(Image: Wikipedia)
It is undeniable the Internet is a gateway to the actual-world and virtual-world. Since the emergence of Linden Lab’s Second Life (“SL”), it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between actual-reality and virtual-reality. Often, one would assume the identities, relationships, and societies generated online are imaginary illusions, or unrealistic interpretations of the real-world. Undoubtedly, there is no actual connection between the two realities, nor are they entirely identical.[i] As a “substitute reality,” the virtual-world enables the formation of fluid cultural identities known as “avatars,” and imposes unbridled control and freedom over self-representation. Contrastingly, the actual-world is bounded to the law of nature, including embodiment, presence, and time.[ii] Yet this does not prevent virtual-worlds from changing actual-world selfhoods, or providing a temporary escape that defies life-and-death existence.[iii]
Because everyday practices of identification and interaction are reconfigured online, offline behaviour is consequently affected. The expectations and fantasies governing self-perception are extracted from actual-reality and assimilated into virtual-worlds. The artificial objects, spaces, properties and communities embodied in virtual-worlds are modeled on representations of everyday environments. Thus, one would describe SL as a social “MUD” (multi-user dimension) because it is partially textbased, and a “GUI” (graphical user interface) that combines realistic 3D visual elements with interactive tactile and audio experiences. The ability of humans to construct graphical representations of their “self,” and customise their virtual personas, transforms what it is to be human in the actual-world.
Though it is natural for humans to adopt multiple “selfhoods,”[iv] “avatars” can be physically modified to express “durable aspects” of self-identity.[v] Romance, or “affairs,” on SL create new forms of intimacy,[vi] despite adverse effects on actual-world relationships. The gap between what is actual and virtual is blurred when the user dissociates from reality. Thus, this essay will argue virtual-life is not separate from actual-life on the basis that: Firstly, human experience and identity is culturally mediated in SL. Secondly, SL is powerfully conducive to intimacy,[vii] and it cultivates social ties. Thirdly, communities in virtual-worlds invite experimentation and creativity,[viii] so users can express unexplored parts of themselves.[ix]
Avatars: Real self or ideal self?
It is usual for humans to articulate and recreate their real-world dreams and desires through media. SL emerged from the social-historical context, which allowed the present moment to be characterised by new consumption patterns.[x] Lipovetsky coined the term “hypermodern self” to explain the “consumerist spirit” has infiltrated culture,[xi] including what constitutes an “ideal” life. SL is a product of this culture because as a virtual-world it gratifies its users emotionally, physically, and sensually. Hence SL allows individuals to have new sensuous experiences, which can improve on their quality of life.[xii] As a user-created world, SL users are “hypermodern individuals.” They are free from responsibility and having to account for their choices and behaviour, and its consequences.[xiii] This not only challenges the boundaries between the mind and body in the virtual-world and real-world, but also the person and the environment when they enter these realities.
According to Rymaszewski, SL is the “perfect place to get your fantasy on…and there’s no other place for becoming something you aren’t, or…for working out what it is you want to be.”[xiv] As a “sociomental space,”[xv] SL users are empowered to gratify their psychological and relational fantasies[xvi] by exploring their “hidden selves,”[xvii] and experimenting with non-conventional identities.[xviii]
While there is no dividing line between what is fact and fiction in virtual-worlds, such boundaries are further blurred when identity construction in SL involves interaction between actual-reality and virtual-reality. When users are first introduced to SL, “reality” is altered when “both ‘worlds’ bleed into each other.”[xix] Humans constantly experience the virtual as real because it elicits a response from the brain and body to engage with it.[xx] Moreover, the identities of SL embody multiplicity, although this does not mean SL residents live a “double life,” in the sense they reserve a specific “self” for each world. Instead, one resident believed their role was redefined online without real-life (“RL”) implications.[xxi]
Similarly, another said virtual selfhoods “behave differently…people just suppress certain aspects of their personalities and accentuate others.”[xxii] The responses of these SL users demonstrate the concept of Descartes’ “Cartesian mind.” The SL users’ comments demonstrate their brain exhibits different behaviours and facets of selfhood[xxiii] as a response to realities the body is presented to.[xxiv] Certainly, the actual-world and virtual-world equally share the capacity to shape identity construction and management through avatars as vehicles of role-play and embodiments of people.
By definition, “avatar” is the Sanskrit word for “a form of self,”[xxv] which is the user’s alter ego.[xxvi] It is also described as a movement from virtual to actual, a “decarnation” or “invirtualisation” of the self.[xxvii] When SL users enter virtual-reality they manifest their “offline self” when they intersect with a technological object. They are a position from which the self encounters the virtual,[xxviii] making the virtual environment and phenomena it fosters real.[xxix]
Inevitably, their actual-world and real-world identities will merge into one when their offline consciousness makes decisions for their digital identity. Anarbaeva interviewed female SL user “Teresa” who confirmed her fear of being sexually harassed in RL determined her virtual-world appearance. Teresa said, “I chose a deliberately androgynous first name [on SL] as I anticipated being able to change from male to female, and other various creatures.”[xxx] Teresa wanted to “borrow a bit of male privilege,” so her SL identity and RL gender remains elusive to other SL users.[xxxi] In this case, the “androgynous” first name is a pseudonym or “screen name” SL residents adopt in the beginning of their life course online. The screen name is unchangeable, and has significant meaning attached to it.[xxxii] It facilitates the online identity, and gives insight into their “true self” or “ideal self,” they wish to employ in RL.
Psychologists and anthropologists (Taylor 2000; Boellstorff 2008) attempted to reconcile why SL users prefer virtual life to RL.[xxxiii] They discovered disembodiment and anonymity of avatar representation establishes a new mode of identity production.[xxxiv] These “names” identify the lives of residents in the virtual-world, as an expression of the multitude of virtual disembodied or “alternative” selfhoods they can occupy. A transsexual male SL user who has a female avatar said, “Here in SL I created something new in myself that I never realised was there before. At first it was just role-playing, but then I grew to love Pavia [avatar]. I kept infusing myself into her…Pavia started coming out in the real world. I became her, she became me.”[xxxv]
In summary, the virtual-world is, in the words of Massumi, “Like a black hole. It sucks everything in.”[xxxvi] The real-world identity gets trapped in this “hole,” so the virtual body is treated with higher regard than the user’s embodied flesh. It “sucks” in RL norms and standards, and spits out opportunities for the user to construct their ideal self. Eventually, the “virtual body becomes the preferred vessel for the non-corporeal mind,”[xxxvii] and may encapsulate what is culturally accepted as “beauty,” or adopt a “fantastical transcendent character”[xxxviii] that opposes traditional conceptions of being human. Thus, the multiplicity of user-created avatars expands the user’s creativity, and adds value to facets of their real-world selfhood, which the virtual-world deconstructs. Because identity is changeable and volatile, there is tension between accuracy and the desire to meet standards of attractiveness in portraying offline bodies.[xxxix]
On one hand, in virtual-reality SL users have the opportunity to satisfy “neglected ego needs” in a therapeutic manner, and express their desires.[xl] The disparity between the corporal and virtual bodies is actual-reality prevents people from claiming identities that are inconsistent with their physical characteristics (e.g. gender, height and race) due to the deficiencies of human flesh. Hence, the virtual-world relies on the imagination, and disregards societal and physical limitations.
As a result, SL has opened the door to new identity experiences, thus changing former conditions of the construction of identity.[xli] In the documentary, ‘Life 2.0,’ a male web developer characterised his avatar as a schoolgirl, “Ayya Aabye.” When he registered an account, he adopted this pseudonym as his SL username, which became a part of his virtual-world identity. He said Ayya affected everything about himself, including the way he acted. He viewed himself as “an observer…sort of a driver, because [Ayya] is guiding [him]. She knows what she wants [him] to do, and [he] does it.”[xlii] Ayya released him from his suppressed childhood memories of being molested by his father. She granted him the opportunity to explore his tainted past, and to be free from it. He explained, “It felt like the old Ayya was giving up…and conceding to me. Allowing me to be more myself.” This conflicts with the expectation avatars are extensions of “real offline selves,” since they are virtual embodiments of real people.[xliii]
Male SL user Freddy in Anarbaeva’s research spoke about his avatar as an extension of his real-life self because “Freddy” (his name offline) plays a “pivotal role in all the decisions that Joseph makes and sometimes it is inevitable. In essence Freddy defines who Joseph is.”[xliv] Giddens claimed identity is not given as a result of the individual’s action-system.[xlv] Identity has to be routinely created by the self, current motivations, and situational conditions.[xlvi] Role-playing as the avatar Ayya attached meaning to her persona, and empowered her user to accept his RL struggles. Consequently, his avatar encouraged him to deconstruct himself in a virtual-world that amplified his dissociation with the RL. It is within this space that online interactions transferred into actual-reality, and thus followed and transformed SL users when they are offline.
Therefore, these multiple, and mobile identities represents a way of seeing the real-world and virtual-world as connected and active, regardless of which realm they participate in the present. Inevitably, it “takes over their whole being, where every thought, every movement, every sound” adds vibrancy to virtual space.[xlvii]
Community: Micro-worlds
Similarly, role-playing allows users to explore their real-life selfhood without judgment or criticism, and has a crucial role in determining cultural affiliations, and histories.[xlviii] “Furries,” vampires, and robots are role-playing communities in SL that predate outside of virtual-worlds. These subcultures radically reconfigure the virtual-self to what they consider their true self is or should be. Users forge relationships, which strengthen community and belonging in virtual space. In relation to “furries,” this group is a form of “totemic” identification with animals,[xlix] where users wish to be a particular animal, real or imaginary.[l] They are an example of post-human identities that challenge ontological categories of nature/culture, and human/animal.[li]
Since the virtual-world encourages users to explore their creativity, these subcultures allow users to experiment with their persona with people who share similar interests. In SL there are “furry hangouts,” where “furries” gather in dance club to converse, enter contests, and dance. Though they may never meet in the actual-world, there is a possibility this subculture will expand into the real-world like the “furry convention.”
Further, these subcultures essentially assign a face to a “faceless” community.[lii] SL, in a broad sense, is plainly a virtual-world that contains islands. The user-generated content and communities add personality to virtual-realty, allowing users to determine their life course freely. In this case, the “furrie” culture promotes an alternative lifestyle and gives the user purpose since SL is not goal-oriented. In this case, there is clearly a gap dividing actual-reality and virtual-reality. It is unlikely SL users will attach animalistic or fantastical traits as an aspect of their real-world identity. Though the boundaries remain, these communities actually unite users together in friendship, which can progress into something greater, to the point where the virtual-world will naturally merge with the real-world.
Intimacy: Passion in cyberspace?
Additionally, the virtual-world is tied to real-world desires of finding love and belonging in a community. Maslow states these are complementary “desires” that concern understanding, aesthetic appreciation, and spiritual needs.[liii] Generally, users primarily enter virtual-worlds in search for stimulation, escape, or to satisfy emotional needs, which sometimes the real-world cannot fully provide. It is inevitable once SL users adapt to their “new” life, romance and sexual intimacy are sought after.
With reference to Maslow’s needs hierarchy,[liv] the reasons why SL users partake in online relationships, and how this affects both realities, are as follows. Firstly, self-oriented confidence. SL residents are convinced their avatar represents what amounts to “beauty” in the real-world. If their avatar is an extension of their selfhood, intimacy will build the user’s confidence and instil hope they are capable of being loved. Also, virtual-world intimacy may remove any real-world misconceptions about relationship.
Secondly, independence and freedom makes physical safety not a concern when avatars are not exposed to the same physical dangers facing humans. Likewise, the level of anonymity in virtual-worlds prompts users to experiment with themselves, and each other without actual face-to-face communication.
Thirdly, reputation, attention, and recognition drive SL residents to seek relationships online, in order to find comfort, flee from their current real-world relationship, or satisfy their ego. In the documentary ‘Virtual Adultery and Cyberspace Love,’ SL user Kristen believed her “RL was diabolical.”[lv] When she met Steve (husband) on SL, she was in control of her life again. She spoke of getting her old self back. Daniel affirms interacting through an avatar stimulates the “observing ego,” the ability to look at oneself objectively and rationally.[lvi] This proves users can resolve real-world issues in the virtual-world, and these solutions can be applied in real-life. Thus, virtual-reality can precede and frame actual-reality.
Moreover, “when life and love is less than perfect in RL, the escape SL offers can be more seductive than the real-world.”[lvii] This introduces the issue of fidelity when residents who are in a committed relationship in the actual-world, fall in love online. This poses a question of the extent to which virtual intimacy can threaten the gap between the actual and virtual, and the people in it.[lviii] Real-world housewife Carolyn claimed having a SL account was “like being reborn again.”[lix] Her affair with an avatar hindered her relationship with her husband and children, as she had no sense of time or space when she was with her online lover. Instead, her space was redefined, which brought disorder into her real-world. The virtual-world had priority over her actual-reality. Further, she described the intensity of her feelings for him, as “like any other type of connection you would make with somebody.” When they first met her feelings for him was magnified. Her heart was “racing a little faster,” while she yearned to “know what he was about…how he felt, and how he thought.”
According to Boellstorff, SL romances are more real than actual-world romances. The willingness of residents to reveal their “real” self behind the avatar to their online lover demonstrates the gap separating the virtual and actual no longer exists. A report discovered users exchanged actual-world information outside SL.[lx] They were emailing photographs of their real-life self, and made attempts to contact each other via phone or meeting in real-life. This demonstrates the real-world is not segregated from the virtual-world. Pain and pleasure can be felt and communicated across these realities.
An example is if a user discovered their companion sent a fake photograph of themself, this could lead to strong feelings of betrayal, which would fracture the relationship, and importantly trust. Another is when the user no longer signs in on SL, their companion wonders whether they are dead in real-life. Hence, the visual capability of seeing their companion on SL is significant. It enhances the emotional, mental, and physical experience of intimacy in virtual-reality.[lxi] What it is to be human in the real-world is redefined when virtual-worlds accommodate experiences involving heartache or loss. Though actual-reality and virtual-reality was intentionally encoded separately in SL as “1st Life” and “2nd Life,” the boundaries are subverted when intimacy transcends virtual-reality and changes the concept of love in real-life.
In conclusion, the virtual-world has real-world ramifications. The social actions of humans in the actual-world inspire their behaviour in SL,[lxii] whereas what occurs in the virtual-world is viewed as real and meaningful[lxiii] as the ones encountered offline.[lxiv] Eventually their virtual existence can take a life of its own,[lxv] resulting in the real-world to slowly diminish in importance.[lxvi]
For this reason, patterns of interaction and traditional practices are recreated in this multimedia environment. No longer are users encumbered by social constraints or the physical limitations of the tangible world. The intensity of experiencing SL as an “immersive dimensionless semblance of lived space,”[lxvii] not only heightens the user’s engagement as a SL resident, but also provokes their emotions and thought process in the actual-world. Thus, the virtual-world is part of the real-world. Both realms continue to exist together regardless of whether the user chooses to keep these realities separate. While the virtual world is not entirely perfect or ideal in the long-term, it may be a good deal safer than the physical world we live in now.[lxviii]
REFERENCES
[i]
Massumi, B 2008, ‘The Thinking-Feeling of What Happens’, Inflexions, 1, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://www.inflexions.org/n1_The-Thinking-Feeling-of-What-Happens-by-Brian-Massumi.pdf>,
p. 20.
[ii]
Suler, J, 2004, Two Paths of Virtual
Reality, Rider University, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/vrpaths.html>.
[iii]
Dibbell, J 2011, My Tiny Life: Crime and
passion in a virtual world, 2nd edn, Julian Dibbell, p. 52
[iv]
Boellstorff, T 2008, Coming of Age in
Second Life: An Athropologist Explores the Virtually Human, Princeton
University Press, United States of America, p. 211.
[v]
See Taylor, T.I 2002, ‘Living Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds’, in R.
Schroeder (eds), The Social Life of
Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments,
Springer-Verlag, London, p. 41.
[vii]
Van Gelder, L 1991, ‘The Strange Case of the Electronic Lover’, in C Dunlop
& R K (ed), Computerization and
Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, Academic Press, Boston, p.
366.
[viii]
Ensslin, A 2011, ‘Avatar Needs and the Remediation of Architecture in Second
Life’, in A Ensslin & E Muse (ed), Creating
Second Lives: Community, Identity, and Spatiality as Constructions of the
Virtual, Routledge, New York, p. 195.
[ix]
Turkle, S 2001 ‘All MOOS are Education – the Experience of ‘Walking through the
Self’, in C Haynes & J.R Holmevik (eds), High Wired: On the Design, Use, and Theory of Educational MOOs, Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, United States of America, p. 12.
[x] Cited
in Gottschalk, S 2010, ‘The Presentation of Avatars in Second Life: Self and
Interaction in Social Virtual Spaces, Symbolic
Interaction, vol. 33, no. 4, fall, p. 506.
[xiv] Rymaszewski,
M, Wagner, J.A, Wallace, M, Winters, C, Ondrejka, C, Batstone-Cunningham, B,
Rosedale, P 2007, Second Life: The
Official Guide, Wiley, Indianapolis, p. 301.
[xv]
Chayko, M 2008, Portable Communities: The Social
Dynamics of Online and Mobile Communication, State University of New York
Press, New York.
[xvi]
Above n 10, p. 508.
[xvii]
Suler, J 2004, The Psychology of
Cyberspace, Rider University, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/index.html>.
[xviii]
Rosenmann, A, Safir, M.P 2006, ‘Forced Online: Push Factors of Internet
Sexuality: A Preliminary Study of Online Paraphilic Empowerment’, Journal of Homosexuality, 51, pp. 71-
92.
[xix]
Cunningham, K 2006, ‘Virtually Transformed: Second Life’s Implications for the Status of the Body’, cited in
Gottschalk 2010, p. 505.
[xx] Fink, J
1999, Cyberseduction: Reality in the Age of Psychotechnology, Prometheus Books, New York, pp.
128-129.
[xxiii]
Suler, J 2004, Identity Manageent in Cyberspace,
Rider University, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/identitymanage.html>.
[xxiv]
Descartes, R 1989, The Passions of the
Soul, Hackett Pub Co Inc, Indianapolis, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/descartes1649.pdf>.
[xxvi]
Fetscherin, M, Lattemann C 2008, ‘User Acceptance of Virtual Worlds’, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research,
vol. 9, no. 3, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://www.csulb.edu/journals/jecr/issues/20083/paper5.pdf?origin=publication_detail>,
pp. 231-242.
[xxx]
Anarbaeva, S.M 2012, ‘Samarita Ibanez: An Identity Journey from Life to
Second’, Journal of Virtual Worlds
Research, vol. 5, no. 1, May 2012, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://journals.tdl.org/jvwr/index.php/jvwr/article/view/6176>, p.
8.
[xxxiii]
Joyce Bettencourt 2008, Wonderland:
Virtual Adultery and Cyberspace Love, United
Kingdom, online video, accessed 7 June 2014, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POE0nBKFo9Y>.
[xxxiv]
Bargh, J, McKenna, K.Y.A, Fizsimons, G.M 2002, ‘Can
You See The Real Me? Activation and Expression of the ‘‘True Self’’ on the
Internet’, Journal of Social Issues,
vol. 58, no. 1, accessed 1 June 2014, <http://smg.media.mit.edu/personals/chi2004/private/papers/bargh.pdf>,
pp. 33–48.
[xxxvii]
Jones, D.E 2008, ‘I, Avatar: Constructions of Self and Place in Second Life and
the Technological Imagination’, Georgetown University, accessed 7 June 2014
from gnovis Journal, p. 14.
[xxxviii]
Lastowka, G, Hunter, D 2004, ‘The Laws of the Virtual Worlds’, California Law Review, accessed 7 June
2014, <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=402860>, pp.
3-73.
[xxxix]
Book, B 2004, ‘Moving Beyond the Game: Social Virtual Worlds’, Cultures of Play
Panel, State of Play 2 Conference, October, accessed 1 June 2014,
<http://deby.net/FILES/3d/ARTICLES/moving%20beyond%20the%20game%20-%20social%20virtual%20worlds.pdf>,
p. 8.
[xl] Daniel,
J 2008, The Self Set Free, Therapy
Today, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://www.therapytoday.net/article/show/68/>.
[xli]
Nagy, P 2010, ‘Second Life, Second Choice? The effects of virtual identity on
consumer behavior. A conceptual framework’, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://kgk.uni-obuda.hu/system/files/pnagy.pdf>, p. 171.
[xlii]
Jason Springarn-Koff 2010, Life 2.0,
online video, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUwD7u7wwcY>.
[xlv] Giddens,
A 1991, Modernity
and Self Identity, Oxford: Polity Press, p. 52.
[l] Au, W.J
2005, Furry Like Me, New World Notes,
accessed 7 June 2014, <http://secondlife.blogs.com/nwn/2005/04/furry_like_me.html>.
[li] Graham,
E.L 2002, Representations of The Post-Human: Monsters, Aliens, and
Others in Popular Culture, Rutgers
University Press, United States of America.
[liii]
See Maslow, A.H 1943, A Theory of Human
Motivation, York University, accessed 7 June 2014,
<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-5-JeCa2Z7hNjZlNDNhOTEtMWNkYi00YmFhLWI3YjUtMDEyMDJkZDEx
NWRm/edit?pli=1>,
pp. 370-396.
[liv]
Above n 8, pp. 191-193.
[lx]
Above n 4, pp. 15-266.
[lxi]
Above n 10, p. 503.
[lxii]
Dourish, P 2004, ‘A History of Interaction’, in Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 18.
[lxiii]
Taylor T.L 2006, ‘Beyond Management: Considering Participatory Design and
Governance in Player Culture, First
Monday, Issue 7, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1611/1526>.
[lxv]
Shields, R 2002, The Virtual, Routledge,
London.
[lxvi]
Cline M.S, 2005, Power, Madness, and
Immortality: The Future of Virtual Reality, e-book, accessed 7 June 2014,
<http://books.google.com.au/books
id=7OxbJWzIaVEC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&dq=overstimulation
+sensory+virtual+worlds&source=bl&ots=
OryNoKC787&sig=ZqWkyz4g
2hc9VzFNhudGnqwXucY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q
xZ8U77PE4uZkgW61oHYBQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=
overstimulation%20sensory
%20virtual%20worlds&f=false>,
p. 196.
Feel free to check out my other websites and social media accounts.
