Composing the Self: Of Diaries and Lifelogs
José van Dijck
University of Amsterdam
Introduction
A recent cartoon from a Dutch newspaper shows a man and a woman
lying in bed, smoking a cigarette apparently after having sex. ‘Do
you keep a diary?’ asks the man to his partner, and upon her negation,
he comments: ‘Good. I don’t like it when a woman immortalises her
intimate experiences with me on paper.’ In the last frame, we see
the woman sitting behind a computer screen and typing ‘Dear weblog…’,
while the man snores away on the bed behind her. In this short cartoon,
we can detect a number of assumptions about diaries and weblogs,
but the clue to this joke is the paradox that the weblog is considered
a digital equivalent of the diary and yet it is not.
For centuries, the diary has been characterised as a private, handwritten
document that chronicles the experiences, observations and reflections
of a single person at the moment of inscription. Although the diary
as a cultural form is varied and heterogeneous, it is typically
thought to represent the record of an ‘I’ who constructs a view
on him/herself in connection to the world at large. Diary writing,
as a quotidian cultural practice, involves reflection and expression;
yet it is also a peculiarly hybrid act of communication, supposedly
intended for private use, but often betraying an awareness of its
potential to be read by others. Inviting the translation from thoughts
into words via the technologies of pen and paper, the old-fashioned
diary symbolise a safe haven for a person’s most private thoughts—even
if they are published in print later on. Personal notebooks are
often treasured as stilled moments of a forlorn past, and kept in
safe places to be retrieved many years later—much like photographs—as
precious objects of memory.
With digitisation affecting practically every domain of public
and private life, the diary seems no exception. ‘Weblogs’ have become
a popular genre on the internet, as millions of people (particularly
teenagers and young adults) are now heavily engaged in the activity
of ‘blogging’. By the end of 2004, a recent survey predicts, there
will be about 10 million weblog users in the United States alone.
[1] Weblogs
or ‘blogs’ is a rather general container for a variety of genres;
the so-called lifelog seems to come closest to the traditional diary
genre. But can lifelogs and blogging be considered the digital counterpart
of what used to be a paper diary and diary writing? As the cartoon
implies, the answer to this question is a paradoxical ‘yes and no.’
Cultural practices or forms never simply adapt to new technological
conditions, but always inherently change along with the technologies
and the potentialities of their use. In the case of lifelogs, the
digital materiality of the internet engenders a new type of reflection
and communication. This shows traces of the former analogue genre
but functions substantially differently.
Richard Grusin and Jay Bolter (1999) have used the term ‘remediation’
to account for the ways in which new media forms consolidate but
also alter existing forms. In a critique of this term,Andreas Kitzmann
(2003) argues that ‘remediation’ does not sufficiently account for
the intrinsic shaping power of technology, and proposes to focus
on the wider phenomenon of ‘material complexification’ to understand
the continuities and changes between old and new media, for instance
weblogs and webcams. [2] And
in their illuminating analysis of the phenomenon, Miller and Shepherd
(2004) regard blogging as social action—a‘new rhetorical opportunity’
that needs to be examined in terms of its use. Each of these authors
places a different emphasis, respectively on cultural form, technology,
and practice. In this article, I suggest to examine these three
dimensions of mediated cultural change in conjunction: the
diary and lifelog should be studied both as a cultural form or
genre, while also taking into account the materiality and
technology of (hand) written diaries and lifelogs, as well as the
cultural practice of diary writing in comparison to the activities
of so-called bloggers. Tracing the transformation of personal records
in the face of new digital technologies, I will argue that lifelogs
are not outcomes but rather signifiers of cultural change, as they
both reflect and construct new epistemologies.
Diaries and weblogs as cultural form
The cartoon cited above displays three recurrent myths or misperceptions
about the old-fashioned paper diary, that appear to persist into
the digital era. In contrast to weblogs, the paper diary is commonly
referred to as a uniform genre, a private kind of reflective writing
produced by a single author. Yet if we closely look at how paper
diaries were used in the past, the characteristics of uniformity,
privacy and single authorship are, to say the least, disputable;
it is surprising to find, though, how these accepted notions about
diaries still affect today’s theorisation of weblogs.
Over the past centuries, the diary as a cultural form has been
anything but homogeneous. The genre has been defined as therapy
or self-help, as a means of confession, as a chronicle of adventurous
journeys (both spiritual and physical), or as a scrapbook for creative
endeavours. Thomas Mallon, author of a standard work in this area,
distinguishes at least seven types of diaries and labels the various
types according to their author’s profession or character: ‘chroniclers’
‘travellers’ ‘creators’, ‘confessors’, and so on (1984). Philip
Lejeune (1993) inventories various types of autobiographical writing
(diary, letters, autobiography) by its ‘morphological’ features,
whereas Beatrice Didier, a French literary theorist, articulates
a more general classification, based on the content of entries,
between the personal or private ‘diary’ (‘le journal intime’) and
the more public or factual ‘journal’(1976). Yet another French literary
scholar, Eric Marty, classifies diaries by their addressees: are
they strictly secret or also written for others? (1985). In general,
the taxonomy of the old fashioned paper diary tends to be based
either on its contents (personal, intimate self-expressions vis-à-vis
daily records of fact) or on its directionality (intended for private
reading vis-à-vis public use).
The myth that the diary is a private genre, strictly written for
oneself, is as misleading as it is persistent. A binary distinction
between the diary as a personal record written for private purposes
in contrast to a journal of fact written to show others, is hardly
tenable. As Mallon argues, no one ever kept a diary just for himself;
pointing out the continuity between the ‘journal’ and the ‘diary’,
he concludes that both are directed towards an audience and ‘both
[are] rooted in the idea of dailiness, but perhaps because of the
journal’s links to the newspaper trade and diary’s to “dear”, the
latter seems more intimate than the former’ (1984: xvi). Of all
the varieties within the genre, some diaries are written more with
a reader in mind than others, but an essential feature of all diaries
is their addressee. Whereas some authors directed their diaries
to an imagined friend (like Anne Frank’s ‘Kitty’, or André Gide’s
mysterious addressee), to God, or to the world at large, the notion
of addressing is crucial to the recognition of diary writing as
an act of communication (Marty, 1985: 87). Writing, even
as a form of self-expression, signals the need to connect, either
to someone or something else, or to oneself later in life. William
M. Decker, who theorised the evolution of epistolary writing in
the United States, observes that letters, much like diaries, carry
the aura of a private genre, whereas the genre encodes itself according
to public standards: ‘What we identify as the private life is a
conventionalised and hence public construction’ (1998: 6). Diary
writing is, to a large extent, a cultural form firmly rooted in
rhetorical conventions: intimacy and privacy are effects
rather than intrinsic features of the genre.
Another misperception we can trace in the genealogy of diaries
is the belief that their creation is usually associated with individual
voice and authorship, whereas in reality the genre has often been
deployed as a communal means of expressing and remembering. To many
religious congregations, for instance, the diary was a semi-public
record, shared within but never outside a community. In her intriguing
account of the Maryknoll Sisters’ archive, Elizabeth Yakel describes
how this religious community, between 1912 and 1967, adapted the
genre as a collective means of expression to record and exchange
spiritual and intellectual journeys to each other. Their record-keeping
practices suited various goals, from expressing individual beliefs
to communicating information across time and space with like-minded
congregations:
The diaries had multiple
audiences—they were a means of internal communication within the
community and also served as a mechanism for external communication
to Catholics and others interested in their mission activities.
(Yakel, 2003: 143)
In the history of diary writing, the genre as a communal means
of expression has found many practitioners, from South Pole explorers
to POWs held in captivity. As Michael Piggott, archivist at the
University of Melbourne, found out, Australian archives contain
many such collective ego-documents, chronicling important episodes
from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries through the eyes
of transient groups. For groups bound together by an adventurous
ordeal, a joint diary was often a means to trust one’s personal
emotions to a relatively safe medium and share the experience with
mates held captive under the same conditions (2003). Diaries have
thus historically been produced by both individuals and groups,
regardless of their degree of intimacy or their potential to appear
in print. Since its very inception, the genre has been dialogic
rather than monologic, hence obliterating the line between private
and public.
How persistent is this idea of a uniform genre when it comes to
weblogs? And how is the rather paradoxical genre-classification
along the axes of self and others, of intimacy and openness, sustained?
Upon entering the digital era, the diary as a cultural form appears
to have survived in its many varieties and its layered complexity.
Weblogs or webdiaries have emerged since 1996, but only in the past
four years has their popularity soared (Rodzilla, 2002). Initially,
blogs were either personal homepages operated by individuals, mostly
people who were interested in sharing technical and personal knowledge,
or they were websites consisting of chronological lists of links,
interspersed with information, editorialised and personal asides
(Cheung, 2000).In practice, lifelogs later became experiments in
self-expression, with people reading and cross-linking other lifelogs,
thus creating blog-communities. Searching on the internet today,
one can find a plethora of digital diaries, everything from travel-blogs
chronicling the climbing of the Mount Everest to personal blogs
commenting on books or music, from the spiritual journey of a born-again
Christian to the intimate exchange of sexual experiences between
teenagers, and from outbursts of psychological distress to the quotidian
musings of a psychiatrist. Frank Schaap, exploring the Dutch ‘blogosphere’,
distinguishes lifelogs from linklogs; linkloggers primarily post
links to other websites, whereas lifeloggers primarily post details
about their personal life and everyday experiences. Although Schaap
comments on the ‘dichotomous nature of the Dutch blogosphere,’ the
distinction between lifelogs and linklogs is as tenuous as the taxonomy
of the paper diary (2004).
While intimacy and privacy were often thought to be unique features
of the diary genre, in practice this characterisation is hardly
tenable. This applies to an even greater extent to lifelogs. The
digital equivalent of the diary is as polymorphous as its paper
precursor, and yet, when researching the new functions and forms
of diary writing in the digital era, the old typology of the diary
in terms of content and directionality stubbornly informs the epistemology
of the lifelog. For instance, a 1998 Japanese study into the formal
structures and uses of diaries on the internet, departs from the
notion that they can be classified according to their contents as
‘records of fact’ or ‘expression of sentiment,’ or according to
their directionality as ‘written for oneself’ or ‘written for others’
(Kawaura, Kawakami, and Yamashita, 1998). In defence of the authors
of the Japanese study, the year in which their article was published
marked the early beginning of an explosion of blogging, a development
no one could have predicted at that time. Yet it is significant
that the researchers’ classification along binary axes results in
a new typology of diaries on the world wide web as ‘memoirs’, ‘journals’,
‘narrowly defined diaries’ and ‘open diaries.’ Their attenuated
conclusion that writing a web diary is primarily a communicative
behaviour equally applies to paper diaries. Later studies continue
to classify weblogs along axes of self and others, of personal and
public (Blood 2000), but there are also theorists who acknowledge
the multiple ancestors of the weblog—commonplace books, clipping
services, pamphlets, diaries, shiplogs etc—precluding any classification
of the lifelog on the basis of content or directionality (Miller
and Shepherd, 2004).
In addition, digital cultural forms are often erroneously ascribed
‘unique’ features such as interactivity or community building. Weblogs
are defined by some as virtual communities enabled by technologies,
particularly the internet (Blanchard, 2004). As I argued above,
paper diaries have always shown a peculiar mixture of individual
and communal effort, of self-expression and communication. If we
look at weblogs in general or so-called lifelogs in particular,
we can observe a similar hybrid aptitude. [3]
The constitutive function of diaries in terms of community formation
is thus by no means an extension of digital technology, but was
already common practice in the days of pen and paper. This does
not imply, however, that technology plays a minor role in the ‘remediation’
of the diary; on the contrary, as I have argued, changes in cultural
form need to be examined in conjunction with the technologies.
The technology and materiality of diaries versus lifelogs
Diaries are commonly valued for their contents rather than for
their look or feel. Nevertheless, the materiality of diaries as
well as the technology through which these artefacts have come into
being is crucial factors in their signification (see also Hayles,
2002). When referring to paper diaries, two typical concepts spring
to mind: the empty diary, preformatted for daily use, which we can
buy at stationary stores and the handwritten manuscripts of diaries
that have later appeared in print and become widely read. The physical
appearance of a prefab diary prefigures the functions of its intended
use: empty pages, with or without lines, bound or unbound, dated
or undated, offer the author stimuli to fill the more or less blank
surface with personal inscriptions and thoughts. In some cases,
the diary is completed by a lock-and-key — a potent symbol of its
private nature. The preformatted diary has always been, to some
extent, a product of contemporary fashion, its design and lay-out
representing a particular style and catering to a specific age or
taste. A diary’s materiality forms an essential part of its content:
pages, cover, key, colours, ink and paper (its look, feel, and smell)
are all part of the act of keeping a diary. Over the years, diarists
often grow fond of the material outlooks of their notebooks—fading
colours, youthful handwriting, and ink blobs trigger reminiscences
in a way that photographs do. The diary’s contents, when reread
at a later stage in life, may either elicit nostalgic yearning or
retroactive embarrassment, in some cases even leading to a definitive
destruction of the object. A reified memory object of one’s past,
the diary is the stilled result of a creative and communicative
act.
Arguably, diary writing is not necessarily inspired by prefab formats:
on the contrary, many diaries published in print, had first been
written in ordinary notebooks or scribbled onto single sheets. The
actual manuscript of such a diary, its original form of inscription,
becomes a vital sign of authenticity—often stored in special places
and only accessible to owners or researchers. In the case of Anne
Frank’s diary, which consisted partly of notebooks and partly of
separate sheets of paper, the gradual discovery and reconstructionof
the various ‘versions’ of the manuscript became part of the Dutch
teenager’s legacy. The original manuscript, stored in Amsterdam,
appeared to be in such demand that the Anne Frank Foundation had
two duplicates made: one to replace the original on display at the
museum, the other to satisfy the many requests from film directors,
researchers and documentary makers for pictures of the original.
The materiality of the manuscript constitutes an intricate part
of the diary’s genesis and later its controversial claims to authenticity,
(uncensored) originality and completeness.
Pivotal to the materiality of diaries, up to the age of computers,
has been the notion of script: the concept of diary is commonly
associated with (hand) writing, signifying not just authenticity,
but personality. Handwriting has historically been believed to betray
the personality of its producer—graphology being the study that
yields clues to the writer’s character such as age and even personality
traits. Regarded as the first ‘technologising of the word,’ (Ong,
1982) the tools of writing facilitated the need to make oneself
legible to the ‘other’ or to the future self. Writing is thus intimately
tied to a stage in one’s personal development: a teenager’s scrawls
betray his or her inexperience with the prime tool of literacy—the
immaturity of body or mind. As Canadian archivist Jane Zhang claims,
‘an individual’s handwriting is habitually viewed as his own personal
mark, which distinguishes him not only from others, but also from
his own past and future’ (2003: 43). Sonja Neef confirms that handwriting
is an embodied practice: moving a pen onto paper involves a direct
connection between body and script, an act in which the eye and
hand are intimately interwoven with the technology of paper and
pen and the techniques of deploying them; the hand—a body part instrumental
to the ‘Verkörperung’ (embodiment) of thoughts—fixes the inner self
to the outside world (2002).
Since other technologies have gradually replaced handwriting, the
tools of a diarist have changed accordingly. When Sigmund Freud
wrote his essay ‘A Note Upon the ‘Mystic Writing Pad’,’ in 1925,
he regarded writing and technology as external aids or supplements
to memory. Freud described memory in terms of writing, comparing
it to the surface of a writing pad that allowed the scribbling of
endless notes, which could subsequently be erased and yet remain
stored in the ‘subconscious’ layers of the pad, below its material
surface. Jacques Derrida (1995), commenting upon Freud’s essay,
dismisses his notion of writing as an external memory and emphasises
instead technology’s instrumental relationship to language and representation.
Technologies, including writing utensils, are machines that engender
representations while infiltrating agency; pen and paper, therefore,
produce different modes of writing than the typewriter or the word
processor (Barnet, 2004). Handwriting never simply structures reflections
or thoughts, but literally creates them; by the same token, a typewriter
constitutes a different relation between author, words and representation.
It may not be a coincidence that typewriters never became popular
in connection to diary writing; unlike handwriting, the noise of
fingers pounding on a machine severed the physical intimacy between
body and word (Kittler, 1999). [4]
As the technologies for writing change, so does our way of creating
self-reflective records. Handwritten diaries are material artefacts
that are themselves memorials—traces of a past self. Memory, in
other words, is always implicated in the act and technology of writing.
The advent of the stand-alone word processor, as the successor
of the (electronic) typewriter, further disembodied the production
of written language, as not only the keyboard but also the screen
interfered with the continuity between hand and words. Yet two essential
features of word processing may have restored some of the intimacy
lost with the typewriter. First, the relative silence of word processors
refurbished part of the quietude inherent to solitary writing, while
speeding up the production of text and maintaining standardised
letter output. Even more profound has been the ability of word processors
to produce tentative texts, provisional versions of thoughts, forever
amenable to changes of mind; the editing of visualised words does
not leave a trace in the ultimate print. Words on the screen, stored
in digital memory, thus formed a new stage in the trajectory between
immaterial thoughts and textual products, allowing for invisible
revisionist interferences in one’s memory. On top of that, digital
files may never materialise into print, and they can remain stored
in the black box of the PC, without ever being erased or retrieved
(by the writer or by others). Diaries produced by a word processor,
therefore, are fundamentally different from diaries produced by
means of handwriting or typewriters: the personal computer provides
an intrinsic textual paintbrush with which to edit one’s personal
records. The potential of digital editing at a later stage diluted
the concept of diary as a material, ‘authentic’ artefact, inscribed
in time and on paper.
In the 1990s, when stand-alone word processors gradually gave way
to networked computers and the internet became a popular medium
for interaction, the physical artefact of the diary seemed incommensurable
with the prime demands of instant, ubiquitous connection rooted
in digital materiality. The evanescence of the internet appears
at odds with the genre’s preference for a fixed material output.
Moreover, the time lapse between writing and potential publishing
of the diary in print intrinsically conflicts with the immediacy
and connectedness of the electronic superhighway. Between body and
words on paper are no longer just a piece of paper, but an intricate
technological network of connected individuals and communities;
and between paper and published print are only a few seconds before
the inscriptions enter the virtual realm. And yet, perhaps surprisingly,
we still consider the lifelog to be a digital descendant of the
paper diary, except that there is no printed output, only a screen-based
one. How, then, should we consider the new materiality of the lifelog?
Since computers do not smell, and the screen has no particular feel,
how can we define the digital matter of lifelogs?
Analogous to the preformatted paper diary and the diarist’s handwriting,
we can locate the materiality of weblogs in two different areas:
weblog software and the signature of its users. The first
weblogs were operated mostly by digerati, but as specially developed
software made blogging technically easy, more people without any
specific technological skills joined the various kinds of ‘blogging
groups.’ Particularly since 2000, a large number of software packages
have flooded the market, enabling even the clumsiest person to become
a sophisticated blogger. Today, users can choose from a variety
of different packages; besides open diaries on the web, such as
Opendiary.com and MyDearDiary.com, there are also weblog services for which you need
to sign up or even being introduced by a member, like LiveJournal, Blurty, Xanga, DeadJournal, Blogger, and DiaryLand. Although they all
basically serve the same purpose, the formats may differ in lay-out
and digital possibilities. To some extent, these different designs
resemble the preformatted paper-diaries for sale at stationary stores.
It seems like the various software formats attract different audiences,
catering to heterogeneous tastes and lifestyles, much like brand
names of fashion products appeal to a particular style. As Emily
Nussbaum points out, their formats only vary slightly (‘A Livejournal
is a Blurty is a Xanga is a Diaryland’), but because of certain
technical features, users may select a certain software package
(2004). For instance, sites like Xanga contain the possibility to
give ‘aProps’, a kind of gold stars for particularly good posts,
whereas LiveJournal allows for selecting features such as ‘current mood music’
and ‘embedded polls or surveys.’ In a way, blog software is like
a pair of jeans: nuances in style and brand name are important to
individuals who are seeking to belong to a group.
Software, however, constitutes only the technological condition
for its varied individualised use. Digital weblogs may, in terms
of their materiality, not even remotely resemble their paper precursor,
but there is a distinct continuity in their personal signature.
If handwriting betrayed a diary writer’s character and level of
maturity, the typewriter and later the word processor had already
erased that trademark of personality; and yet, through word choice,
style, punctuation, and the use of emoticons it is remarkable how
much the entries give away a person’s character. On top of that,
the personality of a diarist is even more traceable through her
prolific choices of cultural contents. A blogger may attach references
to songs, pictures, movies, books, etc.Despite prescriptive software
formats, weblogs offer a relatively high degree of creative freedom;
users can discover their own taste by cutting, pasting, and commenting,
thus exploring the relationship between the self and culture at
large. Some weblog software (like OpenDiary.com) allows users
to search entries by age group, gender, theme of the week, subject
or cultural preferences.
Although the multimedial lifelog looks very different from the
preformatted lock-and-key paper diary, each materiality gives away
distinctive clues to an author’s personality. Just as paper diaries
reflect someone’s age, taste, and preference at a particular moment
in their life, the software and signature of blogs seem to
accommodate the needs of especially contemporary teens and young
adults to express and sort out their identity in an increasingly
wired, mediated world. Digital technologies are imperative to the
creation of blogs, as Mortensen (2004) rightly assumes, but technology
does not tell the whole story. In conjunction to changing technologies,
materialities and cultural forms, we need to pay closer attention
to the practices of diary writing and blogging, to see how they
change along with evolving notions of intimacy, privacy and memory.
Diary writing and blogging as cultural practices
The internet is not simply an amplification of the stand-alone
word processor, but it enters a new mediating apparatus that significantly
impacts the use or function of familiar forms. In our focus on technology,
we often tend to underemphasise how social and cultural conditions
change along with the machinery. Both diary writing and blogging
are interesting cultural practices—quotidian habits or daily rituals
which gradually receive a place in a person’s life. Cultural practices,
in the past century, have become increasingly mediated: watching
television, talking on the phone, taking pictures or writing e-mails
are only few of many potential communicative acts through which
a person articulates herself. With the introduction of the internet,
some of these daily rituals are gradually changing, often fusing
old practices with new conventions. For instance, e-mails can be
regarded ‘remediations’ of handwritten letters, but more profoundly,
the emergence of e-mail also substantially transformed someone’s
daily ritual of communication and interaction, along with one’s
sense of physical or psychological presence—just as the telephone
changed communicative patterns along with notions of proximity and
presence a hundred years earlier. It is important to note that these
changes always involve both technology and practice, the
mutual shaping of which is firmly embedded in culture.
Writing a diary, of course, never happened in a social vacuum;
the ritual occupied its own niche alongside other acts of communication,
such as talking, listening, reading, etc. As a quotidian habit,
diary keeping gives meaning and structure to someone’s life. In
the case of Anne Frank, writing a journal created a zone of silence
and refuge in a small space, densely crowded and heavily trafficked
by human interaction. Her daily ritual was an act of self-protection
as much as self-expression. By carving out a discursive space, she
was able to articulate her private thoughts and define her position
in relation to others and the world at large. Diary writers fashion
a habit by choosing a medium; the creation of that mediated habit
is always inspired by ultural conventions and prevailing fashions.
As David Chaney observes, everyday life is a creative project ‘because
although it has the predictability of mundane expectations, it is
simultaneously being worked at both in the doing and in retrospective
reconsideration’ (2002: 52). Quotidian acts such as diary writing
should thus not only be regarded as stilled reflections of life,
but as ways of constructing life. They always coexist amidst a number
of other communicative habits and culturally determined practices.
For the contemporary blogger, the internet is just one of a host
of media through which to express agency, and blogging is one of
many competing practices, such as speaking (both face-to-face and
phone conversations), writing (letters, sms, e-mail), watching (television,
film, photos) and listening (music, talk). The coexisting practices
that fill the mediated lives of today’s youngsters both complement
and compete with each other; the weblog offers several amenities
that other media lack, such as the ability to combine extensive
written comments with pictures, tunes, links and clips, as well
as the possibility to post something online to a large anonymous
readership. Blogging may be a combination of both oral and literate
practices, such as diary writing, letter writing, the exchange of
cultural objects, printed publications, and even conversation. Jan
Fernback has remarked that
as mediated human communication
becomes more and more non-linear, decentralised, and rooted in multimedia,
the distinction between orality and literacy becomes less evident
and less important. (2002: 29)
New hybrid rituals always emerge in dialogue (and also in competition)
with already existing practices, as they gradually create a new
balance in the ecosystem of quotidian cultural practices, both oral
and literal.
The networked computer is instrumental to the way in which a blogger
simultaneously fashions her identity and creates a sense of community.
Blogging both complements and interferes with everyday ‘live’ communication:
weblog entries are part of a person’s web of community circles through
which they move and shape their lives. Some of these circles overlap
some do not. The by and large reflexive nature of the lifelog has
its place in the contact zones of everyday life that each individual
constructs, and which are usually a mixture of real-life and virtual
experiences. Through their LiveJournals or Xangas, teenagers not only express themselves, but create a communal
sense of values and thoughts deemed worthy of being shared. In a
lifelog, one may blurt out confessions of loneliness and insecurity—behaviour
inhibited in face-to-face encounters—despite the fact that everyone
in a peer group can potentially read these outbursts. In her sharp
journalistic ethnography, Nussbaum (2004) observes that bloggers
usually don’t talk about what they say online, even though in real
life they may speak to each other on a daily basis. Online posts
can be read and responded to by immediate friends and relatives,
while they may also invoke reciprocity from complete strangers,
adding another dimension to the small world of immediate peers.
The choice of audience is a typical example of how technology and
cultural practice interlock—the digital version of the lock-and-key-diary.For
example, the distribution features of LiveJournal, allows the user to decide
with each posting to whom they make this content available—from
‘just myself’ to ‘friends only’ to ‘anyone.’ Defining one’s readership
is bound to define one’s sense of inclusion in and exclusion from
a community, whatever shape that community may take—actual or virtual,
intellectually formative or emotionally supportive. In contrast
to the paper diary, the weblog is part of a mediated continuum,
a lived world in which the individual is always connected. [5]
Just as isolation appeared the default mode
of paper diaries, reciprocity is now coined as the default mode
of blogging. However, just as the solitary basis of diaries turned
out to be a myth, reciprocity is not a standard feature of blogs:
still half the number of internet diaries turns out to be non-reciprocal
(Herring 2004). Although the very medium that enacts blogging shifts
the technological condition from isolation to connection, this does
not mean that the cultural practices take on a new ‘pure’ default
mode; on the contrary, old habits of diary writing coexists with
new connected practices, while they get gradually incorporated by
a new medium.
The inclusion and exclusion of (potential) readers from one’s weblog
constitutes an intricate game, the stakes of which are identity
formation and community construction. Identity, as Australian media
theorist Esther Milne claims, is always, in varying degrees, a performance:
It is the result of complex
cultural, technological, economic and institutional forces rather
than being a natural, somatic or psychological process that is fundamentally
independent of historical influences. 2004: 8)
Current ‘complex forces’ are geared towards swift and easy distribution
of ideas. In the past, the ability to expose oneself to a wider
audience of unknown readers was something for which a paper diarist
used to be dependent on a publisher who would print and distribute
the diary, usually resulting in a considerable time lag between
the moment of writing and of publication. A blogger can make her
own decision concerning publication and distribution at the very
moment of writing. Sharing intimate narratives with an anonymous
readership is no longer a future possibility but an actual choice
for webloggers; the effect of this technological option is immediacy—instant
distribution, without intervention from a publishing institution.
From a survey held by the MIT Media lab Sociable Media Group, we
learn that 76% of bloggers do not limit their readership in any
way, and they have no idea who their readers are, apart from a core
audience (Viegas, 2004).
Weblogs or digital diaries are perhaps primarily about synchronising
one’s experience with others, about testing one’s evaluations against
the outside world. Blogging, besides being an act of self-disclosure,
is also a ritual of exchange: bloggers expect to be signalled
and perhaps to be responded to. If not, why would they publish their
musings on the internet instead of letting them sit in their personal
files? It may be instructive to compare blogs and blogging to the
use of the mobile phone. In their study of teenager’s use of mobiles,
Alex Taylor and Richard Harper (2003) note how phone-mediated activities
resemble established social practices such as gift-giving; the ritual
of gift exchange is now extended to symbolic messages (sms or spoken),
and, like the material equivalent, it is rooted in a mental scheme
of obligation and reciprocation. Through a subtle system of shared
norms for exchanging phones, rationing access to personal messages,
and obligations to respond, users assign symbolic value to tangible
or virtual objects. A similar process can be identified in blogging.
Opening up one’s secret diary to a selection of friends and relatives,
and expecting them to do the same, is an old practice refurbished
by bloggers. Attaching items of cultural contents is quite similar
to swapping music albums, books or personal accessories—a system
of sharing symbolic meanings with friends that is firmly rooted
in the material culture of gift exchange. But the potential to open
up this process to an anonymous and potentially large readership
is new; bloggers are constantly connected to the world at large,
and aware of their exposure. Synchronisation, however, does not
prohibit self-reflection, just as privacy does not preclude openness.
Old and new functions of diary writing thus peculiarly merge into
a hybrid networked practice of blogging.
At first sight, a prime function of diary writing seems to be virtually
absent in the practice of blogging: paper diaries were meant to
fix experience in time, to freeze one’s thoughts and ideas into
words (and perhaps illustrated materials) to serve as a reminder
of former experience later on in life. In contrast, blogging seems
to be more about revising one’s experience over time, allowing to
adjust one’s former observations and reflection—even the ones stored
in the ‘archive’—as time goes by and as personality evolves. [6]
This difference in function is all too easily ascribed to a material
fixity of paper diaries as opposed to the apparent evanescent quality
of software or screen content. Yet if we focus on cultural practices
in conjunction to technology or form, we may find this opposition
to be quite ungrounded. For one thing, paper diaries were never
‘finished’ paper products; they were often exercises of writing
prone to later revision, because of a changing insight, retroactive
embarrassment, or due to a changing ambition or purpose in writing
the journal. Anne Frank, for instance, started to write a revised
version of her diary in March of 1944, several months before she
was deported to a concentration camp. Inspired by a government official
on the radio, who advised citizens to keep and save diaries from
the time of occupation for publication, Anne Frank decided to revise
her diary and turn it into book. The two ‘versions’ of Anne Frank’s
diary signify how time changes a person’s experience as well as
her memory of that experience. Revising one’s diary entries is inherent
to personal growth, particularly at a younger age.
Weblogs obviously meet the revisionist need of a diary writer,
as entries can be endlessly edited and deleted, even though the
ethicality of this is a matter of some controversy among bloggers
(Blood, 2002). Yet, from the contemporary blogger’s perspective,
that does not obliterate the urge to fix experience. Even though
blogging is by many considered a transitory cultural practice, just
as talking on the phone or sending short text messages, the desire
for storage and retrieval is evident. In the case of phone and sms-conversations,
Taylor and Harper (2003) found that some teenagers included in their
research express the wish to store each sms-exchange on a memory
card in order to recall the experience later: the message’s physical
properties (form, content, time and date stamp) all work in combination
to instil meaning into the physical. We can see a similar reconciliation
of seemingly opposite functions in the use of digital diaries. For
one thing, the very fact that bloggers use writing as their preferred
mode of expression indicates a desire to secure these symbolic exchanges
in some retrievable form, as their entries gradually turn into interesting
memory objects of past experiences. Moreover, almost every software
program contains an ‘archive’ holding selected entries and comments,
going back to the very beginning of a person’s weblog. Although
this has never been empirically tested, it would be no surprise
to find that bloggers, like teenagers using sms or the phone, would
value their archives as much as their log’s communicative functions.
In other words, synchronising experience and fixing experience in
time were never completely contradictory functions, but they have
perfectly merged in today’s weblogs.
Weblogs as signifiers of cultural transformation
Looking
at lifelogs and the cultural practices they engender, we can deduce
an interesting reinvention of age-old rituals, newly attuned to
the modalities of digitisation. Like the writing of paper diaries,
blogging is a process that helps express and order thoughts through
rituals, thus defining a sense of self in relation to others; diaries
and lifelogs are both acts and artefacts, in which materiality and
technology are interdependent on their changing cultural form, their
use and users. Rather than pinpoint differences and continuities,
I have tried to signal how functions and features of the analogue
and digital genre coexist and co-evolve. Some seemingly conflicting
genre features that have always existed are now reconciled in the
face of evolving hybrid practices, while other paradoxes persist.
Even though pen and paper are gradually being replaced by (networked)
computers, multimedial materiality still reflects personality and
individuality that was formerly signified by handwriting and paper
objects. The classification dilemma to distinguish diaries as strictly
private (written for oneself and by one person) or public (written
to be read by others) does not disappear with the advent of weblogs;
on the contrary, the ambiguity is amplified by the potential of
instant publishing. And finally, the cultural practice of blogging
easily blends the need to synchronise experience with the desire
to fix and revise experience in time. However, analysing
the evolution of a single case of a technology-form-practice nexus
was never a goal in itself; rather, I would like to explain how
this particular case signifies a larger techno-cultural transformation
that is much more profound than its traces left on the world wide
web. In tracking how a new hybrid practice of blogging evolves,
it is crucial to acknowledge how it sustains old and constructs
new epistemologies and how it indicates a transformation of important
cultural notions, specifically the paired-off notions individual
and collective, private and public, and memory and
experience.
Individuality and collectivity are redefined in the face of a culture
that values sharing. Weblog architecture, through encoded features
such as ‘my current mood’ ‘mini biography’ and ‘my interests’ on
the one hand, and ‘friend groups’ ‘syndication’ or ‘communities’
on the other (LiveJournal), favours a connected exploration
of the personal; what the internet does best is to create a forum
for collective discourses. Although reciprocation is certainly not
a condition for participating in the blogosphere, connecting and
sharing is definitely written into the technological condition.
Of all weblogs present on the internet today, some still resemble
conventional paper diaries while others have morphed into completely
new interactive formats, firmly rooted in internet culture. Through
weblogs, intimate reflections and revelations about personal, intellectual,
and artistic preferences are consciously shared with both known
and anonymous audiences. Weblogs and blogging might be seen as part
of a larger participatory turn in culture. In this culture of sharing,
the weblog finds its natural habitat: the digital diary becomes
instrumental as its multimedial modality equally allows for the
creation of one’s personal entries as well as for the exchange of
cultural contents (clippings, files, songs). Blogging software and
internet hardware, in this argument, are neither neutral technical
conduits nor simple commodities, but they are cultural artefacts
facilitating a social process in which exchange and participation
are conditions to enacting citizenship.
However, there is another side to this techno-cultural transformation
that often gets overlooked. The culture of reciprocation is not
solely based on linking the self to the net, but also on linking
the net to the self. Tracing cultural or political preferences of
other bloggers, one can decide to connect to people with similar
tastes and preferences; it is precisely this feature that makes
weblogs interesting for outsiders. With the use of fairly simple
software applications like AllConsuming.net, it becomes increasingly
easy to find correlations between bloggers and the cultural products
they mention via links or sidebars: books, music, television programs,
movies, etc. (Benson, 2003). Tracking software allows a glimpse
of the patterns and trends that emerge out of the topics shared
by a group. Coupled onto vast databases like Amazon and Google,
the possibilities for polling and marketing research are endless,
explaining Google’s eagerness to buy start-up companies like Blogger.[7]
Whereas many diaries (like OpenDiary and DearDiary)
started out as small communities of like-minded individuals, many
of these services are now owned by corporations. The downside of
the culture of reciprocity is instant marketability: personal taste
and cultural choices become instantaneously traceable and marketable
to commercial ventures. In a networked environment, where information
is constantly cached, weblogs have become gold mines for data diggers.
For bloggers, social norms concerning individuality and collectivity
appear to be in flux; nostalgic notions of personality and belonging
still persist, while new media reality prompts a keen awareness
of technological strategies directing individual taste and community
building.
The same ambiguity applies to blogger’s notions of privacy and
openness. As I pointed out above, privacy has always been an effect
rather than an intrinsic feature of a paper diary’s content, often
achieved through one’s familiarity with conventions for publication
and publicity. Our norms and laws of privacy protection are still
based on a strict distinction between ego-documents and public records;
if boundaries were often crossed in the past, for bloggers they
become increasingly fuzzy. As Nussbaum explains, bloggers have a
‘degraded or relaxed sense of privacy,’ depending on your perspective:
‘Their experiences may be personal, but there is no shame in sharing…
[and they get back] a new kind of intimacy, a sense that they are
known and listened to’(2004). Not only is there no shame in sharing:
bloggers actually take pride and find purpose in sharing. Privacy
is an effect determined by a click on the mouse. Instant publication,
however, changes the rules of the game. As the aforementioned MIT
Media Lab survey by Viegas shows, bloggers are hardly concerned
with the persistent nature of what they publish; the overwhelming
majority publishes private information about themselves or other
people without thinking about legal or moral consequences. Not surprisingly,
more than one third of all bloggers have gotten into trouble because
of things they have written in their blogs and the majority forgets
about defamation or liability when writing about others in networked
environments. Their understandings of private and public appear
full of contradictions: comments are personal yet readable by everyone,
intimate yet public. Old and new notions of privacy are contested
in the blogosphere; courts and lawyers are currently wrestling with
emerging questions like: can entries posted with restricted access
be ‘stolen’ when they are posted on an open website? Are public
officials or state employees free to speak their minds in the ‘private’
sphere of restricted blog communities? It will take a number of
years before this hybrid practice will have stabilised and grounded
in social and legal norms.
Lifelogs do not only signal altering notions of individuality and
privacy, but also of personal memory in relation to lived experience.
The paper diary reflected the idea that the memory object is a petrified,
unchangeable relic, stored in its authentic form and retrieved to
invoke a past experience. When a diary’s contents were published
through an intermediate process of editing, printing and distribution,
we were mostly concerned with how the ‘original’ words—assumedly
the recordings of experiences—matched the words published in print.
The fusion of old and new technologies results in a hybrid tool
that seamlessly combines communicative and archival functions; blogging
allows for exchanging, storing, and revising entries all at the
same time. Blogging itself becomes a (real life) experience,
a construction of self that is always mediated by tools for communication
and expression; in other words, the medium is the experience, not
the message. If the meaning of experience is slowly changing, so
is the meaning of memory. As time proceeds, memories of experiences
inevitably evolve; revising one’s past inscriptions is a natural
part of a process of personal growth. Rather than being fixed in
material paper objects, memory mutates through digital materiality.
Although the internet is often characterised as a transient, evanescent
medium, weblogs have both the ability to fix and the potential to
morph; blogging constitutes a new concept of memory, allowing for
preservation and erasure simultaneously.
Bloggers are retooling the practice of diary writing, meanwhile
creating a new type of cultural knowledge and social interaction
via their tools. The reciprocity inherent in networked systems points
at a profound reorganisation in social consciousness. Tracing media
change through its technology-materiality, as Kitzman proposes,
through its specific cultural forms, as Bolter and Grusin advocate,
or through an analysis of blogging as social action, as Miller and
Shepherd prefer, are all valuable prisms to look at this recent
phenomenon. In this article, however, I have attempted to examine
technological and cultural changes in constant connection
to socio-cultural practices, as an index to understanding the
larger socio-cultural transformations. In the case of lifelogs,
I have argued how old and new technologies, forms and practices
co-exist and yet co-evolve into hybrid practices. These hybrid practices
both reflect and construct new social norms and cultural concepts,
such as individual and community, privacy and publicness, experience
and memory. In a period of transition, these concepts fluctuate
and will continue to fluctuate, but unravelling such complex transformation
may help us sort out newly emerging cultural values. If we look
back at the cartoon, cited at the beginning of this article, we
now comprehend that the woman who starts typing her lifelog right
after denying her partner’s question whether she keeps a diary,
is not simply lying. In fact, the three frames of this cartoon perfectly
reflect the ambiguous reality in which millions of bloggers find
themselves today.
Author's Biography
José van Dijck is a Professor of Media and Culture at the University
of Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and Chair of the Department of Media
Studies. She has a PhD in Comparative Literature from the University
of California, San Diego. She has published widely on science and
media and on media technologies. Her latest book is The Transparent
Body. A Cultural Analysis of Medical Imaging (Seattle: University
of Washington Press, 2004). She is currently writing a book on media
technologies and cultural memory. [J.F.T.M.vanDijck@uva.nl]
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Eric Ketelaar for bringing the cartoon to
my attention and for his constructive comments on earlier drafts
of this paper. I would also like to thank Sonja Neef and the anonymous
referees of Fibreculture for sharpening my argument. Thanks
to Esther Milne for her editorial help.
Notes
[1] Emily Nussbaum (2004) takes this prediction
from an October 2003 inquiry by the Perseus Development Corporation,
a company that designs software for online surveys. Susan Herring
(2004), sociologist specialising in computer-mediated communication,
quotes the number of 4.12 million weblog users from the statistics
of the Perseus group. This number of bloggers also includes hosted
weblog services; 34% of these logs are used actively.
[back]
[2] Kitzmann (2003) grounds his approach in theories
by Hansen (2000) and Lyotard (1991). He emphasises that the concept
of ‘remediation’ implies too much linearity and hierarchy, instead
proposing to study media change in the context of the much wider
phenomenon of ‘material complexification’, in which change is not
cumulative ‘but [measured by] structural shifts that may lead to
growth, contraction, stasis, or a combination of all three’ (51).
[back]
[3] For the remainder of this paper, I will use
the term ‘lifelog’ to refer to the personal weblog, but with all
the caveats mentioned in the previous three paragraphs: lifelogs
can never be clearly separated from weblogs in general in terms
of content, referentiality or directionality.
[back]
[4] Although Kittler (1999: 198) states that the
typewriter disrupted the intimacy of handwritten expression, as
it ‘tears writing from the essential realm of the hand, i.e., the
realm of the word.’ It should be noted, though, that this idea does
not originally stem from Kittler; he is referring to Heidegger’s
Parmenides-lecture.
[back]
[5] As British sociologist John B. Tompson (1995:
233) has eloquently argued, individuals increasingly draw on mediated
experience to inform and refashion the project of self: ‘Mediated
rituals enable intimacy at a distance; for the generation living
in the digital age, the continuous switching between real live and
mediated communication is quite normal.’
[back]
[6] According to Viegas (2004), almost 75% of all
bloggers indeed edit their past entries, varying from punctuation
and grammar to contents and names.
[back]
[7] Pyra labs, one of the first start-up companies
who designed blogger-software, was bought up by Google in 2003.
For details on this transaction, see Kahney (2003).
[back]
References
Barnet, Belinda. ‘The Erasure of Technology in Cultural Critique’,
Fibreculture 1 (2003), http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue1/issue1_barnet.html
Benson, Erik. ‘All Consuming Web Services’, (2003), http://www.xml.com.lpt/a/ws/2003/05/27/allonsuming.html
Blanchard, Anita. ‘Blogs as Virtual Communities: identifying a
Sense of Community in the Julie/Julia Project’ in Gurak et al. (eds),
Into the Blogoshphere. Rhetoric, Community and Culture of Weblogs,
(2004), http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/
Blood, Rebecca. ‘Weblogs: A History and Perspective’, (2000), http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html
____. ‘The Weblog Handbook’, (2002), http://www.rebeccablood.net/handbook/excerpts/weblog_ethics.html
Bolter, Jay D. and Grusin, Richard. Remediation: Understanding
New Media (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999).
Chaney, David. Cultural Change and Everyday Life (Houndmills:
Palgrave, 2002).
Cheung, Charles. ‘A Home on the Web: Presentations of Self on Personal
Homepages’, in David Gauntlett (ed.) Web.Studies: Rewiring Media
Studies for the Digital Age (London: Arnold, 2000), 43-51.
Decker, William M. Epistolary Practices. Letter Writing in America
before Telecommunications (Raleigh: University of North Carolina
Press, 1998).
Derrida, Jacques. Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression,
trans. Eric Prenowitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).
Didier, Beatrice. Le Journal Intime (Paris: Editions du
Seuil, 1976).
Fernback, Jan ‘Legends on the Net: An Examination of Computer-mediated
Communication as a Locus of Oral Culture’, New Media and Society
5:1 (2003): 29-45.
Hansen, Mark. Embodying Technesis: Technology beyond Writing
(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000).
Hayles, N. Katherine. Writing Machines (Cambridge: MIT Press,
2002).
Herring, Susan. ‘Weblog as Genre, Weblog as Sociability’, (2004),
http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~herring/ssc.ppt
Kahney, Leander. ‘Why Did Google Want Blogger?’, Wired News,
(2003), http://www.wired.com/news/technology
Kawaura, Yasuyuki; Kawakami, Yoshiro; and Yamashita, Kiyomi. ‘Keeping
a Diary in Cyberspace’, Japanese Psychological Research 40:4
(1998): 234-45.
Kittler, Friedrich. Film, Gramophone, Typewriter (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1999).
Kitzmann, Andreas. ‘That Different Place: Documenting the Self
within Online Environments’, Biography 26.1 (Winter, 2003):
48-65.
Lejeune, Philip. Le pacte autobiographique (Paris: Editions
du Seuil, 1993).
Lyotard, Jean-François. The Inhuman. Reflections on Time,
trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Rachel Bowlby (Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1991).
Mallon, Thomas.A Book of One’s Own: People and their Diaries
(New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1984).
Marty, Eric. L’ecriture du jour. Le journal d’André Gide.
(Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1985).
Miller, Carolyn R. and Dawn Shepherd. ‘Blogging as Social Action:
A Genre Analysis of the Weblog’ in Gurak et al. (eds), Into the
Blogoshphere. Rhetoric, Community and Culture of Weblogs, (2004),
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/
Milne, Esther ‘Email and Epistolary Technologies: Presence, Intimacy,
Disembodiment’, Fibreculture 2 (2003), http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue2/issue2_milne.html
Neef, Sonja. ‘Die (rechte) Schrift und die (linke) Hand’, Kodikas/Ars
Semiotica 25: 1 (2002): 159-176.
Nussbaum, Emily. ‘My So-Called Blog.’ The New York Times Magazine,
11 January 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/magazine/11BLOGhtml
Ong, Walter. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the
Word (London: Routledge, 1982).
Piggott, Michael. ‘Towards a History of the Australian Diary’ Proceedings
of I-Chora Conference (International Conference on the History
of Records and Archives), University of Toronto, (October 2-4, 2003):
68-75.
Rodzvilla, John (ed.). We’ve Got Blog. How Weblogs are Changing
Our Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 2002).
Schaap, Frank. ‘Links, Lives, Logs: Presentation in the Dutch Blogosphere’
in Gurak et al. (eds), Into the Blogoshphere. Rhetoric, Community
and Culture of Weblogs, (2004), http://blog.lib.umn.edu/blogosphere/
Taylor, Alex S. and Richard Harper. ‘The Gift of the Gab? A Design-oriented
Sociology of Young People’s Use of Mobiles’, Journal of Computer
Supported Cooperative Work 12: 3 (2003): 267-296.
Tompson, John B. The Media and Modernity. A Social Theory
of the Media (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1995).
Viegas, Fernanda ‘Blog Survey: Expectations of Privacy and Accountability’,
(2004), http://web.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/survey/blog/results.htm
Yakel, Elizabeth. ‘Reading, Reporting, and Remembering: A Case
Study of the Maryknoll Sisters Diaries’, Proceedings of I-Chora
Conference (International Conference on the History of Records
and Archives), niversity of Toronto, (October 2-4, 2003): 142-150.
Zhang, Jane. ‘The Lingering of Handwritten Records’, Proceedings of I-Chora Conference (International
Conference on the History of Records and Archives), University of
Toronto, (October 2-4, 2003): 38-45.
TOP
|
