Sherry Turkle once proposed a question about interactions on the web asking if it were only a “shallow game” or an “expression of identity crisis” (Turkle, 1995, p.180). In this entry I will be analysing several blogging websites and online social communities in an abstract manner by referring to the social expectations and representations of the self rather than their aesthetic values. I will also look at the ethical implications of having a fragmented identity and certain behaviours I have observed online.
Is decentralisation simply a fantasy? Turkle argues that the “Utopian discourse about decentralisation has come into vogue” (Turkle, 1995, p.177) stating that identity online has many different faces. However to what extent is this true? There are many idealistic theories about the internet being a place of total freedom, and yet the more deeply involved any one person becomes with the internet the more aware they become of the fact that there are as many social expectations put in place within online communities as there are offline.
Within the blogging community – the prime focus of this entry – there are many different circles which abide by certain norms in order to gain acceptance or ‘comments’. This includes some blogs which I personally visit as well as my own. What makes them interesting is that they are relatively successful blogs on a personal level since they do not offer a service but a certain quality of reading. Turkle briefly mentions McLuhan’s idea of people trying to “retribalise” (Turkle, 1995, p.178) within the digital social sphere. This seems to accurately depict the behaviours of certain online circles whereby bloggers can only pertain to a clique should they meet the standards enforced by it. These norms can range from the fairly achievable to breaking what would be normally perceived as convention.
So what is the normal behaviour within these social circles? There are many conventions within online social groups that correlate with tribal mannerisms. From my observations it could even be said that sometimes these groups resemble gangs, although to a less violent extent. Verbal conflict is imminent between different groups often due to different perceptions of what is acceptable within the blogging community. This creates a sense of elitism amongst groups probably as an attempt “to be respected as a member of a community, and, even more so, as an authoritative figure.” (Castells, 2001, p.40).
Castells wrote about many different categories of internet users, one being the “techno-elites” (Castells, 2001, p.39) and although he was referring to the academic portion of users online, the elitism trend extends far outside this specific group. It could be said that these online cliques which exercise such practices are just reflections of how offline social groups behave, however often these behaviours are not just confined to users who solely believe in advocating popularity games. They apply to most and if not all online communities relating back to how these groups can appear tribal and even ‘gang-like’.
I have observed many of these specific behaviours amongst my own blogging circle. The standard behaviour is not only to fulfil the criteria of blogging about topics of interest, but also to have a considered approach to coding and design. Compliant designing and valid coding are accepted whereas those which are not are subject to harsh criticism. Whilst the aim of this behaviour is done in good will whereby the blog site is optimised for web use, it is superfluous to the natural intention of a blog and therefore slightly perplexing. Just as Castells states, these communities create their own “social forms, processes, and uses” (Castells, 2001, p.53), and just as in offline social circles these conventions don’t have to necessarily be relevant, just implied and adhered to.
This leads me onto my next point concerning the terminology ‘netiquette’ and what it entails. From the moment we log onto the internet we are already bound by social norms. Even communities dedicated to unorthodox or extremist interests expect those that participate within it to share that interest and express it appropriately. Within the blogging community netiquette means upholding a common ground of ethics or morals, and the risk of overstepping the line can mean subsequent rebuttal from even the most loyal of readers. It’s a fickle business maintaining a steady audience and even more so if bloggers insist on “cycling though many selves” (Turkle, 1995, p.178). Consistency is what keeps readers grounded within this culture on the internet.
Personal blogging can be seen as an exploration of the self, allowing bloggers to have more freedom in what they write. Turkle mentions Lacan whom explains how the “ego is an illusion” and that any one identity is not merely set but a “realm of discourse” (Turkle, 1995, p.178). Arguably personal blogging is simply a form of narcissism whereby an individual believes their personal as opposed to intellectually informed thoughts are of such importance that they warrant publishing for a mass audience. The goal to achieve ‘comments’ through egotistical blogging in itself has a set of social restraints; will a subscriber feel deceived if a blogger decides to cycle through personality changes in order to achieve social status online? Should a blogger become too cryptic by cycling through the many faces of their identity they risk alienating their audience and ultimately loosing sight of their goal to obtain readership.
Muggleton et al. states that the internet is “no more a singular culture without boundaries than is society off the screen” (Muggleton et al., 2003, p.288) which is probably the key point this essay is striving to prove; and the essence of the uniformity that readers crave when they subscribe to a blog. However it’s difficult to compare the blogging community and its culture to the examples given by Muggleton et al., who studied gothic subcultures on the web (Muggleton et al., 2003, p.293).
They do share some similarities in that they both hold specific values and expect their members to abide by them. However the gothic community is one that existed prior to widespread web use and probably only translates to the internet “as an extension of ‘life as it is’” (Muggleton et al., 2003, p.296). Blogging operates on a similar note often reflecting the life and interests of the author; however the circle of users it creates is one very dissimilar to any community that is created to reinforce an offline lifestyle. Blogging status and circles don’t always translate into offline life, as the users can spring from various cultural backgrounds and have very different tastes and views to the blogger in question; linking them only in a digital sense rather than by set interests.
For example, Muggleton et al. argues that although users have the “technical potential to explore” they do not always do so since they would much rather explore specific interests (Muggleton et al., 2003, p.288). However users move through blogging communities much more sporadically. They cycle through blog rolls – links listed as a sign of affiliation to other blogs – and links left by the author which are relative to post subjects. The user cycling through these links creates hypertrails, which in turn influences their identity on the web. Each destination requires a reaction to information – whether it is rejection for lacking norms set by their community, or acceptance.
These hypertrails are woven to create a sense of belonging. Whilst travelling a user will often network and ‘comment’ in order to receive ‘comments’ themselves, reaffirm their views or extend their identity. This expands the blogging circle via a natural selection. Anyone outside this circle of expectations can be acceptably reprimanded. Arguably this can be related back to Muggleton et al.’s idea of users limiting themselves especially within blogging circles that are very exclusive; however whilst each blog may contain a set of standards that comply with the community they consider themselves a part of, they do not always have mutual interests, writing styles or lifestyles. On any one journey through a network of blogs a user may find themselves exploring themes they did not anticipate, throwing them outside their usual circle of interests whilst still maintaining the comforts of their blogging clique.
Referring to an earlier point, is having a multiplied identity something that is dishonest to those who perceive it? Offline we all have different social groups and perhaps behave slightly differently within each of them however these are not the attributes of someone who is fraudulent and untrue to themselves. This analogy can be applied to different personality shifts on the internet however online these shifts can be much more dramatic - for example something as confusing as switching genders. With the innovation of tabbed browsing one person can be many different representations of their self in one sitting. Users who have visited my blog and commented on entries relating to this subject find this both normal and unsettling in varying degrees.
Turkle spoke with an IRC user – whom whilst being a considerably different breed to bloggers, is still a relevant example – who saw life as “one more IRC channel” and confessed to being “addicted to flux” (Turkle, 1995, p.179). Whilst it’s not right per se to generalise the entire online population with the thoughts of one person, it’s safe to say that most users think similarly and thus shows that users are very aware of their identity changing as they skip from one digital space to another. Comments readers have left me correlate with this way of thinking, often with readers stating that “it’s just a different aspect of your personality” or that people are naturally “social chameleons” (Behave!, 2007). However some readers have expressed insecurities in befriending a person who feigns whom they are online for fear of being exposed themselves.
So far I’ve only addressed the complications of forming an identity within the blogosphere which only makes up a percentage of internet users. The focus will now drift to some of the most intuitive websites primarily for social networking – namely MySpace and Facebook. Castells states that “social production is socially informed” (Castells, 2001, p.37) and it could not be truer in an environment like MySpace or Facebook where everything is shaped to appeal to the user’s interests. Unfortunately what Castells did not foresee was the evolution of open source communities such as Facebook whereby the user shapes the content, as he states that “recipients… do not interact directly with the development of the internet” (Castells, 2001, p.36). MySpace, whilst increasingly popular, simply cannot rival the level of customisation Facebook contains. Users can create pages that define their personality. Which aspect of their personality must they encompass in order to comply with the convention of the community?
In the instance of MySpace and Facebook users find that it is a much more controlled environment. Users can create private profiles should they wish to so that only those they approve can view it – it is a means of communication rather than self publication such as in a blog. Networking happens through a series of events and not usually at random. Befriending someone on these communities requires some sort of common ground such as being past schoolmates, friends and acquaintances from offline settings and so forth since people are usually found from having their full name searched and not an alias.
This creates a much more rigid setting for its users who now have to cater to a multitude of social circles which most likely play an active part in offline life too. The chance to experiment openly with identity is dimmed considerably on these sites although they open up the opportunity to socialise in new ways with friends. However, it could be argued that due to the nature of the setting in which Facebook and MySpace operate, users can construct an identity which could be considered acceptable by others. A person can disclose information about themselves on screen that would otherwise not be seen in an offline setting, for example by listing favourite bands, wish lists, photos, personal quizzes, adding particular friends and so forth. These formulated identities can then make the user appear as they want to their friends even if they are acquainted in an offline setting.
Is the pick and mix lifestyle shown on personal profiles part of a false identity if it isn’t showing the whole picture? All identities represented on the internet tend to be formed through a selective process, often done so to reinforce personal tastes in offline settings. Much like in the blogging community, identities formed on social networking websites don’t betray the individual totally, even if they feel they have reinvented their persona to appeal to their social circle.
So what would happen if an online community had no boundaries? Total anarchy on the web seems to be a false ideology in practice. Muggleton et al. quotes Poster in that users on the web are “liberated from the markers and boundaries associated with social life” (Muggleton et al, 2003, p.286) however even in instances where there is no authority, ‘tribal leader’ or proclaimed ideals of freedom there is still a form and structure that users must abide by. On the notorious 4Chan message boards – deviating from the blogging community for the sake of this argument – there is no authority or same set of standards that are usually present on other message boards. However users are expected to resort to the childish, crude and fundamentally insane behaviour that is practised on there or face refutation from the established members. It’s curious how even communities that represent abstractions of social norms expect certain behaviours.
To summarise there is much that is yet to be learnt about how individuals function on the internet. I am inclined towards post modern views that we are decentralised and exist by cycling through many representations of the self, however I also acknowledge that there are just as many social restrictions on the internet as there are offline. It could even be said that these norms are exercised much more rigorously online as those enforcing them do not have to face the same repercussions as one would in an offline setting.
So how do social expectations impact us on the internet in an offline sense? Are we the same on and off screen – a symbiotic metaphor of post modernist views made physical? Or are these behaviours instincts that are pre-programmed from previous experiences offline through exercising interests and lifestyles? It’s difficult to say as any individual’s thought pattern whilst socially networking through digital spaces is as erratic as the next, flitting from one purpose to another, exchanging identities and forming steady niches for others to identify with.
The internet is evolving quickly, forming new communities and reinventing ways for people to communicate. It’s seeping out into everyday life through intuitive devices like the I-Phone, wi-fi enabled laptops, touch screen kiosks and wi-fi hot spots – it begs the question who are we and where does the blurred line between offline and online representation become clear? Or has the line been eradicated altogether?
Turkle, S. (1995) Life on the Screen. Simon & Schuster Inc.
Muggleton, D. & Weinzierl, R. (2003) The Post-Subcultures Reader. Berg Publishers Ltd.
Castells, M. (2001) The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. Oxford University Press
Behave! (2007) Last retrieved January 9th, 2008 from http://www.hey-girl.org/2007/12/03/behave/
This entry is an adapted version of an essay written originally for a unit specialised in cultural contexts for communications within my current university course. It achieved a first.
Comments are offAs you sit here looking blankly at the screen, scratching your ear in the hopes that dislodging that rather large piece of earwax will increase the capabilities of your auditory perceptions and never contemplating the fact that one day you will die and your life will have been wasted spending one too many brain dead hours in front of a luminous screen - where was I? - as you sit here looking blankly at the screen you are being robbed of your creativity.
One might argue how can that be possible with the amount of creative galleries we have, the countless people who have beautiful and perfect websites. We now have standards, accessibility to consider, web 2.0 coming out of every orifice and lovely brain dead self-proclaimed creative folk to harp on about it. How very quaint.
At the risk of sounding pretentious I love going to museums and art galleries because those places offer me something which I can make a visual connection with - something to challenge my perceptions and my intellect. The internet is not so different - this particular designer believes it’s a postmodern wonderland with dynamite potential. So why have we suddenly halted when it comes to creative endeavour online?
It seems that the rules in motion do not believe in websites that behave as a challenge to the user whether that be through distorting conventions of spatial awareness within digital spaces or redefining aesthetics in a way that doesn’t have to be confined to a digital screen.
So does that mean if a link ain’t blue with an underline, then it isn’t a link? Hypertrails can’t be sporadic intellectual journey’s - they have to be so simple so that even an earthworm with Down’s can navigate from one page to another. Great, exactly the demographic I’m sure thousands are striving for. Very good and well for bloggers (whom which sit on the most inane end of internet usage - come on guys we can’t deny it, we’re a waste of web space) but it breaks my heart when I see websites dedicated to design and art regurgitating the same shit over and over.
Quite frankly I grow weary of others defending my rights as an astigmatic, extremely long-sighted person because I’m also intelligent, resourceful and capable of navigating the internet without additional assistance - I think I should also mention I feel incredibly patronised when my ability to surf the web comes into questioning simply over the matter of my eyesight being far below normal standards. Putting standards in place to make the internet easier is simply robbing it of its potential.
Not to say that all aspects of the internet should not be accessible for all, but why can’t some of it be exclusive in the same way that art can be exclusive to those with different perceptions? That’s the sort of thinking that allows the internet to advance rather than to stagnate like Jakob Nielson would have it. I also believe that good design is born from a marriage of creativity within limitations - however what limitations are there in an environment that is seemingly boundless?
Comments are offIt’s pretty obvious there are some damned angry people on the internet - after all I consider myself one of them. Despite this I feel I can control my actions more on the internet since I have to physically consider what I am going to type long after I’ve thought it. So to all those angry people out there here is a guide on how to be less impulsive, and learn how to control your goddamn emotions online.
When you come across something that annoys you think through the reasons why. Anything that annoys you because it is a profound or controversial statement that speaks to your intellect and ethics is something worth responding to because your anger is channelled into something you’re passionate about. Anything posted with the intention of not being controversial should remain that way even if it doesn’t appease to your sentiments.
Keeping your trap shut isn’t a sign of weakness for not speaking your mind. Keeping the peace by not commenting on every inane situation that arises takes a lot of self control, which is a pretty important characteristic in any person who values their emotional self worth. Be creative about releasing your anger - don’t just blurt out everything that crosses your mind.
Be wary of sounding pedantic and taking things too personally. How many times have I stumbled upon an argument when suddenly someone tries to bitch slap someone with the ‘poor grammar and spelling’ shtick? Or the amount of debates that suddenly turn into arguments compromising of the the phrases ‘I think’, etcetera. These are just gateways to tedious dramas which make all parties look like fools who are getting carried away.
Saying you are just as much as an arse in real life doesn’t justify unwarranted anger. This is probably the dumbest trump card I’ve ever seen to justify rude behaviour. If you aren’t civilised enough to practice common social ethics both on and off the internet, then you should refrain from interacting with other people until you can control yourself. It’s not emotionally healthy to be angry at everyone - I’ve been there and I’m sure many of you can relate.
Sarcasm is difficult to detect online unless it’s extremely obvious. I tend to be less sarcastic online for this very reason - most times people interpret it very differently to what I intended. Being angry with someone for skimming over sarcasm is hardly justified, so cut the crap and say what you mean in order to avoid frustration.
Lastly but most importantly - don’t antagonise others for no greater purpose than your own amusement. This one is incredibly blatant so it irks me when I see it rise up time and time again. Ah well, every community has their local friendly wanker. Mine in real life is the neighbours. Everyone else thinks it’s me.
For those of you who found this article to be laced with traces of arrogance (and maybe a little bit of irony :)), remember no one loves ya’ll like I do. As such here’s a gift - my finger. Use it wisely. Peace out!
Comments are offPlease bear with me whilst I go all Sherry Turkle on your asses. It’s to be expected I suppose, I am a great enthusiast of online identity and post modernism. I also like piña colada’s and getting caught in the rain. I don’t like yoga. I digress from my original point.
The other day I was coming up with essay titles for one of my units at university, and the one that interested me most was ‘how are we expected to behave online’? Long gone are the early days of the internet where hippies sat around toking and claiming how the internet was freedom, peace and love. We all very well know that there are as many social expectations online as there are offline even if we aren’t confined to a single identity.
Within the blogging community I somewhat consider myself a part of I’d say a few people would expect me to have a sensible design with somewhat intelligent or original content - despite the fact that I am a blogging vegetable. Were I to use 8PT text and post about how Chad looked at me in the mall then I’d fall into a completely different circle. I’m not expressing a preference because I’ve never cared about being within particular social circles but stay with me, there is a method in my madness.
How do people fall within different cliques on the internet and what do they do to maintain that status? I don’t just mean within the blogging community either, since bloggers are just a percentage of internet users online. There are also online communities which demand a higher level of involvement, and IRC which can be just as fast paced or even quicker than having a conversation offline.
This would lead to suggest that should any one individual sit inside more than one social circle online then they will behave very differently in each one. I appreciate that this can sometimes be the same in real life, but to what extent? I admit to behaving slightly differently towards different people and different social groups in real life, however I don’t think I vary from person to person as dramatically as one can online.
For example, the same person can be part of a sweet bubbly community such as the Quilting Bee and at the same time be a compulsive gambler on a bingo website. Or maybe they’re taking the piss out of someone online via a review, and emailing their grandparents a friendly e-card. Thanks to tabbed navigation these things can also take place simultaneously, with said individual switching their personality at the click of a button.
Going back to the social thing, perhaps this is a bit extreme but I consider online social groups to be almost like gangs. They exhibit some behaviours associated with gang culture. Most social groups I’ve seen have a ring leader of some sort whom everyone respects or at least fears to some extent. This is often gained through intimidation and threats. Of course I hardly see online social groups going out to knife opposing gangs. Arguably that sort of thing takes place with words in place of weapons. Or maybe I’ve been listening to too much Fall Out Boy.
This might be asking too much since I know not everyone is willing to disclose their personal happenings on the internet for different reasons, but how differently do you behave within different circles on the internet? What are the expectations for acceptable behaviour within these circles? What would happen if you acted outside these norms? Would it concern your friends or would it cause you to be outcast and accepted by a different group?
Comments are offI’m pretty sure most of my visitors are aware of accessibility and think about designing for web users who do not have the means to navigate as the majority would. Those would be ethical issues surrounding end user necessities, something all good designers consider. So what about client end ethical issues? What happens when a company that is morally unsound asks for work?
If Coca Cola asked you to make them a website for a substantial amount of money would you do it? Coca Cola are notorious for their infringements on human rights, so by designing them an identity which essentially lies to the consumer are we as designers endorsing the mal treatment of other people? Would designing a website for a company like BP be a strike against consideration for climate change?
Designers seem to be increasingly worried about these issues surrounding the evils of capitalism, as made apparent in the First Things First Manifesto of 2000. Personally, I think this is all a pretentious crock of shit. It’s very easy to take a moral stand point and refuse to work for a company that harms the environment, uses sweat shops or removes the beaks of chickens - but what of it? What does refusing work accomplish? Maybe they ought to teach those Burmese monks a lesson in humility.
Any work that is offered by a money hungry company that is declined by some morally upright designer is going to be taken up by another designer who doesn’t care. In the end by not doing work, nothing is done to stop the dumping of toxic waste in third world countries. If these designers actually cared about ethical issues then why are they sat around writing manifestos? Why don’t they get off their fat asses and do something about it against all adversities instead of just pretending that they care by protesting mildly from the comfort of their homes?
If these designers actually want change they’ll have to do more than stick their noses up at the capitalist society that pays their bills and groceries. By saying they hate capitalism they are delving into hypocrisy. The only way to resolve that is by renouncing everything corporate and trying to get the Feudal system to become popular again.
The medium is the message and nothing more but a message by which a reaction is provoked by the intensity of the medium. The only thing that inspires change is being proactive and informing the masses by doing something that will physically invoke change, such as going out and actually helping other people whose lives have been affected negatively by global corporations. Designing a few images about how mean capitalism is will just get lost in a sea of visual stimuli and hyper aesthetics.
I for one refuse to lie. I’m going to be 100% honest and open about myself and I’m not going to take the moral high point to make myself appear better than others for pretending to give a hoot. If a company that kills rare species of whales for profit asked me to do some design work for them, you bet I would take it up. I don’t necessarily agree with it but work is work and contrary to popular belief designers do have to eat at regular intervals.
Call me selfish, but I’d prefer to live a comfortable (as opposed to poor or exuberant) existence whereby I don’t have to worry about heaps of debt and antagonise my nervous disposition. Perhaps any money I might have left over will go to a charity that gives headless, legless, armless children goats, or some other worthy cause.
Just because I don’t care doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate change. Good for Greenpeace. Good for Oxfam. Good for all those other organisations which actively participate in ways to change things for the better. I for one am not one of those people which I’ll admit is a crying shame. However I’m not going to parade how concious I am of moral issues and how I help others by refusing design work, and I’m not going to pretend that I’m an almighty enforcer of ethics when I can’t afford it.
Comments are offSmall edit: My e-mail is not working (lilian@hey-girl.org). Please use my contact form or intoSPAMframe@yahoo.co.uk (remove the SPAM!!). Cheers.
Ba, ba, ba, ba baaa… OK, maybe I shouldn’t spoof Duran Duran in my blog titles. I get the feeling this is going to be a sensitive topic especially with “environmentally concious” celebrities like Al Gore and Madonna running loose trying to preach their hypocrisy, therefore I will start on a light note.
My name is Lilian, and I am an alcoholic. However I want to talk about Catherine who isn’t an alcoholic - or at least I assume so since she looks about a hundred times more sensible than I am. Here’s an excerpt from her comment on this entry when asked who she has a crush on who is non-human: “Andalites can turn into humans, so yeah.” All my memories of the Andalite Chronicles came flooding back alongside repressed memories of my total and complete infatuation with the alien character Elfangor. Don’t you dare tell me he isn’t a sexy alien, you might just send all my dreams crashing. Comments on his ‘irregular’ nose are not welcome on this blog, thank you very much.
Now I’ve whittled out everyone who is easily offended I’ll carry on with my topic which is why I hate the environment (and not why I hate planet Earth and prefer fictional aliens in comparison). Last Friday I was approached by a greasy looking guy in Greenpeace who tried to coax me into joining his cause. It was then I realised that I was wearing shorts and sunglasses in September and therefore I had to decline. The following is my more comprehensive list of why I don’t want to save the Earth, whale or unicorn.
So I’m narrow minded, set in my ways and totally and utterly careless. There’s a whole lot of people out there fighting the good fight for our planet (which will most likely outlive us and never give a toss) but I personally believe in the same things my friend Tim does. Self preservation and meat.
Comments are off Subscribe