Skip to main content

Digital hyperconnectivity and the self


Digital hyperconnectivity is a defining fact of our time. In addition to recasting social interaction, culture, economics, and politics, it has profoundly transformed the self. It has created new ways of being and constructing a self, but also new ways of being constructed as a self from the outside, new ways of being configured, represented, and governed as a self by sociotechnical systems. Rather than analyze theories of the self, I focus on practices of the self, using this expression in a looser, more general sense than that used by Foucault. I begin by considering and reformulating two early lines of argument about the web as a medium for exploring and emancipating the self. Subsequent sections show how digital hyperconnectivity has engendered new ways of objectifying, quantifying, producing, and regulating the self—considered both as active, reflexive practices and as systemic, data- and algorithm-driven processes. I conclude by reflecting on the broader implications of contemporary modes of governing the self and by underscoring the ways in which hyperconnectivity has colonized the territories of the self, conscripting the self into the service of techno-social systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. 1.

    In the United States, the share of the population over age 14 with a smartphone soared from a mere 11% at the end of 2008 to 75% just six years later ( Regular Facebook users amounted to only 14% of the US population at the end of 2008, but just three years later they made up more than half the population (and of course a much higher fraction among younger people):

  2. 2.

    Nakamura’s 1995 essay is reprinted in Nakamura (2002; the quotations are from pp. 35 and 49).

  3. 3.

    Marwick (2005, pp. 37–47) provides a useful overview of “critical cyberculture studies” and its challenge to the notion of cyberspace as intrinsically liberatory.

  4. 4.

    On counter-publics in the ultra-orthodox case, see Fader (2017a).

  5. 5.

    To be sure, some formulations of these arguments have a postmodern inflection (Gergen 1991; Turkle 1995). But there is no hard and fast line between characterizations of postmodernity and characterizations of contemporary modernity. Many aspects of the alleged postmodern condition are treated by theorists like Giddens (1991) or Beck et al. (1994) as aspects of “late,” “high,” or “reflexive” modernity.

  6. 6.

    For a clear account of such disembedding and re-embedding that criticizes as sociologically unfounded laments about the alleged contribution of digital connectivity to the “destruction of community,” see Rainie and Wellman (2012, especially pp. 117–131).

  7. 7.

    My concern here is not with the initial formation of the self in early childhood—although digital technologies of objectification figure increasingly in that process as well—but rather with the ongoing process of the social shaping and reshaping of selves.

  8. 8.

    For a critique of “digital dualism,” see Jurgenson (2013).

  9. 9.

    The formulation in the text is a bit too strong. Objectification is not a necessary corollary of digitally mediated interaction. But it is the default option, thanks to the cheap and declining cost of preserving digital traces and the various actual or ostensible benefits of doing so. Some platforms do not objectify users’ interactions. Photos sent by Snapchat, for example, disappear after 10 seconds (though users can alter this default setting). But even when communication is designed to be evanescent to users, as with Snapchat, the business model of the platform depends on turning digital traces into monetizable data-objects.

  10. 10.

    Many platforms allow users to see their digital selves from the outside, as others see them.

  11. 11.

    On the digital gaze, see Floridi (2014, pp. 73–74).

  12. 12.

    On new modes of alertness and attentiveness to experiences that might be converted into enduring, shareable digital objects, see Schwarz (2012). Similarly, on the “Facebook eye,” which leads us to experience things, even when we are not connected, with a view to their postability and likely interest to an audience, see Jurgenson (2012) and Jurgenson (2019, pp. 12, 27–28, 36–38).

  13. 13.

    On “everyday self-trackers,” see Didžiokaitė et al. (2018). On enthusiastic participants in the quantified self community, see Nafus and Sherman (2014); Sharon (2017); Schüll (2019). These ethnographic studies offer nuanced accounts of participants’ tentative, exploratory, and often self-critical stance toward self-tracking and the data it yields.

  14. 14.

    For an early critique of the limits of self-knowledge through numbers, see Morozov (2013, chapter 7).

  15. 15.

    The wide range of contemporary self-tracking devices and practices is described in Lupton (2016, pp. 16–30); see also Mau (2019, chapter 6).

  16. 16.

    On the converging technological and social developments that have enabled self-tracking to flourish, see Wolf (2010). On sharing, social support, and gamification, see Lupton (2016, p. 23).

  17. 17.

    Hull and Pasquale (2018, p. 191) suggest that corporate wellness programs, including those that involve self-tracking technologies, do not reduce employers’ costs but rather discipline and condition workers.

  18. 18.

    Oral Roberts University, for example, has required entering students to purchase and wear a Fitbit tracker since 2016 (Frischman and Selinger 2018, pp. 17–18).

  19. 19.

    On “pushed” and “imposed” self-tracking, see Lupton (2016:, pp. 121–125). On “surveillance creep” in connection with health tracking, see Frischman and (Selinger 2018, pp. 20–28). For a nuanced discussion of the issue of autonomy, see Sharon (2017).

  20. 20.

    Quantification is of course a much more general tendency that goes well beyond social media platforms (Muller 2018; Mau 2019).

  21. 21.

    Artist Benjmain Grosser created the “Facebook Demetricator” ( in response to the pervasiveness of Facebook’s metrics (Grosser 2014).

  22. 22.

    On the “like economy” and the role of the like button in reorganizing the fabric of the web, see Gerlitz and Helmond (2013). On the contribution of the like button to platform interoperability and the creation of an integrated platform ecosystem, see Van Dijck (2013, chapters 3, 8). For the figure of 8 million external websites, see Stimson (2018).

  23. 23.

    The term “data doubles” was introduced by Haggerty and Ericson (2000) in their account, drawing on Deleuze and Guattari, of “surveillant assemblages”; it has subsequently been widely adopted.

  24. 24.

    The pioneering paper of Kosinski et al. (2013, p. 5802) showed that Facebook likes could be used “to automatically and accurately predict a range of highly sensitive personal attributes including: sexual orientation, ethnicity, religious and political views, personality traits, intelligence, happiness, use of addictive substances, parental separation, age, and gender.” See also Tufekci (2014).

  25. 25.

    For a recent review of the ways in which “machines can infer information about our psychological traits or mental states by observing samples of our behaviour gathered from our online activities,” see Burr and Cristianini (2019).

  26. 26.

    Of course it is also the case that such external knowledge may be riddled with errors.

  27. 27.

    On the distinction between “giving” and unintentionally “giving off” information, see Goffman (1959, p. 2); on front and backstage regions, see ibid., (pp. 106–140).

  28. 28.

    On the practices of constructing a digital self to be consumed by others, see Marwick and Boyd (2011b, p. 140); Ibrahim (2018, chapter 3).

  29. 29.

    The vast majority of aspiring influencers, of course, do not strike it rich. See Duffy (2017) for a study of the “aspirational labor” of fashion and style bloggers as “a mode of (mostly) uncompensated, independent work that is propelled by the much-venerated ideal of getting paid to do what you love” (p. 4, italics in the original).

  30. 30.

    Although self-branding was popularized before the rise of social media, the web was an important point of reference; see the key statement by Peters (1997). On self-branding in the context of the transformation of capitalism, see Hearn (2008). On self-branding in social media, see Marwick (2010). On self-branding as a form of affective labor, see (Genz 2015). On the democratization and universalization of self-branding, see Khamis (2017).

  31. 31.

    In their influential Habits of the Heart (1985, pp. 32–35), Robert Bellah and his colleagues distinguished two strands of individualism with long histories in American culture: “utilitarian individualism,” epitomized by Benjamin Franklin’s maxims about getting ahead through thrift, diligence, discipline, and calculation, and “expressive individualism,” epitomized by Walt Whitman’s expansive sense of self, identification with nature and the universe, and embrace of broad experience, deep feeling, unconstrained sensuality, and self-expression.

  32. 32.

    On the “authenticity work” of lifestyle bloggers and the chronic risk of being perceived as inauthentic, see McRae (2017). On the labor involved in “branding the authentic self” in the context of fashion blogging, see Duffy (2017, chapter 4). The term “authenticity work” goes back to sociologist of culture Richard Peterson’s (1997) work on country music.

  33. 33.

    Even the discourse and practice of self-branding invoke expressive individualism: a successful brand cannot be arbitrary or manufactured ex nihilo; it must be seen as expressing one’s authentic and unique self. See McRae (2017, especially pp. 21–22).

  34. 34.

    For the notion of “communicative abundance,” see Keane (1999).

  35. 35.

    As McRae (2017) notes, fans have substantial genre knowledge that enables them to identify standard moves that they then deem inauthentic.

  36. 36.

    On algorithmic personalization, see Weinberg (2018) and Lury and Day (2019). As Weinberg notes (2018, p. 47), such personalization is itself homogenizing—a form of “mass production by other means.”

  37. 37.

    In one widely used instrument for assessing such problematic use, “mood regulation”—captured by agreement with such statements as “I have used the Internet to make myself feel better when I was down”—is one of four conceptual components of problematic Internet use (the others being “preference for online social interaction,” “deficient self-regulation,” and “negative outcomes”) (Caplan 2010).

  38. 38.

    For music, see J. C. Wang et al. (2015); for analogous work on video, see S. Wang and Q. Ji (2015); Tripathi et al. (2019). On the automated detection of boredom from patterns of smartphone usage, enabling “boredom-triggered proactive recommender systems,” see Pielot et al. (2015). On “affective computing,” “emotion analytics,” and “sentiment analysis” more generally, see Zuboff (2019, pp. 282ff).

  39. 39.

    On the role of dopamine in the “hub of reward, anticipation, and motivation,” see Sapolsky (2017, pp. 64–76 ; the quotation is from p. 76). On dopamine and social media, see Haynes (2018); Weinschenk (2012).

  40. 40.

    Foucault (1988, p. 18) discussed technologies of the self and technologies of power in connection with two other types of “technologies,” conceptualizing each as a “matrix of practical reason”: technologies of production and technologies of sign systems. Digital hyperconnectivity involves all four: for a preliminary canvassing of their interrelations, see Bakardjieva and Gaden (2012).

  41. 41.

    While Turkle (1995) does not use the Foucauldian language of “technologies of self,” her pioneering study shows how people can use anonymous online role-playing games as a way of working on the self. On blogging as a technology of self, see Bakardjieva and Gaden (2012) and, on academic blogging during the writing of a dissertation, Mewburn and Thomson (2018). For Foucauldian perspectives on life-logging and self-tracking, see Buongiorno (2016); Schüll (2019). On digital content curation as a modern analog of the ancient Greek hupomnemata, characterized by Foucault as a “material record of things read, heard, or thought,” see Weisgerber and Butler (2016).

  42. 42.

    On the shaping and governing of choice on the web, see Graham (2016).

  43. 43.

    On the notion of “empty choice,” see Kingori (2015).

  44. 44.

    As Mittelstadt et al. (2016, p. 9) note, personalization algorithms might be claimed to enhance decision-making autonomy, in a context of information overload, by filtering out irrelevant information. But since it is the algorithm that decides what information is irrelevant, such algorithmic filtering may in fact abridge decision-making autonomy and nudge individuals toward “institutionally preferred action.”

  45. 45.

    The tension comes into sharp relief when one considers similarities of structure, if not of scope, between Sunstein and Thaler-style nudging in liberal democratic settings and the much more comprehensive system of authoritarian digital nudging embodied in China’s emerging “social credit” system, which likewise seeks to “responsibilize” individuals so as to create more “social trust” and likewise governs individuals “at a distance,” through the choices they make. On the social credit system, see Larson (2018); Mitchell and Diamond (2018); Loubere and Brehm (2018).

  46. 46.

    On “predictive shopping” generally, see Sunstein (2015, chapter 7). On the outsourcing of taste to algorithms through retail subscription boxes, see Hu (2019). On the crucial role of algorithms that learn from experience and improve over time, making better predictions about which items the consumer is likely to keep, see Sinha et al. (2016).

  47. 47.

    For an analysis of “data colonialism,” suggesting, at p. xi, that colonialism is not just a metaphor, see Couldry and Mejias (2019).


  1. Andersen, J. (2015). Now you’ve got the shiveries: Affect, intimacy, and the ASMR whisper community. Television & New Media, 16(8), 683–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bakardjieva, M., & Gaden, G. (2012). Web 2.0 technologies of the self. Philosophy & Technology, 25(3), 399–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barratt, E. L., & Davis, N. J. (2015). Autonomous sensory meridian response (ASMR): A flow-like mental state. PeerJ, 3:e851.

  4. Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bell, B. T., Cassarly, J. A., & Dunbar, L. (2018). Selfie-objectification: Self-objectification and positive feedback (‘likes’) are associated with frequency of posting sexually objectifying self-images on social media. Body Image, 26, 83–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bell, D. (2001). An introduction to cybercultures. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Billari, F. C., Giuntella, O., & Stella, L. (2018). Broadband internet, digital temptations, and sleep. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 153, 58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bullingham, L., & Vasconcelos, A. C. (2013). ‘The presentation of self in the online world’: Goffman and the study of online identities. Journal of Information Science, 39(1), 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Buongiorno, F. (2016). The digital self: The construction of self and social recognition in the global digital society. Athens: ATINER’S Conference Paper Series.

  12. Burr, C., & Cristianini, N. (2019). Can machines read our minds? Minds and Machines, 29, 461–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Caplan, S. E. (2010). Theory and measurement of generalized problematic internet use: A two-step approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 1089–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cardell, K. (2018). Is a Fitbit a diary? Self-tracking and autobiography. M/C Journal, 21 (2).

  15. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York: New York University Press.

  16. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Crawford, K., Lingel, J., & Karppi, T. (2015). Our metrics, ourselves: A hundred years of self-tracking from the weight scale to the wrist wearable device. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 18(4–5), 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. DeNora, T. (2000). Music in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Deutsch, N. (2009). The forbidden fork, the cell phone holocaust, and other Haredi encounters with technology. Contemporary Jewry, 29(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dickel, M. H. (1995). Bent gender: Virtual disruptions of gender and sexual identity. Electronic Journal of Communication, 5(4).

  22. Didžiokaitė, G., Saukko, P., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2018). The mundane experience of everyday calorie trackers: Beyond the metaphor of quantified self. New Media & Society, 20(4), 1470–1487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Driessens, O. (2015). The democratization of celebrity: Mediatization, promotion, and the body. In P. David Marshall & S. Redmond (Eds.), A companion to celebrity (pp. 371–384). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Drott, E. A. (2018a). Music as a technology of surveillance. Journal of the Society for American Music, 12(3), 233–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Drott, E. (2018b). Why the next song matters: Streaming, recommendation, scarcity. Twentieth-Century Music, 15(3), 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Du Gay, P. (1996). Consumption and identity at work. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Duffy, B. E. (2017). (Not) getting paid to do what you love: Gender, social media, and aspirational work. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 313–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fader, A. (2017a). The counterpublic of the J(ewish) blogosphere: Gendered language and the mediation of religious doubt among ultra-orthodox Jews in New York. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 23(4), 727–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fader, A. (2017b). Ultra-orthodox Jewish interiority, the internet, and the crisis of faith. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7(1), 185–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Floridi, L. (2014). The fourth revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Foucault, M. (1983). L’écriture de soi. Corps Écrit, 5, 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Foucault, M. (1987). The ethic of care for the self as a practice of freedom: An interview with Michel Foucault on January 20, 1984. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 12(2–3), 112–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Foucault, M. (1988). Technologies of the self. In L. H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P. H. Hutton (Eds.), Technologies of the Self: A seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

  36. Frank, T. (1997). The conquest of cool: Business culture, counterculture, and the rise of hip consumerism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Franklin, B. (1904). The autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. In J. Bigelow (Ed.), Works of Benjamin Franklin (Vol. 1, pp. 1–313). New York: Putnam.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Frischmann, B., & Selinger, E. (2018). Re-engineering humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gallagher, R. (2016). Eliciting euphoria online: The aesthetics of ‘ASMR’ video culture. Film Criticism, 40(2).

  40. Genz, S. (2015). My job is me: Postfeminist celebrity culture and the gendering of authenticity. Feminist Media Studies, 15(4), 545–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Gerlitz, C., & Helmond, A. (2013). The like economy: Social buttons and the data-intensive web. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1348–1365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, & K. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Goffman, E. (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist, 58(3), 473–502.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Graham, T. (2016). Technologies of choice: The shaping of choice on the World Wide Web. PhD Thesis, The University of Queensland.

  48. Grosser, B. (2014). What do metrics want? How quantification prescribes social interaction on Facebook. Computational Culture, no. 4.

  49. Haggerty, K. D., & Ericson, R. V. (2000). The surveillant assemblage. The British Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 605–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Hall, J. (2014). The self-portrait: A cultural history. New York: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hampton, K. N., & Wellman, B. (2018). Lost and saved . . . again: The moral panic about the loss of community takes hold of social media. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, 47(6), 643–651.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Harcourt, B. E. (2015). Exposed: Desire and Disobedience in the Digital Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

  53. Haynes, T. (2018). Dopamine, smartphones & you: A battle for your time. Science in the News (blog). May 1, 2018. (

  54. Hearn, A. (2008). `Meat, mask, burden`: Probing the contours of the branded `self.`. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(2), 197–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Hearn, A., & Schoenhoff, S. (2016). From celebrity to influencer. In P. David Marshall & S. Redmond (Eds.), A companion to celebrity (pp. 194–212). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Heehs, P. (2013). Writing the self: Diaries, memoirs, and the history of the self. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Hirsch, F. (1978). Social limits to growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Horning, R. (2012a). The rise of the data self. PopMatters. January 25, 2012.

  59. Horning, R. (2012b). Facebook in the age of Facebook. The New Inquiry (blog). April 19, 2012.

  60. Horning, R. (2012c). Hi haters! The New Inquiry (blog). November 27, 2012.

  61. Horning, R. (2014). Virality, uncreativity, and the end of self-expression.

  62. Hu, C. (2019). Give me what you want. Real Life. February 21, 2019.

  63. Hull, G., & Pasquale, F. (2018). Toward a critical theory of corporate wellness. BioSocieties, 13(1), 190–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ibrahim, Y. (2018). Production of the “self” in the digital age. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Jurgenson, N. (2012). The facebook eye. The Atlantic. January 13, 2012.

  66. Jurgenson, N. (2013). Responding to Bickford on digital dualism. Cyborgology (blog). March 8, 2013.

  67. Jurgenson, N. (2019). The social photo: On photography and social media. Verso Books.

  68. Keane, J. (1999). On communicative abundance. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy Perspectives, University of Westminster Press.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Khamis, S., Ang, L., & Welling, R. (2017). Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of social media influencers. Celebrity Studies, 8(2), 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Kingori, P. (2015). The ‘empty choice’: A sociological examination of choosing medical research participation in resource-limited sub-Saharan Africa. Current Sociology, 63(5), 763–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5802–5805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Larson, C. (2018). Who needs democracy when you have data? MIT Technology Review, August 20, 2018.

  73. Loubere, N., & Brehm, S. (2018). The global age of algorithm: Social credit and the financialisation of governance in China. Chinoiresie (blog). May 8, 2018.

  74. Lupton, D. (2016). The quantified self. Malden: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Lury, C., & Day, S. (2019). Algorithmic personalization as a mode of individuation. Theory, Culture & Society, 36(2), 17–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Lynden, J. (2018). Why mood matters in a digital world - James Lynden. Medium. October 9, 2018.

  77. MacKenzie, D. A. (2006). An engine, not a camera: How financial models shape markets. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Maguire, J. S. (2008). Leisure and the obligation of self-work: An examination of the fitness field. Leisure Studies, 27(1), 59–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Marwick, A. (2005). Selling your self: Online identity in the age of a commodified internet. MA Thesis, University of Washington.

  81. Marwick, A. (2010). Status update: Celebrity, publicity and self-branding in web 2.0. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington.

  82. Marwick, A. (2016). You may know me from YouTube: (Micro)-celebrity in social media. In P. D. Marshall & S. Redmond (Eds.), A companion to celebrity. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Marwick, A., & Boyd, D. (2011a). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13(1), 114–133.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Marwick, A., & Boyd, D. (2011b). To see and be seen: Celebrity practice on twitter. Convergence, 17(2), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Mascheroni, G., Vincent, J., & Jimenez, E. (2015). ‘Girls are addicted to likes so they post semi-naked selfies’: Peer mediation, normativity and the construction of identity online. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 9(1).

  86. Mau, S. (2019). The metric society: On the quantification of the social. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Mauss, M. (2002). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  88. McGuigan, J. (2009). Cool capitalism. London: Pluto.

    Google Scholar 

  89. McGuigan, J. (2014). The neoliberal self. Culture Unbound: Journal of Current Cultural Research, 6(1), 223–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. McRae, S. (2017). ‘Get off my internets’: How anti-fans deconstruct lifestyle bloggers’ authenticity work. Persona Studies, 3(1), 13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  92. Mewburn, I., & Thomson, P. (2018). Towards an academic self?: Blogging during the doctorate. In D. Lupton, I. Mewburn, & P. Thomson (Eds.), The digital academic: Critical perspectives on digital technologies in higher education. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Miller, P., & Rose, N. S. (2008). Governing the present: Administering economic, social and personal life. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Mitchell, A., & Diamond, L. (2018). China’s surveillance state should scare everyone. The Atlantic. February 2, 2018.

  95. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 2053951716679679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Muller, J. Z. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Nafus, D., & Sherman, J. (2014). This one does not go up to 11: The quantified self movement as an alternative big data practice. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1784–1794.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Nagle, A. (2017). Kill all normies: Online culture wars from 4Chan and Tumblr to Trump and the alt-right. New Alresford: John Hunt Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Nakamura, L. (2002). Cybertypes: Race, ethnicity, and identity on the internet. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Nelson, M. R. (2008). The hidden persuaders: Then and now. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 113–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Peters, T. (1997). The brand called you. Fast Company. August 31, 1997.

  103. Peterson, R. A. (1997). Creating country music: Fabricating authenticity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Pielot, M., Dingler, T., Pedro, J. S., & Oliver, N. (2015). When attention is not scarce - detecting boredom from mobile phone usage. Pp. 825–36 in Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing - UbiComp ‘15. Osaka, Japan: ACM Press.

  105. Pies, R. (2009). Should DSM-V designate ‘internet addiction’ a mental disorder? Psychiatry (Edgmont), 6(2), 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Pongratz, H. J., & Voß, G. G. (2003). From employee to ‘entreployee’: Towards a ‘self-entrepreneurial’ work force? Concepts and Transformation, 8(3), 239–254.

  107. Quito, A. (2015). The next design trend is one that eliminates all choices. Quartz. Retrieved April 19, 2020 (

  108. Rainie, H., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Rettberg, J. W., (2014). Seeing ourselves through technology: How we use selfies, blogs and wearable devices to see and shape ourselves. Palgrave Macmillan.

  110. Rheingold, H. (2008). Virtual communities—exchanging ideas through computer bulletin boards. Journal For Virtual Worlds Research, 1(1).

  111. Robb, M. B. (2019). The new normal: Parents, teens, screens, and sleep in the United States. San Francisco: Common Sense Media.

  112. Robinson, L. (2007). The cyberself: The self-ing project goes online, symbolic interaction in the digital age. New Media & Society, 9(1), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Rose, N. S. (1998). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power, and personhood. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

  114. Rose, N. S. (1999a). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self (2nd ed.). London: Free Association Books.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Rose, N. S. (1999b). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Sapolsky, R. M. (2017). Behave: The biology of humans at our best and worst. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & von Savigny, E. (Eds.). (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Schüll, N. D. (2016). Data for life: Wearable technology and the design of self-care. BioSocieties, 11(3), 317–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Schüll, N. D. (2019). Self in the loop: Bits, patterns, and pathways in the quantified self. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self and human augmentics, artificial intelligence, sentience (pp. 25–38). New York: Routledge.

  120. Schwarz, O. (2011). Who moved my conversation? Instant messaging, intertextuality and new regimes of intimacy and truth. Media, Culture & Society, 33(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Schwarz, O. (2012). The new hunter-gatherers: Making human interaction productive in the network society. Theory, Culture & Society, 29(6), 78–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Sharon, T. (2017). Self-tracking for health and the quantified self: Re-articulating autonomy, solidarity, and authenticity in an age of personalized healthcare. Philosophy & Technology, 30(1), 93–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Sinha, J. I., Foscht, T., & Fung, T. (2016). How analytics and AI are driving the subscription E-commerce phenomenon. MIT Sloan Management Review (blog). December 6, 2016.

  124. Spotify. (n.d.). Spotify—music for every moment. Chrome Web Store. Accessed July 7, 2019.

  125. Stimson, R. (2018). Facebook’s response to the digital, culture, media and sport committee of the UK parliament. May 14, 2018.

  126. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society, 7(3), 321–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Sunstein, C. R. (2015). Choosing not to choose: Understanding the value of choice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  128. Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4), 1159–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Thompson, J. B. (1995). The media and modernity: A social theory of the media. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Tripathi, A., Ashwin, T. S., & Guddeti, R. M. R. (2019). EmoWare: A context-aware framework for personalized video recommendation using affective video sequences. IEEE Access, 7, 51185–51200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Tufekci, Z. (2013). We were always human. In N. L. Whitehead & M. Wesch (Eds.), Human no more: digital subjectivities, unhuman subjects, and the end of anthropology (pp. 33–47). University Press of Colorado.

  132. Tufekci, Z., (2014). Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational politics. First Monday, 19(7).

  133. Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Turkle, S. (1996). Parallel lives: Working on identity in virtual space. In D. Grodin & T. R. Lindlof (Eds.), Constructing the self in a mediated world (pp. 157–175). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

  139. Wang, Ju-Chiang, Yi-Hsuan Yang, & Hsin-Min Wang. (2015). Affective music information retrieval.

  140. Wang, S., & Ji, Q. (2015). Video affective content analysis: A survey of state-of-the-art methods. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 6(4), 410–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Wang, Y., & Kosinski, M. (2018). Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from facial images. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(2), 246–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Weinberg, L. A. (2018). From mass culture to personalization. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.

  143. Weinschenk, S. (2012). Why we’re all addicted to texts, Twitter and Google. Psychology Today, September 11, 2012.

  144. Weisgerber, C., & Butler, S. H. (2016). Curating the soul: Foucault’s concept of hupomnemata and the digital technology of self-care. Information, Communication & Society, 19(10), 1340–1355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Wolf, G. (2009). Know thyself: Tracking every facet of life, from sleep to mood to pain, 24/7/365. Wired, June 22.

  146. Wolf, G. (2010). The data-driven life. The New York Times Magazine, April 28, 2010,

  147. Zhao, S. (2005). The digital self: Through the looking glass of telecopresent others. Symbolic Interaction, 28(3), 387–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

Download references


For excellent research assistance, I thank Morgan Boutilier and Alexander Ferrer; for helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper I thank Elizabeth Brubaker, Jessica Collett, Jaeeun Kim, Gail Kligman, Rebecca Lin, Juliane Vogel, and Kaiting Zhou. I am grateful to Julia Adams for the opportunity to present an earlier version of the paper to the Comparative Research Workshop of the Yale Sociology Department.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rogers Brubaker.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brubaker, R. Digital hyperconnectivity and the self. Theor Soc 49, 771–801 (2020).

Download citation


  • Connectivity
  • Digital
  • Internet
  • Self
  • Social media
  • Surveillance