Social Context and Technological Artifacts: Identity Construction in the Age of Social Media
This essay was published for the first time in April 2008
Introduction
This paper offers an analysis of the influence that new technologies exert on social environments, inspired by a critical reflection on the traditional approach of computer science, which is predominantly focused on computability. Based on this premise, it’s important to clarify that the goal is not to diminish or reject the achievements of computer science in recent years, but rather to complement a primarily formal view by reassessing the importance of the social dimension.
In just a few years, the applications of information technologies have evolved dramatically. The advent of the Internet and networked systems, as well as their global proliferation, has made digital environments interactive, allowing people to collaborate and communicate with one another.
Particular attention is given to networks as the most advanced medium among communication technologies, and to the challenges involved in grasping their true form. These challenges arise mainly from the fact that our understanding is partial and provisional, typical of those who observe transformations while they are still unfolding. These difficulties are well summarized in the words of Derrick de Kerckhove:
The true form of radio was revealed by television. The form of television only became clear after the invention of the computer. The computer’s form is now easier to grasp because we have entered the world of networks. But the form of networks is not yet visible, because no medium more advanced than networks exists.
In this context, social network sites are taken as a case study—chosen primarily for the speed and depth with which they’ve spread across different layers of society, and for the consequences they may bring, some of which are considered disruptive or even harmful.
Ultimately, this work seeks to draw attention to critical themes within an increasingly integrated and interdisciplinary field of research.
Social Network Sites and Social Networks
Before beginning our analysis, we must first distinguish between social network sites and social networks. These two terms are often used interchangeably in everyday language, but in reality—as we will see—the former relies on the latter as its foundational structure.
In 1954, the scholar J.A. Barnes was the first to use the metaphor of social networks to conceptualize the complex web of relationships that exist among members of large-scale social systems. Barnes defined a social network as:
“A structure composed of individuals, organizations, or other entities, embedded within a social context. These entities are connected by relationships that may represent interaction, collaboration, or influence.”
At this point, we can define social network sites as:
“Web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.”
From these two definitions, it is clear—as previously mentioned—that a social network is a social structure, whereas social network sites are technological tools that leverage the concept of a social network.
This distinction is fundamental for understanding the nature of the analysis that follows and for avoiding misunderstandings that stem from unclear or conflated meanings.
A Conceptual Model of Social Context
The construction of social contexts is not a matter of free invention in which actors arbitrarily assign meaning to various environmental configurations. Rather, it is an activity in which actors apply a pre-existing framework of rules:
“Human beings organize their projects and assign meaning to objects based on the premises of an existing cultural order. In this sense, we can say that culture reproduces itself historically through action. An event is a particular, unique implementation of a general phenomenon—it is the contingent realization of a cultural model.”
At the same time, actors cannot help but transform this symbolic order through their daily actions. This occurs because, on one hand, actors may vary the meanings they assign, and on the other hand, circumstances may be unprecedented and, as such, not yet appropriately catalogued within the symbolic order.
In truth, situations are always in some measure unprecedented—if we observe them closely enough and ask the right questions. The main source of variation and transformation in everyday situations lies in the variation and transformation of the symbolic frame in which they are embedded.
Figure 1 – Three-Level Model of Social Context (Mantovani 1993)
Figure 1 presents a conceptualization of social context articulated across three interconnected and interdependent levels. The first is the general social context, the second consists of everyday life situations, and the third concerns local interaction with the environment through artifacts. It is in this third level that we locate the digital tools under examination.
The three levels nest within one another, when considered from the bottom up: the use of artifacts is a specific aspect of everyday situations, which in turn are included in the broader social context. Conversely, interpretation flows top-down: the social context provides the interpretative framework for everyday situations, which in turn define the goals guiding local interactions with the environment through artifacts.
In conclusion, the social context in this model is essentially the symbolic system of a given culture, continually altered by human practical intervention. In other words, human interaction with the environment—through tools such as social networking platforms—is not only part of the social context but also modifies its symbolic structure. The tools and the way they are used by actors inevitably reshape the social context itself.
Situated Action and the Development of the Self
The theory of situated action and the concept of decision as interpretation have prominent intellectual precedents, ranging from Wittgenstein to Lewin. This paradigm assumes that people use everyday situations as cues to generate goals that are adapted to those same situations. It thus rejects the idea that action can be separated from its circumstances and represented as the execution of fixed, predetermined plans.
A useful metaphor for the relationship between actor and situation is that of the key and the lock:
“Personality and environment are connected and complementary, as in the relationship between keys and locks. Personality, in this metaphor, is a key in search of the ‘right’ lock, while the environment—including other people—is the lock waiting to be opened so its opportunities can be realized.”
It’s important to emphasize that each personality is unique because each actor adapts to their “lock” in a way no one else can fully replicate. Likewise, each individual functions as a lock in an inimitable way for a specific range of other actors.
Consequently, everyday life situations not only provide the elements necessary to generate goals and activate specific plans of action, but also significantly contribute to the formation and development of the self.
“The concept of self is not present at birth but arises through experience and social interaction. It is influenced by the individual’s position within the social structure and forms within institutional systems such as the family, school, and church.”
Following the reasoning developed so far, we can state that social networking tools—being part of the social context and used by actors in daily actions—contribute, along with the rest of the environment, to the formation of personal identity.
Identity in Social Network Sites
There is frequent discussion—especially in reference to digital tools based on the concept of social networks—about the idea of multiple social identities. While this may be true for platforms like Second Life, where users actively reconstruct their identities, it is not as accurate when it comes to social network sites. Tools like Facebook, in fact, contribute to the construction of unified identity profiles, based on models that allow users to express their identity online.
In other words, the different tools we use do not create entirely new identities, but rather serve as systems through which we express various facets of a single identity.
In this view, what was once referred to as the divide between real and virtual identity has shifted—in a context where real and virtual are increasingly overlapping—into a distinction between physical and digital identity. Both, however, are entirely real. The aim is no longer to disguise one’s identity, but rather to express it in different forms.
The problem arises from the fact that each of us assumes slightly different identities, attitudes, and roles depending on the context and stage of life. We behave in ways with friends that could compromise our professional image; at home, we are different from how we are with colleagues; in the workplace, we act differently than we would with family, and so on.
Online, the boundaries between these identities—which once clearly divided the different social spheres in which we moved—risk disappearing, thereby generating identity “short circuits”: students accessing their professors’ profiles, employers browsing through their employees’ posts, parents viewing their children’s online activity.
The “diary” of our lives, once visible only to a small circle, becomes a truly public journal—open and exposed—where the author risks overexposure unless they are aware of the disappearance of the barriers that once separated the social worlds we inhabit.
At this point, we can begin to speak of shared identity in a context where it will become increasingly difficult to differentiate between the various spheres of life, and, as a result, to adapt our behavior accordingly.
Conclusions
The introduction of digital artifacts into society is a phenomenon so vast that it reshapes both situations and behaviors, whose social nature is undeniably dominant.
The complexity of new technologies is tied to how we interpret the environments they create, much like the theory of situated action suggests. These tools are, on one hand, high-level instruments—“cognitive artifacts” that deeply interact with human thought—and, on the other hand, precisely for this reason, they are also a significant source of disorientation.
Making sense of technologically mediated environments requires substantial cultural shifts—not only among users but also among designers.
For designers, technical expertise must be combined with a broader understanding of social processes, such as those explored by the social sciences. At present, “the dominant paradigms in academic computer science do not help technical professionals grasp the social complexities of computerization, since those paradigms are focused on computability rather than usability.”
Dunlop and Kling argue that “social analysis is an integral part of computer science and essential in the training of all computing specialists.” If technology professionals had a better grasp of social processes, they would also perform better on a technical level.
Although some progress has been made in this direction in recent years, there is still no widespread and deeply rooted awareness of the issue in the academic world, from faculty to students.
Users, too, must learn not only how new technologies work but also what social meanings are embedded in and conveyed through them, whether transparently or not.
To achieve this, individuals need to develop a new sensitivity toward the cultural and normative dimensions of technological artifacts, a sensitivity that must be nurtured from primary school onwards, as children are now born and raised in digital environments.
More broadly, we must understand that technologies must be interpreted, and reject the seductive equation that technological progress automatically equates to social progress.
Designer-user collaboration is possible, but focusing solely on the usability of cognitive artifacts is not enough to foster genuine cooperation between the two. We must also develop a shared interpretation of the contexts in which these tools are used, and doing so requires a shared culture.
References
Jay David Bolter & Richard Grusin, Remediation: Understanding New Media, Guerini Studio, Milan 2002
Globalizzazione: rischi e opportunità, Telèma, Year 3, Fondazione Ugo Bordoni, Rome 1998
Sergio Maistrello, La parte abitata della rete, Tecniche Nuove, Milan 2007
Giuseppe Mantovani, Comunicazione e identità. Dalle situazioni quotidiane agli ambienti virtuali, Il Mulino, Bologna 1995
Simone Tosoni, Identità virtuali. Comunicazione mediata da computer e processi di costruzione dell’identità personale, Franco Angeli, Milan 2004