All, The recent threads regarding moderation, posting, etc., started with a post by Susan about Lachlan's intervention. The part that struck me was the bit about going "to the Goldsmiths College" website to find information about Lachlan. This triggered something else we had talked about before, namely identity and online realities. This was a very practical example, imho, of not separate existence, but existence at all, being challenged because of a lack of documentation online. I know this specific example is somewhat out of context, but I find the issue intriguing as there are numerous bits of science fiction where individuals "hide" by having no electronic documentation. I confess that I've used the internet to search for individuals whose names are associated with topics or papers I'm researching and I'm wondering how many of us do the same thing? We routinely include e-mails, home pages, links to articles available online, all of which constitute our bodies of work. My cv, which is out of date, is online so if someone wants, they can find out about my professional self, as well as information on contacting me via e-mail or voice. Do these electronic records, incomplete as they are, constitute my professional identity? And how does this differ from professional identities constructed thirty years ago? Further, what does this mean for identifies thirty years from now? Just a few thoughts that have been on my mind since the recent posts first began. --JW
Do these
electronic records, incomplete as they are, constitute my professional identity?
Your thoughts on identity and internet first occurred to me a few months ago when i read a posting concerning google searches, and i did a google search of my own name which threw up some interesting items, such as my membership of aoir and Anthropology In Action ... but also a link to my home page which I started about 10 months ago as a professional resume .. I am close to completing my PhD and a home page seems to be a requirement/advantage when job hunting as I can immediately direct someone there ... also it becomes a showcase for the IT skills (??) that I have learnt along the way. I regard it as a work in progress and yes.. it does constitute my professional identity .. such as it is ... also I have my own domain name so that as I change affiliations to different universities there will be a space that is always mine. Denise Carter D.M.CARTER DOCTORAL STUDENT CASS UNIVERSITY OF HULL EMAIL: d.m.carter@cas.hull.ac.uk OR: denisecarter@denisecarter.net Web Page: http://www.denisecarter.net
A colleague of mine asked me to put a page together for them for this reason. The jobs he has applied to seem to "expect" a page they can go to peruse his qualifications. he's using the .info domain. Is anyone else doing this? --JW Who's life can be found at: http://www.wku.edu/~whitejb :) Denise Carter wrote:
which I started about 10 months ago as a professional resume .. I am close to completing my PhD and a home page seems to be a requirement/advantage when job hunting as I can immediately direct someone there ... also it
hi all : ) interesting points, john. you wrote: <SNIP>
This [susan looking into lachlan's credentials on the Goldsmith College website] was a very practical example, imho, of not separate existence, but existence at all, being challenged because of a lack of documentation online.
** i'd have to say i think susan's search of the Goldsmith College webpages seems more a case of questioning or challenging legitimacy (and by extension one's 'right' to a voice in this forum)...although i could see where this could lead to a revoking of 'existence' in this forum. and further down you ask:
Do these electronic records [online CVs], incomplete as they are, constitute my professional identity?
** great question...i think these documents do constitute _part_ of our professional identities...as do published articles, posts to professional mailing lists, delivered (or cancelled) conference papers, letters of recommendation, etc. these are all part of the paper trail the performance of our professional careers leaves behind. but, i'm not sure electronic records really do anything qualitatively different or special beyond supplying an added venue for producing/reflecting our professional identities..which seems again, more about adding legitimacy to our identities than proving that we exist as professionals. i'm wondering what conditions lead to these online documents carrying more or less weight in different contexts? if susan had found that indeed lachlan was a grad student listed (with high honors) on the Goldsmith College website, would his posting of a mock personal ad and request from susan for any 'pics' been less (or more) jarring? work environments are by no means absent of sexually charged power dynamics or our sexualities. so, i'm not sure why i expect to see a request for pics in a dating chat room or on a matchmaker website, but wasn't prepared to see it on the AIR list. why is that? i'm (sort of) prepared to see/deal with these dynamics in the classroom or at a departmental meeting, and i suppose i'm now watching AIR-L figure out how to deal with these dynamics online--which so far has come across as 'filter it out/ignore it'...a less than satisfying response to a complicated situation. best, marygray ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mary L. Gray <mlgray@ucsd.edu> Department of Communication University of California, San Diego mail: PO Box 4004, Louisville, KY 40204 http://weber.ucsd.edu/~mgray ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mary L. Gray" <mgray@weber.ucsd.edu> To: <air-l@aoir.org> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:14 AM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Identity and Internet
** i'd have to say i think susan's search of the Goldsmith College webpages seems more a case of questioning or challenging legitimacy (and by extension one's 'right' to a voice in this forum)...although i could see where this could lead to a revoking of 'existence' in this forum.
work environments are by no means absent of sexually charged power dynamics or our sexualities. so, i'm not sure why i expect to see a request for pics in a dating chat room or on a matchmaker website, but wasn't prepared to see it on the AIR list. why is that? i'm (sort of) prepared to see/deal with these dynamics in the classroom or at a departmental meeting, and i suppose i'm now watching AIR-L figure out how to deal with these dynamics online--which so far has come across as 'filter it out/ignore it'...a less than satisfying response to a complicated situation.
Hi Mary, I am baffled that you don't see the link between these two events you describe. Susan challenges Lachlan's legitimacy, questions his right to have a voice on this forum, with a clever allusion to his absence from the website of the college where he claims to be based. I don't know about sexually charged, but wouldn't you say this is a fairly clear manifestation of power dynamics? CV's at dawn. Lachlan, in reply, alludes to the personal attack/power play hidden within this challenge in his caricature of another, less subtle form of intrusive personal attack/power play, at the same time changing the discourse to include personal detail as well as listing his academic background. I thought actually that was as much trying to be real, personal, as retaliating in kind. And anyway, isn't that really the objection to Lachlan? So far as I can see, folk simply don't like his style of contributions. He just doesn't use the right language, adopt the right (academic) 'voice' and often appears to be having a conversation with himself. He talks personally rather than academically. I think the fact that I usually can't be bothered to get into what he's saying says as much about me as it does about him. On occasions when I can be bothered, I find his contributions quite intruiging. I really enjoyed reading John's and Denise's postings about Identity and the Internet, and Mark's postings today about research gaps - seems a much more useful pursuit to springboard from all this into subjects that are relevant to the list, than focusing all this energy into labelling someone a troll and trying to eradicate them, bacause we don't like their style of engagement. Although I guess that labelling/pathologising styles of Internet engagement is also a legitimate interest on this list, even if I don't like it myself. This post of course reflects my own bias - as a practitioner in the mental health field, I get very hot under the collar when I see people damaged by the process of being labelled and pathologised by groups, groups who are often actually doing no more than trying to silence and deny the experience, often of domination and abuse, for which such people are trying to find expression. Ben
From: "Ben Davidson" <bendavidson@totalise.co.uk> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 03:46:43 -0000 Subject: Re: [Air-l] Identity and Internet
Ben wroted:
I am baffled that you don't see the link between these two events you describe.
ben, i must've been writing unclearly. i meant to draw this connection--but make a distinction--between establishing legitimacy and what existence means on a mailing list. i wanted to tread more lightly (than john) in claiming brown's 'existence' was in question and instead think about what challenging one's legitimacy online means...and why folks are drawn to as much interest in credentials as statements actually uttered.
I don't know about sexually charged, but wouldn't you say this is a fairly clear manifestation of power dynamics? CV's at dawn.
** that's kinda what i was getting at...again, perhaps i wasn't clear, but you put it nicely.
And anyway, isn't that really the objection to Lachlan? So far as I can see, folk simply don't like his style of contributions. He just doesn't use the right language, adopt the right (academic) 'voice' and often appears to be having a conversation with himself. He talks personally rather than academically.
** i think it's a bit more complicated than this...i think i'm rather fuzzy on what constitutes the 'right' language or 'right' academic voice here...but, i feel i have a clearer sense of when gender is used in insinuation to undermine someone speaking or asking a question.
I really enjoyed reading John's and Denise's postings about Identity and the Internet, and Mark's postings today about research gaps - seems a much more useful pursuit to springboard from all this into subjects that are relevant to the list, than focusing all this energy into labelling someone a troll and trying to eradicate them, bacause we don't like their style of engagement.
** again, i'd like to suggest it's a bit more complicated than this...but, i'm also glad to see the discussion shift to other topics.
This post of course reflects my own bias - as a practitioner in the mental health field, I get very hot under the collar when I see people damaged by the process of being labelled and pathologised by groups, groups who are often actually doing no more than trying to silence and deny the experience, often of domination and abuse, for which such people are trying to find expression.
** you lost me here ben. i have this hunch you're saying we shouldn't address the content of lachlan brown's posts because it would pathologize him and would "silence and deny [his] experience of domination and abuse"? this list doesn't seem the appropriate place for expression of such an experience...but, perhaps you can explain if i'm misunderstanding you off-list...i'm sure folks are over this thread. best, mary
Ben Davidson wrote:
This post of course reflects my own bias - as a practitioner in the mental health field, I get very hot under the collar when I see people damaged by the process of being labelled and pathologised by groups, groups who are often actually doing no more than trying to silence and deny the experience, often of domination and abuse, for which such people are trying to find expression.
Since I implicitly "pathologized" someone participating on the list, I feel a need to respond to this. I agree that it is wrong to label and pathologize victims of domination and abuse, and I'd agree that one can legitimately engage in the politics of the personal when one is a victim of domination and abuse. But the party in question--and there is a party in question--this is not a hypothetical discussion, or a general one, is no victim of domination and abuse. Sure, he identified himself as such in his introduction--i.e., he implied that his status as a cultural studies scholar had made him a target of abuse. But that now strikes me as having been nothing more than a clever ploy for legitimating the politics of the personal--a politics that is otherwise illegitimate here, for he was not victimized by anyone on this list previous to his original construction of himself as a victim. (His characterizations of other folks' attempts to defend themselves as attempts at victimization--e.g., his suggestion that Jeremy was victimizing him by threatening to use his *private* E-mail filtering, are equally clever but no more legitimate.) Clever rhetoric should not mask the fact that we have not only witnessed a great lack of collegiality where that lack was not required, but that we have witnessed sexual harassment, at least as that would be defined in the US. True, the air-l list *may* not constitute a workplace environment as that is defined in US law on sexual harassment, and so the sexual harassment *may* not be prosecutable in the US. But such behavior still deserves and needs to be labeled and pathologized. Best, Christian Nelson
participants (5)
-
Ben Davidson -
Christian Nelson -
Denise Carter -
John White -
Mary L. Gray