Internet selves, I presume?
This is an examination of a part of myself that I would hardly have considered to be unlike the rest of my corporeal self if not for this opportunity to step back and discuss it: my online personae. My online identities are a set of digital masks that I put on and play "reality" with online, mostly unbeknownst to my real world identity. My Facebook self, my Twitter self, My Imgur self, and my true self have all distinguished themselves from each other in the slightest of manners, and I intend to explore why, and whether something should be done about it.
In a fortuitous moment of clarity, my online selves presented themselves for this inspection after an incident sparked their attention. My Twitter personality was appalled when it saw a Facebook style tweet sent out on Saturday October 19, 2013. My true personality, my real life self, looked at the tweet and saw an individual's expression, but the online personalities, trained by their time on their respective sites, refused to let this incident go unnoticed. They, the personae, like to stay apart from each other. My Imgur personality, as it is trained to do by its fellow Imgurians, despises Facebook and the droll status updates it harbors, so it hated this display, even though it was on Twitter. Similarly, my Twitter personality was shocked by the presence of such structure on Twitter. Note how this issue, and the issues that follow, have little to do with the back end of the programming world that Vejby and Wittkower condone playful rebellion against (derailment, in their words) and more to do with my own interaction with the front end of Web 2.0 alone; though this is an interesting factoid, it is beyond the scope of this short personal essay (101).
Let us go back in time in order to explore this issue from a beginning of sorts. When my Facebook persona came into being when I signed up for a Facebook account during my junior year of high school, it learned quickly that Facebook statuses began with "is," because that was the standard of the time. As the months went on, the back end of Facebook decided to retool the website, and the standard "is" was dropped. Searching for structure, my Facebook persona adopted a new standard (see any of my current Facebook status updates for the formula) to imply that each status was spoken aloud by my real life self, or at least by my Facebook persona's interpretation of what my real life self would say in a given circumstance. This is very much in line with Vejby and Wittkower's assessment that "many users are aware of the mechanisms and limitations of Facebook," in this case, the structure and form which this persona finds comfort in, "but decide to utilize it anyway," (102). The order, though limiting, was adopted to facilitate the flourishing of this specific online persona, regardless of how it hindered my expression. In opposition to this Facebook order, my real life persona's random tendencies became embraced though the formless (with the exception of grammar and language rules when applicable and the traditional #hashtags) method of expression found on my Twitter persona's online residence more than four years later. This silly but significant play wrote a blank check for my random expression (Vejby and Wittkower 105). On Twitter, my Twitter self could argue more forcefully, express more cynically, and, in the tradition of Vejby and Wittkower, condemn users of the internet like my Facebook persona who relied on front end order to feel comfortable despite the sense of being used by the back end. Regardless, this split from the Facebook persona brings up an interesting question: are my various online personae more than just subsets of my real life persona, or am I, and the rest of the online community, suffering from some sort of online multiple personality disorder?
Thankfully, circumstances do not appear to be as serious as a true psychosis, at least in my case. As Tara McPherson discusses, the modern notion of multiple online personalities is a side effect of individuals exploring and toying with the idea of identity in order to interact with the world, specifically the online world, in a different manner than would traditionally be possible with the original user's stock identity (187-189). Even as I re-read the previous paragraphs, I am consciously aware of the "playful difference" that my real life persona is employing to create my online identities (McPherson 188). Because my real name is associated with my Facebook persona, that persona is more reserved, more inclined to follow a set format of expression to create a persona with an even keel mentality. My Facebook personality represents my unconscious' desire to present my true self in a contrived, formulaic manner in order to fit in with the crowd. Playful, though nowhere near as playful as my Twitter self. Deep down, according to the actions of my Twitter personality, I desire to be more open about my opinions, more vulgar, less reliant on the inhibitions that chain my Facebook persona to order and form. Therefore, since these personae represent parts of who I really am in reality, they are less independent than true psychotic multiple personalities. That doesn't mean they are without danger, however.
These online personae, as McPherson warns, tend towards being seamless, lenticular. I'm able to swap back and forth between Facebook, Twitter, and Imgur and immediately be aware of their respective rules and requirements without having to change my real life personality's mindset at all. Could this possibly seep into my real life activities? Will I someday begin crossing every line, abandoning every filter my brain employs to keep me somewhat civil in society and embrace the tendencies of my Twitter persona, or, worse yet, my Imgur persona? Probably not. What it boils down to is an online degree of anonymity. I'm not Grayson Nowak on Twitter, but Graykhan Yeswak, another voice as far as anyone is concerned. I don't utilize that persona for any gain other than the freedom and mobility to speak my mind and bend the rules for online effect, fame, and general comedy. No harm in that, is there? Trouble is, there certainly can be harm therein, and that's why I must be more careful in the future.
Ultimately, it seems we must privilege our online selves, give them freer reign to exist as they will, though not without restraint. They cannot become more than we are in true reality, since they are still a part of ourselves, but they can give insight about who it is that we are in total. This may be frightening for some, especially if their online self is drastically different from their usual comportment. In this case, it is best to know more about one's self so that steps can be taken to curb ill tendencies sprouting from deep within (such as the inherently racist alter egos that McPherson condemns in her essay) or embrace playfully comical mannerisms in order to contribute to the social experience of others in the real world. Moreover, in terms of knowing one's self, I offer this bit of food for thought: perhaps the notion of social media that Vejby and Wittkower discuss in their essay, communication between individuals and groups online for various purposes of connection and community, is eclipsed by a social media that enables our various online personae to communicate with the true self in order to understand one's inner workings, and online workings, in a more succinct fashion; interior social media rather than exterior, akin to the inner workings of a computer rather than the interrelationship between servers (97).
Works Cited
McPherson, Tara. "Self, Other, and Electronic Media." The New Media Book. Ed. Dan Harries. Suffolk, England: St Edmundsburry Press, 2002. 183-194.
Vejby, Rune and D. E. Wittkower. "Spectacle 2.0?" Facebook and Philosophy: What's on Your Mind? Ed. D. E. Wittkower. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2010. 97-108.
In a fortuitous moment of clarity, my online selves presented themselves for this inspection after an incident sparked their attention. My Twitter personality was appalled when it saw a Facebook style tweet sent out on Saturday October 19, 2013. My true personality, my real life self, looked at the tweet and saw an individual's expression, but the online personalities, trained by their time on their respective sites, refused to let this incident go unnoticed. They, the personae, like to stay apart from each other. My Imgur personality, as it is trained to do by its fellow Imgurians, despises Facebook and the droll status updates it harbors, so it hated this display, even though it was on Twitter. Similarly, my Twitter personality was shocked by the presence of such structure on Twitter. Note how this issue, and the issues that follow, have little to do with the back end of the programming world that Vejby and Wittkower condone playful rebellion against (derailment, in their words) and more to do with my own interaction with the front end of Web 2.0 alone; though this is an interesting factoid, it is beyond the scope of this short personal essay (101).
Let us go back in time in order to explore this issue from a beginning of sorts. When my Facebook persona came into being when I signed up for a Facebook account during my junior year of high school, it learned quickly that Facebook statuses began with "is," because that was the standard of the time. As the months went on, the back end of Facebook decided to retool the website, and the standard "is" was dropped. Searching for structure, my Facebook persona adopted a new standard (see any of my current Facebook status updates for the formula) to imply that each status was spoken aloud by my real life self, or at least by my Facebook persona's interpretation of what my real life self would say in a given circumstance. This is very much in line with Vejby and Wittkower's assessment that "many users are aware of the mechanisms and limitations of Facebook," in this case, the structure and form which this persona finds comfort in, "but decide to utilize it anyway," (102). The order, though limiting, was adopted to facilitate the flourishing of this specific online persona, regardless of how it hindered my expression. In opposition to this Facebook order, my real life persona's random tendencies became embraced though the formless (with the exception of grammar and language rules when applicable and the traditional #hashtags) method of expression found on my Twitter persona's online residence more than four years later. This silly but significant play wrote a blank check for my random expression (Vejby and Wittkower 105). On Twitter, my Twitter self could argue more forcefully, express more cynically, and, in the tradition of Vejby and Wittkower, condemn users of the internet like my Facebook persona who relied on front end order to feel comfortable despite the sense of being used by the back end. Regardless, this split from the Facebook persona brings up an interesting question: are my various online personae more than just subsets of my real life persona, or am I, and the rest of the online community, suffering from some sort of online multiple personality disorder?
Thankfully, circumstances do not appear to be as serious as a true psychosis, at least in my case. As Tara McPherson discusses, the modern notion of multiple online personalities is a side effect of individuals exploring and toying with the idea of identity in order to interact with the world, specifically the online world, in a different manner than would traditionally be possible with the original user's stock identity (187-189). Even as I re-read the previous paragraphs, I am consciously aware of the "playful difference" that my real life persona is employing to create my online identities (McPherson 188). Because my real name is associated with my Facebook persona, that persona is more reserved, more inclined to follow a set format of expression to create a persona with an even keel mentality. My Facebook personality represents my unconscious' desire to present my true self in a contrived, formulaic manner in order to fit in with the crowd. Playful, though nowhere near as playful as my Twitter self. Deep down, according to the actions of my Twitter personality, I desire to be more open about my opinions, more vulgar, less reliant on the inhibitions that chain my Facebook persona to order and form. Therefore, since these personae represent parts of who I really am in reality, they are less independent than true psychotic multiple personalities. That doesn't mean they are without danger, however.
These online personae, as McPherson warns, tend towards being seamless, lenticular. I'm able to swap back and forth between Facebook, Twitter, and Imgur and immediately be aware of their respective rules and requirements without having to change my real life personality's mindset at all. Could this possibly seep into my real life activities? Will I someday begin crossing every line, abandoning every filter my brain employs to keep me somewhat civil in society and embrace the tendencies of my Twitter persona, or, worse yet, my Imgur persona? Probably not. What it boils down to is an online degree of anonymity. I'm not Grayson Nowak on Twitter, but Graykhan Yeswak, another voice as far as anyone is concerned. I don't utilize that persona for any gain other than the freedom and mobility to speak my mind and bend the rules for online effect, fame, and general comedy. No harm in that, is there? Trouble is, there certainly can be harm therein, and that's why I must be more careful in the future.
Ultimately, it seems we must privilege our online selves, give them freer reign to exist as they will, though not without restraint. They cannot become more than we are in true reality, since they are still a part of ourselves, but they can give insight about who it is that we are in total. This may be frightening for some, especially if their online self is drastically different from their usual comportment. In this case, it is best to know more about one's self so that steps can be taken to curb ill tendencies sprouting from deep within (such as the inherently racist alter egos that McPherson condemns in her essay) or embrace playfully comical mannerisms in order to contribute to the social experience of others in the real world. Moreover, in terms of knowing one's self, I offer this bit of food for thought: perhaps the notion of social media that Vejby and Wittkower discuss in their essay, communication between individuals and groups online for various purposes of connection and community, is eclipsed by a social media that enables our various online personae to communicate with the true self in order to understand one's inner workings, and online workings, in a more succinct fashion; interior social media rather than exterior, akin to the inner workings of a computer rather than the interrelationship between servers (97).
Works Cited
McPherson, Tara. "Self, Other, and Electronic Media." The New Media Book. Ed. Dan Harries. Suffolk, England: St Edmundsburry Press, 2002. 183-194.
Vejby, Rune and D. E. Wittkower. "Spectacle 2.0?" Facebook and Philosophy: What's on Your Mind? Ed. D. E. Wittkower. Chicago: Open Court Publishing, 2010. 97-108.