Re: ANONYMITY 3RD DEFINITION

Michael Bauser (MBAUSER@KENTVM.KENT.EDU)
Thu, 5 May 1994 11:09:33 EDT

Pointless confession: It's the week before exams here at KSU and I don't
sleep well (or much) during Term Paper Week. This is my third try at
answering Ralph's letter--I somehow manage to keep locking myself out by
starting a Kermit download in the middle of my mail program. Be aware
my mind is not functioning at optimal levels at the moment.

On Tue, 3 May 1994 19:53:58 -0700 RALPH GILES said:

>WEBSTER'S SAYS ANONYMITY IS A FACT OF BEING ANONYMOUS. ANONYMOUS HAS 3
>MEANINGS ACCORDING TO WEBSTER'S. THE 3RD _NOT EASILY DISTINGUISHED FROM
>OTHERS OR FROM ONE ANOTHER BECAUSE OF A LACK OF INDIVIDUAL FEATURES OR
>CHARACTER_.

I know it's not quite relevant, but I've been to Webster's house a few (dozen)
times. It's rather nondescript on the outside, and ugly as hell once you
get through the door. At the moment, this somehow seems to have symbolic
meaning, although I'm not sure how or why....
>

>IS THERE NOT A LARGER QUESTION THAT ANTHRO-L AND COMPUTER NETWORKS IN
>GENERAL PRESENT. NOT ONLY IS THE 'REAL' NAME BUT ALSO THE GENDER,
>ETHNICITY, ECONOMIC STATUS, IDEOLOGY, SOCIAL RANK, SEXUAL ORIENTATION,
>HEIGHT, WEIGHT, GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION, ETC.OF THE INDIVIDUAL ON THE OTHER END OF
>THE COMMUNICATION OBSCURED.

Well, Ralph, assuming that's your real name (just kidding), you're male and
posting from an .edu site. That gives me a few reasonable guesses about
economic status, ideology, and social rank, and geographic location, as
neither British royalty nor skid row drunks do much posting from .edu sites.
But never mind me, I'm just being a smart-ass. The logical part begins below.


>
>DOES THIS CONDITION OF OBSCURING THE PERSONAL TRAITS, FEATURES AND LABELS
>SUGGEST THAT A PARADIGM IN HUMAN RELATIONS MAY OCCUR?
>
>THIS CULTURAL SHIFT MAY BE EXEMPLIFIED WHEN COMMUNICATOR A AND
>COMMUNICATOR B DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND MUTUAL DISCOURSE USING
>A COMPUTER NETWORK WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF CULTURALLY INDUCED CUES OF
>NONACCEPTANCE BECAUSE OF GENDER, AGE, ETHNICITY, NATIONALITY, ACADEMIC
>STANDING, ETC.
>
>DOES THE ABSENCE OF THE OBSCURED TRAITS AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REDUCED
>CROSS-CULTURAL FRICTION; REGARDLESS OF WHAT CROSS-CULTURAL BARRIER ONE IS

I think you're underestimating the amount of "culturally induced cues" that
are nonphysical traits (attitudes and opinions) rather than simple physical
traits like gender, age, and ethnicity. I have seen (on several occasions)
UseNet poster "A" make some generalization about cyberspace like the re-
occuring "We have the right of free speech here, live with it", only to get
followed up by another poster (usually Canadian or German) who points out that
UseNet is not the property of the U.S.A., and that in some parts of the world,
perfectly civilized human beings think it's completely acceptable to forbid
certain socially unacceptable forms of speech, which of course upsets Poster
"A" and his libertarian friends to no end....

Taking away our faces obviously does not erase our culture, and unless every-
one is *trying* to obscure things, we're going to trip over our cultural
differences eventually. Whether the delay of "cross-cultural friction"
gained by lack of visual cues will be enough to overcome those frictions, I
can't really say. I think we'll have to wait and see.

I do know I've gotten in some pretty good squabbles with Canadians on this
list, though....

--

    Michael Bauser <mbauser@kentvm.bitnet or mbauser@kentvm.kent.edu>

    Dept. of Anthropology, Kent State University, Kent OH 44242, USA