technoculture314-09

It is clearly apparent from our last lecture that there are many ways in which we can interpret the nature of identity in relation to new media. I tend to follow the argument that the ‘online’ self is just an extension of a new form of identity (fluid, fragmented) which is the result of a rising ‘post-modern’ society. In the reading for this topic, it notes Hall (1996) as saying: “identities are never unified and, in late modern times, increasingly fragmented and fractured…often intersecting…and are constantly in the process of change and transformation”.

I liken this notion to a kaleidoscope in the sense that there are a range of different parts (aspects of our personality) which we group together in different ways, turning and shifting to create a certain ‘design’. There are a number of patterns possible but essentially they are all part of the same object (or person).

I agree with what Luke mentioned in the lecture in that I don’t think it is right to deem people as ‘fake’ if their online identity in ways seems to mismatch what people know of them in real life or if their profile differs across different sites – I think it is the combination of all these ‘identities’ that allows a better understanding of who a person is.

One critique to this perspective is the ability for people to essentially make up, exaggerate or withhold certain information about them when creating virtual identities. I guess when considering this, there is a clear difference between getting to know someone online and in person – physical interaction allows people to ‘experience’ a person’s identity rather than have it 'described' to them for their own interpretation. For example, online someone may describe themselves as ‘funny’ – in having an actual conversation with this person would you actually find out the extent to which this is true or not.