Session 3 Readings

The overall theme of this session is identity and ethics. The lingering sense I am left with after the reading is a question about the boundaries between virtuality and reality... where does one end and the other begin? To some degree, virtual existence is a mirror of reality. It does, however, manifest unique conditions because of the nature of 'no body'. As a Buddhist, I have trouble separating my studies from my interpretation of the readings and the question of boundaries between realities. In Buddhism, there is a 'relative' reality and an 'ultimate' reality with a similar relationship. The relative reality is like a hollogram of the ultimate reality and it is up to us to realize the ultimate reality. The ultimate reality, ironically, includes a realization of 'no self' - all phenomena is ultimately empty. I am left wondering if cyberspace is another layer of illusion or an opportunity to conceptualize the illusion of the relative reality. Where will it lead to in the collective consciousness? It does force us to consider what constitutes 'real' so, it may free us from the illusion of the relative reality or it may cause us to cling more tightly to it in order to clearly draw lines between it and the 'virtual' reality created in cyberspace. It is really very exciting to be a part of this time in history. OK. That's the end of my tangential reaction/response. Below are my individual responses to each reading. Enjoy! :)

virtual rape
So, I began readin the article with an immediate aversion to the concept of expanding the definition of rape to include "an assault upon the consciousness or mind rather than the body." To me, It's like saying I can get my RDA of vegetables if the FDA would just redefine 'vegetable' to include chocolate. MacKinnon says that rape is a culturally defined term and in our culture it's defined as physical assault. I think a sexual assault can occur without bodily contact, but not rape. I would venture to say that your average American would hold a similar concept. Meaning it's already culturally defined. I think the line between physical assault and non-physical assault is relevant and should be maintained. For two reasons 1. the severity of the mental affliction of the perpetrator and the liklihood of rehabilitation is likely to parallel the severity of the act and, in turn, the consequence of the act should reflect this distinction. 2. the victim of a physical assault will be more likely to achieve justice if rape is not conflated with sexual assault. in other words if you define 'rape' so broadly as to include any upset feeling caused by non-physical actions, the seriousness of a physicall assault gets deluded along with the definition. this seems unfair to a person who was clearly, physically, brutally raped.

I do agree with keeping the punishment in the virtual setting, the case presented was a virtual world, where one virtual character, virtually assaulted another virtual character. "Users treat the worlds depicted by MUD programs as if they were real." so, they should probably figure out how to define the act and punish or not punish the perpetrator of the act within the virtual reality they created. and since that world is so real that one can feel raped within it, it should be so real that justice within it is sufficient (not necessary to bring to a real court of law).

What's weird is that the real person behind the virtual victim was so upset by the virtual assault but, the real person behind the virtual perpetrator wasn't mentally distressed by the punishment. He just came back as another character. The detachment from his character made him a virtual psychopath. In real life a psychopath can be put in jail and he may not be mentally distressed by it, but he can't come back as 'another character'. I have a hard time reconciling this because I don't truly understand the level of attachment that the person behind the virtual victim had/has. Shouldn't she have some responsibility for maintaining a grasp on reality and seperating the virtual from the physical?! Acting as though she has no choice or ability to make that distinction seems more disempowering than a virtual rape/sexual assault. If the person behind the virtual perpetrator crosses the line into assaulting the actual person behind the virtual victim, then I think the whole argument changes. If he, for example, emails her personal account or finds her in a chat room or social networking group and harasses her outside the realm of the virtual reality to which they both chose to belong, then the assault becomes criminal. She can always tell everyone she is leaving and invite her favorite people to a new private virtual reality and leave 'Mr. Bungle' out of it. Or just shut off the computer and go outside in the real world. There is no constitutionally protected right to be in any virtual world you want and get everyone to behave exactly the way you want, so no one should feel bad if she decides to leave.

How fascinating was the idea of the first rape? It made me laugh and then I felt a little bad for laughing. But, I just saw cave people acting it out and chasing eachother with clubs and I laughed.

The social construction section was interesting and made the article less useless in my opinion. I think we can observe the evolution of social construction in virtual reality as a means to understand the evolution of social construction in this reality. The ability to observe and analyze social construction historically, as well as in the present, has obvious benefits to social scientists today.

Keeping it (Virtually) Real
I did not enjoy this article. He did a terrible job defining what the 'problem' is exactly. I don't really see what it is that he thinks is a problem in cyberspace and what he thinks should be studied that isn't. I did get that he does want it studied and he wants it studied by whites because the first section was all about how no one is studying race in cyberspace enough, then in the next one it was how unfair it was that they expect "scholars of color" to teach racial issues (it's "bearing a burden") and it leaves them too tired to study race in cyberspace. He expresses a crisis related to the digital divide, but doesn't make it clear what the problem is. He mentions 'black surprise' briefly but, doesn't explain what the problem is exactly. He just says that sometimes when a black person talks to a white person on line and then they meet, they are sometimes surprised that he/she is black. ??? not sure why that's a crisis. I think maybe I wasn't the audience for which the article was intended.

Gender Switching in Cyberspace
I felt really bad for Brad.
What was interesting to me here was that men pretended to be women for power and women pretended to be men for power. so each sees the other as having more power. Doesn't that support the notion that we give other people power in our own minds?

Avatar
software companies being greedy. They should give up their 'rights' and give the rights to the users to do whatever they want with the result of their personal investment of time and money. I'm sure the software companies will only enjoy more popularity when the user has more flexibility with their purchase. As a web design/development company owner, i have to say that the development of internet law and software law is both scary and fascinating. I wish there were more experts in the field. I think people's online characters should fall under their intellectual property rights in the same way that a painter owns his/her painting - we would never say that the canvass, paint, or paintbrush manufacturers maintain any rights to his/her creation simply because they provided the tools utilized by the artist. It's the creative process, the time, and the labor that gets put into the character that is unfairly maintained by the software company.

Who's in Charge of Who I Am?
It was interesting to read about identity as emergent. It is so true that we are products of our environment - we are all interdependent - connected in invisible ways. The Avatamsaka Sutra & Indra's Jewel Net describe this phenomenon very well. In regard to who owns who you are, this may seem to deny ownership of a self, but while this is the ultimate reality, it is within the relative reality that the rule of law operates and in this relative reality we own our actions exclusively. (how weird... i'm writing this while watching the CNN interviews on Faith with the Democratic Presidential Candidates and they're talking about interdependence! LOL) That being said, in addition to having the rights to your online 'self' - I do believe users are responsible for their actions and their online identity's actions. They are responsible to the community of which they are a part. Though it may feel private because you are sitting at home on your computer, you are connected to the group and are responsible for your contribution to the 'greater good' and there should be some authority that holds you accountable. So, ownership of your online self means rights AND responsibilities - it does not eliminate a need for a 'terms of service' agreement. It is also the space, owned by the company that has rights to set the tone and rules of the space, but also a responsibility to the users and their virtual inhabitents of the space to respect the time and creative effort they put into the community. It goes both ways. Unfortunately, the culture of patent hoarding by big business is detrimental to the creative process and prevents us from reaching our highest potential as a group. This is another symptom of that culture. I think there is a tremendous market opportunity for a developer who develops with a sense of responsiblity to the users and respect for their part in the success of the program. the author maintains that if users are willing to walk away from bad/unfair/bullying terms of agreement that they will essentially "vote with their feet" - but, in order for them to do it, they need to have somewhere to walk to!

How Computers Change the Way We Think
I was struck by the following statement: "information technology has made it possible to have the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship." one might expect that connecting everyone would connect everyone, but it does seem to have the opposite affect in many cases. In my opinion, it's never good to have a privilage without an associated responsibility. That coupled with the 'binary thinking' mentioned seems to distance us more from one another. The author was right on by stating, "The new culture would make it easier, not more difficult, to consider life in shades of gray, to see moral dilemmas in terms other than a battle between Good and Evil. For never has our world been more complex, hybridized, and global. Never have we so needed to have many contradictory thoughts and feelings at the same time. Our tools must help us accomplish that, not fight against us." I believe in the inevitability of this evolution. But, I also believe in finding ways to promote the evolution. I choose to take it on as a personal responsibility.