The use of social objects as artefacts for identity management

January 4, 2008  |  Social Object, Social media  |  , , , , , , ,

Table of con­tents for object-centered social­ity series

  1. The use of social objects as arte­facts for iden­tity management
  2. Social objects and the observer’s paradox
  3. Social object and the object-centered environment

First, a bit of history

Before talk­ing about social objects as acces­sories for online impres­sion man­age­ment, I wanted to sur­face a bit of his­tory about the term, “Social Object”.

There’s been a lot of talk lately about object-centered social­ity, which can be thought of as “the rea­son peo­ple con­nect and social­ize with each other”, to para­phrase Jyri Enge­strom. In addi­tion to Jyri, Hugh MacLeod of Gapingvoid’s been post­ing lots of ideas about “Social Object”, par­tic­u­larly here and here:

“The Social Object, in a nut­shell, is the rea­son two peo­ple are talk­ing to each other, as opposed to talk­ing to some­body else. Human beings are social ani­mals. We like to social­ize. But if think about it, there needs to be a rea­son for it to hap­pen in the first place. That rea­son, that “node” in the social net­work, is what we call the Social Object.” –Gapingvoid

Hugh asked me whether there’s a link point­ing to Jyri and I con­vers­ing about social objects, as we did in Reboot7 and LesWebs3 in 2005:

Twitter / Hugh MacLeod: @alexdc Is there a link tha...
Uploaded with Skitch!

Alas, no, there is no link: Jyri Enge­strom first blogged about object-centered social­ity before the Reboot7 con­fer­ence in Copen­hagen in mid-2005 in a blog post that referred to the ground-breaking work of soci­ol­o­gist Karin Knorr-Cetina, and that changed my under­stand­ing of online social net­work­ing. I then con­tacted Jyri, Anne Gal­loway and a few oth­ers for guid­ance on where to learn more about object-centered social­ity; I spent the next cou­ple of months devour­ing every paper I could get my hands on. I relied on friends who are pro­fes­sors in procur­ing me hard to obtain research papers. That same year, I spoke with Jyri in per­son on two occa­sions, once at Reboot 7, where he gave a great pre­sen­ta­tion on the sub­ject, and later that year at Loic’s LesWebs3 con­fer­ence in Paris. On both occa­sions, we spoke about using the term “social object” to refer to object-centered social­ity. A Google search at the time pro­duced no results; but if I am not mis­taken, the term had already been used a cou­ple of time before by soci­ol­o­gists in research papers. How did Hugh link Jyri and I? He was at both con­fer­ences as well. By way of full dis­clo­sure, I reg­is­tered the socialobject.com domain in mid-2005.

Do I believe social object is the “Future of Mar­ket­ing”, as Hugh does? Yes, I def­i­nitely believe social object design and related con­cepts have the poten­tial to fos­ter greater cus­tomer engage­ment and word-of-mouth.

Do I think I should get credit for co-coining the term? No: the term has quite prob­a­bly been in exis­tence, even if obscurely. I am glad the con­cept is finally get­ting wider play.

Social objects as arte­facts for iden­tity management

I had a con­ver­sa­tion on Twit­ter yes­ter­day about Sin­gel­rin­gen as a social object; it’s a catchy blue ring worn by peo­ple who are, you guessed it, single:

From the site: “By wear­ing your Sin­gel­rin­gen, you declare that it is OK to be sin­gle. You may wish to find “the one”, or you are quite sat­is­fied with life as it is. Regard­less, you will show to every­one that you accept and stand for what you are, an attrac­tive single.”

  • alexdc: so the sin­gel­rin­gen becomes the social object for con­nect­ing? sure, it’s a con­ver­sa­tion starter but something’s miss­ing, methinks
  • alexdc: @leahjones ok; to grow as social object, should have tra­di­tions rit­u­als activites or other socially con­structed fic­tions for greater meaning
  • alexdc: @kr8tr right, the mes­sage should not be “I am avail­able”; it should be let’s respect, cher­ish and cel­e­brate being single
  • alexdc: @apenny i believe the ring is no more a social object than a wed­ding ring: the con­ver­sa­tions are around the tra­di­tions of mar­riage, not ring
  • alexdc: when you meet a mar­ried per­son, you might ask how they met, where they got mar­ried, do they have chil­dren, etc … the ring is just a signal
  • alexdc: with a sin­gel­rin­gen per­son, what are con­ver­sa­tion points? there are no social norms or sin­gle insti­tu­tions around which to converse
  • alexdc: @apenny i believe social objects are enriched through socially con­structed fic­tions, sto­ries, his­tory, rit­ual, behav­ior: ring is a “signal”
  • alexdc: @lindasherman i’m not dis­put­ing sin­gel­rin­gen is a social object: it cer­tainly breaks the ice; it may grow into more sig­nif­i­cant S.O. w/ time
  • alexdc: @lindasherman if sin­gel­rin­gen is a “real-life” (as opposed to online) sub­sti­tute for Match.com, it will remain only as an ice breaker
  • alexdc:  @lindasherman if sin­gel­rin­gen wear­ers take pride in being sin­gle as a lifestyle, even tem­porar­ily, then that’s really dif­fer­ent and worthy

So Sin­gel­rin­gen serves as an acces­sory for oth­ers to rec­og­nize, like a wed­ding ring. Mal­colm Glad­well wrote about rapid cog­ni­tion in his best-selling book Blink; peo­ple make imme­di­ate judge­ments about oth­ers, about their envi­ron­ment and about sit­u­a­tions through a process called thin-slicing:

When you meet some­one for the first time, or walk into a house you are think­ing of buy­ing, or read the first few sen­tences of a book, your mind takes about two sec­onds to jump to a series of conclusions.

In this sense, Sin­gel­rin­gen is an imme­di­ately notice­able, inter­est­ing and unusual ice breaker, like Armstrong’s yel­low Live­strong bracelet. Start­ing to talk with some­one about the ring can lead to pro­longed con­ver­sa­tions about what it means to be sin­gle. And as peo­ple talk to each other about the Sin­gel­rin­gen, they con­struct their par­tic­u­lar fic­tion or story about it, which is what social objects gen­er­ally lead peo­ple to do. When you see some­one with such a ring, you will prob­a­bly thin-slice and already start to make some judgements.

Sim­i­larly, today’s New York Times has an arti­cle, “Putting Your Best Cyber­face For­wards”, about online impres­sion man­age­ment:

Keith N. Hamp­ton, an assis­tant pro­fes­sor at the Annen­berg School for Com­mu­ni­ca­tion at the Uni­ver­sity of Penn­syl­va­nia, said the notion of impress­ing “every­one out there” is the fun­da­men­tal prob­lem of net­work­ing sites. They are designed so that mil­lions see the same image of a member.

For online impres­sion man­age­ment to be effec­tive, Mr. Hamp­ton said, the sites should be redesigned to allow peo­ple to reveal dif­fer­ent aspects of their iden­tity to dif­fer­ent users. You should be able to present one face to your boss, and another to your poker bud­dies. “We have very real rea­sons for want­ing to seg­ment our social net­work,” he said.

This makes a lot of sense. You prob­a­bly dress and behave dif­fer­ently at work than you would with your bud­dies or your fam­ily. The way oth­ers thin-slice you is depen­dent on the cloth­ing and acces­sories (arte­facts) you’re wear­ing and on your behav­ior. Just as you present dif­fer­ent sides of your­self in dif­fer­ent sit­u­a­tions in real life, so should you be able to man­age your online per­sonas. Most social net­works don’t allow you to seg­ment your con­tacts so they see dif­fer­ent aspects of you. How­ever, you con­trol the infor­ma­tion you pub­lish and by doing so man­age your iden­tity to make an impres­sion on oth­ers. The fol­low­ing blog post illus­trates this; Red Coat, Black Coat on PSFK:

Unlike para­noid Steve [who wears a black coat to pro­tect his pri­vacy], Jill is con­sid­ered as the socially evolved. It’s not only her red coat that presents an image to the world of how she wants to be seen – Jill under­stands and manip­u­lates how the world sees her, how com­pa­nies see her, how her friends see her. Using tech­nol­ogy that was devel­oped maybe twenty years ago, Jill knows nearly every­thing every­body else knows about her. And in the same way she uses his bright red coat to make a state­ment about her­self, she man­ages the data about her­self to present the image she wants.

Infor­ma­tion is like fash­ion – to be used, shown off and even bartered with.

By using online arte­facts and acces­sories, Jill is manip­u­lat­ing social objects and sig­nal­ing to oth­ers how to con­nect with her. When you wear a Sin­gel­rin­gen or a Rolex watch in real life, you are send­ing sig­nals for oth­ers to pick up. Online, you use infor­ma­tion about your­self and per­haps pic­tures, videos, slideshows, Face­book appli­ca­tions or other object-artefacts to send sig­nals on how oth­ers should social­ize with you.

—

If you’d like to know more about social object in con­cept and prac­tice, I posted a num­ber of links on Twit­ter yes­ter­day that may be helpful:

Next in series
 
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

Recent Posts

  • well, we focus on the role of IT artefacts as boundary objects in this ... conclude that the creation and management of boundary objects!
  • Guess I'll pipe in since I have and wear a Singelringen. It first came to my attention about a year ago, after a break-up when I was particularly fragile. "Huh, that's cool, if I can budget the money, I'll buy one."

    I am a terribly inertia driven shopper though and never got around to it, then Linda gave one to me.

    Since I started wearing it, I've only been to the office, so I can't say what it's like to wear it out to a bar or a cafe. What I can tell you is that I wasn't interested in it BECAUSE it was a social object, that occured to me after I put it on.

    For me it is not a mockery of marraige or an ego driven splashy scarlet letter making me a desperate potential victim to scam artists. It is quite simply a small reminder to myself that I'm okay as a single woman.

    It is not a vow to always be single. It doesn't declare my hatred of men or a distaste of relationships. It is a physical manifestion of some healing I'm trying to do after having my heart broken twice in 2007.

    And if people talk about it, then it might become a social object. It is different than the Blue Monster, wine or the iPhone? Yes. Of course it is. Is it about money, ultimately? Yes, of course it is.

    Singelringen is a jewelry company serving a niche market. They found a cool angle, a good designer and some nice people to sell it.

    That's called business, I think.
  • Alex, the idea of the single ring is both fascinating and oddly unattractive at once. It's something I've been thinking a lot about lately. The singelringen as a social object created by a company doesn't feel 'organic' to me, and I think that part of what gives a social object some integrity is how it incorporates naturally into everyday life. IE, Hugh talks about wine, we drink wine, we share, but it doesn't mean 'anything', it's just something we all enjoy and share. It's the sharing part that makes it social and wonderful, not the fact that the object is a personal "mark" for one person.

    I suppose the single ring is somehow like getting a tattoo or some kind of body mark (jewelry, etc;) to define yourself, if that's important to you at the moment. Some people are into that and that's all good and well; I respect that it may be important to some and of course, I'm always up for a good joke.

    But on the other hand, an engagement ring/marriage band is special *precisely* because it is what it is. When one takes a vow to be responsible and accountable to another human being, it *is* VERY important. And perhaps people have come to take that for granted. How can any single person deny the sanctity of this vow? That's the whole point of the ring! How can any single person be so naive?

    Personally, as a single woman, I would not buy a singleringen ever. It wd not be a 'social' object at all for me, but one that makes a mockery of something that I believe should be taken seriously, even if I happen to not be in the estate of marriage at the moment.

    I once gave five dollars to a woman at the supermarket who couldn't pay for all her groceries. I was also quite broke at the time. My life coach told me -- it could've been five *million* dollars, or five cents, it didn't matter. it was the act of exchange and the act of love that mattered, not the green bill signifying "five dollars." So maybe we should be talking about the currency and action behind the object. I think the object is a metaphor for the energy that is shared.
  • I don't know if i necessarily believe that wearing Singelringen is ego-centric or attention-seeking as has been argued. Personally, I feel that the true and inherent value of being a Singelringen wearer is in the fact that others will NOT view the ring as an invitation to instigate a dialogue about being single (a la offine Match.com). As a content single woman working in a predominantly male industry, I don't want to feel pressure to constant explain to others as to why I am unattached. Just a glance at the Singelringen is a subtle reminder that I am perfectly happy with my life and the I am solely responsible for my personal happiness.
  • I don't know if i necessary believe that wearing Singelringen is ego-centric or attention-seeking as has been argued. Personally, I feel that the true and inherent value of being a Singelringen wearer is in the fact that others will NOT view the ring as an invitation to instigate a dialogue about being single (a la offine Match.com). As a content single woman working in a predominantly male industry, I don't want to feel pressure to constant explain to others as to why I am unattached. Just a glance at the Singelringen is a subtle reminder that I am perfectly happy with my life and the I am solely responsible for my personal happiness.
  • I think the mot interesting (to me) statement is: "Information is like fashion – to be used, shown off and even bartered with." At parties, mentioning Facebook is like an accessory - it allows a conversation to begin. I think, however, that an accessory is not a social object; it's an indicator. When my party friend and I "friend" each other on Facebook, that's not a social object yet (as I understand it so far). It's a polite response that we are willing to acknowledge each other's existence in this environment. When we begin to play, what we play with is the social object, the ball, so to speak, that allows us to play the social game.
  • Tim
    Human behavior gets really interesting when we lose our balance between individual identity and group identity. It seems to me that as these social object phenomena infect larger chunks of society, their early victims are "cured" of their attachment to the object.

    For example, I was introduced to lolcats about a year ago. Each lolcat I encountered was side-splittingly hilarious. The phenomenon broke ranks with the underground when it was picked up by major media. With that level of exposure came a tremendous increase in user-contributed lolcats and, predictably, a decrease in quality. My last visit to icanhascheezburger.com left me unfulfilled. The lolcat has run out of lol. I'm sure alexa will concur.

    The same will likely happen with singleringen. What started as a cute way of connecting individuals is becoming cliched. As knowledge of its significance infects the general population, it loses its uniqueness and, in turn, its purpose. Another social object dies from overindulgence.
  • Ed T.
    I'm putting together Alex's Tweet on ego-centric vs. object-centric networks (http://chimprawk.blogspot.com/2007/11/social-network-transitions.html) with my memory of fashion accessories as symbols (http://www.snopes.com/risque/school/bracelet.asp) to conclude the following.

    With all this talk about social networks and social objects, no one seems to talk about the why. What motivates someone to wear a colorful fashion accessory or create a colorful ego-centric profile page?

    The answer is attention. We all want someone's attention, especially if it's positive.

    Identifying myself by decorating myself or my ego-page is a good way to "break the ice" and get some attention. But attention is an addictive drug. Once I have a little, I want more. How do I get more?

    To keep feeding the monster some people just keep socializing. If someone's listening to me, then they must be paying me attention.

    But you let anyone talk for an extended period of time and eventually you'll find some reason to dislike them. Yes, you're single and hip, but you're also a jerk. Yes, you're ego-page is eye-catching, but you're also egotistical.

    The ego-centric social object cuts both ways. You interact with enough jerks wearing Singleringens and soon blue rings worn on the right hand become associated with desperately-single, socially-inept dweebs who need some cheap gimmick to initiate a conversation with the opposite sex. (This is right around the time our parents (aka the tragically unhip) first start to figure out the "new thing all the kids are doing these days").

    The problem is that there's no logical link between wearing a singleringen and being single. It's all hype from the Singleringen company - hype which can be turned on its head at any time. In the end, most people are turned off and return to the tried-and-true ways of signaling singleness. And a few people, frustrated by the disconnect between social object and identity, take it too far by, for example, wearing shirts that say "I'm single" in big bold letters across the front.

    Singleringens and MySpace pages are not good social objects.

    A good social object allows someone to naturally and logically conclude what they should do to get more attention. If my videos receive a lot of views, then I should make more videos. If my photos receive a lot of positive comments, then I should take more photos. If my blog gets a lot of link love, then I should write more blog posts.

    If my singleringen or MySpace page gets a lot of attention, then I should quickly take advantage and change topics to a different, better social object before my ego-centric accessory goes out of style.
  • I wanted to add my tweet back to Alex:
    LindaSherman: @alexdc Singelringen is not a substitute for match.com. I think as you do that the pride thing is key. That singles are already complete. about 4 hours ago

    Alex is absolutely right that the conversation around Singelringen is what people attribute to it and that pride in being single is a significant factor. Both single men and women are tired of being bugged by their friends and family to get married as though being single is less than that. Singelringen is a declaration that as a single person you are already complete. You are not broken, you are not desperate, you are OK.
    Some feedback from Singelringen wearers:
    “A guy can add to my life but he doesn't define it” “I don’t need a marriage license to validate my existence.”

    The ice-breaker effect: “I wear three rings and the only one that anyone really ever asks questions about is the singelringen. You guys did a really good job of making the ring look symbolic and making it stand out against other normal, decorative rings. I always enjoy explaining the meaning of it!”
    And as Alex pointed out, once you are talking you put your own story to it. One guy wrote us, "I decided to buy a ring to commemorate the 10th year of my divorce"

    Some people appreciate the "signal" aspect of Singelringen, that as a status ring, it indicates the person is unattached. Some say no, they prefer no ring so that they can lie about their status when convenient. Particularly, in Canada I hear about women wearing wedding rings to keep men away. In this sense, I believe that wearing Singelringen also indicates confidence and a willingness to be honest to those who might approach you.

    And here’s a weird thing. We know that neediness drives people away and genuine self-assurance is attractive. It could be a placebo effect but many wearers report they are pleased with who they meet after they start wearing Singelringen.
  • I hate to break the news to you. And I am not trying to be negative, however:

    The Singlerigen is a sad phenomenon of the day that is often adopted by by tragically single folk who are (rightfully) pining for companionship. It's a voluntary scarlet letter.

    I do not believe that there is anything wrong with singlehood (I'm divorced twice, I must like it), but the single ring and its potential for misuse, abuse, and as a scent marker for predatory behavior is problematic.

    I know of one case history that I wish I could relate here, but dur to privacy concerns, I can't. Let me, however, state that the person who advocates for this flawed marker needs to get hitched and fast. To the appropriate person, of course.
  • Thank you Alex for this post. Very thought-provoking (in a good way!) :-)
  • I have to say that all this resonates with something I've been working on years. As in "year; plural". So I won't now pretend to respond to your post ... I look forward to giving it a good read.

    But as for "social object" I've been sniping (as in with a gun, not as in with scissors ... though I have been snipping, too, see my most recent Tweet: " RadioHead's Yorke has it right: "object" as low-grade artefact, ergo for me "social object" denigrates > http://snipurl.com/1whwy <")

    My point is that "social object" is, to be polemical, reductionist and technocratic ... it dehumanizes the phenomenon and thereby the transactions. To be romantic, it demystifies the whole and drains it of the vitality that makes it (at least potentially) vigorous and vivid.

    BTW, peripherally, I have been tweeting with @dpn about the possibility of doing some sort of multivariate analysis on #themewords ... where's the "object" in a collection of "themewords for 2008"?

    --bentrem

    p.s. I use "Gnodal" as a working name for my "participatory deliberation" project; I know all about having the life-blood drained ... ;-)

    p.s.2 I don't think your Preview functions works right on FF2.0 ... I'm seeing a very odd page. light gray text on a BG comprised of light gray walkie-talkies and light grey text blobs.
blog comments powered by Disqus