Disclaimer: I am refraining from the use of Lacanian terminology in explaining my ideas. [And, no, I will not be referencing psychoanalytic theories on sexuality, (1) as I am not sufficiently fluent in those concepts, nor (2) am I convinced of their explanatory power.]
I am struck by the Orlesian custom of wearing masks, but I am perhaps more struck by the explanations they provide for using them. It appears to conform too neatly to our own theory of psychological “masks” we inherited from Freud. Consider how Vivienne explains the custom (I am quoting from a forum post, now. I wish I could find this conversation again on a video to make sure it’s correct): 'We all wear masks my dear, not just the people in Orlais. The Orlesians codify this truth, make it real. They believe that by covering their faces, they can be their truest selves unmasked'.
Vivienne’s explanation is certainly palatable at first glance. It appears to coincide very well with what we have observed take place on the internet, as well. People behave in a certain way on the internet, on an internet forum for instance, in a manner completely at odds with how they would normally behave in ‘real life’. Where in their day to day life they behave as a docile office worker [we will call him Person A], on the internet forum they are a blustering storm; where in their day to day life they are shy and passive [we will call him Person B], on the internet they are overly-sexualized and so as a result they objectify other people. The anonymity which they experience in their interactions on the internet provides them with the opportunity to “create” a false persona. When we witness this sharp divide in their behavior, we tend to come to the conclusion that the “mask” of the internet is hiding their true selves.
I am here to offer an alternative way of interpreting this data. My use of apostrophes around ‘real life’ was intentional: I contend that the above mentioned explanation rests on a false dichotomy between ‘real life’ and ‘internet life’. My interactions with people on the internet certainly are a part of my experience of ‘life’, and I do not consider my experiences on the internet less ‘real’ in that sense. There is no sense in which I would describe my interactions on the internet as happening “outside” my life. There is, however, one important distinction: the internet provides an entirely new context within which to project myself (here, understand me as referring to Heidegger’s hermeneutic ontology, particularly in reference to the concept of "thrown-ness").
We typically understand the “internet persona” as the “mask” and therefore the “illusion”, and we understand the “non-internet persona” as the “real person” and therefore the “truth”. This is precisely what I want to challenge. When I look at the behaviour of the “real person” of Person A, I can see how much his docility is conditioned by the social and cultural context in which he lives. Given the pressures of his work environment, given the exigencies of his spouse or family or friends, given the demands on his time, etc. etc. we can understand why he behaves docilely in that context. However, given another context, it is entirely reasonable to believe that Person A will behave in a completely different way. The same applies to Person B, or any one of us!
It is precisely this illusion I wish to shatter: that there can be this sharp divide in our minds between the conception we have of our “true” ‘selves’ and our “internet” / “work” / “family” / etc. etc. ‘selves’. The use of the word MASK here is profoundly appropriate, but it is being used in an entirely different way. Our inherited understanding of 'mask' is something which hides a true self beneath it. In the Lacanian sense, “mask” is here understood as how our selves are conditioned to act based on the context in which we are currently engaged. Once we realize and appreciate that all of our engagements in our 'life' occur within a conditioning context, we can see that we are ALWAYS wearing masks.
There is no such thing as a “true” self, insofar as the claim is made that the “true” self is one of de-contextualized meaning. Why? Because there is no such thing as de-contextualized engagement in our world! Every time we engage in the world, we are always contextualized, and therefore, always wearing masks.
Retour en haut
