Online Identity

To explore what makes online, virtual selves so idiosyncratic and thus worthy of

discussion in a whole new section, one may want to put some thinking into the

differences between real and virtual realities, or real-life and cyber space. The notion

of cyberspace, first dubbed by Gibson (1984), is commonly realized as a figurative environment where “a graphic representation of data abstracted from the bank of

every computer in the human system” (p. 51) comes to connect with each other. It has

become a conventional means to describe anything in conjunction with the Internet,

but with an extra implication of fluidity and humanity that are not normally attributed

to the computerized network (Wood & Smith, 2005). Below I organize two key draws

of the concept that are most related with the workings of identity: its code-driven

constraints and hospitable environment for sociality.

Consider first the code-driven constraints brought about by infrastructure of the

computer system, or say, how configurations of computerized programs exercise

control over the behaviors of Internet users. An evident design for many virtual

environments online is their text-based communicative platforms (Wood & Smith,

2005),⁶ which leads us to the subject of the language of the Internet or computer

mediated communication (CMC). To Crystal (2006) and Herring (1996), the language

of CMC is almost indecipherable to outsiders and characterized by linguistic

creativity such as emoticons, acronyms, unconventional spellings, representations of

both written and spoken features, and any other codes produced to meet with the

constraints of the context. In such a form of online communication, sound, images,

and other nonverbal stimuli sent from the conversants cannot be shared through

computers. The remaining communication cues, especially when transmitted intermittently or asynchronously, could enhance message senders’ self-awareness in

planning conversation or self-presentation. Receivers, on the other hand, may judge a

person based on their stereotypes reflected in meager information. This observation,

6 The discussion on CMC here is purposefully limited to text-based exchanges because the

noted as the hyperpersonal interaction of CMC (Walther, 1996),⁷ also has a bearing

on the second constraining effect imposed by the computer system – anonymity. In

mediated contexts such as the Internet, communicators are provided with access to a

state of anonymity where their real-life identities remain unknown, or more

commonly, pseudonymity where they disguise themselves with unidentifiable

pseudonyms. It is because of such a possibility that the hyperpersonal nature of CMC

is tenable. As participants do not have to risk personal security, they experience more

freedom to verbalize their thoughts in public, which, when going too far, leads to

uninhibited or assertive texts such as hostile speech acts. Reduced self-regulation and

lack of accountability may as well become a problem. In addition to the malleability

of self-representations, anonymity and pseudonymity also create opportunities for

redeployments of social relationships in the virtual world. That is, without a pre-given

understanding of partners’ hierarchical status and social power, users are able to

participate more equally in communication, starting new as members of a

democratized society (Kiesler, Siegel, & McGuire, 1984). A communicator’s

credibility in transmitting particular information can therefore be built solely on the

7 The hyperpersonal nature of CMC is derived from the social identity deindividuation (SIDE) theory, (Lea & Spears, 1992) which suggests that, without prior knowledge about their partners, CMC

practices that they engage in in cyberspace, not their achievements or bad reputation

in real lives. Another computerized design of relevance is the availability of more

than one account or username one could apply for online. In terms of sociology, it

means the actionable multiplicity of identity with CMC. This feature goes hand in

hand with anonymity and pseudonymity in providing a safety net for a wrongdoer on

the Internet, as he/she could just reconstruct a new, innocent self to get rid of the

“package” of the former identity. More importantly, the design allows participants to

play with different aspects or “faces” of themselves. In line with this, the Internet is

considered a “social laboratory” (Turkle, 1995) or “identity workshop” (Bruckman,

1992) for experiments with one’s psychodramas and unexplored personas. For

example, a “flamer” is someone who predominantly projects his/her vicious side in

cyberspaces. In sum, online users would adapt their verbal behaviors to cater for the

restrictions set by the mediated context in their formation of impressions and

identities.

As for the cyberspace’s hospitable environment for sociality, we direct attention

to the emergence of online community, under the social influence of those irresistible

external forces exerted by the computer system mentioned above. Strictly speaking,

this phenomenon is also a product of a code-driven constraint, that is, the messaging

channels for one-to-many communication. Due to the development of the “network,”

online identities could naturally emerge from joint groups where peer-to-peer

communication and collaboration are valued (Crawford, 2004). From a social

information processing perspective (Walther, 1992), it has been shown that Internet

users are apt to build interpersonal relationships with one another, even with

previously unfamiliar partners. This is why there are norms of conduct, group-specific

meanings for language or other practices, and socially negotiated interpersonal

relationships among the participants (Baym, 1998). To better understand their

interpersonal interactions, one may refer to the idea of virtual community, as

introduced by Rheingold (1993):

Virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationship in cyberspace. (p. 5)

In other words, different from traditional communities, virtual communities are not

based on proximity of participants to one another or face-to-face interaction but ongoing communication and a sense of belonging (“feeling”) to the social peer groups.

To continue with this notion, Squire and Johnson (2000) add that virtual communities

in cyberspace should be organized around a task or activity, existing according to a

need or mutual interest. To be more specific, Palloff and Pratt (1999) generalize

several prerequisites for the emergence of virtual communities. In addition to a

common public space for the group, members need to identify the motive or purpose for CMC’s use and subsequently define a code of conduct, assign a range of

participant roles, and facilitate subgroups. In relevance to this, one may also make

reference to the establishment of netiquette (i.e. Internet etiquette), meaning rules or

responsibilities that the participants expect their members to observe. These social

norms serve as a reference point for evaluation of who is a newbie, an outsider, or an

old-time netizen.

As summarized in this section, in media where text is present, the use of

language is of great importance because it allows the Internet user to project his/her

voice there, thereby constructing their unique online identities. All of the code-driven

constraints discussed help to build images of multiplicity and fluidity of the new era’s

identity, which echoes with the postmodern, discursive view of selves reviewed in the

previous section. With the additional sense of groupness and aptitude for sociality

online, virtual identity is now understood in the context of online communities and

through channels of mutual subjectivity among members.