My final video. I took people’s suggestions for the “media montage” during the Terrence McKenna clip at the end; I wish I’d had time to add other people during the ‘forum use’ section because I agree that would look better. 
Anyway. Can’t wait to see what the final integration of everything will look like…thanks for all your criticisms and support! It’s been a great semester. See y’all tomorrow at the Diggies! 
This is my latest draft of my final video. Some questions before we turn in the final product:
I have a lot of me in this video, especially toward the end. Is it bad that I’m my only talking head (aside from teh Terrence McKenna clip), or is it ok for me to be the only one sharing the research we’ve done this semester?
My intention with the black background during the Terrence McKenna clip at the end was to have the viewer contemplate this idea of creation after hearing the information presented here, and not be “fed” any media during the clip. Does it work, or does it need visuals?
Anything else that people feel needs to change, let me know and I’ll see what I can do by Wednesday!
So. I sat down today and did the whole vlogging thing for the first time. It wasn’t really as scary or distressing as I thought it might be, and I wonder if this is becuase these days people are more familiar with the concept of being in front of a camera, and know what a vlog is. Anyway. This is what I’ll most likely be using as the narration for my video, as a way to insert myself in there. Hopefully I slowed down and got the same message across but in a simpler way. I’d appreciate any comments on points I may have missed. I should probably slow down my entrance and exit too; but hey, that’s what B-roll is for, right? 
If you have time to watch it, give me a shout!
Here is the second draft of my final project. I’m still not completely happy with it, but think it’s a little bit more cohesive now that I have a running narrative over the whole thing. I’m still trying to figure out what kind of visuals to put over that meme collage at the end where the computer-generated voice is talking; any suggestions would be appreciated. That goes for the whole video, actually – I feel like it’s turning into one big slide show. Nevertheless, I feel better about this draft than the last one, and am looking forward to continuing to improve it.
Here is the (very) rough draft of my video on how netspeak functions to connect people, especially among Anonymous posters on 4chan. Please comment on anything that you think would make this better, as it is in an obvious state of lacking the brilliant punch we want to bring to our final project. I’ll be updating this more later, of course, but until then…halp! Any comments appreciated. 
So…this is the first stage of plotting out my video about the use of internet languages. I took steps 12-15 of our group logical argument and used them as a framework for my video. This is too much to encompass in a 5-minute spot, but there are elements from 12-14 that I want to include as brief background to my topic. I’ll likely be refining this more to focus on examples with internet languages in particular. I’m also contemplating vlogging myself talking about my project to straighten out my own argument in my head, and possibly use clips of that as a voiceover. Here’s what I have so far.
12.000 On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog. (Your physical appearance and personal history are not automatically known) .This can be confusing, isolating, refreshing, liberating.
* Show online profiles – transition from accurate depictions of yourself (Facebook, Myspace, etc.) to photoshopped/artistic images to nonhuman creatures/avatars
* changing faces, masks – building your own profile/identity
This non-accountability allows us to say whatever we want. It removes both the prestige and the burden of authorship. (4chan allows for the possibility of an anonymous community)
* Picture with face floating free from body
*Anonymous talking head: “with Anonymous, there is no authorship. Their claim is no more valid than the individual’s claim to existence…”
13.100 This challenges traditional understandings of how people construct identity in relation to others – as others are unknown
Challenges traditional idea of “group” and “community”
*clip of Moot talking about the /b/tards from Roflcon YouTube video
14.000 4chan is the primordial ooze from which many internet phenomena are born. The language and images on Anonymous messageboards can seem confusing at first glance.
*Screen shots of Rick Roll, meme montage I used in my last video (?)
*Screen shots from 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica, Urban dictionary, YouTube comments, etc.
Material has to be shocking or extreme to stand out
* quote from Gawker about /b/ melting your brain
This playfulness can be indicated by looking at the language(s) used on these forums. The realization that language can encapsulate layers of meaning marks 4chan and other forums as contexts where what is meant is not necessarily what is said. The meaning in the meme is not its content, but its creation
15.000 These memes become core to the shared values, ethos, and language of the culture.
* Anonymous talking head: “Anonymous is simply ideas without origin – may it be a phrase a fad, a proverb. The concept of Anonymous has always existed…They are the ones who dared to think freely without regard for others. And they may be the ones who have started the meme that has grown so large.”
15.100 Referring to these memes and using leetspeak provide ways for people to determine who is “in” and who is “out”
15.200 N3w £4n9µ493$ 3m3r93 70 Ð373rm1n3 1n-9r0µp 4nÐ 0µ7-9r0µp.
- language originally created to connect, these languages forge new ways of connecting
* Language – created to transcend our isolation (Waking Life clip)
14.200 In sum: Anonymity + ephemeral dialogue + physical distance = freedom of expression => more creativity – Finding ways to connect in an inherently isolating medium
* Terrence McKenna – free your mind “make your own road show” don’t let the media use you
* images of people connecting across cyberspace
Here I’ve stripped my short research paper down to the three main points I want to make in my video. Under each point I’ve listed some of the authors I’ve looked to in order to support that point. I followed each with a few possible counterarguments that I’ll need to work to support against (unless through our collaboration I see that these are valid points – discuss! After we discuss these points and the collaborative document, I’ll use this as the basis to create a storyboard for my video.
Point #1: The offensive/confusing surface of Anonymous forums requires a deeper look into the fabric of the medium and into the language used/created there to bring its human side to light.
* Language can encapsulate many meanings, not just the literal meaning of what is said, contributing to the idea of play (Bateson)
* With the possibility for the group Anonymous to encompass large numbers of people, it is likely we all know someone who is part of this conglomerate – the flock of birds whose parts can peel off in any direction (Landers)
* Anonymous is like us. In many ways, they are us. (Anonymous’ own claims – we are everywhere and we are nowhere; we are legion, etc.)
* The medium’s impact on people’s interactions are considerable – media ecologies, biases, history, etc. (Lum, Meyrowitz, McLuhan)
Possible counterarguments
- Some members of Anonymous really are out to make people’s lives miserable
- Discourse degenerates when we are not accountable for what we say – is this a manifestation of what our culture is really like, and this medium just gives us the chance to say these things?
- Anonymous could be just a small group of people; these phenomena might not apply to as many people as this paper makes it seem
Point #2: The creation of internet languages is a way for Anonymous to create new ways of connecting by manipulating the media that isolates and makes it hard to express our true identity.
* The internet as a place for interaction is one in which we are still learning how to interact. With nothing to tie our physical bodies to our identities, we are isolated. (Starrs)
* This isolation in a context where we have infinite possibilities for connection leads to apathy and a dearth of meaning in the connections we do create – a feeling of ambient intimacy (Thompson)
* In this context, we must create new ways of connecting, rather than conforming. In order to bring back the meaning in our relationships, we have to forge something new. Likewise, to understand this process, we have to engage in the use of these languages, explore these forums, etc. We have to embrace the mentality of observant participation rather than just participant observation. (Whitehead)
* The (re)production of information in the form of memes is important because for some reason, this information merits repeating. (Dawkins, Dennet) However, I argue that the creation of the meme is more important than the information itself.
Possible counterarguments
- The relationships we have online are completely different from the ones we have in “real” life and lack of intimacy online should not be compared to lack of interaction online
- There’s too big of a stretch here between meme theory in the evolutionary sense that Dawkins intended and the production of internet memes like Lolcats
Point #3: The realization that language can encapsulate layers of meaning marks 4chan and other forums as contexts where what is meant is not necessarily what is said.
* Some basic linguistic anthropology – Language as an insight into culture, and a shaper of it (Sapir and Whorf)
* Bateson’s idea of interacting not on the basis of “this is play” but “is this play?” – pushing the boundaries to see what is acceptable, and being able to do this because we are not accountable
Possible counterarguments
- The users of sites like 4chan don’t put that much thought into their interactions – when they publish someone’s information with the intention of messing with their accounts, acting as a vigilante, etc. this is not a form of connection
- Language is simply a reflection of culture, not a shaper of it
Let me know what you think…I’m excited to see the pieces of our research coming together! Let me know how I can shape my pieces to fit.
Internet Languages as a Social Catalyst
Hackers on Steroids. Cyber terrorists. The Internet Hate Machine. The group known more neutrally as Anonymous has many labels, and none of them too savory. It’s easy to see why – any first-time viewer of the online imageboards they frequent (like /b/, the “random” category on 4chan.org) would be inundated by racist comments, obscene images, juvenile humor and unintelligible banter. Further investigation of the group’s vigilante attacks on the church of Scientology or the exposure of an ex-girlfriend’s real-life information may inspire more fear than intrigue. Yet the online manifestation of this group through the language they use to communicate and identify themselves gives us a look into what could happen if none of us had to be accountable for what we say. The surface may seem garbled and ugly at first glance. A closer look, however, reveals that although all of Anonymous’ members share a paradoxical non-identity, the faces behind the masks are as varied as the ideologies that lie behind them. And yet they are undeniably as human as our own.
When our ancestors first began to communicate, language was a conscious, collaborative effort to understand and to be understood – and one that took place face-to-face. Basic needs were conveyed through gesture and then words. Words themselves became powerful things, encapsulating not only messages of immediate consequence, but also abstractions, worldviews and wisdom.
The transition, then, to the printed word was a revolutionary one. According to Joshua Meyrowitz, “The break from total reliance on oral communication allows people to become more introspective, rational and individualistic.” (Meyrowitz 1986: 17) The creation of writing led not only to the perpetuation of information over space and time previously impossible, but disrupted the power structure in which the elder guardians of oral tradition were no longer needed. (Lum 2006:36) The shaping of culture became increasingly defined by the way people communicated, and understood their interactions. This led to McLuhan’s assertion that “the medium is the message.” (McLuhan 1964)
With the development of the internet we know today, these changes in both communication and perception exploded on a global scale: “Electronic media completely obliterate our traditional notion of time and space in human communication and culture.” (Lum 2006:36) Not only do people now have access to more information than they could ever hope to benefit from, but they have the means to express themselves in a variety of ways, making public ideas and sentiments that would have once been shared only with a select few.
This is made possible by the medium of the internet, which is built and perpetuated through language. The code that shapes the internet’s structure is a language of its own – a machine-readable grammar that dictates what can transpire in the context of cyberspace. This virtual world created through the code gives rise to forms of textual communication, and now (through emoticons, vlogs and video chat) to paralinguistic communication as well. Nevertheless, excepting this latter type of communication, most denizens of cyberspace communicates through text in a “place” where anonymity is the norm.
When we communicate this way, we are both a faceless democracy and a chaotic group of mischief-makers with nothing to tie our words to our real-life identities. Free to wreak havoc or to discuss things made taboo by our culture, we join the masses on the byways of this extraordinary, dynamic synthesis of medium and message. We are barraged by avatars that claim to be our friends, by advertisers helping us create our material identities, by in-game trolls and elves, and by things much more bizarre: shocking things that people say and, in the given context, the things we say ourselves. This “place” is something completely other than our previous stages of communication; it is not space, but cyberspace; not reality, but virtual reality. It is somewhere that we find ourselves surrounded by a barrage of culture, but inherently alone. It is “the place where everybody goes but nobody lives” (Starrs 1997:193)
Users of internet forums interact like neighbors in a city where many cultures are thrust into the same densely populated locale, but nobody knows each other personally. There are many motivations for interacting online, even among the seeming mass chaos of sites like 4chan, where Anonymous members share images and engage in banter that will “melt your brain.”(Gawker.com) Forum frequenters are labeled with any number of derogatory terms, and replying to a post with “Enjoy your AIDS” is commonplace and even mild behavior on the site. But as in the analogy of the city, amidst all one’s anonymous neighbors, behavior or style has to be more extreme to get noticed. Likewise, in a context where the majority of interaction takes place through text, phrases and expressions have to grab your attention to elicit a reaction. “Enjoy your AIDS” has the same social function as saying “I’m here – notice me.”
This is an idealistic view of such language, to be sure. But does Anonymous really mean such phrases to be so venomous? Going back to the first uses of language, communication was based on behaviors that elicited natural responses that benefited the message-maker. It was when the message-maker realized that the signals they were performing could elicit something other than a “natural” response that “[n]ot only the characteristically human invention of language [could] then follow, but also all the complexities of empathy, identification, projection…” (Bateson 2000: 178-179). From this realization, Bateson argues, people began to recognize that multiple layers of meaning can emerge from a single message.
From this increasing awareness that the true meaning relayed might be different than the one stated, different types of netspeak began to emerge. There are “coded” languages with one-to-one correlations between letters or numbers typed and English equivalents. Leet (or 1337) is one of these, as is LOLcats, although this language relies on misspellings (often based on typos) and slang to get its messages across. There are countless forum comments, videos and images that contain words in Leetspeak, and a translation of the Bible into LOLcats also exists. There are other manipulations of the language that are characteristic of Anonymous’ discourse. These are less obvious in the meanings they convey, but are also a product of the isolating medium of cyberspace, and function to establish solidarity. The phrases mentioned above, as well as images and phrases that have come to be called internet memes are part of this phenomenon.
Memes, in the online sense, are an intriguing and largely visible aspect of the development of these ways of communicating. The development of a meme parallels the creation of such language, and mimics the broader idea of a social meme, as presented by scholars like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. The word “meme” itself, from the Greek word mimema, or “mimic” gives the basic idea of what it is – a unit of cultural information that is reproduced and transmitted. However, scholars define memes differently; it is a hotly debated point within the field. “Meme” can indicate genetic information that “wants” to be copied in order to perpetuate an evolutionarily sound organism; it can also indicate a social practice (a style of clothing or way of building), or the idea behind that behavior’s phenotype. (Dawkins 1991:1) There are those who think that this definition is too broad, rendering theories that them as too sweeping and generalized.
For the sake of this project, I refer to memes as pieces of information or references to an event that will trigger solidarity among those who understand the reference. There are textual memes (referring to members of the site as “fags,” talking about “fail” or getting “pwned,” and referring to the internet as “teh interwebz” to name a few), as well as situational memes (which recall a certain event, like the ‘an hero’ meme, referring to a depressed forum user who shot himself when he couldn’t find his iPod.) There are also visual memes – Pedobear, Tay Zonday’s Chocolate Rain song and the Rick Roll come to mind.
These memes are relatively harmless; more disturbing is the frequent use of racially and sexually discriminatory language on the boards, along with the aforementioned shocker “Enjoy your AIDS.” Is this really what our discourse begins to look like when we are not held accountable? Bateson argues that the realization that messages can convey multiple abstractions leads to interactions that are no longer based around the idea “this is play,” but around the question “is this play?” (Bateson 2000:182) Participants push the boundaries of acceptable ideas to see what they can get away with.
But how can they tell that they are in a position to play such a game? Most people would never say these kinds of things to each other face-to-face. Play is a combination of serious and non-serious attributes, and allows us to see the distinctions between such in other areas of our lives. (Bateson 2000:185) In this way, contexts where play is acceptable are framed as those where this non-serious behavior (or at least a combination of serious and non-serious) is acceptable. Sites like 4chan are, in my view, such frames. As soon as a user logs on, he or she is free to communicate in such a way and have it be understood by other users that these comments are not meant to be venomous.
This still begs the question of why such information becomes the material of memes. If, as Richard Dawkins would point out, humans are a “paradise for replication” in the sense of absorbing and transmitting information and ideas that will help to make them more fit organisms in the process of human evolution, where do Pedobear and the Chocolate Rain guy come in? (Dawkins 1991:1) This is where perhaps the creation of the meme is more important than the meme itself. Our society can exist without Longcat and the LOLwut pear, but it cannot exist without human interaction. In our modern interactions, based around consuming to relate, Anonymous takes in popular culture, internet culture – anything they can share a reference with other members of the group – and reproduces it ad nauseum to solidify their online relations.
We do the same thing in the wired aspects of our lives. Clive Thompson points out that gratuitous publishing of our own thoughts and daily actions on the internet can lead to apathy. Like the first internet users stranded in an unfamiliar locale with more information than they knew what to do with, we are now able to peer endlessly into the lives of our closest friends, our marginal acquaintances, and of those we don’t even know. As opposed to the initial confusion of messageboard memes and asking ourselves what they mean, the apathy with these real-life updates is almost more alarming. We know what they mean, but what do they matter? Thompson explains:
“This is the paradox of ambient awareness. Each little update — each individual bit of social information — is insignificant on its own, even supremely mundane. But taken together, over time, the little snippets coalesce into a surprisingly sophisticated portrait of your friends’ and family members’ lives, like thousands of dots making a pointillist painting.” (Thompson 2008: 3)
This way of being “ambiently intimate” is visible on sites like Facebook and Twitter where we use our real identities. This form of interaction is somewhat aloof and convenient, but real nonetheless. The connections are just as real on sites like 4chan, though they look a little different. The trifecta of non-accountability, the realization of play and the desire to interact make 4chan a place where seemingly bizarre ways of relating emerge. Telling someone to “enjoy your AIDS” might not be an explicit effort to reach out and connect, but it is something along that line. If an explicit connection is not apparent, then at least eliciting a reaction gives the author some sense of being acknowledged.
We live in a time when commercialism and consumerism try to dictate who we are, and the internet itself seems to hamper our expression of identity. In this light, Anonymous might be one of the best examples of creating a new way of interacting that enables them (and us, for we are in many ways the same) to manipulate modern media and conform it to our own values. As insights into language help us to better understand a culture’s worldview, the examination of Leetspeak, LOLcats and internet memes give us a glimpse into new ways of relating in an age of ambient intimacy.
References Cited
Bateson, Gregory Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemolo. Chicago. 2000.
Dawkins, Richard. “Viruses of the Mind.” Richard Dawkins. 1991. http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-o (accessed Feb 25, 2009).
Douglas, Nick. “Internets: What the Hell are 4chan, ED, Something Awful and “b”?.” Gawker.com. 18 Jan 2008. http://gawker.com/346385/what-the-hell-are-4chan-e (accessed Mar 29, 2009).
Lum, Casey M.K. Perspectives on Culture, Technology and Communication. 2006.
McLuhan, Marshall Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.. 1964.
Meyrowitz, Joshua No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior.. 1986.
Starrs, Paul F. “The Sacred, the Regional and the Digital.” 21, (1997): 193-218.
Thompson, Clive. “Web ushers in age of ambient intimacy.” International Herald Tribune, 8 Sep 2008, sec. Technology http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/08/news/07awar.
The following is the text I posted last time from my presentation, but deconstructed a bit to show my line of thought and how I’ll be shaping my upcoming research paper. I’m trying to do what we talked about in class earlier and look for relationships where others see none, and draw on some of our old readings as well as some new things I’ve been looking at in order to get my ideas across. However, I don’t want to force connections where there should be none, so it would be great if anybody has some free time (haha! right?) and would like to give me pointers on where I could incorporate more, or where I’m going crazy. I’ve bolded the points I added to the text I posted last time; feel free to comment, criticize, collaborate, etc….it’s already almost paper-length, so I’ll need to pick and choose and be concise. But here’s what I’m workin’ on….
The story of the group Anonymous is one best understood by looking at it through the context in which the group interacts.
- The medium shapes the results people see
- Why do these people choose this medium to interact through?
- The context of Anonymity leads to this result
- In this medium, anonymity is the norm, freeing them to say anything
This context – sites like /b/ on 4chan, Something Awful, Encyclopedia Dramatica and countless other forums – is one shaped by and perpetuated through language. The code language of the internet’s framework supports the visible sites mentioned above, which support text-based discussions, and gives rise to internet languages of their own.
- Code is a language of its own
- We take our face to face language and create the machine-readable codes that construct cyberspace – a new context
- We program the code to do what our verbal language does
- The code creates a framework in which textual communication takes place
- From this arise new textual languages like Leet
From the beginning, language has been a conscious, collective and creative effort to understand others and to be understood. People had to be physically present to get their meanings across – there were no mass media, and meaning had to be explained face-to-face.
- Bateson: people communicated through signals; their signs were signals; there was a one-to-one correlation between action and the meaning conveyed
- With the advent of writing, this changed. People could then communicate with those they were not physically near; they could also create documents that could be referred back to in the future.
- Elizabeth Einstein – explosion of literacy, accounts of life, etc. w/ printing press
- This became important for creating histories and materials that could be widely distributed, but also downplayed the importance of oral tradition, and robbed elders who had been guardians of these traditions of their positions of respect. (Lum)
- Moreover, writing became one of the primary means by which anonymity could take place.
The separation of author from idea could protect those who didn’t want to be linked with the ideas they were projecting, but also allowed the idea itself to be given more importance than the author, or the author’s reputation. This effect was increased exponentially with the introduction of the printing press, and exploded on a global scale with the rise of Internet communication. Cyberspace became a context in which anonymous communication was the norm; no matter how much personal information one tied to a post, there was still nothing linking that information to their physical persona. It is a relatively new context in which you can communicate as yourself, or as a persona you create – in many ways we are still trying to figure out how to interact here when the participants and the medium are always dynamic and never clearly defined.
- While it is a context in which you have the opportunity to connect with everyone, it is also inherently isolating
- People begin coming up with new ways to connect, or at least to be noticed
- Groundwork for forums like 4chan to start up – people to start interacting and creating new ways of communicating
As this type of communication grows more prevalent, the separation of your identity from what you say does a number of things. It frees you from accountability and allows you to break cultural taboos, talking about anything you want and saying things the “meat space” you would never say.
- Posting on 4chan – am I really acting “not like myself” or acting more truly to what I really think by posting things I would “never say” to someone face-to-face?
- Why don’t we say these things to each other face-to-face?
- Are these things really meant to be hurtful?
However, there is also a challenge to presenting your own individual creative expression and identity. There are infinite possibilities for connections and networking, but also an effect of physical isolation brought on by the separation of face from message. This is where I believe the creation of internet languages like leetspeak, lolcats and other types of netspeak come in. This is an effort by internet users in a largely text-based communication context to create a means by which understanding and rapport can be built, just as it is in face-to-face conversations.
A “code” or language delineates which users are part of the group, and which ones “get” what is going on in a given context. This goes for phrases used on forums like 4chan, as well as memes, which can be visual or based on a person or event as well. A meme – a bit of cultural information replicated because it “catches” – may not have meaning in and of itself, but the fact that it is replicated, understood and referenced by members of a group (such as Anonymous) make it a mechanism for connection, more than meaning.
- Dawkins and Dennett – memetics and theories on why things/information is reproduced
- Arguments about this theory, and about defining ‘meme’
- My definition of a meme (for the purpose of this project): a piece of information or reference to an event that will trigger solidarity among those who understand the reference, and that is replicated to manifest that understanding and sense of belonging
- Ideas about why it gets replicated and what it means for those doing the replicating
This may be an idealistic or optimistic view given the obscene and offensive comments on /b/, but in all likelihood, users of /b/ recognize the board itself as a context where this type of language is understood in another, more lighthearted way.
- Bateson’s idea of play, and participants’ recognition and manipulation of playfulness
- “This is play” vs. “is this play?”
In cyberspace, dominated by textual communication (though paralanguage is finding its place through emoticons, video chat, vlogs, etc.), a post has to be extreme in order to be noticed. Like members of a subculture dressing in a more noticeable way in larger cities with more people, the more posts crop up, the more extreme a post must be to effect the reaction its author wants. This is what I believe a lot of these seemingly horrible posts to be – ways for the author to feel legitimated by eliciting a reaction from others.
- Idea of ambient intimacy
- Manifests visibly, and with at least pseudonymy on Facebook
- Invisibly, and more playfully/offensively on faceless forums
- Trolls and those who post to get a reaction
This might not be an explicit effort to reach out and connect with others, but something along that line – in a context increasingly isolating and hampering to the expression of one’s identity, forum users come up with innovative ways to interact and establish an in-group.
- Whitehead: Creation vs. Consumption/conformity
I will continue to look at what marks speech as this type of discourse, but this is where I am as of now – seeing internet speech/languages as new ways to collaboratively create and understand each other in an anonymous medium.
- The place where everyone goes but nobody lives (Starrs)
- Space and cyberspace, reality and virtual reality
- Language as a framework for understanding
The story of the group Anonymous is one best understood by looking at it through the context in which the group interacts. This context – sites like /b/ on 4chan, Something Awful, Encyclopedia Dramatica and countless other forums – is one shaped by and perpetuated through language. The code language of the internet’s framework supports the visible sites mentioned above, which support text-based discussions, and gives rise to internet languages of their own. The following is the basic text of the presentation I gave last Tuesday, and gives a look at where I’m currently at in my research.
My actual presentation can be accessed here by clicking on my name on the left side of the page.
From the beginning, language has been a conscious, collective and creative effort to understand others and to be understood. People had to be physically present to get their meanings across – there were no mass media, and meaning had to be explained face-to-face. With the advent of writing, this changed. People could then communicate with those they were not physically near; they could also create documents that could be referred back to in the future. This became important for creating histories and materials that could be widely distributed, but also downplayed the importance of oral tradition, and robbed elders who had been guardians of these traditions of their positions of respect. Moreover, writing became one of the primary means by which anonymity could take place.
The separation of author from idea could protect those who didn’t want to be linked with the ideas they were projecting, but also allowed the idea itself to be given more importance than the author, or the author’s reputation. This effect was increased exponentially with the introduction of the printing press, and exploded on a global scale with the rise of Internet communication. Cyberspace became a context in which anonymous communication was the norm; no matter how much personal information one tied to a post, there was still nothing linking that information to their physical persona. It is a relatively new context in which you can communicate as yourself, or as a persona you create – in many ways we are still trying to figure out how to interact here when the participants and the medium are always dynamic and never clearly defined.
As this type of communication grows more prevalent, the separation of your identity from what you say does a number of things. It frees you from accountability and allows you to break cultural taboos, talking about anything you want and saying things the “meat space” you would never say. However, there is also a challenge to presenting your own individual creative expression and identity. There are infinite possibilities for connections and networking, but also an effect of physical isolation brought on by the separation of face from message. This is where I believe the creation of internet languages like leetspeak, lolcats and other types of netspeak come in. This is an effort by internet users in a largely text-based communication context to create a means by which understanding and rapport can be built, just as it is in face-to-face conversations. A “code” or language delineates which users are part of the group, and which ones “get” what is going on in a given context. This goes for phrases used on forums like 4chan, as well as memes, which can be visual or based on a person or event as well. A meme – a bit of cultural information replicated because it “catches” – may not have meaning in and of itself, but the fact that it is replicated, understood and referenced by members of a group (such as Anonymous) make it a mechanism for connection, more than meaning.
This may be an idealistic or optimistic view given the obscene and offensive comments on /b/, but in all likelihood, users of /b/ recognize the board itself as a context where this type of language is understood in another, more lighthearted way. In cyberspace, dominated by textual communication (though paralanguage is finding its place through emoticons, video chat, vlogs, etc.), a post has to be extreme in order to be noticed. Like members of a subculture dressing in a more noticeable way in larger cities with more people, the more posts crop up, the more extreme a post must be to effect the reaction its author wants. This is what I believe a lot of these seemingly horrible posts to be – ways for the author to feel legitimated by eliciting a reaction from others. Perhaps not an explicit effort to reach out and connect with others, but something along that line – in a context increasingly isolating and hampering to the expression of one’s identity, forum users come up with innovative ways to interact and establish an in-group. I will continue to look at what marks speech as this type of discourse, but this is where I am as of now – seeing internet speech/languages as new ways to collaboratively create and understand each other in an anonymous medium.
Pictures I used:
Guys talking; handwriting; masked writer; cyberspace; faceless woman; leet chart; woman in Guy Fawkes mask; holding hands
