This is my brain online Gary Shilling 1

THIS IS MY BRAIN ONLINE

Entertaining face-work, media extension,
and all things 2.0

Gary Shilling

January 17, 2008

 This is my brain online Gary Shilling 2

In this electric age we see ourselves being translated

more and more into the form of information, moving
toward the technological extension of our consciousness.
That is what is meant when we say that we daily know
more and more about man. We mean that we can
translate more and more of ourselves into other forms
of expression that exceed ourselves
(McLuhan, 1964/2001, p. 57).

I HAVE GOOGLE BRAIN, Facebook friends, a blogosphere of ideas, and I can haz

cheezburger. This is a good thing. The “connected intelligence” (Derrick de Kerckhove,

1997, title) of the Internet (complete with spelling errors) is my new sandbox. It is a place

to socialise, learn, work, and express myself. Web 2.0 technology has enabled a global

metadiscourse between strangers, friends, and consumers to the extent that the online

world has become embedded in the performance of our everyday lives. Accompanied

along with this “extension of [hu]man[ity]” (McLuhan, 1964/2001) is a new hierarchy of

thought, presence, and community.

As we sit at our computers clicking, double-clicking, and restarting (Windows

users only) we tend to take for granted the entry our software interface provides into the

connected googolplex of the world’s data. In Interface Culture, Johnston (1997) takes

on the challenge of understanding the vital role that interface design plays in modern

society. The interface is a concoction of art and science, without which, we would still be

sitting at a blinking DOS prompt wondering what to do. As Johnston puts it, the term

computer is somewhat of a misnomer. It is not the mathematical calculations that move

us: “The crucial technological breakthrough lies instead in the idea of the computer as a

symbolic system, a machine that traffics in representations or signs rather than in the

mechanical cause-and-effect of the cotton gin or the automobile” (Johnson, 1997, p. 15).

This representation often takes on the form of a metaphor, and as such forms the core of
 This is my brain online Gary Shilling 3

the contemporary graphic interface. It is the widespread adoption of the Graphical User

Interface (GUI) that is the great enabler (and often ‘frustrater’) of our time. The computer

screen becomes our electric light and the browser the medium. It all happens here—my

world, my stage, and my information. In McLuhan’s terms, we’ve shifted from being

“typographic man” to “graphic man”— and along the way, our senses have been

transformed. These media extensions upset our equilibrium by emphasising some senses

at the expense of others. In order to build balance, the psyche alters itself in

corresponding ways (McLuhan, 1961/2006), with the shift sometimes causing uneasiness.

Although not one of Black’s (2008) favourite theories (everyone has something

against McLuhan), this discussion benefits from an understanding of McLuhan’s concept

of hot and cold media. Simply described, a hot medium extends one single sense in “high

definition”, and does not leave much to be filled in by the audience. Cool media on the

other hand “are high in participation or completion by the audience” (McLuhan,

1961/2006, p. 23). The hot form excludes—the cool one includes. With this

understanding: A lecture is hotter than a seminar; television is colder than radio; the web

is positively frigid.

In its fifteen-year history, the Web has grown from an isolated “warm” scientific

island into an ocean of floating icebergs with more than a billion users. Web 2.0

references a combination of technologies and business directions that encourage building

online applications supporting enhanced creativity, collaboration, communication, and

sharing. Two-point-oh is like a tidal wave in the evolution of online communities and

hosted services, including wikis, blogs, podcasts, multimedia sharing, RSS syndication,

and social networks. The term “2.0” conceptually represents the Web entering into a
 This is my brain online Gary Shilling 4

second phase. Termed in part by web marketers to signify a resurgence of web-related

businesses after the dot com crash, and part technology advancement, the Web 2.0

represents an extension of social and participatory aspects of the internet intertwined into

the fabric of our lives.

This paper will not detail the technical underpinnings of Web 2.0, but instead will

focus on the outcomes of the technologies. The growth of the web as a social tool is

influenced by key big picture ideas: user generated content, the power of the crowd, data

on an epic scale, “the long tail” (ability to extend the focus of information to the point of

appealing to a very small specialised audience), open-ness, and the architecture of

participation.

Before delving into the aspects of “living on the web”, it is appropriate to frame

our dialogue of online behaviour within an understanding of Symbolic

Interactionism. SI emphasises the importance of understanding exchanges between

people, the use of symbols in communication and interaction, and the self as a significant

object, constructed by daily interaction. Humans interpret or “define” each other’s actions

instead of merely reacting. Our “response” is not made directly to the actions of one

another but instead is based on the meaning that we attach to such actions. (Blumer,

1963, p. 180).

Goffman’s qualitative analysis in Presentation of Self in Everyday Life

details individual identity, group relations, environmental impact and the interactive

meaning of information exchange. He sees the world as a stage and individuals as players

in it. He employs a “dramaturgical approach” in his study, concerning himself with the

mode of presentation employed by the actor and meaning in the broader social context
 This is my brain online Gary Shilling 5

(Goffman, 1959, p. 240). Interaction is viewed as a “performance,” shaped by

environment and audience, constructed to provide others with “impressions” that are

consonant with the desired goals of the actor (Goffman, 1959, p. 17). In his social world

of “impression management” we are transfigured to role players hiding behind a series of

masks avoiding the stigmata of a poor impression.

[W]hen an individual appears before others his actions

will influence the definition of the situation which they
come to have. Sometimes the individual will act in a
thoroughly calculating manner, expressing himself in a
given way solely in order to give the kind of impression to
others that is likely to evoke from them a specific
response he is concerned to obtain. Sometimes the
individual with be calculating in his activity by be
relatively unaware that this is the case
(Goffman, 1959, p.6)

Goffman labels this performance of the individual as “the front”. The Internet, and

specifically the Web, is primarily concerned with the front.

Early social networking sites of a decade ago used metaphors of place to organize

their members—virtual neighbourhoods organized around place and interest. Today’s

social networking organises around the person, with profiles and personal information at

the centre. Noah Kalina took a photo of himself every day for six years. He put them

together into a video, accompanied by original music made by a friend, and posted it on

YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B26asyGKDo). More than 11 million

people have viewed it. Kalina presents himself in the centre of the frame, in roughly the

same place in every one of the approximately 2190 pictures. The effect is mesmerizing.

Matt Harding travelled around the world and danced the same dance in every place

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNF_P281Uu4). His video has been viewed more

than 12 million times.

 This is my brain online Gary Shilling 6

[W]e no longer have a sense of the spatial boundaries of

our audience. As Goffman (1959) explored, self-
presentation is a conscious, interactive act that requires
both an awareness of and participation from the
audience. However, in technologically mediated sociality,
the audience has been obscured. We can no longer
see who is looking, nor, sometimes, can we even
make an educated guess
(Tufekci, 2008, p. 22).

Kalina and Harding do not know that I have watched their respective videos. (If

they are obsessive about their fame, they might be watching the view counter, but still,

they cannot see me). We have stepped out of the “time space continuum” of physical

place and into the gleaming electric circus of “outer” space. The Internet has no regard

for time. Although resembling the oral cultures of yesteryear, this is version 2.0—there is

no sitting around the campfire and exchanging stories here. We plug in and circulate like

Speedy Gonzales darting in a surreal cartoon. We look toward the future—the past is just

potential fodder for our next mash-up.

Along with Web 2.0 comes mobility 2.0 (part of the ongoing 2.0 theme), which

further disrupts the concept of place. So-called smart phones and other digital

communication devices provide an always-on connection to cyberspace. Media extension

is closing the gap—“[t]he distance between dissemination and reception...fundamental to

almost all forms of communication” (Peters, 1994, p. 117). We are able to establish

contact with anyone at anytime and exchange text, talk, videos and photos. Everything is

content, and we share not only the things that we create, but also elements from the cyber

landscape: links, websites, video clips, photos, music, and of course commentary. Do you

want to know what is hot? Visit http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/zeitgeist/index.html

—Whose talk is tops? http://technorati.com/pop/blogs/. There is an innate desire to

 This is my brain online Gary Shilling 7

“extend” ourselves and our performance to “touch” what others are touching most. We

want to befriend the person with the most friends, follow the “twit” with the most

“tweets”, and watch a video compilation of the most video responses ever to a single

post. (The original poster wrote “One World” on his palm and asked people to respond).

In his essay On Face-Work, Goffman defines face as “the positive social value

a person effectively claims for himself by the ‘line’ others assume he has taken during a

particular contact” (Goffman, 1967, p. 5). His study of face-to-face interaction is based in

the minutia of our existence: facial expressions, gestures, glances, and positioning; the

class of event that occurs during co-presence and by virtue of co-presence (Goffman,

1967, p. 1). Goffman cites two objectives in dealing with these “small behaviours”: One

is to describe the game of expressing alignment to a social occasion, the second is to

uncover the behavioural order found in all peopled places. (I wonder how he would

interpret a “long portrait”?) He advocates social investigation of occasions and

organizations with a focus on the “co-mingling of persons and the temporary interactional

enterprises that can arise there from” (Goffman, 1959, p. 2).

Goffman is concerned with contact, either mediated or face-to-face—patterns of

verbal and non-verbal acts that express a view of the situation or an evaluation of the

participant(s) involved. This line of presentation, whether knowingly or not, conveys a

stand and leaves an impression with those engaged. The term “face” is applied to the

positive social value that is claimed by this line. In an encounter with someone that you

may not meet in the future, there is the option of taking a high line that could lead to

future discredit.
 This is my brain online Gary Shilling 8

Face-work then, is the actions taken by a person to make “whatever he is doing

consistent with face. Face-work serves to counteract ‘incidents’—that is, events whose

effective symbolic implications threaten face” (Goffman, 1967, p. 12). When Spricket24

posts her Boobie Rant: A Defining Moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=KQTthVUNcxs&feature=channel), she is doing face-work, using computer-mediated-

communication, and attempting corrective work to save face. She takes the higher-line

and risks ridicule by defending her boobs and her womanhood. The performance rings

true.

When an individual plays a part he implicitly requests his

observers to take seriously the impression that is fostered
before them. They are asked to believe that the character
they see actually possesses the attributes he appears to
possess, that the task he performs will have the
consequences that are implicitly claimed for it, and that, in
general, matters are what they appear to be
(Goffman, 1967, p. 17).

YouTube is filled with videos of sincere presentations of self. Unfortunately, YouTube

members are encouraged to sign-up with pseudonyms. This can lead to a large number of

rude and unflattering responses from “Xmon666” (and the like) towards performances

such as this one. McLuhan sees a possible explanation for these disconnected and often

sexual responses. His essay, The Gadget Lover: Narcissus as Narcosis, cites the

Greek myth of Narcissus and his reflection, where Narcissus mistook his reflection as

another person and “this extension of himself by the mirror numbed his perceptions until

he became the servo-mechanism of his own extended or repeated image” (McLuhan

1964/2001, p. 41), and juxtaposes it with “narcosis” (being numb). In an online world of

over-stimulated and over-extended individuals, this form of numbness prevails, aided by

anonymity, mobility, dumbness, and obvious testosterone imbalance. The Face-work of

 This is my brain online Gary Shilling 9

Spricket24 risks being subverted by those brainwashed into undue servo-mechanistic

worship, where media extension overrides receptivity in perception.

At the end of 2006, Time magazine named YOU as person of the year. During that

year, online collaboration and social networking accumulated a huge payload of data and

personal information: A new blog went online every minute; MySpace and Facebook

went worldwide. User generated media and social networking are just the crest of a new

wave of creation and trade—the collaboration of amateurs (Tapscott, 2006). With the help

of Web 2.0, open source software, and business models offering free service,

collaboration is saving forests, building better mousetraps, finding cell phones, and

saving lives. For the first time in the world’s history, we have a truly multimedia global

communication system for one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many communication.

Confession: I have two online personas. It is not what you think. I do not go

around as “GX69” harassing nice girls like Spricket24 or the infamous impostor

LonelyGirl15 (unfortunately she is no longer with us, but you can read about her at:

http://tinyurl.com/6cy7ek). I think of myself as Dentine chewing gum (Two Gums in

One!). The “learner” Gary’s presentation of self on Moodle is that of a courteous,

inquisitive and eager student; respectful of RRU as an institution of higher learning, and

the hierarchy within it. My “friend” persona is on Facebook. Here, I’m my playful,

loving, opinionated and controversial self (). You won’t recognise me from my profile

photos (they are only symbols), but everything else is real. My profile has my real name

—photos of me in various social situations—“wall discussions” that I have had with

others—photos and videos I have posted— links to videos and music that I like.
 This is my brain online Gary Shilling 10

Communication, then, is the work of configuring this

shape shifting environment [with] social actors [and]
commit[ting] to collaboratively constructing and
maintaining a shared, stable social reality
(Jackson, 2007, p. 410).

I connect with people I have not seen in 20 years and people I saw just yesterday. I

frequently connect with MAPC cohorts. Backstage, my face-work for both fronts is

harboured by having a clear sense of who I am, toeing the line—and giving face: online

and in the flesh.

 This is my brain online Gary Shilling 11

References

Black, D. (2008, November 25). Lecture. Royal Roads University, Victoria, B.C.

Blumer, H. (1963). Society as symbolic interaction, in Arnold Rose, editor, Human

Behavior and Social Processes: An Interactionist Approach, Boston,

Houghton Mifflin, pp. 179-192.

de Kerckhove, D. (1997). Connected intelligence: the arrival of web society. Sommerville

House Publishing.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior.

AldineTransaction.

Jackson, M. (2007, September). Fluidity, promiscuity, and mash-ups: new concepts for

the study of mobility and communication. Communication Monographs,

74(3), 408-413.

Johnston, S. (1997). Interface culture: how new technology transforms the way we create

and communicate. HarperEdge.

McLuhan, M. (1964/2001). Understanding media: the extensions of man. MIT Press.

Peters, P. (1994, June). The Gaps of which communication is made. Critical studies in

Mass communication. 11, 2., pp. 117-140.

Tappscott, D. & Williams, A. (2008). Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes

everything. Portfolio

Tufekci, Z. (2008). Grooming, gossip, Facebook, and MySpace. Information,

Communication & Society,11:4, pp. 544-564