First published at Darlene’s blog.
There’s a theory that some individuals behave badly when they’re on the interweb because of the “online disinhibition effect”. Forgetting about the well-documented negative aspects of blogging for a moment (see, for example, grown men acting like boorish boys), the concept of “online disinhibition” can be viewed in a positive way. That is, it could be taken to mean that some people feel able to express themselves when otherwise they can’t, or perceive they can’t, because of some internal or external factor such as lack of confidence or membership of a proscriptive organisation.
It was interesting to read an item about Mormon feminist bloggers in the June/July ‘07 edition of Bust. The article by Priya Jain argues that:
It’s difficult to separate the contemporary Mormon feminist movement from the feminist arm of the Mormon blogosphere, or “bloggernacle”. Depending on how open one’s local church is, questioning authority can cause anything from discomfort to disciplinary action and so the Internet, the underground meeting space of our time, is the primary means for discussing feminist issues. In addition to Feminist Mormon Housewives – the largest feminist group blog in the bloggernacle, with 2,400 unique visitors a day – there is Zelophehad’s Daughters, Exponent II, and a host of personal blogs. To a secular lurker, their discussions are at once familiar – with posts about sex, breastfeeding, worldwide oppression of women – and foreign, because they are couched in conservative Mormon culture and manners.
It could also be the case that interweb readers feel less inhibited about finding out about lives that seem very different to their own. The August/September ‘07 edition of Bust (this magazine takes the diverse voices of females seriously) contains a piece about women, many of whom have blogs, who have decided to become nuns. How many of us get the opportunity to have contact with a 27-year-old who has decided to dedicate her life to the church?
While the negative version of the “online disinhibition effect” does nothing to advance tolerance, it’s my contention that lacking inhibition on the Internet in a positive way can be a good thing for both the writer and the reader.
I can’t let this piece go without linking to the Penny Arcade take on this:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
Nice post Darlene.
And of course the web makes it so much easier. As with all things…..the good and the bad.
That’s a funny link, Jacques. Ms Arcade is absolutely right, of course.
I think being anon plays a big part. If you were having a conversation with someone in the real world and they said, “My name is Death Beast and you are a leftist nutter” you’d just back away slowly and/or call 000.
However, it’s good that the interweb can be a positive force for teaching each other about ourselves (sometimes it’s too easy to focus on the silliness).
Yes, Phil, it is the good with the bad. I think we can mostly ignore the bad.
Here the bad can at least provide some amusement, rather than the fear it might provoke if you actually met the person.
Well, of course one of the people the “disinhibition” article discusses is Kathy Sierra (is that her name?).
I have no idea why people abused her so. Strange.
Darlene Taylor’s concept of an “online disinhibition effect� and its benefits is certainly an interesting one, especially regarding this point:
“Some people feel able to express themselves when otherwise they can’t, or perceive they can’t, because of some internal or external factor such as lack of confidence or membership of a proscriptive organisation.�
I can certainly relate to the above statement. Participation in online discussion and blogging can be less inhibitive than other forms of communication, but it cannot be forgotten that like any form of communication, there will be many more factors than the amount of inhibition to act that will determine one’s cost-benefit analysis of blogging.
My current blogging challenge is to write up a defense of former Prime Minister Paul Keating’s recent speech at the Sydney Film School. This highlights an example of the difficulties of political blogging.
The controversial public address by former Prime Minister Paul Keating to the Sydney Film School was followed by what might be described as “a unilateral response� by the Mainstream Media: the “think before you speak, Mr. Keating� response of our newspaper editors.
What sparked controversy was Mr. Keating’s mention of Adolf Hitler in the same speech he is being critical of current day Prime Minister John Howard, the same man that beat Paul Keating in the 1996 federal election.
With an overwhelming condemnation of Keating’s use of language by the editors of The Age, Herald Sun and The Australian, why would anyone in public, whether in the Mainstream Media or Online, defend Keating’s right to express himself as controversially as he did?
The internet provides me with an opportunity to challenge the Mainstream Media response and I am indeed preparing an article now.
I can research this effort without the inhibition of being part of an inner circle of journalists, but when you’re interpreting a speech such as Mr. Keating’s speech, the Internet also carries the risk of being an express route to “terminal affliction�, a term used in one of three articles on culture and technology of computer use in yesterday’s edition of The Weekend Australian.
Especially as my online activity isn’t anonymous (and never has been), my reputation is therefore put at risk.
Add problems for bloggers to do with content development, resources and audience reach. Not that these problems cannot be addressed, but they are all factors in conducting a cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether to enter a public debate.
Consideration of all the factors can almost be enough to make one want to consider whether it’s better to be kept in the dark about a subject than to find your way through the dark using only a blogger’s capacity to inquire.
Yet even with all the project constraints of blogging considered, there’s still “inquiry and perspective� for the blogger to discover, even if these actions don’t fit the mould of journalism discourse such as “breaking a story�.
As a “non-journalist� engaged in inquiry and developing a perspective of my own, I’m inspired by an article I read in yesterday’s Herald Sun about TV presenter Kerri-Anne Kennerly.
Describing her approach to inquiry, Kennerly says:
“I would never consider myself a journalist, but I think communicator is a reasonable description.�
I just think there are ways that aren’t rude or impertinent of asking virtually anything�.
Indeed, as many of us bloggers are discovering, there are other ways of dealing with inquiry than being a journalist. It should therefore not be assumed that only one way of inquiry – journalism – will always succeed at capturing and interpreting all the pertinent details of a story.
This is why I am currently researching and writing a review of the Mainstream Media coverage of Paul Keating’s recent speech, which will conclude with an alternative interpretation of that speech.
…From Justin.
That certainly sounds worth reading, and you raise some very interesting points. Re: Keating. The media seem to have very set ideas about how to position him (i.e. the bitter old hack who can’t transcend his loss to Howard).
“Terminal afflication” is not a concept I’m familiar with so I’ll do some investigation.
Incidentally, I think that people who don’t use their real name when they’re *trying* to be serious bloggers (and by the way, bloggers aren’t journalists but journalists can be bloggers) have little or no credibility anyway. Call me old-fashioned, but I think that if you have a view own it.
Thanks. Very interesting points there Justin.