The Wonder(and)full World of Pretend and Make-Believe

According to Turkle, the idea of the self is constructed and reconstructed. This to me sounds much like the panopticon of Foucault. In this way, our identity must be influenced by our relationship with social media.

Though her work is dated, it seems that many current researchers are always referencing back to her works. While she notes that internet use (or what she called back then – playing in the MUDS) can be cathartic and provide personal and interpersonal insight, I wonder how that plays into the construction of my online, and ultimately offline identity. Through ‘mudding’, it seems that  “’you are who you pretend to be’” (147) by a process of a “projection of inner fantasies” (148). Perhaps people are drawn to social media and information communication technology as they can hide behind a screen while working out the personal, as opposed to the possibilities of dealing face-to-face.

Additionally, Turkle posits that while “…role-playing games enable people to work through issues of identity” (145), boundaries get blurred between what is real and what is online. But what strikes me is the whole notion of “you are who you pretend to be”…the key word being pretend. As I make sense of social media and the authenticity of the performance of identity, need I say more about pretend?! Wait a second, is this some kind of euphemism for “Fake it til you make it”?! I’ll admit, in certain circumstances, like the first day of a new job, I most certainly fake the best of myself to make it seem to my employer and co-workers that I know how to work the photocopier, but that doesn’t speak volumes of the authenticity of my identity….does it?

In relating to notions of gender, Turkle explains how construction of gender is more heightened and aware as well as enforced through ‘mudding’. Through the ability to don avatars, people are allowed the opportunity to pretend to be someone else they’re not, such as a female when in real life they are male. Through this act, mudding allows for reflection and catharsis, and allows for people to work through these issues and realize them…but is this successful? Or are we further perpetuating stereotypes? If I pretend to portray myself as a rocker from a metal band online, how do I act – like Gene Simmons? Is that portrayal not a stereotype, or an authentic and accurate representation of all rockers from metal bands?

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?

Everything as Nothing and Meaningless… I. Do. Not. Exist.

I’d like to introduce to you, Eric McLuhan. You guessed it, he is the son of Marshall McLuhan, and yes…as the saying goes: like father, like son. Needless to say, Eric McLuhan has also done his fair share of work on media and technology.

As I read McLuhan2.0’s Electric Language, the notion of technological determinism really seemed to surface. I’ll admit, I never considered this idea before aside from biological, cultural, and economic determinism. But, after my last post regarding our Wall-E world, my head is swimming around trying to make sense of our pixellated matrix world.

McLuhan2.0 pointed out a lot of things. But I’ll try to narrow down to a few observations and thoughts.

1. We are living in the age of post literacy yet, there is no such thing as an advanced book – you know, high-tech-gadgety ones. This includes anything read off a computer screen or the TV. McLuhan states that although you may read like you would from print medium, the computer medium possesses qualities of TV. Thus, you may think you are reading, but the method is entirely different. I won’t get into it here, but this idea goes back to Marshall McLuhan and the differences between hot and cold mediums and their effects. So, this leaves me wondering…what about Kobo readers? They seem to be picking up. Would you consider them true reading like a book, or is it McLuhan’s idea of the advanced book? Where are books and print headed? But since my work and focus is around identity, I digress. Interesting to ponder anyhow.
2. “The computers and various networks that link us bring about a new condition of massive loss of identity by means of participation in-depth in electronic processes” (p. 4): what?! According to McLuhan, the computer separates us, yet binds us together. By participating socially via the computer, we lose our identity and own being. Our sense of loss thus draw us to groups to belong. This leads to the idea of the disappearance of individualism as McLuhan states that rather instead of an audience watching, we are all participating as actors like a theatre…to no one but our own selves.
3. Open crowd vs. closed crowd. The open crowd needs to be everywhere and grow, and can’t be stagnant. The closed crowd has boundaries and limits. Stable. McLuhan places the electric crowd as open. Which poses the question “are you in or out?” BUT!!…The electric crowd is NOT about growing, but of being. To just be. This made me think of a concert for example. Everyone is separate, as their own selves attending the concert and watching. But at the same time everyone is participating together in a shared moment. Online space works like this. Yet the mass audience works similarly, but differently at the same time. In search of one’s own online identity, everyone seems to want to be identified as unique and different, special. A standout above the rest. However, McLuhan posits that everyone is the same in an electric crowd. In a sense, we are nobody. I disagree, as I notice people going to arms lengths to portray themselves better than their neighbour. Or…is it because we are nobodies that compel us to appear better than the rest?

I return to this question from my past post…Does this mean we are living in an existentialist and/or nihilist absurd world?

Eric McLuhan also draws some connections to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. Dismal and disheartening this may sound, but as I reflect on my last post, we are all living in Plato’s Cave. The computer as the cave. The internet, social media, and information communication technology are the puppets; and we are chained by them and the shadows they create…”The electric crowd lives as if already dead” (148).

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