inevitable technologies of self

I have an acquaintance who is generating an online identity on Facebook. It is visually and textually sexual using every allowable means to engage new “friends” whose responses fortify her creation. This online persona is an exaggerated and distorted version of her offline identity that lacks assurance, struggles with language, and fights obesity. It is a kind of fantasy reality that elicits admiration as she presses daily to reinforce this construction.  The example is a real, albeit negative, one that exhibits the possibilities of an online disembodied identity construction. Offline or online, we present ourselves to the world. The question might be asked, “To what extent is the identity you present online a construction”(Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Tomic,A., 2004)?

In treating the discussion of online identity construction I discover that I am secured to particular philosophic underpinnings. One of my grounding ties is some of the thinking offered by the late psychologist, Carl Rogers, who stated, “I have not found it to be helpful or effective in my relationships with other people to try to maintain a façade; to act in one way on the surface when I am experiencing something quite different underneath. It does not, I believe, make me more helpful in my attempts to build up constructive relationships with other individuals” (Rogers, 1989, p. 18).

The theme of Rogers’ life work was transcendent dialogue based upon the premise of removing barriers to knowing and being known. Rogers’ as well as Martin Buber’s works have resonated with me as I have sought to understand and practice “living dialogue” (Kramer, K.P., Gawlick, M., 2003).

With this as my favored backdrop, I consider the subject of constructing identity in the context of an online presence where I find myself and much of my social life. Fundamental definitions of identity are reworked in the cyberworld where the boundaries are unclear “between the real and the virtual, the animate and the inanimate, the unitary and the multiple self” (Wynn, E., Katz, J, 2006). It is tempting to barricade identity inside a rigid framework when it surely must be a fluid and constantly altering personal phenomena whereby “I” is not only a historical construct but one that is morphing by my interactions and my experiences. With this in mind, the “quite different underneath” that Rogers mentions does not consist of worn paradigms and boring dogma but ever fresh awareness of interior responses and new slants offered in an environment of integrity to self and others.

It has been suggested that I adopt an online persona that is different from my offline one (2004, p. 106). I am attempting this in an online community for the sake of discussion only. It is not my normal modus operandi. I see myself as a person of relative integrity and a seeker of honesty and transparency in communication. In constructing my profile for this community, I was strictly honest in what I stated. I simply left out significant details like my age and my marital status. These simple omissions create a new person who is possibly very young and very available. That was easy.

Online and offline identity construction is inescapable. We are not amorphous thoughtless blobs. If we are engaging with others there is a presentation. Erving Goffman’s view that “the character which the performer creates is not identical to the person who creates it” puts us on a stage where we perform “our online self-presentation” (2004, p. 102). This doctrine contradicts Rogers’ ideal of congruence or genuineness which I find difficult to negate (Rogers, 1989, p. 224). There is truth in Goffman’s view, but I hold hope for greater things.

Ideally, this online presentation or identity construction needs to be 1) recognized as inescapable, 2) born of the notion that my identity has roots in who I have been, who I am, and who I am becoming, 3) recognized as an identity that has inherent value and does not need defending but needs a safe space to be accurately communicated, 4) founded upon reasonable integrity, and 5) seen as one that is aided and formed in transcendent dialogue and involvement in group processes that embrace self-disclosure.
The preceding conditions assume relationship. We are not formed in a vacuum. "The sense of "I" is put together in relationship to other people! ...is something we put together with the help of others." (2004 p.96). Our identity on and off line is a co-construction with the character of that identity determined by our  intention in relationships. By engaging with others with genuineness, we are likely to construct an identity that is closer to the truth as opposed to the distorted image of my friend mentioned earlier. “Self-disclosure has been viewed as a key component in developing close relationships…self-disclosure as the process of making the self known to other persons… it builds trust which leads to closer relationships” (Bruss, O. Hill, J., 2010). I would add that the act of articulating disclosure leads to a deeper clarity of self-knowledge. The extent  and nature of disclosure is largely based on context and indiscriminate gut-spilling or a revealing of shocking intimacies is not to be equated with well-formed identity construction or effective communication.  As a potent and primary tool of connection and identity construction, self-disclosure needs to be used wisely---then fearlessly.

References

Bruss, O. Hill, J. (2010). Tell Me More:Online Versus Face-to-Face Communication and Self-Disclosure. Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 3-7 

Kramer, K.P., Gawlick, M. (2003). Martin Buber's I and thou. New York: Paulist Press.

Rogers, C. (1989). Speaking Personally. In H. H. Kirschenbaum, The Carl Rogers reader (pp. 6-56). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C. (1989). Theory and Research. In H. H. Kirschenbaum, The Carl Rogers reader. New York, NY:Houghton Mifflin.

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., Tomic,A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: social interaction and the internet. London, England: Sage Publishing.

Wynn, E., Katz, J. (2006). Hyperbole over Cyberspace: Self-presentation & Social Boundaries in Internet Home Pages and Discourse . Retrieved March 24, 2011, from Computer Mediated Communication: http://www.indiana.edu/~tisj/readers/full-text/13-4%20Wynn.html

humans and their technology

It is tempting to isolate the term “technology” within the historical confines of recent developments in, say, the past century citing the introduction of the telephone, television, computers, cellphones, internet,  and other familiar inventions that are so integrated into our daily lives and are , in truth, “invisible technology” (Thurlow, C., Lengel, L, Tomic, A., 2004, p. 37). The focus of computer mediated communication (CMC) is on the interactive technology of the internet which is, in light of history, a technological infant. But if we view technology in a comprehensive sense as “how people modify the natural world to suit their own purposes” (2004, p. 25), we will then embrace the vast scope of original creations that began popping on the human scene since the beginning and continue to the present moment.  It seems true that “technological possibilities are irresistible to man” (Chandler, 2002).

Dan Chandler uses the example of a knife to discuss the non-neutrality of technology and its simplicity might facilitate understanding the dynamic movement of technology. The knife surely originated in response to a clear need for a tool to protect and provide. Within the cultural context, men crafted a tool that served to “extend human abilities” (2004, p. 25). The tool, in turn, changed the culture. It expanded the abilities of the people to hunt, protect themselves, build dwellings, and prepare food.

When I studied graphic design in the late 60s and early 70s, we set our own type, used press type, hand-inked acetate pages for animation, and carefully hand-painted every project.  In recent years I have taught digital imaging classes using Photoshop software. The changes in technology are dramatic.  Graphic design is a different animal today. When the program opens there is list of scores of technicians who developed this incredible tool that is used by individuals, graphic designers, students, matt painters, and artists. It is a technology that was generated by the demands of a culture. It is a superior technology and is impacting the culture and in many venues has become “invisible”.

Are scientists and engineers responsible to the culture for their discoveries?

An assumption exists that technology is “unstoppable” (Chandler, 2002). Inherent in this is a sense of an unthinking phenomenon that has no choice but to press on. It suggests there is no room for ethics or moral reasoning. To offset this, Dan Chandler offers the example of the Chinese who developed gunpowder but elected to stop at that point and not create the gun. The gun was created by others, but not by the Chinese. They exercised choice in the face of the unstop-ability of technology (2002).  

In contrast, Media Ecologist, Marshall McLuhan states in response to this matter of a technological imperative:

“Moralistic resistance is futile. On a moving highway, the vehicle that backs up is accelerating in relation to the highway situation. Such would be the ironical status of the cultural reactionary. When the trend is one way, his resistance insures a greater speed of change” (Griffin, 2009).

In reflecting on the example of the Chinese intentional limitations with gunpowder, though I think that this resistance may seem futile in the larger picture, it illustrates the possibility of a moral or ethical capability of humans to refuse to succumb to the pressure of the technological imperative. Is that refusal to press forward to be equated with backing up or is there a time to realistically assess and not always assume that moving “forward” is the only solution? It seems that the custodians of technological advances---those who originate and create---are also responsible to use that same creative brilliance to imagine the  varied consequences of sending this technology into the world.

References

Chandler, D. (2002, October 29). Technological or Media Determinism. Retrieved March 18, 2011, from Media and Communications Study: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/tecdet/tdet01.html

Griffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L, Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication. London, England: Sage Publications.

A Sprouting Philosophy

Sometime during my freshman year in high school my mother disappeared for several days. My queries about her absence were met with abruptness and silence from my dad. When the police brought her home, nothing was discussed. There were no explanations. She went to the bedroom. He followed her and shut the door and there was silence. Several days later all was back to “normal.” We all knew, but we did not pursue discussion or ask questions. Concealment and power plays like this were integral to our unchallenged family culture. It was life-as-usual in my formative years and it worked to instill in me a deep longing for clarity in communication and non-manipulative influence in others’ lives. This same pattern emerged in succeeding relationships. As a teenager, I began discovering communication between the sexes to be stimulating and mysterious, but, simultaneously, rife with deception, possessiveness, and manipulation. After three knotty marriages, I concluded the promises promoted in ritual ceremony wholly impotent. The one relationship that most of humanity deems the height of intimacy and the most promising to assure freedom from skewed and harmful messages is broken--at least half the time (Prevention, 2010). Martin Buber offers some insight in his work with genuine dialogue:

Beneath the chaos of warring monologues, though, two dimensions of human interaction have continued to receive widespread attention across a spectrum of fields and social situations. The first is the feeling almost everybody has that meaningful communication is absolutely necessary to the survival of individuals and nations. This dimension is mitigated by a second, the daunting understanding that such communication is difficult, and usually seems impossible, to attain. (Kramer, K., Gawlick, M., 2003, p. 1)

Buber’s use of the phrase “usually seems” offers hope that meaningful communication is indeed within reach. I am animated by that hope.

I am compelled to offer my philosophy of communication as embryonic. It is based largely on personal experience with a dose of theory, some good reading, and pondering in the shower and on long walks. I think of my friend, Carl Rogers, when he states, “I have some knowledge about communication and could assemble more” (Rogers). Sincerity begs that I not be excessively assertive or fixed in my offerings. I feel comfortable prefacing the whole of what follows with a thoughtful but tentative, “It seems to me…”

An enduring philosophy of communication is constructed upon an ethical framework.  It is imperative that genuinely effective message-making seeks to unmask all manner of falsehood. Good communication has roots in the soil of truthfulness that is able to nourish its manifold levels: from the center of Altman and Taylor’s’ “Multilayered Onion” (Griffin, 2009, p. 115), to the “inbetween” of Buber’s dialogic (Friedman, n/a), to the mass media environment of Marshall McLuhan (Griffin, 2009, p. 313). Communication is humane and promotes the good of many when it is enlivened by truth. Communicating truthfully is distinct from (though not exclusive of) simply not speaking deliberate falsehoods. It is attentive and congruent to inward motivations and nuances of meaning and seeks an inward frankness.

My passion for clarity in communication emerged not because of excellent role models, but was instead born of frustration with the apparent absence or abuses of them. The demise of intimate relationships, the aha moment that finds no receiver, the vision that falls flat for lack of buy-in, the charades in social engagements, and a general relational ambiguity all affirm this deficit.  My work in the church and academic settings served to further convince me of this void that is able to effectively cripple or prohibit the realization of organizational vision 

The focus of my emerging philosophy of communication lies in three areas. The first is borne of a personal predisposition for internal observation and honesty. This attraction to intrapersonal dialogue often proves to be a problem and source of frustration. It is certainly not a welcome topic for light conversation at a dinner party. This propensity was not my birthright, but seems to have emerged in me after a three-year stint in my twenties of (nearly clinical) high-volume experimentation with the “mind-expanding drug”, LSD (Metzner, 2000). I observe that my internal awareness changed significantly after these years. Though I do not prescribe its use to my children, I gleaned benefit from those experiences. I am learning that there is great advantage in the observation of this living undercurrent in promoting increased personal awareness and disabling of crippling emotions. I believe that intrapersonal dialogue and attentiveness to it is the foundation for a deepening compassion for and interaction with others. 

There are intentional practices that nurture intrapersonal communication.  I value Wayne Oates’ suggestion to find pockets of silence through the day to lend objectivity to the inner world (1997, p. 97). Increased sensitivity to the inner world is also found in meditative practices. One in particular is the ancient practice of centering prayer. Cynthia Bourgeault, in her book, Centering Prayer and Inner Awakening, asserts the need to “still the waters” and that “Once the mind is calm and concentrated, it becomes better able to access those deep states of peacefulness and unitive seeing that lies beneath our ordinary awareness” (Bourgeault, 2004). Any practices that aid in understanding the inside talk and deepening perception will advance the clarity and positive function of intrapersonal communication.

As a visual artist, I appreciate the voice of images and I find a clear description of effective interpersonal communication in “Bond of Union,” a 1950 lithograph by Dutch artist M.C. Escher (Bool, 1992). This image is a portrayal of the agreement of two people. Their foreheads are connected in a way that appears to be an indissoluble bond. Deep, truthful, unfettered connection with another or others must be the definitive purpose of human communication. Martin Buber asserts with greater emphasis that, “It is a question of the authenticity of what is between men, without which there can be no authentic human existence” (Friedman, n/a).  I have little personal experience with this kind of dialogue except what I imagine and read it could be.  I find myself seeking it like a madwoman. I discover my conversations, sermons, and teaching opportunities tend toward settling into core matters with an aversion to affectation, although, I certainly do that well also. In the pursuit of clarity, we may find, as Pogo says, “We have met the enemy and he is us” (Kelly, 1950). If I were to submit myself to hauling about a large bag of rocks on my shoulders each day, the burden of the unnatural load will soon distort my body and hinder my movement. I suspect most of us unconsciously tolerate heavy relational baggage that equally distorts and hinders freely loving and connecting. It seems we readily acclimate to a comfortable place of safety with minimal risk and in so doing we forfeit the adventures and possibilities of genuine creative transformational engagement.

 Some of the practices that refine interpersonal engagement include focus on deep non-judgmental listening, careful use of words, and the creation of safe space. I concur with Carl Rogers’ emphasis on three conditions that are non-negotiable for the success of the “person-to-person” encounter. These are: congruence (the ideal self and the actual self are in harmony), unconditional positive regard, and empathetic understanding (Rogers, 1980). All these contribute to the development of cognitive complexity and the successful “crafting of person-centered messages (2009, p. 101).

The third aspect of my emerging philosophy of what communication means is from my experience with organizations, most especially in ecclesiastical settings. I would like to believe I am not so much a cynic as a realist who hopes for change. I have been embedded in the workings of the American church for over thirty years. I have pastored a church of non-denominational charismatic flavor which is distinctly different from countless other distinctly different Christian flavors. One of the commonalities of all these different churches is the annoying and anti-Christian undertone of insisting on being “right.” If I am “right” then many others must be “wrong” and any communication is effectively aborted. This limiting refrain is subtle but insidious and works its magic to produce a fractured and judgmental lot of basically unhappy people who voice a gospel of joy and acceptance. Person-centered messages that embrace habits which nourish agreement are rare (2009, pp. 100-101). This predisposition has contributed to the commonly negative image of the Church in the surrounding culture. It is evident not only between the individual doctrinal bodies, but is also problematic within the bodies themselves. An extraordinary degree of superficiality and deception abound in this institution that holds claims of the highest integrity. I firmly believe that the organizational tier of religious communication is distorted because the heart is sick; the foundations are poor. Strengthening foundations of an already constructed building is difficult at best and likened to the old wineskins that break with fresh wine or the distant possibility of dry bones becoming fleshed.

There are intentional practices that engender possibilities for the religious organization. The primacy of organizational vision is indispensible. This overarching vision is developed with a core group who are in healthy dialogue, share a common vision, and are willing to adopt a communication model for the group and disseminate it among the members of the body (2009, p. 263). Honesty, radical approaches, and reconstructed thinking are vital to a core vision. Clarity on this level presumes an ongoing healthy intrapersonal experience as well as openness to interpersonal dynamics. There are intentional practices that support communication within the religious organization. Transparent and truthful pulpit ministry that transcends simply rational doctrine, avoids dogmatism, and seeks creative means to deliver messages is essential.  Another significant strategy is the emphasis on well-facilitated small groups that are in praxis and perception the defining hub of the culture of the organization.

“Communication is the simultaneous experience of self and other--transcending one’s current self, overcoming one’s current self, to become more than what one was through connection with another” (Shepherd, 2006). I support this definition cautiously and humbly as one that resonates with my developing philosophy of communication that builds upon a healthy intimate engagement with the inner dialogue. From this place we are better equipped to creatively and boldly embrace the other(s). Both of these working together form a place for a dynamic expression in the larger world of organizational vision.

I assume that I will be making revisions and additions to this “final” philosophy of communication in the months to come as I invest and learn through the COML program. I find it interesting that the core ideas of my first draft remained stable over the semester though I feel my thinking has broadened and deepened with the aid of many good texts, scholarly articles, good discussion, and life application.

References

Bool, F. (1992). M.C. Escher: his life and complete graphic works. New York, NY: H.N.Abrams.

Bourgeault, C. (2004). Centering prayer and inner awakening. Chicago, Ill: Cowley Publications.

Friedman, M. (n/a). Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue . Retrieved from Religion online: http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=459&C=384

Griffin, E. (2009). A first look at communication theory. New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education.

Kelly, W. (1950). Positively pogo. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Kramer, K., Gawlick, M. (2003). Martin Buber's i and thou. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Metzner, R. A. (2000). The Psychedelic experiences: A manual from the tibetan book of the dead. New York, NY: Citadel.

Oates, W. (1997). Nurturing silence in a noisy heart. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press.

Prevention, C. f. (2010, August 24). National Vital Statistics Report. Retrieved March 3, 2011, from Center for Disease Control and Prevention: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_25.htm

Rogers, C. (1980). A way of being. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin. New York, NY: Citadel.

Rogers, C. (n.d.). Experiences in Communication. Retrieved March 2, 2011, from Listening Way. Retrieved March 1, 2011, from http://www.listeningway.com/rogers2-eng.html

Shepherd, G. (n.d.). Communication as Transcendence. In G. S. Shepherd (Ed.). California: Sage Publications.

one piece: transforming dialogue

(illustration credit below)

The following is an excerpt from "Carl Rogers, Anarchist Incognito" a paper discussing the life, practice, and theoretical underpinnings of Carl Rogers.

The familiar refrain through Carl Roger’s work is the centrality of the client. Rogers affirms that the client-centered or person-centered approach to therapy “expresses the primary theme of my whole professional life” (Kirschenbaum,H., Henderson,V., 1989). His methods are supremely dependent upon the establishment of trust. Rogers states that “this is perhaps its sharpest point of difference from most of the institutions of our culture. The individual is seen as…someone who must be constantly watched over” (Kirschenbaum, 1989, p.137).

 Rogers’ notions go beyond superficial psychological repairs and stress a concern for the vital health of the client and what he envisioned as the “fully functioning person” (Kirschenbaum, 2004). Believing in the vast internal resources accessible to the client, his practice focused on creating a safe environment that would nurture uncommon transformation and growth.  His work with his clients utilized a non –directive approach. This approach assumes the belief that the client best knows what is needed. This method is distinguished from the more traditional role of the psychotherapist as the driver of the session who has a plan and a guideline for fixing client problems. In Rogers’ view the therapist serves as a guide and facilitator. He shunned the use of techniques that put the client in a position of being controlled by the therapist (Kirschenbaum, 1989).

Rogers emphasizes three conditions that are non-negotiable for the success of the therapist-client (or person-to-person) encounter. These are: congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathetic understanding (Rogers, 1980).

Congruence precludes pretense or any attempt at maintaining a façade. The facilitator sets the pace in the communicating environment or therapy session by offering his own transparency and genuineness. In A Way of Being (Rogers, 1980), Rogers further defines congruence:

“By this I mean that when my experiencing of this moment is present in my awareness and when what is present in my awareness is present in my communication, then each of these three levels matches or is congruent. At such moments I am integrated or whole. I am completely one piece” (p.15).

If the client senses he is prized and regarded unconditionally, the flow of the interaction will be smooth and promote a sense of well-being.  Rogers encourages the therapist to accept what feelings are occurring inside the client with no reservations. “It is a nonpossessive caring. When the therapist prizes the client in a total rather than a conditional way, forward movement is likely” (Kirschenbaum, 1989, p.136).

The third condition for the life-changing kind of success of this interaction is empathetic understanding. Empathy demands intentional and attentive action on the part of the facilitator. An active, focused, and deep listening serves as a dynamic tool. Within the context of these purposeful and safe environments and the connection that results, verifiable changes are able to occur that promote the release of human potential in the client as well as the therapist.

threeriversepiscopal.blogspot.com