lecture
framing the theme: online vs offline
online is not necessarily separate from offline
question: how do interactions online compare to offline?
theoretical anchors
media ideologies
Gershon (2010): media ideologies are people’s beliefs about how communication works on different platforms
media ideologies: cultural beliefs about how communication media convey meaning
Gerson coined this term in ‘The Breakup 2.0’
eg: “texting is casual, email is formal”
our expectations shape interpretation of meaning online
authenticity as performance
Goffman (1950): Presentation of Self - frontstage/backstage performance
authenticity isn’t something we have - it’s something we do
Bucholtz (2011): authenticity as socially constructed through discourse and interaction
online authenticity = a performed ideal, not an objective state
case study 1: Scott Ross (2019)
negotiating authenticity in interpersonal spaces
‘being real on fake instagram’
finstagram as a private, ‘authentic’ space
realness expressed through unfiltered images and captions
a paradox: fake accounts used to show real self
likes, images and media ideologies of value
users are still guided by platform logics » likes, visibility, engagement
authenticity itself becomes a kind of currency
what does “being real” mean in Ross’ study?
“I enjoy [Insta] because it’s very much a change to just be like, ‘I don’t really care what I look like’… no filter, raw, and people appreciate it just for the content versus the outward appearance.” - Ross, 2019, p368
what role do likes and visibility play in defining “realness?”
"Ann said that she ‘couldn’t care less about likes’ on her finsta…Scarlet echoed this: “I enjoy [finsta] because it’s very much a chance to just be like, “I don’t really care what I look like” … no filter, raw, and people appreciate it just for the content versus the outward appearance.”
how does Ross’ study challenge the idea that social media is inherently performative?
“for my interlocutors, their primary Instagram accounts aren’t false version of themselves…”
summary
authenticity is relational: it exists when recognised by peers
private spaces allow experimentation, but still curated
visibility (likes, comments) both validates and constrains expression
‘being real’ is an active negotiation between self n audience
case study 2: Sicong Zhao (2025)
engaging in intrapersonal dialogue
key findings
documenting the self » recording moments of emotion, inspiration, or routine life
reflecting on the self » rereading old posts, reinterpreting past selves
constructing the self » editing one’s digital presence to align with current identity
how is Zhao’s idea of “intrapersonal interaction” different from traditional notions of communication?
“Social media serves not only to communicate with others but also to engage in dialogues with the self…”
how does self-curation differ from self-presentation?
“building on participants’ descriptions, we can perceive social media as a museum of self…”
what does this tell us about how culture shapes online authenticity?
culture, technology and personal reflections all shape how we feel about being authentic
“through in-depth interviews with Chinese indie music enthusiasts…this article illustrates how individuals use social media as a digital platform…”
summary
self-curation is a form of identity work
platforms structure intrapersonal performance
can be empowering (reflection, continuity) and isolating (self-comparison)
authenticity is relational, even when not socially directed
comparative synthesis
Theme: | Ross: | Zhao: |
Context | Music Social Media | |
Focus | Interpersonal Performance | Self-curation |
Key Intention | Authenticity vs Popularity | Reflection vs Isolation |
authenticity
the paradox of authenticity: the more we try to “be real,” the more we rely on the conventions of “realness
the mediated self: our sense of self increasingly depends on digital infrastructures - algorithms, likes and memories
the self as ongoing performance: there’s no final or stable ‘true self’ behind our performances - only continuous becoming
authenticity is relational, contextual, mediated
emotional costs exist even in self-directed performance
awareness allows intentional engagement
I think the real self lives primarily offline, because it is much easier to maintain a facade online, where our actions are relatively temporary, in comparison to offline, where there are many aspects that contribute to deciphering whether someone is real ie body language, dialogue, etc, all of which are present offline
connecting threads
online and offline continuity: digital and physical interactions are not separate; they form an interconnected social ecology
media ideologies: our beliefs about platforms shape what we see as “appropriate,” “intimate,” or “real”
authenticity as labour: performing “realness” online takes work - emotional, aesthetic and temporal
reflexivity and curation: platforms encourage us to think about ourselves as both subjects and audiences of our own lives
online vs offline mapping
online interactions: | overlap: | offline interactions: |
plenary reflection
digital and physical worlds are mutually constitutive
the same relational logics (attention, validation, vulnerability) - circulate across both
for Ross’ Finsta users, “being real,” was about creating safe online spaces that echoed offline intimacy
for Zhao’s curators, authenticity was about continuity with their inner, reflective lives
in both, the self “travels” - crossing boundaries between public/private, online/offline, self/other
summary
online n offline selves are intertwined
media ideologies define what feels “real”
authenticity is relational, not absolute
performing authenticity can both connect and exhaust us