When Image and Identity Become One

     The biggest question I have after reading Eli Pariser’s essay “The You Loop” might be whether identity and image are in fact one and the same. Pariser begins his essay by quoting Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and highlighting Zuckerberg’s view that to have more than one identity means one might somehow lack integrity. My trouble in understanding this question of identity (or online identity) is in the whole idea of what is meant by identity. I’m not sure Zuckerberg even would have a full idea of this, though he might think he does.

     Looking at Merriam-Webster, identity is defined as “qualities, beliefs, etc., that make a particular person or group different from others.” For image, however, the definition reads “the idea that people have about someone or something.” I feel that what Zuckerberg refers to as identity is actually image. The Internet can only really have an “idea” of who we are. It cannot fully represent who we are as individuals. It cannot fully comprehend each and every identity. It should not, no matter what Zuckerberg thinks. Even Pariser writes that Facebook “draws on the more public self, it necessarily has less room for private interests and concerns” (115). While this might ultimately be a good thing for a user, it means what does appear on screen is an image, a partial image at that. I had a friend say to me once that it seemed like everyone on Facebook was happy, and it is true that so much of what is posted as “identity” or “image” are the things that make life look “good.” That, too, does not paint a clear picture of a person’s identity, because we cannot see all the nuances that shape an identity. For instance, my identity, my real identity, is shaped by the mistakes I have made as much as by any of my accomplishments, but nowhere on Facebook does it say, “Hey, let us know who your ex-husband is why he is your ex-husband,” nor would I want to display that kind of information on my page.

     Still, the danger of boxing people into a single image, and claiming that image is identity, is that in the cyber world the two are often, if not always, seen as one. It might even seem that someone like Zuckerberg prefers it that way. Although, his intention to make everything transparent seems less plausible if the identity is only really an image. Pariser does write “We’re now on the verge of self-fulfilling identities, in which the Internet’s distorted picture of us becomes who we really are” (112). This also means that an image perceived as identity is becoming identity. In some cases, perhaps that is true. People searching a page for professional reasons will likely make a judgment based on the electronic identity presented, which really is just an image. Pariser does say that the technology will no doubt move toward rounding that image out. He, however, cautions that that could present a much stranger cyber landscape than the image-driven one. Maybe, then, it is up to us to be aware that we must maintain the separation that Zuckerberg ultimately wants us to disengage from. We must be fully aware in this cyber landscape that image and identity are indeed quite separate.