To Connect? Or not to Connect?

As I take my notes from Turkle and Rosen from Digital Divide, with our interactions with social media, we are negotiating our own selves and beings. Thus, creating a fragmented and multiplicitous culture. Distinctions are being made unclear as it seems we are constructing a magical realist society. The notion of the computer and information communication technologies are blurring our boundaries between what really exists as real, and the fake. I am skeptical to dare say that this is a postmodern view and reality. Why? Because if all that is happening right now is postmodern, then what do we make of this ever so fast and evolving nature of the internet and information communication technology? Is there such a thing as post–postmodern?

Anyway, moving on, Turkle presents the idea of the identity as being flexible, acting in many possibilities of multiplicity. This allows for the ability to construct and reconstruct with social media as an outlet for self-discovery leading to self-transformation. Yet, Turkle points out that the pieces are fragmentary, blurred.

Turkle also draws parallels to the online persona(s) to Multiple Personality Disorder and the notion of “alters“, like the idea that we perform certain identities under certain circumstances in Goffman’s idea of performance management. For example, I often catch myself planning what I might be wearing if I’m going to see certain professors, like I’m trying to emulate myself based off of their values, thoughts, and ideologies, thus assuming a different identity as the flexible self. Do I dress more conservatively? Modestly? Laid-back? I enjoy the art of the fashion industry, so if I’m dressed fashion-forward in front of a professor, would they take me seriously? This can be compared to our heightened sense of multi-tasking, and our abilities of being able to switch our identities like we switch back and forth between open pages, tabs, and documents on the computer. But it’s also about constructing to conform, and re-constructing to be our own, and negotiating our portrayals based on others views and reactions towards us.

As we are constantly being pushed and pulled while in the practice of switching between personalities, Rosen declares that “We must consider what type of behaviour online social networking encourages” (p. 173). Rosen posits that we are in a state of collecting and performing. We craft our online identities like an interactive portrait, and like Turkle, we negotiate parts of ourselves through Foucault’s and Goffman’s idea of surveillance of the collective, but also through Eric McLuhan’s idea of actively participating in our own theatrical stage for our own self.

But as we construct our identity, it is brought to question of whether our identities and existence are undermined as we are identified next to fictional characters, sports mascots etc., when they have their own pages and identity and given the same platform of identity and importance as real people. This certainly blurs the boundary between fake and the real.

Relating back to Foucault and Goffman, is the juxtaposition of the online vs. offline world and how we are regulated, watched, learn norms, and act. This is primarily done offline, but the online world is challenging how we learn these things and is changing the way we interact and present ourselves.

More importantly, “We should also take note of the trend toward giving up face-to-face for virtual contact” (p. 187). Rosen provides the example of online banking example over going to a teller or ATM. We, as in the users of information communication technology seem to place less emphasis and value on human interaction and authentic/genuine connection as we

“…avoid the vulnerability and uncertainty that true friendship entails. Real intimacy requires risk–the risk of disapproval, of heartache, of being thought a fool. Social networking websites may make relationships more reliable, but whether those relationships can be humanly satisfying remains to be seen” (188).

As we craft, re-touch, re-work, re-build our identities, are we getting lost and losing sight of who we really are? Or are we evolving our own selves to a higher level? If we are living in Plato’s Cave as Eric McLuhan pointed out, are we disillusioned? If according to Rosen, we are valuing less in the real and authentic, then what’s the point of our performances? Is it for naught? Who really cares? And what of the real-life relationships of the face-to-face kind? Yes the vulnerable aspect of meaningful relationships is scary, but how does one connect by not opening up and (for lack of a better term)…connecting?

Ode to Marshall McLuhan

I have been dropping references to McLuhan here and there, so it is probably about time I ramble on my thoughts about him. As such, this post will look at The Playboy Interview and some of my readings from his book Understanding Media. Living in a post colonial, post industrial, globalized (the list can go on) country (and world) , what does that mean for me?

It was Marshall McLuhan who recognized the facets of technology and the nature of living in a “global village”. However, I can probably bet that when he coined the term “global village”, he wasn’t referring to the one that exists today. What McLuhan meant was that the world as we know it is shrinking. Where it may have at one point taken months to travel across “the pond”, our world became more globalized thanks to the advances in technology.

McLuhan also posited that three basic technological advances has forever reshaped the way we physically see things, thus understand, and ultimately interact: the invention of the phonetic alphabet, the movable type, and the telegraph. What he also warns is that although we are making human progress, we are also enslaving ourselves to it. Forever married in sickness and in health – technology becomes an extension of our bodies til death do us part.

Yet, going back to the notion of McLuhan’s “global village”, this certainly more than ever rings true today. Information communication technology and social media has now connected me to my next door neighbour, as well as my online neighbour who lives half way across the world. We literally are living in a GLOBAL VILLAGE as I participate with the online community, coming together, sharing my thoughts-rambles-feelings-emotions-ideas-frustrations and on and on. Just as my best friend can comment and give me suggestions on my choice outfits for a date, a stranger can also pipe in giving me his or her fashion advice. If I’m outraged about a service from a company, I can shout it out on an online discussion board sharing my feelings with others in the same boat in my surrounding city, but also worldwide. So yes, I live participating everyday connected whether I know it or not, with others around the world sharing ourselves to each other in our global village. In my opinion, this is awesomely scary.

McLuhan speaks of a de-tribalized man, and the decentralizing nature of technology making references of our central nervous system. As I make meaning of this, I realize that what he means is this. When the human body is attacked, the body autopilots to safeguard the core: the central nervous system. So, the computer works like a virus. Our body then works to fight off the intruder, not only leaving our outer extremities exposed, but leaves at risk our core an open target. Thus, de-centralizing our whole being and suspending us into a trance-like numbness: narcosis.

As we are closing ourselves off through the use of media and technology, I draw parallels to Karl Marx and his atheist belief and view in religion as he saw religion as “the opium of the people“. Opium as we know is used to relieve pain. But is also addictive. Like opium, religion and technology are like an addictive drug that disillusions its users. Technology is now moving instantaneously. While we were able to slowly adapt, understand, and see the patterns of newly introduced technology, the internet is so fast paced that we are swept up along with it, taking our understandings and the ability to fully grasp and comprehend its true form and nature. We haven’t had the time to settle down with it. While it may seem like our relationship with the internet and social media are very much like an old married couple, we are still in the “getting to know you honeymoon” stages.

“Subliminal and docile acceptance of media impact has made them prisons without walls for their human users” (20). Prisons Mr. McLuhan? So you’re saying media has a totalizing panoptic effect? Foucault and Goffman are rolling in their graves.

So it seems, technology as both blessing and a curse.

Lastly, what struck me from McLuhan was this: “The future of works consists of earning a living in the automation age” (346). Scary thought. That we will soon be seeking jobs that serve technology, rather than thinking technology as serving us. This is starting to sound like a sci-fi movie. While technology seemingly frees us up for more leisure time, we are spending it back into technology which then enslave and bind us to a vicious cycle.

Sambot

I’ve been feeling a lot lately like a robot. Like I am one with my cell phone and gadgets. Of course, this sense might have been heightened when this past week I’ve been lugging around a heart monitor that looks like a walk-man (does anyone even remember walk-mans?!) on my hip. Doctor’s orders are to wear for two weeks, and press a button that emits an obnoxious noise for 30 seconds every time my heart feels a little off.

Those 30 seconds of noise is perhaps the most uncomfortably self-consciously aware moment where I feel like I have “E”‘s written on both my eyes while I chant “error” on repeat.

Where am I going with this? Well, the week prior, I was at Rogers looking at upgrading my phone since my contract was nearing its completion. Ironically, this fiasco took a whole day and much to my dismay of a day wasted, I walked out with nothing new, upgraded or renewed. Turns out, Rogers seemed to be having technical connectivity issues where their server was down a couple of days.

No big deal? I actually felt a little bad for the customer service reps that were stuck working those technical difficulty days. They were inundated with antsy, aggressive, short-tempered, and irritated people who were left in a limbo that Rogers would give them a call as soon as they were able to get access to their information. They were doing the best they can, but as always, that’s never enough for the dissatisfied customer.

I don’t know the whole Rogers situation during that period, but what I did overhear from customers (and around town as my ears perked up) was that they had problems sending text messages, or frequent dropped calls, trouble connecting to the internet, or *gasp* the TV wasn’t working.

This brought me to the Surrealist painting by Robert Williams: “Symbiotic Mediocrity” as pictured above. We seem to have relinquished our own being over to telecommunicative technology.

Plugged in. Like the painting, McLuhan was right about technology as extensions of man.

But is being plugged in constantly more disturbing and creepy, or Williams’ Foucauldian and Goffman-like portrayal of how we are actively participating in watching each other? Add to that the notion of social media and how we watch and “follow” each other through that…

I grew up before cell phones had been full-fledged available to the masses. While I once remember sticking my finger in the proper number and moving the rotary dial ring, I can’t even muster and fathom what it was like before, and how I had got on without instantly texting someone to let them know I am running late.

Yes, I’ll admit, I have fallen to the luxuries of communication culture. Computer, you win again.

Sam 2, Computer 2

Identity Crisis .:Part 2:.

Part of my difficulty in Part 1 and this post was that I originally loved Foucault and Goffman. At least, at the superficial level as a used-for-past-research acquaintance. I got what they were saying at the introductory level and believed it. In today’s reality-tv obsessed programming, I agreed with those two: in essence, BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING.

I guess I still love those two old pals of mine. But, the game-changer was my reading from Feminism/Postmodernism and the critique on Foucault (which I suppose can be applied to Goffman).

“Big Brother is watching” — this is the idea of power being everywhere and nowhere at the same time. We hold it in the sense of controlling everyone’s actions, yet that omniscience we hold is both almighty, and meaningless at the same time. Quite simply, it means something because we make it mean something. I work part-time in retail where there are cameras. Knowing that corporate has much better things to do than sit and watch me all day makes me think that I don’t have to care as much. However, knowing that my actions are archived changes my mind in doing something out of line. Even the possibility knowing that someone just might decide to do a random check-in via satellite and watch me in real-time. All these possibilities keep me in line. I do get borrowed in another location, where the store is much smaller, and there are no cameras. Knowing this when I go there, I would think I would let loose a little, but I don’t.

Why? It all goes back to performance and the panopticon. The employees at that store all have their own standards, so I have to maintain that. In addition, they know that my standards are always tested being on camera, so I’m under scrutiny to not make mistakes or be useless.

This got me wondering about gender dynamics, relations, and identity: how do these narratives, scripts, schemas, play out as a performance?

Hartsock in the Feminism/Postmodernism reader specifically critiques Foucault that while he has “…obvious sympathy for those who are subjugated in various ways, he writes from the perspective of the dominator, ‘the self-proclaimed majority'” (165). Hartsock also points out the complexities and controversies of the politics of recognition as, “…power relations are less visible to those who are in a position to dominate others” (165). Thus, how valid are some of his theories to apply for someone who is marginalized? Hartsock also points out that Foucault suggests that those in the margins are accountable for their own actions which sounds a lot like blaming the victim.

Going back to Part 1, I mentioned that through the years growing up, I chose to act as one-of-the-boys, as well as dismissed my ethnic culture so as not to appear too “off the boat fobby”. Yet, my WordPress blog Gravatar and my Facebook profile picture is a picture of Sailor Mars…very ironically iconic and symbolic of my Asian identity. I also will point out that being once young, I admittedly have posted suggestive ‘girly’ photos of myself while intoxicated, scantily clad and so forth. In fact, those pictures are still up on my profile. Whether it’s for my ego, or whether I choose to embrace my silly youthful mistakes, or whether I just don’t care to upkeep my profile, that is a whole topic I dare a psychologist to analyze and tell me what they think.

The question I am trying to get at here is this: are we really perpetuating a cycle of our identities based on what others expect of us? I like to think I do things for myself, but the rude awakening of reality has told me that I put way too much effort in thinking if you all will approve of every move I make first. It’s all apparently very silently and internally calculated, then channeled. And somehow, I believe my actions are authentic, but perhaps it’s more contrived than I’d like.

Identity Crisis .:Part 1:.

I know that it’s been awhile since I’ve written. Yes, it’s fast approaching midterms and the first round of assignments, and I’m aware those aren’t valid excuses because of time management….so you got me there. But, what I’m about to write did trouble me for a bit. Not in the-world’s-going-to-end kind of way, but my-world-in-my-head shaking—thought-provoking—wait-a-second—huh?!! kind of way.

While Goffman elaborates on how humans have crafted the art of putting on our masks designated for each situation, Foucault assumes that we are watching each other and making sure these acts are up to standards. So, in a sense I act the way I do because I’m expected to.

Or is it that I act according to how the public perceives me?

Or…I act how I want people to see me?

Hmm, all are very good possibilities, and all, or some, or one could be true. Then, who am I?

Growing up, I disliked the possibility of being labelled and stereotyped as a vapid, dippy, girly girl. I also grew up in a predominantly White-Anglo-Saxon town, which did not help my identity as an ethnic minority. I battled my parents strong cultural beliefs, practices and values, and secretly pretended to disregard my cultural identity at school. I decided that I needed to become white-washed. In high school, I made it a point to be friendly to everyone, but keep my distance from the girls, and infiltrate the boys. I decided to be one of the guys. So what does this all mean?

At risk of exposing myself, at some point(s) in my life, I chose these identities of me and actively constructed them for myself. In the Foucauldian sense, I saw that I needed to be white-washed because I was too different that people in my community would not be able to process and understand my culture. The community standard in living in the panopticon of cookie-cutter suburbia was to act like everybody else, which meant to dismiss my culture and be a banana. Goffman would have told me that I am performing my “whiteness” and “guy mentality” as an act based on my surroundings. Since everybody around me was White, I performed being White. Furthermore, though I opted to hang with the boys rather than waddle in the drama of the girl cliques, I ultimately managed my identity to fit in with the guys.

So I became who I am based on my surroundings and company? Does this really account for how my identity was and/or is formed, and does this reflect my authentic true being? I’m not the greatest with philosophy, so maybe this explains my struggle with this post.

While my thoughts are still percolating, tossing in the wrench of the computer, social media, and online identity throws me in for a loop. How is my online identity constructed? Do I build it as I am, or how I want others to see me? Has my Facebook identity evolved and changed like I have, or does it stay stagnant locked in a matrix somewhere?

Computer, I ask you this as a friend…how much of my identity do you control and hold?

to be continued…

Sam 2, Computer 1