Online identity creation and experimentation through anonymity using the blank space of private thought creation in a public forum ratifies, through reinforced externalized vindication, thoughts and behaviors previously condemned in an individual’s physical culture by providing a community and cultural narrative the physical brain cannot distinguish from physical social interaction.  In order to understand the mentality of radicalization through the online portal we need a comprehensive study uniting both the subjective and objective sciences of an individual’s reality construction framework and how the brain responds to virtual vs physical learning in regards to behavioral change.  It is my hypothesis that online identity creation and experimentation through anonymity is fueling revolutionary behaviors against cultural norms worldwide.  In other words, people go online under a username and are capable of finding support for ideas made fun of or belittled in their physical culture.  They are then able to experiment through online targeted social interaction, based on the websites they visit, further reinforcing the desire which was belittled in physical public.

 In a grass is always greener on the other side mentality the behavior is experimented with until it starts to become a part of the physical behavior performed by the individual as they try to make the ideal pasture from the virtual world a physical reality in their day to day life.  This can manifest from playing with the idea of trying sushi for the first time in a culture not normally known for that dish e.g. Texas.  Wherein an individual is told by their friends that sushi is bait not food.  This is an example of social policing along cultural norms which prior to the internet was impossible to escape.  Conform or be marginalized.  Now, with the advent of online identity creation and experimentation, I observed an individual from Texas seek advice online for what types of sushi to try.  He met with an outpouring of support and advice which led him to drive for 45 min one way in order to purchase sushi.  Not only did he make the drive, but over the months leading up to this decision he had milestones he had to overcome in order to make this happen.  He had to wait to get his license, being too young to drive at the beginning of the identity experiment, showing long term and private personal change leading to physically removing the boundaries that stood between himself and his ultimate goal against the social norms reinforced on a daily basis of rural Texan culture.  

The problem facing us is the social sciences have very little methodology to approach researching this occurrence.  How can a study be done when the very nature of science is based on objective facts and the behavioral experimentation is being performed in anonymity and virtually?  It mandates a new methodology and a review of how we as humans create facts.  

      In the previous entry I referenced the Double Dichotomous Divide as put forward by Bruno Latour. Many of you may be unfamiliar with this portrayal of the human conscious therefore I will give a brief overview of his findings, and also how it inspired me to continue his research.
      His argument is that the "modern" human mind divides its approach to reality construction on a conscious level. We, the "moderns", daily divide our understanding of reality to our detriment. In his work "We Have Never Been Modern" Latour states that there are two major divides or dichotomies that make up the human experience.  On one end is our logical understanding of the world and on the other our emotional understanding of life. Some examples of this divide in our society are Democrats vs Republicans, Men Vs Women, Military vs Anthropology, Marx vs Rand, Berkley vs Liberty University, Psychiatrist vs Psychologist, and the list continues forever. He argues that it is the divide created by Hobbs and Boyle many many years ago which mandated such a state.  Or that the need for "scientific" fact created through the scientific process could not be co-joined with the subjective self of emotional reasoning. It was the birth of the vacuum tube and the social contract that solidified this divide in the western mindset.  A mindset which I argue is now the base point of reality construction for over 90% of the planet. The other divide which is separate from both the logical and emotional self he calls the network; a topic which we will review in depth as we continue.
        For our case study here we will start with the United States.  In my first post I referenced how the US Military and the Anthropological community had fallen victim to this divide through the use of human terrain teams in Afghanistan.  In this example the military is the representation of the purely logical mind, and the anthropological community is an example of the emotional rational state.  To continue my argument, I believe, the war in Afghanistan could have been shortened by many years had we reconciled this divide among ourselves before venturing to try and enforce such a divided mindset on one of the few locations not living under this modus operandi.
       In essence since the outset of the war the US military realized that "winning the hearts and minds" of a population was essential to nation building and achieving its goals in Afghanistan.  The issue it confronted, however, is that the military is a force of death not understanding.  It views people as targets or assets, and the local population as either a nuisance or collateral damage.  Another way of approaching our, I am a soldier, viewpoint is that complete dehumanization of the "other" is necessary in order for soldiers to be efficient in killing and winning a conflict. In the other camp Anthropology, more specifically Applied Anthropology, is the converse.  It strives to humanize the "other" in an attempt to understand the human experience.  Latour argues that the divide of the two sides mandates the second divide: how everything is connected or the network.  If the US Military internalizes the humanization of the "other" soldiers would be incapable of killing.  Likewise if Anthropologists recognize that some men seek only to destroy they would in turn be forced to recognize the need to kill. The network, or how both sides are intrinsically connected, is divided subconsciously in the "modern" mindset. The conscious acceptance of the other side, whether it be logical or emotional, would result in the collapse of an individuals belief system.
      In my job as an anthropologically educated civil affairs soldier it has been my job to try and rectify this divide between the logical and emotional poles in front of Infantry Colonels and Command Sergeant Majors. Through my experience the humanization of the "other" leads to an interesting psychological conflict in the individual, and likewise when I return to the Anthropological community I find the exact same internal conflict present in the arguments reverse state. The conflict in a word denial, complete and total denial of the converse argument leading the individual to heightened emotional response in order to return order to their personal reality construction or polar position.  This psychological conflict led me to my research.  What was it in the subconscious that mandated such a powerful reaction from both sides of the camp whereas myself ,stuck in the middle, had made a career of trying to explain it to both sides.
    It was these very experiences which has led me to attempt to expand Latour's work using the internet (identity experimentation/creation through anonymity as seed for personal revolution in an individuals reality construct of self), and what I have found is that there is a level of self below the subconscious I term the sub-altern.  I believe the subconscious is made up of two things symbolic function and symbolic containment.  Both of which are necessary to contain the universal human experience of what I term the Raw.  The Raw is the basic desire of humanity to secure its consciousness or self in a secure position outside of linear time, or the basis for our conscious state.  The level that divides this from the subconscious is what psychology has termed the fight or flight instinct, but I believe it is more a competition between hope and fear.  It is directly above this that our interpretation of symbols, through the subconscious narrative, resides which in turn shapes our conscious self and overall worldview.
       To tie this in with our example it is the symbolic function of the military's subconscious narrative to view the "other" as an object.  This maintains the narrative of fight over flight, necessary for the dehumanization of the other, on the conscious level by which the basic understanding of self moves away from fear and into a hope of preservation.  The hope of self preservation is not restricted to the individual, but rather to the stratification of worldview from the level of the sub-altern to the subculture. The Anthropologist on the other hand does not maintain the same symbolic function in its subconscious narrative, but rather humanizes to a fault.  The complete distancing from a need to fight as a basis for hope in its own reality constructs' survival leads to its conscious manifestation of an emotional state for rationalizing the world.
    In trying to unify these two camps on the conscious level alone both parties fell victim to a divide that begins on a deep level of reality construction which could only end in catastrophe.

more to follow I must return to work

         The temptation to begin writing on my research draws me inexorably to begin on page one, and yet, as in most things, introductions are in order.  First I am writing under a nom de plume the reasons for which we will explore in coming articles.  I am both Soldier and Anthropologist. Those of you familiar with the touchy history between the two will find that my life has been a constant pull between two poles.  I am an Arabic linguist, have lived on multiple continents, and held many jobs of both military and ethnographic design.  My research for the better part of my private professional life has been on understanding the reality constructs visible in the Human Experience, or as physicists seek a mathematical equation to encompass all understanding, I seek a unifying theory of reality construction for all humans.  What we will explore in the coming pages is just that.  I theorize that the human conscious creates reality from a base point equally regardless of race, gender, class... etc ad infitum.
         As we get to know one another it is my hope that what I have to say will challenge you, provoke you, and in doing so challenge and provoke me.  One purpose of the nom de plume is to allow an absence of political correctness, or in essence a safety net to allow you the blank space of academic discourse without fear of reprisal. This is not an invitation to "troll", but rather explore the coming topics in professional anonymity. I look forward to your comments as I explore first the double dichotomous divide as put forward by Bruno Latour in relation to the use of human terrain teams by the US Military, and how both the Military and the Anthropological community fell victim to an underlying division of the subconscious.