Several class sessions ago, Tony posed the question, “Who are we when we write?” We’ve discussed our multiple identities between plurk, Facebook, MySpace, even Blackboard or just printed words on a page. Depending on our level of trust, we either take these means of social networking seriously (truthfully?) or we don’t. The example was used that someone might post: “I was so hammered last night.” It is our interpretation whether we believe that individual was actually drunk, they were lying and looking for attention, or they meant something else entirely.
Some people think that social networking sites are all about ego: bragging about who you scored with, “camwhoring” your new haircut, or trashing other people. There’s even a subsidiary of icanhascheezburger.com called failbooking.com, wherein people share ridiculous Facebook status updates, or the ultimate burn someone pulled on someone else through their social networking identity. This showmanship is a careful balance of ego and embarrassment (although it is delightfully amusing, so long as you don’t recognize your own post on there).
On the other hand, there is the issue of modesty. Perhaps the same people who find social networking sites to be egotistical don’t even use them, or have a strong aversion to them. Perhaps they don’t update often, only have up one or two pictures, and never brag about anything or fish for compliments. Perhaps this in its own way is just an expression of ego: “I’m too sophisticated for this kind of thing.”
The tomcat Murr is the perfect example of how one being can clearly exhibit both ego and modesty. The Author’s Preface shows Murr “bashfully” questioning his merit as a writer (“Shall I, can I, hold my own before the stern tribunal of criticism?”) and signing the note “Murr (Étudiant en belles lettres)”, or “Murr (Student of literature)”, a modest title admitting the cat’s limited knowledge. The adjacent Foreward (Suppressed by the author) shows Murr’s more honest view of his subsequent autobiography. In it, Murr dictates that the reader should find him to be a fully charming and intelligent cat, and even “worship [him] a little.” Instead of his earlier bashful confession that harsh criticism may arise and he begs a kind thought from the reader to console him, Murr now reminds the reader that he has claws and knows how to use them. He signs this scathing Foreward “Murr (Homme de lettres très renommé)”, or “Murr (Very famous man of letters)”. His student status has disappeared and left behind omniscience. Of course, the egotistical Foreward was supposedly not meant to be published, while egotistical status updates are often quite intentional.
Then again, sometimes not.
Ego vs. modesty online gets another layer of interest when we examine “jk”. My feeling is that it’s a clarification of modesty or embarrassment about whatever was just said. Or, as nerbiotxiste put it, “i retract”. It indicates something perhaps you wish you had not said. I think that everything attached to “jk” was meant to be said. If you truly had a secret you wanted no one to know, you would have had the glimmer of foresight not to say it. “Jk” just clarifies that this was something you maybe wouldn’t say to that person face-to-face (in rl), so if you cover it with the notion that you were “just kidding,” it’s a little easier to reveal. “The previous statement leaves me uncomfortably vulnerable.”
I don’t think anyone takes “jk” for its literal translation of “just kidding” anymore. You should be careful if you say something like, “i just killed my neighbor. jk!” I don’t think people will be convinced that you didn’t really do that… or at least that you aren’t planning to. Incidently, “just killed” is the same acronym as “just kidding.”
Delving deeper into our split techno-personas, nanotext guided us in an experiment. On January 22, the class experienced what it was like when nanotext took over the teaching position of Tony Prichard. Participation was hesitant and uncertain. Some showed up to cyberclass from their desks on their laptops or phones. Some from the 2:30 class were able to participate through this method of teaching. nanotext is a facet of Tony, just as lucemart is a facet of me. Some students responded in a way that questioned nanotext’s “instructor” status more than the same students may have questioned Tony’s “instructor” status in the physical realm of our class. awritedesign wondered “if no one is talking because they have completely lost the flow of the ideas nanotext is proposing.” But who would have raised their hand and said aloud with their own vocal chords, “Tony, I have no idea what you’re talking about”?
Who are we when we blog? Who are we when we plurk? Who are we when we tweet? When we [Google]wave? When we… FB? (Is there a verb for Facebook? Is it just update?) Are we honest, modest, egotistical, false? Are any of these things wrong or right? Can anyone make that judgment?
i've often found myself rejecting social networking sites on the grounds that its all a bunch of ego. but not accepting, as you mention, is another form of ego. my facebook profile has hardly any information on it and in a way thats the same amount of ego of pages and pages of information all about myself. the idea of ego in social networking is super interesting and i've touched on it a little bit in my blog...i think a lot of what makes these sites so appealing is that we love to tell everyone about ourselves, or most of us at least. why do some reject ego and others embrace it without noticing they are projecting ego? so many levels of thinking to be done on this idea...
ReplyDelete