Identities

Since I can't shut up about this, and since Steven Krause's latest post is a bit better -- more respectful, more honest in his puzzlement, less "it's the decline of civilization of we know it" -- I figure I might add another log to the fire. (Though, ugh, it's so warm here that metaphor makes me sweat.)

I've seen a lot about the negative aspects of both forms of blogging, and about the positive aspects of being pseudonymous. Not so much about the positive aspects of being named -- so let me look at the ones I came up with, and explain my thoughts on them. As usual, I expect some disagreement, so feel free to chime in afterward.

The benefits seem to fall into three main categories: for the blogger, for the readers, for the larger community. So...

Benefits for the Blogger

Not Having to Hide One's Real Identity One of the arguments I've seen made is that it is a lot of work to maintain a pseudonymous identity. To a degree I agree. I do have to stop and think as I write whether I'm letting slip a telling detail, and sometimes I regret not being able to post about something that would "out" myself to my readers. Yet, doesn't all blogging involve some form of self-censorship? Not writing about family members, say, or not writing about things that are "personal" or "unprofessional"? So... it's a toss-up. You gain some freedom, perhaps, but not necessarily.

Getting Credit for One's Blogging Here's another one, one that Steven raises. I can see the general idea, but for me, this doesn't work all that well. (Again, your mileage may vary.) Let us say I choose to blog about my research, and hope to gain some scholarly cred by doing so. Well, first off, anything I post here is unlikely to be of the quality of my more formal works. It's a heck of a lot of work doing good historical work, and it takes time and space. So anything here would either be (a) incomplete, in which case I can't see it being any more beneficial to my career than sharing a rough draft with a colleague or two, or (b) good enough to publish, in which case why post it here? If it's good enough to survive a peer review process, I'd rather have it published. (Not to mention it would be 30+ pages long, plus endnotes -- not exactly blog-friendly.) In my (admittedly limited) experience, it seems to me that a journal publication would count for far more in any sort of professional assessment than something self-published on some personal site. This may change in the future, but at present, blogging about one's research and claiming it as publishing is about as effective as xeroxing a bunch of copies and passing them out at conferences and claiming that that constituted publishing.

In the second part, much of what I post here has little or nothing to do with academia, so again, it's irrelevant whether I get professional credit for it. Somehow I doubt that my mad skills with llama fiber are going to net me an interview for a tenure-track job. So I remain unconvinced that there is great benefit to posting under my own name in order to gain professional credit.

Being Easy to Google If someone really wants to Google me, they can, and my professional online presence will magically appear anyway. It's not like this blog would increase my Googleability.

Benefits for Readers

Ability to Check Credentials This one seems to come up a lot. The theory, as I understand it, is that you can't figure out whether someone is worth taking seriously unless you can track down their prior professional accomplishments and judge for yourself on that basis. Now, I can see the point, if you are a Big Name in your field, or if you are prone to making sweeping statements about the state of your field that would be otherwise dismissed as blathering. But for most of us? I don't see it. Knowing that I got my Ph.D. from a well-known state university, and that I went to a highly respected undergraduate institution for my B.A. may tell you something. It might enable you to call up my advisors and ask them if it's true that I hung the moon in my research. But you know what would be easier and simpler to do? Read my ideas. Either they are sound ones, interesting ones, ones that are worth thinking further about -- or they are not. A Big Name doesn't ensure quality (haven't we all encountered a stinker here or there?) nor does having a Small Name mean mediocrity. It merely means that the field is large, there is a lot of competition, and some of us haven't had the time, money, connections, or inclination to become Big Names. And what do we do about people (like Tim Burke) who write smartly and wittily about things that have nothing to do with their professional interests? Do we dismiss these ideas purely on that basis, or exalt them or -- imagine -- judge them on their own merits?

Ability to Read Other Works by the Author I can somewhat see this. But you know what? Most of my published works are book reviews, and most of the online stuff is teaching related (plus my dissertation, which has since gone substantial revision). I don't know that you'd get much out of the exercise, and this is probably true for most junior academics. For Big Names, or people with substantial publishing records, this may be a valid point. Of course, there is nothing stopping a reader from politely e-mailing a favorite blogger and asking if there's anything else they've written.

Ability to Get in Contact with the Blogger I've included this as a possible reason, though it's a weak one to me, both because it is easier to track down academics through their home institutions. And, again, most blogs have comments and e-mail, so it's not like that's hard to do.

Benefits for the Community

Policing On-Line Discourse I've seen the opinion expressed on several occasions (such as on the HNN weblogs) that requiring people to use their real names online forces them to behave civilly in a way that is unlikely when anonymity is the norm. I've seen this argument further extended to criticisms of pseudonymity (which, it bears repeating, is not the same as anonymity). There are two aspects of this argument that I find puzzling. First, I don't know that it does. Yeah, for some people, knowing that they can't hide behind an "Anonymous" label means that they're less likely to engage in things like flamewars. But that assumes that the posters are worried about public opinion, that they believe that real repercussions can ensue from what they post, and that there are ways of verifying one's "real" name. I think all of these assumptions are open to question.

Second, I think it indicates a misunderstanding of what pseudonymity entails. Now, in my case, I have an extensive online presence as Rana. I blog here, I post on a number of sites, I send emails under this pseud, and so on. I have a vested interest in being polite and considerate, or at the very least being willing to be honest and apologetic when I cross the line. Partly this is because I respect my readers, and I want them to feel comfortable posting here, even when we disagree. Partly this is because when I post here and elsewhere, I want people to be able to see, from my other posts, what my values are. But largely: I try to keep my posts in line with standards of personal and professional ethics and values because these things are important to me. I behave this way even though there are no direct personal repercussions at home and at work for doing so. Does this mean that I think that those who post under their own names are being honest only because I can "call" them on it? I'd like to think not -- but this means that I expect the same courtesy in return.

"Nymous" Blogging Undermines Power Imbalances This is one of the more troubling arguments for me, because I agree with the larger point. That is, so long as bloggers are "afraid" to blog under their own names, institutions of power will be able to punish those who do. Now, in the long run, I think this is true. Yet most of the arguments I've seen made around this claim seem to me to be confusing symptoms with the underlying disease. Pseudonymity exists, in the academy and in other fields, because power imbalances exist. Power imbalances do indeed rest in part on obscuring common experiences of disempowerment, and on isolating those on the margins of power. But it is not fair to ask those on the margins to risk further marginalization by speaking truth to power. We may be numerous in our pseudonymity -- but each of us as a person confronts the institutions of power individually and largely alone. We've seen what happened to the Invisible Adjunct -- for every person who defended her, there were powerful critics seeking to discredit her. If a junior academic risks censure by loudly and openly critiquing his or her institution under his or her own name, it is that junior academic who will pay the hardest, most personal price. Yes, the institution is diminished when such voices are stifled, either by others or of their own accord, but the answer cannot come from the weak and powerless. Pseudonymity is not the final answer, but it is an important step in rethinking those structures of power and reassuring the marginalized that they are not alone. It's not better than nymity, nor worse -- but it does acknowledge those structures of power by its very existence -- which nymous blogs at times fail to do.

Comments

[bitchphd]

I think you missed a couple.

Advantage to blogger: ability to be collegial, to network through blog. I really miss this, and I wish I could meet my regular commenters. I may out myself someday simply in order to do this.

Advantage to readers: I think "ability to check credentials" is as much or more of a disadvantage as an advantage. Lets one be lazy and go "I do/don't know who wrote this, so it is obviously good/bad" rather than oh, I dunno, actually judging the quality of the thought involved.

Benefit for community: if anonymity lets people say things that are worth saying that they'd not say with their name on them, that's an advantage to the community as a whole (if it listens). Disadvantage: anonymity prevents people from networking and forming friendships. A draw: yes, it can sort of lend itself to perpetuating the status quo, since it's obviously very easy to dismiss anonymous bloggers as petty. On the other hand, not everyone does this, and the fact of anonymity itself, I think, causes people to question the status quo, which is why (I think) people spend so much time worrying/passing judgment on it.

And yes, I'm sort of conflating anonymity and pseudonymity, which I know drives you nuts, but I am feeling lazy and tired tonight.

[Michelle]

Before I even read your post, I must say that if that latest from SK was an improvement, I'm relieved that I didn't read the previous posts. I'm not sure his latest comment addressed anything I said, including the one that was addressed to me.

[yami]

To add to your list of advantages in nymous blogging: there's less of a disjunction for friends and readers who must shift between an explicitly constructed pseudonymous identity and a 'real' one. I've not yet worked out the proper etiquette for the "I know you're used to thinking of me as Yami, but I don't respond to it in a crowded place, and would feel silly if I did, so please switch gears and use my real name now" that happens whenever I meet for coffee with an internet-friend.

[Another Damned Medievalist]

Hey Rana -- don't forget to link to the IA channel!

[~profgrrrrl~]

Re: prof b's comment: I really miss this, and I wish I could meet my regular commenters. I may out myself someday simply in order to do this.

It doesn't require and out and out outing (I like the way that sounds!) to eventually meet some commenters IRL. I say this because I was very active for a few years on a very large online community site, under a pseud (for very good reasons, and people ran into folks they knew on there often) and have since outed myself selectively to folks on there, via email and eventually f2f meetings. I found that everyone is really respectful of others' desires for privacy (so we never outed each other). And I made a few really good f2f friends back in Sunny Urban via this site. Had lunch with another when I was on vacation. Have yet others who I'll surely visit when my travels take me to their towns. But to the masses on there, I'm still "pseud"

[wolfangel]

I'm open about where I live and where I vacation, which saves the meeting people issue, should such a situation ever arise. This wouldn't work for everyone, but I figured the increasing discussion of French-English language issues would probably give it away, and I wanted to be able to talk about where I live, because it is so very important to me (and so crucial to why I left academia).

I don't have to hide my real identity. There are things I choose not to say; but there are things I would have chosen not to say anyhow. Would knowing that my name is Jane change anything? What if I was lying about my name? I guarantee that no one here would want to read my academic papers. If you feel I am wrong, ask me; I'll happily send any of them to you.

I think requiring a standard name -- real or pseudo -- is common on bulletin boards (usually enforced via IP address) and does add to civility. But if I decided to be an utter bitch to everyone in the blogging community, I couldn't just start another new blog under another name, take up my same writing style, keep talking about the things that are important to me, and not be noticed.

The people who, without reading, dismiss pseudonymous blogs are not people I need as my readers or in my circle of acquaintances.

[wolfangel]

PS: You forgot to turn off an [/i] somewhere.

[Michelle]

No kidding, Rana, can you get rid of that italics? I've had a headache for five days. (Sorry.) the omitted slash before the em?

WA, you make some good points. You don't bother to build up a personal blog under a pseud just so you can abandon it. Argh, sorry, my eyes are crossing.

[Dorothea Salo]

Two points:

First, pseudonymity does not confer safety; if you think it does, the phrase I have for you is "fool's paradise." (Which isn't as harsh as it sounds, given that I self-identify as fool.) More: http://cavlec.yarinareth.net/archives/2003/09/04/safety/

The illusion of safety may be useful, I grant. When that illusion gets pierced -- things get very ugly very fast.

Second, I've spent considerable time in pseudonymous contexts (mostly BBSes), and I've written CavLec for two and a half years, and I can't say as either has felt like conferring more "freedom [not to self-censor]" than the other. Different freedoms, perhaps, and that would be worth exploring. But I'm not sure your characterization of self-censorship avoidance is quite on-target.

What would I replace it with? Well, you didn't touch on sense of self. A "real identity" isn't something one automatically has; it's something one builds. CavLec helps me reify my identity. I don't think it would be nearly so good at that if it were pseudonymous.

Perhaps not so dramatic a benefit to people with existing well-defined senses of themselves. But my sense of self (and by extension, sense of the world) was pretty shaky for a long time. I'm not turning up my nose at CavLec's role in solidifying it.

[Claire]

I haven't really been following this argument although I've read a lot of references to it by people who have.

I don't see any problem with anonymity at all. If anything it's rather refreshing in a world full of show offs. Our early modern writers in the public sphere did it so why shouldn't we?

[Jill Smith]

Please pardon the double-trackback, Rana!

[New Kid on the Hallway]

Rana, just wanted to say that I've really enjoyed all your comments on this subject. Just when I think I'm so sick if I'm not going to read anything about it again, I'll flip over to your site and get drawn back in!

Hope you're enjoying your tomatoes.

[Rana]

Sorry about the italics; I forgot a /.

I think yami and Dorothea have touched on the two aspects of pseudoblogging that do at times frustrate me. First, the having to switch gears thing. I have several friends from "real life" who now know about the blog -- and the whole question of how to handle the pseud is always somewhat awkward. Ditto imagining the reverse; I once had the occasion of meeting a pen pal in person, and that was very awkward and uncomfortable (this individual on paper was lively and decisive; in person, not so). Tossing a pseud into the mix might add more complication. (Especially if I were to meet a blog friend in the presence of people who didn't know about the blog.)

On the other front, that of using the blog to develop one's sense of self, I do find myself at times wondering about the disjuncture between me as me and me as Rana. It's not inconsequential, I believe, that I began blogging at the same time I was leaving academia; "Rana" in some ways, is the person who made the break and turned it all into a learning experience, while "R" (and there's a clue for all you nuts out there) is the person who still wonders if a return is possible. The disjuncture has eased a bit in that I now blog about less academic things, but still, it is hard for me to believe sometimes that "R" is interesting enough to blog about, even though "Rana" and "R" are simply different manifestations of the same person. Honestly, these days there have been circumstances in which I would feel more confident and proud introducing myself at a public gathering as "Rana, post-academic who blogs" instead of "R, failed academic and clerical worker."

(And yes, I am aware of the thinness of the pseud as a layer of protection. But it is what I have. Besides, "Rana" is far easier to type.)

(And I am also aware that the preceding paragraph probably will reinforce the prejudices of people like Steven Krause (look, I'm spelling his name right!) that I'm not "real." Which is silly of course. Women, in particular, know the experience of being "Mrs. X" in one context, or "Billy's mom" in another, "Dr. Y" in a third, and "Ms. Y-X" in a fourth. It doesn't mean that there isn't a real person under there. It just means that the labels she wears are coordinated with the settings in which she moves. To claim that "Billy's mom" couldn't possibly be "Dr. Y" and thus is not a "real" colleague, or to argue that while she's at the playground you can't talk with her about existentialism is the equivalent of what Mr. Krause has been doing to those of us with pseuds.)

[Rana]

Oh -- re the IA channel. I get self-conscious posting my own stuff there. But feel free to do it for me if you really want to.

(Note that the interface can't handle line breaks in the post; if you want to include more than one paragraph of the original, you'll have to copy each separately, and paste them into the box as if they were one paragraph.)

[Dorothea Salo]

Oh, is *that* what Krause has been saying? Well, big fat razzberry to him, then, and he should go and read some sociolinguistics.

I mean, really, duh.

[Another Damned Medievalist]

I will link you to the IA channel, if you don't mind. I think it's an important discussion, and since Rana was integral to putting up the channel, I don't know why you'd be self-conscious. I know it feels a bit like tooting one's own horn, but it might be useful to others. I think a lot of us who used to read IA read each other's stuff anyway, but for those who have heard about IA and are looking for the kinds of discussins she used to inspire, the IA channel might be helpful.

[Rana]

Looks like someone beat you to it. ;)

[Another Damned Medievalist]

Looking at Dorothea's comments, I can agree, but even using a pseudonym can help to build an identity. There are a few colleagues who know who ADM is because I've outed myself to them. They come in two main groups -- work (where I teach) colleagues who read blogs and would therefor not consider it a total waste of time or silly or think less of me because of it, and professional (in my field or subfield) colleagues who are really good friends or whom I've met at conferences and (for example H.D. Miller of Travelling Shoes ) ended up chatting with and found that we commented on many of the same blogs, so I outed myself. In that case, 'knowing' each other from the blogosphere made what might have been an awkward meeting (we were interviewing for the same job) much more collegial. As I said before -- my pseudonym is still me, but behind a veil, if you will. I wouldn't say anything on my blog I wouldn't say elsewhere, except in front of people who might interview me at some point.

[wolfangel]

Anyone who uses a pseudonym and posts mostly honestly should, if they are intelligent, realise that anyone who knows them and reads the blog will figure out who it is. I have no doubt that some people I know read my blog, and that they know exactly who writes it. But if you google my name, it does not come up. This is as much safety as I can get, and it's the sort of safety I want.

I'm not a particularly different person on my blog than elsewhere. My focusses are different -- and I talk less about friends and family, because it seems unfair -- but I don't say anything on my blog I wouldn't say offline.

[Rana]

That's true. One of my friends did figure out who I am. (Hi, J.R.!)

And, yeah, I'm more-or-less like this in person, too. Maybe a bit more self-conscious and inarticulate at times, and more likely to trip over my words, but that's about it.

What's really different is the style I use in my professional work -- there are a lot fewer qualifiers and fillers, I must say.

(Version of that last sentence in academese:

"My professional style and my personal style are different; the former is more concise." )

[Dorothea Salo]

Point happily conceded, ADM and Wolfangel. I overgeneralized my own case to others, I think.

The difference might have to do with external rather than internal regulators of behavior. Those with strong internal regulators can scoff at needing to use one's real name. Those without may need the spur of external reputation to straighten up and fly right. Or get comfortable with themselves, or whatever.

[Michelle]

Ah, I like that regulator terminology. I definitely have a very strong internal one that applies not only to myself but to a bunch of other people who'd rather I didn't. har har.

[sappho]

I wonder if there's a difference between blog-owners who choose pseudonyms and blog readers who choose pseudonyms. I will admit that I don't post anywhere where I have to register, only because I have one (personal) email account that is spam free and one (here at work) that is spam heavy, and I am trying my best not to increase traffic at either place.
But more than that, there's also some sort of shyness--not that I think anyone would recognize my name (it's a bit unusual for the US, but still I'm suspect there might be those that share both my first and last name...), a shyness not about what I think but about proclaiming my name. Somehow connected to this is that I think I realized I wasn't a "real" poet (and maybe not a "real" academic"!) when I found that I didn't react in the same freaked out way that poet friends did to editing suggestions. In my present job, I often write for other people (another reason not to use my real name, actually, just in case there are folks in this University who visit the sites I occasionally post to), and I don't have any feeling of ownership about that prose, either....
Finally, I've also spent some totally happy time as an anonymous restaurant reviewer. It is more liberating not to be so attached to one's writing.

[Rana]

sappho -- that's an interesting point. Give me some time to think a bit more about it...

[wolfangel]

It was hard-won knowledge, integrating myself. But I don't have to work at it like I did, and using a pseudonym hasn't hurt anything. I'm also too lazy to construct an alternate persona for blogging.

I'm not scoffing at any reasons anyone might have for using a real name. I just don't have those reasons; I have reasons to use a pseudonym.