How has the Internet changed our National Identity?

• Aleks Krotoski
• The Observer, Sunday 15 May 2011

The problem is that the very notion of national identity is complex. Being British is a late addition to our panoply of identities; our personal sense of who we are as individuals evolves early through experience – boy/girl, child/parent, et cetera – but our national identity is the bit that's learned later and is often thrust upon us. As Raphael Samuel describes in his book Patriotism: The Making and Unmaking of British National Identity: "It is an occasional rather than a constant presence." In other words, the sense of being British isn't always there – it's ignited in our consciousness only in particular circumstances. A recent wedding springs to mind. The World Cup. Threats to our borders and security.

The web offers a platform for multiplicity rather than unity. Before it gave us all a global voice, we were united by the narrowcast media of television, newspapers and radio; these mass communication platforms transmitted a Britishness that was determined by gatekeepers – the editors, commissioners and money people. Now, however, we all have access to what Hugh Mackay of the Open University describes as a stage where anyone can perform nuanced aspects of "the nation", and its core cultural attributes. Where this becomes particularly interesting is in the diaspora communities: the web now offers a place where people who have left a physical location can gather to experience a sense of national belonging. They can access the same cultural touchpoints as people in residence, from local news to comedy, and can engage in the same debates.

Yet there is some common ground across the online understanding of what Britishness is. Our empirical understanding of this has evolved through reverse logic: researchers have studied British identity in forums, social networks and other virtual gathering spots by looking at how we decide what we are not. And despite the very prominent multiculturalism in the UK, the unfortunate thread that runs through the results of research studies published as recently as 2008 is that Britishness is "white" – seen as the most common marker of what is perceived to be British and what is not.

But it isn't the end of the story. There are countless examples of sites that celebrate our obsession with the weather, our penchant for satire, our co-dependent relationship with the pub and other elements of national heritage. The web allows for the expression of the diversity of the UK and the nuanced representation of the people united under the union flag does still inform how we negotiate and define who we are online.

Citizenship is a political demarcation; the sense of identifying with one's nation is a profoundly personal thing. We're not becoming more or less British because of the web, just as Americans aren't becoming more or less American or Iranians aren't becoming more or less Iranian. Technology allows each of us the opportunity to publish our versions of what it means to be whatever we are.

If you don't agree with it, you can build your own version. So there.

There are loads of theories that could be linked in here: Judith Butler and Identity performance, Charles Cheung and personal homepages, Dan Gillmor "giving a voice to the voiceless" etc.