Introduction
Self-in social networks are an unusual topic that we come across daily because of the extensive involvement in these networks and lack of awareness of their impact on individuals socially and psychologically. The unusualness of this topic arises from various factors, including:
- The Internet, social networks, and the cyber or so-called virtual world as a whole have become an integral part of our lives, rather than just a mere component. We exist within this digital realm in various dimensions. Recently, I came across an unexpected tweet by an American user named Jim Kwik, in which he said: “I remember when we used to say BRB all the time when we were on the Internet. Now we no longer say that; because we do not leave it, we are now living in it!” Jim points out the fact that with the proliferation of social networks and the constant innovation of smart devices that we use all the time, we are no longer separated from this virtual world. Instead, we coexist, and it invades our lives.
- Philosophers, educationalists, and sociologists are analyzing the changes that the digital world brings about in our belief and our psychological and social life. Our involvement in this world is causing us to change wholly. Many important and critical concepts that have changed throughout our lives without us realizing it, such as the concept of the human being, which in previous times was almost undisputed, the concept of time and place, the concept of education, the concept of social and society, the concept of friendship…etc.
Likewise, the concepts related to the virtual world are taking new positions, the most prominent of which is the virtual world. It is important to raise the urgent question once again, what are the boundaries between the virtual and the real? Is virtual something imaginary or unreal? Is it the same as illusion and delusion?
I believe that the current approaches do not fully capture the virtual realm, which has clearly undergone stages of evolution. In the past we referred to this concept as the electronic or digital world, when we used to log in to this world using nicknames to maintain Anonymity/self-concealment or log in with more than one identity and with more than one identifier/account. Disclosing one’s identity in forums and the internet in general was considered unjustified recklessness, especially when sharing personal photos and details of daily life. However, this did not last long, until users eventually started to log in using their real identities on the internet and networks and were even keen to prove their identity using names, photos, official documentation, linking the account to the mobile number, etc. As a result, we have become intolerant with people who use nicknames in shared online space, with some being reluctant to deal with them and we become upset when someone impersonates us and uses our names as a nickname!
This indicated that the digital world was a world of presumed false objects, but with the passage of time it allowed the demolition of assumption/illusion and for the masks to be lifted to appear in public as we are. This fact implies that the similarities between these two worlds have become significant and suggests that the virtual world has become a real one rather than a fake, imaginary, or made-up world. Everything that exists in the virtual world is real, yet it is a different world. This world can be referred to as a parallel realm where elements have shifted from the real world and new elements have appeared that were previously nonexistent, and significant changes have taken place.
Given that we exist in this real world that we refer to as a parallel or virtual world, this article poses a question of how to interpret (reading or approaching) the occurrences intellectually and socially within these social networks?
The digital world is vast, and social networks in their diversity represent a fraction of it. Our main focus in this discussion will be on one of the social networks application Twitter (X), as one of the most prominent networks used in the GCC and Saudi Arabia in particular. The insights provided here can be applied to Facebook, Snapchat and other applications.
We will attempt to determine an intellectual or social approach that gives explanation to what happens in the real social world and the network world. In addition, we will raise the question of the possibility of quoting the social theories that explain real social existence and applying it to the network world. Should we find a new sociology that is compatible with the data of social networks, especially since they contain the term social which makes it closely related to sociology?
In the real world, we engage in social interactions and also replicate these interactions in online networks. We communicate face-to-face with our neighbors and those around us in our physical, real world, and we do so on a larger scale in the virtual realm.
Prior to the invention of cars, our social interactions were limited to those in our immediate neighborhood, where we got to know them. Nonetheless, with the creation of cars, our social circles expanded as we began to travel to cities and meet new people, increasing our social engagements. The same can be applied to airplanes and telephones, as the various modes of communication have introduced new social dynamics into our relationships.
In the online world, the number of individuals we are connected to has become unlimited. A social network like Facebook constantly suggests new friends, even though the concept of friendship is a classic term deeply rooted in philosophical and cultural traditions. Each of these traditions has its own criteria and social contexts for defining a friend, in addition to the complex literature about friendship. However, the digital world introduces new literary dimensions to the understanding of concepts of friendship and communication. We will explore three approaches to analyze the interactions scene in the online network environment:
The First Approach – Using Erving Goffman’s Social Drama Theory:
Erving Goffman is the author of The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life, published in 1950. This article holds a similar title to Goffman’s book, an intended similarity because Goffman’s social theory that explains how we present ourselves in our daily lives can be compared to being in social networks.
Goffman argues individuals assume different theatrical roles in their everyday lives, with everyone participating in the performance. Each person carefully selects the roles to embody in different situations, as if they were performing on a stage. Individuals take into account the audience and the requirements of each role in terms of language, speech, movements, dress, and special traditions. This enables us to successfully perform our roles within the theatrical ensemble.
According to Goffman, life is a huge stage in fact and not figuratively. We are actors and have roles assigned to us. Each of these roles is played out in the daily theatrical performances. We play different roles whether we are at home, at work, on the street, or at a party. Each role comes with its own set of expectations dictated by the context, social norms, and conventions. Individuals present themselves according to these conventions, therefore, their personality with friends during a day out or at a private gathering will be completely different from how they behave at home with your children or parents, or at work with your superiors and colleagues. Your success in presenting yourself lies in your ability to perform roles and what is related to them in a suitable theatrical manner that is appropriate for your social status within the role, and without any overlap in these roles or the transmission of information that might mess up your role in the play. Nonetheless, it is crucial to keep in mind the distinct requirements of each stage, including language, gestures, clothing, and expressions that are proper to it without mixing them up. We have the ability to move smoothly from one stage to another without awareness. However, in cases where a certain imbalance occurs and the usage of inappropriate words or gestures that do not align with the stage we are in, we become embarrassed and confused, as everyone around us looks at us with astonishment.
Goffman makes Shakespeare’s metaphorical phrase, “All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players”, a reality and a theory that explains many of our daily spontaneous behaviors. These behaviors and interactions are characterized as stereotypical ones that we practice for the success of our theatrical roles.
It is not important to delve into the details of the theory and its interesting interpretations of daily life interactions and discuss its stereotyping of human behaviors within the school of symbolic interactionism in sociology. Rather, we are trying to answer the persistent question:
Could life on social networks and the virtual realm also be a stage in which Goffman’s theory can explain what we perceive in it?
It could be said that social networks, forums, and interactive games prepare individuals in advance for the idea that they are actors. It begins by asking them to choose a nickname, which represents the mask that they will wear in the play. Some networks and applications enable you to choose an Emoji as an avatar for yourself that is compatible with the role you want to play, choose the clothing and the color you prefer to appear in, and even the way you desire others to see you in terms of height, weight, hair, beard or mustache. This situation is similar to the concept that participants in social networks are actually actors.
However, if we assume that real life has distinct stages rather than one, and people play various roles according to each stage, then social networks are one independent stage in which we play one role.
The issue here is that the approach is not entirely comparable. To elaborate, Goffman’s theory is highly relevant to real-life scenarios, due to the presence of various stages in which we navigate and assume different roles seamlessly. This is because the audience plays a role in these stages as well. While on social networks, we present a singular image to everyone, essentially performing on a single stage.
The bewilderment we feel towards certain great individuals like poets or writers whom we once held high may be justified once we see these individuals perform a flawless role. What we saw was merely a fragment of the larger scene unfolding on one of the many stages. Nonetheless, on social networks, individuals have only one stage to perform and present themselves on. The individuals’ lack of awareness regarding the concept of stages and scenes leads them to perform an inappropriate and inconsistent image that does not align with their realistic image. This image is what we are familiar with as they unconsciously choose how to present themselves to others, disregarding the true nature of social networks and their feelings of the surroundings or of being alone in the networks. Individuals may mistakenly believe that they are in the presence of their friends or students and behave accordingly. In short, whoever suddenly appears on social media networks without any awareness of how they should present themselves, which stage they will perform on, which clothes they will wear, what language they will speak, will face this problem, and will surprise a lot of people.
Goffman’s theory may be similar to what Guy Debord, author of The Society of the Spectacle says about the new era, “Everything that was directly lived has receded into a representation”. Influenced by the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (1843), Debord quotes him in this regard, “But certainly for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, the appearance to the essence.”
The difference between these quotes and vision and Goffman’s vision is that the latter presents a complete theory of the social movement that is centered on symbols and impressions within the scenes. Through this vision, Goffman explains the human social communication process, while Debord and Feuerbach present a critical theory of what human life has become with civilization and the digital age.
If we in fact act in order to present ourselves in social media networks, according to Goffman’s theory, it is crucial to determine many considerations that take into account various social context factors in which we will present ourselves in. We must also acknowledge that our audience on these platforms is vast and diverse and that we lack connections with them which would make us more open to share our personal details. Additionally, the roles individuals play are not as well-defined or bound by societal norms as they are in real life. Thus, we cannot predict their reactions to align with them, nor do they have sufficient information about us to flawlessly perform their own roles without causing embarrassment to either party.
The Second Approach – Cultural and Social Capital Theory by Bourdieu:
Pierre Bourdieu is one of the most famous scholars who greatly influenced social studies and extended to educational and psychological studies. From my perspective, the reason that prompted Bourdieu to be an important and influential person in social studies is that he was not convinced by the social school, which perceived the social movements or sociology in general are understood through the basic structure or social structures, the subject. In addition to his rejection of the sociological school’s argument that says the influence on societies and their movement is through the actors in these structures/the self.
Bourdieu came to combine the subject and the self, structures and actors. He also explained many social phenomena that we experience through the theories he has presented, which did not overlook the basic social structures and did not go beyond the social actors and their roles within the social structures. One of the most commonly known concepts Bourdieu presented was expanding the concept of capital, which was presented in Marxism as one of its most important basic dimensions. It refers to the economic capital as the most powerful influence on society, and the basic structure around which the social classes revolve. Despite the importance of economic capital, Bourdieu introduced two other forms of capital that have a similar and parallel effect on the economy and its movement in society, the cultural capital and the social capital. These three forms of capital collectively form what is known as symbolic capital.
Bourdieu discovered that economic capital possesses distinct attributes that enable it to exert influence, including accumulation, power, and domination. Moreover, it achieves benefits and grants advantages to its owners. When examining culture, he found that it fulfills this role and gives its owners accumulation, power, grants them advantages and achieves benefits for them. The same principle applies to social capital.
- Cultural Capital:
Cultural capital can be considered a symbolic capital that yields to its owners’ appreciation and moral status from society. It usually consists of:
- Inherited cultural capital: The individual belongs to a family with an academic status, where children inherit this status from their parents and grandparents, this family becomes a cultural capital and enjoys moral appreciation in society.
- Acquired cultural capital: The individual seeks to obtain university degrees, vocational training courses, languages, and skills in order to build influential cultural capital for themselves.
- Social Capital:
It means that an individual possesses social assets, resources, influential social relationships, and enjoys trust, status, and a great position within these relations. An individual may have social assets for being born in a family with a special status in its society. This status may be inherited through generations, such as an emirate, sheikhdom or leadership, or through establishing relationships that have special influence in society. These capitals collaboratively constitute symbolic capitals that appear in images of honor, status, prestige and power.
We utilize these capitals unconsciously in our physical life. People around us know well how to place each person in his cultural and social context, and deal with people in light of this interactive symbolism in their communication. Individuals usually attend cultural and social events fortified with their cultural and social capital to ease the communication process. These individuals do not fear violating their symbolic position since the people surrounding them realize this position and deal upon it.
The situation is completely different in social networks because communicating with thousands of people, who often have no relationship with the individual and are clueless of the social or cultural symbolic capital he possesses, will result in having a context collapse, according to Michael Wesch.
We interact with friends on social media, while in the physical world we do not have a friendly relationship with them, and they are only familiar with our nicknames. An individual who holds a doctorate in nanotechnology may engage in a conversation in this field with another who does not hold a university degree, let alone is a specialist in this field.
Despite these ironies originating from a realistic social environment where we are conscious of our own position and that of others, constructing our communicative frameworks attentively, to what resembles navigating through a bizarre maze, this is the nature of virtual relationships, as Kathy calls it. In these relationships established in social media, the boundaries of space and time have disappeared and concepts of kinship, blood ties, work, interests, similarity and difference have receded to be placed by completely new concepts.
However, social networks have been eager to provide us with various options that help us present our social and cultural symbolism in networks and identify ourselves through them.
Twitter, among other network applications, has allowed us the opportunity to deliver some of our cultural and social capital to the virtual realm through a number of tools and settings that we will explore in turn and how we use them.
- Personal ID:
Individuals usually choose to use their real names to identify themselves online, while others may choose to conceal their identity for many reasons. Some of the most prominent reasons are the individuals’ security in expressing their opinions, despite how abnormal, harsh and dangerous they are. Another reason is to distance themselves and their families from any danger that may be posed by the nature of their opinions or behaviors, especially if these behaviors were bullying and recklessness.
The name serves as the primary identifier of an individual, the label we use to identify ourselves. However, it is merely a surface-level representation that does not encompass everything of who we are, it is simply a name, a tag that can be discarded and replaced. To add more weight to our names, some individuals choose to attach titles, such as Dr., Engineer, Prince, Mr., Sherif…etc., which indicates cultural or social capital.
Through this practice, individuals have protected themselves in the virtual realm and attempt to establish a sense of authority to leverage symbolic capital (status or prestige) to influence how the networks’ users perceive them.
Nonetheless, this approach to self-presentation online has faced criticism. Many argue that these titles should be limited to professional or real-life interactions, considering their usage online implies arrogance and superiority that they dislike.
This criticism leads some individuals online to disregard their titles and opt for using simple names. This can be seen as a display of modesty by rejecting titles especially individuals who constantly justify the abandonment or criticize those who use it. This approach can be perceived as a form of self-marketing through pretended modesty to gain sympathy from fellow network users.
It is worth noting, however, that there are individuals who approach this issue with genuine spontaneity, viewing it as insignificant except for simply using their names. This approach of self-presentation may be interpreted differently whether the individuals acknowledge it or not!
- Bio:
Twitter and other networks provide us with a space for brief self-expression that can be summed up in a question: Who are you? Or how do you introduce yourself to others in this space?
Network users often showcase their cultural and social capital when introducing themselves online. They specify their job positions, academic ranks, and specialized fields, or write down what refers to their social class. It is surprising that some choose to omit their titles, yet they hold forth about their professional and social capital in their bio. For example, they will write their simple names but will state their occupations and titles in bio, such as a professor, a doctor, a consultant, an author, a director, or a sheikh, etc. They may further expand their self-presentation by listing their achievements and literature. This common online self-presentation strategy may seem like false modesty, but it can also be viewed as a logical approach. Users cannot see the bio all the time with a title preceding a name; however, it is available to others who want to discover more about the tweeter by accessing their personal profile. By providing a detailed bio, users can enhance their credibility, particularly when engaging in discussions related to scientific topics. This bio serves as a support for the individual, cultural capital in front of followers and readers.
Some online users neglect writing down their brief biographies in bio and choose to write phrases with creative dimensions or philosophical phrases with depth and symbolic connotations. This subtle approach aims to showcase their interest in these fields indirectly, using emotionally and creatively appealing phrases to captivate followers.
This method of self-presentation seeks to attract attention through a reflective mirror decorated with poetic and elaborate language, almost implying with some false embarrassment; this is me. Twitter bio, in particular, shall be subject of a thorough examination from multiple aspects to unveil its symbolic meaning and its relationship to account holders and the content they share. This study should analyze the distances between higher values, slogans, and lower values, practices, as well as its role in bridging the gap between the account holder and their followers, in addition to mitigating context collapse and the impact on deliberative communication on Twitter.
In my perspective, it is crucial to emphasize that interpreting networks and social media does not necessitate specifically finding the negative or positive aspects, rather, it is an open space that allows multiple interpretations similar to social interactions. Some aspects remain unexplained related to individual perspectives and the personal significance of each online action, which may not always be explicitly stated or clarified.
- Personal picture:
We mentioned previously that using real names and personal pictures online was insanity, yet it has become completely normal nowadays. Some individuals may still fear sharing their personal details and prefer to conceal their identities. However, the personal picture should not be muted colors without symbolic connotations.
The picture primarily suggests that it belongs to the user, and if the name was a claim, the picture is its proof. By displaying your picture, you show your identity as a unique human being setting yourself apart from others. This is why our national IDs and passports carry our personal pictures, for it’s the only means for us to travel. Passport officials meticulously examine our facial features, our picture on passport, and cross-reference with images of individuals who bear resemblance to us on their device before, all to ensure our true identity.
It is crucial to always remember that personal pictures focus on the face as it serves as a tangible medium through which the world can connect with individuals. In philosophy, particularly according to LevinasThe face holds significant importance as it distinguishes his philosophical beliefs. According to him, the face embodies the essence of humanity and governs our actions. Love and goodness are synonymous, the face represents choice, freedom, and kindness. It is essential to comprehend the various meanings that the face can convey, rather than solely focusing on its physical appearance. When we observe someone’s face, we can decipher and understand numerous messages that language may fail to express. The face acts as a barrier that prevents me from causing harm to others, as one cannot face another person and take their life. Therefore, Levinas says in his philosophy that the face is not something that I can perceive, but it is a manifestation and a revelation of an individual’s true self.
Many individuals engage in the analysis and interpretation of facial expressions captured in photographs, as they believe these expressions reveal the personalities of the individuals depicted. The face can be seen as a human memory bearing marks of life in the form of scars, lines and wrinkles. However, this perception can be disrupted if these pictures have been manipulated using specific software, transforming them into masks that conceal true insight. The photographs have brought about a significant revolution in the realm of self-awareness, Barthes says in his book Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography “Odd that no one has thought of the disturbance (to civilization) which this new action causes. I want a History of Looking. For the Photograph is the advent of myself as another: a cunning dissociation of consciousness from identity.” The idea of separating from the self to acknowledge your true self was once considered an absurd notion.
Pictures have the power to transfer cultural and social capital onto the network by selecting the specific pictures that are capable of doing so. In his book, Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, Roland Barthes discusses photographs and its symbolic and communicative significance. In addition to how to analyze and interpret the photographs from three angles: the photographer, who sees the photograph, and the photographed individual while looking at themselves. Barthes introduces two crucial concepts, namely studium and punctum, in an attempt to delve into the photograph.
Stadium: Can be explained as the way we interpret the cultural content of a picture, and for example, recognize whose picture it is. The initial message conveyed by the picture is a representation of the individuals’ identity, stating this is me.
Punctum: It refers to the suggestions and signals conveyed by the pictures through its setting and the shapes and colors that carry certain connotations. Through Barthes’ punctum notion, we can choose pictures with special elements that are capable of conveying the capitals we want.
We often come across personal photos on social media platforms where the individual is seen holding a microphone, in a conference room, on a TV channel, in a library, or holding a book indicating indirectly their involvement as a cultural or scientific figure with a media presence. Otherwise, they may opt for a picture of themselves next to a prominent figure, such as a prince, sheikh or a celebrity, in order to convey a special social status through which they can build a symbolic capital. Indeed, even the attire (a dress/suit/bisht), location and posture in the chosen display photo all carry symbolic meanings. Analyzing each photo in depth would be a lengthy process. The discussion about personal photos can extend to the profile header and how we select pictures in order to enhance our symbolic and social presence online.
People sometimes choose non-personal avatars, such as pictures of nature among other things, instead of using their personal photos, for privacy reasons especially for women who do not want to appear publicly, or for men who do not prefer showing faces in online communication. Interpreting each profile picture individually may indicate certain personality traits that psychologists may be aware of.
These features and tools offered by platforms like Twitter allow its users to present themselves through it. These options are more about formal display than substance. This approach exists in real life, not only that the emphasis on appearance in the presence of self in daily situations is noticeable and witnessed, rather, it has become the main focus in contemporary reality with the increase in fashion trends, plastic surgeries, excessive beautification, and outstanding appearance. This emphasis on appearance and aesthetics has also been reflected on social media users, whether through these options or through content, in which they enhance sharing their daily life, displaying their involvement in a world of formal symbols such as travel, beauty, cars, shopping, clothes and perfumes.
We tried in this brief to link the notion of cultural and social capital according to Bourdieu and how individuals employ it on Twitter or other platforms.
The Third Approach – Self Marketing:
Nothing dominates the system of contemporary human life more than commodification, the ability to transform everything into a commodity that can be bought and sold and the marketing process.
Postmodernism opened the doors to the liquidity sweep, in which borders no longer have meaning that prevents any obstacles if it brings pleasure or benefit in a primarily consumer world.
Self-marketing is the outcome of this liquidity when it reaches a point of overstatement. This phrase is frequently employed to describe how an individual cultivates their talents and capabilities, and subsequently showcases them in a remarkable manner to secure professional or investment prospects that align with their aspirations. However, I believe that this procedural concept is deficient because it prevents individuals from perceiving the concept of self-marketing in a more comprehensive manner, to signify the individual’s ability to captivate attention in a way that achieves a broad public presence and potent strong influence through various legitimate and illegitimate means.
Social networks are an uprising realm where users compete in marketing themselves to gain the largest possible number of followers or friends to realize various moral and material goals.
In his book, Strategic Marketing for Non-Profit Organizations, Kotler argues that it is a mistake to view marketing solely as a business, but rather, it should be applied to charitable and voluntary organizations. He believes we are all ourselves who promote ourselves at work, at home, and even market ourselves to ourselves to achieve satisfaction and self-enhancement.
This idea has been noticed by social networks, which have reinforced it and created a fiercely competitive environment where individuals and organizations strive to obtain the highest levels of positive appreciation. This is often achieved by increasing the number of followers, sometimes through purchasing fake ones, increasing the number of likes, favorites, retweets and views.
Numbers of followers have become increasingly important on Twitter and other networks. These numbers are used to measure one’s influence in this crowded environment and used for self-marketing. As a result, individuals on networks achieve symbolic capital represented by status and fame, while internet celebrities have become more present in online and offline society due to their ability to effectively market themselves. In order to achieve these gains, individuals are willing to break several moral and social norms to create a state of excitement, for which they are famous, and many criticized it as “triviality”.
Most people market themselves to gain financial targets or cultural, social, or symbolic capital. People have different means of marketing through the tools provided by the network, such as the picture, bio, name, and the content shared. In addition to seizing opportunities and using hashtags to create content that influences audiences to follow its creator.
In this direction, we notice certain types of content through which users present and market themselves. On the one hand, some individuals utilize their knowledge in a certain field as the only arena where they tweet. By doing so, these individuals guarantee to become one of the exclusive references on the platform, opening the way for consultations and inquiries in this field. Despite the criticism they face regarding what they share and its accuracy, they achieve wide fame, form good relations with the network community, and they are even hosted in seminars and media channels.
On the other hand, other individuals prefer diverse content, updating their followers with the new and astonishing events by writing, copying or translating it. Their marketing idea is similar to retail stores that try to provide their customer with everything they need so they do not search for it elsewhere. However, despite their wide fame, the information they share is not free of errors and confusion.
Networks users in general and Twitter in particular adopt two types of appearance and self-presentation that are justified and called for:
- Unreserved type:
Psychologically, digital environment users experience what can be referred to as cyber anxiety, in which individuals live in anticipation and excitement, waiting for interaction, responses, sending and receiving messages.
This type of person is characterized by self-presentation during which the individual feels that they are unsupervised and unmonitored and have freedom and unclear boundaries. This perception drives individuals to behave without reservation, in contrast to their social real environment, therefore, they insult, bully, harass, and share inappropriate pictures and offensive writings to public taste. Cyberspace plays a part in these behaviors, in what Mary Aiken calls “cyber escalation”; where the intensity of enthusiasm increases, ordinary issues turn into a serious trouble, and users lose the control mechanisms and indulge into conversations where they can freely talk about matters they are unable to discuss in real life. Some users deem Twitter as an opportunity to break the nervousness they are characterized with in their real lives and an outlet in which they express their thoughts and share their words away from direct psychological and social pressure.
Suler mentions six reasons for the emergence of the unreserved type of users, or what he refers to as the lack of restraint when communicating online, the online disinhibition effect. These reasons include the ability to remain completely anonymous by using nicknames which suggests for its user that they do not bear responsibility for what they do or share and gives them the opportunity to behave oppositely in real social life.
Adding to the above reasons, the asynchrony. This term refers to the loss of immediate, direct communication in which individuals usually receive direct reactions that pressure them to be more reserved. In communication and synchronous communication, we notice non-verbal signals and reactions from the features and expressions of the body, which makes us restrict our communication and be considerate as much as possible. However, the situation is completely different in online interaction, as we do not receive direct reactions and cannot guess it accurately.
Suler also highlighted that networks have diminished the importance of status and power, which typically influence communication dynamics in face-to-face environments. In real world communication, the power of discourse, as conceptualized by Van Dijk, manifests itself in real-life scenarios where two individuals engage in conversation, with one possessing a higher status and authority. This can be observed in various contexts, such as the dynamic between a teacher and a student or a doctor and a patient. This concept imposes the lower-status individual to respect the higher-status individual and remain silent in their present. As for online communication, collegial relations prevail because we exist in social media platforms devoid of cultural and social capital, as we mentioned previously, despite our attempts to bridge this gap through what the networks provide.
Moreover, Suler indicates that internet users’ beliefs that it is imaginary or unreal, i.e. virtual world is one of the six reasons he previously referred to. This belief extends to a more precise thought that other parties in conversations are present only in individuals’ minds, causing them to have a bizarre feeling. Philosophers refer to this belief and bizarre feeling as solipsism. In my perspective, the reason for this can be due to the integration into social networks’ conversations and the sense of self or loneliness, resulting in lack of reservation to varying degrees.
We can add another reason, what I prefer to label the courage of distancing. Our separation from the other and our failure to engage in face-to-face conversations encourage us to speak openly in considering numerous matters imposed by immediate situations. This concept resembles the idea of talking about a person in his absence, as it increases boldness to express an opinion without caution as well as the distance in various conversations on networks.
Reasons for the inability to be cautious on social media platforms includes, what was previously mentioned, users lack ability to distinguish the type of stage on which they will perform. In addition to feeling secure in their surroundings, allowing them to express themselves freely as if they were among their closest friends who share a level of comfort decreases awkwardness in their interactions, as discussed in relation to Goffman’s theory.
- Reserved type of users on networks:
This particular category is entirely distinct from the previous one and is frequently embraced by individuals of an official or scientific background, who possess a social standing that they bring into online platforms and strive to uphold. Consequently, they are highly sensitive to interference or transgression of this status during public discussions, promptly blocking any attempt, according to their opinion, which approaches this forbidden area. These individuals often harshly criticize social networks and its shallow users, attributing it to the competition for status and paths for discourse. When they witness others attaining this status and fame on these networks, while they themselves are unable to achieve a comparable level of recognition as they have in the real world, they place blame on these individuals, their followers, and the platforms that facilitated their rise and acquisition of symbolic status. Furthermore, this type individuals’ self-presentation is influenced by various factors, most notably:
- Maintaining status: A symbolic capital that is usually not easily neglected by its owners. Engaging in social networks with individuals who are unfamiliar with this social status and interact with others with a degree of equality, which drops the power of discourse hierarchy, can make them feel belittled. Thus, they prefer to adopt a cautious approach in their interactions, offer brief responses, avoid insults as much as possible, and block any threats. They may justify these actions sometimes with disrespect and lack of proper communication etiquette…etc.
- Fear: A key factor that often drives individuals to act according to precautionary measures, whether it is fear of power, of officials at work, or of real society’s perspective of them on networks which is degraded and inappropriate.
- Appropriate appearance: Glaucon, Plato’s brother, claimed that people tend to be far more concerned with seeming good than with actually being good. Reservation is an effective method used by individuals to have a good appearance in front of their followers. Mimi Marinucci attempts to illustrate this further, saying that it seems safe to assume that, as a rule, people behave better in front of others than they do in private. This is the assumption that underlies the use of surveillance, where workers aim to present themselves in a respectable and ideal manner.
We refrain from making broad generalizations based on Glaucon’s concept, which was extensively discussed by Plato in the Theory of Justice, or Marini Moshe’s perspective because there are individuals who are well informed, well dressed and represent their true selves whether in real or virtual world. Avoiding generalization does not deny the fact that some participants in social networks believe that appearing on networks is an opportunity to enhance their appearance and present themselves in a favorable light, even if it contradicts reality. They see this opportunity as a stage that necessitates a particular presentation as in Goffman’s theory. In addition, they should be able to display an ideal image in terms of communication, being open to different perspectives, encouraging discussions, and seizing opportunities offered by networks to engage effectively and distinctively, while being cautious of any actions that could compromise this idealized image.
This particular category has the competence to self-marketing on networks and to appear wearing proper attire and using suitable language that takes well into account the public’s feelings, trends, and preferences. Individuals who belong to this category are popular through their professionality and elite tools they use. Therefore, they are highly esteemed and respected for their ability at evoking people’s emotions in order to receive praise, which they promptly share, like, and respond to with expressions of false modesty, without generalization.
To sum up, the digital realm and social media platforms continue to offer a rich and unique landscape for psychological, educational, and social research, which still is largely unexplored, particularly in the realm of Arabic studies. It is our hope that researchers will increasingly focus on this area over time, expanding the scope of research and study within it.
T1635
