The internet, specifically social networking tools like Twitter, assaults the boundary between our private and public selves. The many representations of “George” – father, son, brother, employee, friend – move toward one on Facebook. Social networking and social theory explores this blurring of identities through Erving Goffman’s (a connection to Manitoba!) work: “front stage” and “back stage” concepts have been a useful way to understand social life. Goffman wrote in 1959 of how we keep certain information private, part of the process of impression management.”
Impression management is not solely under our control. If you have presented at a conference, commented on a blog, or had someone take an image of you and post (and tag) on Flickr, you exist online. Others participate in defining and broadcasting who we are.
-
‹ Home
Contents
-
Categories
-
Tags
Adoption Articles Blogging Classification/Ontologies Collaboration Community Connectivism Content Content Management Copyright/IP/DRM Design Elearning Evaluation/Assessment/ROI Games/Simulations Information Architecture Innovation Instructional Design Knowledge Management Learning Learning Objects Legal LMS Media Networks Open Source Podcasting Random Thoughts Research Resources ROI Search Semantic Web SNA Social Standards Storytelling Teaching Technology Theories Tools Trends Usability Wiki Wireless/PDAs XML
-
Archives
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
Blogroll
-
RSS Feeds
-
Meta
4 Comments
I agree George there is a greater opportunity now to manufacture a public personae; to work on that front stage. When I blog or tweet or comment on FB, while it is part of a stream of activity, I am still choosing to project aspects of my day or thinking and leave behind others. Impressions are gained from that are no more the whole me – just what I elect to expose. OK it’s not all under our control but a darned lot of purposive identity sculpting is happening.
It’s about a two way communication thou. Sure we are all busy posting our thoughts and what we are doing, but the real interesting about Twitter is where you start to engage. There is a space to make connections with people who are directly involved with your field. This could be your hobbies, your job, studies, anything.
That is where I think the real value in it is. You can get far better responses then if you were to Google something for information because you are getting back, real experiences and opinions.
(also YEAH to the Manitoba mention, I’m from there and always makes me happy to see)
I agree that we lose an element of control because by interacting with others, we are giving them a part of ourselves in a sense. Perhaps there’s a greater pressure to always be “front stage” now? I think the boundaries between the two are certainly blurring, and sometimes the results can be uncomfortable, and sometimes, surprisingly supportive. You’ve certainly prompted some thought here – thank you.
This may or may not be surprising but I really really struggle with this (what to be open and public about, what is useful to keep private – if anything or just acceptance that everything will be public so care – less?) But how to do that? A lot of the online world appears to be perfectly happy with Facebook and get huge benefits from both Facebook, Twitter etc
Also find it incredibly hard to define relationships and myself online, even though I’ve been online for years – I just don’t like defining them but I can’t give a sensible answer why not – maybe because I don’t think of defining relationships offline, just talk with people and sometimes it may be enjoyable / useful so will talk with them more than once without thinking too much about what it is we’re doing or how / in what way we are connected ? I don’t have to define a time limit – or level of permanence which is required for following / unfollowing and need to explain both.
Some of it may have to do with design / usability features as per an Adam Greenfield post http://speedbird.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/antisocial-networking/
Quite liked a recent post from Louis Gray where he spoke about what he shares in relation to what value he thinks it provides to both himself and potential readers http://www.louisgray.com/live/2009/03/being-transparent-is-fine-but-please.html
That doesn’t cover the bit you mentioned in your post about existing online as a result of things like presentations, mobile phone cameras though
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] Social Networking Sites and Social Theory – elearnspace [...]
Post a Comment