I would argue that the construction of digital identities empowers people in three ways.：
1. the power to construct ‘ideal selves’ without cost.
2. the power to tell lies
3. the power to be socially unaccountable based on online anonymity.
Identity and construction:
This topic actually covers a known message that is constructed. This means imagining, conceptualising and structuring. According to Markus and Nurius (1986), the concept of self can be divided into ‘now selves’ and ‘possible selves. The ‘possible self’ is much like the image that people construct, the socially desirable identities that individuals want to build and believe that they will be able to do under the appropriate conditions. Obviously, the digital world offers people the opportunity to do this, so the constructed identities do not necessarily have to be real.
The construction of identities is a public process that involves ‘identity announcements’ by individuals who are claiming and ‘identity placements’ by others who recognise the claimed identities. When there is an overlap between placement and announcement, identity is constructed (Stone, 1990).
Face-to-face interactions and digital identities:
Identity in real life is constructed within many constraints, just as you cannot lie about information that is visible to the naked eye, such as one’s height and skin colour. This construction mainly involves managing the physical environment (like where you live) and personal image (like your looks, voice and behaviour) in order to make a desirable impression on others (Goffman, 1959). But when people arrive in unfamiliar new environments such as a bar, people may try to hide their contexts and personality in order to produce new identities, though it will still be limited.
However, the traditional way of constructing identities has been changed by the advent of the Internet. In the online environment, social interactions are no longer based on space, or dependent on bodily presence. You can communicate completely invisibly online, in such a way that you can selectively give partial information. Even the photos shared can be retouched by the user to match their ideal image, or they can choose to use a fake photo. In addition, people can remain anonymous by hiding personal information such as their name, place of residence and workplace. The conjunction of disembodiment and anonymity creates a new environment that leads to the emergence of new models of identity construction (Bargh et al., 2002; McKenna et al., 2002).
Digital Identity Empowerment:
Under the influence of digital contexts and new modes of identity construction, people may take on completely different identities from their own lives or take on the role of someone else. (Stone, 1996, Turkle, 1995). The invisible and anonymous online environment enables people to create new identities and thus reinvent themselves. In the virtual world you can construct the image of who you want to be. You can even create a dog’s social account if you want and create a digital identity for the dog to build the illusion that the puppy is smart and humane.
https://www.xiaohongshu.com/discovery/item/66e5c1bf00000000250326c6?source=webshare&xhsshare=pc_web&xsec_token=CBvMSb3KbmuETX3W72-HDrU_m61tRZq1bbA89eT4eW6fs=&xsec_source=pc_share
(If you could watch the linked video that would be great! The author has turned off some of the permissions so I can only share via the link!)
Within this video, we all know that the arms are human, but paired with the dog’s actions it creates a digital image: smart, greedy and funny. But this may not be real, it is trained and the owner wants it to be shown to the viewer.
Dietzel (2021) showed that the anonymity of digital socializing acts as a shield where people do not have to suffer the consequences of doing poorly, and Suhler (2004) also mentions that this feature can lead people who are online not to develop the same level of social responsibility as they do in real life, contributing to more anti-social behavior (Suhler, 2004).
For some vulnerable groups, such as people who are introverted and shy or disabled in some way, the creation of a digital identity can provide a good way to communicate avoiding barriers in real life. The emerging online anonymity environment provides opportunities for people to express their ‘hidden selves’ (Suler, 2002) and to explore the possibilities of unconventional identities (Rosenmann & Safir, 2006). In this way, ‘closed’ individuals are able to realise identities that they would like to establish but would not be able to do so in a face-to-face situation. Actually, this is what was referred to at the beginning as the ‘ideal self’
It is worth to mention that some online dating apps are specific to promote the exchange of real information about oneself on the Internet for the purpose of finding a soul mate. This aim was originally more like to project a real personal image of oneself on this platform, however I think that where creating a digital identity always creates a lot of lies. The most frequent issue encountered by users with online dating is the deception of false information. Almost only 20% of people do not lie on a part of their online dating profile, as Manta (2019) suggested. Usually, users will make minor changes to their personal details, such as making some adjustments to their height, weight, occupation, and interests to make their profile look better and more popular. This behaviour will make it easier to stand out and get more users to choose them. In order to make a specific impression among the audience, people sometimes exaggerate or lie about some features (Guadagno et.al.).
Conclusion:
The images that people construct on the Internet tend to be positive, and people usually create digital identities to fulfil multiple psychological and social needs. The virtual world offers a great freedom and space in choice, enabling people with digital identities to realise desires that cannot be fully satisfied in reality, and to obtain recognition and respect through the portrayal of successful digital identities. But I think people still need some rules governing the construction of digital identities. To me, the three kinds of empowerment aree in fact the products of the rapid development of the digital era and the lack of rules and constraints.
Reference：
Bargh, J.A., McKenna, K.Y. and Fitzsimons, G.M. (2002) ‘Can you see the real me? activation and expression of the “true self” on the internet’, Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), pp. 33–48. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00247.
Dietzel, C. (2021) ‘The three dimensions of unsolicited Dick Pics: Men who have sex with men’s experiences of sending and receiving unsolicited Dick Pics on dating apps’, Sexuality & Culture, 26(3), pp. 834–852. doi:10.1007/s12119-021-09920-y.
Goffman, E., 2008. Behaviour in public places. Simon and Schuster.
Guadagno, R.E., Okdie, B.M. and Kruse, S.A. (2012) ‘Dating deception: Gender, online dating, and exaggerated self-presentation’, Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), pp. 642–647. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.010.
Manta, I. D. (2019). ‘Tinder Lies’. Wake Forest Law Review, 54 (1), PP. 207–249. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3229223.
Markus, H. and Nurius, P., 1986. Possible selves. American psychologist, 41(9), pp.954.
McKenna, K.Y., Green, A.S. and Gleason, M.E., 2002. Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction?. Journal of social issues, 58(1), pp.9-31.
Rosenmann, A. and Safir, M.P., 2006. Forced online: Push factors of Internet sexuality: A preliminary study of online paraphilic empowerment. Journal of homosexuality, 51(3), pp.71-92.
Stone, G.P., 1990. Appearance and the self: A slightly revised version. Life as theater: A dramaturgical sourcebook, pp.141-62.
Stone, A.R., 1996. The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. MIT press.
Suler, J.R., 2002. Identity management in cyberspace. Journal of applied psychoanalytic studies, 4, pp.455-459.
Suler, J. (2004) ‘The online disinhibition effect’, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), pp. 321–326. doi:10.1089/1094931041291295.
Turkle, S., 2011. Life on the Screen. Simon and Schuster.
