I know that my limited and unstructured educational path has shaped my comprehension of abstract references, but one in particular stands out amongst the spotlights being shined upon the concept of sustaining a level of identity disassociation, culturally referenced in the short form of Anonymous.
For years, it has been my understanding that to become a member of a political party, all one has to do is adopt such a classification and that’s that. No registration required, no entry exams, no licensing necessary…one does not even need to exhibit behaviors that toe the party line for membership to be of official merit from a historical position.
With each political party inheriting a perpetual Recommended Reading Index – once passed along a straight and narrow distribution route, now produced sometimes in the millions, if not billions in certain cases – I find nothing to tether myself to while brain cells bounce around towards a theory that perhaps Anonymous has been a political party of its own clearly measurable standards and merits throughout the centuries.
Over the years, I have adjusted my understanding of “politics” to be geared more towards a state of mind, a position within the total mental accounting structure of another in which a conclusion has been drawn and therefore all future calculations will include such a position, which is only a belief born from a hefty dose of faith in ourselves that our senses did not somehow severely fail us somewhere in the past.
And despite my last paragraph perhaps appearing like a cryptic mess, there are few that are skilled and well-versed with interpreting what behaviors fall under the scope of political leanings relative to any other labeling option available to record that a behavior happened.
With Benjamin Franklin offering an example of someone applying anonymous activities for socio-political engineering purposes by adopting an illusionary identity as the source of the content, thereby disconnecting anyone from having opportunity to actively engage in debate with the author for what the content portrayed.
However, it is within the proposition there is a self-evident portion of our existence that provides a platform for historical juxti-positioning the performance of an act with a state of mind driven by a socio-political sense of purpose such as Franklin’s efforts to have his written word distributed entirely absent from the perceptions and perspectives that would otherwise be drawn had his name been signed at the bottom compared to the feminine airs the name suggested.
Was his mind-set intentionally aligned with any existing political party identity while he wrote or did he temporary disassociate from all existing parties so he could temporarily join the Anonymous Party to accommodate his most intimate political linking tendencies? What is the harm of a false signature in the face of such tarot-card type projections being present, right?
Also, the assumption and subsequent assignment of economic damage of any kind for the act was delivered from figures holding government job titles, which makes it a political response to an alleged strike by a member of an earlier version of our modern day Anonymous Party, Mr. Benjamin Franklin.
With the power of hind-sight and historical oversight of such activities, mew information frequently can present opportunity for new decisions to be made…but for what purpose? Whereas intentionally hitting the archives for something intentionally damning is of the more sinister horizon, it is the perpetual
Geography has never been a strong method of prevention political viewpoints and ideology from transporting itself from one location to another. It’s been an active inhibitor and even with the web co-existing around us, it still poses an ability to lock down points of view from entering – or exiting – a potential position of state of mind influence…in any direction.
And although I am not skilled in communicating in the abstract, let alone recognizing it, it does not escape me that the current legacy being built associated to the Anonymous concept in many ways is no different from activities similar in nature being attached to existing political parties – including the off-spurt of the currently well-known Tea Party as a spur built amongst(?) the Republican branch.
This does not mean that a possible political party status for the moniker means all activities performed wearing such a label bear the markings of a reasonable threshold comparable to the Franklin publications or even the tea party. Franklin didn’t release data that could directly harm the well-being of others on an individual identity basis and vehement and perhaps vitriolic as the original tea party was, the physical event course became centered around the destruction of tea leaves and what the loss would/could/should represent to those who learned of the event…
Neither of which posed the same individual risks now presented by those who continue to opt to adopt this more ghost-like explanation for their behaviors. “I am not the one doing something wrong here. I am only reporting of proof of something being wrong by showing how it is happening.” as a generic summary mind-set works no matter what century an act of disassociation of identity occurred. Women frequently were forced to face the hurdle of whether or not they were willing to adopt a male persona in order to receive monetary compensation for their works and as Franklin demonstrated with his temporary gender swap, common social perceptions and perspectives trigger at-a-glance biases. Where those biases fall is of contemplation when evaluating an event in a historical context, for such biases is the basis for a great many examples of where an identity alteration just doesn’t meet a reasonable threshold for justifying acts tipping towards the super extremes, which includes physical harm.
The concept of identity disassociation carries with it a thick library of materials providing means and methods of molding and modeling such acts and activities to typically be first filtered with a sense of flaw above and beyond all other conscious determinations, which is contrary to the current threshold of the general social acceptance of such acts to represent a reasonable and logical safety and security method when broadcasting via technology. Nothing wrong with having a screen name with your legal name
So whether or not my inklings and hints towards Anonymous as more than just a simple political movement is accurate in a political scholar context, we are all equipped with the ability to sign our names as anything but our legal names.
It doesn’t seem to be in the opportunity itself that creates the ghostly facets of an anonymous state of mind being of a lurking shadow needing to be perpetually feared one and all.
It would seem to be more about what is manifested while such a state of mind has been adopted.
Think of it this way. When was the last time you cared about the creator of a television commercial? Sat through the entire credits list attached to a movie? Read the full sleeve inserted into a musical CD? We all tend to absorb a large quantity of content with Anonymous slapped all over it, so what makes certain anonymous situations more political than others stems more from what it represents to the rest of mankind. But paying someone to strategically leak data about a pharmaceutical via a television screen is far different than leaking data attached to police department databases, let alone the government sectors and yes, even the private sectors.
It’s not often I remain uncertain of my own finish line when I sit down to write about something drifting around in my mind (even in the political realm) but this topic definitely has a certain kind of stopping power over my own intellect and interpretation of not just my own personal experiences, but what it is I absorb every time I hop around the web looking for some little slice of information to satisfy my own curiosity.
So for now, I guess its back to thoughts disassociated with acting in a relatively Anonymous manner…but I’m sure it will remain lurking around somewhere in this cavernous imagination of mine.
The 4th Tab Version for The 2011-2012 V Decision Tree