12 A Networked Self

Identity Performance and Sociability

on Social Network Sites
Zizi Papacharissi

The self, in late modern societies, is expressed as fluid abstraction, reified 1

through the individual’s association with a reality that may be equally flex- 2
ible. The process of self presentation becomes an ever-evolving cycle through 3
which individual identity is presented, compared, adjusted, or defended 4
against a constellation of social, cultural, economic, or political realities. 5
Goffman (1959) described this as an information game; “a potentially infi- 6
nite cycle of concealment, discovery, false revelation, and rediscovery” (p. 7
13). This somewhat ego-centered approach has been related by other sociolo- 8
gists to contemporary historical developments, which render the self more 9
liquid (Baumann, 2000; 2005), reflexive (Giddens, 1991), or self-identity a 10
process (Jenkins, 2004). Self-identity in public and private life thus traverses 11
distinct yet connected planes of interaction or networks. Technology may 12
provide the stage for this interaction, linking the individual, separately or 13
simultaneously, with multiple audiences. Online social networks constitute 14
such sites of self presentation and identity negotiation. This paper focuses on 15
what it means to present the self in online networked environments. 16
Social network sites enable individuals to construct a member profi le, 17
connect to known and potential friends, and view other members’ con- 18
nections. Their appeal derives from providing a stage for self presentation 19
and social connection. SNSs provide props that facilitate self presenta- 20
tion, including text, photographs, and other multimedia capabilities, but 21
the performance is centered around public displays of social connections 22
or friends, which are used to authenticate identity and introduce the self 23
through the reflexive process of fluid association with social circles. Thus, 24
individual and collective identities are simultaneously presented and pro- 25
moted. Online social networks like MySpace, Facebook, Cyworld, Orkut, 26
LinkedIn, and Bebo reinforce the social affordances of online environments, 27
by fostering interaction that is primarily interpersonal, and founded upon 28
norms of everyday interaction adapted to the online setting. Enabling both 29
identity expression and community building, SNS are initially structured 30
around a niche audience, although they frequently expand beyond that tar- 31
get market. SNSs cater to a variety of cultural and social interests, and vary 32
to the extent that they support additional services such as blogging (e.g., 33
34

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 207

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 208 Zizi Papacharissi
1 LiveJournal), audio/visual content sharing (Flickr, Last.FM, YouTube), pro-
2 fessional orientation (LinkedIn), focus on status updates online and mobile
3 connectivity (Twitter, Dodgeball), exclusive membership (ASmallWorld),
4 or specific ethnic, religious, sexual orientation, and/or particular content
5 genres (Orkut, CyWorld).
6 The individual combines the affordances of both older and newer media
7 to construct a social sphere that lends autonomy and fluidity to the way in
8 which sociality is managed. A model of networked sociality emerges on
9 online spaces, the architectural affordances of which inform human activ-
10 ity, by suggesting possibilities for interaction. Working in ways similar to
11 the architecture of physical spaces, these affordances “organize an ensem-
12 ble of possibilities and interdictions,” which are then left to the individual
13 to actualize or reappropriate (de Certeau, 1984, p. 98). The architectural
14 environment presented through these affordances places the individual at
15 as the center and source of all interactions, which typically emanate from a
16 locus that permits an online connection. Frequently this locus is domestic,
17 although workplace and mobile connections introduce elements of flexibil-
18 ity and ubiquity to the sociability sustained via social network sites. The
19 common element, however, among all these access points, is that they com-
20 mand a private sphere of interaction, meaning that the individual engages
21 socially through a private media environment located within personal and
22 private space. This private sphere of social interaction is rhetorically estab-
23 lished by the individual by utilizing existing and imagined geographies of
24 place. Social activities may be pursued, then, through private domestic envi-
25 ronments or via temporary moments of privacy attained at the work place,
26 via mobile access, or in other public environments. These privée spaces are
27 socially enabled via networked technologies, and social network sites sup-
28 port this form of networked, mobile, and flexible sociality. The networked
29 architecture of these sites affords publicity, in a manner that frequently
30 does not distinguish between public and private boundaries.
31 These private spheres of sociality are sustained through SNS member
32 profiles, networks of friends, and communicative capabilities different
33 SNSs offer. It is within this architectural plateau that the networked self
34 is actualized, taking advantage of the expressive and connective affor-
35 dances of SNSs. Online social networks allow the individual to connect to
36 local and remote spheres of family members, friends and acquaintances,
37 and strong and weaker social ties. They further expand the communica-
38 tive channels individuals may dedicate toward the cultivation of social
39 networks. The flexibility of online digital technologies permits interaction
40 and relations among individuals within the same networks or across net-
41 works, a variety of exchanges and ties, variable frequency of contact and
42 intimacy, affiliation with smaller or larger, and global or local networks
43 formed around variable common matter. The individual gains access to a
44 variety of multimedia tools that enable the possibility of more controlled
45 and more imaginative performances of identity online, or allow users to
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 208

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 A Networked Self 209
create a “face” for each interaction and developing “faces” for a variety of 1
situational contexts (Goff man, 1959). These performances are enabled by 2
a performative palette that combines multimedia elements with cultural 3
references, elements of play, denotative and connotative expression, and a 4
variety of tools. Goff man (1959) has described such performative palettes 5
as the “setting,” for the presentation of the self, that is, the “furniture, 6
décor, physical layout and other background items which supply the scen- 7
ery and stage props,” with which the individuals articulate the “front,” or 8
a general introductory performance of the self, as opposed to the “back- 9
stage,” where a more authentic self resides (p. 97). SNSs expand the expres- 10
sive equipment at hand, possibly allowing greater control of the distance 11
between the front and backstage areas of the self; what is presented and 12
that which is reserved. 13
The process of self presentation is complicated in the context of SNSs 14
that combine a variety of audiences, of variable privacy or publicity, into 15
a single crowd of spectators observing the same performance, but from a 16
variety of vantage points, depending on their relationship to the performing 17
self. The individual must then engage in multiple mini performances that 18
combine a variety of semiological references so as to produce a presenta- 19
tion of the self that makes sense to multiple audiences, without sacrificing 20
coherence and continuity. The process of modifying behavior so as to be 21
palatable to a variety of audiences is not new for individuals. In every day 22
cycles of self-presentation and impression formation, individuals perform 23
on multiple stages, and in doing so, they blend social spheres online that 24
may have been separate offline, thus confusing private and public boundar- 25
ies. Meyrowitz (1986) describes these circumstances as subtle changes in 26
the “situational geography of social life,” and argues that electronic media 27
frequently reorganize private and public boundaries in ways that expose 28
individuals to a variety of potential audiences, some intentional and several 29
accidental (p. 6). The architectural equivalent of lifting all walls physically 30
separating rooms, houses, offices, buildings, and all concrete structures, 31
this rearrangement of boundaries results in a loss of the unique connec- 32
tion of interaction to place, or in Meyrowitz’s terms, the loss of a sense 33
of place. Social interactions taking place on SNSs could be interpreted as 34
suffering from a similar lack of private/public boundary delineation, and 35
consequently, a sense of place. 36
While it is possible for this convergence of boundaries to displace the 37
situational character of some communication, non-verbal and verbal cues 38
afforded by technology enable the mediation of situational information. 39
Following the initial, and rather dramatic collapse of place described by 40
Meyrowitz, individuals become familiar with a multiplication of place, 41
which emphasizes the propagation over the consolidation of audiences. 42
Scannell (1996) has referred to the same process as a “doubling of place,” 43
explaining that in late modern life, “public events . . . occur simultaneously 44
in two different places: the place of the event itself and that in which it is 45
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 209

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 210 Zizi Papacharissi
1 watched and heard. Broadcasting mediates between these two sites” (p.
2 76). With converged technologies, the effect is further multiplied, creating a
3 plurality of overlapping or mutually exclusive social audiences, which is the
4 “doubling” or “multiplying” metaphor may be a more accurate reflection
5 of the role played by technology (e.g., Couldry, 2000; 2004; Moores, 2004;
6 Scannell, 1996; Ross, 2004). Consequently, social relationships are multi-
7 plied, creating the potential for multiple performances of the self occur-
8 ring in a variety of different stages (Moores, 2004). This multiplication of
9 social audience does not imply a lost sense of place, but it does necessitate
10 performances that are more aware, so as to make sense to a variety of
11 audiences. These performances are crafted in fragments of polysemic perti-
12 nence, which are interconnected by the SNS member profi le. The resulting
13 space is a converged continuum of sociality that is “homogeneous, yet at
14 the same time broken into fragments” (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 342).
15 Given that identity is performed to multiplied audiences, via multiple
16 tools and on multiple stages, what are the consequences of these polyse-
17 mous performances for sociality? The growing popularity of social net-
18 work sites frequently leads scholars, the media, and the public to ask
19 what sorts of individuals these networks produce: More or less social?
20 Research typically reveals that following an initial phase during which
21 avid use of a new medium displaces other habits, individuals return to
22 their everyday routines, which now include a healthier integration of the
23 new medium. Therefore, for most people, new media contribute to, rather
24 than permanently dislodge social, and other routines. As a result, indi-
25 vidual spheres of sociality are not necessarily enhanced or restricted, but
26 they are reformed. Important as it may be to consider the impact of the
27 technology on social behaviors, a binary focus on effects invites metric
28 tendencies that are inherently misguiding. More meaningful questions lie
29 in determining not sheer amount or presence of sociality, but rather, the
30 patterns of sociality that emerge.
31 Similarly, the growing relevance of social network sites invite ques-
32 tions regarding the social character of these platforms, leading us to ask:
33 Are these tendencies reflective of more or less social media? By defi nition,
34 communication media connect (and disconnect), thus inherently possess-
35 ing social attributes. Decades of social science research on communica-
36 tion technologies have shown that media do not render people more or
37 less social; they connect, and in doing so, afford all situations they mediate
38 social properties. All media are social. Without question, media will foster
39 some form of social connection; more interesting questions lie in investigat-
40 ing who they connect, who they disconnect, and how.
41 Finally, popular interest in social network sites revolves around the
42 extent to which these present more or less social spaces. Given the ability of
43 people to populate space with activity that is social, via media that intrinsi-
44 cally permit connection, more interesting questions involve what makes a
45 space social; why some activities are present in certain social spaces and
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 210

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 A Networked Self 211
absent from others; and how properties of space inform the ways in which 1
we perform our sociality. 2
3
4
ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS AND SOCIAL NETWORK SITES 5
6
Research on online social networks examines the formation and mainte- 7
nance of online networks that support existing and new social ties (Wasser- 8
man and Faust, 1994; Wellman and Berkowitz, 1997). The unit of analysis 9
is the interaction or relation between people, measured in terms of ties held 10
by individuals maintaining a relation, the types of exchanges, frequency of 11
contact, strength of ties, intimacy, qualitative elements of relations, size of 12
networks, global or local span of networks and numerous other variables 13
(Haythornthwaite, 2000; 2001; 2002a, 2002b; 2005; Haythornthwaite, 14
Wellman, and Mantei, 1995; Haythornthwaite and Wellman, 1998). 15
Earlier online social network research examined communication and 16
medium use (e-mail, phone, fax, and videoconferencing) in a work net- 17
work of co-located researchers, to fi nd that pairs of individuals possessing 18
stronger ties tended to communicate more frequently, maintain a greater 19
number of relations and communicate more frequently (Haythornthwaite, 20
Wellman and Mantei, 1995; Haythornthwaite and Wellman, 1998). This 21
fi nding has re-surfaced in a variety of networks and context, including dis- 22
tance learning (e.g., Haythornthwaite, 2000; 2001; 2002a, 2002b), orga- 23
nizational contexts (e.g., Garton, Haythornthwaite and Wellman, 1997), 24
and social support networks (e.g., Hlebec, Manfreda and Vehovar, 2006) 25
allowing researchers to fi netune the concepts of social network relation 26
(type of exchange or interaction, characterized by content, direction and 27
strength), tie (pairs who maintain one or more types of relations, develop- 28
ing strong, weak or latent ties), network as web of person-to-person con- 29
nectivity (distinguishing between ego-centered or whole network analysis, 30
which may examine range, centrality or roles), and media multiplexity 31
(the tendency of more strongly tied pairs to make use of more available 32
media). Studies focusing on Netville, a wired suburb of Toronto, revealed 33
that online interaction frequently supplemented or served as an alternative 34
to face-to-face interaction, in ways that had positive effects on social capital 35
(Hampton and Wellman, 2000; Hampton, 2002; Hampton and Wellman, 36
2001a, 2001b, 2003; Wellman, Haase, Witte, and Hampton, 2001). 37
Social network sites represent a natural extension of this work, as they 38
connect networks of individuals that may or may not share a place based 39
connection. Social network sites are defi ned as “web-based services that 40
allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a 41
bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share 42
a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those 43
made by others within the system” (boyd and Ellison, 2007). They host 44
social networks that are articulated online, and as such, they present one 45
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 211

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 212 Zizi Papacharissi
1 iteration or aspect of social network research. On most SNSs, users are not
2 looking to meet new people or to network, but rather to sustain contact
3 with their existing group of friends and acquaintances (boyd and Ellison,
4 2007). In doing so, presenting a profile and displaying connections with
5 others publicly forms the basis for interaction on SNSs (boyd and Ellison,
6 2007; boyd and Heer, 2006; Donath, 2007; Donath and boyd, 2004). SNSs
7 support varying types of interaction on diverse and differing platforms,
8 and SNSs like Friendster, MySpace, and Facebook have had a significant
9 influence on the orientation of most other SNSs (for a timeline of SNSs, see
10 boyd and Ellison, 2007).
11
12
13 SOCIAL NETWORK SITES AS SOCIAL ARCHITECTURES
14
15 Research on SNSs generates interdisciplinary interest and evidence of
16 evolving social behaviors online. Self presentation online and impression
17 management presents a common starting point for most researchers. boyd
18 and Heer (2006) studied user profi les on SNSs as conversational pieces, and
19 found that Friendster users display friends to suggest or “signal” aspects
20 of their identity to potential audiences. In this context, “public displays
21 of connection” present the center of identity performance, and are typi-
22 cally viewed as “a signal of the reliability of one’s identity claims” (Donath
23 and boyd, 2004, p. 73). Users frequently compete for who possesses the
24 most or most coveted friends (Cassidy, 2006; Slotnik, 2007). Furthermore,
25 SNSs reinforce the social character of online environments, by fostering
26 interaction that is primarily interpersonal, and founded upon norms of
27 everyday interaction adapted to the online setting. Donath (1998; 2007)
28 found that individuals combine reliable, yet costly to produce assessment
29 signals, with not as reliable or costly conventional signals to communi-
30 cate authenticity online. To this point, Donath (2007) elaborated that site
31 design promotes the development of particular culture or behaviors and
32 identity presentation.
33 Several researchers employ the architecture of the SNS as starting point,
34 to discuss and investigate a variety of related topics. Stutzman (2006) tracked
35 the types of personal information most likely to be disclosed on SNSs, point-
36 ing out that lexical or architectural differences among these SNSs (Friendster,
37 MySpace, and Facebook) contributed to tendencies or variations in personal
38 information disclosure. Gross and Acquisti (2005) further examined how
39 individuals disclose information and protect privacy on Facebook, finding
40 that most users share personal information openly and few modify their
41 default privacy settings for increased protection. For members of a You-
42 Tube community, “publicly private” (private behaviors, exhibited with the
43 member’s true identity) and “privately public” (sharing publicly accessible
44 video without disclosing member’s true identity) behaviors were developed
45 within the architectural confines of the system to signal different depths of
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 212

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 A Networked Self 213
relationships and to communicate empathy, respect or inclusion among mem- 1
bers of the network (Lange, 2007). On MySpace and Friendster, displays of 2
interests were carefully selected and arranged so as to communicate affili- 3
ation with a particular taste culture or fabric (Liu, Maes, and Davenport, 4
2006; Liu, 2007). Activities and behaviors can also be structured to facilitate 5
particular discussion or interest genres (Byrne, 2007a; 2007b). These trends 6
are reflective of behaviors that are need oriented, and are developed around 7
the customization of social attributes of technologies, effected for the com- 8
munication of social information. They suggest a confluence of user motives, 9
media attributes, and social ties or outcomes that have been previously 10
examined in media research within the approaches of uses and gratifications, 11
social networks, and through a discussion of media attributes or affordances 12
of particular media genres or platforms. 13
In these networks that are particularly ego-centered, individuals at the 14
center of their own networks take charge and adapt network norms to fit 15
personal, cultural and social context (boyd, 2006a). Moreover, SNS users 16
frequently interpret cues deposited in member profiles, such as message on 17
Facebook “walls” or pictures of member friends to make inferences about 18
the member’s character (Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, and Tom 19
Tong, 2008). In a context that is markedly non-western, such as Cyworld, 20
architectural SNS features are adapted to match the cultural norms of the 21
users and the high-context relational dialectics of Koreans (Kim and Yun, 22
2007). These empirical data further document reappropriations of technol- 23
ogy that cater to the fulfillment of particular needs associated with the suste- 24
nance of social ties with a variety of circles or networks. 25
Finally, several studies develop around Facebook, the most popular 26
of social networks at present. In particular, studies of Facebook fi nd 27
that users employ the network to learn more about individuals they meet 28
offl ine, thus further documenting the connection between online and 29
offl ine behaviors and tendencies (Lampe, Ellison, and Steinfield, 2006). 30
Further studies reveal a strong association between bridging social capi- 31
tal, which expands social opportunities and enhances information shar- 32
ing among primarily weak ties, and individuals reporting low satisfaction 33
and low self-esteem (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe, 2007). These fi ndings 34
underline connections between user orientations and subsequent genera- 35
tion of social capital, which map out a credible intersection for U&G and 36
the social networks approach. 37
Moreover, it becomes apparent, from relevant research, that online social 38
networks simultaneously suggest genres of behavior through their architec- 39
tural elements and submit the same architectural elements to the behavioral 40
idioms of their users, who customize them to better connect offline and 41
online interactions. So, while the architecture of SNSs is suggestive, it does 42
not have to be inherently limiting, depending of course on the culture and 43
orientation of the online social network. Learning from previous examina- 44
tions of online social networks, this study examines SNSs as space, and 45
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 213

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 214 Zizi Papacharissi
1 investigates differences and similarities that develop among three SNSs that
2 make distinctly contrasting uses of online space.
3
4
5 THE AFFORDANCES OF CONVERGENT TECHNOLOGIES
6
7 The architecture of the technology that belies these networked platforms
8 of interaction rests upon principles of convergence, which enable multiple
9 and overlapping connections between varieties of distinct spheres of socia-
10 bility. The social platforms or spaces sustained by convergent technolo-
11 gies accentuate confluence, flexibility, and reflexivity of media content.
12 Jenkins (2006) has broadly defi ned convergence as “a word that describes
13 technological, industrial, cultural and social changes in the ways media
14 circulates within our culture . . . a situation in which multiple media sys-
15 tems coexist and where media content flows fluidly across them” (p. 282).
16 Jenkins emphasizes that convergence references several common ideas,
17 including the flow of content across media platforms, overlap between
18 media industries, fi nancing that serves the interest of combined processes
19 of media production, migratory behavior on the part of audiences that
20 virally follow content, and of course, the ability for audiences to interact
21 with content as both consumers and producers. The convergent prop-
22 erties of media render them both remixed and remixable; the product
23 of institutions and independent socio-cultural agents. It is helpful to
24 understand social network platforms as hosting social resources that are
25 both remixed and remixable, allowing to reference content that has been
26 reworked and can be further reworked as we construct performances of
27 the self.
28 Needless to say, convergence as a property is neither exclusive to nor
29 defi ning of all communication technology. While characterized by a con-
30 fluence of information communication services and platforms, convergence
31 of technologies brings forth and is sustained by a convergence of practices
32 within and beyond technology, thus also proposing a convergence of spaces
33 and practices. To this point, Deuze (2007) suggests that convergence “is
34 not just a technological process,” and must therefore also be recognized as
35 “having a cultural logic of its own, blurring the lines between production
36 and consumption, between making media and using media, and between
37 active or passive spectatorship of mediated culture” (p. 74). The confluent
38 properties of information technologies suggest particular possibilities for
39 interaction, which tend to be structured around the potential for interac-
40 tion to converge social spheres, remix social resources, and reorganize the
41 time and space contours of sociability. It would be sensible to characterize
42 these properties as the affordances of convergent technological architec-
43 ture, that is, intrinsic potentialities of technologies that make them “easier
44 to use them for some purposes than for others” (Buckingham, 2008, p. 12).
45 Open to re-appropriation by individuals, affordances are negotiated and
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 214

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 A Networked Self 215
re-deployed, characterizing technology that is both “socially shaped and 1
socially shaping” (Buckingham, 2008, p. 12; Williams, 1974). 2
Several studies of social network sites reflect how, in the absence of suf- 3
ficient relational cues, individuals in SNSs actively renegotiate the architec- 4
tural attributes of websites so as to craft identity performances that are more 5
authentic (Fono & Raynes-Goldie, 2006). SNSs users transplant the process 6
of cultivating friendships within the architecturally imposed structure of 7
“friending or not,” and organize hierarchies of friends with varying privileges 8
(boyd, 2006a). Individuals also frequently deposit or interpret cues in mem- 9
ber walls, pictures, or comments thus employing enriching the virtual archi- 10
tecture of the site with social information (Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, 11
Westerman, and Tom Tong, 2008). These behaviors document a selection 12
of virtual spaces motivated by felt needs for socially driven communication. 13
Subsequent customizations of space appear to be connected to expectations 14
of specific social outcomes. These behaviors are driven by the socio-psycho- 15
logical premise of the U&G approach, and are directed toward the genera- 16
tion of varying types social capital, in manner that suggests optimal use or 17
even a remixing of the social affordances of convergent technologies. 18
19
20
THE USES, NETWORKS, AND AFFORDANCES 21
OF CONVERGENT TECHNOLOGIES 22
23
The networked context of converged media necessitates that we abandon 24
theoretical preferences of the past that connected specific user orientations 25
to distinct media, and rather, come up with a theoretical model that exam- 26
ines converged media, converged spaces, and, converged media practices. 27
In the next few paragraphs, I summarize three studies that have combined 28
elements of the three approaches, and present examples of how we may 29
integrate theoretical approaches to understand convergent user orientations 30
and adaptations of these technologies. 31
The fi rst study is based on a theoretical framework that combined U&G 32
with the social network approach to study how motives and social-psycho- 33
logical traits affect Facebook use, social network structural factors (size of 34
network, density, types of ties) and social capital generated (Papacharissi 35
and Mendelson, 2008). College students in a large urban university were 36
surveyed on their uses of Facebook, social ties sustatined, and a variety 37
of social and psychological antecedent variables. Prevalent motives that 38
emerged form the analysis included the motives of habitual pass time and 39
relaxing entertainment, both of which combined motive categories for tra- 40
ditional media. Not only did this reflect the converged nature of the ser- 41
vices provided by Facebook, but it also suggested salient uses for most users 42
tended to be of a ritualistic and relatively passive nature. Qualitative and 43
quantitative responses on dominant uses of Facebook pointed to a user state 44
that shifts between the socially active and idle, much like status displays 45
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 215

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 216 Zizi Papacharissi
1 on online environment do. Alternatively, and rather colloquially put, this
2 actively passive and passively active mode of social engagement is reflective
3 of a social couch potato: Users happily connect with others socially, as long
4 as they may do so from the comfort an electronically mediated couch, in a
5 state that permits the stationary pursuit of social activity.
6 This paradox is befalling of our everyday ecologies, which blur spheres
7 of work and play, friends and co-workers, public and private life. Social
8 networks and online technologies further support the routines that we have
9 created for ourselves. While the affordances of social networks sites may
10 remediate aspects of our habits, our ecologies are defined by contemporary
11 trends that include globalization, trasnational mobility and work, social
12 spheres that are local, global and glocal, and in general, with what some
13 have a more liquid pace of life (Bauman, 2005). We are accustomed to think
14 of sociability as an extroverted and active behavior. These results highlight
15 practices of sociability that are physically static, and attain mobility and
16 flexibility via the social affordances of online technologies. From a relaxed
17 state that converges passivity and sociality, social network site users traverse
18 spheres of social interaction to learn about and interact with others they con-
19 nect to. They are motivated, they are networked, they engage in behaviors
20 that both goal driven and ritualistic at heart, and they are influenced but
21 also possess the ability to influence the technology they use. The theoretical
22 perspective that examines their behavior must not only acknowledge all these
23 aspects but also find a way to theoretically converge them.
24 The second study examined the use of photo galleries as an instrument
25 of self presentation and a means of visual autobiography online (Mendelson
26 and Papacharissi, 2010). Photographs have long served a significant func-
27 tion of preserving biographical memories. The manner in which college
28 students portray themselves and tag others through photographs on Face-
29 book is a contemporary means of introducing the self and performing one’s
30 identity. Inspired by Chalfen’s (1987) examination of “how we construct,
31 manipulate, interpret, live with, participate in, and generally use visual sym-
32 bolic forms” (p. 5), we examined how visual imagery is employed to present
33 the self and everyday college life via Facebook photo galleries. Results indi-
34 cated the use of convergent properties of media to communicate polysemic
35 performances to converged audiences, all aimed at sustaining a ritual view
36 of communication, that is, community integration and belonging through
37 the sharing of common experiences and values (Carey, 1975).
38 The commonality of the images within each student’s collection and
39 between all the students demonstrated that while the outfits and locations
40 change, the types of events documented and the nature of the poses do not.
41 The same stories are told and retold in these photographs. Because pictures
42 are posted by multiple people, the photo galleries are dynamic or liquid.
43 The collections of photos are potentially always changing, thus present-
44 ing a confluent plane of activity upon which performances of the self are
45 enacted, and “tagged.” This convergent context simultaneously references
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 216

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 A Networked Self 217
spaces and evolves beyond space, presenting what de Certeau (1984) has 1
termed a moving map, upon which visual depictions of memories are pieced 2
into narratives through the practice of “tagging.” The fluid context upon 3
which performances of the self are enacted affords reflexively shaped per- 4
sonal narratives of the self, which are indicative of what sociologists have 5
described as a constant state of flux or liquid modernity (Bauman, 2005; 6
Giddens, 1990). What is compelling then, is the way in which individuals 7
employ remixed content, like a tagged and commented upon photograph, 8
and further remix it so as to continue crafting an identify performance that 9
multi-tasks: It establishes autonomy for the self, and underlines the impor- 10
tance of group membership and cohesion. 11
Finally, a third study examined three social networks to understand 12
how architectural features influence iterations of community and identity 13
in Facebook, LinkedIn, and ASmallWorld (Papacharissi, 2009). This com- 14
parative analysis examined symbolic representations of everyday commu- 15
nicative routines that these social networks create for their users, so as to 16
understand the significance of virtual architecture. Architecture was opera- 17
tionalized as the content, structure, and design of social network sites. The 18
analysis focused on the underlying structure or architecture of these sites, 19
on the premise that it may set the tone for particular types of interaction. 20
Four themes emerged, highlighting the private/public balance present in 21
each SNS, styles of self-presentation in spaces privately public and publicly 22
private, cultivation of taste performances as a mode of socio-cultural iden- 23
tification and organization, and the formation of tight or loose social set- 24
tings. Facebook emerged as the architectural equivalent of a Glass House, 25
with a publicly open structure, looser behavioral norms, and abundance of 26
tools members use to leave cues for each other. On the other hand, LinkedIn 27
and ASmallWorld employed their own architecture to suggest behavioral 28
norms for their members, and required behavior consistent with the taste 29
ethos of the network. The resulting spaces produced were tighter, offer- 30
ing less room for spontaneous interaction and network generation. Looser 31
online spaces highlighted user autonomy, but required higher literacy levels 32
and technological know how of the users, so as to protect privacy and nego- 33
tiate identity performances. Tighter architectures sacrificed user autonomy 34
for the provision of structural, content, and design-related elements that 35
provided some privacy and behavioral orientation. 36
A synthesis of these three studies suggests that future research on online 37
media should move away from linear understandings of user motivations 38
and social outcomes, to networked theoretical conceptualization that per- 39
mit us to follow the organic generation of developing forms of sociability 40
(Walther et al., 2010). So-called social media enhance a particular type 41
of sociability—networked sociability. And they contain affordances that 42
permit persons maintain the individuality of their private sphere as they 43
traverse to sociality. Networked and remixed sociabilities emerge and 44
are practiced over multiplied place and audiences, that do not necessarily 45
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 217

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 218 Zizi Papacharissi
1 collapse one’s sense of place, but afford sense of place reflexively. A sense
2 of place is formed in response to the particular sense of self, or in response
3 to the identity performance constructed upon that place. This presents the
4 modus operandi for the networked self, and the context of newer patterns
5 of sociability and routes to sociality that emerge. The ability for individu-
6 als to efficiently avail themselves of the potential of social network sites
7 depends on the individual level of access, literacy, and general comfort with
8 socially networked platforms of interaction. Adept navigation of the social
9 landscapes of SNSs implies that identity is performed, but is also edited
10 across multiplied and converged audiences. It requires some mastery of the
11 expressive equipment at hand, or the ability to maneuver in what Castells
12 (2001) termed, the technical geography of social network sites. The ability
13 to edit, or redact one’s own, multiple self-performances, may afford a sense
14 of place, even if temporarily so, for the individual. As such, redactional
15 acumen becomes a survival skill, as individuals exercise, become comfort-
16 able with and play with a networked sense of self.
17
18
19
20 REFERENCES
21
22 Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
23 Bauman, Z. (2005). Liquid life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
boyd, d.m., and Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social network sites: Defi nition, history, and
24 scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11.
25 http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html.
26 boyd, d., and Heer, J. (2006). Profi les as conversation: Networked identity perfor-
27 mance on Friendster. Proceedings of Thirty-Ninth Hawai’i International Con-
28 ference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
Buckingham, D. (2008). Introducing identity. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), Youth,
29 identity, and digital media (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
30 Byrne, D.N. (2007a). Public discourse, community concerns, and civic engagement:
31 Exploring black social networking traditions on BlackPlanet.com. Journal of
32 Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 16. http://jcmc.indiana.
33 edu/vol13/issue1/byrne.html.
Byrne, D.N. (2007b). The future of (the) ‘race’: Identity, discourse and the rise of
34 computer-mediated public spheres. In A. Everett (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation
35 Book Series on Digital Learning: Race and Ethnicity Volume (pp.15–38). Cam-
36 bridge, MA: MIT Press.
37 Castells, M. (2001). The Internet galaxy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38 Couldry, N. (2000). The place of media power. London: Routledge.
Couldry, N., and McCarthy, A. (2004) (Eds.). Mediaspace: place, scale and culture
39 in a media age. London: Routledge.
40 De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. Berkeley, CA: University of
41 California Press.
42 Deuze, M. (2007). Media work. Cambridge: Polity.
43 Donath, J. (1998). Identity and deception in the virtual community. In M. Smith
and P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in cyberspace (pp. 29–59). New York, NY:
44 Routledge.
45
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 218

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 A Networked Self 219
Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated 1
Communication, 13(1), article 12. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/don- 2
ath.html. 3
Donath, J., and boyd, d. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology
Journal, 22(4), 71.
4
Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., Steinfield, C., and Vitak, J. (in press). With a little help 5
from my friends: How social network sites affect social capital processes. In Z. 6
Papacharissi (Ed.), The networked self. New York: Routledge. 7
Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., and Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook 8
“friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), article 1. http://jcmc.
9
indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ ellison.html. 10
Fono, D., and Raynes-Goldie, K. (2006). Hyperfriendship and beyond: Friends and 11
social norms on LiveJournal. In M. Consalvo and C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), 12
Internet research annual volume 4: Selected papers from the AOIR conference 13
(pp. 91–103). New York: Peter Lang.
Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., and Wellman, B. (1997). Studying online social
14
networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(1), jcmc.indiana. 15
edu/vol3/issue1/garton.html. 16
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity. 17
Goff man, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: 18
Doubleday.
Hampton, K. (2002). Place-based and IT mediated “community.” Planning Theory
19
and Practice, 3(2), 228–231. 20
Hampton, K., and Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet 21
supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City and Commu- 22
nity, 2(4), 277–311. 23
Hargittai, E., and Hsieh, Y.L. (in press). From dabblers to omnivores: A typology
of social network site usage. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), The networked self. New
24
York: Routledge. 25
Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of 26
social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 27
article 14. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/hargittai.html. 28
Haythornthwaite, C. (2000). Online personal networks: Size, composition and
media use among distance learners. New Media and Society, 2(2), 195–226. 29
Haythornthwaite, C. (2001). The Internet in everyday life. American Behavioral 30
Scientist, 45(3), 363–382. 31
Haythornthwaite, C. (2002a). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new 32
media. Information Society, 18(5), 385–401. 33
Haythornwaite, C. (2002b). Building social networks via computer networks: Cre-
ating and sustaining distributed learning communities. In K.A. Renninger and 34
W. Shumar (Eds.), Building virtual communities (pp. 159–190). Cambridge: 35
Cambridge University Press. 36
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. 37
Information Communication and Society, 8(2), 125–147. 38
Haythornthwaite, C., and Wellman, B. (1998). Work, friendship, and media use
for information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the American 39
Society for Information Science, 49(12), 1101–1114. 40
Haythornthwaite, C., Wellman, B., and Mantei, M. (1995). Work relationships 41
and media use: A social network analysis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 42
4(3), 193–211. 43
Hlebec, V., Manfreda, K.L., and Vehovar, V. (2006). The social support networks
of Internet users. New Media and Society, 8(1), 9–32. 44
45
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 219

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 220 Zizi Papacharissi
1 Jenkins, H. (2004). Fans, bloggers and gamers. New York: New York University
2 Press.
3 Johnson, B. (2007). Facebook vs. MySpace: A class divide. The Guardian, June
26, 2007.
4 Lampe, C., Ellison, N., and Steinfield, C., (2006). A Face (book) in the crowd:
5 Social searching vs. social browsing. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary
6 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 167–170). New
7 York: ACM Press.
8 Lange, P.G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on
YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 18.
9 http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/lange.html.
10 Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of space, D. Nicholson-Smith (trans.). Oxford:
11 Blackwell.
12 Liu, H. (2007). Social network profi les as taste performances. Journal of Comput-
13 er-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 13. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/ vol13/
issue1/liu.html.
14 Liu, H., Maes, P., and Davenport, G. (2006). Unraveling the taste fabric of social
15 networks. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems,
16 2(1), 42–71.
17 Mendelson, A., and Papacharissi, Z. (in press). Look at us: Collective narcissism
18 in college student Facebook photo galleries. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), The net-
worked self. New York: Routledge.
19 Meyrowitz, J. (1986). No sense of place. New York: Oxford.
20 Moores, S. (2004). The doubling of place: Electronic media, time-space arrange-
21 ments and social relationships. In N. Couldry and A. McCarthy (Eds.), Medi-
22 aspace (pp. 21–36). London: Routledge.
23 Pacharissi, Z., and Mendelson, A. (2008). Toward a new(er) sociability: Uses, grat-
ifications, and social capital on Facebook. Paper presented to the Association of
24 Internet Researchers, Copenhagen, 2008.
25 Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative
26 analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn, and ASmallWorld. New Media and Society,
27 11(1–2), 199–220.
28 Ross, A. (2004). Dot.com Urbanism. In N. Couldry and A. McCarthy (Eds.),
Media space (pp. 145–163). New York: Routledge.
29 Scannell, P. (1996). Radio, television and modern life. Oxford: Blackwell.
30 Senft, T.M. (2008). Camgirls: Celebrity and community in the age of social net-
31 works. New York: Peter Lang.
32 Stutzman, F. (2006, April). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social
33 network communities. Paper presented at the iDMAa and IMS Code Confer-
ence, Oxford, Ohio.
34 Walther, J.B., Carr, C., Choi, S.S.W., DeAndrea, D., Kim, J., Tong, S.T., and Van
35 Der Heide, B. (in press). Interaction of Interpersonal, Peer, and Media Influ-
36 ence Sources Online: A Research Agenda for Technology Convergence. In Z.
37 Papacharissi (Ed.), The Networked Self. New York: Routledge.
38 Walther, J.B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S.Y., Westerman, D., and Tong, S.T. (2008).
The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on
39 Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep? Human Communication
40 Research, 34(1), 28–49.
41 Wasserman, S., and Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis. Cambridge, MA:
42 Cambridge University Press.
43 Wellman, B., Haase, A.Q., Witte, J., and Hampton, K. (2001). Does the Internet
increase, decrease, or supplement social capital? Social networks, participation,
44 and community commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 436.
45
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 220

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:50 AM
 A Networked Self 221
Williams, D. (2006). On and off the ’net: Scales for social capital in an online era. 1
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 593–628. 2
Williams, R. (1974). Television, technology and cultural Form. London: 3
Routledge.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

Lee et al. 1st pages.indd 221

T&F Proofs: Not For Distribution 4/9/2012 10:03:51 AM