Black, white, female, male, dog…it doesn’t matter….right?

It has come to my privileged attention that I often forget that only a small fraction of the world’s population actually has access to the internet and information communication technology. That said, it leads me to wonder what kinds of narratives the internet conveys…I’m thinking along the lines of the ideologies of the White, Euro-centric, and patriarchal.

Returning to Foucault, Balsamo points that “…it does appear that virtual reality technologies are implicated in the production of a certain set of cultural narratives that reproduce dominant relations of power. Perhaps a better approach for evaluating the meaning of these new technologies is to try to elaborate the ways in which such technologies and, more importantly, the use of such technologies, are determined by broader social and cultural forces” (123) and “In short, what the VR encounters really provide is an illusion of control over reality, nature, and especially over the unruly, gender- and race-marked, essentially mortal body” (127). Yet, in looking at Race in Cyberspace, “neither the invisibility nor the mutability of online identity make it possible for you to escape your ‘real world’ identity completely. Consequently, race matters in cyberspace precisely because all of us who spend time online are already shaped by the ways in which race matters offline, and we can’t help but bring our own knowledge, experiences, and values with us when we log on” (5).

I’ve mentioned  before that perhaps we are disillusioned into feeding into the craze that is the internet. I must also make a reminder towards Eric McLuhan’s parallels of the traps of information communication technology as Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. But dammit, I love me some internet. It’s just such a strange feeling, like being duped by a shady, yet convincing salesperson. I know that I really don’t have control, in fact, everything I write, post, and look at the internet is all tracked, but then again…it’s all so easy. to. just. succumb.

“By analogy, the fact that virtual realities offer new information environments does not guarantee that people will use the information in better ways. It is just as likely that these new technologies will be used primarily to tell old stories – stories that reproduce, in high-tech guise, traditional narratives about the gendered, race-marked body” (132). Computer, you’ve seemed to trick me again. First, with the illusion of control thing, and now by telling me that the internet in fact is recycling narratives? We live in a binary narrative world with binary modes of thinking, with that in mind, it is ironic to share that early technological communication began with binary codes ie: 1 and o — very sexually symbolic of male and female if you ask me, thus metaphorically gendering technology.

Something else keeps coming to mind. Oh yes, something along the lines of: “I’m just a girl, computers are so confusing with all the gadgets and buttons. I’m scared I’m going to mess something up!” Without furthering this, I will on the surface let you come to your own conclusions of the computer, and hence the internet being gendered (can you guess…male?!).

“Cyberspace and race are both constructed cultural phenomena, not products of ‘nature’; they are made up of ongoing processes of definition, performance, enactment, and identity creation” (10). While the notion of anonymity is thought to be present online, why should race, or gender, or able-ism, or any ism, or if you’re a dog, matter? Gender and race is naturalized and normalized, produced and reproduced, and has taken over technology. That is all.

I’m watching you…

Part of my argument in my research is the notion that social media is an institution. Enter French Philosopher Michel Foucault:

Cute lil guy don’t you think?

He elaborates on the idea of the panopticon… “A pan-o-what-a?!” you say? Before you question my research and start asking me whether I’ve seen a frying pan transform into some kind of Optimus Prime, I will expand. The panopticon originally stemmed from Jeremy Bentham – mostly from the behaviours of prison and the idea of surveillance. Foucault, furthers Bentham’s theory and in short, the idea behind the panopticon is about power, discipline, and regulation. Specifically, it is an omniscient quality that asserts an invisible power by ordering and structuring social regulation. As such, we at the individual level are ordered at a social level, which ultimately infiltrates into the regulation of our morals. A set of unspoken-but-agreed-upon rules that govern us into cordial, civil social subjects amongst each other.

An example of the theory of the panopticon could be the school setting. For the most part, we know that when the bell rings, we know to make our way to the classroom. But how do we know to do this? Yes, because it’s the rule. But we follow this rule by taking the social cue that everyone else is doing it too. We have a choice to be late, or not go. But, we also know there are consequences to those options because we are governed into knowing these possibilities. Hence, we are socially regulated to go to class when the bell rings, and morally regulated to go knowing the repercussions if we don’t ,or are tardy. Psychology lovers out there, I’m guessing you’ll compare this to the idea of classical conditioning. What I take from the panopticon, is the notion that we get autonomy by conducting ourselves in orderly fashion and creating a sense of cohesion, but also keeping us in check so that one person doesn’t get too carried away towards a free-for-all-every-man-for-himself idea.

As I tie this into my research, I am suggesting that social media serves as a panopticon. Social media as the institution, and us users are the police and watch-dogs of each other. As I creep someone’s profile, I am making judgements of what they post, how they look in their pictures, what they say, and so forth. Should they make a mistake (an honest misstep to a massive faux-pas) I might be inclined to step in to correct said action. Notice that there’s always someone who’s taking stealth photos of someone dressed highly inappropriately, ready to post on their page to comment, remark, laugh? Or felt the need to take a picture of someone who ticked you off somewhere in public, then share and vent to your online friends?

I debated this with my boyfriend the other day. He at first didn’t seem too concerned as his argument was that people will always make comments, remarks and criticisms. And yes, while we seem quick to judge and harp on someone over a forum or comments section, it is easier as we can hide behind the computer screen. I agreed, but then pointed out that while I have laughed at a friend’s Instagram post at a stranger’s expense, I also am uneasy with the idea that perchance there could be some photo of me online somewhere with derogatory and harsh captions because I shoved someone down the stairs (this NEVER happened!), when it was a circumstance of a very packed stairwell and I nudged past them. There’s always two sides to a story.

With the accessibility of the internet and social media, we all seem to feel the need to point these occurrences out online and call someone out on their action and criticize. To a point, we are asserting our power and discipline, and taking social regulation to a whole new level. But ever thought about the moral aspect of it? We are after all, violating someone’s privacy rights by taking their picture without their knowing.

Whether I care about your actions or not, I am at the end of the day, watching your every move.