(pseudo)nymity
All the cool kids are blogging it! I must be cool, too. (I tried to provide a bunch of trackbacks, but gave up, eventually.)
There are a few questions which seem to be raised about identity in blogging.
Do we want academic credentials to matter in blogs? I don’t think so. You can value your readings in whatever way you like, of course, but it’s odd to decide an article (in the non-internet context) is better or worse based on if the person who wrote it is tenured, tenure track, a student, etc. I believe most people would judge a given article based on its merits.
As I mentioned, I am entirely incapable of judging an academic history, or English, paper on its merits. I can say whether it’s well written, whether the internal argument holds up, but I can’t place it within a context of the field.
I can, however, determine whether an article on blogging knows about blogs; it’s even easier for me to determine this about a post about blogging. This has nothing to do with credentials; when someone talks about blogs as diaries, I know they’re missing the point, even if they’re tenured. I am likely to give more leeway to someone I read more often.
Academic credentials can be useful things. But complete non-academics can say perfectly intelligent things about blogging, and discounting them because they were written by non-academics is the worst kind of snobbery. Lots of non-academics blog about how work impacts their life; this is not considered odd. Nor is it considered odd when they do it pseudonymously. Academia is much more of an identity than other jobs: how it has influenced your sense of self is relevant. And it’s not all that important to know if the academic has studied art history or medieval literature — many of the results will be similar.
Otherwise, though, I have a lot of respect for anonymity on the web. Anonymous bloggers are doing something very pure, building a reputation on the strength of their words alone, and not trading on the false authority of their employing institution or their degree.
PZ Myers said this, but I think he’s wrong. I think everyone builds a reputation on the strength of their words, online. I do not know of anyone who read blogs based on institutions or degrees.
I don’t think people who use real names automatically have significantly more credibility, and certainly a longstanding pseudonym is entirely credible (to me): no one puts that much effort in order to dump it. (His post did discuss good points about why truly academic posts are better off nymed.)
At the beginning, a pseudonym is probably somewhat less credible. But I’ve used this one for, what, 13 months? Even if I started calling myself something else (which would be my real first name, if any change), I would keep the name of the blog (which I like, despite the fact that lots of people link me as “wolf angel”, and not by my blog name — I find the nick to be problematic in a few ways, something I didn’t think of until too late). I could not dump this identity and create a new one without all the people in this community figuring it out (if they found my new blog). I could, of course, leave this community entirely, but I’ve built up some measure of relationships with people here. I own my words as much as I have invested in this blog, the comments I’ve made, etc.
Blogs are the new! exciting! internet! media!, but there’s confusion about some of the realities of it (which will, I assume, sort themselves out in time) and what the underlying assumptions should be. But it is certainly not like academia, and credentials of that sort aren’t relevant. The assumption that people look at them is pervasive — people are careful to make it clear how very good their unnamed schools are, for instance, or how they are respected in the field, really (I do this, I know) — but I think it’s in ways a holdover from academia. (It is, of course, relevant when talking about the job market.)
Another basic assumption is (as has been pointed out) that a real name is the automatic choice, while a pseudonym needs to be explained. But I can’t be the only person to remember the initial “never ever give your real name out online” stories. Why not stick to that?
Real names aren’t permanent, anyhow — marriage, divorce? One of the professors I knew changed her name at some point (I do not know if this was on marriage or on divorce). Post name-change, she didn’t cite her earlier work, with her other name, as is fairly common, in a talk. Of course someone asked why she hadn’t cited this work that was on many of the same topics.
And a real name is no proof of truthfulness. I can’t know if “Jaime Anderson” is really truly Jaime Anderson — you can, of course, fake a CV, if it’s not an academic one (as lots of people writing blogs aren’t academics) — and I don’t know if the posts are true or fictionalised truth or just plain fiction, written as truth.
People agree that owning your words is important; blogging is discourse, and it’s important to own your words in a discourse. But the question of how to own words is open. A pseudonym isn’t license to ignore other people; but a real name isn’t license to treat people with pseudonyms as fake or secondclass.
Dorothea mentioned that using a blog helped to create her sense of self; danah boyd uses her blog to collapse her social identities. I’m not sure if the former necessarily requires a real name. The latter certainly does. But for people who are super stable, just like me! (hah), this isn’t necessary. I don’t actually know why I blog, and perhaps it would be good to figure it out, but I don’t use my posts here to figure out who I am, in general. Sometimes I do, particularly when I am depressed, but I also talk to friends about the same issues, and use that, too, etc. Blogs can be useful for focussing parts that aren’t, otherwise, or figuring out what kinds of identities fit. Or what kind of writing fits.
I have not told friends about this place; I don’t think I intend to. I don’t want them to find out things about me from reading the internet, and I don’t want to have to wait to write about things until I can talk to my friends. (Some people I know are, I am sure, reading this already. That’s fine. I can pretend they’re not.)
But there are a number of ways that blogs can help with a sense of self; some require nymity, some pseudonymity, and some will depend on the person. It also depends what you’re blogging about. I understand why bitchphd might not want to have her real name associated with her discussion of her open relationship, and why you might not want a possible employer to know about your history of depression. On the other hand, if your “personal” blog talks about going on vacation, losing weight, and playing with your children, then you don’t necessarily need to be pseudonymous. Choosing what people see about you when they google your name because they’re curious what their grade 7 class is up to is not a bad idea.
I sometimes wonder — a bit unfairly — if the people who are so vehemently against other people’s choices (in blogging with names, or anything to do with pregnancy, adoption, parenting, where to live, etc) are on some level unsure of their own choices, or feel they made the wrong ones and need to defend them.
August 11th, 2004 at 7:08 am
Am I anonymous? (Well, clearly not, anymore) I’ve never associated my name in any prominent way with my blog, and I used to always make comments using my blog’s name, APRP (or as you sometimes call me, ADPRB). I did this originally because I wasn’t sure if people would associate my name with my blog or click the link to find out.
Visiting my blog today, you won’t easily learn my full real name, but if you goggle me, it’s blog all over. I think I had started out wanting to be anon.
August 11th, 2004 at 2:04 pm
Almost…
I almost convinced myself to leave the office today and to let my thoughts on the whole nym debate fade off. But not quite. I was hailed today (last night) by link if not by name, and wanted to add a few points. There are parts of wolfangel’s post tha…
August 11th, 2004 at 2:34 pm
I think your last paragraph nailed what I believe is the underlying motivation for lack of tolerance on this subject. Most people who are secure won’t care what those outside their environment choose, unless it affects them directly, and I don’t buy the arguments that say they do (like Krause’s scholarship argument).
I also really appreciate your intelligent observations about non-academic bloggers. I’ve tried to point this out repeatedly throughout this “argument” since some of the points advanced completely ignore this population of bloggers, as they do, of course, bloggers who blog both openly on an academic level, and anonymously on a personal level.
August 12th, 2004 at 7:46 am
This is a really eloquent post, wolfangel. Thanks for sharing it.
(And you’re on vacation, too!)
Rana
August 12th, 2004 at 9:30 am
Yes, wonderful post. I found the credibility issue the most puzzling. Maybe it’s because I’ve known too many “big names” who turn out to be assholes IRL. “Wolfangel” and “Rana” have much more credibility for me than many of the recognized so-called scholars I’ve encountered who have turned out to be idiots.
August 12th, 2004 at 10:09 am
There are a few blogs I read based on “expertise” (which institutions and degrees are a part of, though not a necessary part) - Eugene Volokh comes to mind. Not that I bother to check credentials; I’m pretty trusting in that regard, and also accept most pseudonymous assertions of expertise at face value. But, when I’m looking for a blog to summarize technical topics I can’t evaluate for myself, I’m definitely looking for something beyond “the strength of their words, online”.
August 12th, 2004 at 10:52 am
That’s a good point, yami — but do you really turn to blogs for that information? I’m more likely to search out official sites managed by institutions known for their expertise in a given field (like the USGS). Blogs seem more like editorials to me, even if many of them are informed by a grounding in a specific field.
Rana
August 12th, 2004 at 11:43 am
On issues of moderate personal interest, where I don’t feel a need to have an extensively studied opinion, yes - remarks on how Bill X fits within existing legal precedent, or Recent Papal Pronouncement Y takes Catholic theology in a direction not explored since 1204, etc., often fall into this category. Serious factual news I get from NPR in the mornings, but for everything else I prefer the sort of interleaving of factual exposition, well-grounded editorializing, and occasional silliness that you only find in informal commentary. And of course, a blogger whose interests line up with my own will also be an effective news filter, which is nice.
August 12th, 2004 at 11:46 am
I don’t necessarily want blogs that don’t want to claim academic credibility to be held to it–but I wouldn’t mind seeing blogs that had academic aspirations. Not the ‘normal’ kinds of credibilities and scholarly standards–one wouldn’t be writing a blog if one was trying to do that–but I want some blogs, at some moments, to be taken seriously within academic debates. And I’m not unopposed to the idea that part of what gets one taken seriously is some kind of adherence to standards of argument, evidence, and, yes, accountability.
So for a blog that has no aspirations to be anything but the personal reflections of a person who may have ties to academia, there’s nothing to discuss–pseudonymous, nymous, it doesn’t matter. That’s up to the person involved. I can judge the authenticity of another human being’s writing whether I know who that person is, and make a connection to them. I don’t know who you are, who Rana is, who many of the people I read regularly are, and I still feel an authentic connection to what they say and think on their blogs.
But a blog that wants to enter into a quasi-scholarly or semi-scholarly debate in some fashion, to enter into that universe and possess a certain gravity, may legitimately be held to a different standard, and being named and accountable in that context may be a part of that.
August 12th, 2004 at 12:40 pm
But a blog that wants to enter into a quasi-scholarly or semi-scholarly debate in some fashion, to enter into that universe and possess a certain gravity, may legitimately be held to a different standard, and being named and accountable in that context may be a part of that.
Yes. I can’t really argue with that. I do wonder, what such a beast would look like; I’m not fully persuaded that blogging offers the best platform for that sort of thing. But that may have more to do with my field and that I haven’t seen an effective version of such a blog yet. (IA’s came closest in my opinion — unfortunately, Tim, I don’t think Cliopatria will reach that point until the comments open up.)
Rana
August 12th, 2004 at 1:23 pm
Well, er, truthfully, I’d like some of what I write at my blog to be seen as “legitimately academic”. John Holbo has written some things that I think are remarkably accomplished (not to mention highly readable) pieces of scholarship. The site The University Without Condition (not to mention Adam Kotsko et al’s The Weblog) is a place where I often find useful scholarly material. The Crooked Timber gang tends to oscillate between short pieces that have scholarly content and short news commentary. Academic game criticism has a real home at Terra Nova. And so on. I’ve come to the point that I would really like to see some of the folks doing that kind of work given real credit for it in their home institutions and disciplines.
The problem in part is that I want to have my cake and eat it too–I want to have an alternative venue for informal but scholarly work AND write about my tomato garden and my daughter and so on. Maybe one needs to not mix the chocolate with the peanut butter. But I wouldn’t want to overlook the ways in which being a known person, with a fixable identity, makes it possible to do the “professional writing” side of things better, in my humble opinion. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference for the “interesting personal reflections” side of blogging–there, a real name matters less than a stable identity.
August 12th, 2004 at 2:55 pm
There are no easy answers, are there? A sign, perhaps, that we’re asking the right sorts of questions.
(I have to say, as much as Steven Krause’ posts and comments have annoyed me, I’m glad that they reinvigorated the conversation that began at Graham Leuschke’s and elsewhere. Such interesting things to think about!)
Rana
August 12th, 2004 at 5:51 pm
There are specific occasions where I’d like a little bit more than writing ability: looking for technical information is one of those. But that’s not commmon, and I am not usually looking for that on blogs (or from a single source, either).
I don’t see why standards of argument, evidence or accountability require a real name. The first two seem entirely unrelated, and the last is only unrelated inasmuch as pseudonyms are likely to be tossed out. I don’t see much evidence of that.
What is a quasi-scholarly debate? If I were discussing, for instance, the finer points of the semantics of Tagalog, then perhaps my name would be important — or perhaps not; Tagalog speakers all over would be likely to tell me I’m wrong. Perhaps I just don’t understand what kind of debate is being looked for in that sense. Just like a conference, except you’re online? Are blogs (as Rana asks) the right place to look for those? I’m not entirely clear why pseudonymity isn’t possible, even at that. I can see problems with pseudonymity, but we have no real proofs of identity, often, anyhow.
Writing for academic credit (as it were) is a different thing — for that I will easily agree that you need to use your real name.
Amazing, how many comments come up when I’m away.
August 13th, 2004 at 6:06 am
Tim, I think your blog provides a good example, for me, of why name recognition DOESN’T necessarily matter. Before I began reading blogs, the name Timothy Burke would have meant nothing to me (sorry, but I’m not a historian and in fact I don’t know how “big” a name you are in your field anyway). But it took only a few entries of Easily Distracted for me to know that I was dealing with scholarly work (not all of it, as the musings on fatherhood and other topics are there) and that it was scholarly work that deserved respect. I didn’t need to know who Tim Burke was to recognize that. I sat up and paid attention anyway. So when Steve Krause question asked, “Why should I take you seriously if you are pseudonymous?” and suggested that academic seriousness necessitated nymity, that struck me as rather odd. I think I can assess the value, and yes, scholarliness, of work based on the work itself.
August 13th, 2004 at 9:09 am
That’s a good observation, Cindy. I pretty much know for a fact that people in my specific field of specialization don’t read my blog, and I suppose that’s partly because I so rarely write there about my specific subject of specialization, modern African history. It’s more because people who are highly concerned with being serious scholars, and being seen as such, don’t generally read blogs anyway.
I suppose I’m more concerned with what happens after someone reads my blog, likes what I have to say, and wants to follow the crumb trail to a larger construction of who I am and what I do. After all, that’s often what happens with scholarship, as well. You read an anthology, you find an essay you like, and then you want to find more by that person, you want to figure out what else they’ve done. You cite a secondary source as support for some claim you’re making, you want to find out: what else is there like this? Is this something very much like what this person has done elsewhere, or in tension with it? It is their early work or their late work?
Scholarship, particularly historical work, is sustained by a kind of elegant lattice of intertextualities that are built into the texts: footnotes, bibliographies, and so on. The Web and the Internet are equally sustained by conventions of intertextuality, but they’re different ones–with much less fixity, much less groundedness in bounded institutions, much less of a known social correlate. These intertextualities by themselves each deliver unique value and utility: I’m wondering whether or if they ought not to intersect at certain moments, and if trying to do so maybe doesn’t compromise both.
So I’m not so much concerned to make sure that someone comes to my blog knowing I’m credible because I’m a name–but I am concerned that they be able to follow my blog to the rest of my work as an intellectual and a scholar if they like, that they be able to connect the dots if for some reason they feel the need to.