Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Lucas D. Introna
Department of Information Systems, London School of Economics & Political Science
Tel: 0171-9556032 ; E-mail: l.introna@lse.ac.uk
Abstract
Does it make sense to talk about cyberspace as an alternative social reality? Is cyberspace the new
frontier for the realization of the postmodern self? For philosophers Taylor and Saarinen, and the
psychologist Turkle cyberspace is the practical manifestation of a postmodern reality, or rather
hyperreality (Baudrillard). In hyperreal cyberspace, they argue, identity becomes plastic, ‘I can
change my self as easily as I change my clothes.’ I will argue using Martin Heidegger that our
being is being-in-the-world. To be-in-the-world means to be involved in the world; to have an
involvement whole that is the always already present significance of what I do. Furthermore, that
the making or choosing of self is only existentially meaningful in a horizon of significance, an
involvement whole. I will argue that identity is tied to community, and community involves
accepting some level of already there thrownness. Every cyber-traveler will eventually have to
deal with the fact of being, always already, in-the-world.
Introduction
Whither are we moving?
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We
have killed him--you and I. All of us are his murderers. ... Whither are we moving?...God is dead. God remains dead.
And we have killed him....What was the holiest and most powerful of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death
under our knives: who will wipe the blood off us?..."
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too were silent and stared at him in
astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke and went out. "I come too early," he said then;
"my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way...--it has not yet reached the ears of man.”
Nietzsche
With this dramatic passage Nietzsche (1974, p.125) declares the end of all metaphysical
foundations and meta-narratives. Nothing is, and we can know nothing. The Western
philosophical tradition has exhausted all its options. Reason turned on itself with devastating
results. All foundations for knowing, whether on the field of experience, or on the field of reason
have been subjected to devastating critique.
Derrida (1982) with his method of deconstruction exorcised every major philosophical text of
any pretence of foundation or ultimate referent. Without an ultimate referent all texts are fictional;
texts referring to other texts in an endless regression. Lyotard (1986) using Wittgenstein argued all
language games are situated and therefore incommensurable, consequently there can be no
legitimating meta-narrative only an endless proliferation of local narratives. Foucault (1977) with
his genealogical method argued that the hermeneutic quest for deep and hidden meaning merely
uncovers more interpretation, ―as everything is already interpretation.‖ Each institution or society
―has its ‗regime‘ of truth, its ‗general politics‘ of truth‖ (p. 133) Truth, knowledge and politics are
bound together in a chain that renders separation impossible.
We have entered the age of the postmodern. The modern epoch with its subject-object duality
has proved to be untenable. The sacred categories of the modern age: essence, substance, truth,
real, self, science, and so forth, are all on the philosophical trash heap along with Philosophy (with
a capital ‗P‘). Postmodern society hangs precariously suspended over the abyss of nihilism. How
should it understand itself, how should it react?
1
Published in Philosophy in the Contemporary World, Vol. 4, 1&2, pp.1-10.
More specifically, on a personal and practical level, how should we understand and think about
our existence, our identity, our ‗self‘, whatever that may be? How should we make sense of the
postmorden arguments that speak of the fragmentation of the unified self into multiple ‗windows‘
of self? Furthermore, can we relate this new fragmented ‗self‘ to the rapidly unfolding of new
‗worlds‘, new frontiers, such as cyberspace and virtual reality? To some these new worlds seem to
exemplify what the postmodern ‗self‘ is all about (Poster, 1990). They are worlds cut lose from
their time and space limitations. They seem to create new possibilities for social interaction based
on multiple and plastic identitiesa new contemporary form of being social. Indeed, the concepts
‗cyberspace‘, ‗virtual reality‘, ‗world-wide-web‘, ‗Internet‘, ‗virtual communities‘, and so forth,
have become part of the everyday lingua franca, exciting and seemingly unlimited possibilities
awaits the cyber-traveller.
One could embrace these brave new worlds, dive right into the abyss and produce a self, a
future, a life! This is the view of Jean Baudrillard (1983; 1993). For Baudrillard the ‗real‘ is
dead, it never existed, it was, and is, just a staging, a simulation. We have to face this and rid
ourselves of the modernistic baggage. Baudrillard sees the transcendence of nihilism in what
Nietzsche called ‗absolute nihilism‘, or maybe he would prefer ‗hyper-nihilism‘. In hyper-nihilism
we are free to produce the reality that we desire. It seems that this view of realityas
hyperrealityestablishes the philosophical basis for a wholesale acceptance of cyberspace as
hyperspace. In cyberspace the praxis of hyper-nihilism can be made real. In the hyperreal of
cyberspace ―I can change my self as easily as I change my clothes. Identity becomes infinitely
plastic in a play of images that knows no end.‖ The attractiveness of this sort of reality is clear, its
excess, its promise, is very lucrative. But is this hyperreality, meaningful, sensible? Can I merely
disengage myself from my being-in and dive into an eternal becoming? Am I not always already in
the world in a way that bounds me in such ways that make ‗changing my self as easily as I change
my clothes‘ a meaningless utopia?
In contrast to Baudrillard Martin Heidegger (1962; 1984; 1988) argues that the real is before
representation, it is a world that I am always already in. If the real is only that which can be
represented then Baudrillard may be right. However, this view is based on the metaphysics of
humanism, it has an anthropocentric basis. Humanity through Descartes‘ cogito ergo sum
ordained itself as the foundation that defines ‗what is‘ and ‗what is not‘. In this worldview what
‗is‘ becomes that which can be brought before (represented to) the thinking subject. Against this
view Heidegger argues that we have to understand Being in its own ‗suchness‘, on its own home
ground. Thus, for Heidegger the real is not ‗dead‘. The crisis of representation does not simply
imply an end of the real. The Western philosophical tradition has drifted astrayforgot its
forgettingand need to return to the most fundamental question: the Being of being. It is in
remembering being that the real can be retrieved. A first step to this remembering is to retrieve
Dasein as a clearing for being, as being-in-the-world.
It is my contention that Baudrillard‘s notion of hyperreality and Heidegger‘s Dasein as being-in-
the-world creates the philosophical backdrop for exploring the social reality of cyberspace.1 The
claim that cyberspace represents a legitimate alternative social reality is embedded, and made
significant in this larger debate about the Being of beinga discourse on the future of the real or
maybe the real of the future.
Simcult (Simulacrum)
Considering the ideas of Baudrillard, Taylor and Saarinen (1994) developed a media philosophy
they call Imagology. In their book (which is thoroughly postmodern) Taylor and Saarinen apply
the ideas of Baudrillard to media and more specifically to information technology. What sort of
world is the world of the hyperreal? This is the world of the Simcult, as they call it. It is a world of
excess, outrage and anarchy. The following phrases from their book provide a glimpse of this
world of the simulacrum, the simcult:
in simcult, excess becomes excessive (2:2) 8;
to survive in simcult, one must learn to live the impossibility of dis-illusionment;
in the culture of the simulacrum, everything becomes current and only the current is ―real‖
(2:4);
the threat of simcult is that outrage becomes unfashionable;
simcult presupposes the commodification of commodification;
simcult is a culture of instrumentality and nothing but instrumentality (2:6);
when every foundation is imaginary, alienation becomes impossible (2:8);
the register of the imaginary is anarchic (2:9);
in simcult, we have no intellectually secure foundation for anything (10:10);
Disneyworld is the porodic embodiment of simcult (9:2).
Simcult is the vision, almost a type of prototype, of the world that the simulacrum engenders. It is
the world that is more real than real; it is hyperreal (see also discussion by (Chayko, 1993)). The
‗place‘ of the simcult is ―the electronetwork that mediaizes the real...the mediatrix‖ (1:5). It is the
world of code. When reality is in binary code it can be infinitely reproduced; it enters the realm of
the hyperreal. An archetype for the simcult (the ―mediatrix‖) is what has become known as
cyberspace. The electonetwork of the Internet, the World Wide Web, telecommunications
networks, corporate and state administration databases, multi-user dungeons (MUDs), electronic
mail, electronic meeting systems (EMS), video conferencing, computer supported co-operative
work (CSCW), electronic banking systems, electronic commerce, electronic markets, and so forth.
Through electronic representation and mediation reality can be infinitely reproduced; it enters the
realm of the hyperreal. Gone are the days of the original, the territory, the factual, the real?
Being-in-cyberspace?
In the previous section Turkle, supported by Taylor and Saarinen, argued that MUDs could provide
one with a ―parallel life‖. Thus, MUDs are such that you can be in them ―as just another window‖.
They are as ‗real‘ as my real live.11
For social interaction in cyberspace to be meaningful it needs an involvement whole, a horizon
of significance. If cyberspace is a reality in which one can construct an ―identity that is so fluid an
multiple that it strains the very limits of the notion‖, where ―I can change my self as easily as I
change my clothes‖, then cyberspace is the world of the infinitely possible. Whatever I can
choose, I can be. Taylor (1991) argues that situations in which choice becomes absolute, choice
become trivial. Choice is only significant if there is an externally existing horizon of important
questionsIf not, then choosing becomes ‗eni meni miny mo’, that is trivial. The ―agent seeking
significance in life, trying to define him- or herself meaningfully, has to exist in a horizon of
important questions‖ (Taylor, 1991, p.40). If all characters in the MUDs are pretend characters
doing pretend things, what is the horizon of important questions that will make their doing
meaningful?
The plasticity of identity and self in the MUD, renders choice and action trivial. It is our
already there ‗rootedness‘, in an involvement whole, that make our actions show up as meaningful,
it is our being ‗thrown‘ into a world. Our thrownness locates us in a horizon of significance, an
involvement whole that are pregnant with important questions. Most important of these are the
ethical questions of ‗ought I‘ do this or that. In the anonymity of the MUD the ‗I ought to‘
becomes trivialised as ‗I desire to‘. Furthermore, if the hyper-I do get confronted by a horizon of
important questions in the MUD, and do not like it, I can merely ‗get out‘, or switch off. In
‗getting out‘, choice again becomes trivialised, the involvement whole breaks and significance
dissipates. What about identity in such an environment where significance continually dissipates?
Cyberspace, self and identity
Dasein’s identity is always already grounded in its horizon of significance called being-in-the-
world. Does it make sense to argue that we can ―try out‖ a new identity or aspects of my identity
in a MUD? Obviously identity is not something we ‗are‘ but something we become. It is of our
own making. This making, however, is not a construction in isolation. It needs a horizon of
significance as argued above. Turkle reports of an eleven year old girl that has a room (―condo‖)
in a MUD where she ―chats, orders pizza, and flirts.‖ Now if she would start flirting in-the-world
would it be appropriate? Would it make sense within the involvement whole that she is already in?
In the-world the action of ‗flirting‘ will show up as something an eleven year old ‗ought‘ or ‗ought
not‘in the pretend world of the MUD it does not really matter. What is the use of trying out
new dimensions of identity when it may be wholly inappropriate within my being-in-the-world, the
already there horizon of significance? Turkle seems to be working with the assumption that
significance of actions can be detached from their involvement whole. Thus, that identity is
representations in our heads that we can ‗develop‘ in the cyberspace ―identity workshops‖ and then
ahistorically, in a decontextualised manner, transfer to our real life. Heidegger clearly indicated
that the meaning of things and actions are always already wrapped up and tied to a referential
whole. A referential whole that is its possibilities but also its boundaries. Possibilities and
boundaries render each other meaningful.
In consideration of the above line of thought I would argue that my identity is intimately tied to
community. In community with significant others my identity becomes validated as significant
and meaningful (Taylor, 1991). Community means a shared history. A shared history requires a
sense of continuity in which possibilities and boundaries are acknowledged. As we create our
identity in community we ―resolutely‖ and ―repeatedly (re)choose the self [we have] started to be,
choosing that self again and again in the face of many diversions...‖ (Harvey, 1997). If every
move is made as if there is no history, no community, then every move becomes trivial. As Taylor
remarked: ―If my self-exploration takes the form of such serial and in principle temporary
relationships [as found in the MUDs], then it is not my identity that I am exploring, but some
modality of enjoyment‖ (Taylor, 1991, p.53).
There are electronic communities (such as the Well12) which might be significant horizons for
the creation of identity. They are however surprisingly similar to ‗everyday life‘. They do have
actors who share histories and that treat the other as a significant other. I would not expect the
participants of the Well to say that real life is ―just another window‖, and that they participate in
the Well because they can change their self‘s as easily as their clothes.
I would also not challenge the possibility of using MUDs as a therapeutic tool in a way that one
could use role-playing acts within a counselling involvement. However, this sort of use of
cyberspace is made significant by the involvement whole of a patient and a psychologist and a
counselling session, mental health, etc. The involvement whole always already designates it for
what it is. However, to suggest that one can have a ―parallel life‖ (and identity) in cyberspace;
even more that one can have a whole portfolio of ‗selves‘ of which the real one is ―just one more
window‖, does not make Heideggerian sense. This sort of thinking is clearly ontic and utopian. It
is the sort of thinking that says: ‗get a life; plug in.‘
Conclusion
…[I]t is within the horizon of Dasein’s temporal constitution that we must approach the
ontological clarification of the ‘connectedness of life’ (Being and Time, p.427)
End Notes
1
The discussion on cyberspace will limit itself mostly to that domain of cyberspace where
social interaction is primary such as the MUD environments.
2
Clearly the incident may have personal significance to the person that experienced it. The
issue for our discussion is whether this incident can be made significant in a larger social system
within which it wants to embed itself. One can think of many more examples here. What does it
mean to say I am married to someone in cyberspace. Will the Internal Revenue Service accept it
for tax purposes, or your employer for claiming benefits?
3
For an information technology discussion refer to Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1987)
Understanding Computers and Cognition. Addison-Wesley: Massachusetts..
4
Dreyfus translates Zeug as equipment. It can also be translated as tools or useful things, or
merely things. The important notion here is the idea of things that we use to do practical things
with. If asked what a particular thing ‗is‘ we would typically respond that it is ‗a thing to open a
can with‘ or it is ‗a thing that you use to make a hole in the wall with‘. It is this sense of ‗thing‘
that is involved here; thing that has its sense in its use. The dilemma of using ‗thing‘ as a
translation is that it is a very general and rather vague notion. Tool or equipment, on the other
hand, already carries the sense of object that Heidegger wants to avoid.
5
Heidegger argues that the situated use of equipment is in some sense prior to just looking at
things, and that what is revealed by use is ontologically more fundamental that the substances with
determinate, context-free properties revealed by detached contemplation (Dreyfus, H. L. (1991)
Being-in-the-world: a commentary on Heidegger's Being and time, division I. MIT Press:
Cambridge, Mass; Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987) The Tree of Knowledge: The biological
roots of human understanding. Shambhala: Boston). Therefore the being of those beings which
we encounter as closest to us can be exhibited not as ―bare perceptual cognition‖ but rather
through ―that kind of concern which manipulates things and puts them to use‖, in-order-to do
something Heidegger, M. (1962) Being and Time. (John Macquarrie,Edward Robinson, Trans.)
Basil Blackwell: London..
6
Vorhanden is also, at times, translated as present-at-hand.
7
An example from the SPCW conference may help to clarify the discussion. While resting at a
beautiful spot in the Rocky Mountains on a hike with Holmes Rolston, the environmental
philosopher, Richard Cohen described his experience as a sense of being ‗alienated‘. For Holmes,
involved in the conservation of the area, the experience, I guess, must have being one of ‗being at
home‘, being-in-nature. For Holmes the surrounding nature made sense, he understood it. It was an
involvement whole of possibilities. For Richard (who later confessed his preference for French
street cafe‘s) it was a collection of natural objects that was esthetically beautiful but did not
involve him; he did not dwell in-nature nor did he understand it.
8
Taylor and Saarinen do not use page numbers in their book. They have twenty-five topics or
‗chapters‘. The pages of each topic are separately numbered. I will use the following convention
(n:m) where ‗n‘ refers to the topic number and ‗m‘ refers to the page number within a topic.
9
For a detailed discussion on the notions of how cyberspace can be seen as a space and a world
refer to Coyne Coyne (1996) Designing Information Technology in the Postmodern Age: from
method to metaphor. MIT Press: London. For papers on a social perspective of cyberspace refer to
Jones, S. G. (1995) CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Sage:
London; Rushkoff, D. (1994) Cyberia: Life in the Trenches of Hyperspace. Flamingo
(HarperCollins): London.
10
Turkle describes the social lives of the MUD players as follows: ―They create characters
who have casual and romantic sexual encounters, hold jobs, attend rituals and celebrations, fall in
love and get married. To say the least, such goings-on are gripping...‖
11
I will only focus on cyberspace in this section, for an excellent Heideggerain critique of
virtual reality look at Coyne in Coyne (1996) Designing Information Technology in the
Postmodern Age: from method to metaphor. MIT Press: London.
12
Refer to an interesting discussion of the Well in Hafner, K. (1997) The World's most
Influential Online Community. Wired, 5(May), 98.
13
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1997 Annual Conference of the Society
for Philosophy in the Contemporary World (10-17 August 1997 at the YMCA of the Rockies,
Estes Park, Colorado). The insightful comments of the participants contributed to the further
development of this paper. In particular I want to thank Jada Prane, Charles Harvey, Richard
Cohen and Jim Sauer for their very stimulating response to the ideas in the paper.
References
Baudrillard, J. (1983) Simulations. (Paul Foss, Paul Patton, Philip Beitchman, Trans.)
Semiotext(e): New York.
Baudrillard, J. (1993) Symbolic Exchange and Death. (Iain Grant, Trans.) Sage: London.
Chayko, M. (1993) What is real in the age of virtual reality? Symbolic Interaction, 16(2), 171-181.
Coyne (1996) Designing Information Technology in the Postmodern Age: from method to
metaphor. MIT Press: London.
Derrida, J. (1982) "Differance," Margins of Philosophy. (Alan Bass, Trans.) University of Chicago
Press: Chicago.
Dibbell, J. (1994) Rape in Cyberspace. : http://alberti.mit.edu/arch/4207/student_papers/affo.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1991) Being-in-the-world: a commentary on Heidegger's Being and time, division
I. MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass.
Foucault, M. (1977) Truth and Power. In Power / Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other
Writings 1972-1977(C. Gordon, Ed., . Pantheon Books, New York.
Gibson, W. (1984) Neuromancer. Ace Books: New York.
Hafner, K. (1997) The World's most Influential Online Community. Wired, 5(May), 98.
Harvey, C. (1997) Authority, Autonomy, and Authenticity: An Etiological Understanding. Paper
presented at the Conference of the Society for Philosophy in the Contemporary World,
YMCA at the Rockies, Estes Park, Calorado.
Heidegger, M. (1962) Being and Time. (John Macquarrie, Edward Robinson, Trans.) Basil
Blackwell: London.
Heidegger, M. (1984) The Metaphysical Foundations of Logic. (Michael Heim, Trans.) Indiana
University Press: Bloomington.
Heidegger, M. (1988) The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. (Albert Hofstadter, Trans.) Indiana
University Press: Bloomington.
Heim, M. (1993) The Metaphysics of Virtual Reality. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Jones, S. G. (1995) CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. Sage:
London.
Kockelmans, J. J. (1972) Language, Meaning and Ek-sistence. In On Hedegger and Language(J. J.
Kockelmans, Ed., pp. 3-32. Northwestern University Press, Evanston.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1986) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. (Bennington, A.,
Massumi, B, Trans.) Manchester University Press: Manchester.
Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1987) The Tree of Knowledge: The bilogical roots of human
understanding. Shambhala: Boston.
Nietzsche, F. (1974) The Gay Science. (Kaufmann,W, Trans.) Vintage: New York.
Poster, M. (1990) The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context. Polity Press:
Cambridge.
Rheingold, H. (1991) Virtual reality: Exploring brave New Technologies of Artificial Experience
and Interactive Worlds From Cyberspace to Teledildonics. Quality Paperbacks Direct:
London.
Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Communities: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.
Addison-Wesley Pub: Reading, Mass.
Rucker, R. (1992) Mondo 2000: A User's Guide to the New Edge. Harper-Perennial: New York.
Rushkoff, D. (1994) Cyberia: Life in the Trenches of Hyperspace. Flamingo (HarperCollins):
London.
Sterling, B. (1992) The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier. Viking,
Penguin Books: London.
Taylor, C. (1991) The Ethics of Authenticity. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass.
Taylor, M. C., & Saarinen, E. (1994) Imagologies: Media Philosophy. Routledge: London.
Turkle, S. (1996) Parallel lives: Working on identity in virtual space. In Constructing the self in a
mediated world(D. Grodin & T. R. Lindlof, Eds.), pp. 156-175. Sage, London.
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1987) Understanding Computers and Cognition. Addison-Wesley:
Massachusetts.