CHAPTER 9: THE VIRTUAL YOU: The Self in the Cyberspace

PRE-LESSON ACTIVITY

Directions. Try to recall all the social networking sites on which you had (or
currently have)an account and list them down. Share a memorable communication.
Encounter, for each that has impacted your positively and negatively.

Introduction

We are currently living in highly mediated times. Unlike in our oral past
(called “orality”) where people speak of their narratives with little to no
technological aid, expressions of identity nowadays involve a hefty loft of digital
smoke and mirrors, with people getting more and more accustomed to hiding
beneath layers of avatars of make-believe selves. This is the dilemma that Kenneth
Gergen (1991) terms as multiphrenia: the idea that countless alternatives to self-
expression neuters identity formation.

Ironic also is the fragmenting of the self, the disintegration of the “Me”, in a
time where technological breakthroughs sprout one after another, and people have
never been more interconnected. This is what people term as computer-mediated
communication (CMC) (Wood & Smith, 2005). With the digital revolution in full
swing, a variety of challenges is confronting us, one of which is the maintenance of
a coherent self of identity amidst all the digital clutter.

The Other I: Love in the Time of Social Media

In this current generation where instant gratification is the primary order of

the day, nothing beats falling in love with all the boring bits (i.e. the dragging
process of courtship) already cut out. Virtual romance speeds through moments
and cuts to the chase, and, at least for some, is assumed to be the better for it.
Welcome to a new (and digitized) age of relationships in which many couples
partake.

One such couple are Nev and Megan; young and attractive, the both of them.
Their love story is typical “digital meet cute”: started as friends on Facebook, got to
know each other through private messages, then they fell in love.

But with every relationship of this variety, entered by some out of

convenience or even desperation, naturally comes the inevitability of the first
physical meet-up. But what if only one of them is real?
Figure 1. Nev and “Megan” (Image retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/dec/19/catfish-review-documentary-schulman-joost)

This is the question the documentary film, “Catfish” (Joost &Schulman, 2010) addresses in
depth. Megan, as it turns out, has fabricated an entire online existence complete with pictures taken
from another (more desirable) woman’s Facebook account. She also conjured up several other make-
believe user profile to constitute her “circle of friends”, thus completing the illusion.

The now-suspicious Nev, and his brother set out to track where she lives, only to be met at the
door by a certain Angela, which is supposedly the name of Megan’s mother. Unlike the rather attractive
woman in the account, Angela is bespectacled, overweight, closer to middle age than mid-20s, and is
caring for two of her husband Vince’s mentally disabled children. After much uneasiness, she finally
admitted to her deception.

TRIVIA!

The documentary got its title from the fact that catfishes are usually put in a live cod’s tank as it is
being shipped to keep it alert and active. Apparently, the cod’s lack of movement in the water results in
spongy flesh, thus negatively affecting the quality of its meat. This analogize the catfish’s role in the tank
with that of select people in our lives, specifically on how they always seem to keep us on our feet. This
extends to online behaviour, implying that users be kept fast on the draw in dealing with personalities in
the cyberspace.

She explained that her online presence, partnered with her

friendship/blossoming romance with Nev, helped her rekindle her passion for what
she loves the most: painting. She also revealed that she has uterine cancer and is
undergoing chemotheraphy (she doesn’t and isn’t). The woman in the pictures was
then revealed to be a certain Aimee Gonzales, a Washington-based model.
 The documentary has since spawned an MTV series of the same name, as
well as coining the term “catfishing” in web parlance, which roughly means luring
someone into a (largely virtual) relationship with the use of online alter-egos.

Reality as Abstraction

Outside the cyberspace is the reality with which you engage most
frequently. Basically, this pertains to life away from digital devices and where
interaction happens on a physical level. Conversely, relationships in the tangible
world can sometimes be affected as well by purely abstract ones established online.

Simulation

Quite simply, simulation’s basic purpose is to copy reality as closely as it

can. This abstraction offers uncanny representations of real-world aspects, and can
also be used for instruction (i.e. flight and navigation simulators). Microsoft’s now-
discontinued multimedia encyclopedia Encarta offers virtual tours of historical
landmarks, while Facebook’s 360-degree view feature enable you to panoramically
survey places as if you are really there.

Augmented Reality

This is real-life reality spliced with the unreal. Through rather creative
ways, augmented reality permits you to simultaneously interact with both the
tangible world and various digital add-ons for a more enhanced experience. The
Pokemon Go craze that took the world by storm a few years back is illustrative of
this. Unlike your typical video game, the said application offers users a chance to
navigate real-world spaces to catch “pocket monsters” that seem part of their
surrounding physical environment. Another are the Snapchat filters that appear to
alter one’s face (often for comedic effect) in various ways when used.

Virtual Reality

Virtual Reality is the type of abstraction completely detached from real-

life reality. Here, you are granted relative freedom to explore and eventually
inhabit digitally made-up worlds vicariously through a character or avatar you can
create yourself. This is often aided by devices such as game controllers and
keyboards, and VR technologies like the Oculus Rift. Examples of this are various
open world (or sandbox) games that encourage freewheeling interaction with the
virtual environment and the characters that populate it.

The immersion into said abstraction can eventually lead to what is called
vitualization, or a user’s complete assimilation into virtual societies and/or
communities that exist outside the confines of the real world. Sherry Turkle (1997)
enumerates three signs that virtual reality is starting to take over our conceptions
of reality. First, artificial encounters seem real. Second, the unreal seem more
exciting than its real –world equivalent. And third, virtual reality’s subtle distortion
of a user’s sense of self make them feel either more accomplished (by way of their
character’s hgh ranking in a game, for instance) or inadequate than they really are.

Hyperreality

What separates hyperreality from other abstractions is that it is, more

than anything, a state of mind. The cultural therist Jean Baudrillard says of
simulation: “It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a
hyperreal.” In postmodern societies that run on technology, hyperreality is the
inability to distinguish the real from the otherwise.

In a way, it can also be seen as a more evolved form of reality, a utopia of

the mind, where people exist as the best version of themselves and are insulated
from the woes of real-life reality. The film, “Matrix” (1999), directed by the
Wachowski brothers, articulates on what it means to live in a hyperrealistic virtual
space where things are not what they seem. The premise of the video game series
“Assassin Creed”, where the main characters are plugged into a virtual reality
machine called ‘Animus’ in order to go back in time and carry out assassination
missions, also expands on this abstraction.

The Cyberself

It is important to note that identity is, in many ways, interrelated with

performativity. Identify, as defined by Rob Cover (2016), refers to one’s
perceptionof the self, or also known as selfhood or subjectivity. With the advent of
the digital age, we, nowadays are termed not just simply as “individuals” but also
as “users”, slowly adjusting to the notion that multiple realities (as manifest in
various social networking sites) naturally require the construction of multiple
representations (or “digital/online selves”). Technology, for all its faults, does
indeed provide new venues for forging identities and personhoods (Rosenfeld,
2015), real or make believe. This is why, in most cases, some people have different
Facebook accounts to cater separately to both families and friends; or an Instagram
account to showcase an idealized version of their “lifestyles” while also reserving
the Twitter platform for off the cuff rants.

In short, our lives online revolve around performance. To Sherry Turkle

(2012), participating online, along with the creation of digital avatars and user
profiles, is equivalent to performing to a crowd. This sits close to Erving Goffman’s
landmark book The presentation of Self in Everyday Life(1959), which analogizes
the nuances of social interaction with those of the theatre. It tells of socialization as
heavily role-oriented, with individuals (labelled as “actors”) being assigned specific
ones to portray. Although Goffmans’ work predates the internet by several years, it
nevertheless still rings true for how people behave in the cyberspace nowadays.

The Dramaturgy of the Self

 Erving Goffman emphasizes that, as in theatrical performances, social
interaction also has the front stage, back stage, and off-stage regions. At the front,
factors like the performer’s impact the performance. As for the back stage region,
this is where the performer can relax and be himself /herself, away from the prying
eyes of the crowd. Someone is then considered off-stage if he/she gets to meet
members of the audience completely independent or separate from the
performance.

Appropriated in the context of social media, the front stage region is when
people’s carefully-constructed digital selves engage in online activities, such as
publicly commenting on posts, choosing which “selfie” to upload, or even deciding
on what thoughts to publish. On the other hand, the back stage region is when
someone simply logs out and momentarily abstains from social media use. Off-
stage, finally, is when people actually meet up with people they only know on the
internet, or at least those they perform to online through various cues and
expressions.

Furthermore, Goffman added that people, when engaged in social

interactions, internalize what he calls impression management: a process wherein
each attempts to manufacture and present one’s self positively to avoid
embarrassment (Crossman, 2018). He also stated that people often give out
expressions or cues that aid in the formation of an identity for others to confirm or
deny later on (Rosenfeld, 2015). As examples, when a user posts something on
social media in broken English or uploads a picture of a newly purchased designer
bag, others may accuse them of being a try hard or social climber, respectively: but
reactions can also be of the exact opposite.

The Elements of the Dramaturgical Self

1. PERFORMANCE

Based on Erving Goffman’s framework explicitly refers to the set of

activities in which the self participates in front of others (labelled the “audience”).
Through performing, people are able to express meaning about themselves and
their present situation. The dramaturgical thought implies that the actor may not
be fully aware of his/her performance at all times, though the audience may
nevertheless still engage in deciphering it.

2. SETTING

This primarily centers on the scenery where an interaction will take place.
Naturally, there is more than one location in which an actor can perform, with
accompanying elements (or “props”) entirely different from the previous ones (from
the office to a hangout with friends; from the highly public environment of Facebook
to the more intimate one provided by Twitter). With this, the actor needs always to
consider altering his/her performance to fit the needs of the setting.
3. APPEARANCE

The function of appearance rests mainly on its ability to portray the self’s
various statuses, with one of its several props being a person’s attire of choice. It
can also visually portray one’s gender orientation, profession, and even age. It can
also zero in on the nature of physical presentation in relation to interactions one
engages in, such as informal parties and work-related functions. On social media,
display pictures (often “selfies”) embody this element, as they are imbued with
meaning as to how the self wants to be perceived online, at least at a given point in
time. One’s cover photo (on Facebook and on Twitter) then serves as the extension
of this element, as it adds layer to the meaning already established by the display
picture.

4. MANNER

This pertains to how an actor sends various signals to the audience to

ultimately inform them in advance of the role he/she seeks or is about to perform; a
prompt, if you may. People’s manners should merely function closely with their
physical presentations, lest they be misread. So an aggressive and enthusiastic
opening (the “manner”) you will deliver to a business meeting, for instance, should
be followed through, as it has already wired the audience’s minds into thinking that
you will eventually lead the ensuing discussion. Failure to do so can lead to
audience confusion. Same applies on social media when you are known for posting
about your thoughts on a regular basis only to stop doing so all of a sudden one
day. Your friends or followers will be puzzled.

5. FRONT

This works as a kind of social script that actors follow for more guided
performance. There are various ready-made fronts that actors choose from for very
specific situations or undertakings. This is, in part, because stereotypes are already
established and institutionalized based on conventions actors have come to adopt
when engaged in interactions. One example is the thumbs up emoticon. Though
still generally used online to signal approval, it is also nowadays associated with
passive-aggressiveness. The audience, in most cases, knows of this other
signification, so it telegraphs their possible reactions to such gesture (anger,
passivity, disappointment, frustration et al.) The front, in short, defines a particular
encounter or interaction for the audience (Crossman, 2018).

Identity Crisis: Anonymity and Pseudonymity in the Cyberspace

“Anonymity in the virtual landscape is much different than in real life.”

-Jason Cranford Teague

 Whenever people engage in activities in the cyberspace, they can always
calibrate how others perceive them. Some hide accurate representations of
themselves beneath cloaks of falsehoods, while others try to translate their real-
world personas for a digital audience (or in Facebook terms, your “friends list”) as
closely as possible. Because mediated technologies can only function up to a point,
people only have a limited set of stimuli in projecting a sense of self, from uploaded
pictures to published posts.

Despite this, people have different representations of themselves

positioned on a continuum of identification that they can possibly adopt (Marx,
1999). This is in line with the idea of multiphrenia mentioned in the opening
paragraph of this chapter. Out of this continuum, we will strive to define two:
anonymity and psuedonymity.

Figure 2. A Continuum of Identity Manipulation ( from

https://mariadcd.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/a-continuum-of-identity-manipulation/)

Anonymity

Honesty and openness are hallmark virtues, though in some cases, they
need to take the backseat to privacy. As defined by Andrew Wood &Mathew Smith
(2005), anonymity, which occupies one end of the identity continuum, is the act of
communicating wherein the sender does not openly reveal his/her identity.
Occasionally, taking part in online interactions sometimes require that one’s
digitally performed identity be temporarily concealed. As the justification behind
online anonymity is rather heavily disputed, its exploration in this chapter will
alternate between protection and accountability. Protection is emphasized when it
involves tha act of whistleblowing on certain illegalities, while premium is put on
accountability when the user’s online activity, while hiding behind the safety veil of
anonymity, borders on the libellous.

Example: The question and answer websites Ask.fm and Formspring (now known
as Spring.me under new management) offer users optional anonymity when they
publish questions. One issue here is the absence of user accountability when
he/she posts, or asks about, something demeaning or disparaging.

Pseudonymity
 Pseudonymity, on the other hand, lies in the middle of the identity
continuum, especially as it combines both the benefits of anonymity and the joys of
assuming some semblance of identity. Unlike in anonymity where one remains, by
and large, unknown faceless psuedonymity affords a user with a “self”, albeit a
stylized or refashioned one. The British author Arthur Blair is one example. Better
known as George Orwell, who wrote landmark literary works like “Animal Farm”
and” 1984”, his pseudonym has since come to be associated with any dystopian
text (through the descriptive buzzword “Orwellian”). Another is during the Spanish
times when Filipino propagandist who wrote for the La Solidaridad and other related
publications used several pennames ( “Dimasalang” and “Laong Laan” for Jose
Rizal,”Taga Ilog” for Antonio Luna et al.) to protect themselves from persecution.
Notice how such monikers do not tell the readers who wrote ehat, but are still
heavily suggestive of the author’s self-representations. Today, most online games
furnish users the option of psuedonymity through unique unique username, letting
them vent aginst their opponents without openly revealing who they are.

Example: The admins of the brash, matter-of-fact food review page “MasarapBa”
and the satirical “Senyora” (the exaggerated online behaviour of which is directly
based on Senyora Santibañez: the main antagonist in the ‘90s Mexican teledrama
“Marimar”) both shroud their true identities with alternate ones. They are careful
not to reveal their actual selves so as not to ruin the mystique surrounding their
online characters

The Disinhibited Self

“People reveal so much of their mental process online, simply because the psychological effect of
anonymity just means that a whole raft of inhibitions is left alone when people log on.”

--Joanne Harris

In face-to-face interactions, we often hold back on things we really

want to say or do for fear of leaving a negative impression. Also, we abide by a set
of decorum in such situations because we are careful not to paint a wrong portrait
of who we are; “impression management” is what Erving Goffman calls this in the
early parts of this chapter. But in the cyberspace, this might not be the case.

For John Suler (2004), such restrictions to behaviour do not

necessarily apply online. Unlike in real-life encounters, individuals tend to act out
more intensely and openly in virtual interactions. This is, in large part, attributed to
the mediated nature of online communication, plus the protective veils their
identities are promised when taking part in it ( anonymity and pseudonymity). This
phenomenon is what he calls the online disinhibition effect, or the removal of
social inhibitions and/or restrictions imposed upon people’s behaviour that fall
under the abovementioned effect: benign disinhibition and toxic disinhibition.

Benign disinhibition is basically the relatively positive side of the said

effect. Primarily, this focuses on personal development, self-understanding, and the
exploration of new emotional domains of experience (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2015)
in the virtual world. In oter words, this is the digital equivalent to “self-
actualization”, or the act of working through one’s identity. Users classified under
this category of disinhibition may demonstrate kindness or generosity online,
sometimes even sharing very personal information about their lives . Illustrative of
this category are various Facebook support groups with complete strangers (as
members) confiding to each other in hopes of addressing shared issues such as
depression, alcoholism, and sexism.

Example: On a regular basis, the administrator (or admin) of the

popular Facebook page “Humans of New York” publishes candid anecdotes and
nuggets of wisdom shared by people (complete with their portraits) he encounters
on the street. The admin has since ventured into other countries as well to do the
same, the Philippines included.

Toxic disinhibition, on the other hand, sits on the opposite end. If

benign disinhibition is centered on online avenues that encourage emotional growth
and positive self-disclosure, this second category zeroes in on disparaging remarks,
death threats, blackmails, and hate slur, among others, that a user may relish in. It
may also pertain to anonymous consumption of online pornography.

Example: The dark web, commonly perceived as a place in the

cyberspace for illicit dealings and activities, is a glaring distillation of this category.
This part of the web is replete with anonymous/pseudonymous personalities
engaging in borderline illegal transactions that policymakers had to raise concerns
about whether law enforcement agencies have the proper tools to thoroughly
monitor, and , if necessary, conmbat it (Finklea, 2017)

Keep in mind that there’s no clear demarcating line that truly

separates these two categories, as an online encounter might start benign enough
only to escalate into something toxic, or vice versa. So an ordinary enough online
relationship between two users, for instance, might become toxic if one of them
crudely brings up sex. Or a very rowdy comments section might be normal o some
users because very upfront is valued where they came from.

Online Disinhibition: The Causes

Additionally, John Suler posits six factors that often cause online
distribution. They are as follows:

1. DISSOCIATIVE ANONYMITY (“ People Don’t Know Me”)

 This is the confidence you feel every time you anonymously engage
in online activities. Because you can easily “dissociate” your online identities from
your offline ones, you can be relatively carefree(or careless, even) in our virtual
behaviour, resulting in a more unifiltered, even harmful, you. Arguing online in the
comments sections, for example, boldens you to use profanities and even hate slurs
because none of them really knows you personally.

2. INVISIBILITY (“People Can’t See Me”)

In this factor, you can sometimes intentionally misrepresent yourself

to come across as an entirely different person. Unlike in real conversations,
invisibility enables you to alter your virtual avatar’s personality and even
appearance, sometimes to lure attractive people into taking notice of you, or just to
generally avoid scrutiny when you participate online. In hiding your true physical
and personal attributes away, you are effectively freeing yourself up from the
baggage of having to present yourself as you truly are.

3. ASYNCHRONICITY (“See You When I See You”)

Time is a very important element in face to face communications.

This is why meetings at work are scheduled based on the attendees’ availability.
Conversely, you have the luxury of time delay in the virtual world. Every time you
send an e-mail or even a message on Facebook, time is on your side. You can
compose, structure, and edit it in a span of several minutes, sometimes an hour or
even more. Even your posts in online forums can be made to read smarter than
they are originally, thanks to web references you can access in the instant. Another
plus is that you do not even need to be physically present in your virtual
engagements. In effect, this makes you more relaxed in dealing with people online,
with the pressures of rea-world communication removed completely.

4. SOLIPSISTIC INTROJECTION (“It’s All in The Mind”)

We essentially communicate online through typewritten words.

Verbal cues, though ever-present, are not the accepted norm in interacting virtually.
In this regard, you unconsciously recite inyour head both the messages you send
and those deployed your way. You play cast casting director for these voices,
imagining how the pitch or intonation would be if spoken out loud. Ultimaely, you
think of your voice when you read messages. And because the words are filtered
through you, you feels less intimated in communicating, thinking lit is all
happening in your personal psychic domain.. This is why acquaintances are
sometimes very talkative to each other virtually but do not actually speak let alone
interact much in real life.
5. DISSOCIATIVE IMAGINATION (“It’s All a Play”)

Simply put, this is the faulty belief that online interaction is a game,
and whose rules you can easily break with no perceived implications. Buoyed by
the assumption that your real-life identity and digital avatar/s are separate entities
and that the cyberspace is but an outlet for escape (like movies), you sometimes
resort to doing unspeakable things you normally wouldn’t in real life. This notion
often rationalizes criminal behaviour online, particularly identity theft or even
sexual harassment.

6. MINIMIZATION OF STATUS AND AUTHORITY (“Your Rules Don’t Work

Online”)

Have you ever stumbled upon one of your professors’ Facebook

profiles and it suddenly occurred to you how powerless he/she seems to look? If yes,
then this is because the internet, more than just providing users a disinhibited
space, levels the playing field, with no one personality having unanimous clout over
others. Perhaps your professor, or even a politician for that matter, is influential
outside the realm of the cyberspace, but within it, he/she, along with the great
many, still belong under the same classification: user. Take notice how complete
nobodies suddenly have the guts to engage influential people in arguments on
social media. Online, people are perceived to be equals.

Unit Summary

People often engage in performance when encountering different abstractions

online, sometimes to the detriment of their identity. The cyberspace, in addition,
also allows the creation of multiple personalities( or the concept of multiphrenia) to
cater to different sets of audience. Activities online also fit within the border
contours of Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical framework, which outlines the
relationship between an individual (or the “actor”) and those who he/she interacts
(“the audience”). Given prominence also in digital interactions is the idea of “first
management”, or people’s attempt to come across positively to others to avoid
embarrassment. On the flip side, though, not everyone wants to be readily
recognizable online. As a remedy, they use anonymity and psuedonymity. This
hiding away of one’s true identity, in effect, allows users to become more open in
freelyexpressing their thoughts in the virtual space, which John Suler calls online
disinhibition.

#KEYWORDS

#MULTIPHRENIA—the idea that countless alternatives to self-

expression neuters identity formation

#ABSTRACTION—the non-physical properties one gets to try and

interact with when consuming technology

#ANONYMITY—the act of communicating wherein the sender does not

openly reveal his/her identity

#PSEUDONYMITY—same as anonymity, but the sender takes and