Me, Myself,
and I: More Than One
Computer programs of virtual reality deconstruct the sense of a uniform self.
In MUDs, made up characters or divisions of selves
can take on lives of their own. Unacceptable traits can be discovered,
explored, and cultivated on engines that simulate realities. The modern
technologies better allow for one to feel comfortable in certain selves in
certain domains. While society may not accept one of your selves, you
can better cater societies need to see you within an accepted image of self
because you can just be the unaccepted self within a cyber world that does
accept this self society shuns. This is not necessarily negative, but
it does not allow all the selves into the “real” domain. This seemingly
cheapens the authenticity or importance of one self over another.
The computer allows more selves to come out from hiding and total silence,
but the awakened selves do not necessarily exist in the same worlds.
One self may live in the chat room, while another self has made its way into
the “real” world, for example, in your place of employment This may be a
problem if the unaccepted self wishes to become manifest in a domain that
will not accept that self. In other words, one might discover or nurture
new identities, or selves, but they still might be restricted as to which
environments these selves can live in. The individual might not progress
in their interaction within the “real” world if some of their selves can
only live in a computer-simulated world. Maybe the multiple, unlimited,
cyberspace concepts perpetuate isolation for the selves they unleash.
The Furries (or any random character in the a simulated
world) in the Furry MUD cannot escape the Internet world. In this light,
the Internet has complicated self even further within a certain existing
level of appropriateness. The “real” world will not necessarily accept
and “deal” with Furries, for instance, unless postmodernism can succeed in
expanding the concept of reality. This will take one giant leap of
faith by society, as we know it! However, the self is only as real
as its environment, and changing one changes the other. The reality
of selves within the Internet domain obscures the “unreality” of the worlds
they exist in.
The isControl!
The
danger of recognizing heterogeneity in humans lays in the acceptance dichotomy—between
status quo, accepted individuals and unaccepted individuals—that influences
power stratification politically, socially and economically. The modernist
view of self makes one stuck in one identity. Expectations and labels
will cause an individual to conform to some extent, and it will be difficult
to escape others’ judgments. Therefore, modernism restricts individuals
by trapping them in a single identity. The modernist self has
a right and wrong behavior pattern, and a predictable interaction with one
environment—the “real” world. The view of self as singular does not
give a unique sense to the individual that is truly made up of many different
selves—even contradictory selves—because it refuses to acknowledge selves
that a person also identifies with. Recognizing a black
woman solely as a woman deprives her of functioning within her whole identity,
which includes her unique black experience as well. Modernism limits
more than it provides uniqueness. It prevents one quality from being
appreciated over another. One does not have to capitalize upon one dominant
trait that will provide him/her with the most power, as in the sex-dominated
world of today. For instance, a male does not have to speak only as
a male, but can now speak as the eleven-fingered amazing juggler self that
he wishes to be recognized as while he interacts in the “real” world.
Haraway’s
notion of the cyborg demonstrates the ultimate self in the culture of
information technology. It allows for one to escape classification
and definition by others. One can be accountable to his/her own self
as to what compromises his/her.
Our words and reactions to our environment—the self’s communication—take on
lives of their own, like little gremlins or monsters, so that the multiple selves become less
and less controllable by a perceived “owner” or source that is the self that
they came from. Responsibility, then, goes out the window at this point.
Responsibility lies with the perceiver who cultivates the communication it
received from that first self we mentioned above. Picture the water
being sprinkled on Gizmo’s back. In a reaction
to environment, the self spews out communication. These communications
are then perceived by others and cultivated into gremlins at this point totally
separate from the self, gizmo. They feed off of others’ perceptions
of them and have nothing to do with that self. The self may feel a
certain amount of responsibility for the destruction or whatever reactions
their expressions might cause in the monstrous life of their own, but realistically,
we all know that it was not Gizmo’s fault the little old lady got catapulted
from her electronic stair-chair. Provided that the postmodern sense
of celebrated multiplicity becomes accepted, no one will have to heroically
attack and destroy their off shooting reflections of “true self”. Ideas
take on a life of their own, and the receiver of the message will take on
the responsibility of perception. Similarly, Jesus spread the seed
of His message to a diverse audience. While there is no suitable or
unsuitable reader of communications, there is no control over what exactly
the self’s message will become. (Peters on Plato's Phaedrus)
Therefore, the reader and the writer are justified in their interpretations
of messages. Lack over control of self-reflection (through writing
or other types of communication) can be seen as a loss of control for the
writer/ communicating self, but there are multiple interpretations of communications
that already go on with books—messages in print. Rather than remove
power from the author and self, the new perception of multiple selves will
free them from the confines of a static purpose and concrete message as they
must give up control over the effects of their ideas. The intentional
fallacy will gradually disseminate.
The postmodern view of the self as multiple is empowering as well as confusing.
It is especially empowering to typically subordinated or silenced selves.
When minority voices and identities emerge
from the submissive void, they remove some of the domination “accepted”
selves currently have. These voices neutralize the power struggles in
a world of inequality. The computer medium affects our sense of self
by complicating its composition. We will eventually come to terms with
this multiplicity. It is being celebrated slowly but surely. America
is gradually grasping the benefits of diversity in terms of community perspectives,
through affirmative
action for instance, in the school classroom experience. The balance
in power structure will become advantageous to those who are the best adapters,
the borderland dwellers, and the line jumpers. Multiplicity is celebrated
in this postmodern domain that is the cyber world realized. The reality/fantasy
dichotomy is obscured. Reality is redefined as unlimited in its possibilities.
You are allowed to be more than one thing and in more than one place at a
time like the Native American
trickster figure.
page3