Cyberspace and Cyberselves

I understand the argument that Waskul is trying to make with this article. It could basically be boiled down to the fact that the Internet is a scary, scary place and you have no idea who  you're talking to, nor does anyone know who you are. Waskul explains the fluidity of identity of the internet and the basic ways in which individuals present their perceived identities online. However, I find that this article has a negative bias and I can think of one important reason why this is so. Waskul was hanging out in chat rooms for hours doing research. In the current Internet culture, chat rooms are comparable to strip clubs. While strip clubs are entertaining, not everyone spends all of their time watching daughters and mothers remove their clothing for the sexual stimulation of others. There a millions of people on the Internet who are finding ways to genuinely communicate with others, despite the fluidity of online identities. 

An example of a counter to the Internet's deceptive nature is the YouTube phenomenon. Thousands of people have flocked to YouTube to do away with the anonymity and bear the realities of their lives through a diary method called "vlogging". My favorite example of vlogging stems from a duo that identify themselves under the screen name of The Vlog Brothers. (I will admit, their screen name is important and helps to identify their purpose, so that's something that I agree with Waskul on.) This brother duo began creating daily videos as a way to communicate with each other and then created an entire subculture called Nerdfighteria. While the main goal of the community is to "decrease world suck", a large component of the community's communications are perceived acceptance and portrayals of the characteristics that actually belong to an individual through their online persona. In fact, it is encouraged for members of this Internet based group to engage in "real life" activities with one another, thus fighting the online identity issue.

Of course, this isn't a perfect counter example and Waskul's arguments are applicable in certain settings. However, I think it is vital to note that the fluidity of chat rooms is not completely applicable to all online interactions. The cyberself is not the scary entity it is made out to be.

DFTBA

The Self as Sentiment and Reflection

I would be lying if I said I wasn't being completely judgmental when reading this article. There appears to be something about writing on the subject of "self" that draws out some strange, strange things. The problem I have with this article comes down to the way in which the author chose to approach writing about the subject. Normally, my dissection of another person's literary pursuits wouldn't be relevant, but I think it applies this time. Please, bear with me while I attempt to connect the dots.

The author of this article, who happens to have the middle name of Horton, discusses the social self, but is careful to explain that he does not believe that there is a non-social self, it's just that all those other, lesser, people call it something else and he had to find a way to distinguish his topic. Cooley (the author) then spends several pages using perceivably unique phrasing to describe the phenomenon by which individuals build their concepts of self based on the way an individual relates to others. This can mean that we define our sense of self based on how we relate to other beings through our interactions or the way we think and perceive situations. A decent example of this, which was included in the article, was the description of how an item is only able to be described as "mine" because it relates to other beings as not belonging to them.

While the points Cooley makes are interesting and it is possible to walk away from this article with a general understanding, I found myself looking down at the pages and thinking, "Wait, what?" Cooly's sense of self is doused like bad cologne all over this article. It is apparent that Cooley wanted to be seen in a certain light and is willing to write in a unique style, so as to put off a very specific sense of self. In order to project this sense of self Cooley uses "unique" writing techniques to explain his thought processes. For example, phrases like "fondling it in seclusion" are used with strange metaphors that really don't help support Cooley's case. Why does he do this? Part of me is completely baffled and unable to explain why anyone would want to present scholarly material in such a way, but it could be argued that Cooley is attempting to project his sense of self by writing in such an unexpected manner.

Or maybe people are just weird. That's a completely reasonable possibility at this point.