Advertisement

Sexuality and Culture

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 24–52 | Cite as

Coming to terms: Using technology to know identity

  • Darryl B. Hill
Articles

Abstract

Recent advances in information and communication technologies have led some cultural theorists to hypothesize that Western society is undergoing a dramatic change in ways of knowing one’s self and identity. Cases in point are those people who identify as “trans” (i.e., cross-dressers, transsexuals, transgendered persons). In the first half of the twentieth century, trans persons had very limited contact, if any, with others like themselves. The argument of cultural theorists is that increasingly sophisticated information and communication technologies have encouraged the development of trans communities across North America. An analysis of the narratives in an oral history project involving Toronto’s trans community largely supports the assertions of project involving Toronto’s trans community largely supports the assertions of cultural theorists. The majority of respondents felt communication technologies played a central role in their developing sense of gender. Communication technologies generally provided a sense of connection with others, alleviated the isolation and loneliness, and provided hope by showing that a trans person’s life was possible. However, many respondents also reported critical misgivings about communication technologies and their influence on trans subjectivities.

Keywords

Communication Technology Chat Room Transsexualism Talk Show Trans People 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, J. (2002). Queer webs: Representations of LGBT people and communities on the World Wide Web. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies 7, 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bargh, J.A., McKenna, K.Y.A., & Fitzsimmons, G.M. (2002). Can you see the real men? Activation and expression of the “true self” on the Internet. Journal of Social Issues 58, 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baudrillard, J. (1975). The mirror of production. St. Louis, MO: Telos.Google Scholar
  4. Baudrillard, J. (1983). Simulations (P. Foss, P. Patton, & P. Beitchman, Trans.). New York, NY: Semiotext (e) (Original work published 1981).Google Scholar
  5. Baudrillard, J. (1993). The transparency of evil: Essays on extreme phenomena (J. Benedict, Trans), New York, NY: Verso, (Original work published 1990).Google Scholar
  6. Bell, S. (1993). Kate Bornstein: A transgender transsexual postmodern tiersian. In A. Kroker & M. Kroker (Eds.), The last sex: Feminism and outlaw bodies (pp. 104–120). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  7. Best, S. & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern theory: Critical interrogations. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bornstein, K. (1994). Gender outlaw: On men, women, and the rest of us. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Collier, G., Minton, H.L., & Reynolds, G. (1991). Currents of thought in American Social Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cooley, C.H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Scribner.Google Scholar
  12. Cooper, A., Boies, S., Maheu, M., & Greenfield, D. (2000). Sexuality and the Internet: The next sexual revolution. In L.T. Szuchman & F. Muscarella (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on human sexuality (pp. 519–545). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  13. Dank, B.M. (1979). Coming out in the gay world. In M.P. Levine (Ed.), Gay men: The sociology of male homosexuality (pp. 103–133). New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  14. Ekins, R. (1997). Male femaling: A grounded theory approach to cross-dressing and sex-changing. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Ekins, R., & King, D. (Eds.) (1996). Blending genders: Social aspects of cross dressing and sex changing. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Gagné, P., Tewksbury, R., & McGaughey, D. (1997). Coming out and crossing over: Identity formation and proclamation in a transgender community. Gender & Society 11, 478–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gamson, J. (1995). Must identity movements self-destruct? A queer dilemma. Social Problems 42, 390–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gamson, J. (1998). Publicity traps: Television talk shows and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender visibility. Sexualities 1, 11–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garber, M. (1992). Vested interests: Cross-dressing and cultural anxiety. New York, NY: HarperPerennial.Google Scholar
  20. Gergen, K.J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Gottschalk, S. (1993). Uncomfortably Numb: Countercultural Impulses in the Postmodern Era. Symbolic Interaction 16, 351–378.Google Scholar
  22. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Haraway, D. (1990). A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. In L. Nicholson (Eds.), Feminism/ Postmodernism (pp. 190–233). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Hegland, J.E., & Nelson, N.J. (2002). Cross-dressers in cyber-space: Exploring the Internet as a tool for expressing gendered identity. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies 7, 139–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herdt, G. (Ed.). (1994). Third sex, third gender: Beyond sexual dimorphism in culture and history. New York, NY: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  26. Hill, D.B. (1996). The postmodern reconstruction of self. In C. Tolman, F. Cherry, R. van Hezewijk, & I. Lubek (Eds.), Problems of Theoretical Psychology (pp. 265–273). North York, ON: Captus Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kendall, L. (1996). MUDder? I hardly know’er!: Adventures of a feminist MUDder. In L. Cherny & E.R. Weise (Eds.), Wired women: Gender and new realities in cyberspace (pp. 207–223). Seattle, WA: Seal Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lyotard, J. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original published in 1979).Google Scholar
  29. MacKenzie, G.O. (1994). Transgender nation. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press.Google Scholar
  30. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. McKenna, K., Green, A., & Smith, P. (2001). Demarginalizing the sexual self. Journal of Sex Research 38(4), 302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyerowitz, J.J. (2002). How sex changed: A history of transsexuality in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nataf, Z.I. (1996). Lesbians talk transgender. London, UK: Scarlet Press.Google Scholar
  34. Norris, C. (1990). What’s wrong with postmodernism: Critical theory and the ends of philosophy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behavior. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Rothblatt, M. (1995). The apartheid of sex: A manifesto of the freedom of gender. New York, NY: Crown.Google Scholar
  37. Seidman, S. (1994). Contested knowledge: Social theory in the postmodern era. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Shapiro, E. (2004). “Trans” cending barriers: Transgender organizing on the Internet. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 16, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith, M.A., & Kollock, P. (Eds.) (1999). Communities in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the net: Women, power, and cyberspace. North Melbourne, AU: Spinifex Press.Google Scholar
  41. Stone, A.R. (1995). The war of desire and technology at the close of the mechanical age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Stone, S. (1991). The empire strikes back: a posttranssexual manifesto. In J. Epstein & K. Straub (Eds.), Bodyguards: The cultural politics of gender ambiguity (pp. 280–304). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Whittle, S. (1998). The trans-cyberian mail way. Social & Legal Studies 7, 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Young, K.S. (1997, August). Internet addiction: What makes computer-mediated communication habit forming? Paper presented to the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Chicago.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Darryl B. Hill
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Staten IslandCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations