Online Identity/ Second Life

AVATAR= Hindu word meaning incarnation, the gods incarnated as human beings. This has  been passed onto the present where one can incarnate themselves virtually.  

Have you ever created a avatar/second identity online? Maybe you portrayed yourself as more attractive and or possessing traits you desire to have in real life?

Virtual worlds are becoming ever so popular and maybe even a crucial dimension of mediated reality in technological communities. We now have environments where one can escape the present realm and enter into a second life to posses a completely separate identity, also called avatars. Individuals are spending more and more time whether it be during work or leisure ours living their second lives. It is proposed by some that creating an identity possess two characteristics, exploration and commitment. Exploration is the time where one is searching and discovering their identity (beliefs and goals) and commitment is a time when one decides on and is content with this current identity (Junglas, Johnson, Steel, Abraham, & Loughlin, 2007). Interestingly further research is discovering more about identity creation through the use of virtual worlds.   



It has been said that virtual worlds enable individuals to investigate and discover their personality through men's that are not as accessible in reality. The notion of these second lives or identities may be particularly appealing as they offer an endless array of personalities and behaviours which one can immerse themselves in. It also gives you the advantage of remaining anonymous, and a distraction from the reality of life, work and family pressures.   

Some examples of environments that offer these opportunities are Second Life and World of Warcraft. Programs such as second life enables individuals to creatively construct a life by designing and reinventing a second identity. It very much so disengages one from reality, down to the point of not allowing you to use your real name when stating up an account. 

As with anything there are pros and there are cons. For some the anonymity may act as as tool to explore their identity in a safe environment, but it can also give rise to issues such as trust. Are any of these avatar identities genuine? Further it can disengage/distract you from reality so much that you prefer you life online better than your real life. There have been many incidents were partners, husbands and wives have seen their relationships being destroyed. Those living a second life are finally fulfilling fantasies that they have always dreamed of, neglecting real world relationships and responsibilities. There are many incidences of online cheating and real world heartbreak. People are finding new partners online, having affairs and even getting married, while their real life partners are left behind to pick up the pieces. However in spite of the relationship chaos there have been some happy endings. A couple who met and married online, became inseparable constantly living there lives happily online. This ended up not being enough and they eventually met in real life, and the connection was still apparent. They both left their previous partners and married in real life on their virtual wedding anniversary and also had a baby together.

Yes identity in a virtual world is replicating reality as a consumer society, idealising yourself and pursuing a more attractive life; surprisingly there are even major companies establishing a presence in second life such as American apparel, Toyota, Warner Bros and Adidas but to some it is much more important than 'just a game'. It is a way of life, it is relationships, work, leisure, family and so much more in a digital form. It has been proposed that people connect and react to technology socially and emotionally on deeper levels than we ever thought (Reeves and Nass cited in Meadows, 2008). Around half of the people spending time in virtual worlds, stated that their friends in second life were equal to or better than their real life friends, most spent 20 hours or more online and a quarter of those admitted that the best part of their week occurred in their second life. 

Baudrillard coined the term hyper reality which is a condition in which reality has been replaced by simulacra which is when a symbol or sign loses its concept in reality, it then proceeds to simulate the simulation. Baudrillard believed that hyper reality moves beyond that of combining of the real and the symbol that represents it; it now has formed into a symbol that actually represents something that doesn't exist for example the tooth fairy. He notes that we live in a world that has been substituted for a copy world where individuals seek only simulated stimuli. Which ties in well with the virtual world as individuals, enjoy their life in the virtual/simulated world. 

Will we all end up living a "second life"? I personally think individuals who are attracted to and take on an avatars and live a second lives are people with certain types of personalities, it is not everyone's cup of tea, so no I don't think we will all end up living second lives. There is also research on how second life affects real life. Just think if everyone lives their lives sitting behind a screen, no one will be moving from their seat no exercising,




Sources:

Indalecio, T. 2010, 'Exploring identity in the virtual world - is that really you?' inPsychology Today http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/curious-media/201004/exploring-identity-in-the-virtual-world-is-really-you

http://lexfridman.com/blogs/thoughts/files/2012/08/idog.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8142/7665074182_b436f8700a_o.png

Produsage

The ideas of consumerism and production have almost always been seen as two distinct concepts, however we have recently been presented with the notion of 'produsage'. The word 'produsage' gives a shared meaning to both consumers and producers. The traditional boundaries between the two have been blurred and broken down and as a result individuals are able take on a hybrid role enabling them to be users (consumers) as well as producers of information and knowledge. This movement or advancement as some may propose has been mainly influenced by our great technological improvements and the introduction of various social media platforms. An Australian media scholar named Axel Bruns introduced this new concept in his book titled "Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life and Beyond: From Production to Produsage".

YouTube video- "We are all producers now": Online participatory culture

Have you ever contributed important information to a page on Wikipedia, posted a blog or uploaded a video concerning a particular product or issue? Most of us would be nodding our heads, whether we are aware of it or not we are all individually partaking in the  production and consumption of information and knowledge. Even if you don't necessarily produce information I'm sure you access content that has been created through produsage. I know I have, using Wikipedia to get my head around an idea or watching YouTube videos. 

Axel Bruns explains produsage as characterised by 4 different features. Firstly the creation of information is open to all users not just the single author, the information is free to be evaluated and modified to suit everyone. Secondly there is no leadership or order in place. Bruns explains that for produsage sites to work there needs to be a large number of participants. He notes that produsage sites do not have a formal government rather they are fluid heterarchies that are organised through ad hoc meritocracies. Thirdly, produsage sites consist of virtually unfinished content that is being continuously evaluated. It is a multi-layered document which is repeatedly being over-written. And finally the content on a produsage site is acknowledged as common property and that all who contribute are able to receive reward or incentive. 

It is important to take into account the ethics and merits of the content being produced. How can we guarantee that the information is reliable and trustworthy? 

Again we ask how does produsage fit in with Howard Jenkins' views of participatory culture? It actually fits in significantly well if not its just been given a different name. The two concepts are intertwined, both identifying with the idea of consumers also taking on the role of the producer. As for the future of produsage, I believe there is more to come, more and more people will gravitate to the idea and also contribute. It will one day just become the 'norm'. This notion is only going to advance further, as our technological means advance also. Separate producers and consumers will be long gone and there will be no looking back. Because both the consumption and production has been put into our own hands and we as individuals benefit from this.

  

  

Politicians and Social Media

                   HOW IS SOCIAL MEDIA CHANGING POLITICS?

                                   Digital has enhanced, not replaced, grassroots politics.

Social media offers yet another benefit and step forward for society. Today we move into the world of politicians and their use of social media. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube shine through again being utilised for political elections and campaigns. Literally anyone with the Internet has the means to access all online information and as we all know news can become viral in a matter of minutes. These tools aid improvement for politicians campaigns, with the opportunity to reach a broader audience and demographic. Recent findings show politicians in this day and age should be using social media to keep up with the 'digital natives', that is young people who are glued to the internet and social media. Using these social media platforms will attract younger generations to actually take interest as it is now being paraded in their Facebook newsfeed or in the Twittersphere which has great potential to draw in more possible voters. Politicians would be crazy not to jump on board and take advantage of social media to gain more coverage and to better succeed in their campaigns.

US President Barack Obama was seen as the 'game changer' in digital politics. He very successfully embraced social media in the 2008 election to its full advantage, to actually build relationships with his citizens which allowed him to create a conversation. In contrast Barack's opponent John McCain only saw social media as a means for distributing information to the public and as a result lost the election. It has been made clear that McCain didn't realise that to use social media as successful tool you must listen as well talk. It is crucial that politicians understand that social media is vital, but only if there is two-way communication. Barack created an environment of government transparency which had never been experienced in american politics.

Obama-Biden campaign stats-

• 5 million supporters on social networks
• 2.5 million followers on Facebook alone
• sent 13 millions emails
• had 4 million digital donors
• 50 million viewers watched 14 million hours of video on YouTube (which was only 3 years old)
• 1800 videos were posted to YouTube (most held more than 1 million views)

It just goes to show that using new means such social media is just as crucial if not more as traditional means such as knocking on doors in an effort to get citizens to the polls. Politicians on Twitter, photos on Instagram, videos on YouTube and Facebook updates about policy will now be the political norm. The way politicians interact with their citizens has forever changed.

However politicians should also be conscious that social media can be something of a double edged sword. Everything and anything including politics will make into the digital realm. Individuals can take a negative spin and expose or play up a politicians 'bad' side. Politicians should also be aware of their digital image. There is a need to connect with citizens maybe using humour and playful characteristics to provide entertainment but you still must be strictly professional and portray to the community that you are able to successfully run the country. 

The phenomenon of political social media coincides with Howard Jenkins view of participatory culture. Which is the encouragement of individuals as consumers to seek out new information and make connections between different media content. In this digital era we no longer have separate media producers and consumers it has now been transformed we are all participants who are encouraged to interact with each other. This creates conversation which creates a buzz and sends media content spiralling. This pretty much hits the nail on the head for Obamas campaign social media connected him to the people, started a conversation and the rest is history. 

As for the future of electioneering, it seems as though anything is possible for digital politics; as modern technology is continuously being improved. All i know for now is that the focus will be on the inclusion of the citizens.   

References:

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/452413/will_twitter_sway_elections_australia_/

Images:

http://vni.s3.amazonaws.com/120314221807326.jpg

http://www.digitaltrainingacademy.com/images/obama.jpg