Conclusions and relation to Goffman

Four themes have been identified covering for the experience of the adolescents in how they relate to the presentation of the self in the virtual environment as compared to the presentation of the self in the in-vivo environment. The themes cover (il)legitimate isolation whichlacks social acknowledgement (I), fostered controllability (II), the proneness to make-belief and lack of ‘realness’ (III), as well as the sharing and echoing impaired by a lack of meaning- making inherent to it (IV). It has been found that the virtual environment, Facebook, has lost its appeal to the adolescent e-users and is considered inferior to the in-vivo environment in serving meaningful self-presentation.

As providing for yet another stage to the presentation of the self, the virtual environment was thoroughly explored by the adolescents ‘back then’. The sharing of small narratives, or posts, as well as the sharing of photos, video, events, places, which all serve a desired self-constitution, was fostered by the belief that communication provides for meaning, that communication gives meaning to one’s experience, because, and this point seems crucial, if one shares, one will be seen, responded to and given feedback. The formula to go with, then, seemed simple: the more is shared, the more there is communication; the more there is communication, the more meaning is supposed to be rendered; this results in more sharing of the self in interaction with the other. The group, however, says to have revised it.

By posing the sub-question, how the authentication process relates to the presentation

of the self in the virtual environment, I aimed at specifying how the adolescent relate to the

presentation of the self in the virtual environment. By taking the social negotiability and the social acknowledgment of the presentation of the self in the virtual environment into account, it has been analyzed, how each theme related experience serves the authentication process

according to the adolescents ranging from fostering the process to impeding it. It has been found that, according to the group of adolescent e-users under study, the process by which an authentication of preferred ‘ways of being’, or self-constitution is rather impeded. The virtual environment, Facebook, fails to provide an environment in which meaningful social discourse takes place, which can serve the authentication process. It can be concluded that the adolescent e-users under study experience certain disillusionment in finding a virtual stage on Facebook, which allows for engaging in authenticating ‘who they want to be’ in the world. This, then, accounts for their detachment from the virtual stage offered by Facebook.

To conclude on the findings relating to Goffman’s notion on the Presentation of the

Self in Everday Life (1956), I would like to draw further on the metaphorical illustration here.

As has been pointed out, Facebook could be referred to as a multimedia ‘high tech’ stage for the performance of the individual aiming at the authentication of preferred self-constructions. The virtual stage, then, holds several characteristics distinct from the in-vivo ‘stage’, which can be deduced from the findings of the present study. Sharing requires an audience to communicate with. If the audience of a stage constitutes a small group and is located close to the actor, one is more likely to experience connecting with it, that is, to receive an echo that is experienced as ‘real’ and meaningful. On the virtual stage, however, the presentation via ‘posting’ is not directed at a specific person or group but at a rather undefined audience (as the postings are placed on a virtual wall without knowing who will actually read and relate to it). The person giving a presentation on a virtual stage seems impaired in overlooking the audience. It is, therefore, felt that he or she loses control in relating to it. Metaphorically speaking, the stage light blinds the actor as to that he or she is unable to see who is actually attending the presentation. In the negotiation as to what the adolescents can authenticate, they do not want to appear ‘odd’ in front of others but cannot deduce from reactions they receive online, as a) they doubt the credibility or b) reactions are missing in the first place. The sounding applause, may, then, be comparable to the affirmation received on Facebook in form of ‘likes’ and affirmative comments. As has been pointed out, the virtual presentation of the self is considered as inferior to in-vivo social encounter. Goffman highlights that the others, the person is interacting with, constitute both audience and partner in play. The findings suggest, however, that the adolescents seek to rather have direct interaction ‘on stage’, that is, having a partner in play directly responding to him or her as to be enabled to

• relate to others in spontaneous encounters as providing for potentially richer experiences (not ‘calculated’ beforehand)

• rely on facial expressions and actual physical encounter as to be enabled to deduce sincere reactions from it

• share without having to expose oneself to others in order to be responded to Although the user can actively give form, configure the communicated content about her or him and exercise control on a seemingly less spontaneous but ‘designed self-presentation’, the content of the sharing and the lack of sufficient echoing make it unsatisfactory to the purpose of engaging in an authentication process within social discourse. Instead of directing a

seeks to engage in direct dialogue. As the meaningfulness of the virtual self-presentation constitutes a social construction, the same meaningfulness can be deprived of the stage. The stage is, then, abandoned.