Are the boundaries between the ‘cyber world’ and ‘reality’ merging together through social networking, blogging sites and virtual worlds, or is the ‘virtual self’ a harmless alter-ego which we create and operate in a ‘public sphere’ that is completely separate to our ‘private life’?
My experiences with new media technologies have been useful in opening my eyes to a whole ‘other’ world, which can be used with relevance to ‘real life’, both professionally and socially. The ‘blogging’ and ‘social network’ phenomenon is a critically assessed publishing tool for anyone wishing to create content. It has been my personal experience that neither was harmful, nor have they particularly influenced what is my ‘private life’.
However, careful to not fall into the category of a narcissist, in this essay I will look beyond my personal experience. I will aim to look at blogging sites, social networking sites, and virtual worlds like second life, and discuss the impact of these in the ‘real world’.
The virtual self by definition is “a person who spends a good deal of time online and working with computers and who acquires identity from this activity, which is removed from an everyday reality in which people interact with each-other face to face. The virtual self experiences the world through the screen. ” (Agger, 2004).
In Ben Agger’s (2004) book, ‘The Virtual self’ he suggests that what people do online is a reflection of themselves, which alters their ‘real’ identity.
‘Facebook’ for example is a social network which is supposedly founded on connecting ‘real people’. I use it to communicate with friends who are my friends in real life, and share photos and videos. I do not use it to talk to strangers, although albeit there are a few who have slipped through the ‘net’. ‘Facebook’ in comparison to ‘Myspace is considered a safe forum, because user profiles are private unless you have been accepted as a ‘friend’ and therefore authorised to access their information. The user controls what they would like to share and what they wouldn’t. At least that’s what we believe.
Social networking sites allow us to create our own profile, under the assumption that you are who you say you are. Although all my personal information on Facebook is true, and content I share is true, I have controlled everything about it. People only learn what I want them to learn, and therefore it is a fair argument to say that there is a line drawn between virtual communities and reality still, but not necessarily a line that stops cyber actions spilling over into real life. As Erving Goffman (1959) described, how you present yourself in appearance, speech and intelligence will help another individual to define the situation, “enabling others to know in advance what he will expect of them and what they may expect of him”. However if according to Goffman, overall presentation is derived from other senses such as speech, then the internet is disadvantaged. It cannot incorporate all five senses, which the human body relies on to identify objects and people. This inevitably categorizes it as ‘cyber’, separate from what is ‘real’. Although as technologies become more advanced, users are able to incorporate different Medias which form the overall presentation of self, (Van Doorns, Van Zoonen, and Wyatt (2007). For example, my blog uses video, images, and hyperlinks to create an overall ‘image’; it does not only rely on text content.
The key difference between an ‘online identity’ and your ‘real’ self is noted by blogger Drogas roua. She says that consistency is a key component in the solidity of online identity. “The only thing by which you are known is what you say and do about yourself. If you change course just a little bit, your identity will be skewed.” When compared with ‘real life rules’, Drogas said consistency was not as important. For example you can change your job but it is still you. You don’t lose identity if you change your message. This ‘theory’ is also relevant to my blogging Identity, for when I moved out of the building, I lost that identity. As an aspect of my life changed, my ability to create online content honestly, ceased.
As well as blogging sites, users are able to produce content which influences the perceptions other people might have about your ‘online identity’. This is called impression management. In the case of my ‘online identity’, a building, I was not consciously trying to control people’s perceptions, but in reflection, this is exactly what I have done. I have given character descriptions of the tenants (true to life) which don’t leave opportunity for the reader to make their own judgement. Despite my identity being fictional, I am still leaving tracks that reflect the ‘real me’. No matter what narrative I have employed, I have still used my own personal writing skills, humour and experiences to create content. Therefore in this sense there are elements of reality and ‘self’ in my form of blogging. Blogging is an aspect of the evolution from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, it is accessible to anyone. Blogs have a readership of thousands or zero, with users shifting from merely publication to participation. (O’Reilly, 2007)
The internet, although a wonderful source of knowledge and entertainment, is not without its faults. As long as human nature prevails and has some control over online content, there will always be a risk when using it. In ‘psychology and the internet’ Adam Joinson suggested that communicating using computers leads to negative disinhibited behaviour which results from reduced social cues, reduced social presence and reduced public self-awareness. These theories are listed as the effects of computer mediated communication (CMC), and are believed to “lead to criminal activity as internet based behaviour transfers itself to real life.” (Joinson, 1999). These social effects mean that heavy users lose the ability to recognise between what is real and what is not; they would likely lack social skills because of limited direct and indirect channels of communication.
Pro-activity in social networking is a common advantage which allows users to amplify their message, without breaking subconscious behaviour ‘rules’. For example I might declare to 500 people on Facebook that I believe in Aliens, and I won’t have to worry about being sent to a mental home. If I stood in a public space and declared the same thing to 500 people, (which in real life I would never have the courage to do) I would be concerned about people’s judgements and responses. ‘Joinson’ argues in a similar way, that because there are rarely repercussions from internet abuse, some users are encouraged to use the net as a forum for airing their resentments in a blatantly uninhibited manner. This is a definitive factor behind cyber bullying, a common theme running between social networking sites. It is easy to say cyber activity doesn’t translate into real life activity but the proof and the victims are there to say it does. In a high profile case in 2006, Megan Meier, a thirteen year old school girl was alleged to have killed herself after an internet hoax spiralled out of control on Myspace. Cyber bullying is a very serious issue; with a Youth survey from the Sydney Morning Herald in 2008 stating that 22 percent of Australian users aged 15-20 had been harassed or bullied online. In February 2009, reports were released that Facebook was housing thousands of convicted sex offenders, and there was a case involving an 18 yr old man who had been masquerading as a high-school girl, flirting with underage boys and convincing them to send nude photographs of themselves, he later went on to use the photographs to blackmail them into performing sexual acts with him. (Kincaid, 2009). Since then, Facebook have lost their squeaky clean image of being a safe haven for internet users, because with over 150 million members, it is difficult to sift out all the ‘bad guys’. In this way, the internet relies on real people to be aware of their ‘cyber’ surroundings, they have to merge together collectively. Social networking is still a fragile medium; the rules are to a minimum level. This is why this medium is still so vulnerable to various infectious factors, like identity theft. As long as the net has these ‘loose’ rules, the user has to be the strong factor.
John Campbell claimed that “online and offline experiences blend into single, albeit multifaceted, narratives of life” (Campbell 2004). To me, this reinforces my belief that the cyber and the real are already merged. Although having said that, there are extents to this belief which depend on the subjected technology. Second Life for example, appears to be a separate ‘world’ altogether.
Second Life is a virtual world which for the six years it has existed has seemed a well kept secret. From personal experience it has failed to grow beyond the expectations of an animated 3D chat room. My cautious approach towards Second Life is because I don’t consider it real. I am suspicious of its highly fictitious foundations, its ‘avatars’ who wear butterfly wings or ‘Darth Vader’ suits and parade around on Sydney harbour. It all seems just one step to far in terms of ‘liberating’ technology. However, in principle, it is no different than blog sites or social networks. The user builds their ‘avatar’ based around the identity they want to portray, they can share videos, images and other personal web pages with other avatars. It is a virtual community and 3D world which is almost entirely built and influenced by the people who use it. Amazingly, it has become a business for some who invest in ‘virtual real estate’ (among other things) and are able to translate the ‘linden dollar’ into real money. However, unlike Facebook, there doesn’t seem to be much interest in face to face communication beyond the realms of the virtual community. Tom Boellstorff, in his field work on Second Life, noted that many residents did not wish to meet other residents in the actual world because it would “shatter the illusion”. Residents of SL come from all over the ‘actual’ world, therefore any ‘real’ socialising for more than a handful is impossible. Despite this, there is a known tradition for communities to get together for face-to-face meetings, (Taylor, 2002) and this has resulted in cases of real world weddings resulting from second life romances. (Boellstorff,pp.200).
Second life shares the same issues as social networking sites. ‘Griefing’ as it is referred to, is similar to cyber-bullying and disinhibition as discussed earlier. The ability to keep actual-world identity secret; the ability to create groups bringing together people with shared interests who might never meet in the actual world; the ability to save, edit, and forward the communications of others; and the difficulty of knowing the size of ones audience. (Carnevale and Probst, 1997) sometimes empowers people to “shoot and run”, as one resident on Second Life put it. (Boellstorff, pp.187). Sexual harassment, stalking, rape and murder have been recorded on Second Life, all virtual of course, but nevertheless they have caused ‘harm’ to the user, not necessarily physically, but either mentally or financially. The offenders believe that they cannot be held accountable for their actions in the real world; the anonymity makes it easier for them to treat other players impersonally, as other than real people. (Curtis, 1992).
To conclude on what has been an exciting experience, both in reality and virtually, I come back to my essay question. The cyber world and reality is as such dependant on each other. It is difficult to distinguish between what is more or less real between social networks and virtual worlds because they both have elements of anonymity but also reliance on the user. The cyber world draws upon cultural assumptions and social norms from the actual world, and so in this context it can be said they merge. However, as I have pointed out, the very ‘illusional’ aspects of the internet work to keep users under a false pretence that they are anonymous if they choose to be so. This results in ‘real’ harm to ‘real’ people, which there is no justice system for because the internet is still so new and evolving that the ‘rules’ are merely guidelines for good ethics and morals.
REFERENCES:
Agger, Ben. 2004. ‘The Virtual Self. ‘A contemporary Sociology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Oxford.
Goffman E, 1959, ‘The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life‘. Penguin Books, 1990.
Doorns, Niels van and Zoonen, Liesbet van and Wyatt, Sally 2007, ‘Writing from experience: Presentations of Gender Identity on Weblogs’. European Journal of Women’s Studies. Vol. 14, no. 2
Drogas Roua. 2006-2009. ‘Social Networking Versus Real Life Relationships’. ‘The choice of a personal path’. http://www.dragosroua.com/social-networking-versus-real-life-relationships
O’Reilly, 2007. What is Web 2.0? Cited in: Warschauer, Mark and Grimes, Douglas 2007, ‘Audience, Authorship and Artefact; The Emergent Semiotics of Web 2.0’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 27, p. 1.
Joinson, Adam. ‘Causes And Implications of Disinhibited Behaviour on the Internet’. Ch. 3. Cited in: Gackenback, Jayne, 1998. ‘Psychology and the internet’. ‘Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and transpersonal implications. Academic Press. California, USA.
The Sydney Morning Herald. May 2008. ‘Cyber bullying an issue for Australian youth, poll finds’ http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/05/09/1210131251440.html
Kincaid, Jason. February 8th 2009. ‘Wake Up Call: Facebook Isn’t A ‘Safe Haven’. www.techcrunch.com
Campbell, John, 2004. Cited in: Agger, Ben. 2004. ‘The Virtual Self. ‘A contemporary Sociology. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Oxford.
Boellstorff, Tom, 2008. ‘Coming of age in Second Life’. ‘An anthropologist Explores the virtually Human’. Princeton University press. Princeton and Oxford.
Taylor, T, L. 2002. ‘Living digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds’. ‘The social life of Avatars: Presence and interaction in shared virtual environments. Editted by Ralph Schroeder. Springer-Verlag, London.
Carnivale, Peter. Probst, Tahira, M, 1997. ‘Conflict on the internet’. ‘Culture of the internet’. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Curtis, P, 1992. Cited in: Boellstorff, Tom, 2008. ‘Coming of age in Second Life’. ‘An anthropologist Explores the virtually Human’. Princeton University press. Princeton and Oxford.
