A philosophical essay on the concept of identity. A bit outdated compared to my thoughts now, but offers a good view into the more scholarly side of my writing style and thought processes.
On IDentity
It seems to me that the chiefest of struggles that my generation, and those who are younger than I, will face is that of the struggle for a meaningful identity.
The world into which we have been born is a world at precipice. The old values, or what pass for them, are fading. The shadows of the Victorians are receding. The internet with all of its hyper-accelerated interconnectivity is at once empowering and enslaving us, because we access it on the most primal level: our identities.
Everywhere you go online — wait, let’s pause. Consider that phrase, naturally typed stream-of-conscience without premeditation: “Everywhere you go online.” Does the internet have “wheres?” The user moves from web page to web page, certainly. But can we truly deem virtual space as being a “where?” How do we define space? How about where? What is a where?
Where are we?
Where are we going?
Where are we going to find [insert desire]?
Where did [thing] happen?
Where will [thing] happen?
All of these questions, stretching across past, present, future, and distance, involve this nebulous concept of “where.” And this is completely wrapped up in this question of identity — for how can we be a Thing without having a Space in which to Be? The identity of the space we inhabit, to some extent, necessarily informs our own identity. So, if I say that I’m going to Reddit, say, what is the assumption there? What is actually happening?
I’m certainly not physically going to Reddit. My mind isn’t teleporting through some sinister mirror-reality to this place, “Reddit.” I’m accessing Reddit. There’s a word. Accessing. Reddit exists in a place, a closed off place that I can’t physically, mentally, or spiritually visit: but I can access it. The virtualization of the 21st century, I think, revolves around that word. Much has already been written on it, across a variety of disciplines. On some level, a lot of the hacktivist movement revolves around access. Who has the right to access any given information? Who has the right to access the internet at speeds that are better than any given third world country? Who has the right to access certain regions of the internet?
And, according to human tradition, we have already begun the process of imperialization with regards to this space formed by access. There is a corner (another space term) of the internet for basically everything. Any game you want to talk about, anything you want to fix around the house, anything you want to learn how to cook. Politics or law your jam? Sure. Seedier interests? The professed anonymity of the internet proliferates this space like a blowfly infestation.
This anonymity forms an interesting contrast with online identities. We all access the internet initially as formless, thoughtless, existenceless blobs. We have a terminal in front of us that we use to access the space, certainly, and in the strict, meatbag sense, we’re not really anonymous. Skilled hackers, corporations, and so on can trace anything. But, with regards to identity, the first time a human being sits down at a computer, they do not exist.
There may be preconceived notions lingering from physicality. I don’t like spinach. Golden Retrievers are awesome. I would like to eat healthier. But these stray impulses have no context in a digital world, until context is given unto them. I will now separate these concepts linguistically. Our physicality is our ID. Our digitality is our identity.
Some will argue that it is possible to have an identity without a digital context. After all, untold generations have done it before we came along. My rebuttal is that I fail to see the difference. Identity in the 1800s was merely a predigital digital foreshadowing. Human personal identity is always nebulous. Why don’t you like broccoli? Uhhh…I just do. Why do some people like pink and others hate it? Metal? Funk? All are wrapped in this undefined and undefinable space.
The sole difference is that through the internet, we can express it. When you create a profile for yourself on some website or another, you express an aspect of yourself. Even if your goal is misdirection caused by a suspicion of digital spaces, the subjects that you generate this profile with become part of you — even if they weren’t there to begin with. Your access, on some level, defines you.
In this definition, some find freedom. There are any number of people who play online games masquerading as the opposite sex because they find the rejection of traditional gender roles either comforting or intriguing. Some create personas to express opinions that they could never relate in their physicality, debating topics extensively through the mask they create: but which in turn defines them; what in some way is a true reflection of who they are, but they are incapable of being through physical, societal, or personal inhibitions.
Make no mistake: this question is far-reaching and challenging to examine. How does someone reconcile the differences between the identity that they create digitally and the ID that we bear in meatspace? As time has passed, I’ve become increasingly convinced that the transgender movement is very close to the heart of this discussion. Here exists a group of people who have wildly contrasting identity vs ID, and, as the computer age moves forward, is slowly becoming increasingly more prevalent and mainstream. I wouldn’t say that it’s “okay” socially to be transgender yet, but at least people don’t have to look it up as much anymore. Regardless, most trans people hide what they consider their true selves in meatspace, but unleash the full force of their identity through online communications, forging their way through online spaces through the sheer force of their personality. Judging by the few trans friends I have known over the years, it seems that many are “out” online far before they attempt to transition physically.
This is one example. There are many more. Even for those of us without serious identity problems, we often exemplify ourselves digitally. We are who we wish we are, not who we seem fated to be. We aren’t obese, or asthmatic, or socially awkward. Okay, maybe we’re still socially awkward. But, freed from the constraints of the physical, ideally we could engage in a space that create, in a true manifestation of Who We Are.
Of course, it doesn’t work out quite that way and isn’t quite that simple. That is, I believe, what the kids (now young adults) of the digital era wish were the case. In a way, I believe that it is tied to the superhero shows and movies that are hyper-popular now. Superhero mythos has long appealed to a populace whose collective noses were to the grinder. In a way, I think that they’re a digital existence for an older generation, but one to which the new, “properly” digital generations can still relate. We all want to be more than we are, or even just to be who we believe ourselves, conceptually, to be. To have the power To Be is probably the most sought after thing in modern times, and it is a power that digital worlds enable.
The danger is relating that back to meatspace. The danger is when you allow a person to be themselves to the fullest, and then take that away from them for eight plus hours a day, five plus days a week. The danger is when right to access gets involved. Who are you to charge a monthly fee for the right to an identity? Why, the Man who owns the cables that underly your identity. Capital.
Digital space is not healthy space. It is space created because we could, not because we should. It is spaced explored by, claimed by capital. It is spaced shaped by our rampant dreams of a better time, a better place, a better self. This Gaian mythopoesis charges digital space. In my day job, I regularly interact with programmers. Even within the code that enables digital spaces to exist, mythogenetive terminology is used. Programmers live in a world of invoking, daemons, black magic, and heavy wizardry. Digital spaces are all created with a seed of fantasy, which in turn grows and flourishes into a Gaian node.
As a Gaian system, the internet is largely self-regulating and, in a way, degrees of self-aware. Attempts at extinguishing active nodes of it will be met with resistance, and in some cases will spread to other nodes if shut down. Consider how many times The Pirate Bay has existed, died, and been reborn.
The growth and shepherding of this system that we have created falls to us, now. It exists. It will not be unmade. The benefits to capital will ensure its continued life cycle, and the benefits to personal identity will ensure its continued usage. Digital space is a tremendously powerful space. Within it, we can be ourselves to an extent that prior generations have only dreamed of. In many ways, we are experiencing a second reality where we create the laws, rather than having them imposed upon us. The centrality of powerful myths to this reality is not a coincidence. Through the digital, these myths can be given life: resuscitated in a way that physicality has largely abandoned.
There are two primary questions.
The first: how do we draw forth digital spaces in a manner that capital does not warp them further than is absolutely necessary?
The second: how do we relate digital experiences and the digital self against physical experience and the physical self?
The answers to these questions will shape the 21st century — but I don’t have them.
Here’s some setup (read: my personal notes) to frame discussion:
1) Humanity as a collective entity has an underlying, unifying quality as per Jung.
a) These qualities are accessed via myths: stories and concepts that traverse linguistic and geographical barriers.
b) Myths recycle throughout temporal periods. As Ages pass, myths are regenerated across media through the process of mythopoesis.
c) Mythopoesis is a process that is alive and functional today despite being damaged by capital and the fallout of the industrial era.
d) Mythopoesis is occurring within and informing digital spaces.
2) The internet as manifested is a Gaian ecosystem, focused around nodes.
a) These nodes are loosely tied together within themselves by collective interest.
b) These nodes are loosely tied together between themselves by shared interest.
c) This Gaian system is self-regulated and self-aware, and acts with self-preservation towards its nodes.
d) Capital flows between nodes, forging unexpected connections. Viewing the nodes as islands and capital as the ocean upon which they float is an apt descriptor.
3) Identity is a personalized public space, informed by varying degrees of the acceptance or rejection of meatspace ID.
a) The transgender community is the first group that sprung to mind, but most LBGT groups probably operate similarly.
b) Gaming is probably particularly pertinent to this, as is cosplay/crossplay.
c) This is also the area within which capital is at its most heinous / obvious / rejected. For example, personalized advertisements on Facebook.
d) The amorphous void state prior to digital access is probably of significant note.
4) Cthulhu, as a concept, exists as capital, flowing between nodes. Digital space has strong underpinnings of the unknownable unknown.
a) This is perhaps not surprising given the lens of identity, since digital space forces us to comes to terms with who we are on a primal level.
b) See also: existential terror. Consider Facebook profiles of dead people, or funerals in World of Warcraft.
c) Most newly regenerated myths via digital mythopoesis are charged with a darkness. There are no shining Supermen. There are dozens of Batmans, grey anti-heroes, and insane Jokers.
d) Slenderman is very important to this aspect of digital space, as is the entire body of creepypasta.
5) Digital space is likely unhealthy while being simultaneously empowering.
a) Most of this can be traced to the dichotomy between digital and physical space, especially per societal impulses.
b) Relating digital-self improvements to physical-self can be challenging or impossible, which can cause a lot of frustration and depression.
c) The omnipresence and overtness of capital can also be seen as an infecting agent.
d) Digital existence is completely unhealthy in a strict body-health sense. Lack of muscular use, ease of unhealthy eating/drinking, etc.