Danah Boyd introduces the relationship between the online and the offline construction of identity in her article “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life;” however, I feel as though she glazes over a crucial aspect of this relation. She basically discusses the active production of an online identity as “individuals must write themselves into being” as they “construct these profiles,” (13) clearly indicating the conscious creation of an online self. This construction of the online identity is driven by the desire to “present the side of themselves that they believe will be well received by these peers” – teens essentially create an identity that will please their assumed audience of “peers that they know primarily offline” (13).
I have always found this relationship between one’s online and offline identity to be intriguing – the notion of actively constructing a new identity online in a profile for people you already know to explore. What is really interesting is when there is a clear inconsistency between the two, and from personal experience, I have found this to be a fairly common scenario. It seems to me that some people find the online profile as a method of re-creating oneself, uninhibited by social anxiety – for some, the online profile can be a mode of representing one’s “true self.” However, how true is this “true” self if it differs from the identity that one has created in the real world through face-to-face social interactions? Is one profile more influential or a more accurate representation of oneself? How consistent does one have to be between online and offline representations of oneself? Or maybe one doesn’t even have to be consistent. Ultimately, is it possible (through the two mediums of the online and the offline) to create two simultaneous identities that are both equally true?
Similarly, the relationship between the virtual and real that Julian Dibbell’s article regarding “cyberrape” discusses makes me question the legitimacy of the virtual world and the exchange of words. Dibbell claims that “in real-life reality [virtual sex] is nothing more than a phone fuck stripped of even the vestigial physicality of the voice” (16). First of all, I disagree with the connotation of the phrase “vestigial physicality of the voice” – vestigial or not, the voice is a key factor legitimizing the reality of the situation, giving the participants the reassurance of the humanity of their partner. Disposing of this voice and entering into the realm of mere text diverges away fro the last link to human connection. I disagree with Dibbell’s over-simplification of all forms of interaction (text, voice, and even sex) as a mere “exchange of signs” (17) – although they are all true, each form has a different investment, a different level of certainty, hence a different sense of reality. Regarding the notion of “cyberrape,” I do believe that one can be emotionally impacted and violated through the medium of text since this interaction is in all senses true – however, I don’t think that one can even begin to compare the reality and the lasting impact between a rape executed through text and a rape executed through real human interaction. Text solely thrives in one’s mentality (allowing one to always question its realness), while physical sex and human interaction (through the investment in tangibility) is irrevocably real.
On that note, my experience on lambdaMOO has been an interesting one. After chatting for a significant amount of time with a 26-year-old (apparently) character named “Brew,” he/she helped me create a character name for the chatroom. The next day, somehow I received an email from this “Brew” character. Upon receiving the email, I felt violated and concerned that some unidentified character had left the comfort of the enclosed (and seemingly fictional) virtual world of lambdaMOO and entered into the reality of my personal life. Through the knowledge of my email (which I did NOT give to him/her), this person discovered my name, school, and location. Although Brew didn’t physically walk up to my front door and interact with my personally and I didn’t hear the sound of his/her voice, knowing that this stranger has access to my reality even through text, I am still legitimately creeped out.