At the contact zone between human and networked computer our unconscious needs, and desires perform. What qualities of the networked computer greet us, act upon us, tempt, change us or simply beguile and seduce us? Where do we go online?   Who do we become?  What is our digital fingerprint?  What is the relationship between our online and offline selves?  Have we become posthuman?

While there has been considerable theorizing about the impact of computers on identity, its immediate impact can be gauged by utilization patterns. A study conducted by the Stanford University Institute for the Quantitative Study of Society 10 years ago found that most people utilized the Internet for mundane purposes: communication, information gathering and entertainment. Little has changed. A more recent study by the Kaiser Family Foundation study, “Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds” (2010) found that the three most popular computer activities among 8- to 18-year-olds are going to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, playing computer games, and watching videos on sites such as YouTube.

In an article titled “Slouching Toward the Ordinary: Current Trends in Computer-Mediated Communication,” (2004) Susan C. Herring concluded by stating, “In short, after barely more than 30 years of existence, Computer-Mediated Communication CMC has become more of a practical necessity than an object of fascination and fetish.”

Even the more alluring virtual worlds lean toward the conventional. Tom Boellstorf conducted an anthropological field study of the culture of Second Life that he published as a book, Coming of Age in Second Life in 2008. He conducted this study using an avatar who lived in and observed the activities of Second Life. In his concluding chapter, he wrote, “Throughout my research, I was struck by the banality of second life.” He quotes a second life resident who said, “the dirty secret of virtual worlds; all people end up doing is replicating their real lives.” “Virtual worlds do not change everything, but neither are they reducible to what came before them.”

The gap between the potential and actual effects of the Internet is enormous and not to be bridged. It speaks to the intrinsic dialectic between the wonderment of our creativity and the conservative nature of our being. The dialectic of change and stasis is an evolving structural dimension of the individual and culture. Between the possibility of transcendence and the tedious replication of reality that the Internet presents, we are uncertainly and inescapably drawn towards questions of being-in-the-world that inform this process and humbled by the unpredictability of the next moment.

“The Computer is not a hammer.”

Part One: The Potential

Echoing Marshal McLuhan iconic phrase “the medium is the message,” Mark Poster emphasized that to understand the impact of the computer on the individual one needs to view it not as a tool but as a complex, multidimensional experience.  In What’s The Matter with the Internet, (2001) he wrote, “The computer is not a hammer…The Internet is more like a social space than a thing so that its effects are more like Germany than a hammer.”  In the spirit of expansiveness I would suggest that the potential effects of the computer are more like a distant planet than a familiar geographical place with predictable rules.

At the contact zone between human and networked computer lies the next frontier, a promise of something latent and unrealized.  Cyberspace, virtual reality, and digital environments while not interchangeable terms, describe the computer generated creation of interactive spaces ranging from email, to social networking sites like Facebook, to simulated gaming, to virtual worlds such as Second Life, an online 3-D interactive virtual environment that some call a parallel universe.

Between the world of social networking that involves the establishment of a personal profile, a data centric image, and sharing and updating of personal information within a network of  “friends” and virtual environments such as Second Life where individuals construct anonymous personas, avatars that work, play, and interact in a constructed online environment, there is a world of difference that speaks to the complexity of the phenomena of the Internet. We are ambling on a long yellow brick road with multiple forks and multiple dimensions leading from each fork.

Choice and utilization patterns are critical dimensions that affect how the networked computer impacts the individual. Yet, as we become more empowered by the use of the computer, we also become more love-blind and dependent. As we become more dependent, we risk becoming increasingly unaware of the affective significance of its impact.  Choice then becomes situated as an after thought.

Sherry Turkle who wrote Life on The Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet in 1995 captured the transformative potential of the computer.  “The computer takes us beyond a world of dreams and beasts because it enables us to contemplate mental life that exists apart from bodies.  It enables us to contemplate dreams that do not need beasts.  The computer is an evocative object that causes old boundaries to be renegotiated.” (p23)

Turkle asserted that these environments hold the possibility of personal discovery and transformation. “The Internet has become a significant laboratory for experimenting with the constructions and reconstructions of self that characterize post modern life.” She sees Virtual environments as providing a moratorium in Erickson’s terminology or a transitional space in Winnicott’s words, a place to play, to try things out without actual consequence.

These digital environments give expression to emotional and unconscious aspects of our personality. Their malleability extends the domain of unconscious realization. Freedom from embodiment and the constraints of matter provide the possibility for play that alters the boundaries between the real and virtual, the self and the not-self.  Something of dream-space has been deposited in the virtual waking world.

Theorists have represented this intertwined relationship with terms like posthuman, cyborg, and digital self to suggest a new symbiotic humachine entity. Katherine Hayles in her book How We Became Posthuman: Virtual bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics (1999) employed the term posthuman to envision the outline of an emerging conception of the individual defined “by a dynamic partnership between humans and intelligent machines.”  (p288) She views the individual’s self and capacities for thinking as constituted by the smart machines in the environment. Hayles employs the concept, “distributed cognition,” to emphasize the social, contextual aspects of thinking. One doesn’t exist as an autonomous self whose essence is kept deeply within, but rather as an interdependent entity whose capacities are exquisitely and complexly coordinated with objects, machines, and individuals in the environment. The Google search engine exemplifies distributed intelligence as it supplements memory.

At the contact zone between human and networked computer our unconscious needs, and desires perform. What qualities of the networked computing greet us, act upon us, tempt and lure us, change us or simply beguile and seduce us? Where do we go online?  Who do we become? What is our digital fingerprint?   Most importantly what is the relationship between our online and offline selves? Have we become posthuman?

“Come gather ’round people

Wherever you roam

And admit that the waters

Around you have grown

And accept it that soon

You’ll be drenched to the bone.”

”The times they are a-changin’”

Bob Dylan

I would like to share some impressions about the conference on Psychology and Technology that occurred on November 7, 2009 in Pasadena,  as well as more general thoughts about the impact of technology on the practice of psychology and the personal experience of identity.

What is a conference?  To borrow a concept from (1) Mary Louise Pratt a professor of Spanish and Portuguese, a conference is a “contact zone.” She used the phrase to describe the “social spaces where disparate cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in highly asymmetrical relations of domination and subordination.”

This phrase has evocative relevance on several levels.

In my pre-conference reflections I employed the phrase to describe the intertwined, complex, and symbiotic nature of the relationship between human and networked computer, to underscore the unspoken power dynamics embedded in this relationship, and to implicate certain mythic narratives in the amplification of this relationship, beginning with Prometheus who stole fire from the gods, through Frankenstein, the modern Prometheus, and leading to Hal, (perhaps a post-modern Prometheus) whose independent artificial intelligence turned against the crew of Discovery One.  I will return to this relationship in a subsequent post.

The phrase also speaks to the idea that “disparate” cultures came together at a conference.  According to Bruce Gale Ph.D. our first speaker, one way to describe these cultures is by analogy. Dr. Gale illustrated these differences through a humorous comparison of how ostriches, owls, and otters employ tools.

There were a few wise otters in the audience, and we certainly benefited from the wealth of knowledge of our presenters.  The owls, if present, kept their predatory nature in the shadows.  What about the ostriches?  As Dr. Gale informed us, ostriches don’t bury their heads in the sand, only humans to.

A courageous group of ostriches removed their heads from the sand to attend this conference. Were their anxieties allayed?  Were their concerns addressed? Were they motivated to cross the technological divide?  And what about the ostriches who kept their distance? What is this fear of technology that seems to characterize many in our profession?

One participant described the conference as equivalent to exposure therapy, which we know is a well documented treatment for phobias. Those who attended were exposed to a rich, detailed, complex and at times overwhelming amount of information that has the potential to enhance if not transform their practice.

Bruce Gale Ph.D. exposed us to the basics of computing.  We learned about web tools, online resources, office hardware and specialized software. Marlene Maheu Ph.D. and Skip Rizzo Ph.D. respectively exposed the group to glimpses into the present and not too distant future where telehealth and virtual reality applications will become an increasingly larger part of the clinician’s toolbox. We learned from Anna Marie Piersimoni about the labyrinthian world of social networking and from Kaveri Subrahmanyam’s Ph.D. research how adolescents use social networking applications like Facebook.

The conference clarified two trends that characterize the trajectory of technological change. The first speaks to the conservative nature of change. Dr. Subrahmanyam’s research on how adolescents use technology, particularly Facebook indicate that adolescent’s extensive use of technology is characterized by conventional objectives: they use social networking applications primarily to connect with their offline peers.  Most adolescents are not seeking new online relationships, exploring virtual worlds and experimenting with alternative versions of self.  Adolescent developmental needs trump technology and illustrates how the dynamic of change, even rapid technological change is constrained by shifts between processes of accommodation and assimilation.

The second trend speaks to the speculative not too distant future that portends more dramatic change to the way we practice and the way we live. Dr. Subrahmanyam referred to the adolescents in her study as “digital natives,” individuals born into a digital environment where the medium of exchange whether shopping, socializing, listening to music is digitally mediated. These “digital natives” will be our future clients.  As they grow up, they will not only look for therapists online, but they will be comfortable with and might seek technologically mediated therapy such as virtual reality treatment applications or online counseling.

What will clinicians need to do to adapt to this changing environment? It is not news that mental health professionals are lagging behind the curve of technological change. While many clinicians use email, shop, and bank online, they have yet to adapt their practice to this changing environment, outside of some who use billing software and perhaps have signed on to the Psychology Today Therapist Directory website. More and more clinicians have websites, few blog, and many look upon Facebook as a scourge. We won’t even mention Twitter.

There are many reasons for this reluctance, some fear based and some based on conceptions about the practice of psychotherapy.  What we learned from Dr. Subrahmanyam’s presentation is that ostriches are “digital immigrants.”  “Digital immigrants” are newcomers to this mediated world of networked computers and smart phones. Like most immigrants we are threatened by the necessity to learn a new language and set of social-cultural guidelines for acting and conducting business.

So what don’t we do? I am reminded of my grandparents who until this moment I never identified with.  They emigrated to the U.S. from Russia when they were in their early twenties.  They lived in this country for over 50 years.  They never really learned English and they associated exclusively with relatives and their immigrant friends.  They had a pervasive fear of the dominant culture and a deeply rooted sense of insecurity and I believe inadequacy. They buried their heads in the sand and stood on the shoulders of their children to navigate their new world.

So what do we do? Most immediately we need to acknowledge our fear and examine how we are coping with this challenge.  At the very least we must remove our heads from the sand and take stock. Beyond this recognition, we need to become fluent in basic computing, understand the communicative power of the Internet, and then make decisions about how to implement these tools into our practice. Adaptation will not simply involve taking online and offline classes; it will also require an openness to change our conceptions of how we practice psychotherapy.

Perhaps we are amidst a paradigm shift that at present has mostly the scent of fear.

“If your time to you

Is worth savin’

Then you better start swimmin’

Or you’ll sink like a stone

For the times they are a-changin’.”

(1) Pratt, Mary Louise,  1992. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation,  Routledge.

I wake up most mornings, make coffee, shower, shave, and go to my MacBook.  I read news headlines, check email, go to Facebook and make a move in the online chess and scrabble game I am playing with my daughter, peruse my 40^th HS reunion Facebook page, check my banking, possibly record a dream, and do some writing. My entire creative, personal, and professional life is stored on my computer and backed up on a hard drive. I ride this most seductive wave of technology as I submit my writing, research, memory, and social relationships to the structure of the computer and the extensive networking capacity of the Internet.

The more I outsource myself to the computer and the virtual world the better I feel. I spend more time with this marvelous machine than I do with any single individual.   I love my MacBook more than I have ever loved any machine.   And this love is a term of devotion to a quid pro quo unequalled in my other interactions. Most mornings the seamless Mac operating system carries me from one application to the next like the more than good enough mother I never had. The occasional appearance of the rotating beach ball that can signify a crash jolts me like the abrupt withdrawal of the nipple from a nursing infant. I feel that my Mac has made me a more effective professional, but is it making me a better person?

The easier it is to use technology, the more difficult it is to fathom.

Forty years ago Marshall Mcluhan presciently wrote, “The medium is the message.”  This iconic phrase captures an essential aspect of technology. When we use a tool that extends our capacities and empowers us, whether phone, car, eye-glass, or networked computer, it also changes us. The process of change occurs subtly within the shadowy parameters of the “medium” that exert influence not directly as content often does, but outside awareness. The question that McLuhan poses is not what technology can do for us, but what is it doing to us.

Computers and the Internet have dramatically changed the architecture and geography of our culture. Since the adaptation of the Internet for public use in the 90’s, there has been massive transformation of society that has altered how we do business, how we get our news, listen to music, watch movies, and communicate with others. What is the effect of these macro changes on the individual’s private experience of Self, cognitive functions, and his/her interpersonal relationships?  Mark Poster, in his book What’s The Matter With The Internet, states that “the Internet forebodes a reconstruction of the basic elements of human culture.”

“Toto, I’ve got a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore.”

Frank Baum, The Wizard of Oz

Should we rest easy in this foreboding as the networked computer increasingly mediates our relationships to the world?  Technological innovation historically has triggered two contrasting responses: one that idealizes the potential for change, and one that fears and resists change.  Each position exerts a strong bias that interferes with a critical understanding of the impact of technology.  To move beyond the limitations of this either/or perspective requires a dialectical approach that maintains the tension between these two opposing positions without prematurely resolving them, an approach that can see how the positive and negative are inextricably intertwined.

Le me pose some questions that will hopefully lead to discussions that will deepen our understanding of the impact of the networked computer and its supplemental technologies on our daily lives and internal states.

• How has technology changed the experience of and the conceptualization of identity?

• What is the transformative potential of virtual reality?  Will it lead to a blended identity hinted at by the term cyborg?

• What are the most salient aspects of technology affecting individuals?

• What is the relationship between anonymity of online presence and what seems to be a compelling drive toward self-disclosure?

• How are cognitive functions and language structures being changed? Should we be concerned as Nicolas Carr provocatively asks in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, “Is Google making us stupid?”

• Has the Internet destabilized existing human experience and social-cultural modes of expression? In an article written by William Deresiewicz titled “The End of Solitude” he wonders if the power of Internet’s connectivity inadvertently leads to the “production of loneliness.”

These questions shift the focus of inquiry to the intimate relation between the individual and machine asking not what the machine can do for us or but what it is doing to us for better and for worse. To this quest we might heed the message in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. The great paradox of progress is that our efforts to master the environment often turn against us. If there is anything that we can be certain about as we proceed forward, it is expressed by Mark Poster in What’s The Matter With The Internet, where he states, “One rule that characterizes the development of technology is that the trajectory of new technology is unpredictable.”