He's only me

Several people have recently asked why I use the name Timbuckteeth on Twitter, Flickr and Slideshare. Others have asked me about my use of the blue astronaut picture as my Twitter profile picture. Well, here it is - my response to those questions. Let me tell you about the way I manage my digital identity. I hope it resonates with you....

Timbuckteeth is a word play on Timbuktu - a town in the African state of Mali. In ancient times Timbuktu was both an intellectual and spiritual centre and a meeting place for many nomadic tribes and was located at the intersection of two great trade routes. It was quite simply the place to be. For me, writing blogs and tweets, academic papers, poems or fiction, or indeed anything that other people are likely to read (and I have done them all), requires that you are either intellectual or thoughtful in your approach, or spiritually aware (and hopefully both). I strive in some way to bring both of these attributes to my writing, whether it is an 8,000 word book chapter, or a 140 character tweet. And like Timbuktu, I want my blogs, tweets and other writing to represent places people want to come to visit, where they can egage with the ideas, be challenged, inspired and ultimately, where they will learn something new. And if this paragraph is seen by any readers as pretentious claptrap, I will simply say that in all honesty, I want my blogs and tweets to have some 'bite'

That I hope explains the name, but how do I explain the blue astronaut? Blue has always been my favourite colour (don't know why, don't care really), but when the profile picture comes up on say a Twitter wall at a conference, it is easily recognisable because it stands out. The sunglasses are quite random. But all of this is mere trivia. The image itself is a little more meaningful. It is esoteric, yet still holds significance for me - and it's all about dates. Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke is involved (the astronaut image is lifted directly from the Stanley Kubrick film '2001: A Space Odyssey' - an adaptation from one of Clarke's novels - the blue astronaut is the actor Keir Dullea). So is the concept of satellites. (See the connection yet?) In 1945 Clarke proposed the idea of geosynchronous satellites. His vision was not long in realisation because just over a decade later on 4th October, 1957 the first satellite - Sputnik - was successfully launched, ushering in the global communication revolution. The day, the month and the year of Sputnik are all significant to me. You see, I was born in 1957 (I'm the same age as Sputnik, but we did not attend school together), and I was married on 4th October (in 1986). When Arthur C. Clarke died on 19th of March 2008, it was a sad day for me, but it was shortly after this that Timbuckteeth was born, and from that moment on my tweeting, slidesharing and flickring and other online presence has been managed under this identity. 


A lot was discussed around the idea of digital identity at Online Educa Berlin a couple of years ago. The important ideas that came from these discussions for me was that digital identity - they way you represent yourself in digital environments, is an extension of some essence of your persona. You digital identity is your vicarious presence in that place where you are unable to be physically embodied, but where your emotional bandwidth can still be fully exploited. Digital identity has elements of your personal life and memories invested in it, and is the way other people online view you, so it should bear some personal significance for you. To borrow from Erving Goffman, digital identity becomes the channel through which you manage your impression and present yourself in everyday (online) life. So Timbuckteeth is a growing part of my digital identity and will be with me for a while yet, because after all.... he's only me. 

Tomorrow: Double agents

He's only me by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Back stage front stage

Today I enjoyed an interesting chat with Dr. Robert Nagy over lunch in Liberec, in the North of the Czech Republic. Robert is a lecturer both at the Technical University of Liberec and also at Charles University in Prague. He's a fellow psychologist, and we had a lot to chat about subsequent to him sitting in on one of my sessions this morning.

I was discussing one of my favourite theories with the group - Erving Goffman's Drama model of social interaction. Goffman suggests that each of us attempts to 'manage our impression' before our 'audience' as if we were performing on a stage. Front stage representation draws upon scripts, costumes, roles and props, as each person tries to present themselves in their most favourable manner. Back stage is different - this is the region where we are at our most informal, and where we let our guard down. I was applying Goffman's theory to online spaces such as social networks. I asked the group how many of them had a Facebook account. Of course, as I expected, everyone did. Next we discussed how people represent themselves on Facebook through their profiles, pictures, games they play, groups they join, and people they 'friend' online. Part of the downside of Facebook, I reminded them, is when you (or someone else) posts images of yourself onto the site. It's difficult to remove them once they are posted, and if they are tagged, it is easy to find them. Most people don't mind this, we agreed, but if an image is inappropriate (falling out of a pub at 3 am, the worse for wear), this may work against you when you apply for a job and your prospective employer decides to check you out on Facebook.

The problem, I theorised, is that many Facebook users perceive the social network as a 'back stage' area where they can let their hair down a little, remove their mask, relax and banter with their friends, and generally say what they want to. The mistake of course, is that Facebook is quite public (depending on how you manage your privacy controls) and open to many people to view. In reality it is a front stage region, yet with your guard down, you are likely to make a public fool of yourself if you are not careful and think you are bacjstage. The rules of social interaction, I suggested, are changing.

Afterwards, over lunch, Robert expressed doubt that the rules are actually changing. His argument is that most social conventions are usually quite rigid and that bad or good behaviour is the same, whatever platform, real or virtual, it is acted out upon. To an extent I agreed, but I pointed out that some conventions are in fact changing because of new affordances being introduced by technology. What is considered rude or aggressive by one person may not be seen as such by another. An innocent text message sent by one person may be construed by its recipient to be offensive or threatening. This may be due to a reduction in social cues, or simply not enough supplementary information being embedded within the text. Failure to include emoticons, or other 'non-textual' communication may render the message void of emotion, and then readers are left up to their own devices to decide whether the message is in fact ironic, or sent with some malice. Lack of experience in an online environment may lead the recipient to take the least form of resistance and miscontrue the message.

For me, the rules of engagement are changing to adapt to the technology that is increasingly mediating our conversations. The reduced or 'squeezed' text that is redolent of short message services such as mobile texting has spawned a new style of communication. If you are on the inside you will ROFL when you read the message. If you are on the outside, and not used to this style of communication, you may very well take offense or miss the point. So are the rules of social interaction changing, or are they the same as they ever were, just dressed up in a different form?

Image source by Slimmer_Jimmer


Back stage front stage by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Identity in a digital age

Much of my understanding of digital identity was founded in my studies into personal identity, whilst a student of social psychology. The work of William James and George Herbert Mead influenced my thinking, as did the study of sociologist Charles Cooley into 'the Looking Glass Self.' Essentially, in this hybrid early school of social psychology, known as symbolic interactionism, theorists tried to explain the influence of audiences/other people on the behaviour of individuals. It was a fluid theory that allowed for behavioural adjustments on the fly, as people saw themselves 'reflected in the eyes of the other' - the impact of what they were saying - as they conversed. Therefore, 'in order to develop and shape behavior, interactions with others must exist. People gain their identity and form their habits by looking at themselves through the perception of society and other people they interact with.' (New World Encyclopedia)

I did some research of my own back in the 90s based on the presentation of self in everyday life. Those who are familiar with the work of the social anthropologist Erving Goffman will recognise this as the title of one of his seminal works. Goffman saw social interaction as a drama performance, in which the actor's behaviour was framed by front stage and back stage roles, scripts, props and costumes. One of the most important, but often ignored features of Goffman's Dramaturgical Model is the presence of an audience, to which the actor consciously (or unconsciously) performs. This has great import in our understanding of how we perform to audiences in social media (of which more later in this post).

The research I conducted in 1994 involved a small team of psychology students and one of my friends, the actor and TV personality Matthew Kelly. Now a successful actor of stage and film, during the 1990s Matthew appeared on everyone's TV screens several times a week and was instantly recognisable. He was ideal for the study and when invited, he agreed to take part. We wanted to test out our ideas on the 'celebrity effect' in which people change their behaviour when they meet face to face with a famous person. In today's celebrity soaked society, where in Andy Warhol's terms 'anyone can be famous for 15 minutes', we are perhaps living in what Malcolm MacLaren dubbed 'the Karoake culture.' This means that just about anywhere, at any time, without warning, anyone can bump into a celebrity - there are enough of them about. Although it's possible, it's not probable, but there are occasions when this happens with no warning and no preparation, and you find yourself looking at a well known face. In such situations, people behave differently. They stare. Or they deliberately avoid staring. Either way, they know that they are sharing a space with a famous person, and can't help behaving differently. I was intrigued as to why this should be.

So we set up and conducted a naturalistic series of experiments in the high street of an English City. We wanted to know if, as Isen and Levin (1972) predicted, people would be more likely to help others if they felt good themselves. There was also research to suggest that helping behaviour increased depending on the status and influence of those present (Latane & Harkins, 1976). My study went something like this: In the experimental condition, two of us walked into a shop and posed as customers. A minute later, one of our team, an unknown person, walked into the shop accompanied by Matthew Kelly, and made straight for the counter. The unknown person showed the shop assistant a £10 note and asked if s/he could help by giving him some change from the till so he could make an urgent call home (this was in the days before mobile phones). We observed the interactions and timed the conversation. In a control condition, we also performed the same situation where two unknown people walked into similar matched stores and acted out the same scene. This same scenario was acted out 11 times for each of the conditions. We analysed the data from the 22 shops and saw immediately that there was a marked difference between the experimental (famous) and control (unknown) conditions.

In the control condition, our team was refused help (told they could not have change unless they purchased something) on 6 out of 11 occasions, and minimal interaction was observed between the unknown people and the shop assistant. In the experimental condition, on every occasion, the famous person and his partner were helped. If the shop assistants couldn't open the till, they found the change from their own pockets/purses or those of their colleagues'. Another interesting effect was that on each occasion, although the only speaking person was the unknown person, the shop assistants were observed answering Matthew Kelly, and maintained eye contact with him rather than the speaker. The unknown person was virtually ignored, even though he had initiated the conversation and was doing all the talking. Non verbal interactions such as smiling and nodding were also more numerous in the experimental condition than in the control condition, where minimal or no eye contact was observed between the shop assistant and the two unknown people.

From these statistically significant results (p<.005), I theorised that (in Goffman's terms) shop assistants who were in their rule bound front stage roles (e.g. I must not open my till to give change unless someone has made a purchase, because the note may be a forgery), were forced into back stage (relaxed and informal) roles prompted by a pleasant surprise. They broke their own rules, because they recognised the famous person (someone who perhaps they had seen often in their back stage informal roles in their own living rooms) and behaved in a way that was incompatible with the rules they would follow in their front stage, official and formal roles.

In my conclusions I noted: "The celebrity effect has obvious consequences for the promotion of pro-social behaviour. Front stage roles (rules) are subjugated by the desire of the actor (shop assistant) to appear helpful and pleasant to the well-known person. However, this helping behaviour occurs at the expense of anyone else who happens to be nearby. Attention is focused on the famous person, while the requests from others, although not ignored, become marginalised".

Applying this research in today's digital world, I wonder what the presentation of self in a social media world would entail. Applying Goffman's theory to the performance spaces of social media, we could cast a spotlight on videosharing services such as Youtube and text based performace spaces such as traditional blogs. Do bloggers see themselves as interacting with their audiences in a front stage context? If they do, then they will possibly be more guarded and less personable, avoiding as much self-disclosure as they can? On the other hand, if bloggers see themselves as performing in a less formal space, in a more relaxed style, are they then back-stage? Do they then feel licensed to self-disclose more personal information about themselves, or share their emotions, their beliefs? Perhaps the questions should be framed the other way around? Does self disclosure and informal sharing of personal information push bloggers into a back stage role, and what is it that enables some to do this? Is it the pleasant experience of having a large appreciative audience? One more question springs to mind - are bloggers who disclose information about themselves of a personal nature more readable (and more personable) than those who write whilst remaining in a front stage, formal role? These and other related research questions are of course, up for grabs for someone to investigate.

References

Cooley, C. H. (1918) Social Process. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Goffman, E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.

Isen, A. M. and Levin, P. F. (1972) Effects of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(3), 381-8.

Latane, B. and Harkins, S. G. (1976) A multiplicative power function of audience size and status. In R. L. Atkinson, R. C. Atkinson, Smith, E. E., Bem, D. J. and Hilgard, E. R. (1990) Introduction to Psychology, 10th Edition. San Fransciso, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Image source by Ocadotony

Identity in a digital age by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.