Course:MDIA300/ParaSelf

Overview of the Para-SelfThe “para-self” is a term developed by mathematician and semiotician Brian Rotman in ‘Becoming Beside Ourselves’ (2008) to describe a form of contemporary subjectivity shaped by digital, networked media. For Rotman, the rise of virtual communication, parallel computing, and post-alphabetic technologies has created selves that no longer operate as single, continuous, internally unified subjects. Instead, the digital subject becomes distributed: “plural, trans-alphabetic, derived from and spread over multiple sites of agency — a self going parallel: a para-self” (2008, 9).

Though Rotman develops the term in a specific semiotic and media-technological context, the word “para-self” has appeared in other domains as well, often with meanings that resonate — sometimes unintentionally — with Rotman’s version. Across psychology, media research, and cultural studies, various “para-” phenomena gesture toward the increasingly fractured, superposed, and displaced quality of contemporary identity.

Origins of the Term

Rotman argues that the dominant cognitive technology of Western culture — alphabetic writing — has long shaped how we imagine the self. Alphabetic inscription and thinking operates serially: one letter after another, one word after another, one thought after another. That seriality, he suggests, helped stabilize the “I” as a singular, continuous point of reference.

But under digital conditions, this serialized self is questioned. Networked media, parallel computation, and online interactivity foster modes of identity that exist across multiple platforms, contexts, and temporalities at once. The individual becomes a multi-bodied ‘operator’ — replying to messages in different apps, maintaining profiles in different communities, projecting different versions of oneself across various feeds, timelines, or platforms. The self exists not only as an embodied person but as a dispersed array of presences.

Rotman describes this new formation as “a self coming into being to the side of the written form… a para-self” whose “enunciation of ‘I’ “will take place… in the interior of a… trans-alphabetic ecology of ubiquitous and interactive, networked media” (2008, 5).

In other words, the para-self is not a replacement for the embodied “I” or the written “I” but a third mode of selfhood emerging beside them — enabled by digital media’s ability to generate multiple, simultaneous profiles of agency.

Parallelism and Superposition

A crucial component of the para-self is, rather obviously, parallelism. Unlike alphabetic writing’s serial logic, digital environments operate through parallel processes: multiple streams of communication, multiple tabs open, multiple notifications popping up, multiple watchers or audiences, multiple versions of “you” circulating at once.

Your physical body might be in one place, but your digital personas — your usernames, messages, posts, DMs, saves, histories, avatars — exist in many. Even when you’re offline, a message you sent continues to perform, your profile remains visible, your “online status” (accurate or not) shapes how others expect you to respond. You are both present and not present; active and inactive; perceiving and being perceived in asynchronous layers.

This dispersion resembles a kind of superposition, an idea Rotman is fond of: identity spread over a networked field rather than contained in a single mental or bodily locus. The para-self becomes a self that has been stretched, duplicated, or split — without ever fully disconnecting from the embodied person behind it.

Other Uses of “Para-”

Rotman is not the only thinker whose work touches on the logic of the “para.” Several concepts from media and psychology tackle similar themes:

Para-social Interaction (PSI)

Coined by Horton and Wohl (1956), “parasocial interaction” describes the one-sided relationships audiences form with celebrities or fictional characters. This “one-sidedness” can be a useful comparison for Rotman’s para-self in that digital identity often functions asymmetrically: parts of you act, perform, or persist without your direct attention. Your online presence may be active in spaces your physical self cannot inhabit simultaneously — much like a viewer’s attachment to a media figure who does not reciprocate.

Para-self in Psychology

The term “para-self” has also appeared to describe the self experienced during daydreaming—the drifting or projected self that wanders while the body remains in place. This resonates with Rotman’s version in that they both involve the mind being “elsewhere,” operating in parallel with physical presence. Another term from psychology that Rotman actually does reference in his work is also the concept of ‘alters’. When investigated from the lens of psychology, this often refers to those with DID (dissociative identity disorder), in which multiple selves exist within the same physical body. The idea of “alters” as separate, distinct, yet simultaneous selves is something in which Rotman argues can be an apt understanding of how we can view the para-self. (For more on ‘alters’ consult 2008, p.100) This boils down to the idea that while clinical and cultural models differ, they all point toward a loosening of the Western assumption that the subject is inherently unified.

Together, these “para-” concepts can aid us in our understanding of the contemporary self; these definitions can help provide a widespread recognition that identity is no longer singular, linear, or simply self-imposed. Rotman’s own contributions lie in naming this distributed condition of the para not as fragmentation, loss, or distortion but as a “new mode of subjectivity” enabled by post-alphabetic media and parallel computing.

End Notes

Rotman’s para-self offers media studies students a vocabulary for something many people already feel —that who we are today is stretched across devices, profiles, and platforms. We exist in multiple places at once;  our identity is performed through systems operating both with and without our conscious attention. The para-self is not a glitch or a problem to be solved — it’s the newly formed shape of contemporary being, emerging beside the older logics of speech and writing. Understanding it simply means recognizing the way our daily media practices already make us plural. For avenues of further investigation, consult this summary (2025) of Brian Rotman's 'Becoming Beside Ourselves'.