Lecture 1: Reading Schau & Gilly - We Are What We Post

Introducton:
This article examines personal Web sites as a conspicuous form of consumer self- presentation. Using theories of self-presentation, possessions, and computer-medi- ated environments (CMEs), we investigate the ways in which consumers construct identities by digitally associating themselves with signs, symbols, material objects, and places. Specifically, the issues of interest include why consumers create personal Web sites, what consumers want to communicate, what strategies they devise to achieve their goal of self-presentation, and how those Web space strategies compare to the self-presentation strategies of real life (RL). The data reveal insights into the strategies behind constructing a digital self, projecting a digital likeness, digitally associating as a new form of possession, and reorganizing linear narrative structures.

What exactly is CME:
With the advent of new technology, computer-mediated environments (CMEs) have emerged, allowing virtual worlds in which consumers can present themselves using digital rather than physical referents.

Explanation: Semiotics

'Consumers who create personal Web sites are engaging in what Arnould and Price (2000, p. 140) call "authenticating acts," or "self-referential behaviors actors feel reveal the 'true' self' and frequently multiple true selves.'

'Goffman (1959) asserts that the presentation of self is contextual, based on a specific setting and facing a definable and anticipated audience. By contrast, personal Web sites allow consumers to self-present 24/7 beyond a regional setting to the virtual world.'
Comment: I disagree on this conclusion. Although a website is available 24/7 it does not self present all the time. To do so there needs to be audience 24/7. What is the point of self-presenting when there is no-one to present to? Although this might be achievable, I don't believe this to be general law. This is confirmed later in the article (p. 388): 'In fact, re- searchers claim that the relationship between a person and object is "never a two-way (person-thing), but always three- way (person-thing-person)" (Belk 1988, p. 147).' This is why there cannot be a 24/7 self presence. The second person needs to be available 24/7 for such a scenario.

Propensity - eg. to lean towards an idea, while not totally accepting it. (Hang)

'Self-disclosure in CMEs is easier for some people than self-disclosure to a physically nearby person due to the pressure of social desirability. Thus, CMEs as mediated communication may allow for more open self- expression.'

'Social presence in the absence of physical presence is known as telepresence (Minsky 1980).'

(p. 391) In terms of methodology I am surprised that the authors don't realise that their finding might be biased. The reason I discuss this is, that the design of a website provides space for another, a second self. Many website authors appreciate the fact that they cannot in the first place be identified as the authors of the website. This gives them freedom to discuss matter that might otherwise be confronting or disturbing to their RL environment (ethics of family, friends, children, parents, work colleagues, even church). To participate in a research program that not only focusses on a snap-shot in time on their website, but keeps coming back on an annual basis, to see the development of the site, may make the author feel publicly exposed. This might hinder him or her in the further development of the website. The RL self might take over to keep website content within the barriers of RL and to disguise the online self. See p. 394: . 'The content of the sites is diverse (text, audio, image, icons, hyperlinks, and animation) as is the style of communication, but the desire to present a physically absent self to others underlies all personal Web sites in our data set. This self may relate to one or more roles played by an informant (journalist, mother, daughter) or to a latent self (warrior, hero, intellec- tual), but the desire to construct a self is a common theme in these data.'

HAHAHA!!! To all the academic nerds out there who never see the day of light:
(p. 392) 'He also hopes his friends think it is "pretty fly" (a slang term with hip-hop origins that is similar to "cool")' ...and
(p. 393) 'People told me, 'Dude, your site is so 8-track, so old hoo-yaw [a derogatory term for heavy metal music fans].'
...right, but where, may I ask, is the reference?

(p. 399)Initial and Evolving Motivations for Personal Web Space Construction
Although I think the authors over emphasise the brand factor in CMEs a little, I believe this to be a parallel to RL. In everyday life we seek a sense of belonging. When I was a hippie in the late 70s I dismissed any kind of conformism, showing this to the world by waring ripped jeans, long hair, trench coats and sneakers. I didn't realise it needs some kind of uniform to distinguish yourself from another kind of uniform. This is the RL brand factor. To me it's only natural that branding also plays a major role in CMEs. As you cannot display RL branding properly on CMEs you are required to take different measures. See also the first paragraph on Self-Presentation Strategies (p. 400)

We are what we post - certainly. But aren't we also what we read or what we film or photograph. Although the last three examples refer to the real world they are not part of real life in the real time sense. As branding takes place in personal websites, so it does in expressive writing about self, displaying self in certain environments or situations. In my view branding in the above circumstances takes place the way it does in CMEs. The question is, if there is face-to-face communication or not, rather than RL or CMEs.