Right now, I think I’m going to go with Dr. Schirmer’s suggestion of a more personal, focused presentation of the self through a single aspect. In this case, I think I’m going to expand on an aspect of myself first considered in the Tech AutoBios we all composed at the beginning of the term: a Digital Naturalized Citizen.
In response to our earlier discussions about Mark Prensky’s Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants article, I conceived of a third class: Digital Naturalized. From my own paper: “The naturalized citizen has so fully assimilated into the host culture as to be nearly the same as a native. Only the inescapable fact that the naturalized was once something else separates them from the native, and I believe this concept includes me. The time I wasn’t on the edge of digital progression was brief in my personal history. Even though I didn’t begin life as a digital native, I count myself as far more assimilated than an immigrant, and as such could embody the new term.”
At this point, I believe I’m going to divide my identity up into three stages – the life I began that was wholly not digital. The second stage will be more robust, focusing on my period of immigration. Finally, I’ll finish as the naturalized, explaining my digital life here and now. My intention is to find three separate services to portray the different Digital Rogers. Being that I am generally pro-integration of online identities, I usually try not to have too many digital selves out there, preferring to keep to the one, whole story. For the purposes of this project, however, I will likely create entirely separate accounts/profiles as needed. Seeing as I intend to capture a freezeframe of my life at different points, a living online idenity would just confuse things.
Any thoughts from readers? Anything I should consider?
I wonder about the intended audience for this identity construction, and the point it's driving toward. It seems like the whole performance is going to result in an elaboration of your point about the "Digitally Naturalized." So, implicitly, you're joining the conversation initiated by that article we read. Will you do that more explicitly, drawing on that source and others to explain the Digital Rogers?
ReplyDeleteMight you skirt the progression of yourself from immigrant, beyond native, to naturalized and just consider new media from one of those perspectives, preferrably your "naturalized" self? How does new media serve you or you, it? Although, I think a brief commentary about your progression may be necessary for your reader to gain unique perspective.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, I'm having difficulty thinking of three other aspects of myself to divide, unless I go the route of interests, e.g. gamer, student, optician etc. I can't see myself having much content there.
ReplyDeleteCaitie, you have a good point about being more explicit about the source article and perhaps bolstering it with additional related articles, if possible.
Are you really dividing the whole, though? As much as I enjoy talking with you before and during class, I know that I'm seeing one aspect of you. In no way am I guessing that you're being sneaky and hiding information, but we all have that wall of what we want others to see and when. Does that mean we're dividing ourselves? I don't think so. I think someone can be entirely themselves while regulating how they project that aspect.
ReplyDeleteSo I don't see you having to divide yourself and create alternate personalities, but maybe create alternate accounts and see what that produces.
Portfolio project as the embodiment of the digital naturalized citizen, eh? This is an interesting idea, though I wonder about the division you described and share similar concerns that others have already voiced. If your preference is for a cohesive whole, for one story, perhaps your technology selections could be based more on examples of digital naturalization. In other words, identify particular characteristics of what it might mean to be a digital naturalized citizen and then have three examples that epitomize those characteristics. Does this make sense?
ReplyDeleteI can see the point being made better now, thanks. Perhaps it would be a bit irrelevant to make it historical. it might come off as a scrapbook, which is definitely not what I want.
ReplyDeleteIt's also worth noting that I 100% concur with what you said about self-presentation, Kim. When I'm social and not engaging in roleplay, I absolutely don't present a different version of Roger. I'm the same here as I am on Digg, any of the posts I make at a variety of forums, or on Facebook. That's not to say that I don't select what content is presented based on venue for the sake of decorum of professionalism, but I never present a fake version of myself.
ReplyDeleteThe real challenge is aspect presentation for me. As I proceed into the assignment, I begin to wonder if I've got it after all.