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.

People, No Photos Please! Can’t Catch a Break…

In retrospect to a previous post of the artist Robert Williams and his painting Symbiotic Mediocrity, Young makes references to author Gary Shteyngart and his novel Super Sad True Love Story, and how the people in the novel walk around like living avatars. I picture us the same way thus reminding me of Robert Williams. Rather than seeing and identifying someone by their face, I see them through their social media profile.

To sum up Young, she states that “…the boundary between what we share online and what we keep private seems to be moving in one direction only, toward being more public…Perhaps you will start to look as if you have something to hide if you don’t want to be public” (p. 113). Furthermore, Young points out that we are “…now routinely encouraged to have well-curated online identities, even if that shiny, impersonal simulacrum of a self doesn’t really reflect the real you” (p. 113). Which I thought was interesting in how it plays into our lives. It seems that we are breeding, enabling, and promoting the idea that it’s okay to be fake, so long as you share something…anything, so that you don’t seem suspect to the masses that you might be hiding a secret.

This leads me into Steeves and the perception of privacy. She states that technology has enabled privacy to die. As we are in the habit and obsession of documenting everything, we leave “virtual tracks” which ultimately is surveillance without the intrusion. We are willingly letting outsiders monitor us. Think Google and Gmail, if you’re signed in, it tracks everything you look up. Yet Steeves also maintains a Foucauldian view that surveillance is needed as a means of regulation as it “…increases security, reduces crime, cuts costs, and fuels the information economy” (p. 342). BUT! She counters this view by saying that “The right to privacy is not about secrecy; it’s about autonomy” (p. 342). Thus, it’s not about keeping things tight-lipped and classified, but rather, it’s about the right to being our own beings as individuals with agency.

Hmm, what about Trudeau’s famous quote: “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. With technology, social media, and the internet, it HAS in a sense entered the bedroom. Only, things don’t seem so private anymore. Agree? Disagree?

To further our right to privacy and autonomy, Steeves argues that “Privacy, the right to be free from being watched, spied upon, and tested, is a human right because it is an essential part of human dignity and autonomy. Life without privacy makes it impossible to enjoy the dignity and freedom that human rights seek to protect” (346). However I can’t help but consider the circumstances of the internet and social media. On the one hand there’s the invisibility of “watchers” ie: media dogs that track us online such as Google. On the other hand are the masses, us as watchers of each other – the ease of photographing and videotaping with smartphones, posting on YouTube, you get the picture. No matter where we turn, big brother is watching, God is watching, Santa is watching, and we are watching. I can’t catch a break!

Steeves argues that information given “freely” online is too valuable as a market tool. Furthermore, the government and institutions will argue in favour and position that its beneficial to the public ie: crime reduction. Steeves also points out that while there are legislative practices that claim to protect privacy, there is a loophole. “Consent” has to be given to allow for the access of private information, but that consent is hidden as part of the agreement that allows us to use the service in the first place – it’s built into the package of signing up. So if we refuse consent then we can’t even use the service. This not only extends to online, but also with banks, employment etc. Yet, a lot of these services also have online applications like mobile cellular online banking. Which you need to sign in through email, or your Facebook, or your cell phone number. Ultimately, the bank (or whatever it is you signed up for) now has access to your email and phone information, and anything else you’ve “agreed” to.

Convenient, yes. Safe and sound, could be – although that’s up for debate. Feeling a little naked from leering eyes, that’s probably more like it. Thus, is there such a thing as privacy anymore?

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?

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.