ritual disinhibition, shaming and play
January 5, 2016 11:00 PM Subscribe
A law from 1268 forbids the apparently common practice of putting on a mask and throwing eggs full of rose water at ladies.Normal eggs, I presume, were still permitted under this law.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 12:10 AM on January 6, 2016
Though the paragraph right after the rosewater-egg thing is phenomenal: masks as vehicles for liberation of baroque-era women!
But women soon realised that masks also protected one’s identity, and began to wear them when they were up to no good. Sometimes, that just meant attending the theatre – frowned upon because of the indecency of the performances, and the audience. But a mask also allowed a lady to flirt outrageously without losing her reputation, and was an indispensable accessory when sneaking off to an assignation. In short, as soon as people put on masks they begin to violate social norms.posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 12:12 AM on January 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
The word "persona" comes from the word for "mask." There is a way in which we play roles when we wear masks, when we adopt personas; there is a way in which we do what we would want to do anyway.
There are two ways in which people are checked from outside - one which involves an implication that the person is bad, and one which only includes and indication that the behavior is bad. Shame and guilt are the words varying used for either of these based on idiosyncratic connotations, but the underlying issue is are YOU and YOUR BEHAVIOR the same or not.
Masks allow us to shift the behavior to a not-me, to depersonalize the behavior. So do personas. Famous and powerful people often use personas to cover up vile deeds done to other people. But masks can also allow us to express parts of ourselves that he conceal which can have a positive effect. The behavior which results from the mask and the mask itself don't have an intrinsic value - like so may things, it's what you do not that you do which is important.
I worry about people building in excuses for behavior, excuses for a lack of shame/guilt about behaviors which harm others. I've been online for more than half my life as Deoridhe, and while I've occasionally felt disinhibited due to the distance from my legal identity, and I used that disinhibition to talk for the first time about when I was raped. Other people use the same disinhibition to issue rape threats, and I;m uncomfortable with equating these two things even if the function of the mask is identical.
Identity is fraught. Who we are includes a lot of personas. I can't help but feel that emphasizing that the mask is not an excuse is a way forward... but as always, I'm unsure.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:02 AM on January 6, 2016 [19 favorites]
There are two ways in which people are checked from outside - one which involves an implication that the person is bad, and one which only includes and indication that the behavior is bad. Shame and guilt are the words varying used for either of these based on idiosyncratic connotations, but the underlying issue is are YOU and YOUR BEHAVIOR the same or not.
Masks allow us to shift the behavior to a not-me, to depersonalize the behavior. So do personas. Famous and powerful people often use personas to cover up vile deeds done to other people. But masks can also allow us to express parts of ourselves that he conceal which can have a positive effect. The behavior which results from the mask and the mask itself don't have an intrinsic value - like so may things, it's what you do not that you do which is important.
I worry about people building in excuses for behavior, excuses for a lack of shame/guilt about behaviors which harm others. I've been online for more than half my life as Deoridhe, and while I've occasionally felt disinhibited due to the distance from my legal identity, and I used that disinhibition to talk for the first time about when I was raped. Other people use the same disinhibition to issue rape threats, and I;m uncomfortable with equating these two things even if the function of the mask is identical.
Identity is fraught. Who we are includes a lot of personas. I can't help but feel that emphasizing that the mask is not an excuse is a way forward... but as always, I'm unsure.
posted by Deoridhe at 2:02 AM on January 6, 2016 [19 favorites]
disinhibition
Interesting word. I hadn't thought about it's variance from the word 'exhibition' before.
posted by fairmettle at 2:56 AM on January 6, 2016
Interesting word. I hadn't thought about it's variance from the word 'exhibition' before.
posted by fairmettle at 2:56 AM on January 6, 2016
I think there's a bit of conflation of different things here, driven by reading online as a distinct state.
It's like those surveys that ask "How often do you use the internet"
For me there is not a tick box answer to that, just like there's no answer to "How many times a day do you use Oxygen"
What I mean is that my persona on Metafilter is linked to my profile and there is an element of performative identity here, but my persona at work is WorkMe and there is equally performative identity there, or performative identity to my child or to my friends. Every stage has a different facet to identity.
Metafilter doesn't get much toxic disinhibition because there is a persistent persona which these comments are linked to and I want the community to like me (or at least judge me correctly on my chosen performative identity).
Other fora either do not have such a strict identity constraint or result in identities far removed from "real life" facets of persona that you can perform wildly differently.
That doesn't need to be online.
Example: I went to a friends wedding from school where I knew no one but the groom, and he was busy getting wed so I couldn't chat much to him, so I just made up a new identity, new backstory, new behaviour. The link to actual me was so tenuous that I didn't much care what this person was like. It was a mask as much as a username can be.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 3:35 AM on January 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's like those surveys that ask "How often do you use the internet"
For me there is not a tick box answer to that, just like there's no answer to "How many times a day do you use Oxygen"
What I mean is that my persona on Metafilter is linked to my profile and there is an element of performative identity here, but my persona at work is WorkMe and there is equally performative identity there, or performative identity to my child or to my friends. Every stage has a different facet to identity.
Metafilter doesn't get much toxic disinhibition because there is a persistent persona which these comments are linked to and I want the community to like me (or at least judge me correctly on my chosen performative identity).
Other fora either do not have such a strict identity constraint or result in identities far removed from "real life" facets of persona that you can perform wildly differently.
That doesn't need to be online.
Example: I went to a friends wedding from school where I knew no one but the groom, and he was busy getting wed so I couldn't chat much to him, so I just made up a new identity, new backstory, new behaviour. The link to actual me was so tenuous that I didn't much care what this person was like. It was a mask as much as a username can be.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 3:35 AM on January 6, 2016 [2 favorites]
"...at least strong evidence that computers are alienating us from our humanity"
I think this is wholly incorrect. Rather, it seems more accurate to say that interacting with and through computers is expanding what is required of humanity.
Nearly everyone online today arrived without socialization or came up through an extraordinarily broken society. The disinhibition of the mask might be influential, but it pales in comparison to the exhortation of the crowd.
There are people for whom self worth and social acclaim are both founded on the awful things they do to people. To focus on the mask obscures the social regime which requires the action.
I'm also a bit put off by the pull quote:
posted by ethansr at 4:04 AM on January 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think this is wholly incorrect. Rather, it seems more accurate to say that interacting with and through computers is expanding what is required of humanity.
Nearly everyone online today arrived without socialization or came up through an extraordinarily broken society. The disinhibition of the mask might be influential, but it pales in comparison to the exhortation of the crowd.
There are people for whom self worth and social acclaim are both founded on the awful things they do to people. To focus on the mask obscures the social regime which requires the action.
I'm also a bit put off by the pull quote:
In internet shaming, the target is reduced to a single definition, made to wear the mask of the Sexist or the Racist, the Angry Feminist or the Race-BaiterThis doesn't seem quite true. What is more common, if we are to torture the mask metaphor even more, is that people incorporate aspects that could resemble those labels into their own masks. In some contexts these are interpreted as being positive, but in other negative. Whether the mask is transgressive or normative is dependent on that context.
posted by ethansr at 4:04 AM on January 6, 2016 [3 favorites]
Is being online the ultimate masquerade?
No.
posted by deanc at 4:38 AM on January 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
No.
posted by deanc at 4:38 AM on January 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
This sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole, because I recently learned of the Moretta mask, most notably of mid-1700s Venice, that required the lady who wore it to keep it in place by biting a small button or bit on the inside of the mask since there was no other means of keeping the mask on, and which thereby effectively rendered her mute while wearing it. This mask, also called "Servetta Muta, or mute maidservant," has painfully obvious connotations about the place of women, and online descriptions hew to the predictable about how this would obviously be popular with men, and how it was beguiling because it required the lady to communicate via gestures and body language, etc., but I wonder if it might also be notable because such a mask would also excuse the wearer from speaking with those she'd rather not respond to ... which may also be an aspect of "masks" on the internet.
In real life, refusing to acknowledge someone demanding your time and attention can lead to scary and even dangerous reactions, but if you can successfully remain incognito online, you can more easily choose whom to engage – or ignore.
(Mask sidebar: For those curious about the Moretta, I haven't been able to learn much so far about it except for some basic information. I was most curious whether women felt compelled to wear them by convention, or freely chose whether to wear one rather than another choice that would allow speaking ... and eating and drinking. I'm fascinated by this painting of "The Ridotto", c. 1760. The Ridotto was basically the state (legal) casino, where participants – ie, the gamers, not necessarily the workers / operators – were required to wear masks. Here we see the extravagantly gowned lady in the center wearing something more like a bauta mask, while directly behind her, and to her left and right, we see ladies wearing the moretta. Another lady, middle left, wears a domino-style half mask. Below her, one lady has boldly removed her moretta, apparently to either speak about, or gain the attention of, the fellow in front of her. Another lady, far right, bottom, has turned away to remove her moretta, allowing her to speak to her male companion for a moment. Who are the two unmasked men behind her, so intently focused on the yellow-skirted lady in the moretta? Some mystery there. At any rate, this image from the period seems to indicate that the moretta was one, but not the only, option for ladies wishing to go masked about town.)
posted by taz at 7:04 AM on January 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
In real life, refusing to acknowledge someone demanding your time and attention can lead to scary and even dangerous reactions, but if you can successfully remain incognito online, you can more easily choose whom to engage – or ignore.
(Mask sidebar: For those curious about the Moretta, I haven't been able to learn much so far about it except for some basic information. I was most curious whether women felt compelled to wear them by convention, or freely chose whether to wear one rather than another choice that would allow speaking ... and eating and drinking. I'm fascinated by this painting of "The Ridotto", c. 1760. The Ridotto was basically the state (legal) casino, where participants – ie, the gamers, not necessarily the workers / operators – were required to wear masks. Here we see the extravagantly gowned lady in the center wearing something more like a bauta mask, while directly behind her, and to her left and right, we see ladies wearing the moretta. Another lady, middle left, wears a domino-style half mask. Below her, one lady has boldly removed her moretta, apparently to either speak about, or gain the attention of, the fellow in front of her. Another lady, far right, bottom, has turned away to remove her moretta, allowing her to speak to her male companion for a moment. Who are the two unmasked men behind her, so intently focused on the yellow-skirted lady in the moretta? Some mystery there. At any rate, this image from the period seems to indicate that the moretta was one, but not the only, option for ladies wishing to go masked about town.)
posted by taz at 7:04 AM on January 6, 2016 [8 favorites]
I wondered when I learned about the Bauta if some women crossdressed and wore them as part of gaining illicit-ish power beyond their normal means. The clothing style of the time lends itself to cross dressing, since there were so many layers.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:47 PM on January 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Deoridhe at 1:47 PM on January 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older "This is a man's car." | Preserving Apple II history, one disk at a time Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by birdsquared at 11:58 PM on January 5, 2016 [2 favorites]