Disruptive Identities

Identity itself is disruption today. It has become a new frame of reference in these current times.

With the influx of technology and knowledge we see immense disruption in the topic of identity. Identity itself is disruption today. It has become a new frame of reference in these current times. A change in reference took place during the Enlightenment Era, other times in history, and is proceeding today. Presently individuals are self-representing themselves online. It is crucial to understand that toleration for both the new and the old views, lenses, opinions, etc. need to be incorporated and exemplified for true progression to take place. This chapter will focus on ‘Changing Frames of Reference’ and specifically relating it to the identity.

Changing frames of reference

Copernicus was an Enlightenment thinker during the Enlightenment Era. He is most well known in relation to the heliocentric model; a model that proposes the idea of having the sun, not the earth, at the center of the universe. Sarah Drogin states in her book titled, Spare me the Details, “most historians point to Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) and his novel ideas regarding the movement of the earth as the starting point of the Scientific Revolution…Copernicus, through study and reasoning, concluded that the earth and planets revolved around the sun. This heliocentric (sun-centered) theory was in stark contrast to the traditional geocentric (earth-centered) theory” (Drogin).

Moving from the geocentric to heliocentric theory is an example of moving from one frame of reference to another. A frame of reference is the way the world, a theory, ourselves, or an idea is seen with our eyes. It is to look through a new pair of lenses, adopting and living in a new sort of light because of a newfound understanding.

When we look into the Enlightenment era, we see many great changes in the way the world was seen. In addition to moving from the frame of geocentric to heliocentric, there was also a great move from rural to urban, where many deserted their own land and farms and made a courageous move to the city; although, the geocentric to heliocentric move was the biggest conversion.

Imagine the people of this time as they learned of this new theory. They had become very accustomed to being the center of the universe. Everything revolved around them; not just metaphorically, but literally or so they thought. This was a drastic change of reference to this population at the time.

There are two things we learn from the story of Copernicus. One, sometimes you have to completely alter your way of thinking (changing a frame of reference) and two, sometimes such changes are very disruptive, just as we observe with Copernicus here. Copernicus and his story is much more than a familiar story adopting a scientific worldview. Perhaps it is a challenge or a threat to identity. Was man special anymore when his world was relegated to being the third rock from the sun?

Rise of identity

Currently today, we have more unsettling changes on our hand. Our struggle is much more than realizing that we may not be the center of the universe any longer. I’m speaking of a certain disruption caused by identity, which is becoming a huge topic of today. You could say we are coping with a lot of change in identity due to technology, but in fact the change isn’t so much a shift to new tools or a new technological environment. It really stems from the disruption of identity. This causes identity to be that much more of a topic in our society today than it was during the Enlightenment Era.

Identities were not looked at the same way then as they are now. Identities focused on a social class or work position. People’s identities were changed as their frames of reference shifted. Many went from being isolated to very connected and intertwined. A personal touch was given, as people were more involved with others because of the closeness in proximity within the cities. Education was evolving. New public spheres were being created. Identities were forming rapidly.

But today we see how critical the form of identity is by the selfies people take and post and by the ways and style of social media. Using selfies and social media doesn’t make identity a critical topic, but the time, thought and energy we use to put all these pieces of information and pictures online is. The word selfie was actually placed in the dictionary recently because of the new wide use. A selfie is “a photograph that one takes of oneself with a digital camera or a front-facing smartphone, tablet or webcam, especially for posting on a social-networking or photo-sharing website” (dictionary.com)

Our identity is a topic constantly on our minds. We are always thinking about our identity and readjusting it based on changing circumstances. This readjustment requires digital changes, which in turn requires us to make and use profiles (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Google+, Instagram, Pinterest, LinkedIn) and avatars (graphical representation of the user or the user’s alter ego or character. It may take either three-dimensional form, as in games or virtual worlds, or a two-dimensional form as an icon in internet forums and other online communities).

We really worry that much about “graphical representations” about ourselves more than who we really are. We self represent today more than any other time in history and that makes us reflective about who we are today.

danah boyd is a social media scholar, youth researcher, and advocate working at Microsoft Research, New York University Media Culture and Communication and the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet and Society. danah boyd is a well-rounded individual to say the least. boyd wrote a book title, It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, where she argues “that society fails young people when paternalism and protectionism hinder teenagers’ ability to become informed, thoughtful, and engaged citizens through their online interactions” (boyd). As boyd points out, it is crucial for the youth of this age to be well educated with the technology present. It is also important to be aware and cautious.

Currently, people are using labels like “digital native” to give an identity to a given generation. Marc Prensky, an author, coined the native-immigrant concept, which “describes the generational switchover where people are defined by the technological culture which they’re familiar with,” (Joy). In all actuality, we label a whole generation and give them an identity based on the technological culture they are familiar with.

These are labels we use to cope with change. It turns out identity is not an old-generation-to-new-generation shift. The nature of identity is changing. Identity has a new frame of reference that is constantly both varied and evolving.

Why have we allowed for the technology we own (whether we know how to use it or not) define us? As we formulate a digital identity or multiple digital identities, we lose our personal identity because we are living online. People don’t get out and do things like they used to because they live vicariously through others online. Social media is a depressant, it’s a go to or an outsource. People go online to look at others artificially happier lives.

Marc Prensky speaks of this change discussed above saying, “People get frightened by change and they should be. They need courage to face the future these days, especially those who feel left behind…People adapt instinctively and humans are very good at that. The young people live in the context; the older people see the changing context and struggle” (Joy). For example, a young 13 year old may define themselves by the new IPhone 6 their parents surprised them with instead of the way they treat others or their performance in school. While an 80-year old woman who receives an IPhone 6 from her children as a gift, doesn’t even know what to do with the glass-covered gadget.

Multiple identities and frames of reference

The digital world requires us to be many people all at once. So truly, it isn’t a matter of whether we are digital natives or immigrants. There isn’t just one change people need to make. It is not just identifying between low technical understanding or lacking a technology base to being current and up to date. Partly due to the rapid ongoing change that is going on, and our inability to keep pace completely with it, we end up having to work within multiple different frames of reference, just as we sometimes have to switch between one kind of technology to another. In essence, we are required to have multiple personalities to go along with our multiple devices and media, and to the locations they take us. It isn’t a matter of being up with or behind on technology. The technology can require us one minute to be a global citizen, typing to someone in another hemisphere, and the next minute, being more present in the current room where you stand.

This suggests there are definite overlapping frames of reference as people take the old and create the new. New frames are created with every turn of history, and we are making history right now. One thing leads the other. Today we see the multiple identities in preference between printed books and ebooks, physical calendars and calendars on smartphones, Christian denominations using physical scripture versus digital based scripture, and many more examples.

I’m not suggesting that we each need to create new identities or that we should allow possessions, technology or anything else but our actions define us. It is critical that we incorporate both the new and the old frames. We should look at the past, incorporate it with the present and eventually the future. When this is done, we will find more success in progression and the betterment of society as a whole. It is critical that we become dual citizens in the present.

Rejecting the one-frame world

Truly, the only way to effectively cope with the great change we see is to identify with it and to own the reality that we won’t be settling on any single identity so long a we have our current technology. And we all know the technology we have will not be going away anytime soon. A healthy identity today is one wh allows itself to switch roles and tools as the need arises. This isn’t being false; it’s being true to our current conditions. We hear often that the only constant is change. This perfectly applies the new and continual frames of reference we see advancing so consistently.

Martin Luther is an interesting example from history of a certain individual apposing change. When you hear his name referenced in this way, you may be puzzled or wonder where this will be taken. It is curious to note that Martin Luther was largely apposed to the Heliocentric theory taking root and spreading. He greatly disagreed with Copernicus’ theory; as did the Catholic Church.

In all actuality, Luther was all about changing and shifting frames of Reference. He is the perfect example of bringing about and leading drastic, groundbreaking changes. Luther had twisted, snipped, reformed, added and thrown out other pieces of doctrine from the Catholic Church, in the end creating a new religion. Luther was a radical in regards to religious authority and even doctrine. Yet, when it came to science, he was completely conservative and shared a mutual sideline with the Catholic authorities. In essence, Luther was perfectly willing for his religious identity to change but when it came to science, he found it wrong and fought the heliocentric idea presented by Copernicus.

Copernicus’ model was considered heretical to the Roman Catholics because it apposed it’s teachings. Even Luther’s underlying Lutheran minister Andreas Osiander said of Copernicus, “This fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside down.” Osiander even went as far as to write a disclaimer that the heliocentric system was a theory, not a fact, and added it to the book’s preface. This lead readers to assume Copernicus had written it himself. By this time, Copernicus was old, ailing and unfit to aggressively defend his work.

Ironically, Copernicus dedicated De revolutionibus orbium coelstium to Pope Paul III, with high hopes that the church might approve and adopt his Heliocentric theory. The church banned Copernicus’ book and it remained on their forbidden reading material for three centuries (bio.com). At this time, a potential change in identity of many individuals was prevented when Copernicus’ book was banned.

Luther was not open to this scientific change, even though he was an agent of change when speaking of religion. We must be more agile than Luther was, more able to bend with the times and not insist on past ways or views. Maybe our new identity is that we are people with multiple and quickly changing identities. These multiple and quick changing identities are so full of adjustment because of all the technology and media in our society. We need to be comfortable being citizens of different and sometimes opposing worlds. These world’s are not just old or young, digital or paper. We have identities, multiple identities, made up of the past and present, all meshed together, creating new frames, new views, and new opinions.

I was 17 when I first got my hands on a smart phone. I went from an indestructible brick object (flip phone) to a phone that held internet, apps, music and immense amounts of storage. I didn’t even understand the potential I held within my hands. As I learned, I realized I could never go back and would never go back. Today we choose the frames of reference we peer into life through. We choose to record our history in a book or a journal, or online. We may write our schedules out, or type them into a phone and sync it with our computer. Or we may choose to do both. We may overlap two frames of reference and enjoy the view of both in our lives. I myself am that individual, who both reads and studies scriptures on a phone and in a book. I put calendar items in my phone and on my paper calendar. I read textbooks in ebook format as well as in the thick heavy style too. And I’m not the only one. Ironically, many families have both a DVD blue ray player, a VHS player and a magnificent collection of movies in both DVD and VHS format. Is one option better than the other? Should one take precedence? We must allow citizens of opposing paradigms to move forward in their own ways, and allow progression to take it’s road.

From the historical story of Copernicus and the opposing ideas discussed earlier, we see that people don’t always want to accept the new frames of reference at first, or the new identities it may give us. Luther was even a free thinker himself for his day, yet he would not adopt the heliocentric theory and greatly apposed it. Today, I can think of many examples from my own life of individuals who do not want to adopt new ways and technological advancements or those identities. Technology scares many simply because they do not understand or know how to work these impressive gadgets, as we learn from Prensky.

I admit, I sometimes find myself feeling inadequate when I do not know how to use a certain website or other device. You feel lost and confused. But with further education and a willingness to learn as boyd suggests, on every individual’s part, we can come to see through new and overlapping frames, find new light and learning and improve through the technology that we have before us, so readily available.

So what’s the answer? How do we use technology is a positive way, incorporating the many frames of reference available to us? Can technology be used in a way where identity is not disguised, or disrupted? With my research and study, I believe the answer is no. Identity will always be disrupted. But technology is not going away, it will only increase and expand. So we as families and individuals, with the ability to choose and to educate ourselves, must choose to use technology in a safe and meaningful way that does not define our own identities or work but allows us to benefit others and ourselves.

Works Cited

Bio.com. A&E Networks Television, n.d. Web. 4 June 2015. http://www.biography.com/people/nicolaus-copernicus-9256984#commentariolus-and-controversy.

Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 11 June 2015. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/selfie.

“Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” From Digital Natives to Digital Wisdom: Hopeful Essays for 21st Century Learning (2012): 67-85. Web. 9 June 2015.

Drogin, Sara S. Spare Me the Details: A Short History of Western Civilization. Bloomington, IN: IUniverse, 2008. Print.

“It’s Complicated.” Its Complicated RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 June 2015. http://www.danah.org/itscomplicated/.

“Nicolaus Copernicus: On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres.” Milestone Documents RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 May 2015. http://www.milestonedocuments.com/documents/view/nicolaus-copernicus-on-the-revolutions-of-the-celestial-spheres/text.

“What Does It Mean to Be a Digital Native? - CNN.com.” CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 29 May 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/04/business/digital-native-prensky/

Image Credit

“Łukasz Watzenrode” by Unknown - www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons

About the Author

Lexi Hanshaw