Anonymous Rage

Looking back to when I first discovered the Internet, all that I can really remember are the chat rooms. What sticks out in my memory most about them is how friends and I would use them to harass people. There were no real names involved and certainly no faces. The anonymity of the situation absolved you from punishment and the physical distanced harbored you from any real retaliation. The fact that our victims were just as nameless and faraway from us as we were from them made our antagonistic behavior that much easier to reconcile.

In Bordia’s synthesis of face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication one of his propositions is that “CMC induces a state of deindividuation, which in turn leads to uninhibited behavior” (p. 108). Deindiviuation is when one is no longer viewed as an individual and it is thought that anonymity plays a major role in its development. Although not all of the studies that Bordia takes into account support this proposition, my personal experience does.

Another instance where I have experienced this effect, and where deindividuation is likely the cause, is in the comments section of certain news websites. This section is meant for readers so that they may post their opinions of the news content they read. What I found, is that the users of these utilities have no inhibitions when it comes to posting what Bordia refers to as “flaming” language (p. 107). Although politics can be extremely personal and inflammatory, the extent of the anger displayed and the unbridled negativity is unnerving.

CMC or not, it is troubling that individuals find it necessary to hurt each other in order to make themselves feel strong. The sheer amount of anger evident in these sections is a worry as well. Perhaps our communication in general is lacking something if so many people turn to anonymous rage in order to voice their opinions.

Bordia, P. (1997).
Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the
experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 99-120.

Language

Language is a fascinating and multifaceted practice. As a student I use it meticulously, to describe ideas and analyze concepts. As an employee its use is functional, as a direct and precise representation of the facts. As an artist I will use language to portray mood and invoke emotion. When we speak and write we are constantly facing choices of not just what to say but how we say it, because in reality they are the same thing.

Lets think about the process. First there is a thought, unshaped by words and perfect in its contextual-less meaning. We then have to break down this thought into language in order to communicate it to others. Here is where having a fine tuned skill set of grammar and vocabulary will allow your thought to either be spoken fluently or lost among uncertainty. Communication is a process. Though it may seem as though our thoughts flow out into words on a page there is a step between.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis seems to find some limits here. Although it seems self-apparent that language influences culture and individuals, shouldn’t the hypothesis be reversed? After all we were not created by language. We developed language over the centuries in order to serve are own needs and it is still developing. As a society we must have realized and acted upon all of our concepts before there were words to describe them. Societies and individuals create languages not the other way around.

That said, language choice is extremely influential in determining meaning. Extreme examples of this are uses of doublespeak such as collateral damage and enhanced interrogation. The use of these terms is to deliberately shape the publics perceptions of the reality behind them, as when President Obama’s administration opted to stop using the term “war on terror”. The situation is the same whether we call it war or not. The difference is in how the public feels about the situation and in turn how they might influence it.