Sheilds, Rob. "Ken
Hillis, Digital Sensations: Space, Identity and Embodiment in Virtual
Reality." Space and Culture 3.4-5 (2000): 246-247.
This short article
compresses quite a bit of theory into its two pages of discussion. Sheilds
claims that the presence of any technology intended to provide the artifice of
environment precludes the possibility of truth for the outcomes (whatever they
may be) of engagement with it. Through his discussion of Hiliis, Sheilds is
able to argue via induction that immersive technologies (of any kind, which I
would argue includes socialized media) “are an attempt to supersede the modern
constraints imposed by distance or [the] wall between subject[s] and object[s]
by allowing the illusion of direct engagement in a scenario” (247). The operative
word in that snippet is of course, illusion.
Sheilds believes that the reduction of innate reactions imposed by virtual
environments erode the human experience that depends on spontaneity—the “performance”
loved and lived-for by the polis. This artifice of connectedness has supplanted
the knowledge of the self by creating a digital medieval marketplace that
imagines “social interaction in which those otherwise separated by caste, class
and urban-rural divisions supposedly encounter one and other in an almost
pre-social manner” (247).
I’ve read and reread that
quote about 20 times now, yet the phrase “pre-social manner” troubles me still.
If interaction without
constraint of perception (which is exactly what caste, class, and geography
create and consequently what technology removes through contextual anonymity)
does not allow for the presence of the self, then awareness is the antithesis
of identity.
And consider this:
everything this course, this blog, is designed to do centers on the dialectic and
the quest for recognition of the true self (identity). Yet, while knowledge is
considered the processing and creation of ideas sprung forth from the remnants of
others (the socialization of knowledge), truth then must be the reduction of
such. Pre-social interaction can then be equated to ignorance of existence,
true identity its collateral damage, the digital playground the great equalizer
mass distraction. What it produces are untruths, lopsided perceptions of self
and compatriot.
What Hillis coins “optical
unconsciousness” seems very close to what Harraway and Baym refer to as absent
presence. I’m reminded of Cicero and the importance of invention. The
artificial environment, today’s socialized social media, creates a holding cell
within a liminal space for identity.
With your argument about interaction without perception being the opposite of identity, I can see exactly where you are coming from. Class, gender, race, etc. all play a role in how we conduct ourselves, how we speak, and even how we think. So without others seeing this, how can our true identities be perceived? Well, I think this is more of a case of creating a safe environment where exclusivity is not much of an issue as in person. But I agree, a big part of our identity is eliminated once we get behind the screen. The artificial environment takes away the spontaneity but also allows for individuals to be heard who otherwise may have been ignored.
ReplyDeleteI suppose one could make the claim that the digital sphere IS the self.
DeleteIf we work through induction that all voices in the digital sphere are carried with equal weight, then the abstraction in totality of all contributions IS the identity. But the identity of what?
Are we to believe that digital media has somehow confirmed Locke's interpretation of sensitive knowledge?
Andres, Don't forget to identify yourself when you post--unless anonymity have become your identity on this blog.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're referring to. My screen shows my posts as authored by me.
DeleteI had to go to the "All Posts" page to find your name.
DeleteFascinating, and all based on a two page article! I have two take aways: 1) "pre-social manner"--aren't class and other social dividers created by social interaction? If so, then meeting without them is to meet prior to society--obviously impossible. 2) You write that, "everything this course, this blog, is designed to do centers on the dialectic and the quest for recognition of the true self (identity)." Isn't it possible that there is no true self, that identity is not singular? If so, then what is the design of this course?
ReplyDeleteYou know, I'm not sure. The possibility that identity is not singular questions whether identity is natural at all--multiple facets suggest the need for multiple observations, all of which have nothing to do with the facet's referent. And like you pointed out, those observations contribute to the perceptions that drive social division of any kind. So, while grappling with whether there is no true self, we also have to ask whether the artifice, allowing the pre-social interaction, is in fact the key to unlocking perhaps not identity in totality but the potential of its totality.
Delete