Symbolic Interaction 2

Now for the second installment of symbolic interaction...

     Let's look at the second component of the theory I mentioned: reflections in a looking glass. Social media expands the number of places in which it is possible to self-disclose. Not only that, but the type of disclosure varies widely. Much se-lf disclosure that is available for everyone to see on social media sites such as Twitter or Facebook is only surface level material. The way in which people must imagine others see them is changed. The dynamics of interaction are changed. In most cases, there is not an ability to see each other physically. Instead, avatars or photos may be used. Feedback is often given in the form of typed messages. The contextual clues that are present in face-to-face communication are lacking. Thus, taking the role of the other in order to imagine how we appear to them is more difficult. This could lead to a higher discrepency between our imagined appearance to others and the way in which others actually appear to us. If, like Mead claimed, we incorporate those images into our self-portrait, we must be careful to realize that social media changes the communication cues that we give and recieve.

     Similar thoughts can be expressed about others' expectations. They must be interpreted through the cold medium of type augmented with the few symbols can be put to use to express feelings. In some ways, we are constantly bombarded with others' expectations in social media. It is extremely easy quickly respond to a message and voice opinions. This can be a great advantage. It does differ from instantaneous interpersonal face-to-face communication, however. Tone of voice, gestures, and other cues are not present to help provide an interpretation of the message. Still, choice of words, online profile, content creations and etc. can help shape our understanding of what is expected of us and from there, how we react to those expectations.