Presentation of the Cyberself

Online bulletin boards systems have been around since the era of BBS, MUDs, the WELL project, and the USEnet system. Members within the bulletin board group construct their virtual space to fit the needs of the group. Symbols are used and maintained by the group. Communal social experiences are replayed through this symbols and are shared by the members to establish the “oneness” of the group, that is those elements and symbols that the group identifies with. Those symbols and elements would have an agreed upon subsequent meeting to the group that goes beyond the universal meaning recognized by society. This “repository for collective cultural memory” (Fernback, 1997, p. 37) is defined by how the network interacts with the group members.

The definition of group identity can transcend the network and the boundaries of cyberspace. This ontological duality of socially constructed definitions of identity allows perception of the individual to be created by the member’s real-world actions and those statements and actions in the cyber-controlled environment of the bulletin board. Because the social environment of the bulletin board and the group can change when information, symbols, or elements are absorbed into the cyber-consciousness of the group, the communication dynamics and the communication structure could vary depending on the parameters of the interface that group members use to interact and who are using this medium. This arena is where those “information elite” uses the forum to present themselves and nearly have a right to do so through their access (van Dijk, 2002, p. 1). For college students, access is nearly guaranteed. If the college student lives on campus, computers would be available to them in every building, including their dorm room. There is unlimited access to the high-speed Internet network that forms the infrastructure of communication in a modern university.

What makes Facebook social groups different from the typical bulletin board system is “the proximity of communicants” (Watson, 1997, p. 103). The login process to Facebook forces the user to have a college email account. Therefore, the user must be connected in some way to the school (which includes being alumni) and by extension connects the user to the region of the school. This connectivity is relevant as those users of Facebook interact in the real world with other users of Facebook. One could argue that Facebook is nothing more than the extension of real-world interaction. However, Facebook provides more than simple interaction. Similar in function to Santa Monica’s Public Electronic Network (PEN), Facebook provides access to public and social information, such as group meetings and social activities, it does enhance communication among students, faculty, and staff through the use of multimedia presentations, and it does enhance the “sense of community through electronic conference among residents” (Schmitz, 2002, p. 80-81).

The PEN was designed as a means of communication that would allow the “have-nots” (i.e., homeless) to have communication resource that directly ties into local government and social-works organizations. The presentation of the cyberself (i.e., the individual user) was limited to the textual posts that were left on the bulletin board and the comments made during online conferences. The symbolic environment of both social networks constructs identity in both abstract and concrete means. The concrete method is the simple textual information that defines the individual. The abstract involves the use of other media that can have a “broader reading.” Organizations in both social networks help create this symbolic environment of the virtual world. Messages from organizations on the PEN train and teach others on how to both use government resources and increase the individual’s chances for survival.

Unlike PEN, Facebook is not a pro-social network. The purpose of Facebook is for the student to create a social network of friends. This social network may have external benefits and consequences outside the virtual arena and when the student leaves the university (Barlett, 2006). This presentation of self on Facebook is nothing more than a fractural representation of the self. User piece together their identity online similar to a jigsaw puzzle. Pieces come from pictures that user post online, their post, and other media that is “borrowed” from other sources. Once all of the pieces are put together in the form that the user wants, it is presented for a broad audience. Also, like a jigsaw puzzle, there are imperfections in the picture. Some lines from the boundaries of each piece that create a divot in the picture. Besides, the picture in the puzzle is a focused section of a larger picture. This puzzle could be expanded on to create a larger picture; similar to how an individual presents himself or herself online is a fraction of the individual’s personality (Turkle, 2005).

Several researchers (Turkle, 1997, Robins, 2002, and Wilbur, 2002) discuss the role of the “second self” online. This second self is a portion of the self that best fits into the virtual social environment that one is exploring. This presentation of self is essentially concentrated through the filters of the environment. 

Facebook, much like other online social networks, is a series of communication activities and reactions. Action and reaction refer to the back and forth nature of replying to a thread or reacting to a post on a user’s wall (a list of posts attached to an individual user’s profile page). This online presentation could still be skewed depending on what symbols the user uses to present themselves and how this presentation is read by the rest of the audience (Miller & Mather, 1998).