Summary: Unspun - Chapter 4 (Race)

Chapter 4 – Race

Lisa Nakamura points out that “the Internet is inherently democratic and color-blind because its users can engage with it anonymously”. It is this belief that suggests that the internet is race free, as there are no physical characteristics tied to online correspondence. Already, the internet breaks down divisions between writer/reader, audience/speaker and Self/Other. Search engines help by searching for information, finding news and weather reports, and becoming a portal for further online surfing. The structure of the internet was so quickly accepted that not one user even suspects it has political leanings built into its design. Furthermore, the information presented to the internet user is downright overwhelming, so the use of these “portals” and search engines help focus the reader and limit the oversaturation of information. Using the internet without these devices would come later, after the user becomes more used to surfing the web without an aid.

The structures of these portals “reaffirm traditional racial categories rather than challenge them”. The content is still identical, but the perception of it is changed. When a term is searched, the user is presented with certain choices within the parameters of the search that the engine performed. The choice of term greatly affects the returned results, as does the category that is searched under. Entering “race” returns results that don’t pertain to the definition that is being studied here. Entering “racial” gives the user a closer interpretation, but one that was grouped in a way that made it hard to cross-reference. One would not be able to study two of the categories at the same time. This structure lends itself to limitations that discourage “the possibility of alternate or hybrid definitions of identity”. The search engine leaves the user with a false sense of choice. Even the more “diverse” choices remind the author more of the “National Census form”. Unlike the search engine, the Census allows for an “Other” category that was made to accommodate the nuances of American identity. The search engine—“Excite” in these examples, was limited to “black-and-white” and choices which do not “reflect the identities of actual people who are using the Web to find information about their race in particular or about ‘race’ in general”, reducing the various ethnicities of the world into separate categories. This structure allows for a “colonialist” or “imperialist” view of it all, casting the user as white as a default and not allowing the non-white user to feel included. Gender is also a “fork”, with “men’s issues” separate from “women’s issues”.

Poster is quoted in the next paragraph as saying that there is the need for “the construction of new combinations of technology with multiple genders and ethnicities.” He also points out the “politics” of the programmers, who, for the most part, are white males. Because of this, minorities will rarely be represented at this point in time. Even though it is impossible to pin this all on an individual company, it is still a good way to examine society’s view on minorities. “Portals” allow only a limited view of the internet at large. The omission of “White/European” and “interracial” is a disservice to the internet as a whole, encouraging racial inequality. Zickmund hopes that the “openness” of the internet will become an “ally” against “bigotry and racism”. Turkle extends that by stating that the “more fluid sense of self” that the internet exhibits allows greater “diversity”. “Optimistic librarian rhetoric” outlines the idea that “information wants to be free”, thus freeing the user from their bodies by default.

However, the internet does not fulfill these hopes. It is partially the fault of those people whose online presences merely exaggerate and worsen racial stereotypes, either by being offensive and doing it on purpose to degrade someone or by accident and embracing the stereotypical images. This is evident in the rise of ninjas and geishas as avatars. This allows for an “anachronistic” view of Asians and allowing the user to enact his or her own image of that culture.

The absence of bodies is not always guaranteed. There are still outside bodies that are denied things for racial reasons. Despite the openness of the Web and the opportunity for obscurity, there are certain factors that simply cannot be erased.

“Web demographics are always in flux.” The African American community has expressed a desire to go online. However, the author points out that minorities use the internet less than the white community. Minorities are “underrepresented” because of the unavailability of the internet for them. Government “web literacy” programs tended to concentrate on white students and those in the upper-middle-class. Sadly, the government missed the fact that these students already had access, thus starting the playing field unevenly. Not only are African American web users few, but the number of African American programmers is even lower. This is a disadvantage regarding the fact that the internet is used increasingly to get jobs and get people networking, as well as heralding the “digital culture”. Because of the large discrepancy between the number of white people versus African American people, this new job-seeking technology is biased towards whites. Importantly, this is unconscious, as some young web designers are quite liberal. In this way, it is important to capitalize on this and make it so the web is not going to be biased. By doing this, there is the possibility to beat bias and racism in everyday life.

The Web is the closest thing to a “public sphere” that is available worldwide. The very nature of it allows discourse regarding “identities, racial and otherwise” and how they are presented. It is not a true public square because of the predominance of non-diverse users. Even as it has the capacity to break free, it still is more easily equipped to categorize. The author uses the example of typing in one’s last name and watching how easily it is categorized by “biologist and essential notions of race.”

The Web is elastic and the most changed medium out there. It is constantly adding on and adapting itself to new web technologies. It is not the most credible source of information, mostly because of its penchant to rank information and package the information in pretty packaging so it looks convincing. False and true information can be presented side by side and it is the duty of the online user to distinguish between the two. The same term in a search engine can return two radically different sites. Race “happens” through “content” and with the framework in which one searches. Race happens especially due to hyperlinks, which can either challenge racial choices or force the user to choose a specific race.

Anzaldua, a writer on the subject on multiculturalism, does not mention technology, but it is interesting to note how she branched out her own terms regarding race, much like her own personal search engine. Much like one explores their heritage by returning to the land of their ancestors, search engines help one explore the many facets of the person’s heritage. Both are examples of searching.

The Web, through its ability to allow different kinds of identities, both “encourages tolerance” and allows the identities that were created to “fall between the cracks of hierarchy.” This, unfortunately, makes the user choose the dominant identity, if such a thing is even able to exist. The user may fall victim to falling for stereotypes. Developers and users of the internet must take care to preserve the idea of multiethnicity while the technology is still being developed. The ability to surpass these search engines-cum-“portals” comes with learning about the technology, which is limited by socio-economic status. The user who is unfamiliar will fall into those aforementioned traps.

The author explains that it all “boils down to the need for expanded minority access and representation online.” By having minorities help build the web, the pitfalls of the homogenous programming will fall away. Even with purely ethnic websites on the rise, it does not embrace the Web’s capacity to eradicate “bigotry and racism”. “Until increased education, economic parity, and changing cultural priorities make the Web accessible to racial minorities, the medium will reflect the often unconscious racial assumptions and priorities of corporations.” Until then, the user must re-examine how they use the internet and wait for a significant change in the manner of websurfing, paying special attention to the way menus classify us.