Identity: A Change Influenced By Society And Social Networking Communities
By: Anonymous
12/08/2011
University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign
Rhetoric 105
Introduction:
After the huge transition from High School to college I knew my life was subject to change; the environment, the living lifestyle, the slumber, etc. The branch of education that I considered my own little world was now in my past, and the future to come was something even greater. Coming from a suburban private day school in Winnetka, I experienced a few of the issues that were stereotyped about suburban high schools such as the lack of diversity, the division between the football players and the students in science club, and the division between minorities and wealthy majorities. These divisions, no doubt, laid some groups that would be considered at the top of the caste system or “popular.” Though everyone engaged in each other’s company despite their social groups or standings, there was still a visible division when it came to voluntary accounts such as lunch time, going to the movies, etc. In my high school, the girl in
Volleyball or the guy in the varsity football team who was attractive, had the best smile, wore the trendiest clothes, is a part of the top clubs, attends all the parties or gatherings, and overall is well known/ are friends with numerous people on campus. And though I was part of the well praised
Raiders volleyball team in my high school, always received positive compliments of my fashion, and was engaged in gatherings, outside of the school’s community, I wouldn’t really define

myself or classify myself in the category of one who is “popular”. I wasn’t one whom would stand with a huge crowd, or one that would comment on the Facebook walls of my fellow classmates 24/7. I also rarely attended high school events and outings besides plays or anything having to do with the sport teams I took part in. So, looking back on my high school years leads to the question of what really defines popularity, in addition to who is affected by this quota.
The definition of popularity is a hard one to determine. Through the research conducted it was determined that the definition of popularity may differentiate between different cultures, religions, clubs, and even organizations on campus. All characteristics but being well known declined to be the case once I entered college and became engaged in a few clubs. In addition to knowing numerous people on campus, one who is popular is characterized on social networking sites as having many followers on twitter or obtaining over 500 friends on Facebook. In a society where having more is considered being “popular” may contribute to some benefactors which include obtaining mentors or mentees who seem to be positively influenced by some people or connecting with others. Popularity might also stand as a negative issue, for some people may lack their own self image or do anything; what it takes to appear into the criteria of being
“popular”.
With popularity having both positive and negative attributes, one cannot help but think what really defines popularity on a college campus, where it homes over 40,000 students from different backgrounds, in comparison to how popularity is defines on social networking sites such as Facebook, which is home to over 800 million active users. The initial idea for this research was to try and establish the difference between the characterizations of popularity between students on campus and students on social networking communities. Through this research well known students and members of a prominent organization will be interviewed to

receive their input or outlook on what characteristics, actions and behaviors may define one being labeled popular. In addition to an interview, observations of the interviewee’s activity on
Facebook was recorded to ensure that the answers to interview questions followed up or agreed to what is seen. In the end it will be seen that some contradictions were made, and that the definition of one who is popular, is even more than just connecting people. It will also be learned that popularity may stand as a positive idea when it comes to the relation of people, but may also be perceived as a negative when it comes to students or humanity’s views on whom would be more accepted in society. At this point, after the interviews and the observations made, we will begin to see a shift, and an emergence of new questions as to what classifications society may be looking for in students or as to why students identity is altered online/ in a social networking community? We may also stumble upon who may be subjected to change their identity and what may cause this drive to change ones identity?
Methods:
There is a need to investigate how Popularity within a group on campus can be different from popularity through social networking communities, as the result of being part of the
University of Illinois community. In addition to determining the actual definition of popularity it is also necessary to investigate: What might characterize one who is popular? In order to answer or identify the characteristics of one who is popular, it was necessary to focus on a particular organization on campus. An organization that is well known around campus and is socially active on campus would be suitable for this research would be an organization that I am apart of called ACA. The African Cultural Association, ACA, was founded in 2003 and ever since then; the organization strived to display African culture on campus as well as supporting fraternities and sororities on campus. The organization holds over 50 members this year and is open to

people of all cultures and backgrounds. The meetings are held every two weeks and every meeting is filled with controversial conversations and debates such as what is accepted in a relationship; race, religion, and appearance; or if there are still segregation today. Along with these debates, the tone and atmosphere of these meetings are comfortable for, everyone knows each other and the vibe of the organization feels as if all members, even executive members are a huge family. The well-known executive members pose as mentors as well as “sisters and brothers”, for all members despite background. The organization is also known for holding their annual cultural fashion show, the reggae party, their many community service events, as well as group bonding socials such as ACA aerobics, and Date for Africa, an auctioning event with proceeds going to different philanthropic organizations. According to ACA’s Facebook page,
ACA’s mission is to promote awareness, and educate the community about Africa, the Caribbean and the diasporic cultures and issues affecting society today.
Though this organization is well known around campus and could be considered a “popular” organization, they are not as active on social networking websites such as Facebook. It is indeed true that this organization has a
Facebook group of over 900 friends, and has only posted events to members or ones who are intersected in the group; however, their Facebook is only used for connecting and business, and nothing beyond.
Within ACA three well known students on campus were interviewed in order to identify what characteristics, they thought, were applicable to being “popular”. In addition to characteristics of popularity, views on how they define popularity on social networking sites, and what they thought was important of people online was also necessary to investigate. When interviewing Brennal “Dui” Larson, a well known student of the freshman class as well as an active ACA member of two months, he states that popularity is being well known or “knowing

of one”. When asked to define popularity on social networking sites, he states that he “couldn’t define popularity on social networking sites. You could have a million of friends but only know like half of them” (Larson). Mr. Larson makes a case stating that the amount of friends one has does not indicate how popular one may be. Though when observing a well known figure in a community back home who promotes as well as attends a majority of social events, it is seen that he obtains friends over one-thousand on Facebook. However, when asked if he knew all of his friends on Facebook, he admitted that he only knew over half of his friends.
Many people would have viewed this person’s Facebook page and would had labeled him popular right away, however, he only obtains this much friends to promote events and people; in other words, to connect. Larson’s page also contradicts his statement. Though Larson believes that obtaining a lot of Facebook friends or knowing of more people does not make one “popular” his Facebook page demonstrates that he is friends with over 1,000 people. Larson seems to only comment on wall posts by users he is more familiar with, and in addition, his activities on
Facebook is quite recent every day, emphasizing that he is on Facebook daily checking for wall posts or to connect with his friends. Contradictions such as Larson’s reflect on how the other interviews went. Many contradictions were made such as an interviewee would deny that knowing more people was not characterizing one who is popular” but one who is relatable to people and the proximity of the person to the group. However, on the interviewees’ Facebook’s they appear to give into the acts of one who appears to be more in the social scene or is
“popular”, such as having many wall posts or obtaining over 500 friends.
The results of the interview has instead of really answering what determines popularity has made me aware that the observations of the interviewees, the interview had touched a new subject or issue that may be more questioned in society today. The new question emerges of how

a student’s identity may be portrayed online as opposed to offline. As an implication forms the interviews we see that self image as well as what is accepted in society is maybe a factor that one focuses on when it comes to joining an online community.
Analysis:
In trying to research how popularity differs online and in reality, it was the interviews and the observations of the interviewees Facebook, which led me to the change of issues for my research. When thinking about the types of people on a college campus, there is no doubt that one may come across one is not as extraverted or one who may not be in the social scenes much; one who is calm, but acquires a self dislike or a type of low self-esteem. Students who fit in this criterion were ones I thought that would fit into people who would be affected by societal standards or what is accepted. Because of societal standards, I drew the conclusion that students may seek social networking communities or online chat communities as euphoria or a reality outside their own where they are subjected to change what really makes a student: their identity.
In order to find out the reason for students, to seek social networking sites as a euphoria to be portrayed as the identity preferred, one must understand the true meaning of identity overall, and the purpose of social networking communities. We may see how altering one’s identity with the use of social networking sites may be harmful as well as fulfilling.
In order to fully understand the purpose of students changing their personality or how they perceive themselves in a social setting opposed to how they portray themselves on the internet, we must comprehend how experts in the discipline of psychology explain identity and identity change. In Soraya Mehdizadeh, B.Sc’s article titled, “Self-Presentation 2.0: Narcissism and Self-Esteem on Facebook,” Mehdizadeh explains how online social networking sites have

revealed being an influence of self-representation. In the article she states identity construction has been premeditated as a public process that involves both ‘‘identity announcement” made by the individual claiming the identity and ‘‘identity placement’’ made by others who endorse the claimed identity (Mehdizadeh). In other words, building an identity comes from one’s own perception of them self as well as how other people may distinguish them. “Friend-networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook have become extremely popular among college and university students.” The article goes on by explaining conducted research on 100 users of
Facebook; observing their activity on Facebook and then determining how they identify themselves.
Because a social networking site such as Facebook is in an “anonymous setting”
(Mehdizadeh), users of these websites are prone to “tweak” their profile a bit to make it suitable for themselves as the “societal standard”. As stated in the article, “Face-to-face identity is constructed under a multiplicity of constraints. Under these circumstances, identity announcement is influenced by physical characteristics (i.e., gender, ethnicity, attractiveness) and the shared knowledge of social backgrounds” (Mehdizadeh). Furthermore, personal attributes often control identity placement” (Mehdizadeh). In other words, social networking communities’ doesn’t constraint an individual from expressing his or her self. This type of community is controlled in a sense that anyone can convey their own ideal identity or obtain the characteristics of their choosing. In a civilization where some are not accepted because of flaws listed by society, one would seek a place such as Facebook as a need for “admiration and selfimportance/attractiveness” (Mehdizadeh), which then turns into narcissism, a term which fits into one’s thought process into thinking to alter themselves to fit into an online society. Which

then lead to the question of how a person, who tries to alter identity, is living in their actual society; outside of an online community?
When it boils down to what affect does one’s environment has on one’s actions the answer always ties back to nature and nurture. In this case, their actions would be altering their own identity on social online community. But the next question is what would lead students into changing their identity, or better yet, what type of environment or emotional state are these students going through that would lead them to this demise? Because social networking communities are “controlled”(Angster Alexa), by its users as well as private, it would be simple to alter interests, put up pictures secular or promiscuous pictures online, or portray themselves as one outside of themselves. In Angster’s study measuring the usage of online communities as well as advanced technology it was stated that people who are subjected into using these online websites and communities are people who show an increased experience in depression as well as loneliness. It was also mentioned that people whose families are lacking communication, as well as one obtaining a low self esteem. This may be due to these extraverts trying to find more exciting ways to interact with people outside of their own social realm. It is understandable, to me, that someone who may not have a positive social life outside of the online world.
Loneliness especially plays a vital role in how someone might spend their time. In the interview I conducted, one of the interviewees was asked about what was accepted on Facebook.
The interviewee mentioned how a student would never even think to put any characteristics, interests or pictures that they believed would tarnish their image or identity online. In a recent study it was it was predicted that “students who send more frequent text messages and engage in more social networking will have less fulfilling personal relationships and be less likely to make

personal telephone calls”( Raacke and Bonds-Raacke 2008). My perception of individuals who are less fulfilling are individuals who are either looked down upon or not leaders, but instead who seek and create a personality that fulfill that character trait; in other words one who may be looked at as unpopular. Online, ones identity tends to change for example, one is more likely to put up Facebook statuses or say things one knows would not be said face to face. Which lead to another question of what is accepted or what how is people portraying themselves online?
In trying to find how people, more particularly students, may want to portray themselves and what is accepted in online communities, I came across an article titled, “Frame switches and identity performances: Alternating between online and offline, written by Pa˚ L Andre´ Aarsand, in which he makes the issue of how students use arranges online and offline activity frames in identity performances. Basically the study displays how students can switch identities in an offline network, being reality, and in online communities such as MSN messenger [or chat sites],
Facebook, and Twitter. Identity in students was researched to be deciphered just by looking at the online username the individual chooses for themselves.
“Nicknames . . . say something about who they [the participants] are, and act as an invitation to others to talk to them’ (Crystal 2001: 160). This means that nicknames work in two ways. First, they tell the other participants about who you are/want to be, and second, they constitute a way of displaying interests, sex, location, age, and ethnicity with the purpose of getting others to talk to you”(Aarsand).
Through the fake nicknames is one who is lonely, or lacks communication and awareness of what may not be suitable online. Online usernames such as “HOT Girl” (Aarsand), or “Red-Bone
Barbie [as observed on an online chat website] portray students as promiscuous, as well as displaying a type of ethnicity in which is said highly to be accepted into society. Students of this
“mask” are subjected to have a great amount of people take initiative to talk to students of this

stature. Because of the loneliness aspect, students want to develop relationships with people they usually wouldn’t talk to. If someone “less fulfilling” or “lonely engages in an online community, there are more likely to become sexual as well as releasing any information that may be detrimental to one’s safety. This idea finally allows me to see the exigency of my research.
Conclusion:
After determining that students seem to act different online than they do in a social setting and that “popularity” was not a factor, the interviews I conducted lead me to view how and why a student’s identity appeared to change online from reality. On the UIUC campus everyone seemed to be immersed in their own group or organization. However there aregroups which carry a widely known status on campus. Though my researches on status and popularity on the UIUC campus and on social networking sites lead me somewhere into the purpose, I was still a bit confused on what I was really looking for. It was researching the actions online and on the background of students using these online communities that lead me to the exigence of my research. People or students, who are "Less Fulfilling", have low self esteem, or is exposed to a negative environment. Social Networking communities may be a place where they can explore themselves as well as express themselves the way they couldn’t do in reality. There is more research to be done about the mindset and the affects or results of students who change their identity Is the act of changing identities beneficial or detrimental to a student’s performance in school or with people?

Bibliography
Aarsand, Pål André. "Frame Switches And Identity Performances: Alternating Between Online
And Offline." Text and Talk 28.2 (2008): 147-165. Academic Search Premier . Web. 18 Nov.
2011.
Angster, Alexa, Michael Frank, and David Lester. "AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF
STUDENTS' USE OF CELL PHONES, TEXTING, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING
SITES¹."
Psychological Reports 107.2 (2010): 402-404. Academic Search Premier . EBSCO.
Web. 29 Oct. 2011.
Babba, Ali. Personal Interview/Popularity.10.7.2011
Jackson,Elle. Personal Interview/Popularity. 10.7.2011
Larson,Brennel, “Dui”.Personal Interview/ Popularity. 10.7.2011
Mehdizadeh, Soraya. "Self-Presentation 2.0: Narcissism And Self-Esteem On
Facebook." Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking 13.4 (2010): 357-364. Academic
Search Premier .
Web. 7 Nov. 2011.