Although many inspiring words have been discussed on the blog in the last few days, the word that stroke our group mostly is E-dentity. As it was already said, today we carry our e-dentities with us even in the real physical world, no matter what gender, culture or nation we belong to. Thus it seems to us that this word is tightly connected with transnational(ism), multiculturalism and cosmopolitan(ism). Facebook (which has been mentioned many times during this week) is a good example how e-dentity may be adapted to diverse cultures, how it can go beyond national boundaries and be composed of persons or elements from many parts of the world. There we can see profiles of people from all over the world being connected, intersected or shaped by profiles of others. However, the question remains whose identities there are on the Facebook? Are there the individual e-dentities, which being part of this multicultural and transnational website themselves become composed of elements from all parts of the world (and therefore, maybe, cosmopolitan?) or is it the multifaced e-dentity of the world itself?
As for face as a concept, we come to the word 'litsedeistvo' which is composed of two words: face and act. Today it is used in the sense of hypocrisy which can be defined as a false presentation, a mask, a character we put on ourselves in order to hide our real identity. And is this what people do? They hide behind pseudonyms, user names and passwords on the web. In addition, we think that litsedeistvo (hypocrisy) of e-dentity is closely linked with the word 'pakarnnatam', which as a concept (to quote one of the challenges given by the Warwick group 1) can be applied to the 'social mask', especially in the context of globalization and cosmopolitanism. We adopt a 'social mask' in engaging with different people. In this case it is a social e-mask.
1 comment:
Although many inspiring words have been discussed on the blog in the last few days, the word that stroke our group mostly is E-dentity. As it was already said, today we carry our e-dentities with us even in the real physical world, no matter what gender, culture or nation we belong to. Thus it seems to us that this word is tightly connected with transnational(ism), multiculturalism and cosmopolitan(ism). Facebook (which has been mentioned many times during this week) is a good example how e-dentity may be adapted to diverse cultures, how it can go beyond national boundaries and be composed of persons or elements from many parts of the world. There we can see profiles of people from all over the world being connected, intersected or shaped by profiles of others. However, the question remains whose identities there are on the Facebook? Are there the individual e-dentities, which being part of this multicultural and transnational website themselves become composed of elements from all parts of the world (and therefore, maybe, cosmopolitan?) or is it the multifaced e-dentity of the world itself?
As for face as a concept, we come to the word 'litsedeistvo' which is composed of two words: face and act. Today it is used in the sense of hypocrisy which can be defined as a false presentation, a mask, a character we put on ourselves in order to hide our real identity. And is this what people do? They hide behind pseudonyms, user names and passwords on the web. In addition, we think that litsedeistvo (hypocrisy) of e-dentity is closely linked with the word 'pakarnnatam', which as a concept (to quote one of the challenges given by the Warwick group 1) can be applied to the 'social mask', especially in the context of globalization and cosmopolitanism. We adopt a 'social mask' in engaging with different people. In this case it is a social e-mask.
Tam Group A (Slavica, Ira, Zhenya)
Post a Comment