Judith Donath’s essay, “Identity and Perception in the Digital World,” addresses the issue of the reliability and accountability of online personae.  The purpose of this essay, as she explains it, is “to understand how identity is established in an online community and to examine the effects of identity deception and the conditions that give rise to it.” Donath writes about this issue in the late ‘90s, so the forum she uses as a springboard for discussion is Usenet, which is described in her essay as a sort of digital “bulletin board” with no formal editorial agency.

Donath first discusses how we might define identity, concluding that “the body provides a compelling and convenient definition.”  She suggests, too, that we traditionally see the identity, as nuanced as it might be, as being singular. The digital world offers the possibility of “multiple personas sharing a single progenitor,” a single physical body.

Donath identifies issues of deception that stem from the physical body’s ability to generate personas which are wildly unrepresentative of their progenitor, giving the example of a Usenet user pretending to be a doctor and giving phony medical advice.

This is particularly troubling because Usenet was meant to be a forum in which people could help other people, whether it be through offering advice or companionship. In fact, the motivation for most users seemed to have been the opportunity to not only help others, but to build a good online reputation by maintaining credible posts and offering accurate information. 

Donath gives us an idea of what this looks like in the real world by citing Amotz Zahari’s notion of the “Handicap Principal,” wherein there are both signalers and receivers. Signals, he explains, become unreliable due to excessive “cheating.”  Conventional signals, unreliable clues that a person might possess a certain attribute, are what people might use to deceive. Donath offers the example of a person who doesn’t work out wearing a body-building t-shirt. Assessment signals, on the other hand, offer more reliable evidence that a person is who they say they are, such as a self-proclaimed body builder having huge muscles. She goes on to explain that the cost of assessment signals are greater; they usually require a greater commitment or are more difficult to obtain. In the online world, most signals are inherently conventional.

Moreover, it is also costly to question one’s signals or accuse one of deception; if the person being accused is actually projecting authenticity in their signaling, the accuser stands to lose credibility.

Usenet has provided some identity signalers, but much of what they are is only implied. Names, for example, attached to well-known domains have a better built-in ethos. Adversely, there are also domains that are decidedly from the wrong side of the tracks. Another clue into credibility is whether or not the account holder has an institutional or commercial affiliation, that is, whether they are paying to be part of a domain or are part of a professional organization.

One of the more interesting facts in Ortiz’s essay is that Usenet users maintained specific rules of etiquette, such using full sentences in posts and discussions instead of contributing one-word answers, something that they believed belonged in the realm of the chat room. Likewise, anonymity in posting was highly stigmatic.

Donath spends a great deal of time discussing trolls and their ability to damage the feeling of trust within a group. However, while being identified as a troll could hurt one’s reputation, it was also seen as harmless banter in some groups.

Donath concludes with an emphasis on the “real harm in being seen” online, an idea that, I think, grows increasingly archaic (though still relevant) in the age of Facebook.

Questions for Discussion:

1. Ortiz asks if online personas “inherit the progenitor’s qualities and responsibilities.”     Do you think they do?

2. How do you view Usenet’s model of online etiquette? Do you think social networks and other digital forums encourage bad behavior and deception through their acceptance of anonymity and/or informal use of language?

3. Consider Zahari’s distinction between assessment and conventional signals (or, Goffman’s “the expression given” vs. “the expression given off”) and illustrate and example of both.

4. What do you think of the body as identity, nuanced as it is?