The Process of Identity Performance, Symbolic Interactionism, & Constructions of Mediated Identity Performance

The introduction of communication technology has indefinitely changed the way identities are performed, and how audiences interpret these through the perspective of mediated spaces; McEwan guides us through the process of identity performance in hand with classical theoretical works to better understand how mediated spaces have done so. Identity either online or offline is a performance that is suited for an intended audience. The process of identity manages and controls how our identities are perceived, McEwan asserts that this cycle is, “where aspects of the self are selected, presented, and adjusted to meet the gaze of a specific audience.” (33) Often the identity is not autonomous in the notion that it is a combination of self, audience and or network. In view of this McEwan provides us with the key frameworks that can improve our understanding of the production and interpretation of identity in mediated spaces.

The first is symbolic interactionism, interactionists of this framework contend to the idea that the self is a result of how others react and act towards us. This idea can be explained through Cooley’s concept of “the looking glass self”, where our identity performance is perceived by others and their perception of us provides us with a reflection of our “self” and our identity. The significance of the “other” in turn affects how we modify our identity performances. Deriving from symbolic interactionism, dramaturgical perspective works on the idea that performers generate their “self” in accordance to the audience. Goffman expanded on this perspective, implying that, “we are actors on a stage performing our identities for a specific audience.”(34). The actors being those who perform their identities, and the audience being our society, and the stage that we perform on are the online spaces we use within the domain of communication technology. McEwan makes it apparent that identity is not independent of itself that it is dependant on the audience and because audiences fluctuate the online identity of the performers do as well. The performance of identity can be fluid and can be shaped accordingly to different audiences. Altheid introduces us to the term crystallized selves, a term that is used to elaborate on the self and the different identity performances we provide audiences with especially within the online spaces. He argues that, “how we are known to others crystallizes the essence of identity.”(35). Suggesting that our identities are like that of a crystal, able to exist in different conditions whether we are a, “mother, daughter, editor, friend” we grow, “ as a multi-faceted entity.” (35) Communication technology enables individuals to perform online identities they may or may not have already done so offline.

The second theoretical work evaluates the construction of mediated identity performances, through Goffman’s concept of performances given and performances given off. Performances given are defined by him as, “the way performance cues are transmitted through verbal and nonverbal messages” (35) considering this we analyze how online communication allows performers to give and withhold aspects of their identities with the cues they provide. The thing that sets communication technology apart from normal communication is the dimension of time. Time allows the senders to construct and provide the receivers with an idealized version of their identities, limiting the recievers to the cues constant in the online performers offline identity. Hogan argues that, people do not just perform they select certain parts of themselves that they allow others to see, displaying it “like a museum rather than a performance on stage.”(36). Online spaces such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram allow individuals to present the audience with specific posts, pictures etc to establish a curated self. Goffman also provides us with the concept of Performances given off, which, “refers to how identity performances are received by the audience, other members of the social network.”(36) this concept works in unison with the notion of cues- how communication technology can change the way cues are received by audiences in contrast to “face-to-face”(36) settings. Communication technology does not allow for the same type of performance that face-to-face performance can, therefore performances online can be limited to the way they are interpreted. For example, McEwan indicates how twitter provides users with a limit of 140 characters, while other online spaces “encourages” users to submit longer posts. Despite the limitations of cues, identity performances continue to be given off. In fact these limited cues can nevertheless create “powerful” attributions to the users and communicators; Jacobson’s findings conclude that they can create impression of the others identity off of the limited cues given to them. The audience also has an effect on the performances given off. It is evident that communication technology changes the dynamic between both that of identity performances and audiences. Because identity performances depend on the audience, communication technology changes identity performances to cater to a networked audience.These mediated spaces created challenges for the performer as an online communicator, as the networked audience interprets them. Audiences within the networked society can vary, while some are limited to knowledge about, “the offline identity of the online communicator” (37), some may not be. In turn within the realms of technology the networked audience determines how the online identity of a performer is interpreted by the performances given and the performances given off based on the cues given. (completed by Shermaine Veluz)

RESPONSES:

Maddy: I believe the information Shermaine summarizes is accurate and well written but there are a couple changes I would make to better this summary. I think instead of italics she should use bold to make the statement/words stand out more from the text. Also maybe breaking the text into smaller paragraphs will be easier on the eyes when reading. But I enjoyed how she got quotes from the article to support her analysis.

Kristie: Shermaine was able to captive the reader’s attention with her excellent word choice as she clearly explains each topic that is introduced. She also added quotes from the article directly that would help the readers get a better understanding of what the author was trying to deliver.

Bhavsi: This idea that our online identities are like crystals which can adapt to any condition and are multi-faceted is potent because it reflects our current situation well. As SNS users we are able to block individual users from viewing certain things we are posting. We can quite literally adapt our identities to our audiences. This also reflects the idea that audiences control what users are posting, how they are posting it and even when. I think that for the most part, SNS users post more for their audiences than they do for themselves.

Arshiya: Shermaine did an amazing job in simplifying the Process of Identity Performance, Symbolic Interactionism, and Constructions of Mediated Identity Performance. As Maddy mentioned, it would be much more efficient if the words italicized could be in bold instead. She also provided sufficient examples to back up her summary.

Breeana: Shermaine provides an extremely detailed summarization of McEwan’s views on Identity performance, Interactionism, and identity creation. Shermain provided current relevant examples of present day social medias that support Identity performance, and I believe if they provided examples of how identity performance, interactionism and identity creation materializes her article could be taken to the next level. Altogether this was smartly written, and leaves me to wonder how ‘influencers’ have created identities of themselves to profit off of, our modern-day audiences are paying for their tickets.