Online Empowerment: Building Self-Esteem, Recognition and Citizenship

Abstract

This chapter addresses the ways in which the Internet offers possibilities for empowerment, along with the components of empowerment. In a context of social and digital divides, inclusion and recognition become central concerns. With the Internet having penetrated so deeply in the society as to change the daily lives of people and the way they interact and see one another, the real possibility of “being” online becomes fundamental. However, the users’ social context and their level of insertion in the offline society define the importance they will ascribe to online experiences and how empowered they will feel. Especially for those who somehow felt socially excluded in offline social structures, online experiences represent a way to feel connected, closer, and recognized.

From the perspective of deliberative agents taking part in a democracy that unfolds through the flux of exchange and interaction beyond the institutions, from the perspective of people who bore the status of second-class citizens in the history of Brazilian democracy, the Internet might open new possibilities for recognition. It is interesting to observe how these opportunities are being used and the emancipations they are making possible.

1 The Digital Divide

The most common counter-argument to any claim that the Internet brings greater freedom and more equality through inclusion and empowerment is the so-called digital divide. The new technologies and the Internet reinforce inequalities between social groups, deepening the gap between those who are digitally included and those who are not. Though this is a topic that has been extensively discussed and it is not the main focus of my research, it is important to deal with it briefly, as it is almost automatically linked to any claim for the democratic potential of the Internet.

The first important step when drawing an outline of the debate on the digital divide is to clarify what exactly it entails to be digitally included or excluded. In the literature, the evolution of the discussion has led to a proliferation of definitions for the term digital divide. In the beginning, the digital divide was seen as the division between those who had access to computers and those who did not have the means to buy one or the opportunity to use one in public spaces, such as schools, libraries, computer labs, and so on. Soon it became clear that access to a computer was not enough, for a computer that was not connected to the Internet would not provide the same opportunities for professional and personal development as a computer that was connected.

So it became more common to define the digital divide as the gap between those who have access to the Internet¹ and those who do not (the have-nots), and in this way the question moved to the centre of the debate. As the discussion was deepened, the idea of the digital divide came under a broader range of definitions, since the experts began to point out that access to the Internet could not stand on its own as an effective criterion for defining a person as digitally included. It might be that there is an available computer connected to the Internet, but that the person has no idea how to use it. Hence, the digital divide began to be analysed through the spectrum of the digital-skills divide, taking into account the different levels of skills in using a computer.²

Indeed, it makes sense to define the divide on the basis of the actual ability to use the Internet. The idea of digital inclusion must be broadened to encompass more than access to computers with a modem or broadband connection, so as to also take into account the resources enabling people to make real use of the Internet. However, when it comes to the definition of what these resources should be, different problems arise, for the skills to use the Internet encompass technical training and language and communication skills that should be part of educational training. This approach risks branding the digital divide as a small part of the big problem of social inequalities and the educational deficit. On this view, digital inequalities would not be addressed directly, for they would be expected to disappear as social and educational gaps are overcome. A second alternative would be to acknowledge that, although the digital divide is only a part of a bigger picture, there is a strategic use in fighting head on, for it may help avoid the reinforcement of preexistent inequalities.³

Richard Rose is aligned with the theory that the digital divide is not a problem to be actively and directly combated.⁴ He criticizes the term digital divide, claiming that it is constantly out of date, as it attempts to capture in static terms a situation that is dynamic and is part of a development in process. He finds that digital diffusion would be more adequate, as it would refer to the uptake that accompanies new technologies in general. On this model, with leaders and laggards, the latter have the potential to catch up. Internet technology tends to become cheaper and more attractive. In poorer countries, for instance, the number of wireless phone connections is overtaking the number of fixed lines. In a diffusion model, differences within a society are no more than a starting point. The concern is not whether an innovation has been adopted but when it will be adopted.

The perspective based on the spread of a technology also assumes that rates of growth will continue to vary between countries. In the leading countries, growth is expected to decelerate as it meets saturation. In the countries situated in the middle of the uptake process, growth rates should be fastest, because they are struggling struggle to catch up and because of the network element.

Rose also claims that, as time goes by, problems of unequal access will be reduced to a matter of individual choice, since everybody will have the possibility to go online but some people will not do so. In this direction, in order for a community to benefit from the Internet’s democratic potential, it is important to create an awareness of the opportunities afforded by the Internet as well as incentives to go online. People everywhere should acknowledge that information is power and that the Internet provides the most efficient possibilities to share and exchange information.

On the other hand, sharing the view that the digital divide is a problem to be considered per se, Peter K. Yu⁵ presents five key points to be observed in the effort to bridge the digital divide. (a) Awareness. This goes in the same direction as Rose’s argument. Yu claims that it is very important that those who do not access the Internet become aware of the changing technological environment and the opportunities and benefits created by it. (b) Access. It is important to invest in the infrastructure bringing the Internet closer to the people, not only through the possibilities of connections (expanding broadband technologies, etc.), but also with the construction of public spaces with accessibility like that of public libraries and schools. (c) Affordability. The high cost of an Internet connection remains one of the main barriers to Internet access. It is therefore important that costs decrease. (d) Availability. This refers to the possible lack of representation of low-income users, who would not find relevant information for their lives on the Net. And (e) adaptability. This is the actual ability to use the Internet, and here the problems are those of illiteracy, technical training, and even technophobia.

The need to bridge the digital divide flows not only from the individual rights of those who are excluded, but also from the community’s interest in the development of the democratic state. Information technology is a development tool. For instance, it enables countries to foster market globalization by helping to attract international commerce and tourism, and it enables national citizens to access the databases, books, and information produced by the more-advanced countries.

Even within the global community, there are reasons why the developed countries should invest in bridging the digital divide. An increase in Internet penetration increases the value of Internet connections and its benefits. The improvement of the Internet-connection infrastructure in the less-developed countries would accelerate the speed of the Internet overall. Moreover, information is badly needed, and the more countries and people are connected, the more information flows, allowing better-informed decisions on international policy and investment. The flow of information also gives developed countries the opportunity to spread their ideologies and cultures, thereby increasing their soft power.⁶ Likewise, with more people accessing the Internet, it would be easier to promote democracy and human rights,⁷ creating spaces for expression, dissent, and mobilisation through low-cost channels. In addition, with the increase of Internet access, possibilities are opened to penetrate different and bigger markets.

Notwithstanding the importance of this global outlook, it is more useful, within our scope, to keep the analysis of the divides linked to the problems arising within a democratic state. Given that the objective is to study how the Internet influences constitutional democratic theory, an analysis of global conditions will not be very helpful. Moreover, it is important to define the digital divide according to a specific society’s conditions, needs, and stage of democracy and development. Some states are still struggling to provide infrastructure, others have already accomplished the task of providing access but try to improve the level of skills, and still others are concerned with the number of people who use the Internet for political engagement.

These differences in stages must be considered, but it is also important to note that there will always be inequalities within a democratic state,⁸ and so the goal of bridging the digital divide should not carry the burden of surpassing all of these inequalities.⁹ Otherwise, the goal will lose its meaning and its strength. The objective should be narrowed down to ensuring that everybody has access with good quality and speed and has the basic skills to benefit from the opportunities brought by the Internet. Overall, each state should have public policies to fight the digital divide. They should invest in the Internet connection infrastructure and in basic training.¹⁰ They should also be concerned with building an awareness about the range of opportunities the Internet access opens up.

The digital divide raises questions about the relationship between communication and democracy. A material understanding of communicative rights, beyond the formal guarantees of freedom of speech, incorporates a right to communicative entitlement, understood as the right to be listened to.¹¹ This comes from the basic assumptions of participatory democratic theories that people should recognize one another as capable of debating and coming to decisions on issues of common interest. According to Nick Coldry, the right to communicative entitlement—the right to be listened to in the digital era—should include the right to be connected to the Internet and to have the basic training to use it.¹²

At this point, it is important to understand that the problem of the digital divide does not stand as a counter-argument to the claims that the Internet has democratic potential and brings opportunities for empowerment. On the contrary, the digital divide becomes an important problem once it is acknowledged that the Internet opens great opportunities for individual fulfilment and for the development of democratic communities. The concern is to make sure that nobody is deprived of those opportunities, which would be unfair and would also impair the full realization of the aforementioned democratic potential, since it would deepen inequalities.

If, on the one hand, the problems of the digital divide as presented above have a fundamental role in the analysis of the Internet’s democratic potential,¹³ on the other it is not useful for the moment to deepen this discussion. It is important to acknowledge the existence of this divide and to be sure that it should be overcome. It is consensual¹⁴ that there is a digital divide, in the sense that in modern times, there are people for whom the Internet occupies a meaningful part of their lives, and there are people who do not have access at all.¹⁵ It is also clear that everybody should have access and should make use of the Internet, while being able to exploit all the opportunities it brings.¹⁶ For now, I would like to discuss the possibilities of empowerment the Internet brings to those who have access to it or even to people who may not have direct access to it but are nonetheless part of social groups that manage to benefit from the Internet’s opportunities.¹⁷

As was discussed in Sect. 2.2A above, the literature generally analyses the Internet’s democratic potential by linking it to its potential to foster political engagement and enable participation. There is a diverse range of democratic experiments that enable and analyse different forms of interaction. Overall, the Internet multiplies the channels for political participation, provides new possibilities at the organizational level through extended communication and interaction, and creates or becomes a pluralistic space for the discussion of issues of general interest.¹⁸ Electronic networks with their bi-directional, interactive, and cost-less features, allow for the construction of new public spaces where social movements can organize mobilizations, negotiate their claims, strengthen their identities, and express dissent.¹⁹ This has an interesting empowering aspect, as it opens a space to discuss and mobilize around issues scarcely covered or discussed in the traditional mass media and underrepresented in the parliaments.

The possibility just mentioned already constitutes a meaningful contribution towards inclusion and recognition.²⁰ Although most of the studies point to a democratic or political divide, showing that the Internet has been a medium that favours those already interested in politics, and that it does not directly influence decision-makers, the fact that it provides more possibilities for expression, mobilization, and dissent is in itself a democratic contribution. The democratic possibilities brought about by the Internet influence the life of those who are plugged in, as well as of those plugged out. Even if one individual does not have access to the Internet, or for different reasons chooses not to go online, he or she will still benefit from living in a society where there are greater opportunities for the expression of different views and different versions and understandings of facts and needs.

Online expression is a complement of freedom of speech in the digital era. Freedom of speech has always played a major role in democratic theory, not only because it is linked to democratic self-determination, but also because it is a means to make public the disrespect of any other rights. In this context, the Internet can be seen as megaphone amplifying the reach of the voices of those who would not otherwise be heard. Firstly, it breaks the link between speech and money to a meaningful extent.²¹ It gives the possibility of electronic expression to individuals and groups that would not be able to use the traditional media to voice their claims and concerns. Not only does it open a space for the participation of hitherto excluded people, but it also amplifies opportunities for the expression of dissent.

In the online realm, people manage to challenge the dominating media and powers, drawing attention to other concerns and interpretations. In particular, in societies where mass-media production is very concentrated, the Internet emerges as an arena for the presentation of other accounts of the facts and for public debate. Even facts that the established powers have an interest in hiding are often revealed and denounced. Corruption, prejudices, and anything that is harmful to people is more likely to become public knowledge.²² It becomes an important channel for fighting ideological domination and monopolies.

2 Individual Experiences and New Links

Aside from the benefits that the aforementioned opening characteristics bring to democratic society as a whole, from the direct perspective of individuals, inclusion and empowerment can be felt via the new links that emerge. Technologies might be deployed to bridge all sorts of social distances. It is possible to cross social and physical divides to include those who are often excluded. The boundaries between persons and groups might be: (a) spatial, (b) temporal, (c) perceptual, or (d) psychological. Electronic communication has the potential to allow the exchange of information between people who are otherwise divided, as it reduces cultural and socio-economic distances within a community.

Overcoming such barriers opens up a whole new range of possibilities for interacting and constructing relationships amongst individuals and between individuals and the community where they live in. Given that individual identities are constructed through the experiences of interaction, the Internet might bring about major changes to their structure and formation. Online experiences bring the opportunity to experience space in the most social way possible, overcoming the restriction of being only in one place at any one time. Internet technologies as an exchange circuit bring forms of subjectivity, identification, integration, and interaction that are completely different from the traditional forms as composed on an institutional level.²³

The environment that exists online is overall very different from the offline spaces of interaction, mainly because of four important factors: (1) there is the possibility to interact while remaining anonymous; (2) the importance of physical appearance diminishes; (3) people have greater control over the time of interaction; and (4) it is easier to find like-minded people.²⁴ In addition, the Internet’s structure, with its possibilities for sharing, collaborative construction, and openness, allows users to transit between the positions of meaning-takers and meaning-makers in bi-directional interactions. Once access to the Internet is granted, it creates an open space in which everybody can access and produce information independently of social class, gender, or race. Everybody gains an opportunity to be listened to, and in this way a feeling of trust and self-esteem begins to form in those who had been marginalized in previous forms of discourse.

Online interactions are remarkably efficient empowering alternatives for those who have difficulties in face-to-face interaction. People who suffer prejudices because of physical characteristics, or even people who are shy, anxious, and insecure, have an opportunity to interact in an environment that, due to its inherent features, becomes liberating to them.²⁵ In the online environment, they are assessed for their contribution and have more control over the interaction. The fact that they have a chance to express their views without prejudgments based on physical appearance, age, gender, ethnicity, etc., can be highly empowering.²⁶ Their potential for engagement in social interaction is much greater online than in face-to-face interaction.²⁷ The environment contributes to levelling the conditions amongst participants and gives them an equal opportunity to be listened to.²⁸

In an ideal situation, we would each feels comfortable expressing ourselves in any way we want, knowing that we would be respected for our contribution. Even if we were regarded as an “other”, or as different, we would be still recognized as equal when it comes to rights and possibilities. However, this is not what happens in reality. Some prejudices are already too strongly attached to visible features, and those who carry these features are almost automatically deprived of praise. In this context, the possibility of detaching speech from the speaker might give those people a chance to be heard free of the burden that society attaches to their features. As time goes by, people would get used to hearing and assessing discourse and contributions instead of living via prejudgments. This is a pattern that, in the long run, may change society as a whole, plugged in or plugged off.²⁹ The possibilities for expression give individuals the feeling that they are part of the community and can contribute with their own opinions, which are particular and valuable.

In fact, some of the experts highlight the use of the Internet in strengthening and sustaining communities through collaborative and supportive activities. They demonstrate that online interactions often accomplish integration while respecting differences.³⁰ The Internet, rather than offering a way to shun real relationships, provides a way to form close and meaningful new relationships in a relatively nonthreatening environment.³¹ People who are really engaged in this type of interaction have more facility in revealing personal information and opening up.

The case of online groups formed for mutual psychological support is an example of how the Internet opens possibilities for the creation of transformative links in a situation where face-to-face interactions would offer very limited support. The fact that communication is relatively anonymous and is text-based helps to build a feeling of security that allows people to open up. People who seek support as victims of violence or discrimination manage to form networks in the virtual environment. This experience decreases the feeling of loneliness and isolation, as they feel close to people who understand them, having themselves gone through similar experiences.³² The possibility of sharing their experiences and impressions helps them to cope with their conditions. Moreover, the very act of writing and describing their feelings allows them to reflect and better understand the point where they stand in relation to the situation they are in. The Internet provides a feeling of security and privacy necessary for this reflection and for this shared support.³³

The study of the ways in which online experiences affect the relationship between individuals and the community is of fundamental relevance. As will be clear after the further theoretical explanations of the next section, these relationships between individuals and the community—the “others”—play a central role in the development of identities and individual autonomy. Some authors claim that the Internet undermines these relationships; others support the view that online experiences add new concepts and new forms to them, opening new possibilities for their construction. Below I will indicate the main points these interpretations make.

3 The Definition of Community

There are authors who see the online environment as having an adverse effect on the formation of individual identities, arguing that this environment undermines the relationship between individuals and the community. These authors present two main concerns. The first one is the polarization effect we have already discussed above, which would arguably divide people into small groups without any exposure to different perspectives and concerns. The second is related to the weakening of social links. The concern here is that the substitution of community and face-to-face interaction with cyberspace and its computer-mediated communication would weaken the social links among individuals.

Online interactions would interfere in the functioning of democratic society, as they would reduce the rate of conformity to social pressure and norms. In online environments, the presence and the reaction of the “other” are constructed in the individual imagination; hence, individuals do not learn to deal with disapproval and social pressure. In addition, anonymity and depersonalization diminish the feelings of shared identity, as well as the influence of the group’s norms.³⁴

Some authors compare the substitution of community with cyberspace to the substitution of acceptance with acquisition, making the point that this cannot be understood as a development towards autonomy. Given that people develop values and character through interaction, the community in which they live is the external source of fulfilment or reaffirmation. Although there are interactions online, some authors claim that relationships are social and genuine only when made through face-to-face communication. They believe that concern for the other is vital for any experience of community, and that it is responsible for the construction of values such as civility and trustworthiness. Concern for the other arises in the course of face-to-face interaction.³⁵ When the experience of interaction is undertaken alone in front of a computer, away from an embodied political and social arena, any ethical or political concern for the other would be rendered impotent and unrealizable. It is therefore not apparent how the genuine experience of community can be constructed.³⁶

As a strong counterargument, it is important to consider the definition of community and the outlook offered by Caroline Haythornthwaite.³⁷ She claims that community emerges where the cumulative impact of interactions amongst individuals adds value above the level of interactions between pairs. As online contact increasingly becomes part of everyday life, it forces us to face the reality of interpersonal ties and communities online. The “online vs. offline” and “face-to-face vs. mediated” dichotomies invoked in defining human interaction fail to capture the complexity of the personal relations, roles, and ties that form our environment.³⁸ Online communication extends face-to-face interaction and has been found to correlate positively with geo-community activity, increasing the relevance and significance of community in the lives of individuals.

It is important to note, however, that not all networks or online interactions can be defined as communities. At least some of the following characteristics must be involved: trust among members, relations of emotional and social support, shared language and history, and common purpose and norms. Those relations, however, do not require physical co-location. Once it is heard from online participants that these experiences make them feel that they belong to a community, it is hard to hold to the restricted definition of community linked to the image of a small village, where those feeling do not necessarily exist. It is not sensible or useful to deny the ideal of community to the new types of online or hybrid collectives with their collaborative, cooperative and group-oriented connections.

4 The Internet’s Potential for Individual Empowerment

As concerns individual empowerment, as early as 1997 an interesting paper already addressed few empowerment experiences from the perspective of the individuals involved.³⁹ Although it was very limited as a survey (only seven participants), and statistically did not represent any relevant result, it contributed to the discussion by offering examples or anecdotal stimuli as a springboard for a deeper reflection.

The starting point of the paper’s analysis was that people could use the Internet in ways that promoted individual empowerment, and that the use of computer mediated technologies (CMCs) could both reduce and reinforce power relations. The paper, for instance, pointed out that some feminists argued that it was important to counteract deliberate imbalances on the Internet, so that computer network systems did not reproduce but rather challenged the power relations entrenched in offline relations, especially those characteristic of Western capitalist societies. The author argued that individuals and groups could be oppressed and disempowered by institutions, as well as by other individuals, groups, and sociocultural forces. But people did have the potential to liberate themselves from these limiting factors and become empowered.

Recalling the lessons of Antonio Gramsci, Paulo Freire, and Lucia Vargas, the paper made the point that participation in developmental communication could lead to empowerment. The possibilities found on the Internet to establish horizontal communication, as well as to seek critical awareness and supportive relationships, are pillars of individual development. According to the author, the “use of the Internet implies the type of integral participation through access and self-management that many development and cultural scholars insist are vital to individual and group empowerment.”⁴⁰

Departing from these premises, the author e-mailed a survey on Internet and empowerment to participants on a Website devoted to women’s causes. After analysing the answers, he concluded that even though it was possible to observe that participation on the Internet generated components of empowerment, it was not correct to affirm that most users experience empowerment. In fact, the users’ social and life contexts were determinant for the meaning they attributed to these components and how they experienced them. Personal views, beliefs, and offline experiences certainly affected how subjects interpreted their Internet experiences, and how they actually used the Internet.

For instance, those individuals who were part of minority groups seemed to somehow relate their online experiences to the aspect of their identities that made them part of a minority. One of them stated that it was important for her to be able to communicate with so many “black folks”, as such opportunities were scarce in her community. Another black participant, on the one hand, said he was sad to learn that there was not so much unity in the way African-Americans think; on the other hand, he stated that the Internet had helped him to transcend class and educational barriers better than other institutions like the church. Further, the two women who took part in the survey felt that the Internet had levelled the playing field to a certain extent regarding gender issues. One of them perceived online interactions as a form of interaction where ideas and personality mattered more than physical characteristics.

In general, people felt empowered by some form of Internet use, even if only for the purpose of being able to have their own Web pages and to expose their ideas and expressions to a broader public. Before the World Wide Web, this opportunity was a privilege of the few. However, whilst some people did not use these components of empowerment as a stimulus for personal transformation or liberation, others integrated the discoveries and fulfilment of Internet use in their handling of strategies and lifestyle. The latter were able to convey personal transformation due to Internet experiences.

Even though the paper neither considered the social context of the participants nor differentiated between the Internet use for activism and for social interactions, the conclusions indicated that these elements have impact on the understanding of the Internet empowerment potential. Even the household environments would play a role in the analysis of the individuals’ processes of empowerment. The author affirmed that the Internet played a central role, as its use involved an array of possibilities of empowerment that are not available through the use of any other technological mediator. An understanding of these processes could guide the development of designs to facilitate empowerment and education. The empowerment potential of Internet use is a very important field of research, for it can be put to use in the effort to preserve the decentralized and creative nature of the Internet despite privatization.

Following along the lines of these conclusions, it seems important to focus on the empowerment experience of specific minority groups, paying some attention to their social contexts and social experiences. In this context, there is an article titled “The Internet for Empowerment of Minority and Marginalized users” that, despite its pitfalls, is worthy of comment here for the effort of taking the social contexts into account.⁴¹ The study analyses three separate projects.

The first focuses on how low-income families integrate technology into their daily lives. It looks at a project called Community Networking Initiative (CNI), “a computer training and distribution program that was designed to increase computer and Internet use among low-income residents”. The objective is to analyse what marginalized participants do with the use of technologies in their daily lives. The main conclusion was that it is not accurate to divide people simply in two categories of “users” or “nonusers”: people use technologies, stop using them, find different uses, and so forth. In this case, the focus was not on the potential for transformation inherent in online interactions, but on how people share technological devices and the purposes for which they use them in relation to networks of family and friends.

The second project analysed the use of a mailing list by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) communities. The conclusions were that LGBT members often participate in, and exchange information about, LGBT-related cultural activities. Most of these cultural events were focused on LGBT issues or concerned people who identified with the LGBT community.

Finally, the third study is dedicated to a participatory action research project in the domain of community health (Afya), a project led by SisterNet, a local grassroots organization of African-American women committed to a healthy lifestyle. Afya promotes alliances between SisterNet and educational institutions, libraries, and healthcare and computer-service providers in order to make a difference in these women’s lives. The women in SisterNet are in charge of research and they get to decide how Internet content and services should be deployed to best meet their needs and goals. In addition to that, they are gaining the necessary expertise to participate in creating their own application of digital tools and information resources. Participation in processes of knowledge creation builds self-confidence and empowers black women as it shifts existing imbalances in local social and power dynamics. This change is significant in challenging discriminatory practices and is breaking down race and gender-based stereotypes.

Although the paper has interesting premises and reaches important conclusions, it also has some pitfalls. It seems to end up focusing on the Internet as a tool. Online interactions are not analysed. Even though it presents interesting examples of empowerment and power shifts in the lives of marginalized people, it does not deeply analyse the effects of online interactions and experiences. Instead, it adopts a perspective in which the Internet and digital technologies are clearly construed as means—tools with which to achieve other modes of empowerment, be it through the possibility of looking for information in a independent way, exchanging information on people who share a common attribute, or using the devices to strengthen friendship and family network ties. It was a study focused not on the forms in which the Internet empowers people as individuals, but on how empowerment projects use technology as one of their tools.

When Mehra analyses the use of the Internet by sexual minorities, he makes important observations about the misleading rigid distinction between virtual and real, a distinction that leads to representations of the Internet and of computer use as disconnected from everyday practices. He then draws attention to the need to focus on disadvantaged communities and bridge “marginalized users’ online and offline realities in a manner that may contribute to constructive change in their everyday life”.⁴² However, the examples presented were clearly limited to the use of Internet as a communication tool to get others to participate in projects or cultural events. Although Mehra finds that the study revealed that LGBT members attest the positive development of their queer identity due to online communication, such online communication is observed as a more efficient tool with which to organize engagement strategies and a political agenda.

The paper seems to concentrate on the use of the Internet in a monitored or stimulated environment with the aim of aiding people’s empowerment. It was so attached to studying minority groups that it ended up analysing projects that could allow for these groups to feel empowered even if there was no Internet. It seems to me that if the focus turned to individual use on people’s own initiative, the study would be more likely to present conclusions closely related to the empowerment potential of the Internet without many distortions.

The conclusions in both papers presented drew attention to the fact that Internet use is not an isolated phenomenon, and that we need to consider it together with the social realities of disadvantaged user communities, so that individuals in such groups can gain empowerment. This conclusion calls for a deeper understanding of the effects of Internet use on individuals’ identities related to their social contexts. The user’s offline social context deserves much more attention, as does the way the user presents herself online and how she integrates online and offline experiences into one identity. The observation of this dynamic seems to be the key to analysing the empowerment possibilities brought about by the Internet.

5 Internet Empowerment of the Socially Excluded in Brazil

Coming back to the specific case of Brazil, it is possible to observe a great range of groups that could empower themselves with the toolbox that online experiences provide. The urban divisions between the favelas and the asphalt, together with the differences between the formal status of citizens and the real recognition they have as members of the legal community, make Brazilian society a fertile ground for observing the empowering potential of the Internet. For some people, online relations and interactions represent a possibility of positive change. Whether the experience online is restricted to the utility features—e.g., paying bills, sending out CVs, etc.—or whether it encompasses different forms of interaction inclusive of experiments with diverse identity projects, people live a great part of their lives online, and this fact does make a difference.

5.1 The Internet in Favelas or Favelas on the Internet: Discourses

In Brazil, there are not many research projects focused on the analysis of the effects of the Internet on individual self-esteem in relation to recognition and autonomy. A few studies, however, compel our attention, as they are driven by very similar purposes. There is, for instance, a Master’s dissertation developed at the Federal University of Minas Gerais⁴³ whose purpose is to analyse how the Internet has opened possibilities for people who live in the favelas to have a say in the construction of their identities.

The study makes an association between the voice, as a metaphor for being able to speak, and Honneth’s recognition theory. It takes as its starting point an understanding of the relationship between social esteem and the possibility of speaking and being heard in the public sphere. It therefore attempts to perceive how the inhabitants of the favelas use the Internet to gain social esteem.

The study analyses the use of the Internet by the inhabitants of the favelas and by NGOs that deal with the theme of the favelas, and its purpose is to see whether and how such use affects the construction of meanings and identities related to favelas and their inhabitants—popularly referred to as favelados. The study analyses five websites based in the states of Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro (Viva Favela, Central Única das Favelas, Favela É Isso Aí, Observatório das Favelas, and Ocupar Espaços) to see how the Internet can affect the lives of the people who live in the favelas or have an involvement with them.

The choice to analyse the lives and identities of the favelados seems rather natural for anybody interested in studying recognition in the social context of Brazil. The favelas represent the most visible symbol of the social divide and of a sort of citizenship divide.⁴⁴ The favela versus asphalt dualism is widely exploited and studied in the literature in the social science, anthropology, and human rights fields. According to Professor Licia do Prado Valladares, a Brazilian sociologist who has studied the favelas for more than 30 years, studying the favelas is a politically correct procedure that couples the dimensions: intellectuality (studying what is different and praising it) and social activism (helping the stigmatized).⁴⁵

Even though the favelas are a natural, almost obvious focus for studies on empowerment, there is no general agreement on the definition of the term favelas. In the beginning, the emergence of the favelas was due to a lack of urban planning. But afterwards “favelization” became a process of conceptualization.⁴⁶ The meanings given to the favelas over the years contributed to their growing apart from the city, despite often being physically located in the centre of the city.

For a long time, the favelas were seen as an urban-planning problem, and governors tended to defend their removal as the only possible solution. The hygienic problems were pointed to as a threat to the city. Moreover, the favelas were seen as nasty places, damaging to the beauty of the urban landscapes. Before it even designates a form of urban occupation, the term favela elicits moral judgments. As a consequence, the inhabitants of those places, the favelados, are labelled in a pejorative way: they belong to the netherworld of social problems.

The media has contributed to the construction of the meaning attributed to the favelas, as it has always presented the perspective of the opinion makers outside the favelas. Basically, the main idea was that since the favelas should be removed, it made no sense to invest in the improvement of living conditions in those areas. The inhabitants were supposed to be taken to areas away from the planned city. There could be people living in conditions like those in the favelas, as long as they kept invisible, so as not to disturb the urban modernization project.

Being in the communication field, the dissertation written by Cruz focuses mainly on the discursive patterns that surround the issue of the favela and how the Internet has made it possible for insiders to have a say in the construction of these meanings. The passive objects of others’ definitions might have finally gained a chance to engage in dialogue and challenge the different concepts constructed from the outside. They have a chance to show that there is diversity within a single favela, as well as among favelas.

According to Cruz, some people in the favelas learned that it was useful to take part in the social construction through which they come to be understood. Thus, they attempted to communicate their perspectives. They created their own communication channels. First, there were the community print newspapers and the radio. However, these communication channels could not reach people beyond the community. Only some of the cultural production—especially musical production, such as sambas and funk—managed to reach outside the community and bring the inhabitants’ perspective to the outsider. However, much of this production was marked by a strong concern with deconstructing the pejorative perception of the areas: they ended up keeping a conceptual homogeneity to try to convey an image of community and solidarity.

It is common to end up framing a homogenous speech that portrays “the favela” as if there was only one kind: it is a mountain, an illegally occupied residential area, and a place where the poor people are. The main consequence of this homogeneous conception lies in the natural opposition it sparks regarding other urban spaces. When someone uses the term favela, the discourse is immediately brought to the favela-asphalt opposition: the others, on the one hand, and us, on the other. Even when the representation of the favelas is ludic, as in many songs,⁴⁷ it creates a feeling of exoticism, as if the people there were from a different civilization.

The inhabitants of the favelas are stigmatized and suffer from this stigma. Their struggle for recognition encompasses the fight to feel included in mainstream society as persons capable of autonomous action and contributions. By communicating the experiences lived by the favelados, it is possible to amplify our understanding of the favelas. The resident’s perspective has been historically neglected because of a social representation that designates them as people with little or no political or private autonomy. The Internet became an arena in which to fight for social esteem and recognition. There is a symbolic dispute. Cruz analyses the Internet as a channel that has opened the possibilities of deconstructing stigmas and labels by allowing the stigmatized to take part in the discourse of the construction of the concepts deployed to define them and their social context, concepts such as “favelas”, “favelados”, and “pobres”.

One of the websites analysed in the study, Central Unica das Favelas (CUFA),⁴⁸ describes itself as a solid organization created by young people from different favelas, especially black people, who were looking for a space to express their outlook and issues, or simply their will to live. The text does not make any reference to material needs, but only to the use of the website and of forms of cultural expression like hip-hop to include marginalized people. The text expresses concerns related to the lack of support from the media. Further, it discusses several projects to bring culture, training, sports, and education to the communities.

Cruz’s angle was to analyse the websites that took the favelas as their main topic. She did not find any website created by the favela inhabitants alone. They were always hybrid (inhabitants and outsiders, usually communication professionals). Most of them emerged from a partnership between NGOs and social groups in the favelas. The websites’ declared intention was in most cases to publicize demands related to the favela universe from the residents’ perspective.

The website of Observatório de Favelas⁴⁹ conveys information about the organization of the same name, and it is also presented as a virtual centre. It presents itself as a source of favela indicators and data, and also as a platform for cultural and intellectual productions in popular areas. The Observatório de Favelas is a civil public-interest organization that portrays the situation of the favelas in Rio de Janeiro. It is a social organization for research, consultancy, and public action. It was founded and is staffed by professionals and researchers coming from popular areas, and its headquarters are in the Complexo da Maré.⁵⁰

The website maintained by the NGO Favela É Isso Aí⁵¹ lays emphasis on the importance of the art produced in the favelas for the resident’s self-esteem and social inclusion. This NGO seeks to foster the construction of citizenship through the support and promotion of artistic and cultural activities in the periphery. The website is one channel used to give visibility to the project. It draws attention to the lack of exchange with the outside and to the difficulty involved in engaging with the media. The site is aimed at bring the cultural events to the rest of the society, overcoming the blockage caused by the prejudices against the favelas, which are seen as places of violence and marginality, and against their residents.⁵²

Another website chosen by Cruz was Viva Favela.⁵³ This seems to be the only one that is itself, as a website, an independent project. It is linked to an NGO,⁵⁴ but it is not the website of the NGO itself. Viva Favela was created in 2001 and pioneered the effort to produce and provide favela-related content on the Internet. Currently, it has 2322 subscribers and 355 correspondents. The idea is that the correspondents residing in the favelas write texts about the local everyday, calling attention to their needs and their lives without mysticism. As most of them are trained, the texts are written in a journalistic form, thereby erasing the textual marks that would serve as clues in identifying residents.

When it was created, Viva Favela worked as a portal hosting many specific and autonomous websites dedicated to different social topics, such as the memory of the favelas, which reproduces the oral history of the oldest residents. There is one website dedicated to the environment, another to women, etc. All of these sub-projects were created by Viva Favela. The portal also hosted websites dedicated to similar or related topics. In 2010, the website was renewed and became a collaborative platform. It is now called Viva Favela 2.0. It allows people to read and publish content on topics related to the favelas and the peripheries.⁵⁵ The material published in the websites created in the first version can be accessed in the section called “acervo”. Even though it is possible to publish independently of any training, the project still offers a programme for the training of community correspondents.

Finally, the last website analysed by Cruz is that dedicated to a project called Ocupar Espaços,⁵⁶ whose purpose was to foster the occupation of physical and virtual spaces. The idea was to put together audiovisual circuits where people could interact and manipulate images and sounds using their own bodies. It took place in an agglomerate of favelas⁵⁷ in Minas Gerais, and the objective was to give voice to ordinary residents and to stimulate interaction among them, especially amongst residents of different favelas in the agglomerate. The discussions are spontaneous and reveal the problems they suffer, which are related to social esteem. In their discussions, the feeling becomes apparent that they, as favela residents, do not have the same rights as the people in the rest of the city.

In her observations, Cruz noticed that even the residents of the favelas are influenced by the discourse of stigma and seem to have internalized the stereotypes. Therefore, it becomes even harder to change the discursive patterns. For instance, the understanding of favela as a place of danger is incorporated into the residents’ discourse. They attribute the stigma to one another’s favelas.

In this context, the spaces allocated to the expression of the residents’ voices are central for democracy, as they allow inclusive public debates, giving residents an opportunity to reorganize their identities as they are expressing themselves. There are political gains in addition to being individual gains: the Internet and the tensions made visible through it are fundamental for the construction of more-pluralistic social representations.

Many of the websites mentioned above currently have a related profile on Facebook. The Maré Vive,⁵⁸ for instance is a channel of communitarian media and its content is collaborative posted by inhabitants of many parts of the Complexo da Maré. The profile is often used to denounce violent operations by the police special force and also the many homicides committed by the police in these invasions. The page repeatedly shares information about the victims that challenges the mainstream media that usually describes all of them as criminals. Many posts draw attention to the lack of security in the favela and to the fact that the State is only present through acts of violence.

Cruz concludes that the space for direct expression must be increased. She argues that the websites should make direct participation a priority, and they should stimulate it in their presentation via their homepages. It is important to open spaces for ordinary residents to express themselves without any filters. Interactivity is what makes the Internet important in the process of identity construction: it makes the tension between “us” and “the others” more intense and constantly present. It has allowed the formation of a decentralized and dynamic discursive network devoted to the favelas. It has democratized the demands.

The dissertation demonstrates the importance of the Internet in the struggle for recognition and for the social esteem of the favelas’ inhabitants, in the sense of being able to be listened to and being able to take part in the construction of the identities attributed to them. This struggle had already begun with the printed news and the radios. The Internet has emerged as a more advanced communication tool, with the advantages of being cheaper—once the access is available—and having a much broader reach.

5.2 Internet Changing the Construction of Self-Images: Visual Debates

In the same context of the periphery and the favelas, it is worth commenting on an article written by Fernando de Tacca⁵⁹ on how the interaction, exchange, and flux of information on the Internet have changed the way images are produced. Along the same lines as the study presented above, it analyses how the objects of the definitions become an active contributor toward the way they are represented and perceived. They are not only passive objects of observation: they take part in the production of results that gain an endogenous perspective.

The social groups can produce and project on the Internet self-images embedded in the affective and cognitive atmosphere of their own culture. They construct their self-image for the community itself and also for Internet users who have never come in contact with their culture or territory. The open space for self-representation stimulates an understanding of themselves as individuals and as members of a community. The new configuration of identities on the Internet makes it possible to deconstruct stereotypes shaped on a daily basis by the hegemonic communication media. The Internet exposes a social universe that was never previously penetrated by the endogenous perspective.

In the fieldwork, for instance, he argues that it is no longer possible for the researcher to freely choose and edit images. The concerned populations may want to take part in those choices. They want to project their self-image in a way that presents their needs and choices related to survival, resistance, and cultural exchange.⁶⁰ As a consequence, the pure exogenous perspective is lost, and in its place an improved exchange of outlooks emerges in the shared construction of an Internet full of projections of social self-images.

Tacca takes the example of three websites that give visibility to projects focused on the marginal areas of two big Brazilian cities: Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. Among his chosen ones, Viva Favela, already presented in the study developed by Cruz, appears again together with Olhares do Morro⁶¹ and with the website of a paradigmatic neighbourhood in São Paulo’s periphery called Capão Redondo. Tacca’s purpose was to use those websites to discuss the Internet as a “place” for resistance, for the construction of self-image and as a means to fight back the hegemonic models of communication. The premise is that through the Internet, people can overcome physical and social barriers in a way that would not have been possible through face-to-face interaction.

Tacca observes that in the case of social groups that do not take part in the real⁶² community, feeling they are denied the shared status of citizens, the need for visibility becomes patent on the Internet whenever an opportunity arises for them to express their perspectives. These spontaneous expressions bring the “other” closer, and they may have implications for the way otherness and identity are understood.

Olhares do Morro was a website intended to be a visual manifesto presenting an endogenous visual production of some favelas through the eyes of their residents. The self-image projected became very distant from the ones portrayed by the media: it was possible to observe moments of quotidian intimacy and affectivity. The images were the opposite of those of the violence usually associated with the favelas. Apart from providing an opportunity to make the perspective of the residents visible, the project was also intended to generate income for the residents through the commercialization of the images produced by them.

In Tacca’s article, Viva Favela has underlined its role as space for endogenous broadcasting of news. He stresses that apart from being a reference point for news that is not usually offered by the hegemonic media, the website also opens a space for culture and sociability within the favelas, as it provides many channels of interaction. It has different sections related to education, jobs, and entertainment; it also has a classifieds section and an open space for users.

On the production of images, Tacca draws attention to the project “Moro na Favela”, which was part of Viva Favela back in 2006. In the website, a selection of photos from a collection of more than 40,000 pictures made by the portal’s photographers was presented. The photos were exhibited in the favelas in such a way that they interacted with the quotidian. The objective was to create a meta-language of the quotidian to stimulate the residents to reflect on themselves and on the human condition. Contrary to Olhares do Morro, which sought outside and public exhibitions, this project did not seek approval or visibility from the outside: its legitimacy came from daily experience on the streets of the favelas and from the website.

Finally, Tacca analyses the Capão Redondo website, which clearly states its purpose as that of changing the image of the neighbourhood. The website also offers public utility services through regular access to the Internet. Finally, it seeks to provide a channel for the free flow of opinions on different issues dear to the minds and hearts of the testimonial authors regarding life in the periphery. It presents a cultural production within the community. There is, for instance, an open slang dictionary called Dialeto that is built in a collaborative way. Any user can enter an expression with its definition and with usage examples. There is also a space dedicated to day-to-day happenings called Histórias do Gueto.

The endogenous images of the favelas are made available in opposition to images produced by external outlooks, which are often spoiled by prejudice. According to Tacca, the Capão website can be defined as a virtual social collective underpinned by freedom of expression. The authors’ multiple contributions are endogenous communication, and the authors interact with the other residents through their experience without excluding nonresidents or users with other social identities. The self-image and projection of a social identity in this case occur through the visibility of a literature of periphery couched in the local language.

Tacca concludes by stating that the Internet has created the conditions for the virtual existence of urban cultures invisible to the traditional media. It has also allowed the user to take part in social relations that were difficult to access through face-to-face interaction. According to Tacca, the Internet is more than an interpersonal communication tool from one-to-one or from one-to-many; it is also more than a marketplace. The Internet is currently a medium for the transmission of social values employed by active social groups.

5.3 The Collaborative and Disputed Construction of Identities and Demands

The main contribution of the Internet at first is not related to the direct participation of citizens in the institutions. It is rather associated with the peer-to-peer disputes for prevailing values and understandings. A report published by the Youth & Participatory Politics Survey Project⁶³ (YPPSP) drew attention to the importance of the use of new media to pursue interests, hobbies and peer-to-peer interactions. Through these activities, young people develop a variety of participatory skills and expand their networks.

Based on a concept of participatory politics, defined as “interactive peer-based acts through which individuals and groups seek to exert both voice and influence on issues of public concern”, the report indicates that online interactions create digital social capital that makes individuals more likely to engage in participatory politics. The opportunity to voice one’s opinion and the feeling that this opinion matters, even if only to a network of friends or family, are pointed as first steps to keep an individual engaged over time.⁶⁴

In fact, the social ties and interactions shape the understanding and interest individuals have regarding the issues negotiated through electoral politics. The networks become the place where people form their opinions and feel that they are heard. If the government is not hearing them, they understand that the state is the one unconnected.⁶⁵ Engagement in participatory culture is part of politics understood from a broader perspective. The participation of groups hitherto excluded from these negotiations is an important shift. Indeed, the YPPSP found that black and Asian American youth, are using their digital penetration to influence others through online participatory politics. The new generations understand politics as practices that go beyond tradition, long standing institutions.

A study based on the results published by the YPPSP points out that young people see activities such as airing their TV show, building their websites and voicing their opinion online as political acts. According to the study, participatory culture changes participants’ approaches to learning, sharing and to civic and political engagement. These changes affect what is understood as politics and what is possible through politics.⁶⁶ When people are not restricted to consuming information, but rather circulate them and share their perspectives the others’ they are engaging in political activity. They are not simply following the agenda of public debate: they are adding their perspective. Even when only sharing and circulating news or others’ opinions, they are influencing the flow of information.⁶⁷

It is no longer possible to live with the idea the mainstream concepts are the result of peaceful social consensus, in particular when it comes to definitions of minority social groups and what oppresses them. Black people, women nd other minority groups (or, more generally those sensitive to the social divides) take part in online interactions to contend false-consensual definitions and views. The Internet, and especially the social networks deeply change the form people interact and through these online interactions the non-mainstream perspectives gain visibility. The transparency and accountability the Internet brings to public institution extends to encompass civil society. People use the social networks and blogs to discuss their identities and also to negotiate the definition of their demands and their oppression. The social networks are often used to debate racist, sexist, homophobic acts, ideas, advertisements and understandings.

Deaf people, for instance, form a minority that has few opportunities in the broad arenas of face-to-face discussion and that finds a major obstacle to participation in these arenas: language. Even when the deaf can speak, most of them communicate through sign language, and their participation in discussions depends on a mediator: a translator to the oral language. On the Internet, the deaf produce and publish their narrative without any mediator. Instead of having one institution voicing their demand as if there was a unity, a direct channel of communication allows the object of the definitions to play an active part in the discourse framing the conceptual constructions of the terms and demands that define them. Deaf people express diverse perspectives, interests, and ideas of the common good.⁶⁸

Women are also using the Internet to voice their concerns and amplify the debate on the dreadful consequences of sexism. More than that, they are managing to draw attention to issues that were otherwise considered unimportant. Brazil is a sexist country, with high rates of violence against women and where women are constantly harassed in the streets. However, the common sense is that there is nothing wrong with men “complimenting” or saying whatever they want to women in the streets. In 2013, a journalist⁶⁹ created an online campaign called “chega de fiu fiu” (no more verbal harassment) and many women enthusiastically adhered to the initiative. They could post their experience in a platform integrated with the country’s map.⁷⁰ The idea was to voice their negative feelings about the experiences whilst giving visibility to areas where women felt more vulnerable. The campaign opened up a public debate on the differences between flirt and verbal harassment, with women’s voice at the central stage.

In the same vein, another online campaign was triggered by pedophilic comments posted on Tweeter, and other social networks, following the participation of a 12 year-old girl in a Brazilian version of MasterChef Junior. Using the hashtag #primeiroassedio (first harassment), women took the social networks to share their disturbing experiences.⁷¹ The collection of stories indicated that the first harassment often happens when girls are as young as 5 years old and for many of them, these incidents become a daily fact of life. Several women shared their experiences clarifying that they had never talked about it before because they were embarrassed and/or people made them feel the harassment should be normal. Furthermore, many women affirmed that the harassment still had impacts in their lives, from the way they dress to how they behave and the level of safety they feel.

Another illustrative episode concerns the definition of a racist attitude. Recently, during Carnival, a white man dressed up as Aladdin and dressed his adopted black son as Abu, the little monkey that is friends with Aladdin. Someone took a picture, posted online and soon Facebook was flooded with posts about the fact: many accusing the man of racism, others defending him on the grounds that he could not be racist since he had adopted a black kid. A couple of hours later, the man, through his account on Facebook, posted his version of the fact saying that he loved the kid and that he saw Aladdin’s best friend where people saw a monkey. Amidst many irrelevant and aggressive posts, there were significant contributions by black people clarifying that despite the father’s intentions, such an act is offensive to black people in general and it helps perpetrate a series of pejorative images and humiliation historically and socially associated with black people.

These cases are illustrative of the process of collaborative and disputed construction that is happening daily online. They make two things clear. First, and most importantly, they show that the definition of what is and what is not racist/sexist or offensive to a social group will no longer be defined without the participation of the implied group. Second, they signalize that anyone sufficiently open and interested in the collaborative and pluralistic construction of understandings can easily have contact with and learn from the perspective of others, that is, the online interactions become a learning and educational process. Indeed, discussion and reasoning justify preferences and amplify knowledge with regard to different perspectives and possible solutions for shared problems. This kind of interaction helps citizens,—as members of a minority or otherwise -, to acquire political competences and discursive capacities.

Struggles for recognition take place in speech: in a relational process where subjects are constructing themselves as subjects and where, at the same time, they are constructing and experiencing the world. The Internet is a channel allowing marginalized people who previously could not reach a broader audience to have a voice and to make visible their perspectives and demands. They are empowered, by the chance to abandon the role of passive spectator and to actively take part in the construction of the concepts that define them. More than serving to deconstruct the homogenous discourse framed by the opposition between “us and them”, the new forms of interaction help individuals to understand themselves and their demands as persons who share common features with others, but who also bring unique contributions and perspectives.⁷²

Apart from having a voice to problematize definitions and common perspectives as part of a minority group, people also interact online as single individuals. There are different possibilities of “being” online, and the experience of interacting through these different identities, could deconstruct prejudices and stigmas. It would be interesting to analyse how the Internet allows some people to become friends with others to whom they would not come close in offline interactions,⁷³ and to observe whether this approximation makes them feel empowered. For instance, a study by IBASE (Brazilian Institute for Economic and Social Analysis) on how the citizens of Rio de Janeiro perceived the relationship between the favelas and the asphalt showed that 34 % of the favelas’ residents who had a friend from “the asphalt” met that friend via the Internet.⁷⁴

Those online experiences allow individuals to interact in a context where the other does not perceive the aspect of the identity that makes the individual part of a minority group.⁷⁵ The individual manages to have a reaction to the other that is not embedded in prejudices. These experiences carry great empowerment potential. If, for instance, a person A, who has absorbed the discourse that links the favelas with inferiority interacts online with a person B who lives in a favela without knowing this fact, A might come close to B, and when A learns that B lives in a favela, that will not mean much any longer.

The analysis of the empowerment potential brought by the Internet seems to be more relevant when it focuses on individual experiences that are then taken back to the offline social context. When observation focuses on how an individual uses the Internet presenting herself as part of a minority, even when the use is made to deconstruct prejudicial discourses, there is a risk of reproducing the same categories. Instead of exploiting new possibilities for interaction through the experience of different dimensions of identity, we wind up reproducing existing divisions.

Therefore, individuals’ bottom-up initiatives and usage seem to be more interesting, since in a democracy, the bearer of rights is the individual and not the group.⁷⁶ Further, the more people can freely transit through social groups, the more they become emancipated. It is exactly through this transition—experimenting different possibilities of the self—that the Internet finds an empowerment potential.

5.4 Internet Transforming the Potentials of the Self

Along these lines, there is a study on the effects that online interaction has on the development of young people’s professional identity⁷⁷ that exploits precisely the empowerment possibilities brought about by the range of different identities a person can experiment with in online environments. The study goes beyond analysing the development of professional identity, to clearly proffer an understanding of the Internet not only as a communication technology, but also as an instrument for expressing and transforming personal identity in multiple ways. The conclusions point to the fact that it is currently important for young people to develop a well-defined but also fluid professional identity. The Internet, in this context, emerges as a dynamic space for them to experience and simulate situations of a future reality, contributing to the formation of well-informed preferences and a more mature professional identity.

In order to analyse its object of study—vocational advice for young people forming their professional identity—the text presents some observations about the influences of the Internet on the formation of individuals’ identities. To begin with, it highlights the intrinsic relationship between the individual identity and the social order. The formation of the individual identity and the configuration of society mutually influence one another. Another important aspect is that the article calls attention to the dynamic feature of identities: they are not given but are constantly formed in a continuing process of metamorphosis and open production.

The Internet stresses the dynamism of the self. The possibility of using different nicknames in diverse virtual environments, while interacting with unknown people, has increased the spectrum of possibilities concerning identity experiences. Users interact socially through one or many chosen names, as they wish. The self becomes fluid.

Since the first stages of communication became anonymous and “aphysical”, people became close to one another because of the nicknames or because of what they manage to express about themselves in written texts—even when they create an imaginary character.⁷⁸ The article presents the conclusions set forth by Sherry Turkle, in the sense that the social limitations imposed on individual behaviour by society seem to be suspended in online interaction. This impression stimulates free self-expression, which can favour the development of a new personal identity. The Internet is a safe space in which to try out different roles, voices, and identities.⁷⁹ It is an experience of the self that one wants to bring into offline life.

Turkle argues that the self has to be understood as a multiple and distributed system. People experience different roles in different situations. For instance, it is not very uncommon to see a person behave in certain ways in personal contexts and in opposite ways in the work environment. The Internet, with the infinite possibilities for online interaction, boosts the opportunities for simultaneous identity experiences and expressions. Turkle uses a strong metaphor when she speaks of life in windows. She refers to the way of life of a decentralized self that exists in many worlds, and that experiences many roles at the same time. Offline life is only one of its windows.⁸⁰

Another author quoted in the article, B. Murray, rightly argues that most research on the psychological effects of the Internet focuses on the attractive characteristics of the Net, its pathological use, and the consequences it has on relationships. However, the influences that online interactions have on one’s identity, uncovering potential skills and transforming people, are outstanding. The Internet can work as a mirror, as a tool to help people in their search for their selves. It allows people to explore aspects of their personality that have limited expression in the offline life.⁸¹ Internet users can present themselves in ways that are impossible face-to-face, either by playing imaginary characters in virtual environments or by pretending to be someone of another race, another gender, etc., in chat rooms or other forms of online interaction.

Problems occur when the person does not manage to integrate the offline and online selves. If she likes the way she is on the Internet much more than the way she is offline, and she does not manage to conduct herself in the same manner in the offline context, she might develop pathologies, like addiction to the Internet.⁸² The twenty-first century’s main discontent is linked to identity confusions coming from the difficulties experienced integrating our offline and online lives.⁸³ However, such integration is possible,⁸⁴ and it can be achieved in such a way that Internet use ends up enriching the other aspects of offline life, thereby creating healthier and more complete identities. People can profit from healthy growth if they work through separate selves without getting stuck in them. The Internet can enrich who we are if integration is achieved.⁸⁵

The article presents an example given by Murray⁸⁶ of a shy mother who starts to experiment in online interactions with a more confident and bold personality, mediating chats, etc. As feedback from regular users is very positive, she decides to make an effort to bring the online personality into the offline world. For instance, in a job interview, she plays the role of her online personality, and she gets the job.⁸⁷

Turkle argues that life on computer screens becomes a dimension for depositing fantasies, both erotic and intellectual, and for exploiting numerous and frequently unexplored features of the self. People can play with their identity and test new ones. Online interactions and virtual environments become a context for discovering who one is and who one wishes to be. They work as identity laboratories.

Turkle presents the example of women who play male characters in virtual games in order to experience how it feels to be treated like a man. Zoe, a 34-year-old woman, says she had a sexist education and was taught that women could not speak out and disagree with men. She plays male characters in MUD and believes that the experience has helped her to better speak up for herself in her marriage and to handle her job. She stated that she got better at being firm but not too rigid, as she could practice this in an environment safe from criticism.⁸⁸

Both examples share the perception that online experiences gave people a greater emotional toolbox for their offline lives. “The integration can be something people do consciously, or something that happens naturally as online selves seep into the offline self”.⁸⁹

Online activities should not be perceived as playtime. People get involved and live an important part of their lives in those contexts. According to Howard Rheingold, “I do not only inhabit my virtual communities, but also, to the extent that I carry with me in my mind the conversations and I start to mix them up with my real life, the virtual communities inhabit my life”.⁹⁰

According to Turkle, online experiences have brought us to a threshold: a liminal moment when new cultural symbols and meanings can emerge. It is a time of tension, extremes, and also great opportunity, which also defines a time of crisis. She says that the difference resides in the fact that a liminal moment, as defined by the anthropologist Victor Turner, referred to a transitional state; however, the new technologies might be the signal we need to remind ourselves that living in flux is no longer temporary. It requires repeated openness to multiple viewpoints. The possibilities of creation of identities, for instance, are so fluid and multiple that they challenge the concept of identity itself—after all, identity implies consistency.

Turkle states that multiple viewpoints require a new moral discourse. Maybe it is about simulations that help people acquire a vision of their many possibilities of self while integrating them into one flexible identity. She highlights the fact that the increase in self-knowledge improves not only the lives of individuals but also those of their families and society. This connection between online and offline experiences in one identity and one life is according to Turkle the area where therapy, research, and public discourse need to go.⁹¹

According to the examples presented throughout this section, it seems accurate to affirm that the Internet does indeed carry a potential for empowerment, a potential that comes from its natural use, be it by enabling new forms of active participation in discourses through which meanings are constructed and deconstructed or by providing situations for experimenting with new identity projects. The main concern is whether individuals have the skills they need to integrate their online experience of discourse and identity with their offline experiences, keeping a healthy unity that might result in an empowered version of the offline identity.

Cyberspace is not a different world detached from the other aspects of people’s lives. Individuals whose identities are being formed in the digital era are marked by offline and online experiences, and their projects and hopes relate to the possibilities presented in both realms. For this reason, the concepts of identity and intersubjective relations should be conceived by stepping outside the constraints of the online/offline dichotomy, so as to encompass both of these two facets, for they form an indivisible reality.⁹²

Once this indivisibility is acknowledged, it becomes clear that the Internet as a vocational⁹³ medium is a powerful means for creating authorized knowledge and imposing power. On the one hand, as was discussed above, access to computers and the skills to use them are still defined by social power relations⁹⁴; on the other hand, as some hackers have demonstrated, with the ability to manipulate the Internet come significant new possibilities for acquiring power and resisting established power. The very fact of being able to experiment with identities helps to build the necessary self-esteem and the link to the community that will create incentives to seek recognition, in the offline realm too.

Once individuals feel more self-confident and capable of making choices, they will have more possibilities of using and benefiting from the autonomy the democratic state gives them.⁹⁵ However, if on the one hand the Internet presents some empowering potential, it also poses threats to the constitutional state by challenging certain aspects of democratic legitimacy. In the section below, I will present the most salient points of how the Internet has affected democratic legitimacy. It is important to bear in mind the relationship between the Internet and the aforementioned core element of the democratic order in the way it appeared at first sight.