Here is a (very) rough outline of what I just posted!
I.Definition of “self”
a.Consumption vs. creation
b.Attitude vs. identity
c.Approval vs. fulfillment
II.Portrayal of “self”
a.Desire for recognition
i.Reality television
b.Exploitation of flattery
i.Platforms of communication
ii.Facebook
III.Effects of the recreation of “self”
a.Loss of devotion
i.Heroes
b.Loss of intimacy
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
The Re-creation of the Self
What are we doing to ourselves? Right now in our society, that is a very complex question. Yet it is one that desperately needs to be answered. The simple idea of the “self” is being completely redefined and recreated. How we define our “self,” what our “self” actually is, and how we portray our “self” has changed drastically in the past 50 years. This evolution has occurred alongside the growth of technology and communication. As with any cultural shift, there are supporters and opponents, and those who sit on the fence. Judging it absolutely positive or negative is unreasonable; the consequences of this redefinition are what should be scrutinized.
Fifty years ago, the Internet as we know it was merely a dream that most people had never fathomed. Our generation cannot imagine a world without Internet. How would we keep in touch with our friends from high school? Where would we do our research for that psychology paper? What about getting directions to the airport? Obviously, there were solutions to all these problems before the advent of the Internet. We just think them time-intensive and unnecessary. The Internet has changed every aspect of society, from the way we advertise to the way we learn. This revolution has altered the way we define ourselves. Our society has become much more materialistic and fast-paced. People are faced with a perpetual time crunch, and self portrayal has seen a drastic change. We pass judgments of others in one glance. Everything on the outside of the person is assumed to be a direct representation of identity. This does not mean that those assumptions are unchangeable, but it is true that first impressions can be hard to take back.
This immediate image that each individual portrays is what others now identify with our “self.” As a society, we recognize that. And we are responding to it. Some responses are insignificant, but others are more penetrating. Instead of cultivating our personalities, we rely on the things we wear and buy to define ourselves. We have more choices than ever before; and those choices define who we are to the rest of the world. Our consumption creates our identity.
Music is one of the most telling representations of identity. In Mediated, de Zengotita discusses musical preferences and their connection to attitude. Ultimately, our attitude is what shapes our identity. When we choose what music we listen to, it is generally based on the most simplistic, yet broad aspect of ourselves: our background. Region, ethnicity, religion, education and values are the primary basis for our musical preferences. We will not listen to something if we do not believe in it. People will buy a shirt or car because they perceive that others will think they are “cool”; but most people cannot stand to listen to music that they don’t agree with for an extended amount of time. Music may be the one thing you cannot fake.
Emotion, on the other hand, is a different story. We have learned to fake just as much "sincere" emotion as we can actually show. Often times, we regulate our outward emotions to what we perceive is expected, be it more or less than what we really feel. Rarely now is our emotion truly pure: we live in the moment, putting on a show, performing for a crowd, acting the way we are "supposed to." (de Zengotita 2005)
Ultimately, we are looking for approval. All we want is to be accepted by other people. This is has always been true for any human being; however, in this age, we are obsessed with it. Our lives have become centered on others’ opinions, as opposed to self-fulfillment. We are too concerned with what other people think. Our image has become more important than our beliefs. Eventually, no one will be honestly happy. Why? As de Zengotita states so well, because “real is not real enough.” Being ourselves is not good enough anymore. Or at least that is what we think. We are on a constant quest for flattery. We feed off of it and make every choice based on it. Being fulfilled used to be good enough, but now we are not allowed to be happy until everyone else is happy with us. Is that really fair? Some people are recognizing the problem with this, but too many of us have remained ignorant and complacent. Those people continue to portray their created “selves,” and live in a false light of happiness.
This desire for recognition has filtered to us through the media. Television promotes reality television, where you get to be your “self”; advertising is personalized for us, giving us constant, yet false, one-on-one attention. We have learned the best ways to get that attention. We exploit the system to get the highest, most positive response possible. By choosing what we wear, what we say, who we are friends with and what we consume, we can predict fairly accurately the response of the media and society. Therefore, we make said choices to maximize that attention and flattery. But we are not the only ones who know that. The media knows that we have figured out what they know. So while we think we are (usually subconsciously) undermining them, they are still using us. It is an unending cycle of manipulation and a false sense of triumph.
A prime example of this is found in reality television. We use reality television to exploit the media and get the ultimate attention: for the contestants, a national (sometimes worldwide) television appearance; for the audience, typically a chance to feel a lot better about ourselves. Producers of reality television exploit that desire for flattery by driving contestants to their breaking points through various methods of deprivation (Brenton and Cohen 2003). They push the contestant to the extreme of their created “self”. It could be seen as a test, to see if the person can really stay true to their “self” in alternative conditions. On the audience front, producers are using the pseudo-unpredictable actions of contestants to bring in an audience that desires to be considered “normal.” We need affirmation that we fit in, we are not like those contestants who do crazy things to get attention. It is a double-edged sword. While we are trying to stand out (like the contestants), we also need approval (like the audience). We crave uniqueness, yet seek normalcy.
Infiltrating not only television, but all types of media, is advertising. Marketers’ primary goal is to figure out what we want. Right now, we want attention. And they are giving it to us – personalized e-mails, customized online pop-ups, coupons tailored to our shopping tendencies, the list is extensive. Even politicians are in on it, calling our cell phones and leaving messages beseeching our support. As obnoxious as it seems, the advertisements keep coming. Why? Because the tactics are working. We like to pretend that we are annoyed, even creeped out, by all the personalization. In actuality, it is exactly what we want. Every one of those e-mails and phone calls feeds our ego a little bit. It is not quite as effective as face-to-face communication, but that is nearly impossible in marketing. The platforms that are currently utilized – Internet, telephone, television, radio, etc. – are getting the job done. We feel a little bit more special; because someone (or something) was thinking of us.
Platforms of communication say a lot about human perception. The platform on which people communicate is a window into what is important to them. Although technology has created radically different pathways of communication than before, there are still some things that inherently require face-to-face contact. Yet, people still have their private lives plastered on the web for almost anyone to see. Facebook status updates are like mini press releases. We have become accustomed to broadcasting information about ourselves and receiving tiny pieces of (possibly) insignificant feedback. Do all those status comments accumulate to the equivalent of a face-to-face conversation with a best friend? The possibility exists that we are slowly giving up our ability to have unique, meaningful relationships. There is something to be said for compensation on other communication platforms, but generally, the more people that know a piece of information, the less important it is perceived; the surprise factor is gone.
All of this is a very basic summation of the effects that the media has had on our culture in recent decades. It is still obvious that there are significant and potentially catastrophic changes taking place in society. We are losing our capacity to connect, not only with others, but with ourselves. The quality of our relationships is diminishing with a growing lack of devotion. Our friendships, while more numerous, are more superficial. Our heroes are fleeting and few. Humans thrive on that interaction with others, be it one-on-one or in looking up to someone we have never met. We need that personal connection. It helps us define ourselves.
Heroes are becoming a thing of the past. No one is big enough to be a true hero anymore. Having a hero requires devotion, and the flattered self is not willing to give that to anyone anymore. (de Zengotita 2005) The idea of modeling our lives, or just a part of our lives, after one thing, person or idea is traumatizing. It takes away our individual freedom. As de Zengotita discusses, our society has become obsessed with picking people’s lives apart. The press feeds off of the faults of public figures. We feed off of the faults of public figures. It makes us feel better about ourselves, or more accurately, our “selves.” We aren't willing to let anyone be our hero anymore, because that means they are better than we are. We are conditioned to the "I am number one" concept. Believing that someone is better than we are undermines our individual self-confidence. At least, that is what the media insinuates. There is something to be said for having a hero, someone to look up to. It gives If our culture focused less on "what I am," and more on "who I can be," our world would be a very different place.
We have become so focused on our “selves” and how we portray our “selves” that we no longer know who we really are. We are also losing the ability to see others for who they really are. This phenomenon is permeating our society and changing the way we live and interact. If it goes unrecognized much longer, there will be no choice but to conform. Now, though, we still have the ability to adapt. The evolution itself is not catastrophic, but the effects could be. We are losing ourselves in the choices we make, but there is still time to reconnect with our true “self.”
Fifty years ago, the Internet as we know it was merely a dream that most people had never fathomed. Our generation cannot imagine a world without Internet. How would we keep in touch with our friends from high school? Where would we do our research for that psychology paper? What about getting directions to the airport? Obviously, there were solutions to all these problems before the advent of the Internet. We just think them time-intensive and unnecessary. The Internet has changed every aspect of society, from the way we advertise to the way we learn. This revolution has altered the way we define ourselves. Our society has become much more materialistic and fast-paced. People are faced with a perpetual time crunch, and self portrayal has seen a drastic change. We pass judgments of others in one glance. Everything on the outside of the person is assumed to be a direct representation of identity. This does not mean that those assumptions are unchangeable, but it is true that first impressions can be hard to take back.
This immediate image that each individual portrays is what others now identify with our “self.” As a society, we recognize that. And we are responding to it. Some responses are insignificant, but others are more penetrating. Instead of cultivating our personalities, we rely on the things we wear and buy to define ourselves. We have more choices than ever before; and those choices define who we are to the rest of the world. Our consumption creates our identity.
Music is one of the most telling representations of identity. In Mediated, de Zengotita discusses musical preferences and their connection to attitude. Ultimately, our attitude is what shapes our identity. When we choose what music we listen to, it is generally based on the most simplistic, yet broad aspect of ourselves: our background. Region, ethnicity, religion, education and values are the primary basis for our musical preferences. We will not listen to something if we do not believe in it. People will buy a shirt or car because they perceive that others will think they are “cool”; but most people cannot stand to listen to music that they don’t agree with for an extended amount of time. Music may be the one thing you cannot fake.
Emotion, on the other hand, is a different story. We have learned to fake just as much "sincere" emotion as we can actually show. Often times, we regulate our outward emotions to what we perceive is expected, be it more or less than what we really feel. Rarely now is our emotion truly pure: we live in the moment, putting on a show, performing for a crowd, acting the way we are "supposed to." (de Zengotita 2005)
Ultimately, we are looking for approval. All we want is to be accepted by other people. This is has always been true for any human being; however, in this age, we are obsessed with it. Our lives have become centered on others’ opinions, as opposed to self-fulfillment. We are too concerned with what other people think. Our image has become more important than our beliefs. Eventually, no one will be honestly happy. Why? As de Zengotita states so well, because “real is not real enough.” Being ourselves is not good enough anymore. Or at least that is what we think. We are on a constant quest for flattery. We feed off of it and make every choice based on it. Being fulfilled used to be good enough, but now we are not allowed to be happy until everyone else is happy with us. Is that really fair? Some people are recognizing the problem with this, but too many of us have remained ignorant and complacent. Those people continue to portray their created “selves,” and live in a false light of happiness.
This desire for recognition has filtered to us through the media. Television promotes reality television, where you get to be your “self”; advertising is personalized for us, giving us constant, yet false, one-on-one attention. We have learned the best ways to get that attention. We exploit the system to get the highest, most positive response possible. By choosing what we wear, what we say, who we are friends with and what we consume, we can predict fairly accurately the response of the media and society. Therefore, we make said choices to maximize that attention and flattery. But we are not the only ones who know that. The media knows that we have figured out what they know. So while we think we are (usually subconsciously) undermining them, they are still using us. It is an unending cycle of manipulation and a false sense of triumph.
A prime example of this is found in reality television. We use reality television to exploit the media and get the ultimate attention: for the contestants, a national (sometimes worldwide) television appearance; for the audience, typically a chance to feel a lot better about ourselves. Producers of reality television exploit that desire for flattery by driving contestants to their breaking points through various methods of deprivation (Brenton and Cohen 2003). They push the contestant to the extreme of their created “self”. It could be seen as a test, to see if the person can really stay true to their “self” in alternative conditions. On the audience front, producers are using the pseudo-unpredictable actions of contestants to bring in an audience that desires to be considered “normal.” We need affirmation that we fit in, we are not like those contestants who do crazy things to get attention. It is a double-edged sword. While we are trying to stand out (like the contestants), we also need approval (like the audience). We crave uniqueness, yet seek normalcy.
Infiltrating not only television, but all types of media, is advertising. Marketers’ primary goal is to figure out what we want. Right now, we want attention. And they are giving it to us – personalized e-mails, customized online pop-ups, coupons tailored to our shopping tendencies, the list is extensive. Even politicians are in on it, calling our cell phones and leaving messages beseeching our support. As obnoxious as it seems, the advertisements keep coming. Why? Because the tactics are working. We like to pretend that we are annoyed, even creeped out, by all the personalization. In actuality, it is exactly what we want. Every one of those e-mails and phone calls feeds our ego a little bit. It is not quite as effective as face-to-face communication, but that is nearly impossible in marketing. The platforms that are currently utilized – Internet, telephone, television, radio, etc. – are getting the job done. We feel a little bit more special; because someone (or something) was thinking of us.
Platforms of communication say a lot about human perception. The platform on which people communicate is a window into what is important to them. Although technology has created radically different pathways of communication than before, there are still some things that inherently require face-to-face contact. Yet, people still have their private lives plastered on the web for almost anyone to see. Facebook status updates are like mini press releases. We have become accustomed to broadcasting information about ourselves and receiving tiny pieces of (possibly) insignificant feedback. Do all those status comments accumulate to the equivalent of a face-to-face conversation with a best friend? The possibility exists that we are slowly giving up our ability to have unique, meaningful relationships. There is something to be said for compensation on other communication platforms, but generally, the more people that know a piece of information, the less important it is perceived; the surprise factor is gone.
All of this is a very basic summation of the effects that the media has had on our culture in recent decades. It is still obvious that there are significant and potentially catastrophic changes taking place in society. We are losing our capacity to connect, not only with others, but with ourselves. The quality of our relationships is diminishing with a growing lack of devotion. Our friendships, while more numerous, are more superficial. Our heroes are fleeting and few. Humans thrive on that interaction with others, be it one-on-one or in looking up to someone we have never met. We need that personal connection. It helps us define ourselves.
Heroes are becoming a thing of the past. No one is big enough to be a true hero anymore. Having a hero requires devotion, and the flattered self is not willing to give that to anyone anymore. (de Zengotita 2005) The idea of modeling our lives, or just a part of our lives, after one thing, person or idea is traumatizing. It takes away our individual freedom. As de Zengotita discusses, our society has become obsessed with picking people’s lives apart. The press feeds off of the faults of public figures. We feed off of the faults of public figures. It makes us feel better about ourselves, or more accurately, our “selves.” We aren't willing to let anyone be our hero anymore, because that means they are better than we are. We are conditioned to the "I am number one" concept. Believing that someone is better than we are undermines our individual self-confidence. At least, that is what the media insinuates. There is something to be said for having a hero, someone to look up to. It gives If our culture focused less on "what I am," and more on "who I can be," our world would be a very different place.
We have become so focused on our “selves” and how we portray our “selves” that we no longer know who we really are. We are also losing the ability to see others for who they really are. This phenomenon is permeating our society and changing the way we live and interact. If it goes unrecognized much longer, there will be no choice but to conform. Now, though, we still have the ability to adapt. The evolution itself is not catastrophic, but the effects could be. We are losing ourselves in the choices we make, but there is still time to reconnect with our true “self.”
The Method
My research has focused primarily on reading and analyzing Mediated by Thomas de Zengotita. The articles that we have read for class as well as Shooting People by Brenton and Cohen have played a large role in my work. The biggest thing for me is writing down my thoughts as I'm reading. I keep finding myself writing little pieces of my research paper as I go, and then finding ways to connect everything. Everything is starting to fall into place!
(this was written a few weeks ago, just realized that it didn't post!)
(this was written a few weeks ago, just realized that it didn't post!)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
