“What do you think of when someone says ‘digital identity’? Biometrics? Login credentials? A string of JSON data? Your social media account? The answer probably depends on where you are, how old you are, and/or how tech-savvy you are.”

It’s all about cultural context.

You can Subscribe and Listen to the Podcast on Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to Podcasts.

And be sure to leave me a Rating and Review!

We often talk about digital identity as if it’s a universal construct, something that can be standardized, serialized, and slotted into global frameworks. But identity is as cultural as it is technical. And when we ignore that, we risk building trust frameworks that work beautifully on paper and fail spectacularly in practice.

Identity isn’t one thing

Digital identity systems often bundle together multiple assumptions: that identity is persistent, singular, owned by the individual, and useful primarily for authorization or reputation. But those assumptions aren’t global truths—they’re artefacts of particular social and cultural histories.

(I had fun researching this post; I wanted to make sure that my anecdotal experience was backed up by people who did proper research. I could do this kind of thing ALL DAY. But I digress…)

In a comparative study of users in Central/Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, Katalin Feher found striking differences in how people conceive of and manage their digital selves. For many Southeast Asian users, their “digital identity” is framed in terms of accounts, i.e., external tools for managing reputation. It’s something outside themselves, instrumental and pragmatic. For Central and Eastern European users, the self–account divide is blurrier; the digital footprint is seen as a real extension of personal identity, warranting careful curation and self-expression. (This paper is not freely available; I purchased a copy.)

Neither is wrong. Each leads to different expectations about how identity systems should behave and who should control them.

System design reflects cultural norms

This isn’t just about user attitudes. Cultural values shape system design too. Western identity architectures often assume:

• Ownership and individualism – the user holds and controls their identity;
• Transparency and audit – data trails should be visible and attributable;
• Consent as the primary safeguard – once informed, the user is responsible.

These align well with societies that prioritize personal autonomy. But in more collectivist or hierarchical cultures, trust may flow through institutions or communities rather than individuals. Reputation may be managed through social harmony, not audit logs. And consent may be implicit, situated, or shaped by expectations of familial or societal duty.

Trying to implement a one-size-fits-all identity system on top of that diversity? That’s how you end up with systems people don’t trust, don’t use, or work around.

One of the biggest hurdles to designing identity standards that reflect cultural diversity is that the standards development community itself isn’t particularly diverse. Let’s look at the IETF as an example, since they publish easily accessible demographic information. According to the 2023 IETF community survey, nearly 80% of participants came from North America or Europe, and 85% identified as men. Most respondents spoke fluent English—the only language used for meetings, mailing lists, and documents. That streamlines coordination but inevitably filters out who can easily participate. When standards bodies fail to include regional, linguistic, and gender diversity, they naturally produce results that reflect the norms and assumptions of those already at the table.

When assumptions don’t translate: cultural mismatch in identity systems

We’ve seen identity systems built around one cultural model fall short when deployed in another. Sometimes, the mismatch causes friction; other times, it leads to outright rejection.

Take digital wallets built around the idea of individual ownership. In many Western contexts, this makes perfect sense: Users expect to control their credentials on personal devices. But in parts of Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, phones are often shared among family members or even communities. Identity systems that assume one person per device can break down quickly in these environments, creating exclusion where access was the goal.

Or consider face recognition. In the U.S. and Europe, it has sparked privacy concerns, but it still sees widespread deployment. In parts of the world where historical surveillance or ethnic targeting is fresh in public memory, even a technically secure facial recognition tool can feel untrustworthy. The issue isn’t the technology, it’s the cultural resonance of how people use the technology.

Then there’s the matter of naming. Systems that require a first and last name in Latin script are common, but not universally applicable. Cultures with patronymics, single names, or character-based scripts often find their identities shoehorned into forms they didn’t design and can’t fully control.

These aren’t just edge cases. They’re warning signs. When we treat digital identity as a neutral infrastructure, we miss the social and cultural weight it carries. And that weight can’t be standardized away.

We need regionally adaptable trust frameworks

If we want digital identity to serve people globally, we need frameworks that can flex to local norms while maintaining interoperability. That doesn’t mean abandoning global standards; it means decoupling the mechanism from the assumption set.

A few ideas worth exploring:

• Modular trust anchors – Let different regions define who or what counts as a trustworthy issuer.
• Flexible disclosure models – Don’t assume every system must default to maximum transparency.
• Interoperable semantics, adaptable governance – Let credential formats be standardized, but leave room for local rules around their issuance and use.

The Levin & Mamlok paper, “Culture and Society in the Digital Age,” warns of a creeping homogenization of experience as digital systems encode particular ways of being into their logic. If we’re not careful, we’ll reproduce the same flattening in digital identity where diversity becomes a bug, not a feature.

Identity is local. Interop is global.

We’re building the infrastructure of digital personhood. That’s no small task. But if we want that infrastructure to support real people, not just tidy models, we have to let it speak in more than one voice.

That means more than just designing flexible architectures. It means actively bringing more voices into the rooms where those architectures are shaped. If cultural norms differ (and they do), then we need people who live those differences to help define what trustworthy, usable, and empowering identity systems look like. Otherwise, we risk exporting assumptions, not standards.

Trust doesn’t scale unless it can adapt. And adaptation doesn’t happen without inclusion.

📩 Want to stay updated? I write about AI, digital identity, and standards because someone has to keep track of all this! Subscribe to get a notification when new blog posts go live. No spam, just the good stuff. [Subscribe here] 

Transcript

[00:00:00]
Welcome to The Digital Identity Digest, the audio companion to the blog at Spherical Cow Consulting. I’m Heather Flanagan, and every week I break down interesting topics in the field of digital identity—from credentials and standards to browser weirdness and policy twists.

If you work with digital identity but don’t have time to follow every specification or hype cycle, you’re in the right place.

[00:00:26]
Let’s get into it.

---

What Is Digital Identity, Really?

---

[00:00:29]
Hi there, and welcome back to The Digital Identity Digest. In today’s episode, I want to ask you a simple but profound question:

[00:00:35]
What comes to mind when you hear the term digital identity?
Do you think of:

• Biometrics?
• Login credentials?
• A string of JSON?
• Your social media handle?

[00:00:46]
The answer likely depends on several factors:

• Where you’re from
• How old you are
• How tech-savvy you feel

[00:00:52]
Cultural context plays a big role here.

[00:00:57]
We often talk about digital identity like it’s universal—something we can standardize, serialize, and fit into tidy global frameworks.

[00:01:08]
But identity is as cultural as it is technical. Ignoring that can lead to trust frameworks that look great on paper but fail in practice—especially when so-called edge cases were never edge at all.

---

Unpacking Assumptions About Identity

---

[00:01:23]
Let’s start with a key reminder: identity isn’t one thing.

[00:01:26]
Most digital identity systems are based on a set of unspoken assumptions:

• Identity is persistent
• It’s singular
• It’s controlled by the individual
• It exists mainly for authorization or reputation

[00:01:42]
But none of these are universal truths—they are cultural artifacts. They reflect the norms of specific regions, especially the US and Europe, where many of these systems originated.

[00:01:54]
I’ve seen these cultural assumptions in standards work and tech deployments. But I wanted to back that up with research—not just anecdotes.

---

Meet the Research: Catalyn Fair

---

[00:02:07]
Enter Catalyn Fair (and fingers crossed I’m pronouncing that correctly).

[00:02:12]
Fair conducted a comparative study of digital identity and online self-management, focusing on Central and Eastern Europe vs. Southeast Asia.

[00:02:23]
The study included:

• 60 in-depth interviews
• Equal focus on students and business leaders
• Solid, qualitative insights

[00:02:33]
What she found wasn’t subtle.

[00:02:33]
In Southeast Asia, digital identity is often seen as external—a tool for:

• Managing reputation
• Accessing services

It’s instrumental, not personal.

[00:02:49]
But in Central and Eastern Europe, identity is seen as deeply connected to the self.
Your digital presence isn’t just metadata—it’s:

• An extension of who you are
• Something you curate and express
• Part of your personal narrative

[00:03:05]
Neither model is better. But each one shapes user expectations—and design choices.

---

Design Reflects Culture, Too

---

[00:03:17]
Cultural values don’t just affect users—they show up in system architecture.

[00:03:23]
Western identity models often assume:

• The individual owns and controls their identity
• Transparency is inherently good
• Informed consent makes systems trustworthy

[00:03:43]
These assumptions work well in societies that value personal autonomy and individual accountability.

[00:03:54]
But in collectivist or hierarchical cultures, trust flows differently:

• Through institutions or family
• Reputation relies on social harmony
• Consent may be implicit or relational

[00:04:16]
So when a single identity model is deployed globally, friction is inevitable.

---

Who’s in the Room?

---

[00:04:31]
Let’s talk about the people building these systems.

[00:04:35]
One challenge is that standards development communities lack diversity.

[00:04:46]
Take the IETF—the Internet Engineering Task Force:

• In 2023, ~80% of participants were from North America or Europe
• 85% identified as male
• Most were fluent in English (the sole language used in IETF spaces)

[00:05:17]
This streamlines communication—but filters out valuable perspectives.

[00:05:29]
So even well-meaning people design standards based on their own assumptions.

[00:05:34]
We’ve seen how badly that can go.

---

Real-World Design Conflicts

---

[00:05:45]
Let’s take a closer look at where systems break.

[00:05:50]
Digital wallets in the West:

• Built around individual control
• One person, one device

[00:06:00]
But in parts of Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa:

• Phones are shared across families and communities
• Exclusive smartphone access isn’t guaranteed

[00:06:09]
If your system assumes one phone per person—it fails immediately.

[00:06:23]
Facial recognition sparks privacy debates in the US and Europe.
But in regions with a history of surveillance or ethnic targeting, it’s actively distrusted, regardless of technical safeguards.

[00:06:55]
Then there’s the perennial issue of naming.

[00:06:59]
Many systems require:

• First and last names
• In Latin characters

[00:07:08]
But that’s not globally applicable. Consider:

• Cultures with single names
• Languages using non-Latin scripts
• Regions where names reflect lineage or patronymics

[00:07:17]
Forcing conformity erases identity and damages trust.

---

Designing for Cultural Flexibility

---

[00:07:50]
So—what do we do about all this?

[00:07:51]
We need regionally adaptable trust frameworks—systems that flex to local norms while preserving interoperability.

[00:07:59]
That doesn’t mean abandoning global standards.
It means designing with flexibility.

[00:08:11]
What might that look like?

• Modular trust anchors
  Let regions define trusted issuers—whether they’re governments, nonprofits, or private entities.
• Flexible disclosure
  Enable minimal, selective proof. Don’t force full data dumps for basic verification.
• Standardized semantics + localized governance
  Agree on technical formats, but allow cultural variation in credential rules, issuers, and legal weight.

[00:08:58]
These aren’t just ideas—they’re already being explored in:

• Decentralized identity
• Verifiable credentials
• Wallet interoperability

But they need cultural awareness to succeed.

---

Digital Identity as Cultural Infrastructure

---

[00:09:12]
A great paper by Levin and Mamlock—Culture and Society in the Digital Age—makes an important point:

[00:09:27]
Digital systems don’t just provide tools.
They encode worldviews.

[00:09:34]
Without care, we end up with flattened experiences—forcing everyone into one digital model.

[00:09:43]
If diversity becomes a bug to work around, instead of a feature, we’re building the wrong world.

[00:09:53]
We are designing the infrastructure of digital personhood.

[00:09:58]
If that’s going to support real people—not just tidy models—we need systems that speak in more than one voice.

[00:10:06]
And that means more than just flexible tech.

We need:

• Broader participation
• Cultural representation
• Inclusion at the table

[00:10:24]
Otherwise, we’re not building local systems—we’re exporting our assumptions.

[00:10:30]
And without cultural adaptation, trust doesn’t scale.

[00:10:39]
Something to think about.

---

Wrap-Up and Where to Learn More

---

[00:10:57]
That’s it for this week’s episode of The Digital Identity Digest.

If this helped clarify—or even just sparked curiosity—please:

• Share it with a colleague
• Connect with me on LinkedIn @hlflanagan
• Subscribe and leave a review wherever you listen

You can find the full written post at sphericalcowconsulting.com.

Stay curious, stay engaged—and let’s keep these conversations going.