I am intrigued with how Sherry Turkle and others have experimented with
different projections of self. Has anybody in this course done the same?
I am fascinated by the impact this may have on the development of identity. It challenges what I believe about identity (that it is steady, the constant or authentic self). I think I see identity or self as some kind of anchor that grounds me, or that I can return to. I am challenged by Sherry Turkle's suggestion that, "the self is no longer simply playing different roles in different settings at different times. The life practice of windows is that of a decentered self that exists in many worlds, that plays many roles at the same time."
I wonder what other people think about, "constructing new selves through social interaction," through on-line interactions?
Kathleen:
Marsh:
Jean Jantzen:
When we do look into this mirror (Internet) to find our identity, (do we
not have one?) do we see what is real or do we see just what we want to see?
If we are trustworthy, honest and moral in real life can we change that
when we enter a chat group?
Lizz Fransen:
Jean Jantzen:
She is not interested in what role the computer will play in the future but what
kind of people will we become? When I am sitting here
conversing with you I am not talking to people that are beside or physically near me. What
happens to our real life relationships as we spend more and more of our
time conversing with virtual communities?
If , on the other hand, our relationships with real people in real time and space are
unfulfilling will the chat groups fill that void?
Jean Jantzen:
Is it okay to play other roles such as gender switching, cross dressing,
or other things we wouldn't ordinarily do at home but will in
Cyberspace? Would we do it if people knew who we really were?
The questions remind me of those who travel to countries where no one knows them
and they proceed to act and do things they would never do at home( I
mean terrible things).
They would not get away with it at home. Does this mean this person is
a good person at home or does it mean he cannot get away with that type
of behaviour at home?
Constraints are good to have. These constraints help us to live decently
within a social framework. They keep us from hurting others. Tribal
communities had them just as we do today.
Why should we be able to cast off these restraints in Cyberspace. Is it
for the same reason we thought we could behave unrestainedly in another
country where we were unknown?
Let's say it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Is it good for us to throw off these restraints.
What affect does it have on our character?
Would we then want to do these things for real?
Marsh:
Some of them, yes.
"What affect does it have on our character?"
I felt that my potential character was bound up by expectations and
unnecessary restraints--not all restraints are unnecessary--and I hope I
am more honest, open, flexible, and spontaneous than I was as a younger
man. But maybe I'm just more opinionated and verbose! In any case, some
commentators are discussing how we can use the virtual communities of
the Net to explore the positive potentials of our character(s). Surely,
we can change and grow, maybe to become less selfish and more moral.
Isn't having an adaptive character a healthy attribute?
"Would we then want to do these things for real?"
Sure. Net = play/ground, where we can learn something useful for real
life (RL). Jean Jantzen:
Can anyone tell me how doing this will build character?
Turkle says in Who Am We that on-line interaction can become, "laboratories for the construction of identity."
. . . What happens when role-playing crosses over into real life? How do
we decipher the real from the unreal. What do they say-- "Will
the real me please stand up?" Kathleen O'Brien:
Perhaps there is a void in the place where humans used to be able to act out their
myths. Perhaps there is a tribal element in Cyberspace where in the glow of our monitors
we can dance and tell stories and wear a mask sometimes. It's not what I need right now,
but for some it may be a needed release. Marsh:
I hear what you and Kathleen are saying about authenticity,
honesty, and reality when it comes to character, and I don't feel any
contradiction with your wish that people be real and sincere. You can find
those values online from time to time, but maybe the discovery is more rare
than in face-to-face interaction. Anna Giannikos:
I think people want to be different, so they can escape their
every day life style. Some friends and I one time, went in some
type of chatroom. I can't remember the name. Well we had such
a blast. We made up a person with some characteristic from each
of us. You wouldn't believe the wackos we met. We couldn't
control ourselves from laughing the whole time. Finally, one
of our friends was in the same chatroom. After watching our
conversation with others, he knew it was us. So you can't always
hide your true identity. But it was fun while it lasted. Jean Jantzen:
Let's look at the example of Mr. Zindall who publishes hate literature
on the internet against the Jews.
My question is if we release feelings of hate and anger in this way do
we get rid of them or do we, in fact, increase our feelings of hate and
anger? Raymond:
Jean:
Tom:
Jean:
Raymond:
True, I doubt there is anyone in this world who is consistent with every
commitment he/she makes. However, I also doubt that there is anyone in
this world who doesn't STRIVE to be consistent. Marsh:
Kate:
Although I have been connected to the Net for a
couple of years I have not presented or
created any alternative personalities. In fact, yesterday. when signing onto a chat program, I felt I was in the midst of a moral dilemma
deciding whether or not to sign in as someone other than who I am. I
couldn't do it.
I find the idea of experimenting with identities at once intriguing and repulsive. The
imaginative possibilities of working with fiction are always exciting but in this medium
I feel relieved if I can feel safe about using my own name. So much of what goes on in
web communication is about concealing identity that when I found the conferencing site
at Cafe Utne it was comforting to be able to have a discussion with real people. There
seems to be a prevailing trend toward game playing on the web, a collaborative fantasy
creating an alternate world. Perhaps something positive could come of it. Maybe an
expansion of our ability to see eachother. At a masquerade there are always more
identities than bodies. But I feel I can breathe more easily without a mask.
Geez, I know it's late and I shouldn't be rambling on into the night like this,
but I'd just like to ask: When are we not experiementing with projections of
self? I periodically impress myself with some absolutely passionate
outburst--even on a computer--convinced that this is the one true authentic me.
Real flesh and blood. But who's making this reflection? In short, there often
seems to be at least two of me: the actor and the witness, both of them in the
vicinity of the stage, if not exactly on it. I've been able to resonate with
Sherry Turkle's work because she seems to suggest that communicating through
the window of a computer is somehow similar to a kind of constant
self-consciousness that I have a hard time shaking loose. Sometimes when making
music or its equivalent, perhaps. But it seems so easy to let identity slip
sideways just a little and there's another character! I'm intrigued by the idea
that identity has nomadic tendencies.
Marshall asked, "when are we not experimenting with projections of
self?" I suppose we always are but those projections are still us, still part
of our personality. How, pray tell, are we projections of some other identity?
I find that the people that I have met through the internet always
project a part of their self as they speak and act, whether they mean to
or not. I am not saying that there are not people who create different
characters to use when they are on-line. Most of the people I have met
make it obvious that they are in persona. If you get into an in-depth
conversation with them, you can find out their views and therefore what
type of person they are, even though they aren't acting completely as
themselves.
Sherry Turkle explains that the world has made us feel insecure and this
insecurity makes us preoccupied with the question of who we are. On
top of that she says we are "terrified of being alone". She argues we
are looking for a perfect society of two, "perfect friendship" and even
that is not possible on the internet. It still leaves the unanswered
question of who we are and where do we fit into the scheme of things?
Some other questions I couldn't help thinking about in connection with
identity:
Jean Jantzen asked, "Let's say it doesn't hurt anyone else. Is it good for us to throw off these restraints?"
I think that there are some communities on the net that are helpful and
serve a good purpose, but throwing off restraints, such as
cross-dressing and taking on the role of the opposite gender- is not going
to be useful or beneficial for real life.
Jean, I agree. Although I can see that there is something intriguing about trying out
different personae, real life as it translates in cyberspace can be even more
interesting. To me it is a luxury to conference in a safe (if virtual) environment with
people who are willing to have an honest discussion. I've learned a huge amount in the
short time I've been conferencing at Cafe Utne for instance. Perhaps real interactions are less glamourous.
I can't really respond from any experience of cross-dressing online, but I will
testify to how liberating it is when I allow myself to play with impulses which
don't conform to the definition I have of my self. I take Carl Jung's work as
an inspiration for this notion--I don't know whether it is objectively true or
false--that every human has both female and male archetypal characters in some
sort of dialogue / dance / war. As a person handed a set of expectations about
what it means to be a man, I find it a constant and helpful challenge to look
at the other side of the human equation.
Lizz Fransen wrote, "I don't understand why people would want to be
different than what they are."
My question is--would you want to meet these wackos face to face? When
you are acting this way would you want anyone to know who you are? I
would say that acting on a stage is one thing. People know for a fact
that you are acting. It is more difficult to detect in a chat group. It
is fun and healthy to have a good time and to release some of our
energies in positive ways. But what about the other side of the coin.
In my opinion, there is no release of anger
(or anything). Whenever we escape into the internet medium, we are,
not getting rid of these feelings at all. Rather by bringing the feelings
into the open and expressing them, through any medium, we are
actually committing ourselves to these beliefs.
I think you are absolutely right Raymond. According to Robert Cialdini
in, "The Psychology of Influence" he says, "whenever one takes a stand
that is visible to others, there arises a drive to maintain that stand
in order to look like a consistent person" and, "Public commitments tend
to be lasting commitments." In fact, he goes on to say that if we
publically commit ourselves we are more likely to follow through whether
for good or bad.
Cialdini must have written this before the advent of
electronic virtual stances OR without the benefit of having read Walt
Whitman who said, "Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict
myself: I am large; I contain multitudes." Personally, I have never met
a consistent person.
He never said the person was consistent. He said the person wanted to
look like a consistent person.
True, everyone contradicts themselves in some way, at some point in
their life. But they usually aren't aware of the contradiction(s).
While I agree with Tom (after Whitman) that we contain multitudes, and that Jean and Ray are correct in
emphasizing Cialdini's notion that we try to act in ways which appear consistent when we're *trying to
influence behaviour.* There's really no contradiction between these positions. The dialogue points out
an essential feature of identity: how we appear and how we are may be entirley different things. We may be
our own worst judges when it comes to the question of identity because of the way our psyches are
constructed to provide an illusion of consistency in an existence filled with many mysteries and lots of
change. The whole debate of Identity Online seems to be in partial response to the change in medium: with
the changing conditions, we need to reassess what it means to have this identity that we have gotten used
to, adopted, constructed, acted out, or been given. (You choose.)