Identity today is neither fixed nor settled in advance. Young people continually build and redefine who they are, and encounter others' approval or rejection. Social media has accelerated this process. It is a principal place where people narrate and present themselves, then measure the response. Digital space is part of the environment in which a new generation forms its identity, not just a channel of communication.
Adolescents and young adults want to be seen, recognized, included, and able to find meaning. Uncertainty about identity is not necessarily abnormal at that age. The difficulty comes when it persists or a person cannot find a reasonably stable answer. Likes, comments, shares, and visibility provide instant recognition, but it may be fragile and short-lived. Social media does not create an identity crisis, but can intensify and expose one.
The issue is not simply time spent online; it is the kind of identity built there. In ordinary life identity grows through different relationships, experiences, and roles. Platforms press users to narrate themselves continuously: who they are, what they like, where they stand. Identity can become more performed than lived. Constant image management, comparison, and evaluation through audience responses can feed anxiety, anger, and instability when a coherent sense of self remains elusive.
Complex social questions also become short, emotional, binary stories. “Us” faces “them,” “friend” faces “enemy,” and room for ambiguity shrinks. An identity built this way may feel strong yet remain fragile. Group approval becomes essential to belonging; outside criticism feels like a personal threat rather than disagreement with an opinion. This is where identity can intersect with violence.
The connection is neither direct nor inevitable. Being online or struggling with identity does not make someone violent. But certain mechanisms can heighten vulnerability. Extreme “othering” recasts a critic or rival as an enemy; at its worst, the other is denied human qualities, making violence easier to justify. A changed image of the other can be a precondition for legitimizing harm.
Visibility is another mechanism. Violence can be recorded, shared, and turned into popular content. For some, attention becomes symbolic capital: an extreme act wins recognition unavailable elsewhere. Violence may become part of a person's public performance of identity, with the audience's reaction mattering as much as the act itself.
A third factor is the weakening of institutions that help people process emotion and conflict. Family, school, university, mass media, and civic groups once provided space between feeling and action for conversation, reflection, and reconsideration. Social platforms shorten that interval. This does not mean traditional institutions have collapsed; they face a fast, compelling rival as sources of identity and mediation.
Reactive social violence should be distinguished from organized terrorism. The former can be emotional, brief, and without a clear command structure; the latter is generally more purposeful, ideological, and organized. Yet the two are not completely separate in a networked world. Online narratives can move someone from dissatisfaction or personal crisis toward extremist frameworks, bringing a vulnerable identity into contact with an account that endorses violence.
Terrorism does not create an identity crisis, but it can exploit one. A person who feels unseen, powerless, disconnected, or uncertain may be susceptible to a ready-made identity. Extremist narratives simplify complexity, name an enemy, assign a heroic role, and offer certainty. For someone confronting inner doubt, that certainty may provide temporary comfort.
Formal membership is less necessary than before. A person may follow extremist content, gradually identify with it, imitate it, and act independently without joining, pledging allegiance, or receiving in-person training. Such an “inspired actor” can be reached through social media, which generates meaning, enables connection without membership, and weakens geographical barriers.
Countering networked terrorism therefore requires more than identifying organizations and individuals. It also concerns meaning. If extremists offer young people belonging, heroes, enemies, and a story, prevention must ask what other ways society offers them to be seen, belong, and form an identity. Stronger families, schools, universities, and civic institutions, better media literacy, and opportunities for dialogue and participation can help prevent extremism.
Digital space is neither the sole cause of identity crises nor an independent producer of terrorism. Its influence, however, cannot be ignored. A generation forming much of its identity online also encounters narratives that can direct its need for meaning, anger, powerlessness, and desire for belonging. Effective prevention must understand both networks of people and networks of meaning, ensuring that simple, polarized, extremist stories are not the only available paths to identity.
By Dr. Mohammad Reza Hassani, a commentary for the Habilian Association
Faculty member, Department of Social Sciences, University of Sistan and Baluchestan