Participant Observation #2: Habbo Hotel

Welcome to the virtual Habbo world! Habbo is a virtual hotel where users can create avatars to explore public and private rooms created by the community. Similar to yesterday’s post, my aim is to discover the different ways in which identity is constructed on Habbo through participant observation. I’ll be using the three themes (physical structure, social structure, and interpersonal relationships) as the framework for my analysis.

To begin, I created a Habbo account under the pseudonym MMEDIA3B03. Upon registration, I was prompted to create an avatar in order to enter the virtual world.

Screen Shot 2014-11-30 at 12.26.28 AM

The avatar is a part of the physical structure of Habbo. It is used as a representation of one’s self within the virtual community. For some, the avatar is a projection of their own identity, while for others, it is an experiment to form a new identity.

As the new kid on the block, I had to find a way to integrate myself into the community. My avatar only served as a physical identity with no substance. In other words, I felt like a lost avatar within the larger community.

A sense of community is what gives these individual avatars an identity. The social structure of the hotel rooms allow users to create and enter rooms on the basis of their own personal interests. During the observation period, I entered rooms of various categories (e.g., adoption centres, hospitals, army bases, etc.) which served as a social space for the various sub-communities. These sub-communities is what gives individual identities a collective identity within the larger virtual community. Let’s use the army base as an example:

Screen Shot 2014-11-29 at 4.04.18 PM

This is a hotel room referred to as the US Army Base. As we can see, all the members of this sub-community are donned in uniforms. If we compare and contrast my avatar on the bench, and the uniformed avatars sitting by the computers, we can easily identify the uniformed avatars with a specific community. My avatar however, is unidentifiable – indicating that the uniform is significant in marking a users identity.

Whereas uniforms are used as a method of identification within the larger Habbo community, ranking is a method of identity construction used by the sub-community to identify each other.

Screen Shot 2014-11-29 at 4.16.17 PMAs we can see, this users biography consists of the title (USA) PFC (V). PFC stands for private first class of the US Army, and the V stands for the training this user has completed. The title in itself demonstrates the language of this collective identity. Only users who identify with this particular sub-community are able to translate and understand the significance of this ranking. The rank structure in itself defines the status and prestige of the individual user within the sub-community in which they belong.

This practice is known as role adoption or role playing within the social structure. Role adoption is a significant form of identity construction within the Habbo community. Throughout the duration of my observation, I had come across a variety of role adopted identities including babies, animals, army men, and nurses. The individual hotel rooms are constructed around these role adopted identities. For example, the hospital:

Screen Shot 2014-11-29 at 6.05.58 PM

As we can see, these users have adopted the roles of nurses and patients. This scene mimics the real life structures and procedures of a real life hospital (i.e., consulting, health cards, and furniture). Other than creating an identifiable personality within a fairly anonymous environment, role playing is a means for users to create either an aspirational identity, or an identity in which users are unable to demonstrate offline.

The last thing I observed during my observations was interpersonal relationships. I noticed a significant contrast between how interpersonal relationships function on Twitter and Habbo. For one, reciprocity is a social expectation on Habbo. During my two hour observation period, I had been approached countless times, received an infinite amount of friend requests, and engaged in dialogue with numerous users. But what I found to be the most interesting was this users ability to confide in a fellow community member about his offline identity.

Screen Shot 2014-11-29 at 6.05.41 PMScreen Shot 2014-11-29 at 6.05.50 PM

In my Twitter observation, I mentioned “Me-Tweets” that were almost always positive in nature. We can see however, that this user doesn’t need to only portray his aspirational best self. He is able to portray a truthful representation of his offline identity. Unlike the distorted interpersonal relationships that form between Twitter users, the interpersonal relationships between Habbo users mirror the relationships formed in real life (i.e., support structure). This is due to three main factors: reciprocity, anonymity and escapism.

The contrast between the construction of identity between these two virtual communities is significant. Whereas, Twitter encourages a one-dimensional representation of identity (the best self), Habbo is a virtual space which encourages a pluralist representation of identity. In other words, you can be who you want to be.

To conclude, these are the following ways in which identity is constructed within the virtual community of Habbo:

  • Through the physical structure of the avatar
  • Through the social structure of role adoption
  • Through the interpersonal relationships afforded by reciprocity, anonymity, and escapism

For my next two posts, I will be moving away from participant observation, and onto my next methodology – interviewing. Through this particular methodology, I will aim to find answers to my second research question:

  • How do the citizens of Twitter compare their real-life identity with their virtual identity? What about the citizens of Habbo Hotel?

Until then, enjoy the rest of your weekend!

Participant Observation #1: Twitter

Hello and welcome back! I have a lot to cover today, so let’s jump right in!

As a quick recap, the three themes I intend to explore are:

  • Physical Structures
  • Social Structures
  • Interpersonal Relationships

So for the last 48 hours, I have spent a lot of my time on Twitter observing and analyzing just about everything there is to observe and analyze on Twitter. In order to explore how the three themes mentioned above are factors in the ways in which identity is constructed within virtual communities, I stalked and creeped observed and analyzed live tweets, individual profiles, and conversations.

Straight away, I observed that the physical and social structures of Twitter function simultaneously – especially in relation to the friendship model. The physical structure and social practice of “following” and “followers” allows Twitter users to subscribe to a users Tweets, which allows their updates to appear on your Twitter feed, and vice versa.

What I’ve noticed however, is that despite the amount of followers you have, or how actively you Tweet, reciprocity is not a technical requirement, nor a social expectation. In other words, it is not a part of the Twitter culture. The lack of interpersonal communication within the Twitter community transitions me to my next point, in which I consistently observed a pattern of what I like to refer to as “Me-Tweets” – a social structure.

What I mean by “Me-Tweets” or “I-Tweets” are Tweets that that refer to the self. Although Twitter is a community in its own right, the lack of interpersonal communication means that the focus of the social experience within the larger community becomes the self.

The physical structure of Twitter plays an important part in the construction of a user’s identity. The physical structure of Twitter “followers” is similar to Michel Foucault’s notion of the all-seeing Panopticon.

When all-eyes are on the self, identity is often self-consciously constructed. In particular, many of the “Me-Tweets” I observed were often (but not always) positive in nature. For example, let’s take a look at a particular profile I observed. I will refer to her as Profile 1. Profile 1 is a user with approximately 1200 followers (stating the amount of followers puts Foucault’s notion of the Panopticon into perspective). The majority of her “Me-Tweets” are most often positive in content, and pretentious in nature. For example:

IMG_5674

It is also important to note that out of her 1400 photos, majority are taken in a way that are (subjectively) physically appealing, and regularly feature other individuals. With all 1200 pairs of eyes on Profile 1, the user is compelled to showcase her best-self – i.e., Goffman’s notion of the “front-stage” (in this case, front-stage means a fun, happy and social image), indicating that the panoptic physical structure of Twitter is subjected to a self-conciously constructed one-dimensional representation of identity, as well as a rather a carefully crafted representation of the self to others.

However, despite the socially structured “Me-Tweets,” and the physically structured Panopticon, Twitter still functions as a (virtual) community.

Throughout my observations, I came across a variety of sub-communities which have formed on the basis of shared interests. The ability to identify with a particular sub-community is a key factor in the construction of identity on Twitter. However, since the sub-communities still function in the ways mentioned above (i.e., generated “Me Tweets” that are self-consciously constructed due to the Panopticon), the “interpersonal” relationships that are often formed are inadvertently distorted.

Let’s use the community of “Black Twitter” to illustrate my observation. “Black Twitter” is a cultural community in which primarily black users focus on the issues of interest pertaining to the black community. For example, let’s take a look at a compilation of a user’s Tweets (I’ll be referring to him as Profile 2) who identifies with “Black Twitter”:

Screen Shot 2014-11-28 at 11.27.04 PMScreen Shot 2014-11-28 at 11.26.55 PM

Screen Shot 2014-11-28 at 11.27.09 PM

Since Profile 2 identifies with a particular sub-community, the content of his Tweets are self-consciously crafted for his target audience. In other words, his Tweets are tailored. From the outset, Profile 2’s identity is already constructed through his association with this particular virtual community. Yet the lack of reciprocity (none of his Tweets have generated a traditional response) questions the integrity of these “interpersonal” relationships. So how is the structure of interpersonal relationships able to function if reciprocity is neither a technical requirement, nor a social expectation? If you refer to the images posted above, you can see that Profile 2’s Tweets have generated a total of nine favourites from users’ who also identify with “Black Twitter.” “Favouriting” is a method used by the wider sub-community to validate the identity of the user. These distorted interpersonal relationships function on the basis of tailored Tweeting and validation from the wider sub-community.

“Often we lose our identity trying to please or placate others.”

– Mary Manin Morrissey

To conclude, these are the following ways in which identity is constructed within the virtual community of Twitter:

  • Through the physical structure of the Panopticon (followers)
  •  Through the social structure of  “Me-Tweets” and tailored Tweets
  • Through the interpersonal relationships formed through validation from the sub-community

Tomorrow’s participant observation will be conducted on the exciting virtual community of Habbo Hotel!