Deception in the Virtual World: A Semiotic Analysis of Identity
Drawing on the impact
of the Internet on our experience of space and time, and how it shapes our
personal identity, this article explores the significance of deception in
the virtual world and explains how identity is established in online communities
[under the effects of identity deception] and the conditions that give rise
to it. Little work has been done on identity formation through the visual
interfaces of cyberspace and other web design communities. My purpose here
is not only to use semiotics to analyze the web as a communication tool, but
also to analyze some of the paradigms of identity that may exist in the virtual
world, where online identity makes the Internet the ideal interface environment
among human beings all around the world. As such, they feel free to communicate
the way they want (i.e., being very expressive, swapping gender, telling lies,
reinventing themselves, and so on).
world, sometimes called the web, cyberspace (first popularized by
William Gibson’s classic Neuromancer in 1984), or simply “the
Internet” for practical purposes in this article, is both
an environment and a complex system—devised and maneuvered
for the act of signification to take place. We speak of connected
communities, but we tend to forget that the virtual community, a
universe made of signs and a paradise for semioticians, has a “semiotic
unity” (McHoul, 1996, p. 48) which may be unintelligible to
other communities. As in all semiotic systems, the virtual world
is a network and an entanglement of icons, indexes, and symbols,
with each type of the trichotomy (Peirce, 1931) being contingent
on the others, even for its own definition. The term “web”
assumes that we locate ourselves not only physically but also socially
and symbolically. The physical limitations of geography and body
are replaced by the constraints of codes.
been applied to the notion of virtual community as the global network,
the unlimited, self-organizing nature of cyberspace, and a phenomenon
of “wired identity” (Barrett, 1989; Druckerey, 1996).
In communication, to know the identity of those with whom we communicate
is a key to the understanding and the evaluation of an interaction.
However, like actors on stage (Goffman, 1969), web users are oftentimes
performers, deliberately altering their identity. Indeed, one of
the characteristics of the Internet is that it has been associated
with freedom of self-invention, such as intentional gender swapping.
The media also provides a range of stars and icons from whom web
users can easily borrow bits and pieces of public persona when communicating
in cyberspace. Web users create an imaginary or borrowed self, with
an imaginary or borrowed ethnicity, religion, language, civil status,
historical affiliation, or lifestyle. Re-imaging/imagining ourselves,
what Turkle (1995) calls “reconstruction of self,” through
technology seems like an empowering concept. The fact that one’s
self can be reinvented in cyberspace suggests that identity is a
quality of the human psyche that determines how we reveal ourselves
to others. Web users can construct, embody, and reveal any one of
a range of possible social identities, depending on the situation.
Drawing on the
impact of the Internet on our experience of space and time, and
how it shapes our personal identity, this article will now explore
the significance of deception in the virtual world and explain how
identity is established in online communities [under the effects
of identity deception] and the conditions that give rise to it.
Identity in Virtual
Identity, the basic building
block for human interaction, is the question of our epoch (or, rather, the sign
of our times). Created through the transmission of knowledge and values, through
education and society, through celluloid remembrances, and through our own ideals
and symbols, identity is viewed as more shifting, fluctuating, mobile, and protean
As explained earlier, there
are more possibilities for a greater variety of identities to emerge in cyberspace.
The opportunity for social interaction in virtual communities can create a sense
of immersion and engagement different from anything that sensory or motor realism
alone can provide (Schiano, 1999). Identity cues are few in the virtual world;
they still exist, but in a different way. For instance, people adjust themselves
to the nuances of email addresses and signature styles. Virtual reputations
are developed and maintained or challenged and blasted. By looking closely at
these cues, at how they work and when they fail, we can learn a great deal about
how to build vibrant on-line environments. From a semiotic perspective, the
difference between the look and the self is important for the construction of
identity, taking on a new symbolic form in the virtual world. The idea that
virtual identities are divergent from identities in the real world is common
sense. Indeed, on the Internet, identity is occupied by an outside beyond itself
(Day, 1999), that is, an Other, a “self” online that cannot be denied
because the very existence of consciousness in the real world also implies the
existence of consciousness in cyberspace, where the self takes on a different
meaning and where every identity is represented rather than real. This justifies
the existence of Otherness. Otherness dwells in identities and systems –
both in their production of meaning and in their interpretation. Identity does
not exist without meaning and interpretation, even in cyberspace. Therefore,
in order to play the role of the Other, one has to produce meaning and interpretation.
from the Latin vertus (strength, manliness [vir], and virtue). In
Middle English, the adjective signified “possessed of certain
physical virtues” (Simpson & Weiner, 1989). By modern
times, it evolved into “being in essence or effect but not
in fact” (Pickett, 2000). The philosopher Michael Heim (1993)
defines virtual as a philosophical term meaning “not actually
but just as if” (p. 160). Today, virtual is synonymous with
effecting something without actually being that something.
of “virtual selves” has been pervading or imbuing identity
for more than two millennia. Plato alluded to this characteristic
of the technology of books in the Phaedrus and Seventh Letter. Readers
can find the writers’ ideas in the form of their “textual
selves” (their article or book) without meeting those writers
(Hamilton, 1971). Virtual has many signifieds (i.e., non-real, non-existing,
or absent) and is seen as part of a bogus or artificial reality,
a reproduction of a reality of which we are cognizant. Pierre Levy
(1999) in Becoming Virtual proposes the virtual as a process:
In scholastic philosophy
the virtual is that which has potential rather than actual existence. The
virtual tends toward actualization, without undergoing any form of effective
or formal concretization. The tree is virtually present in the seed. Strictly
speaking, the virtual should not be compared with the real but the actual,
for virtuality and actuality are merely two different ways of being (p. 35).
In line with those contentions,
Peirce (1931), the universally acknowledged founder of modern semiotics, places
the virtual at the center of his theory of mind, knowledge, and language. He
considers knowledge (cognition and thoughts) as a sign. In other words, it constitutes
a semiotic gesture that implies a complete philosophy of mind expressed through
language. Language is an external sign vehicle that is “hard” (i.e.,
books, papers, or ink) or “soft” such as the alphabet and mathematical
notations (Hartshorne, Weiss, & Burks, 1935). In addition, cognition is
thematized as the development of signs, and not as conscious states of mind
(Hartshorne, Weiss, & Burks, 1935). Cognition consists in the manipulation
of signs that are externally embodied. Therefore, Peirce (1931) believes that
the mind is virtual. No actual cognition has any meaning because it is not situated
in what is actually thought. Rather, it is located in what this thought may
be linked to in representation by subsequent thoughts; so that the meaning of
a thought is, as a whole, something virtual.
Expressed in semiotic terms,
when dealing with the interaction between humans and machines, individuals are
confronted with a compound system of identity, language, and (visual) communication,
all of which are part of a web. Goffman describes the web as a medium that represents
a separation from previous modes for the presentation of self in everyday life
(Goffman, 1969). Geertz adds that the human being is an “animal suspended
in webs of significance he himself has spun” (Geertz, 1973, p. 5).
Space, Time, and
Identity: A Semiotic Analysis
Attempts to understand identity
as a semiotic phenomenon are driven by an interest in bridging the gap between
mind and matter, through the insights gained from scientific and transdisciplinary
areas of investigation (Emmeche, 1991). The virtual world is a world of opportunities
for intrapersonal and interpersonal semiosis (Noth, 1995) to occur. Given the
magnetism and power that the Internet has on our perception and on our semiotic
practice, it is obvious that not only identity but also space and time are being
modulated in the virtual world. Indeed, the traditional demarcation between
image, language, and writing is beginning to move in a radical way. Virtual
environments such as the Internet have the power to create identities and enable
us to explore very new forms of authorship in a way that expresses emergent
meaning. These environments can be navigated, engender new forms of experience,
and be modified or radically restructured. As Peirce (1931) puts it, meaning
is that which the sign conveys. The volume of virtual environment is then quantitatively
different, constructing a new space. Consequently, identity begins to fluctuate
or, more accurately, to float in that new space. As a matter of fact, one of
the unique qualities of the virtual environment is that it enables the web user
to have a more free-floating experience of perception. In the virtual world,
he or she might choose to occupy various positions that would not be possible
within actual space, where the individual’s identity has a physical component.
Since the 1960s, deconstructionists
such as Jacques Derrida have been talking about changes in our ideas of space
and time. While human beings spend most of their time in real life, where the
basic concepts for understanding reality—space, time, and identity—do
not change, virtual reality is another space where people spend their time.
Cyberspace helps drive individuals to cross the spatial divide, putting an end
to geography. Web users are only a mouse click away from servers in Belgium
or Australia. For Cairncross (1997), this means the death of distance…
and of time. Cyberspace makes nonsensical the distance and the time between
subject and object that is necessary to be defined as space. The world, then,
composed of information rather than matter, becomes virtual in that it takes
the place of real life; the essence, the form, and the composition of reality
become different. By creating a virtual space and fostering in our minds new
conceptions of space, by denying any physics of spatiality, any presence—even
the presence of absence—the Internet does not just extend geometry but
as Mitchell (1995) suggests:
The Net negates geometry;
it is fundamentally and profoundly antispatial. It is nothing like the Piazza
Navona or Copley Square. You cannot say where it is or describe its memorable
shape and proportions or tell a stranger how to get there. But you can find
things in it without knowing where they are. The Net is ambient-nowhere in
particular and everywhere at once (p. 8).
Cyberspace has no center
and takes the form of a self-organizing system when its elements are in order.
In terms of semiotic function, as we encounter virtual spaces, we experience
a continuous, time-based junction of symbolic meaning forces. Thus, text in
cyberspace presents one field of symbolic meaning force that can only be understood
contextually in relation to other adjacent forces. Consequently, it is evident
that our spatio-temporal ways of worldmaking (Goodman, 1978) and conceiving
the world are not a flexible and uniform system. The environment for human construction
of identity is created far more by semiotic systems that are historically and
contextually contingent, as well as culturally divergent.
In line with those contentions,
space and time, Derrida (1976) says, are not forms of intuition theoretically
underlying the system of empirical signs. They are far more the effects of a
grammatologically distinct and explainable structure. To quote Derrida: “The
origin of the experience of space and time, this writing of difference, this
fabric of the trace, permits the difference between space and time to be articulated,
to appear as such, in the unity of an experience” (Derrida, 1976, p. 86).
By the same token, the concepts of present, past, and future—the metaphysical
concept of time in general – cannot adequately describe the structure
of the trace (Derrida, 1976). This postmodern train of thought has an important
semiotic value here. Indeed, communication on the Internet, especially using
hypertext (as opposed to printed text), a type of writing that can be read nonsequentially,
seems to indicate the end of linear writing. This type of writing, as Derrida
suggests, implies a new idea of space thanks to the browsing of texts in an
orderly but nonsequential manner. The point made is that new kinds of writing
and the growth of a virtual environment make it hard to accept the Cartesian
concept of space as a universal truth (Gaukorger, 1995).
Thus, with these new forms
of space and time, specifically in reference to cyberspace, a provocative model
through which to consider the process of identity is presented. The flow of
identity begins to converge under the sign of the virtual environment. We enter
the nature of the real that enables the virtual, and, instead of printed matter,
we have recombinant energy processes or flows. Identity then becomes a flux
or, as Rheingold (1998) suggests, a “fluid” (p. 84) in the sense
that we take a fluid role in the construction of identity through different
levels and qualities of interaction. Fluidity implies that something can be
manipulated on the whims of its creator; it also implies fragmentation, a term
of postmodern identity construction. While modernist conceptions of the self
are based on the ideal of a stable, unchanging identity, post-modernism sees
identity as continuously being reconstructed (Deibert, 1997). In other words,
in the construction of virtual identities, the disembodied world of the Internet
and cyberspace seems to be a symbol of postmodernism, where many of the basic
cues to personality and the social roles we are accustomed to in the physical
world are absent. As a result, individuals lose their consistency, and their
real lives suffer because they are living a lie and suspect that those with
whom they communicate are also guilty of deception. In a similar vein, individuals
are in contact with people from different cultures and with people they have
met only as virtual constructs. Consequently, by interacting beyond the stigma
of real life, it is difficult to determine how identity is to be projected;
likewise, the online medium has the potential to become a deceptive social space
where individuals become victims of malevolent acts. The next two sections of
this article focus solely on deception in the virtual world and how it impacts
the concept of identity.
Deception is part of life
and the Internet is just a new, powerful, cunning semiotic tool for its practice.
Deception is defined as “the act of deceiving” (Collins English
Dictionary, 5th Edition 2000), that is, the act of hiding the real and showing
the false. It is also the deliberate change of identity to promote a desired
outcome or to reach an end, a personal objective. In “Towards a Semiological
Guerrilla Warfare,” Umberto Eco claimed that “the battle for the
survival of man as a responsible being in the Communications Era is not to be
won where the communication originates, but where it arrives” (Eco, 1986,
p. 142). The definition of deception places emphasis on a second party that
is involved, where the web user is consciously trying to create deception in
order to promote a desired outcome. Therefore, the definition does not include
self-deception, the act of deluding oneself by creating illusory ideas, or one’s
intention to use mental models to interpret things in an individual way.
Virtual is not real. Many
forms of identity deception in cyberspace are acts of omission, rather than
commission; they involve a sort of concealment. Identity in cyberspace, then,
presents itself as a material symbol. Symbols as conventional signs have the
ability to be phony and to deceive us. According to Umberto Eco (1976) the underlying
nature of human semiotics is the ability to lie. The study of identity deception
is congruous with the theory of communication because the notion of sign itself
has been defined in semiotics in relation to deception. “Semiotics is
in principle the discipline studying everything which can be used in order to
lie. If something cannot be used to tell a lie, conversely it cannot be used
to tell the truth: it cannot in fact be used ‘to tell’ at all”
(Eco, 1976, p. 60). In the same perspective, the ability to tell a lie by changing
one’s identity is often taken as the distinctive paradigm for the semiotic
character of an activity (Eco, 1976). If lying is not possible, what goes on
is not a sign process, but a causal process.
We have seen that everything
that presents itself as a material symbol is necessarily subject to the suspicion
that it is phony and that we are dealing with a deception. The word “phony”
originates from the use of the telephone and reflects our concerns about the
authenticity or realness of communication over the electronic equipment. The
Internet extends the implications of phone technology and reintroduces the problem
of phony communication, and, if online life is phony, it also is deceptive.
On the Internet, no one knows that the web user is a nymphomaniac, a neo-nazi,
or a killer. This is to be expected in a world that promotes the creation of
identity and the intrusion of another’s imagined reality. While artificial
identities can be damaging to both individuals and to groups, they can also
be inoffensive, benefiting the web user without injuring the community. Some
are pure deceptions, intended to provide a false impression. This is particularly
evident when a virtual identity is slandered because hurtful remarks may not
reach the person behind the “mask.” Others are more astute, skillful
identity manipulations, similar to the adjustments in self-presentation we make
in many real-world situations.
Identity in the
Virtual World: Deception or Plurality of Selves?
Masks and non-disclosures
of identity are part of the grammar of cyberspace. Deception on the Internet,
however, is not always acknowledged as such, by the receiver or the sender of
the message. Philosophers like Turkle (1997) argue that human beings are not
deceptive on-line if only because they do not really become someone else (what
they actually do is split their identities into real life and on-line parts.
An individual’s identity, she contends, “is the sum of his or her
distributed presence” (p. 1101). The self no longer simply plays different
roles in different settings. Rather, the self exists in many worlds and plays
many roles at the same time (Turkle, 1997).
Having multiple identities
in cyberspace is not a deception but extends the range of selves that are available.
People self-fashion and self-create. They “are able to build a self by
cycling through many selves” (Turkle, 1995, p. 178). From this critical
perspective, there is an extension rather than a different order of existence
because identity is “something complex and decentered” (Turkle,
1995, p. 20), as well as dispersed and multiplied in continuous instability
(Poster, 1990). This is why we should talk about “alterity” instead
of difference. The belief that individuals are unitary is itself an illusion
(Turkle, 1997). The author extends her argument against deceptive identities
on the Internet by describing the reality of virtual life:
The idea that you are
constituted by and through language is not an abstract idea if you’re
confronted with the necessity of creating a character in a MUD. You just do
it. Your words are your deeds, your words are your body. And you feel these
word-deeds quite viscerally (p. 307).
This idea of the multiplicity
of identities – and, by the same token, non-deception in the virtual world—is
rooted in Roland Barthes (1977) when he claims that “a text is not a line
of words releasing a single theological meaning (the message of the Author-God),
but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original,
blend and clash” (p. 146). “A text’s unity,” he continues,
“lies not in its origin but in its destination” (p. 148), which
is, of course, multiple. Consequently, the “author,” whether in
the physical or virtual world, is but an amalgamation of other people and other
ideas. In the same train of thought, Foucault puts forward the idea of a second
self and assures a “plurality of egos” (1981, p. 130) when he asserts
It is well known that
in a novel narrated in the first person, neither the first person pronoun,
the present indicative tense, nor, for that matter, its signs of localization
refer directly to the writer, either to the time when he wrote, or to the
specific act of writing; rather, they stand for a “second self”
whose similarity to the author is never fixed and undergoes considerable alteration
within the course of a single book (p. 129).
In line with these contentions,
Deleuze (1995) argues that the virtual has its own world and its own reality.
While the possible is opposed to the real, the virtual is not.
It possesses a full reality
by itself. Cyberspace, in imagining a spaceless, timeless, and bodiless presence,
“is not so much a parallel to the real world as an increasingly significant
dimension within it” (McRae, 1997, p. 73). Magic becomes real. In fact,
the very definition of “real” becomes “that of which it is
possible to give an equivalent reproduction” (Baudrillard, 1983, p. 146).
We understand that virtual
reality becomes real life and the actions done by the web user are taken just
as seriously as real life actions. This is a throwback to Barthes’s Mythologies
(1972), where the French cultural theorist argues that myth appears as meaningful
reality created by humans who are aware of the complexity of reality at a given
point in the evolution of their culture and their society. Virtual reality,
then, “has become so immediate that what constitutes the real is called
into question” (McRae, 1997, p. 74). Myth is not defined by the object
of its message, but by the way in which it utters this message: “Everything,
then, can be a myth? Yes, I believe this . . .” (Barthes, 1972, p. 109).
Myth is not true or false, but living or dead. Its power is not based on its
ability to reflect reality, nor does it depend on what a positivist may judge
to be real. A myth is alive if it continues to provide meaning to human life,
if it maintains important parts of the collective mentality of a given age,
and if it continues to render socially and intellectually tolerable what would
otherwise be experienced as incongruity. In this respect, the Internet is one
of the master myths of our time and myth is at the heart of things (MacIntyre,
From all this, we may conclude
that the boundaries between the virtual and the real are blurred, that cyberspace
is a myth with its own reality and its own place (or “space”). Myth
symbolizes the relationships among human beings and “real” multiple
identities. In doing so, myth establishes a rapport between communication and
understanding. As Barthes (1972) puts it so nicely, from the beginning, myth
is a communication system and a message.
However, other philosophers
do not make a distinction between the virtual and the real (hearkening John
Lennon’s refrain, “nothing is real,” from Strawberry Fields
Forever). For instance, Jacques Lacan has shown us that human identity is always
virtual, an effect of shifting subject positions (Miller, 1993), an effect of
maintained space, a function of metaphor, where the name is an illusory unified
symbol. In 1793, David Hume, in his Treatise of Human Nature, already posited
subjectivity and identity as fictions. Expressed in semiotic terms, the virtual
is then a symbolic circuit, an imaginary structure. Cyberspace simulates the
real in the space of metaphor; it becomes the space of the Symbolic in the Lacanian
sense, where individuals meet and speak (voicelessly, however). The accessibility
of the Real is what the virtual claims to give.
From this perspective, it
can be said that no web subjects exist “in real” since web subjects
are only attributes named by users. The web user becomes a symbol, a virtual
subject of a virtual world that is nevertheless always linked to a body. Deceptive
identities can, thus, be formed. Likewise, while myth puts forward the notion
that there is a single truth, it ignores deception. This leads us to believe
that identity change does not exist; it also hides the fact that the significance
of reality depends on human beings’ grids of perception and interpretation.
More importantly, the myth of cyberspace fosters the idea that communication
is limited to those who know Net language (more specifically, “netiquettes”)
and that deceivers cannot be caught unless we know the language.
Myth, the product of an
essential function of the human mind, obscures the fact that communication is
composed primarily of the basic tenets of semiotics: verbal and nonverbal language
(talk, feelings, gestures, voice tones, faces, style of dress, etc.). We can,
thus, follow the lead of Carl Jung (1976) when he says that myth is not only
a source of oppression, but also a source of ignorance and deception. It promotes
incomprehension and rigidifies our system of thinking. Carl Jung’s symbolic
system plays a crucial role here, sparking discussions regarding semiotic codes.
in cyberspace we do not have multiple selves, but only one self,
one identity that is mutilated and disintegrated into conventional
signs. Indeed, as we communicate on the Internet, we have to decompose
ourselves as a collection of signs in order to send a message. This
collection of signs may either express aspects of one’s personality
or be a complete fabrication. For Eco the self is a sign in the
same way that ordinary words are signs. When using signs, symbols,
icons, or emoticons, we rely on the mutual intelligibility of the
output and we are inspired by the familiar “semiotic landscape”
(Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996, p. 15).
is a good tool to view cyberspace as a sign-vehicle for which the
main function is to be perceived and interpreted by some group of
users, and not to be considered as an inflexible Truth. By looking
at identity as a body decomposed into conventional signs and by
corroborating the idea that deception on the Internet truly occurs,
semiotics of cyberspace mediates “a change of intellectual
epoch and culture as profound and total as was the separating of
medieval from ancient Greek times, or the separating of modern times
from the medieval Latin era” (Deely, 1990, p. 17).
In this article, I have
attempted to explain ways of constituting and concealing individual selves,
and to explain how identities merge and how the subject condition in cyberspace
is fulfilled. Little work has been done on identity formation through the visual
interfaces of cyberspace and other web design communities; my purpose here was
not only to use semiotics to analyze the web as a communication tool but also
to analyze semiotically some of the paradigms of identity that may exist in
the virtual world, where online identity makes the Internet the ideal interface
environment among human beings all around the world. Identity in cyberspace,
as we have seen, is not just defined; it is also made complex, composed of a
collection of signs. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the Internet,
history’s largest human artifact, has contributed to both developing and
destabilizing representations of identity, increasing the materials available,
their accessibility, and opportunities for deception.
Similarly, I attempted to
demonstrate that the virtual world is not “real,” though it has
a relationship to the real, corporeal, bodily, physical, material, tangible
world. Semiotics, after all, is a point of view and a way of looking at the
world (Deely 1990). Since semiotics requires that we reflect on all our ways
of understanding and communicating, and since anything functions as a sign that
may or may not bring forth a response from us, semiotics can examine, interpret,
and deal with any type of universe, of “space.”
For future research, I suggest
that semioticians continue present work (e.g., studying and drawing new conclusions
from the virtual world, examining the phenomenon of identity deception, and
understanding identity as a semiotically conceived sense of coherence) and further
expand the approach to these lines of inquiry by (1) asking where the semiotic
self is located in cyberspace and by (2) describing and making sense of relationships
among web users. Finally, it would be fruitful to use semiotic inquiry as an
approach that is sensitive to the unique aspects of “cybertalk,”
since in text-based virtual worlds identity is constituted through signs such
as emoticons and language. As philosophers Wittgenstein (1958) and Austin (1962)
put it, language is constitutive rather than representational. Hopefully, with
time, semiotics will establish a solid theoretical framework to accommodate
the full range of possibilities for understanding the complicated notion of
Austin, J. (1962).
How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University
(1989). The society of text: Hypertext, hypermedia and the social
construction of information. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute
(1972). Mythologies. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
(1977). The death of the author. In R. Barthes, Image,
Music, Text. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
J. (1981). Simulacra and simulation. New York, NY: Semiotext(e).
F. (1997). The death of distance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Day, R. E. (1999).
The virtual game: Objects, groups, and games in the works of Pierre
Levy. Information Society, 15(4), 265-272.
Deely, J. (1990).
Basics of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
J. (1997). Parchment, printing, and hypermedia: Communication
in world order transformation. New York, NY: Columbia University
(1995). Difference and repetition. New York, NY: Columbia
(1976). Of grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
(1996). Electronic culture: Technology and visual representation.
New York, NY: Aperture.
Eco, U. (1976).
A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Eco, U. (1986).
Towards a semiological guerrilla warfare. In U. Eco, Travels
in hyperreality. San Diego, CA: Harcourt.
(1991). Modeling life: A note on the semiotics of emergence and
computation in artificial and natural living systems. In T. A. Sebeok
& J. Umiker Sebeok
(Eds.), Biosemiotics: The semiotic web. New York, NY: Mouton
de Gruyter Publishers.
(1981). Language, counter-memory, practice. New York, NY:
Cornell University Press.
(1995). Descartes: An intellectual biography. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Geertz, C. (1973).
The interpretations of culture. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gibson, W. (1984).
Neuromancer. New York, NY: Ace.
(1969). The presentation of self in everyday life. London:
(1978). Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
(1971). Plato: Phaedrus & letters VII and VIII. Harmondsworth:
C., Weiss, P., & Burks, A. (Eds.) (1935). Charles Sanders
Peirce: Collected papers. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press
of the Harvard University Press.
Heim, M. (1993).
The metaphysics of virtual reality. Oxford: Oxford University
Hume, D. (2000).
A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1976). Modern
man in search of a soul. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
Kress, G., &
Van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images. The grammar of visual
design. London: Routledge.
Levy, P. (1999).
Becoming virtual. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Macintyre, A. (1985). After
virtue: A study in moral theory. London: Duckworth.
McHoul, A. (1996).
Semiotic investigations: Towards an effective semiotics.
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
McRae, S. (1997).
Flesh made word: Sex, text, and the virtual body. In D. Porter (Ed.),
Internet culture (pp. 48-63). New York, NY: Routledge.
(1993). The seminar of Jacques Lacan book III: The psychoses
1955-1956. New York, NY: Norton.
J. (1995). City of bits. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Noth, W. (1990). Handbook
of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Peirce, C. S. (1931). Collected
papers: Volume I—VIII. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
P., et al. (2000). American heritage dictionary of the English
language, Fourth Edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Poster, M. (1990).
The mode of information: Poststructuralism and context.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
(1998). The virtual community. New York, NY: Simon &
J. (1999). Lessons from LambdaMOO: A social, text-based virtual
environment. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments,
& Weiner, E. (Eds.) (1989). Oxford English dictionary.
Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
Turkle, S. (1995).
Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet.
New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Turkle, S. (1997).
Computational technologies and image of self. Social Research,
Turkle, S. (1997).
The cyberanalyst. In J. Brockman, Digerati: Encounters with
the cyber elite. London: Orion Business Books.
L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil