley developed a theory of the self, the looking – glass self, in 1902 (McIntyre, 2006). According to this perspective, an individual shape his or her own self on the basis of how other people perceive and expect them to be (McIntyre, 2006). It is the case that the individuals try to achieve or to actualize these perceptions or expectations on them. Yeung and Martin (2003) discussed the three (3) key elements of the looking – glass self theory in which the first component is how an individual visualizes him or her to seem to others, the second part is how a person thinks others’ reaction to that appearance, while the last domain is how an individual alter the self through how others judge him or her. This process begins at an early stage of life and remains changing himself or herself based on the continuous interaction with others. From the perspective of looking – glass self, an individual has a different self on the grounds of how his or her parents see him or her, how his or her friends notice him or her, how his or her colleagues perceive him or her and how the others identify that person. One’s reflection of the self changes grounded on the images that others view him or her. In this case, Nowak, Vallacher, Tesser and Borkowski (2000) proposed that the self is dynamic. Indeed, the self continuously evolves and develop on the basis of the unceasing interaction in the society that adds up to how others would psychologically perceive a person. b) A Cultural Interpretation of Technology The term “culture” has many existing definitions. As a point of fact, Kroeber and Kluckhohn reviewed in year 1952 the over a hundred prevailing definitions of the concept. However, in their generalization of the definitions, they described culture as composed of both the implicit as well as explicit patterns of behaviours (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952). The most significant element culture has is the traditional ideas as well as their attached values (Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952). On the one hand, Keesing (1974) defined the concept as an accessible public descriptive representation of individuals that express their meanings and experiences. In addition to that, Linton (1945) suggested that culture is influenced by the learned behaviors as well as the result of such deeds. Moreover, culture is a mutually shared by its individual members (Linton, 1945). Likewise, Damen (1987) stated that these cultural models and patters are passed through all characteristic of interactions in the social world. It is of importance to note that culture can be referred to as a suitability of the individuals with the atmosphere (Farahani, 1996). Similarly, Farahani (1996) suggested that it is also something that can be defined as the relationship that can be founded by the individuals with their very own environment. In this case, culture clearly includes technology as its chunk in order for the people to identify and understand how they can be a functional member the society which they belong (Geertz, 1973). On the one hand, Malinowski (1994) defined culture differently in such a way that it embraces the elements of inherited artefacts, ideas, habits, goods, values, as well as technical processes. Meanwhile, culture is explained by Hofstede (1984) as a type of shared and mutual programming in the minds of individuals which allows them to differentiate the individual associates of a particular group from that of the other. In this review, it can be said that culture takes on so many varying meaning in which according to Elzinga and Jamison (1981), such differences in definition are based on the dissimilarity in academic field. In addition to that, Shahnavaz (no date) expressed that culture functions a role in the design of technology since the technology sees the significant function of culture in its development. This makes culture a defining factor in the choice of technology (Shahvanaz, no date). Parsons (1966), on the one hand, perceived technology as a kind of capability of the organization simply because it has the ability to dominate and make changes in the physical environment. Moreover, such transformations serve as an assistance in the human beings’ needs as well as demands. This point of view is agreed by Farahani (1996). For her, technology serves a role of a mechanism of environmental transformation in order to have a certain compatibility with the needs of individuals. True enough, it is suggested by Reddy (1983) that technology can be regarded as a passage of communities’ genetic codes in which they have originated. c) An Overview of the Culture of Social Network Sites Given the technological advancement in the world today, computer has been so much relevant to the lives of people. In this day and age, the transfer of information can be done instantly without any difficulty because of the digital revolution. Likewise, this digital age has enabled the emergence of different social network sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Multiply, blogs and a lot more others. According to Boyd and Ellison (no date), the social network sites are the rooms for individuals to create a profile to represent his or her own self within an enclosed system in which within this system, the other users can access and link to that particular individual whom they share a particular connection. It is the case that such connections may possibly alter depending on the sites (Boyd & Ellison, no date). In the realm of social network sites, interaction is more unrestricted because it permits an individual to meet other people including meeting strangers. That is to say, social the networks sites serve an advantageous role of maintaining or even strengthening the social capital such as family, friends, colleagues and others (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe, 2007). In addition to that meeting other people, users can actually represent themselves virtually and articulate what they think or feel. Nonetheless, Haythornwaite (2005) stated that connections made in social network sites can possibly lead to not intended connections like meeting new people in which often the case, the meetings are undeveloped and suppressed ties. This is marked by some offline connections between them (Haythornwaite, 2005). In addition to that, in the world of social network sites, looking to meet new people is not the real intention of most participants but instead, meeting and communicating with people who they already know. In social network sites, one of the most common technical features is the visible profile in which according to Sunden (2003), can type into being his or her own self. The profile is enhanced through including personal information such as age, location, gender, interests and some other information to share about oneself. Together with the profile, photos are also uploaded and shared to represent the user. In other sites, sharing how they feel is also allowed. For Keihne (2004), social networking is an activity that is essential and very much intrinsic to human beings. However, the concept of having electronic social networks may be new but still serves the same purpose to the human cultural experience (Keihne, 2004). On the one hand, over the years, it is observed that there are so many different social network services that have emerged because of the fact that they concentrate on enhancing or building the connections as well as informing people on some social information on their own network (Keihne, 2004). What is so special about social networking sites is the fact that there exist real social networks in a computer – generated environment. Nonetheless, social network sites are criticized for its probable privacy issues (Boyd & Ellison, no date) like for example, the available personal information like date of birth and hometown can be used by others in other purposes (Gross & Acquisiti, 2005). Similarly, other personal information like name of school or workplace, status of relationship, photos of themselves alone, screen name in AIM, classes, pictures together with others, and for a few their mobile numbers, are also at risk especially when their networks involve some strangers (Ellison et al., 2007). d) The Impact of Culture of Social Network Sites on the Self: Understanding the Virtual Self According to the looking – glass self theory of Cooley, people have different selves in a manner that our selves change depending on who we are interacting with. On the one hand, with the development of technology, the culture of social network sites has emerged. Given this, another room for self – representation has occurred. The impact of the advent of the culture of social network sites is another self in the virtual world. Pelzer (no date) stated that in such virtual community, the consequence is the occurrence of multiple identities of the members. This is for the reason that it is often the case that the social network sites have members with different real and virtual identities (Pelzer, no date). Likewise, it is argued that social capital is reduced in this sort of community (Barney, 2004) and as an effect, the identity is de – marginalized. Given this, alternative identities have been formed in a virtual environment. McKenna and Bargh (2006) argued that members of the social network sites create multiple identities for the reason that it is their way to be accepted by others. This offers them some sort of emotional fulfilment as suggested by Takfel (McKenna & Bargh, 2006). Though it is the case that an individual does not have the power to modify his or her own identity in the real world, the virtual world has allowed the chance of crafting another identity. By constructing another identity, people receive the emotional gratification they would want to have in the real world. It is the case that in the virtual environment, the member can hide their marginalized identity since they come to grasp the understanding that such part of their identity are worthless to the society (McKenna & Bargh, 2006). In the process of constructing a virtual self, a positive self – image must be achieved. On the one hand, Back, Stopfer, Vazire, Gaddis, Schmukle, Engloff and Gossling (2010) studied the profiles of Facebook users. In contrast to the earlier viewpoints, they found out that it is the case that these Facebook profiles do certainly mirror not the self – idealization but the actual personally instead (Back et al., 2010). Their findings agree with the extended real – life hypothesis which actually states that people in the virtual world actually share their real characteristics. The results of their study suggested that self – idealization is not indicated. Similarly, the ideal – self ratings were just at par with the observers’ impression of their personality. This only pointed out that their profiles did not support any idealized virtual identity but such profiles had promoted their real personalities. Analysis Through the gathered information, this study suggested that indeed, there are many forms of the self. Aside from how one sees himself or herself, there exists another self of how the others perceive that individual. In addition to that, this ‘how others see a particular person’ is manifold. This is for the reason that a person continuously interact with different individuals in the environment. However, given the digital age, it is the case that another self has emerged within the social networking sites. For some, it is claimed that such profiles are portrayals of their ideal self (McKenna & Bargh, 2006). The users have to create such alternative identities in order to have the emotional gratification they are probably missing out in the real world. In order to be socially accepted in the virtual world, they try to conceal their weak and worthless characteristics. That is to say, they modify themselves to be emotionally fulfilled. This process allows them to create a positive self – image that they ideally would like to have. However, a study suggested that social network sites through Facebook are actually a representation of the actual self and not the ideal self. From my point of view after analyzing the gathered information, I can say that the virtual self is more of an actual embodiment of the “I” and “me” self. This is because in this kind of world, individuals have more freedom to do and say whatever they want. The kind of self in the virtual environment is more of the unrestricted part of the self. One the one hand, given the complexity of the social yet virtual environment, the elements of computer - generated atmosphere also influence the individual to alter themselves. This may possibly be some sort of the culture of social network sites shaping the individual to express themselves freely.  Conclusion To put it in a nutshell, this research do not reject the idea that there exist multiple selves. In fact, in the realm of social network sites, another form of self exists virtually. In the virtual representation of the self, this study suggests that since the culture of social network sites are characterized by having more freedom and non – restriction to say or do whatever they want, the users of the sites are actually showing the “I” part of themselves at some points. However, just like the real world, there are some viewers who also criticize what he or she is doing which somehow influences him or her to limit what information he or she is sharing. Nonetheless, the culture of social network sites plays an influence on the self. In this case, whatever cultural values the social network has, it may somehow impact the individual and pass on the attitudes and beliefs of the sites to the users. Likewise, given the more freedom it has in the virtual world, people can change somehow the way they would want to portray themselves simply because the cultural values that the social network sites have are more fluid than that of the real world. References: Back, M.D., Stopfer, J.M., Vazire, S., Gaddis, S., Schmukle, S.C., Egloff, B. & Gosling, S.D. (2010). Facebook profiles reflect actual personality, not self-idealization. Psychological Science 21(3): 372–374. Barney, J. (2004). The networked society. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Boyd, D.M. & Ellison, N. (no date). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship._______ Damen, L. (1987). Culture learning: The fifth dimension on the language classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ellison, N., Charles, S. & Cliff, L. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college student’s use of online social networking sites.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12: 1143-1168. Elzinga, A. and Jamison, A. (1981). Cultural components in the scientific attitude to nature: Eastern and Western modes? Discussion Paper 146. Gutenberg: University of Gutenberg Press. Farahani, F. (1996). Culture and technology: The cultural aspect of technology. In Sarawsati, B. Interface of cultural identity development. D.K. Print World Ltd. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books Goffman, E. (1972). Relations in public. Penguin. Gross, R. & Acquisti, A. (2011). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks (The Facebook Case).” WPES Nov: n. pag. Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication, & Society 8(2): 125-147. Hofstede, G. (1984). National cultures and corporate cultures. In L.A. Samovar & R.E. Porter (Eds.), Communication Between Cultures. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Inghilleri, P. (1999). From subjective experience to cultural change. Cambridge University Press. James,W. (1950). The Principles of psychology, Vol.1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Keesing, R.M. (1974). Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology 3: 73-97. Keihne, T.P. (2004). Social networking systems: History, critique and knowledge management potentials. University of Texas. Retrieved from http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~i385q/archive/kiehne_t/kiehne(2004)-sns.pdf Kroeber, A.L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of concepts and definitions. Harvard University Peabody Museum of American Archeology and Ethnology Papers 47 Malinowski, B. (1944). A scientific theory of culture and others essays. The University of North Carolina Press. McIntyre, L. (2006). The practical skeptic: Core concepts in sociology. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw Hill. McKenna, K., Bargh, J. (2006). Key readings: small groups. Psychology Press. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2GAgaV_htWQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA433&ots=ezx4Fhp3qI&sig=CwEYD8jI05OTCyC6pPmccl_N32o#PPT447,M1 Miller, D.L. (1973). George Herbert Mead: Self, language and the world. University of Texas Press. Nielson, G.M. (2002). The norms of answerability: Social theory between Bakhtin and Habermas. State University of New York Press. Nowak, A., Vallacher, R. R., Tesser, A. & Borkowski, W. (2000). Society of self: The emergence of collective properties of self-Structure. Psychological Review 107: 39-61. Parsons, T. (1966). Societies. Engle Wood, N.J. : Prentice Hall. Pelzer, C.J. (no date). Social networking sites and the consequences of multiple identities among members of virtual communities. Retrieved from http://www.public.iastate.edu/~cjpelzer/Resarch%20Paper%20Final%20Draft.pdf Reddy, A. (1983). La culture. Clef de Development UNESCO. Shahnavaz, H. (no date). Cultural differences. International Labour Organization. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/safework_bookshelf/english?content&nd=857170348 Sunden, J. (2003). Material virtualities. New York: Peter Lang. Yeung, King-To, & Martin, John Levi. (2003). The looking glass self: An empirical test and elaboration. Social forces 81(3): 843-879. Read More