Jerry Kang’s article, “Ruminations on Cyber-Race”, explores three potential ways of dealing with the construction of race in cyberspace. The article defines race as a social construction which is further complicated when it is represented in cyberspace (also a social construction). Kang’s article begins with a disturbing anecdote, in which he chose a black avatar in an online game and was subjected to a wave of racial slurs and hatred, highlights the existence of racism in virtual environments and leads neatly to Kang’s first area of exploration-the abolition of race in cyberspace.
The article discusses the concept of abolishing race and racial identification in cyberspace as a means of eliminating racism and subconscious racial prejudice. However Kang goes on to argue that such a move (which is highly unlikely) is insulting and damaging to those who identify themselves through their race. Asking people to silence their race is in turn asking them to silence a part of who they are.
The second option explored is that of integration, which Kang treats with relative optimism. The article discusses the potential for cyberspace to break down geographical and racial barriers. Kang notes that within virtual communities, people are drawn together by a common interest. He states “In real space, because residential segregation cuts across income, rich white folks do not live next door to rich black folks. In cyberspace both groups will congregate in virtual communities”. Although he is opposed to the silencing of race in cyberspace, Kang proposes that participants in online communities do not initially disclose their race-in turn minimizing racial assumptions and presumably fostering interaction between members of different races.
The third approach, transmutation, encourages members of virtual communities to adopt a different racial representation as a way of challenging racial constructs. This approach could be beneficial as it could provide users with an insight into prejudices faced by members of a different race (as evidenced in Kang’s online gaming anecdote). Conversely, however it could prove detrimental as ignorant users may enforce prevalent racial prejudices and stereotypes. Kang comments “I might intentionally play Amos & Andy-like blackface, acting as an ignorant buffoon speaking “jive”.
Cyberspace can facilitate interracial interaction however Kang’s article highlights that isolating racial prejudices and stereotypes of the real world from virtual environments is a complex task to which there is no one set answer.
Questions:
Do you believe that racism is more overt in virtual environments rather than the real world? Why do/don’t you think this is so?
To what extent would withholding ones racial identity assist in the interaction between different races?
Of the three approaches outlined in Kang’s article which do you believe would be the most effective in minimizing racial prejudice and facilitating interracial interaction?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If our goal is to foster equality regardless of identity and race, I don’t believe that abolition is the solution. It simply forces people to hide what they might feel to be an important aspect of their identity. Practically, it would result in the assumption that everyone was white (as the majority of Internet-users are), thus inadvertently making minority identities invisible.
Similarly, transmutation is counterproductive for the reasons mentioned by Kang. Isn’t the purpose of eliminating racism to allow us to accept many varying identities, and stop stereotyping people by race? Adopting a different racial avatar could either place an unfair emphasis on race, or force people to change an aspect of their identity. Neither of these are desirable goals.
Integration is, I believe, the best prospect. It does have its problems, as evidenced by the ICERED site. Similarly, Kang’s suggestion that people on the Internet could be drawn together by class rather than race frustrated me: it simply encourages a different form of marginalisation or prejudice. However, the possibilities for inclusive communities are encouraging.
Racism is definitely more overt in the virtual environment than it is in the real world. People have a space in which they can say what they want and remain anonymous. There will be no consequences to their actions. In the real world governments are trying to promote equality for all especially in the last 20 years after segregation in the USA, apartheid in South Africa and discrimination against 'yellow' people in Asia. The people under these governments may not agree with the promotion of equality and be rooted in the values that lie within their families (eg/members of the Klu Klux Klan) - this virtual environment allows them to express this hatred that they cannot express in the public, real sphere. The shear number of racist blogs out there (eg/ Soulcast - soulcast.com/tag/racist)
Withholding your identity in the virtual world I think may assist your interactions with different races in the beginning but as you get to know a certain person better in the virtual world or if your reputation benefits in the virtual world you will get asked a lot of questions. As bad as it may sound people like to know information such as age, gender and race. I looked further into lavalife.com as it was mentioned last week - they ask you to tick a box outlining your race. I think race is so enstilled into our lives and culture that without the knowledge of someone else's race we will be lost.
Although I do agree with Lauryn, where the virtual world does offer a non-consequential arena to express opinions, I actually think that racism is more overt in the real world. Racism also involves assumptions and the behaviour that results from these assumptions. For example, when people see me in real life, they know immediately that I have Asian roots. This was evident when I was in Poland (where there's not such a big asian community) and people treated me so differently to my travel friend because of my appearance. This would be less likely to occur over the internet, unless people stipulate their race in their profile, etc. Even so, this is not as overt as a visual, like in reality.
However, the prospect of having no consequences is an inviting one. Kang's second option of integration will encourage people to reconsider previous prejudices about certain races through honest, sincere interaction - similar to interaction in the real world, which is somewhat limited depending on a country's immigration laws.
I feel that transmutation is a good exercise for people who tend to stereotype according to race, but is a rather aggressive approach. I also agree with the contention that it could enforce racial prejudice. I feel it may be an ineffective way to eliminate defensiveness, which could be seen as the crux of most racist commentary. If a user communicates with a supposed "black" person, makes a racist comment, and later finds out that this person is lying, I can't imagine the response would be of renewed acceptance of the world's many nationalities..
Zoe and Lauryn both opened my eyes to virtual discrimination. Whilst heavily agreeing with Lauryn's view having experienced the influence anonymity has on opinions voiced on the web, I was unaware that many people may experience more discrimination in the real world! I suppose it has definently become apparent that there are negatives to both situations which makes it harder to decide on a suitable solution.
Kang touched on a point that I thought was important and yet higlighted the impossibilities of finding the above mentioned solution. "Race cannot and should not be entirely abolished in cyberspace". This statement frustrates me so much given we live in the 21st Century, my optimism saddens me a little. 'Transmutation'sounds like it would add fuel to the fire of this debate. Kang and I are in agreement over even the small issue of time and energy to put into its execution! I am at a loss after many hours as to finding a solution that does not involve self-censorship...
Post a Comment