The Multiple Brands of the 'Networked' Self

I have a LinkedIn profile. I have a Facebook profile. I have a Twitter profile. I have a Google Plus profile. I have an e-mail address.

It's hard to manage all those Corey Allan Smiths running around out there in cyberspace. Creating and maintaining profiles on social or professional networks is a time consuming process, especially when you have to think about your audience, which can vary from profile to profile.

This is where our course discussion on network theory comes heavily into play. Why do we create multiple profiles of ourselves online as opposed to just one? As Manuel Castells iterated, increasingly our social livelihoods are dependent upon the connections we forge with others through networks, or an interconnected system of nodes having some form of relationship. Many of us belong to layer upon layer of networks like family, friends, work colleagues, those within our career field, age range, hobbies and interests or other defining social characteristics.

So, we need profiles to fit each one of these trajectories, right?

LinkedIn is purely about self-branding and is used as a virtual resume where any potential employer can view your career or educational background. Hence the reason career networking is so popular for this website. The whole point of LinkedIn is to connect with your colleagues so you can see who else is in your network that may be of use to you. We admire those with hundreds of LinkedIn connections because they appear to have more influence, depending upon their field. I know that I have a few people I am connected to on LinkedIn that have led me to other organizations and work contacts that I never knew would have had any relation to each other.

Facebook has less of a push to connect with others, but chooses to focus on interacting with others using their interface. Facebook is more socially acceptable, as it enables the user to integrate with photos, video, text, games and other interactive features. The networking that comes out of this is more of a way to maintain already forged relationships in a new, online environment.

Twitter seems to be the least networked, as many project their tweets into the twitter-sphere where they may just float in existence forever, but it is still a way of networking. The use of Twitter as an aggregate of information allows the user to network by searching topics that are trending or by hashtags, thereby connecting them to others within their network surrounding a particular notion. Response and feedback from others is also welcomed warmly on Twitter with the use of the @ symbol.

Google Plus is attempting to make a stab at being the champion of all of these socially-based networks. With a Google Plus account, one can manage their various network memberships and tailor their appearance to the various users that interact with their profile. In this singular profile, a user can present a potential employer with a comprehensive, professional looking type of account that does not detail their summer vacation in Europe whereas a close friend may be privy to such information and more.

What is the point of balancing all of these networks? They are all online projections of self, and, no matter if you use a social network for putting up pictures of your cat or are displaying all of your career work, you are self-branding to any others in your network that have access to you. As Castells pointed out, being at a certain level of involvement within a network enables power and influence within that network - either if you began the network or if you are a gatekeeper and are a moderator of the norms within that network, you are given authority.

To that end, perhaps that is why we seek to have many Facebook friends, link to tons of connections on LinkedIn and follow ten million others on Twitter - because quantity can sometimes translate into authoritative power and reverence from others. I would like to explore how these topics are transnational in that networks know no national boundaries, especially when they form in an online environment, but would welcome any practical examples as well.

South to North Information Flows

The role of the media in ethnic communities has changed in immense ways. Karim Karim talks about diaspora communities and the results of globalization for them. Because the world is expanding and linking in so many new ways, and most importantly because of technological advances, displaced communities are able to stay connected to their home nations.

One of the things Karim mentions is that most media and communication follows a North to South flow, meaning that media from developed nations like the U.S. and Western Europe reaches developing nations. But news from the South reaches the North in much smaller numbers. I personally think it’s interesting though that Karim talks a lot about diaspora media, but he doesn’t alter or change his statement that information flows are mostly North to South. I think the whole concept of diaspora media proves that information flows can also be South to North, even if it is on a smaller scale. For instance, when news from Brazil reaches a diaspora community in the U.S., that is South to North flow.

This reminds me so much of my home in Arizona. I’m not sure if this qualifies as a diaspora, but it is the ultimate short South to North trip. I’m talking about the Mexican- American community in Arizona. In some places, you can hardly consider it a displaced community. In Nogales, Arizona, you can see Nogales, Mexico from many peoples’ backyards. But they are still a people who have left their home country and live together in communities. Often, they keep their Spanish language and Mexican food, customs, holidays and religious traditions. Because this diaspora community is so close to its original home, the information flow is large and influential. There are Spanish language newspapers, many Spanish language TV stations, Spanish billboards and advertising and phone plans offering cheap international communication between the U.S. and Mexico.  I think this shows that South to North flows can and do exist.

I actually learned about a similar example that is closer to D.C. just today. There is a theater in Adams Morgan called the Ontario. It started as a high-end movie theater in the 1950s, but when the neighborhood started changing and was affected by the riots after the death of MLK Jr., its patrons stopped coming. For a while, it failed, but eventually they started playing Spanish language films there and it filled up again. This is another example of South to North diaspora media flow.

I am quite possibly understanding it wrong, but I feel like two of Karim’s theses are contradicting. He discusses the abundance of diaspora media, but still believes that media flow is almost exclusively North to South. 

9/11 and the Case for Inter-Nationalism

We know media has nation-building characteristics. As our readings from “The Information Revolution and World Politics,” “The Historical Context of International Communication” and “The Emergence of Technical Networks” have discussed, the introduction of a communication technology to a group will assist in beginning to build a sense of connectivity. These connections can be facilitated through similar language, affiliation, cultural background, a common authority or other contributing factors.

However, with the advancement of technology in the modern day, where groups can form beyond international borders under the umbrellas of similar interest or experience (i.e. Internet forums, Facebook groups, blogs) the question arises: can there be inter-nation building through international media?

I would like to preface this notion by clearly defining how I plan to use the term internationalism. This term is often referenced as more of an antithesis of nationalism where there is cooperation between nations for their common good. I would like to bend this definition to include nations that may perhaps devote as much or more attention to the interests of another nation rather than their own.

The recent 10-year anniversary of the Sept.11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States could stand as an example of this internationalism. Upon a quick search of some of the more commonly known international news sites (Xinhua News, Times of India, The Australian, Guardian, Le Monde, BBC, Al Jazeera), all noted the anniversary of the attacks as the top story on their page, some even running multi-story packages on the subject. Given what we have learned from our readings, is it possible that these regions of the world are consuming from their respective outlets and thereby assigning priority to events in the US over their home countries?

Certainly the annual remembrance of the attacks bolster nationalism within the US in the form of symbols of patriotism, reaching out to one another, charity, etc, but are citizens of these other nations feeling the same enthusiasm toward the US because they are exposed to the same media coverage?

There are some caveats to this case. First, the US media landscape has historically dominated internationally, as our readings from Elizabeth Hanson and Daya Thussu noted. According to these readings, the US was the frontrunner in wireless telegraphy/radio broadcasting, telephone communication, television broadcasting and the advent of the Internet, all of which are now utilized internationally. This created a media landscape that was heavily US-dependent, then US-centered as regional media developed. Also, the attacks took place at the World Trade Center in New York City, a location and area that is perhaps not best described in the context of just the US, but as an international center in itself.

I would be intrigued to research whether this is only an observation with the US or if this could be applied to other groups of countries. For example, do smaller Asian countries such as Bhutan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal rely heavily upon media from India in their respective news outlets and thereby exhibit nation-building characteristics for India as well as their own nation?

This is yet to be examined in depth, but I thought to raise this particular question in light of our discussion on international communication power and influence and the timely example of the 9/11 attacks. I’d welcome any thoughts on the subject.