This week, I spent a lot of time working on my website, however I ran into one roadblock: WordPress. It’s quite difficult to navigate and has a steep learning curve, especially because I haven’t used any other website-building software/program. I’ve found the hardest part to be the technical side such as nesting under other topics in the menu. On the other hand, it has been fun to customize the colour scheme, typology, and other fine details.

Due to the recent weather conditions and CUPE 4500 strike, I ended up changing my blog topic completely (and to something more reliable). When I put it on a vision board, I wanted to focus my website on exploring downtown Vancouver, however because of the aforementioned conditions, I figured it would be easier to maintain a blog that wasn’t dependent external forces. So instead, I’m now focusing on book-related topics.

I also found the John Suler’s 2004 “The Online Disinhibition Effect” reading really fascinating. In summary, the paper discusses the difference in online behaviour and real-life behaviour.  It particularly reminded me of a concept we discussed earlier in the semester: Erving Goffman’s front stage and backstage behaviour. In this case, I think people tend to use their “backstage behaviour” online because of the other reasons mentioned in the paper, such as anonymity and dissociative imagination. People use their backstage behaviour when they don’t feel that anyone is watching, and being online creates a similar sense of distance. However, you would expect most to wear their front stage masks because of how many people they are exposed to in the online space.

Another interesting point Suler brings up is solipsistic introjection. As a result of not hearing or seeing the person that you’re communicating with, the person becomes “a character within one’s intrapsychic world” (Suler, 2004, p.323). In other words, other people lose their sense of identity and become a persona of themselves in your head. This also reminds me of parasocial relationships — celebrities just become characters in their fans’ heads and their fans forget that they are real people, who truly know nothing about you or your existence.

Suler also mentions that online there is a minimized threat of authority. Aside from moderators, there is no singular authority patrolling and punishing you for your behaviour in the online space. This is completely opposite of real-life, where everything is controlled by the constant threat of authority. In a previous course, we discussed Michel Foucault’s panopticon theory. The panopticon is a prison where all the cells are arranged in a circle so that all the prisoners could be surveilled at once. The idea is that you never know if you’re being watched, but the constant idea that you could be, keeps people in line. Similarly, Foucault argues that social norms and “good” behaviour in society are enforced by the looming threat that someone is watching you. The fact that it does not apply online is interesting to me because I feel that being online puts you under more surveillance than you would be under in comparison to in real-life, as you have companies keeping more data on you and other netizens constantly scrutinizing your opinions, thoughts, and sense of being.