What would Lacan say about the internet? The other day, after we had looked at the Facebook status and ensuing comment storm of a friend of Dr. Alvarez in class, I was discussing the peculiar sounding off space the internet provides to a cohort member. As I explained to her the particulars of that argument about latino/a identity, she commiserated, calling the phenomenon of comment streams full of identity crises the “oppression olympics.” She was being more snarky than sincere, of course, as she too identifies with more than one background and relates to the dilemmas of the Facebook users we looked at in class that day. However, the phrase stuck with me, and this week’s readings bring up the difficulty of balancing pain and misunderstanding with autonomy and strength when telling one’s story.
Some of this balancing act is couched in signs and signifiers, as Lacan supposes, and some is embodied, like the supposed re-tailoring of Selena’s pantsuit Paradez discusses. In a sense, the empty space that Selena’s death left, the non-physical remembrance of who she was and what she stood for, is a space that is continually being occupied by internet users. People on Facebook deploy Lacan's master signifiers in their statuses, those phrases so often used in order to shift the conversation – and the meanings behind it – in different directions, often in regard to averring who they are or what they stand for. It is in a liminal space like the Internet, both intimate and anonymous, that individuals can exercise linguistic tools to create and re-create their identities. If we think of support groups and causes people can join and talk to others about in far away places, or even of the ‘twitter revolution’ that was broadcast from the Middle East that we wouldn’t have seen so clearly otherwise, we see the power of the internet to provide a space for story telling and identity making. But is this ease and access to making one’s own story online something all-powerful and ultimately good? Or is it fraught with pitfalls, like Poletta discusses?
After finishing this week’s readings, it becomes clear that to tell a story (in the court room, in an interview, and even online) is to contribute to “canonical story lines” that are in a sense part of a larger hegemonic discourse. The question is, though, in such a new space like the Facebook status stream, is there a ‘canonical story line’ being followed just in a different medium, or is this something all together new? Would Lacan, one of the most eminent linguists of our time, see the tropes being used in statuses and on walls of groups and causes, see these linguistic master signifiers and metaphors as a continuation of psychosocial unease, or as being afforded a legitimate place to air grievances and make identities? Is the space of the internet one that is empty and void of meaning continually being filled and created by individuals who assert their sense of identity and self, or is there already a story line there, waiting to be followed? As always, I am unsure of how a space like the internet has changed the linguistic and symbolic meaning of story telling, be it a victim story or a ‘testimonio’ from a latina individual. What I do know, though, is that on Facebook we are reminded every time we log on to share what’s on our minds, and it is this venue that has and will continue to re-create the art of telling, and the identity formation - for better or worse - that comes with this linguistic act.
No comments:
Post a Comment