THE VIRTUAL WORLD: ONLINE OR “ON LIE”?

INTRODUCTION

You’ve got mail. lol. brb. afk. imho. rofl. Log on. IM.

Some of these terms and letters may seem senseless but for the people who live their unpredictable lives with computers, these words and letters symbolize how communication with one another had evolved from merely face-to-face communication, to telephone conversation, and now to electronic discourse. In the last decade, electronic communication has become increasingly popular. In fact, it has become so pervasive that nobody even questions its powerful impact to people’s lives. This paper will attempt to establish the assertion that electronic communication widens the distance between the sender and the receiver of messages.

DISCUSSION

Many people perceive electronic communication as a tool that brings people closer to each other. Indeed, with only a computer set, a person may communicate instantly to a loved one in other parts of the world. A daughter studying abroad can easily have conversation with her mom back home through instant messaging that transmits both audio and video content. However, looking at electronic discourses closer, it will be more sensible to say that distance is the main reason for the popularity of e-mail, instant messaging, chat rooms, blogs, blog forums, online gaming, online dating and of course, web site.

The distance in any form of electronic communication pertains to the absence of real time, which occurs in telephone conversation and face-to-face communication. With e-mail, the receiver is not expected to respond as soon as the sender has sent the message. With instant messaging, a person may be offline even if he/she is actually online. With online gaming, Pham (2007) discloses that a biologically male player can appear to be a female character to match his mood (Behrens & Rosen 157). The absence of real time is equated to the absence of instant feedback. This is what computer-mediated communication promises.

This promise, however, may be perceived as a threat to one’s already complicated life. Leonard (2007), for instance, perceives e-mail as something that is “convenient, saves time, brings us closer to one another, helps us manage our ever-more-complex lives” (Behrens & Rosen 110). On the other hand, Leonard also finds e-mail to be “inconvenient, wastes our time, isolates us in front of our computers, introduces more complexity into our already harried lives” (Behrens & Rosen 110). He also argues that depending on the time a person opens the inbox, e-mail can “either be a blessing or a curse” (Behrens & Rosen 111).

No matter how lucky a person feels for being able to close gaps and connect bridges through electronic communication, this technology actually cannot be a substitute for real, face-to-face communication. Virtual communication is different and separated from the real world. To embrace virtual communication means to be ready to enter in a new and more complicated world.

E-communication comes with its greatest disadvantage: the lack of true identity of all the parties involved. Anonymity is the name of the game in the virtual world.

In the Internet, nobody can be sure who’s who or who’s what. Because of this fact, anyone can be someone else online. After all, as Laurence & Rosen put it, “nobody knows you’re a dog” (108). This is the greatest mystery that both the sender and the receiver have to unveil.

Daum (2007) realized this difference between the real world and the virtual world when she had a virtual relationship that amazingly died “a natural death.” At first, Daum was very much excited about the online persona she met through e-mail. When they finally met face-to-face, she was surprised to feel that he was not the man she was having an online discourse with. In her narration, she implied that who she and he were online were not the same individuals in person. PFSlider or Pete, as what Daum called the online persona she almost fell in love with, was “protected by the shield of Internet” that she failed to see who he really was (Laurence & Rosen 139). Of course, when facing only the monitor and touching only the keyboard, it is easy to project a personality that is different from the real personality a person has. Online, Turkle (2007) argues that “the obese can be slender, the beautiful plain” (Behrens & Rosen 146). This self-projection can deliberately be done if the parties involved have an agenda in their communication. Obviously, a person who’s trying to convince or to impress a receiver would present himself or herself as someone desirable or admirable. In certain contexts like online gaming, Turkle found out that a person can even present multiple personalities or identities in the virtual world (Behrens & Rosen 146).

The danger comes when everybody online starts to lie that nobody can detect which is the truth and which are lies.

This issue on distance, on the other hand, can be beneficial to other people, especially to those who are not adept in presenting themselves well in person. Shreve claims that “e-mail encourages the shy because it offers semi-risk-free environment to initiate romance” (qtd. Behrens & Rosen) while Daum (2007) says that e-mail allows a person to do whatever is needed in order to experience love. This electronic communication gives a person a chance to do what they have no courage to do face-to-face. This can be a merit or demerit, depending on the person.

The great distance made possible by the e- communication can result in the blurring of the true identities of the parties involved. It becomes a problem when the parties start to invest emotionally or psychologically to the virtual relationship formed through computer-mediated communication. Nothing can be more troublesome than trusting an entity online only to find out that it does not really exist. For instance, Slate magazine editor might have been very disappointed when he confirmed that a certain Robert Klinger is just a made-up character who deceived him (Behrens & Rosen 108). Worse, nothing matches the disappointment that Daum felt when she woke up one day with the realization that her relationship with Pete would “never transcend the screen and the phone” (Behrens & Rosen 143).

Anonymity can only encourage skepticism. The online gamers, virtual lovers, computer-based business partners, and IM fanatics should be more skeptic and less trusting. If they can’t do this, they won’t survive in the virtual world.

CONCLUSION

Electronic communication is a reality that exists only in a virtual world. If used cautiously and properly, it can be beneficial to all who belong to the global village. If abused or misused, it can make the parties lose their identities forever.

There is no way the great distance can become narrow. The e-mail, IM, chat forums, blogs, and the Internet are only for those who can distinguish between real and imaginary. The parties should find a way to “shield” themselves from the lies that abound in the virtual world. There is only one way to do this: if they know how to construct a reality online, they must learn to deconstruct that reality before they go back to the real world. They should know that there’s only one world that feels so real. It isn't found online.

bb. g2g. Stepped out.

Works Cited

Behrens, Laurence, and Leonard Rosen. “Cyberspace and Identity.” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 107-109.

Daum, Meghan. “Virtual Love.” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Eds. Laurence

Behrens and Leonard Rosen. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 137-144.

Leonard, Andrew. “We’ve Got Mail—Always.”Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum.

Eds. Laurence Behrens and Leonard Rosen. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007.

110-113.

Pham, Alex. “Boy, You Fight Like a Girl.” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Eds.

Laurence Behrens and Leonard Rosen. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 154-158.

Turkle, Sherry. “Cyberspace and Identity.” Writing and Reading Across the Curriculum. Eds.

Laurence Behrens and Leonard Rosen. New York: Pearson Longman, 2007. 146-153.