One, None and One Hundred Thousand Profiles: Re-imagining the Pirandellian Identity Dilemma in the Era of Online Social Networks

Uno, Nessuno, Centomila (“One, No One and One Hundred Thousand”) is a classic novel by Italian playwright Luigi Pirandello. Published in 1925, it recounts the tragedy of Vitangelo Moscarda, a man who struggles to reclaim a coherent and unitary identity for himself in the face of an inherently social and multi-faceted world. What would Moscarda identity tragedy look like today? In this article we transplant Moscarda’s identity play from its offline setting to the contemporary arena of social media and online social networks. With reference to established theories on identity construction, performance, and self-presentation, we re-imagine how Moscarda would go about defending the integrity of his selfhood in the face of the discountenancing influences of the online world.

💡 Research Summary

The paper “One, None and One Hundred Thousand Profiles: Re‑imagining the Pirandellian Identity Dilemma in the Era of Online Social Networks” offers a literary‑theoretical reconstruction of Luigi Pirandello’s 1925 novel Uno, Nessuno, Centomila within the contemporary landscape of social media. The authors begin by situating their work in the broader scholarship on identity construction, performance, and self‑presentation, citing classic sociological frameworks such as Cooley’s “looking‑glass self,” Mead’s interactionist theory, and Goffman’s dramaturgical model. They argue that the novel’s central crisis—Vitangelo Moscarda’s discovery that others perceive him in ways that contradict his private self‑image—prefigures the fragmentation of identity that digital platforms now exacerbate.

The core of the article is a systematic mapping of four pivotal episodes from the novel onto modern SNS mechanisms:

1. The Mirror Experiment – In the original text Moscarda uses a physical mirror to view himself as an outsider. The authors translate this into a contemporary “profile audit,” where a user logs into Facebook, MySpace, or similar services and scrutinizes their own profile picture, biography, status updates, and friend list. They link this practice to Cooley’s concept of the looking‑glass self and Goffman’s front‑stage performance, emphasizing how real‑time profile changes make the “mirror” far more dynamic and socially visible.

2. The Marco Di Dio Eviction – Moscarda’s bureaucratic eviction of a tenant is re‑imagined as the digital act of blocking, unfriending, or de‑platforming another user. The paper discusses how such power moves affect reputation, algorithmic visibility, and the social capital of both parties, drawing on literature about online reputation management and the politics of platform governance.

3. Conversation with Dida and Quantorzo – The novel’s scene where Moscarda perceives eight distinct characters (including multiple versions of Dida and Quantorzo) is used to illustrate the multiplicity of online personas. The authors argue that modern users maintain separate “front‑stage” identities (personal profile, professional LinkedIn page, hobby groups) and “back‑stage” selves (private messages, hidden circles), echoing Goffman’s backstage concept. They note that the constant negotiation among these layers can lead to the feeling that “no one is oneself,” mirroring Moscarda’s existential crisis.

4. Epilogue with Anna Rosa – Moscarda’s final renunciation of material possessions and his embrace of a moment‑by‑moment existence are likened to contemporary “digital detox” movements and the desire to escape the perpetual record‑keeping of social media. The authors suggest that such withdrawal can be a form of self‑reconstruction, albeit one that may be socially costly.

Throughout, the paper weaves these narrative reinterpretations with a concise review of classic identity theory, but it stops short of engaging with more recent digital‑identity scholarship (e.g., Castells, Turkle, danah boyd). Methodologically, the article is primarily a conceptual exercise; it lacks empirical data such as user logs, surveys, or interviews that could validate the proposed analogies. The authors acknowledge this limitation and call for future work that combines textual analysis with quantitative or qualitative studies of actual SNS behavior.

In conclusion, the article contributes a novel interdisciplinary perspective by using a canonical literary work to illuminate the challenges of maintaining a coherent self in a networked world. It highlights how profile design, friend management, and algorithmic curation can fragment identity, and it proposes design‑oriented recommendations—more granular privacy controls, tools for reflective profile editing, and platform features that support “identity integration.” While the theoretical mapping is insightful, the paper would benefit from a clearer methodological framework and engagement with the latest empirical findings on online self‑presentation. Nonetheless, it opens an intriguing dialogue between literary criticism and digital sociology, suggesting that the “one, none, and hundred‑thousand” dilemma remains profoundly relevant in the age of social media.