The digital and everyday social worlds increasingly overlap, with daily tasks—from ordering groceries to paying bills—now performed online. This shift calls for an interpretive understanding (Weber, 1947) of how digital spaces have become dynamic social environments shaped by interaction and meaning. Drawing on Blumer’s (1969) symbolic interactionism and Goffman’s (1959) self-presentation theory, this article examines how everyday online actions —likes, views, follows, and messages—carry symbolic weight and blur the boundaries between online and offline life.

Digital Legibility and Self-Curation

Blumer (1969) views society as shaped by interactions, where meanings emerge and evolve through communication. On online platforms like Instagram, users make themselves “legible” through likes, views, follows, and messages—actions that carry social meaning beyond their technical purpose. For example, beyond just a humorous interaction, sharing a meme may signal an interest in initiating a friendly or romantic connection, making it a social action in the Weberian sense (Weber, 1947). Goffman’s (1959) metaphor of life as theatre explains how individuals manage their online presence through “impression management.” From curated feeds to selective commenting, users shape how they are perceived. These small acts often reflect social preferences. For example, one student recounted feeling hurt when a friend, after a birthday party, shared group photos and a solo picture with another friend—but not one with her. She believed this omission was intentional, given a disagreement earlier that day. This incident shows how even selective posting can serve as a form of impression management, subtly indicating social preferences to a wider audience.

In Defence of “Seeking Validation”

While it has turned into a pejorative in recent times, “seeking validation” – viewed through a sociological lens– is a critical driving force in social relations, and especially so in the digital ecosystem. On platforms like Instagram or WhatsApp, features such as likes, emoji reactions, and comments function as tools of recognition and approval. These interactions are not just casual gestures; they represent symbolic affirmations that one’s digital presence has been acknowledged. Papacharissi’s (2015) concept of affective publics shows how emotional expressions online— whether emojis or outrage—form loosely connected communities. Here, validation fosters connection, allowing people to feel seen and included in fragmented digital landscapes. It is not merely a reflection of ego, but a part of the relational framework through which people negotiate belonging.

Visibility, Exclusion, and Dynamics of “Ghosting”

Goffman (1983) conceived of an “interaction order,” where everyday social encounters are governed by implicit rules of attention, recognition, and reciprocity. In digital contexts, these rules are both extended and disrupted. Being left on read, “ghosted”, or selectively responded to are not necessarily communication lapses – at least not always – but rather, highly meaningful social practices that can signal disinterest, (re)assert power dynamics, or engender social exclusion. The absence of a reply can be as meaningful as its presence, subtly reshaping how individuals interpret the interaction order online. Central to the idea of visibility on the internet is the highly pervasive invisibility – intentional and otherwise. “Lurking” is a concept that is highly relevant here; it refers to the practice where users observe content without engaging or revealing their presence. While seemingly passive, lurking can reflect strategic social positioning: the desire to remain informed without being exposed, to observe without being perceived (Boyd, 2010). This challenges long-standing notions of visibility, but also subverts dominant ideas of participation in a society where presence is increasingly equated with performance and self-branding.

Control and Boundary Making

Features of Instagram, WhatsApp, and Facebook that offer users control over their social boundaries carry deep social meaning, also signalling changes in relationships (Weber, 1947). For instance, celebrities’ follow/unfollow activity is often interpreted by fans as evidence of personal shifts—sometimes even breaking news of a breakup preceding official announcements. In 2024, Billie Eilish strategically added all her followers to her “Close Friends” list to build hype for her album, using social media boundaries as a promotional tool. In everyday life, such tools offer users—particularly young women—agency over their digital visibility, helping them navigate social expectations and avoid offline scrutiny (Dube, 1997). Features like “hide story” allow for selective self-expression while maintaining control over who sees what. Blocking, muting, or restricting someone often functions as a social signal— marking conflict, disinterest, or polite distance.

Even small actions like ‘following’ can carry symbolic weight (Blumer, 1969). A friend shared that after sending a birthday message to a cousin she was estranged from, the cousin followed her on Instagram the next day—signalling possible reconciliation. Unfollowing, too, is significantly symbolic (Blumer, 1969). For many users, maintaining a higher follower-to-follower ratio is seen as a marker of social capital (Bourdieu, 1986) and exclusivity. Conversely, users often read being unfollowed as rejection or status-play, especially when done shortly after a mutual follow, reinforcing how digital boundaries reflect offline dynamics.

Conclusion

Thus, the online world is not merely a reflection of the offline one; it is a vibrant social space in its own right. It fosters new forms of interaction, shifting meanings, and evolving social gestures. Rather than simply overlapping, the digital and offline worlds actively shape one another, creating feedback loops of behaviour and perception. As boundaries blur, the digital emerges as a site where identity, connection, and exclusion are continually negotiated— offering rich ground for further exploration.

References:

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). New York, NY: Routledge.

Dube, L. (1997). Women and kinship: Comparative perspectives on gender in South and South-East Asia. United Nations University Press.

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

Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17.

Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organisation (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1922).

***

Swastika Patnaik and Anshuman Jha are MA students of Sociology at Delhi School of Economics (DSE), University of Delhi, New Delhi.