Tiyuk's Second Life Adventures

So, this plurk got me thinking a bit about SL/RL separation and the various approaches people take to it. This is almost a matter of philosophy (as in the academic discipline), so I thought I'd take some time to explore the various possibilities here. Keep in mind that I am just using logic to enumerate these possibilities; no doubt there are other ways you can cut the cake that do not directly fall out from the variables I am selecting here.

What variables, you ask? Well, there are two "axes" as I see them, and each axis has two possible values. Unitary vs. separate, and loose vs. prescriptive. That leads to -- using our friend logic -- four possibilities!

First, let's define the terms in isolation; I will speak from the first person to make it sound more natural, because each term represents a personal view or stance that is taken by a resident of a virtual world:

Unitary: I personally view my avatar's identity and my real life identity to be one and the same. Or, if they are not identical, they are at least close enough that I still consider myself the same individual, perhaps viewing my avatar's identity as "additive" to my real life identity. Note that I may or may not choose to share personal details with others and still be of a unitary mind with regard to my identity.

Separate: I personally view my avatar's identity and my real life identity to be fundamentally different. This can be as extreme as the referent "I" referring to a different individual depending on whether it is my avatar or my real person speaking; or, it can be as simple as my asserting that my avatar's identity is different enough from my real identity that they are not additive or complementary. This may or may not be accompanied by roleplaying when I am acting on behalf of the avatar, depending on my particular stance.

Loose: Regardless of my own personal ontology (be it unitary or separate), I allow my avatar's identity (or my real person's) to interact freely with others who identify themselves as unitary, or as separate and avatar, or as separate and real person. I treat other parties the same without first considering the nature of the identity of the person I interact with.

Prescriptive: I actively promote my own personal ontology (be it unitary or separate). In dealing with others, I am selective in some regard: if I am of the unitary position, then I will want to interact only with others who are also unitary. If I am of the separate position, then I will want to interact with others who are separate; furthermore, I expect my avatar to interact with other avatars, and my real person to interact with other real persons.

Now, as you can see, these definitions do not exhaust the full spectrum of possible views on these issues. Each time I used the word "and" in my definitions, it is possible that someone does not agree that both statements hold for the definition. Each time I used the word "or", someone might take the definition to mean one or both of the disjuncts, and that might have implications for how we deal with the definition. And some peoples' views may not fall at all into any of these categories. I am merely grappling with a convenient subset of the possibilities in order to present four views that directly contradict one another, either partially or completely.

Let's try and look at the implications of matching these terms up:

1. Unitary and loose.

This is the stance of those who view their avatar's identity to be one and the same with their real identity, while accepting others as they come. An example of a situation where every unitary individual would agree is that the statement "I love you", whether it was spoken in real life or written while controlling an avatar, means the exact same thing in both cases. The same individual "I" is doing the loving, and if this unitary person is a monogamist, then they are singling out one real person (or one avatar) as the one they love.

The loose individual, in this case, gets along well with people who are either unitary or separate. They may, in fact, prefer unitary individuals because they can relate to them on an ideological level; however, since they are loose in their associations, they respect the preferences of the separate individual. Strong emotional conveyance can be frustrating when a unitary and loose person is dealing with a separate person; unless they are aware of the situation, they may become disappointed if they ever "meet" the other half of the separate person and realize that their emotions did not travel through one person to the other. For instance, if a unitary individual loves the avatar of a separate person, they may be surprised to learn that the real person controlling the separate's avatar does not love them in the way their avatar does.

The unitary and loose individual will tend to mix well with all but the separate and prescriptive type, except for the case of deep emotional bonding that may be problematic when mixing with the separate and loose type.

2. Unitary and prescriptive.

This is the stance of a person who believes that the unitary self is the one true way to present your identity online. There are usually not identity disagreements between the unitary-prescriptive and the unitary-loose, but a unitary-prescriptive is eager to persuade anyone who is separate to try and converge their identities into one. This might be because they believe in simplification; or because they think it is "healthy" or "sane" to be unitary; or due to legal reasons; or for any number of reasons that I will refrain from speculating on.

The unitary-prescriptive individual is "militant", in a way, when discussing the issue of identity, and they are often eager to engage in conversation that blurs the lines between online and real life, just to further push the boundaries if the unitary self. Since this sort of individual explicitly denies the possibility of someone having a separate online identity, they only mix well with others who are unitary.

3. Separate and loose.

This is the stance of a person who separates their real identity from the identity of their avatar (or online persona), but does not care or distinguish between others who may be unitary or also separate. In theory, this means that both the avatar and the real person may freely interact with real people or avatars, or unitary selves, without regard for the ontology of the people they interact with. In practice, it is often awkward for two separated individuals to interact across ontological bounds. For instance, if person A is separate and currently acting through their avatar's identity, they may be uncomfortable interacting with another person's real life identity, even if the other person is separate. In these cases, the separate individuals often negotiate in a very brief conversation that one or the other person should "switch" their identity from one to the other, so that they can communicate on the same level.

The separate-loose person, therefore, rarely has difficulty with other separate people, and can quickly navigate through any awkwardness using a bit of diplomacy. When dealing with a unitary person, however, they have difficulty understanding which person they are talking to (i.e., avatar or real). The fact is that they are talking to neither, or both -- the unitary person explicitly denies that there is a distinction.

In practice, the separate-loose person will often end up coercing a unitary person to deal only with matters that pertain to one universe or another (namely, either meatspace or virtual) depending on which identity the separate-loose person is using at the time. In cases where this is not possible, a unitary-loose person might simply go along with it, allowing their avatar to dip into real life matters, or allowing their real identity to mingle with avatars and virtual assets. They mix well with everyone except for the unitary-prescriptive, who would disqualify the separate-loose person shortly after learning of their ontology.

4. Separate and prescriptive.

This is the stance of a person who believes that the separated self is the one true way to present your identity online. They prefer that their avatar identity should deal with others who are (only) avatars; similarly, they prefer that their real identity should deal with others who are acting as their real identity as well. The separate-prescriptive is more explicit about identity issues when dealing with others, and they often bring up the issue of identity in conversations where a loose person would not. When dealing on an individual level with others, they often attempt to discern through names, profiles, etc. whether they are speaking to an avatar, a unitary person, or a real person, and then they react accordingly.

Although the separate-prescriptive can deal with unitary selves on a superficial basis, they will quickly run into trouble if the unitary person behaves in a way that does not match up with the identity space of the person the separated individual has chosen at the time. For example, it is easy for a separate-prescriptive person to deal with a unitary self in meatspace, either on the phone or in person, because the question of digital identity does not arise at all. However, in the virtual space, it is natural for a unitary self to rope in concepts, ideas and feelings from their real life. This may present a difficulty for the unitary-prescriptive.

The separate-prescriptive is usually accepting and diplomatic with separate-loose individuals, because they still agree on the core issue of ontology. They definitely do not mix with the militant unitary-prescriptive, and they will clash in certain circumstances with the unitary-loose.

So: where do you fit in? Have I read your mind and picked you out in one of these four categories, or do you refuse to be pigeonholed? Shall I create 5, 6, 7, 8, or 1000000 categories to uniquely enumerate the positions of each person on identity? Or rather, should I create 10, 12, 14, 16, or 2000000 categories to make room for the different positions of both your avatar identity and your real identity? Haha, just kidding.

Back on the topic of the plurk, it appears to me that the protagonist (Valiant) best fits the separate-prescriptive category, while the antagonist (Jean Francois Réveillard) best fits the unitary-prescriptive category. As you can see, the clash here took only a few lines of text. It's a given, of course, that not every such clash will involve such strong words, but it does serve as a revealing example of just how strongly people feel about these issues! Those who think we're splitting hairs here are probably very far on the "loose" end of that axis; the rest of us hold these issues near and dear. I guess the moral of the story here is to be tactful (as Valiant was) when you interact with others who disagree with your personal policy. The antagonist might have simply dropped the issue after reading Valiant's reply, and thus avoided the resulting fisticuffs. Perhaps I should have been a sociologist...

Comments welcome. I promise that I will approve comments regardless of what identity they come from, except for one. I consider spammers to be of the "No Thanks" identity , which means that these spam posts are blocked by my blogging software and they never see the light of day. I'm not loose on spam at all, so you don't need to worry about that.

P.S. -- I think I fall into the unitary-loose category. Not that you care, dear reader -- this article isn't about what I think; I'm just exploring the meta-issue.