At first glance, Turkle’s discussion of MUDs might seem foreign, if not just a little weird. Even if we experienced a Dungeons and Dragons phase at one point or another, few of us would admit it. But, if we’re honest, it’s not a stretch to say that most of us, at one point or another, found ourselves engrossed in some sort of MUD. So, if we’re able (or. perhaps, in some cases, willing) to think back far enough, perhaps we’ll be able to re-live that experience.
My own personal reflection took me back to eighth grade, a time I remember as the point at which I reached my full potential as a mega-nerd. I was heavily involved with a MUD called “NationStates,” in which players had the opportunity to create their own nation (complete with it’s own profile, composed of your nation’s notable laws, economy, political classification, et cetera—fascinating, I know). These nations would then be tied to the “Region” of the user’s choice. Regions elected delegates to the United Nations, passed their own legislation, and even co-wrote the histories of inter-regional “wars” in their own forums. It was engrossing, and, as you can see, totally cool. It would be easy to dismiss this a fond memory or amusing anecdote, but, it is interesting to note the similarities between the draw a MUD may have had yesterday and the appeal of SNSs and blogging today.
In Chapter 5, Baym quotes Turkle’s poignant analogy of windows, which she sums up by writing, “The self is no longer playing different roles in different settings at different times. The life practice of windows is that of a decentered self that exists in many worlds, that plays many roles at the same time.” This description will likely resonate clearly with those who self-identify as “networked individuals.” However, although Baym and Turkle both attribute (at least, in part) to the internet, the networks and communities thereon also seem to provide a solution. Speaking about MUDs, Turkle asserts that online communities serve as, “…objects-to-think-with for thinking about our postmodern selves.” While most of us are probably not active MUD participants, this statement applies to blogs and SNSs as well. At times, it can feel like an enormous challenge to cognitively consolidate our professional, artistic, and/or personal “identities.” However, SNSs and blogs give us the opportunity to create and arrange content we feel best expresses who we are.
Yesterday, as a kid in middle school, I wanted to create a “nation” that expressed my views, values, and ideas about the way things ought to be. Even though I might not have realized it, it was really important for me that my creation reflect each of these things accurately and artfully. Today, I often find myself trying to do the same thing through my Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram accounts. “What does this say about my personal brand, and how can I better use the tools to create and communicate that brand?” But, it’s about more than that. It’s an opportunity for me to reflect on what that content says about who I am today, and who I might hope to be tomorrow.
First off, your sarcasm, hilarious! I literally laughed out loud. If you were a mega nerd, I may have been a average nerd. In elementary school, I found the schools library dilapidated and tried to encourage a group of fourth graders to form a book club every Saturday at the local library. Needless to say, it failed miserably. I also went through a really horrible Harry Potter phase, for shame!!!!!!
Companies are particularly protective of their brands, so I would be interested to see if people are as protective of their online brands as they are their personal reputations. I choose to keep my Instagram and Twitter unattached to my Facebook as a way to protect my newest accounts (Twitter and Instagram) from the context collapse that has occurred to my Facebook now that so many people from all areas of my life are on that platform. They are now a more accurate measure of my personal “brand” than my Facebook because over time I’ve had to take down the more personal aspects of my Facebook account as more and more people have joined that network.
Turkle’s work on MUDs might have seemed foreign at first, but I think a lot of people have actually had more experience with them than they think. When I was young I played a computer game in which the goal was to build an empire that took over the world. You had the option of being a king or queen, a military person (such as a general or commander), or a dictator. Now, it was simplistic, so there was no way to pick the outfits or physical features of your character, but it still offered the player a chance to build their perfect world leader. Nowadays, a person can pick every single detail of their character, from the eye color to the height to the type of shoes. I remember how hard it was for me to decide whether I wanted to be a benevolent queen or an evil general, and I realize I would probably have a complete break down if I tried to create a character for something like World of Warcraft! I think that type of pressure is how many feel about posting something to a social media site or when they attempt to write a blog. The internet allows a person to create a version of themselves that is different from their real life persona, just like MUDs do or games in which you figure out how to (finally) conquer Egypt. I thought Turkle’s work and Baym’s chapter complimented each other, because they both showed the many different ways people create the online versions of themselves.
I like your point about personal branding, and the way that creating these online versions of ourselves is actually also a way to reflect about who we are and who we want to be. I also like that you drew a connection between MUDs and contemporary technologies – I agree that part of the appeal is to be able to shape a version (or versions) of ourselves, in a way that gives us so much more control than our face-to-face presentation.
I also liked the point about personal branding. It seems like now people are becoming the brands they use their own social media accounts to pressure someone into by their products or believing their viewpoints on certain subjects.