chi2012_StaceyPitsillides

7/30/2019 chi2012_StaceyPitsillides

1/5

Transcending the Archive: Reflectionson Online Identity and Death.

AbstractThis paper discusses the way we develop and relate to

online identities, particularly after death. It considers

how the nature of the Internet shapes the development

digital narratives, drawing on the theories of RolandBarthes and Vannevar Bush. By analysing their

contrasting visions of archiving, this paper seeks to

question whether Bushs scientific approach to the

archive has become outdated. Considering the

exponential growth of personal archives online itquestions whether new forms of personal engagement

are needed to deal with living and dying in digital flux.

KeywordsDigital Archive, Death, Identity, Flux, Biography

Introduction

Historically technology has always been key in thedevelopment of increasingly effective systems for the

storage and preservation of memory outside the body

(Flusser, 1990). This generation identifies itself through

the data it produces and shares within its online

network (Turkle, 2011). Our identity and sense of self

has shifted from physical embodiment to networked

embodiment (Hayles, 1999). Technology has enabled

people today to hoard a more vast collection of

personal paraphernalia (in the form of data) then ever

before. This has culminated in an entangled mass of

dispersed online archives of the self. According to

Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).

CHI 2012, May 510, 2012, Austin, TX, USA.

ACM xxx-x-xxxx-xxxx-x/xx/xx.

First Author

Stacey Pitsillides, Goldsmiths.

3 Colls Road, Southwark.

London, SE15 2NS, UK

[email protected]


2/5

Shenk (1997) our systems may have become too

effective, considering that we have already farsurpassed the point where we can actually comprehend

the mass of data we produce.

This makes the question of what happens to this mass

of data and how it is used after your death a complex

one, riddled with questions of personal choice, varying

protocols of companies (Carroll & Romano, 2010) and

both technological and social issues related to the up-

keep of this exponential growth of digital memorabilia

(Churchill and Ubois, 2008). Therefore within this paper

I put forward the argument as to why research must

shift from the production of better external storage

devices to the reconsideration of what personal data we

are storing and what it actually means to narrate

ourselves in digital space.

Narrating Ourselves Online

The primary function of the personal archive is to save

things external to the body for later use. However to be

truly engaging the archive should also allow the space

for an individual to collect, store, engage with, talk

about and reminisce on precious events. The decision

of what to save is also of great importance to this

process, the internal conversations and continual

reflection on objects creates a greater sense of

meaning and preciousness.

Objects that are saved should trigger both memory and

imagination as they lead us to re-produce the past.

Imagination is a powerful tool as it allows us to reshape

the past and cognitively continue to (re)understand

both ourselves and others. When considering the

implications of death on the personal archive, it

inevitably makes the archive more important as the

objects and traces that are left behind become our only

entrance to continual engagement with a lost love one.However in addition to this they may also aid in

developing a new understanding of that person, a

process of continuing bonds after death. Walter calls

this practice a durable biography and asserts that it is

this practice that enables the living to integrate the

memory of the dead into their ongoing lives (Walter,

1996).

Through the practice of being digitally we are

constantly in engagement with various spaces

simultaneously which include engaging with both the

living and the dead (Walter, 2008). Many of these

spaces are cooperate and have been designed and built

to engage a certain kind of thinking, action and

production (which until very recently omitted both the

concept and affect of death). The way a social network

is used greatly influences the way we (as individuals)

cognitively construct and co-construct our identities

within them (Dijck, 2007). The graphical design,

interface design, typography, symbology and

navigation dictate to users the way they should narrate

their identity on any given social network. This is

further problematized when a group of users also using

a range of social networks is trying to simultaneously

co-construct a durable biography of a lost loved one

online. The prescriptive nature of these sites must be

considered if they are to be used collectively as

personal legacy.

Designing Archives

In this section I will discuss two contrasting approaches

towards the creation and purpose of the archive; [1]

the scientific technological approach by which we must

consider how to analytically sort, compare and


3/5

comprehend data and [2] the emotional and social

impact of keeping things, considering in greater depthwhat their role is in our lives and how they help us to

find meaning.

Firstly I will consider the work of Vannevar Bush who

has undoubtedly had a profound impact on the concept

of technological progress in the field of memory capture

and cognition. His seminal paper As We May Think

(1945) discusses and predicts how scientists may use

and connect technologically to a vast array of archives

in order to gain a better overview of an ever-

complicating world of research. In this paper Bush also

presents several novel approaches to the idea ofresearch, many of whose application we can see in the

world today.

In 1945 Bush was already critical of the progression of

science and its inability to provide scientists with better

tools for handling the massive external records of data

they were creating. In his paper he laments so much

for the manipulation of ideas and their insertion into

the record. Thus far we seem to be worse off than

before - for we can enormously extend the record; yet

even in its present bulk we can hardly consult it (Bush,

1945: pp 12). Fifty-two years later Data Smog is

published, in which David Shenk experientially

evidences the same problem, data overload, which has

only expanded - even with the inclusion of many of the

labor saving technologies that Bush describes within his

paper.

It could be considered ironic that in 1945 Bush was

already trying to escape the mass production and

pressure to absorb data in his daily life and yet today

his theories have become a model for mass

accumulation and aggregation of data, for example

within the field of lifelogging (Sellen & Whittaker,2010). So although I am not disputing that through the

use of technology we have greatly improved systems

for finding, cross referencing and editing data, we have

simultaneously constructed technologies which allow for

greater production and publishing of data (this is

particularly problematic when it comes to personal

data). It is clear that through technology the problem

has not been solved but has simply changed scale - the

greater effectiveness of data aggregation has resulted

in an exponential production of data.

Bush considered the concept of the archive from apurely scientific perspective and thus, for Bush, the

future is all about connecting, displaying and saving

the archive for more efficient analysis. He believed this

could be achieved by attempting to technologically

mimic the human brain. However within this paper

Bush does not question what the human brain can

actually manage to internalize and understand or

indeed the need for such a mass of data. Perhaps this

is due to the fact that he was considering only scientific

research as data. In 1945 it would indeed have been

difficult to imagine the immense boom of digital

personal archives which would have such a profound

impact on all our lives.

In sharp contrast to Bushs scientific approach Roland

Barthes does not reflect on the scientific merit of the

archive in Camera Lucida (1992) except through

chance discovery of details from the past through his

analysis of old photographs. However what Barthes

does do is attempt to emotionally understand the

photograph and the practice/ process of photography.

This is not to say that he does not approach the archive


4/5

as a researcher, he does, however his approach

towards uncovering the nature of the archive is farmore tacit then Bushs.

Barthes unveils his exploration through an in-depth

analysis of personal experience and his own reactions

to particular photographs. His personable tone dissects

Bushs analytic approach and cuts to the heart of the

personal archive, viewing it instead as a space to

consider how gesture, frame and punctum (among

others) instill different levels of meaning and emotion

to various photographs. This becomes particularly

poignant when Barthes begins to consider the archive

of photos left behind by his dead mother. He considerswhether any of the photographs could really capture

her.

Barthes asserts that the only way he could catch a

glimpse of her in an entire archive of her photographs

was through the act of imagination: in this glum

desert, suddenly a specific photograph reaches me; it

animates me, and I animate it (Barths, 1992, pp 20).

It is interesting to note that the photograph that truly

animates Barthes in which he finds his mother is one

of her as a child (Barths, 1992, pp. 67). So it is not his

own memory that animates him but the fragment of

her countenance through which he is transported. For

Barthes, it is not the direct and exact recording,

capturing or re-animating of his mother that allowed

her memory to live on but his own ability to engage

with the archive and emotionally reflect on its contents.

The question remains however for every individual to

reflect on, when reminiscing in the digital age: how do

you find the digital object that speaks to you, the

object that just for a second brings everything about

that person back to you? And has the current practice

of saving every thought and conversation in some way

blocked us, as we can no longer manually look throughthe entire archive?

Attempting to Regain Control

"The narrator seems only partially able to control his

verbally extravagant narrative. There are I will argue

deep connections between the narrator's struggle to

maintain control of the narrative and the threat to the

"natural" body boundaries posed by the cybernetic

paradigm" (Hayles, 1999, pp 23). In this passage

Hayles looks at the relationship between the post-

human (networked through technology) and our

cognitive loss of control regarding our de-centralizednarrative(s) online. By considering the type of body

we are constructing online Hayles reveals her fears

regarding the cybernetic dream of escaping the flesh

and transcending to virtuality (Gibson,

1984)(Stephenson, 1992). By writing online in a space

of constant flux we are prompted and thus engaged in

the act of producing ourselves online (Stiegler, 2009

pp. 40).

We are simultaneously the narrator and the narrated.

We are the narrator due to our action i.e writing or

publishing elements of identity but we are also

simultaneously being narrated through the prescriptive

nature of the publishing sites we engage with, the

constant alternative paths people make when

discovering our online identity and the amalgamation of

others acting on and augmenting the narrative we have

set. This is further enhanced by the fact that many

social networking sites (such as Facebook and Twitter)

contain an auto-save feature, which automatically

creates an immense archive (distorted narrative).

Therefore it could be suggested that the only way the


5/5

user can exert any control over their personal narrative

in these sites is by refraining to use them unless theywant the data to be saved.

However what if we succumb to the nature of the

Internet, the flux and make the decision to relinquish

control of our identity? For example the question arose

on Digital Death Day (2011) Can somebody else be

@identitywoman? If we embrace the fact that we are

as Barthes puts it engaging in the social game and

posing to create an image or in this case identity of

our liking then why should this identity not be passed

on. This is particularly relevant for researchers whose

online identity has become as much about their work as

themselves. By passing on your identity as a livingarchive rather then a static artifact it continues to live

in some way. Not as you, in a transhumanist way, but

as something that transcends the concept of you

because as discussed earlier the idea of your digital

identity being an element of yourself is in the first place

questionable. If our online identities are all an

amalgamation of the networks you inhabit and the

communities you belong to then it might be a logical

progression to say that ownership of these assets

should be a flexible construct.

Citations[1] Barthes, R (1992) Camera Lucida. Jonathan Cape.

[2] Bush, V (1945)As We May Think. The Atlantic

Monthly. The electronic version was prepared by DenysDuchier, April 1994.

[3] Carroll, E. Romano, J (2011) Your Digital Afterlife:When Facebook, Flickr and Twitter are your Estate,Whats your Legacy? New Riders.

[4] Churchill, E. Ubois, J (2008) Designing For Digital

Archives: The Mess Weve Gotten Ourselves Into,

Interactions.

[5] Digital Death Day (2011)http://digitaldeathday.com/updates

[6] Dijck, J (2007) Mediated Memories in the Digital

Age (Cultural Memory in the Present), StanfordUniversity Press

[7] Flusser, V (1990) On Memory (Electronic orOtherwise). Leonardo Vol: 23 Issue No:4 pp. 397-399.The MIT Press.

[8] Gibson, W (1984) Neuromancer. Ace.

[9] Hayles, K (1999) How we became Post Human:Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and

Informatics. University of Chicago Press.

[10] Sellen, A. Whittaker, S. (2010) Beyond Total

Capture: A Constructive Critique of Lifelogging.Communications of the ACM. Vol. 53 No. 5, pp.70-77

[11] Shenk, D (1997) Data Smog: Surviving theInformation Glut. Abacus.

[12] Stiegler, B. (2009) The Carnival of the New Screen:

From Hegemony to Isonomy. In Pelle Snickars & Patrick

Vonderau (eds.), The YouTube Reader(Stockholm:National Library of Sweden): 4059.

[13] Stephenson, N (1992) Snow Crash. Bantam Books,USA.

[14] Turkle, S (2011) Alone Together: Why we Expect

More from Technology and Less from Each Other. BasicBooks.

[15] Walter, T (1996) A new model of grief:bereavement and biography. Mortality, 1, 7-25.

[16] Walter, T (2008) The Presence of the Dead in

Society. A paper presented at the conference on Death& Dying in 18-21c Europe, Alba Iulia, Romania.

Documents

chi2012_StaceyPitsillides