Presenting myself as “That other one”

Being identical twins, my sister, Pam, and I have to put up with people mixing us up, calling us by the wrong name, and saying things like “You’re the same person.” It can be frustrating. So, once a year for the past three years we have decided to get revenge/play tricks/see who really knows who we are. We do this by switching places in the marching band. She plays trumpet in the band. I do not play an instrument and have never been in the marching band. This Friday, we switched places in for the pep rally. We met up after her practice and switched coats and hats. I went to the pep rally and she went to dinner. (By the way, I definitely saw Caitlin there but I don’t think she thought it was me.)

Beforehand, Pam has had to train me how to “be” her. There are practical issues such as marching, how to hold a trumpet and pretend to play, and whistle and hand signals. However, there are also other ways of presenting myself as her linguistically. She informed me of different inside jokes she has with certain people. She also has different ways of greeting different people. For example, many band members have nicknames that may not be used outside of the band. In order to present myself as Pam, I have to call these people by their nicknames and not be the names that they may introduce themselves as. I also had to pretend to know what the trumpets were talking about when they discussed other band members, music and formations (which I know nothing about.) I would give back-channel cues as if I knew exactly what was going on. There was also the very simply procedure of answering to the name “Pam.” I usually do not do this (unless I know someone is confused). I also had a few of Pam’s friends who were in on the prank call me Pam. Here is what I observed:

We counted at least 12 people who we were 100% sure that they were fooled, either because they called me Pam or they did not think there was anything strange that I, and not Pam, was there. There were a lot of people who walked past me and did not take much notice of me/Pam. I’m not sure if Pam does not know them or if they didn’t notice that I wasn’t Pam.

There were 2 cases of particular interest:

One girl (whose name I can’t remember) came up to me and started talking to me. She said that I looked particularly like Em that night, more than usual. I thought that she knew the truth but she kept talking about how I/Pam sometimes look more like Em than usual. I went along with the conversation but didn’t explicitly say that I wasn’t Pam. About five minutes later, Chris (on of Pam’s friends who was in on the prank) slipped and called me Em. She was really shocked that I actually was Em and not Pam who just happened to look more like Em that night. I thought that she was testing waters with her language by saying that I looked like Em. I think that she expected a confession if I turned out to be Em and not Pam.

I had a fifteen minute conversation with one boy, Bobby, who told me all about his bad day. I commiserated with him, pretended to know all the people that he was talking about, and was generally nice to him (as I imagine Pam would be). The people who had figured it out were laughing the whole time, but Bobby didn’t catch on. Finally I told him that I wasn’t Pam. He got really made – profanity included. He said that it wasn’t fair that he didn’t realize it was me because I was in a the band, a situation where he wasn’t suspecting I would be. He was also mad that I went along with the conversation, that I presented myself as Pam. He said that he couldn’t be expected to tell us apart if I was presenting myself as Pam.

I think this is the key to the whole situation. If you present yourself as one person and talk and act like that person in a situation where that person usually is, than no one should suspect you are any thing other than what you present yourself as.

Self presentation and being agreeable

The article that I found for Monday was about presenting oneself and trying to make people like you when discussing different political views. It was called “Taking the Edge off disagreement: linguistic abstractness and self-presentation to a heterogeneous audience” by Monica Rubini of the University of Bologna and Harold Sigall of the University of Maryland. The article became very technical, but I will do my best to summarize it:

The authors did an experiment where they told participants that they wanted them to talk to two strangers and try to get the strangers to like them. They two people were either both of the same political view, both of differing political views, or a mix of one person with the same political view and one person of differing views from the participant. The language was measured by how abstract it was. There were four categories starting from the most concrete (also listed are the examples that they gave in the article):
1. Descriptive action verbs – uses objective language – “John tripped Tom”
2. Interpretive action verbs – verbs that evaluate the action – “John injured Tom”
3. State Verbs – verbs that do not have temporal or situational reference – “John envies Tom”
4. Adjectives – “transcend specific situations, objects, behaviors, or reference persons” (344), - “John is nasty”

The participants differed in how they presented themselves linguistically. People tended to use more abstract language with the people with whom they shared political views because it is more “trans-situational and stable over time.” (344). Although I’m not completely sure, I think that this means that the people were comfortable making much broader statements that didn’t have the same amount of evidence as concrete statements which were used with people with whom the participants did not share political views. It seems to me that abstract language can be the most easily misinterpreted. When someone does not agree with your political opinions, they may easily take an abstract adjectives and put a different meaning than what was intended. This could lead to a misunderstanding and make the participant disagreeable to the other two interviewers. When someone agrees with you, then they will also agree with your abstract language. It is safer to make broad statements when everyone already agrees with you.

Response to Koven

I really liked how Koven looked at the way that people present themselves differently through different ways of speaking. I think that we all have different codes even if we are not all bilingual. She somewhat addresses this in her conclusion:

“Different ways of speaking, within and across languages, create socially and psychologically real effects for people, producing for the same speaker multiple expressions and experiences of socially recognizable selves” (437).

I can relate to this. I find myself speaking more politely and in general acting more politely around strangers, especially when I am asking them for something. I notice that when I talk to a cashier, university official or when I ask for directions I am use very polite language. I go over-the-top with directives, stand up straight, and hedge a lot. I would describe myself as polite, humble, and somewhat timid. I do not act like this at all around my friends where I am much more relaxed. I present myself differently for different sets of people through the language that I use.

I notice similar changes in behavior and language in my little sister when we go to our grandma’s. It doesn’t matter if she was fighting with me, swearing, or using informal language. The second we walk into my grandma’s house, she presents herself as the angel child, speaking politely and using proper grammar. Her speech and her entire attitude change.

My best friend from home also is guilty of code-switching behavior, especially when answering the phone. She speaks in an extremely high-pitched, saccharine voice when she says “Hello, this is Laura.” If I am on the other end, then she reverts to her normal voice and informality. If we are in the same room and an adult is on the other end of the phone, she continues on with the “fake” voice. She is extremely polite and obliging. However, once she hangs up the phone, she is back to her normal self.

I don’t think there is anything hypocritical in these changes in language and behavior. I think that we are all “multiphrenic” as we read earlier. There are appropriate times to present oneself in different ways.

Response to The Decline and Fall of the Private Self

I found Flora’s article to be closely connected with Gergen’s idea of the multiphrenia – people portray themselves in different forms through the means of blogging. Flora writes that “Whether he [the blogger] realizes it or not, the online scribe cultivates an identity that anticipates and responds to its audience.” I take this to mean that a person cultivates a persona that he or she portrays online. This persona may be different from how one presents oneself in face-to-face situations. “You become a character [online], a speaking part, in the larger theater of society.” By playing a character, the person would seem to not be being himself and would not be connected to reality, which is not like a movie. There are a lot of instances where people make up completely fake persona’s, like lonelygirl15, and blog or present themselves online. When people find out that this is not their true selves, they become upset. It is surprising to me that anyone can think that what a person chooses to tell about himself online is absolutely true. It seems like this is another instance of not being connected to reality.

On a completely separate note, I found that this article put into words why I find blogging so uncomfortable and somewhat “creepy.” The people in the article talk about themselves as being characters in a movie. It seems as if they crave being a celebrity and will put all privacy aside in an attempt to be famous. I do not want to be a celebrity. I value my privacy and feel uncomfortable sharing personal information about myself with strangers. Even homework (such as this blog) feels to me as if I am allowing people to read my personal work. I feel obligated to put on the perfect persona of being an intelligent, articulate student. When I blog, I feel like I am being watched and judged by others. I think that people who blog regularly feel like they also are being watched and judged but that they just enjoy that kind of attention.

Response to Gergen - Celebrities

One of the most interesting things, for me, about Gergen’s article was his point that people can form “relationships” with celebrities and people in the media. He makes the point that television, magazines and radio allow us to feel connected to people that we have never met. I find it very fascinating, not to mention foreign, that many people follow the lives of celebrities and take a great interest in their affairs. They are distraught when their favorite star is going through a hard time; they rejoice when the star is going to appear in a new movie; and they pour over pictures of the celebrity and his/her family, children, and love interests. Gergen makes the point that we feel a connection to these people because we see them on TV or in the movies all the time. I would disagree with him. I don’t think that the way the celebrity presents himself is who that person truly is. Like Gergen says, we all have mutliphrenia – many different personalities depending on the circumstance. I find it odd that people feel that they know celebrities through their work. Why do people take such a great interest in people that they will never meet and who do not care at all about them? To me, this seems like a very strange relationship. Perhaps the class can enlighten me.

I like his point that “because celebrity figures are known by so many people, they serve as forms of social glue, allowing people from different points of society to converse with each other, to share feelings, and essentially to carry on informational relations.” I’m not sure if I entirely agree with this. I don’t think all interactions with strangers can be reduced to the fact that we all know the same celebrities. However, I do think that if we take “celebrity” in a broader sense of the word, the statement makes a little more sense: celebrity can mean someone who is famous in a group of people. So, at ND, Fr. Jenkins, certain popular (or notorious) professors, very outgoing, popular students, and the student body president might be considered celebrities. We all know them and can talk about them even if these people are not considered celebrities by anyone outside our group. I think the celebrities can help define the group’s identity because they represent (or are the antithesis of) what the group believes and stands for.) However, I don’t think that it is these celebrities in particular that hold the group together. The common interests of the group are what create the group and allow celebrities to emerge.

Communication technology and true friendship

There has been much concern from both specialists and the general population that email, instant messenger, social networking sites, cell phones, and other computer mediated communication are destroying genuine friendships. Although there is some data in support of this view, overwhelmingly, researchers argue that technology is actually helping to bring people together into strong, meaningful relationships. With the use of computer mediated communication, people are choosing to have more weak ties but are not necessarily abandoning their strong ties with others. There is also evidence that communication technology supports long-distance relationships as well as friendships that might have fallen apart without CMC. Despite concern that electronic communication is destroying relationships, new media has actually strengthened and maintained genuine ties between people.
There is substantial evidence that, while people who use CMC have many more weak ties, their strong ties and meaningful relationships have not suffered as a consequence. Matsuda writes about the concern in Japan that “over twenty years since 1973, there has been a decease in people of all generations who want “comprehensive” relationships with relatives, neighbors, and co-workers, and an increase in people who want “partial” or “formal” relationships” (Matsuda 137). It would seem then, that people in Japan are abandoning strong ties in favor of weak ones due to the rise of availability in CMC. However, Matsuda qualifies this assumption by arguing that this trend “was related not only to keitai adoption but also to a broader context of concurrent generational change and urbanization trends” (Matsuda 138). Therefore, new media is not responsible for any decrease in strong friendships in Japan. Baron’s research also supports Matsuda’s positions: “Contemporary data generally suggest that networked computers aren’t reducing our number of friendships or the amount of time we spend with one another” (Baron 122). People may have hundreds of Facebook “friends” but never spend much time or have an intimate relationship with them. However, having hundreds of weak connections does not pull a person away from his strong ties. People are using CMC to “foster relationships with those whom they choose to contact” (Matsuda 123). While Facebook is “a way to of maintaining a [weak] friendship without having to make any effort whatsoever,” people realize that effort is needed to maintain strong relationships and act accordingly (Baron 85).
New media helps to foster these already established strong relationships and allows people to remain closer in touch when they otherwise could not have done so. Communication technologies especially help to maintain relationships in which the two friends no longer live close by. In Japan, pagers, and later keitai, make “it possible to be friends with people in different places and under different circumstances…Pagers and keitai do not increase the number of friends that young people meet with and associate with outside of school They primarily provide opportunities to maintain relationships with friends who used to go to the same school” (Matsuda 127). From this evidence, it is clear that technology in Japan is used to nurture previously established strong relationships. Without technology, young people may lose contact with friends from school who move away. Here, as in other places, new media is a help rather than a hindrance to friendship. Along with keeping in touch with friends who move away, Matsuda gives the example of the kaeru call in which a person will call home on a cell phone to let the family know when he or she will be home. These phone calls, which show intimacy and help to establish connections within a family, have only come about since the emergence and ubiquity of cell phones in Japan. It is widely thought that without the kaeru and “these routine communications…the family could disintegrate” (Matsuda 131). Again, new media is allowing families to stay in contact with one another throughout the day and to maintain their already strong relationships. Baron agrees with Matsuda’s analysis that CMC allows people with existing relationships to stay together but also goes on to comment that sometimes people use the technology as a way to become too closely tied and dependent on another person. Technologies “provide opportunities to tether ourselves to one another” (Baron 224). She gives the example of the college students who call home 10 times a week (Baron 224). Although Baron sees this type of relationship as too dependent, she cannot argue that the parents and children do not have a close, strong relationship. In both Japan and the United States, evidence shows that CMC is maintaining previously established strong relationships.
Finally, CMC plays a major role in maintaining important relationships between people whose ties might have disintegrated if not for the ease and convenience of new media. “Social interaction is increasingly becoming virtual” (Baron 219). In general, there is a lot less face-to-face interaction and a lot more interaction through technology (Baron 219). However, continuing a previously established relationship strictly through CMC seems to be desirable in comparison with the alternative: abandoning the strong friendship. In Japan, where the society is becoming more individualistic, people no longer feel obligated to meet with family members and neighbors face-to-face. Instead, “making contact with family has become an individual’s responsibility and choice…people have to stay in close touch with one another on a regular basis through keitai” (Matsuda 132). In these types of situations, the children probably would not have any contact with their parents if it were not for a the convenience of a mobile phone. “There are indicators that keitai has increased contact with family members who were frequently out of the home and had few occasions to call” (Matsuda 130). These relationships would disintegrate if it were not for a cell phone or email. Therefore, it is desirable that people should use technology if it makes it easier to maintain essential family relationships since they do not want or do not have time for face-to-face interaction.
From the personal experiences of the class, it seems clear that many people use CMC to keep in contact with those from home with whom they have a strong relationship. Students call or text parents and siblings at home. High school friends exchange emails and chat on IM. While many of us have several hundred Facebook friends, we use the new media primarily to maintain strong, already established relationships. New media is also used to keep in contact with people who live nearby: calls, texts, and IMs seem to be primarily used to set up appointments to meet face-to-face. Clearly from both personal experience and the research of Baron and Matsuda, communication technologies help rather than hurt previously formed strong relationships.


Bibliography:
Baron, Naomi S. 2008. Always On: Language in an Online and Mobile World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Matsuda, Misa. 2005. “Mobile Communication and Selective Sociality.” In Personal, Portable and Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life, edited by Mizuko Ito, Daisuke Okabe, and Misa Matsuda. Cambridge, MA, and London: The MIT Press.

Thoughts on Katz

One interesting observation that I made when reading Katz’ article was that people have always feared that new technology will destroy society and break down social conventions and morals. Everything from the telegraph, telephone, answering machine and cell phones has been viewed with distrust during their initial appearance. He makes the point that, after being around for quite some time, people see their usefulness and begin to accept the new technology. There are changes in culture and ideas of what is morally okay to do with the new technology.

Interestingly, he talked little about the ethics of some of the new technology. What we view as unethical today may be seen as perfectly normal once people see the usefulness of a new technology. That made me question whether we put convenience above morality. Are we only moral with our technology as long as it is convenient to us? There is some technology, such as cloning and embryonic stem-cell research that has been condemned for being immoral but there are still scientists who pursue advances in these fields. It seems that the possible technological advances that Katz outlines may be the same: mind mail and reading the thoughts of dead people seem to me to be an immoral dehumanization of a person, turning us into machines or something that can be read at our convenience. It is something to think about whether these advances will ever come to be and if they will be considered perfectly acceptable if people find them convenient.