Theme: The absolute takehome, on page 57, is that we require "a politics not of identities but of envisioned alternatives" (emphasize mine). Only through this new approach could we "bridge identity cleavages without demanding that people dissolve their differences in a pot of assimilation."

In the first chapter, Minnow presents identity politics and individualism, then asks us to take as paradox these conflicting understandings of identity. Hold them both in your heart. Only as we learn to work with paradox can we achieve the "productive stance" toward working with identity in our communities (23). I was especially thankful that we had gotten Wenger's concept of dualities before reading this section.

Seeing that plenty of people have summarized this article already, I'll just explain what goes on at the Fighting 44s.  The Fighting 44 community engages in many of the behaviors described by Burkhalter.   For example, I think in the Usenet groups and in the F44s, there is an assumption that everyone is of the same race.  It would make sense for the members of a soc.culture.african.american would be black and the Fighting 44s would be Asian.   What I picked out most out of the reading is how a person's identity was tied to their view points.  For example, posters who opposed affirmative action or supported Clarence Thomas were accused of being white.  In one of the messages, a poster is wondering if another user is a "white troll" who is pretending to be black instead of his self-identified "pro-Black American."   In the F44s, members have accused others being white trolls for posting messages that discount the racial stereotypicals involved with an Asian female/White man relationship.  In heated discussions (particularly those in the Fight Club), members have been accused of being white apologists because of their viewpoint.  It seems that in Burkhalter's Usenet case and in the F44s, identity is determined by opinions/viewpoints.  Since a users postings are the only thing other users have to identify them, then it makes sense. Also in both cases, in the F44s and in the Usenet groups, users do introduce and identify themselves.  The F44s have a special area in the discussion area to introduce yourself.  Normally, people do self-identify their nationality, Korean, Japanese, Chinese etc.. 

Summary

This reading is  long so forgive me if my summary is sparse in some areas.  The first two chapters of her book, Minow explains the many contradictions that plague group identities.  In Chapter 1, she uses the controversy of casting Jonathan Pryce, a British actor, in the role of Engineer, an Euroasian character in the Broadway musical, Miss Saigon.  She uses this event to explain the contradicting thoughts on how we control, define, and use identity.  At first, Pryce was denied a work permit by the actors union because casting a white man in the role of an Euroasian character would be disrespectful and offensive because he obviously does not fit into that identity.  However, by denying him a permit, the union is seemingly partaking in behavior they are trying to counteract.  They are judging him not by how good an actor he is, but by the color of his skin.  Hence the rest of Chapter 1 is a discussion on how identity can cut both ways.  We are trying to respect and help certain identities but at the same time, treating people unfairly since they do not belong to a certain identity.  Minow uses examples such as minority students protesting a white professor who is teaching civil rights and hearing impaired students at a college for the disabled protesting a dean who is not hearing impaired.  

The paper's basic thesis is that social psychology, sociology and economics can help in designing online communities. Adding on to Yong Mi's great summary, I thought I would hammer on the idea of trade-offs. Ren et al are examining the design implications of online communities as regards common bond ("I'm here for the people") and common identity ("I'm here for the common goal/topic/mission"). Different design choices can target audiences based on either common bond or common identity, and will probably entail tradeoffs as a result. Examples include:

• Constraining to on-topic discussion increases group-identity but decreases opportunities for interpersonal conversation

In this paper, the author uncovers traits of various aspects in racial identity in Usenet newsgroups. He finds that unlike in a physical world where phenotypes make up the major reasoning behind identifying races, online the racial identity gets read from the textual description, making it more ambiguous and controllable by the author.

One thing that kept bothering me was how the author was connecting his findings to largely 'Usenet', when the findings actually came from Usenet newsgroups on races. The data he looked at should be perfect for getting in depth data on variations of interactions toward racial identities, but not sufficient for arguing that "Race is no less relevant in onine interaction than it is in face-to-face interaction. Instead racial stereotypes may be more influential and resilient on the Usenet." as written in the last paragraph of conclusion. It would have been helpful to see same analysis done on different newsgroups than those that are focused on racial issues.

Critique 

This chapter discusses how racial identification online is different than that occurring offline. The author makes several claims/conclusions some of which sound like over-generalization.

“Race is no less relevant in online interaction than it is in face-to-face interaction”.  I am having difficulty with this argument. I feel like race is less relevant in online interaction. In face-to-face interaction people cannot ignore race. This is not to say they change their behavior depending on the person’s race. It happens because one sees the person in flesh accompanied with his/her racial identity. However, in online interaction, people might never know the racial identity of the same person and racial cues might not be enough to form an opinion of racial identity (assuming the participants do not reveal their race by posting their pictures etc.).  Thus, one can argue that racial identification is lacking in some situations, contrary to what the author claims. Racial identity is not always firmly established online.

Another important concept in the chapter is stereotyping – attribution of a characteristic, attitude, belief, or practice based solely on someone’s race. Online, it works the other way, from stereotype to racial identity. One makes assumptions about a poster’s race by looking at his/her post. If the contents of the post don’t match to the stereotype, the racial identity of the author is challenged. And if the identity of the member is not strong enough in terms of his/her participation history and collaboration with other members, his/her membership will be in danger. If it is strong enough then the community will have to find another way to deal with it such as formulating the posts as entertainment. While this makes sense, I have to argue that stereotyping is a problem that people have in face-to-face interactions too. I don’t see how there is a big difference online.

Connections

I think there is a strong connection to Republic.com in the chapter where the effects of crossposting are discussed. “Responses are made to those authors whose identity and perspective match the stereotype expected by the respondent.” (p. 72).  This leaves visible only the stereotypical positions, potentially creating information cascades.

Without physical cues, race is anchored to the perspective offered in author's messages. This means that unlike taking a persons appearance into account when listen to their statements, we take their statements into account when looking at their claimed identity.

The author discusses challenges to a poster's self-proclaimed racial identity on the usenet. The same words would have different meanings coming from members of different cultures.

The author also discusses anonymity during these discussions, and how it undermines a user's post - just like slashdot' anonymous coward moniker. In fact, in the channels he looks at which are specifically devoted to discussions of race, posters' eagerness to bring their same off-line social constructions to bear seems to mean that a good chunk of the discussion centers around de-anonymization. In other words, convincing the group that you are a member of the race / ethinicity you say you are, and that our post / persspective should be taken seriously.

The chapter begins with an example of the controversy over casting a British actor in a lead Asian role in Miss Saigon. One side argued that there must be someone hired from the minority community while the other side maintained that hiring must be color-blind and merit based.

Thus, identity politics – political claims made or resisted in terms of group-based identities. These group identities can often spark conflicts.

Even highly educated people can be ignorant of the mistreatments along group lines in the past. But, to a certain degree, sorting by group can be a useful heuristic.

Summary and Critique

Minow "explores issues of identity politics not as questions of tactics but instead as clues to collective social experiences in the United States as the twentieth century closes" (p22).

Minow starts her question about identity politics by showing the incidents of casting for Miss Saigon, hiring a professor at a law school, and policies in electoral politics. She tries to demonstrate that it is a challenging problem because choosing one value may mean losing another.  For instance, choosing diversity in academia may mean the loss of academic excellence, and limiting the authority of a theater director for political correctness (e.g. opposition to racial discrimination) may mean the loss of artistic freedom.

Also, there are pitfalls of grouping people according to their races, ethnicities, or sexual orientations because some people may not fall into any group. Nevertheless, Minow says identity politics may be unavoidable especially for those who have been under represented.  "Those who feel continually demeaned and excluded cannot trust calls for neutrally, universally, and the common good." (p. 21).

At the end, Minow seems to persuade readers to consider identity politics in the context of whole society rather than where the problem of under represented race or group is isolated.  It is because an identity is not solely defined in its own right but rather negotiated within the context of the society. So therefore, discussing identity politics of one group without considering the rest of people in the society is meaningless or misleading.  

Her argument nicely fits into feminism discussion.  I once saw that an article about the progress of malism (men’s study) that once had arisen against feminism converged to ideas of feminism.  What malists found was that the arguments of feminists were not about women but about human beings. It is not zero-sum game; on the contrary, men’s happiness is dependent women’s, and women's problems cannot be solved without the consideration of men.

Likewise, Minow seems to argue that the solving the problem of one race means the solving one problem of "our society" not just solving "their problem." Here, her argument points back to Rabbi Hillel's words:  "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?; If I am not for others, what am I?" (p25) .  She tries to convince that considering the issue of a race which you do not belog to "your problem" is not solely out of altruism but rather out of reciprocity; it might be you who will be in that position in the future.

Application

[Personally I found it helpful to read Sassenberg (2002) before reading this paper] 

Summary:
Definition of online community:
“online group that interacts over time around a shared purpose, interest, or need”
Note: do not consider shared resources, reciprocity, and community norms or policy to be essential features of online communities

Community design has been an art, with few attempts to apply social science theory to community design.