On April 4th, as a student of the CAP Global Citizens stream, I attended the Coordinated Arts Program Annual Conference. There were panels and showcases of the five different streams all represented. It was particularly interesting to the students from different streams coming together for creating a panel collaboratively.

Among others, I attended “Panel C: Global Power and Local Politics”. It started off with our fellow classmate, David How’s “Raise the Vote: Addressing the Youth Voter Crisis” pitch. For his presentation, I put on my Political Science 100 hat reminding myself of the different possible relationship between the state and its citizens and where the act of voting resides in democracy. The background knowledge I had cultivated in my Political Science class was critical in my ability to point out not just the importance of raising the youth voter by the number but by the consciousness and attitude towards politics.

The next presenter was Paul Andre Narvestad from the PPE stream who talked about the consequences of “The Faceless Drone: the Alienation of Soldiers in War by the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles”. I was already familiar with this issue but his presentation brought to light a new perspective towards the issue for myself. After considering the technological advancement that allows for the existence for both the seemingly virtual reality and the real reality that drones  present, I immediately thought about video games and movies circulating that glorifies war. Using a conflict theoretical approach, I thought of war as a business enterprise. They are efficient in selling war by means of weapons and popular culture, concurrently making sure that the war itself is running efficiently with drones.

The third panel was that of Cara Chuang also from the PPE stream who discussed the struggle in the dual existence of sovereignty and globalization in “Sovereignty Transformed”. This was also a topic familiar to myself as I have learned in Geography 122 course about the global implication of globalization. Globalization, along with its many benefits, can often unify many tradition and worse of, assimilate it to the hegemonic power.

Now, as to serve the purpose of this post as a summary of the year, I was content that I was able to make the various connections to the conference materials to my other courses. And along the lines of what was discussed in Cara Chuang’s presentation of the ramification of globalization, I realized that the act of engaging with these ideas was a sign of practicing conscious global citizenship. At the beginning of the year, when asked about what global citizenship meant to myself, I gave the answer somewhere along the lines of, “Being capable of making decisions and to be engaged with global affairs”. Although I still agree with what I said, I would also like to add that global citizenship starts with realizing where I stand in terms of privilege and social standing. And understanding that the values I hold is not necessarily of the benefit of others and more importantly, globalization is not always a glorifying concept. By comprehending your own standing in relations to others around. I believe global citizenship is to advocate for local and global engagement whether it be in the public discourse such as this conference.

The documentary Through a Blue Lens, effectively reflected a strong message against drug abuse by shining a light on the personal and compassionate elements of the addicts. For the purpose of our Arts Studies Course, my classmates and I analyzed this film with questions along the lines of “Whose narrative is showcased? and to what extent?”. But here, I analyzed some of the patterns of the general viewers’ criticism on the IMDb website towards the documentary and what it meant to the narratives of the addicts in the film.

“Before you make any stupid choice to try any drug, watch this movie first.” –mark_rules_all898 (one of the critics)

The most obvious and most commonly understood message of the film to the general viewers was “DON’T.DO.DRUGS”. The film’s emphasis on transparency in representing the everyday situation of the Downtown Eastside and, more importantly, their focus on the personal narratives of the stories such as that of Randy or Nicola’s seemingly give viewers a chance to humanize the subjects and detach them from the labeling as “unwanted people of Downtown Eastside”.

However, as much as the critics commemorate the effort of the film’s job in highlighting the stories of addicts as well as the personal reflections of police officers, there is a concern for what the film does to these narratives. In other words, although the critics often mentioned how deeply explored the film was, only one of them brought up the actual names of the addicts and their current well being. The critics, possibly unknowingly, received the “commodified version” of the “narrative of the addict”. The documentary frames these addicts’ narratives starting from a “zone of degeneracy” and develops in a way (as mentioned above) that viewers are given a “packaged version” of the addicts’ narratives. We are to be compassionate, sympathetic and be conscious about what drugs do to us. Although the film fulfills its purpose of exposing to the rest of the world what the Downtown Eastside looks like, it inevitably exploits the personal narratives (such as that of Randy and Nicola) to create a collective addicts’ narrative that is suitable for the audience. As viewers, it reminds us to be attentive to what the film is trying to portray and to go beyond the “packaged narrative” we are fed. Essentially, the question we must ask is, how can we maintain these personal narratives as more than a means of compassion and sympathy for the viewers?

While discussing about archives and testimonies in my Arts Studies class, I remembered a website titled StoryCorps that was introduced to me by my speech teacher back in high school. It is an online oral archive produced by a U.S governmental nonprofit organization and boasts “more than 45,000 interviews with nearly 90,000 participants” (About Us) in 10 years. But the uniqueness to this site is that it is advertised that “every life matters” (About Us). In other words, a story about how two marine corporals struggled to readapt to their lifestyle in the US is just as significant and valued at this archive as how a man and woman around their 50s met and married.

So why archive these very personal stories? Although some of the archived materials might not have meaning to us individually, these records appearing collectively help to “create an invaluable archive of American voices and wisdom for future generations” (About Us) and a greater American Identity. And for the participants, these acts of testimony might be what Naomi Angel refers to in “Before Truth: The Labors of Testimony and the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission”, an testimonial power on the “intimate terrain”(205). At first glance, StoryCorps seems to be as neutral as they come as it seemingly destroys the idea of “silencing” that is a prominent and often unavoidable feature in archives. It contains such un-framable stories with variety. However, although taken out of the reconciliation context, Gillian Whitlock in “Soft Weapons: Autobiography in Transit” argues that “the management of testimony is almost always strategic and in the national interest” (78) and StoryCorps perhaps is no exception. When looking at the StoryCorps Topics page, the some of the most advertised stories are of Military, 911, Identity, and so forth. Intendedly or unintendedly, StoryCorps have inevitably managed to silence many of the stories that do not conform to these categories like the stories of Aboriginal descents (with only 5 stories featured on the “En Espanol” topic).

Here, we are able to identify an obvious irony in the archives as a storage of testimony. The more open and neutral the archive promotes itself, the more diverse the stories within become. The more diverse the stories become, the more stories become non-conforming to particular categories and thus, many are left out. And unfortunately, this promotion of neutrality lowers the audience’s awareness to, as Rodney Carter refers to in “Of Things Said and Unsaid: Archival Silences, and Power in Silence”, “read against the grain” (224). When caught between the identity of an individual and a collective, it is unavoidable that not all personal identities are reflected in the collective identity. Thus, I believe this “unconformity” is a beauty and a critical feature of an American Identity that should somehow be more advertised in sites such as StoryCorps as it has introduced the public to the value of personal stories and as it pursues its mission of “provide[ing] people of all backgrounds and beliefs with the opportunity to record, share, and preserve the stories of our lives” (About Us).

As examined in my Arts Studies class, mapping the idea of space and place goes hand in hand with narratives. In Diamond Grill by Fred Wah, we are able to visually assess the structure of the Cafe itself physically and further infer meanings such as the swinging doors representing the the hyphen between Fed Wah’s origin that is Chinese-Canadian. So then, what does this tell us about our relationship between people and mapping of places?

After the discussion regarding the “meaning making process” of a narrative and place, I immediately thought of the Park51 controversy that occurred a few years back. It was a controversy regarding the movement to building a mosque 2 blocks north of the site of the 911 World Trade Center attack or commonly referred to as, “Ground Zero”. There was a strong opposition against the movement. It went as far to a point that President Obama publicly supported the rights for the building to be established. Opposition claimed that a significant muslim religious structure should not be instituted on a site where Islamic extremists had previously terrorised. The debate is centered around this intangible meaning of what Ground Zero means to people, whether they be American or a Muslim or both. What I want to point out here is the fact that humans are known to subjectively visualize and make tangible meanings of place and their significance. In this case, for the opposition of the movement after 911, Ground Zero became an almost “Islam-free” zone because of the terrorists close association with Islamic extremist views. As discussed in my human geography class, it is a significant example of “space and place”.

Now going back to the relationship between narratives and place and how they facilitate one another. It seems as though a common characteristic and a repeating pattern in narratives is the idea of exploring personal and collective identity. In order to examine these issues, maps are tools of “mapping out” one’s relationship with the place and people in more than one way. One map, for example, is the family map. A family map aids the individual assess their relationship not only as say, “father-son” but by looking into people associated around the father and son, we are able to see who has a significant influence on another. As I mentioned above, the ability for us humans to naturally infer meaning of places on maps come into play. Thus, it is important to note that this process of meaning making is a form of, a lack of a better term, a quest of justification of one’s identity. He/she is able to make meaning out of a large pool of information spread out in one map. Because of this vast number of visualized information, the connections he/she is able to draw from this map is a unique way of looking at the map.

But is it necessarily bad to be subjective? I do not think so. In this age where social media such as Facebook helps us define ourselves for us, these processes of mapping out and visualizing is an important device in trying to figure out one’s identity personally as well as a group. In other words, we should not be fed the idea of who we are, we should be able to explore them on our own. As individual, we should voluntarily infer our way of seeing ourselves and cultivate our idiosyncratic narrative.

Although 100% Japanese by ethnicity, growing up in three countries had myself challenging various cultural norms from an early age. Gender roles, uses of particular language were some significant issues I struggled to adapt to in various locations.

On the flip side, over the years, I have met and befriended multiple multi-ethnic people in many diversely represented situations like at an international school or at UBC. And almost always, these people describe themselves as, “I’m half Japanese” or “quarter Spanish”. But I never fully understood what it meant to be half “½” or quarter “¼” of a race. In my case, I am 100% Japanese but comparing myself to my friends from Japan, I do not understand enough about their culture to claim myself full “100%”.

As Fred Wah, the author of the fictional biotext, Diamond Grill lists his family members on the basis of how “Chinese” they are by percentages we can see how he values them as “racialized investments” (Page 83, Diamond Grill). Indeed, multiracialism, not just in a particular individual but within a community has come to be heavily valued. But what for?

For instance, when the State of California passed Proposition 209 in November 1996, all state government institutions were now legally disallowed from discriminating on the basis on ethnicity or gender. As a result, the University of California schools have lost a big portion of the minority in their student body since they could not allow for a guaranteed representation of minorities. As I have mentioned, the value placed on multiracialism can be observed here in the fact that university institutions demand for a representation of many ethnicities as possible. But again, how do these universities determine the races of the students? It is by a simple check off of a box by the applicant listing their ethnicity. There are no spaces set aside for any written explanation of their background.

My point is, are we, both monoracial and multiracial human beings, giving too much credibility to the genetics of our ancestors or the proportions of our ethnicities? In other words, what do we expect others to think of us when we list our percentages or tick off our ethnicity in a census or a college application? What does it tell, if anything, about us? Ultimately, I believe we are allowing others to view us a certain way and that is often, simply stereotypes.

Often my friends joke around saying I have become too “Americanized” as I have lived in the U.S for my four years of high school. Putting aside the question of what the exact definition of being “Americanized” is, I see the irony in the fact that I am seen as a product of socialization (like we should) in the American society and concurrently, I am still given a stereotypical label that is an “American”. This act of ignorance or lack of attention to individual human being and the act of settle the issue of sorting one’s race by conveniently checking them off into categories might very well be the fundamental barrier and disparity that is created between races and ethnicities. I believe the fact that we universally classify ourselves on the basis of percentages of culture points to the reality that we are somewhat neglecting to represent our own selves fully.

Thinking about my courses and its learning centered around the question, “What does it mean to be a global citizen?”, I thought it was worthwhile to look into current issues and where life narratives comes into play in contextualizing these issues. I would like to bring up a personally familiar issue (due to my Japanese background) regarding the Korean “comfort women”. “Comfort women” are, as defined by this BBC news article, a “Elderly women once forced to work in Japan’s military brothels” during the Second World War. (However, I feel as though the term is politically incorrect as what they experienced was far from “comfort”. As of now, I will refer to them as “victims” of human trafficking.)

The political dilemma here is the fact that the Japanese government and the Korean government have taken polarized views on the issue. The Japanese government claim the fact that there are not enough evidence for a forceful trafficking of the women. The Korean government claims to be that in fact, “victims” were forcefully abducted and that the Japanese government must be accountable. Whether which claim is valid, the two sides have a rigid opinionated view and will not back down for it will result in their global inferior position politically.
Although, I will not take a side on this issue in regards to the truthfulness of the account, it is interesting to see Korean government’s adoption of the testimonial life narratives of the claimed “victims” who are still alive today.

“But we were dragged there and it was hell,” she said. “It is not a place for a human being to live. It was a slaughterhouse where so many young girls died.” – Ok Sun Lee

This is one of many of the accounts (other accounts are found here.) made by former “victim” of human trafficking at a community college in New York. I repeat. A community college in NEW YORK. Not only are these traumatic life narratives used for direct debate between Korea and Japan, they have become a global messenger of the event. In the political spectrum, however, this not only victimize Korea and brings about a sympathetic view towards them but effectively vilifies Japan.

As discussed thoroughly in Shaffer and Smith’s article, “Conjunctions: Life Narratives in the Field of Human Rights”, a particular question of, to what extent can one individual’s story represent the story of the collective’s experience? comes up. To this inquiry, however, it must be emphasized that it not necessarily the life narrative’s objective to publicize for the bigger issue at hand. Instead, it is the marketing strategies of these life narratives that reaches consumers in a way that the audience find the desire to link this personal account of an event to the larger cause. Particularly in the case of the “victims”, they are asking for the recognition of such horrific events and violations of human rights. But by the Korean government’s effort into commodifying it as a narrative of a collective and the current political tension between the two countries, they have built a “soft weapon” (as mentioned by Gillian Whitlock in her article, “Introduction: Words Made Flesh”) to vilify Japan and to question her accountability. It is very obvious to recognize the marketing strategies taken by Korean political lobbyists. For example, they have built a statue of a “victim” built in Los Angeles. Yes, in Los Angeles. In what ways, other than oblivious political intentions, can this act be observed through? If this was a statement for human rights, why Los Angeles?

-Statue of Comfort Women at Glendale, CA (Photo taken from ChosunMedia)

We all understand the implicit issue of a violation of human trafficking. However, to what extent can we over advertise the event so that it becomes another evidence for a larger cause? And how can we, as consumers realize this underlying process to market life narratives? As many new forms of life narratives have come into existence and the more easily they are transported, often going under modification, it is important for the audience to be aware of the underlying implication of acts of autobiographies. And sometimes, it is often good to come back to the basics, like in this case, the recognition of a severe human rights violation, and not to simply regard it as political evidence.

While on my daily stroll around the internet, I stumbled across a youtube clip titled, “Video Stores Explained To Modern Kids” by BuzzFeed. This clip talks about the loss of interactions and tangible actions with the popularization of the Internet. And this got me thinking about the effects of technology in the “Transit of Life Narratives” as discussed by Gillian Whitlock. But more specifically, what effect does the method of marketing life narratives through digital means differ from that of the physical transaction?

One evident effect of the digitalization of life narratives is the emergence of the variety in forms they now come in. As discussed extensively in my Arts Studies class, new forms of social media such as Facebook has become a popular means of transmitting life narratives. This created higher accessibility for the readership but at the same time it has given many power and authority to write autobiographies. While reading one of my colleagues’ blog post regarding the right for all to express their narratives, I wondered if the right of many to do so originated due to this technological advancements and for many to share their stories literary from their bedrooms.

As discussed once again in class, the spread of power to share from the industry to the people has become a prominent shift in the transit of life narratives. Currently, the act of picking and choosing which life narratives are to be shared is done by, not the publishing industry, but by our own hands. It avoids the necessary detour of the publishing corporations trying the best to fit the consumers needs. Instead, it drives right into the demands of individuals and by the collective actions of the individuals, we can assess what our collective demand is.

However, this raises questions regarding the authenticity of not only the works, but the way readership critique and value these works. After all, as the number of people with access to any social media increases, so does the quantity of life narratives out there on the internet. Naturally, as quantity increases, the value of these products goes down. As we casually scroll down stories on facebook, do we ever think of the effect of we have in not appreciating these stories. Sure, there is an abundance of uninteresting and unnecessary narratives, but aren’t these unworthy stories neglecting the whole genre of life narratives? Some might argue, many stories are picked up online and become a phenomena. Well are they picked up because of their direct cry to our sympathetic element?

Going back to my point of authority and no tangible interactions within the process of producing and consuming these life narratives, we are forever losing the values of the life narratives and are generalizing life stories as they can only be seen as touching stories. We fail, myself included, to question the effects to what these narratives are trying to tell us. Is it a call for human rights? or is it to raise awareness for our behavior? The one act of clicking the share button does not justify the consumption of life narratives.

Although heavily discouraged to do so, we have all looked up information on Wikipedia. Because of its high accessibility (also the fact that Google and many other search engines guides us to solutions through Wikipedia), they are recognized as sixth on the most popular websites. The use of Wikipedia raises some interesting concerns regarding my recent discussion made in our Arts Studies class. In reading What is the What by Dave Eggers, many of us raised the concern of how much power Dave Eggers had in redistributing the story of protagonist, Valentino Achak Deng. This coincides with many of the dilemmas of the “autobiographies” present on Wikipedia. I quoted the word autobiographies because although they are not official autobiographies and mere subjective points brought forth by anyone on the web, many of the readership utilize Wikipedia as a source of summary of a life or a series of events. Exactly who are deemed necessary to have a page? If any web user could edit the page, which agency agrees upon this right to write and shape oher’s life narrative?

In relations to the film, God Grew Tired of Us directed by Tommy Walker, Christopher Dillon Quinn, I observed the three Sudanese lost boys focused in the film, John Dau, Daniel Pach and Panther Bior. Immediately, I noticed the fact that Daniel did not have a Wikipedia page. After observing the pages of John and Panther I recognized the various involvement and occupations both John and Panther had and Daniel did not.

“Dau is an experienced social entrepreneur. He has founded three non-profit 501(c)3 organizations.” -John’s Wikipedia Page

“Panther is partnering with Heaven’s Family, an international ministry based out of Pittsburgh, in an effort to build a school in his homeland.” -Panther’s Wikipedia Page

As we noticed while watching the film, Daniel was also neglected later in the film for his relative unsuccessful adaptation to life in the United States. Could this signify the case in which success determines whose stories are heard and whose are not? As seen in the references and external links of both John and Panther’s pages, we see many recognizable organizations picking up their stories. Does this disparities in having a Wikipedia page based on recognition tell us of the value of success we favor in our society? If this is the case, what can we do to change this current status?

-John’s Wikipedia References and External Links: They include household names such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. Also his foundation, John Dau Foundation, provides many with access to his current actions and more credibility to his name.

Ironically, it is our privilege and ability to write online. We, as consumers and producers of life narratives, should use this given status to alert others that our values are not the only determining factor in reaching out towards life narratives. For example, western readership value traumatic life narratives, as proposed by Schaffer and Smith’s “Conjunctions: Life Narratives In the Field of Human Rights”, because of the relativity it provides with the reader and the traumatic experience, but these values based on our necessities should not be the sole reason why we read these life narratives. With access to webpages such as Wikipedia at our disposal, there is nothing inhibiting us from spreading these life narratives. However, as I mentioned in a blog post regarding the various sexual assault cases on campus, I believe people can subjectively and often unconsciously, change the form of life narratives and I understand the difficulty in transmitting life narratives. As discussed in my Political Science 100 class regarding the issue of humanitarianism, acts that we believe will benefit others might not be the case to that of the receiving end. But as responsible global citizens, it is in our duty to take selfless acts in retaining and redistributing stories of others with ethical consideration. With a significant “voice” in the internet, we were granted the “dilemma” to shape what we consume and to reproduce.

To the readers of this blog post:
What do you think are the consequences of second hand redistribution of life narratives in the form of a page on the internet such as Wikipedia? Do you think that the pros of the consequences brought upon the stories where everyone is heard regardless outweigh the cons of the alteration of these stories?

Reading Lynsee’s blog post regarding Facebook and its effective method in engulfing us in adopting this social network as an autobiographical site inspired me to look into other sites that are at our disposal that can be adopted as a form of autobiography (Thanks Lynsee!). So I looked up the most popular sites of 2012 and sure enough after Google on top, Facebook in 2nd place, came Youtube in at bronze. I wanted to see how Youtube catered to our needs and how it could be seen as an emerging form life narrative.

One obvious feature that Youtube has (as it is owned by google) is its capability to link itself to other social networking sites such as Google+ and Facebook. You can login using your Google ID and this provides the personalized service. Quite contradictory to its mission statement of a “forum for people to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators”  where emphasis is put upon connecting us to new inspirations, like facebook, logging in introduces me to videos and publishers I have previously viewed. I can sense the dilemma of Youtube in it’s main interest in keeping the audience engaged as well as inspiring them to explore new videos. They find ways to cater us personally like many other social media. And this also reflects upon, Youtube’s evolution from sharing videos as opposed to consuming them. I know for a fact a majority of my peers never upload videos but enjoy Youtube as a personal tv channel.

However, new users without any social media connection would not find any forms of recommendation but popular (in terms of the number of views at recent times) on different popular categories such as Sports, Music, and Gaming such as below.

Sticking to my initial investigation of Youtube as an autobiography, I found a tab on my personalized Youtube of “what to watch”. I find the wording to very commanding and like tabs that read “you may also like” on facebook, it gives me the same personalized recommendation. When thinking about why it might be titled this way, I thought about the niche and kairos of Youtube. We often visit Youtube, at least personally I do, to disengage our brains to find something to laugh at or at least to engage our minds with something of our interest. In other words, its use is in leisure. And so “what to watch” can be appropriate in leading the viewer in a certain tangent to start the so called, seemingly neverending “Youtube streak”. Often, when we watch videos we see related videos and even recommended videos on the rights side and we just simply cannot stop.

Finally, a feature that I have never found out until this day was that Youtube had a dedicated page to myself. Although I have never uploaded a video through my account, it gives me a place for my very own chanel icon, chanel art, and even my thoughts. Hmmmm, I wonder where I have seen the same pattern… This ultimately symbolizes what we as users want out of such services. We no longer want to see just the most viral videos, we are inclined to be part of the experience of sharing and the transit of stories and life narratives.

So what do all of these points say about Youtube as a role as a life narrative? By picking out what to subscribe to, comment on, and share, we are able to create this catering personal service. Like facebook, it shapes our likes and dislikes and categorize them to our favor. In some ways, Youtube features are not so different from creating your own profile on facebook. And the fact that we can easily share these preferences through other social networking means establish the site as a form of autobiography purely through engagement with others in the forms such as commenting, subscribing, centered around the videos uploaded. And this in turn represents our demand in wanting to participate in the process of exchanging life narratives. The necessity to share and comment shows us how we express and shape our own opinion in relations to the material shared. The interaction in which Youtube provides in the various videos we watch is our life narrative on the web. The key features discussed above are just the tangible representation of our demand.

Youtube “Broadcast Yourself”

I have almost forgot about this motto. When Youtube began in February of 2005, its objective was solely to share videos, the website itself was not as user friendly as it is now in engaging others and if I recall correctly, it  certainly was not catered to our preferences. But where are we now? We can say that Youtube is still a tool of broadcasting ourselves but not in the means of uploading videos but in the form of engagement with others and establishing ourselves in the relations to the others on the web.

Quick question:
Have you ever read Samuel Langhorne Clemens’ novels? Or that of Stanley Martin Lieber’s comics?

No? Well, I can almost guarantee you that you have.

What if I told you that the author created Adventures of Huckleberry Finn or the latter created the famous Marvel Series?

Yes, they are the actual names of authors we all know, Mark Twain and Stan Lee. Sure, Mark Twain and Stan Lee are a concise and readily recognizable names when put on a cover or a novel or a comic, but what was their purpose in abandoning their given name, that is their identity, and adopting a pen name? Does this give them a new identity and a relief of their responsibility and reputation they carry with their real name? In the genre of blogging life narratives of Salam Pax or Riverbend, we can see the clear security of identity but at the same time what does this do to their privilege and power?

One clear cut reason for many to adopt pen names is for their security. But furthermore, this security gives them a sense of liberty and concurrently authority to be able to express themselves in ways previously impossible. In the cases of Pax or Riverbend, it is doubtful these authors would be able to criticize the political situation and take the “overlooking” situation as if to emphasize their critical role in having knowledge of the outside world looking in, as well as the actual events taking place in the Middle East in their respective cities. Not only do these pseudonyms gives them a sense of authority, it also makes available to us, the readership, to recognize the underprivileged and oppressiveness they are put under.

A particularly interesting adoption of pseudonyms occurred recently when J.K Rowling, author of the Harry Potter Series, took the male name of Robert Galbraith to publish her new novel, the The Cuckoo’s Calling. However, as the secret was soon revealed, Rowling was quick to admit the fact that she was trying to situate herself in a fresh setting to challenge her strength as a writer. Although readers were quick to realize the completeness of her new piece and thus question who it actually was that wrote this piece, this highlights the role of pseudonyms in the need to contextualize or rather in this case “un-contextualize” the author from their reputation.

In this clip below, an American violinist, Joshua Bell performs at a metro station several nights after he performed in a concert hall in front of a sold out crowd who paid 100 dollars each. How does the busy crowd react?

Stop and Hear the Music -WashingtonPost

Quite shocking right? Not many acknowledge his performance let alone paid attention to him. This depicts the social instinct in which we are constantly in need and guidance of labeling and associating names with works and achievements. This raises a doubt in to what extent are we blindly trusting the public reputation in our daily lives unconsciously? Are we reading the work of authors because of their status as a reputable author? I believe that by adopting the pseudonyms of interest, one can establish a “brand” in themselves and fully adopt the names to consolidate their readership.