Identity Crisis .:Part 2:.

Part of my difficulty in Part 1 and this post was that I originally loved Foucault and Goffman. At least, at the superficial level as a used-for-past-research acquaintance. I got what they were saying at the introductory level and believed it. In today’s reality-tv obsessed programming, I agreed with those two: in essence, BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING.

I guess I still love those two old pals of mine. But, the game-changer was my reading from Feminism/Postmodernism and the critique on Foucault (which I suppose can be applied to Goffman).

“Big Brother is watching” — this is the idea of power being everywhere and nowhere at the same time. We hold it in the sense of controlling everyone’s actions, yet that omniscience we hold is both almighty, and meaningless at the same time. Quite simply, it means something because we make it mean something. I work part-time in retail where there are cameras. Knowing that corporate has much better things to do than sit and watch me all day makes me think that I don’t have to care as much. However, knowing that my actions are archived changes my mind in doing something out of line. Even the possibility knowing that someone just might decide to do a random check-in via satellite and watch me in real-time. All these possibilities keep me in line. I do get borrowed in another location, where the store is much smaller, and there are no cameras. Knowing this when I go there, I would think I would let loose a little, but I don’t.

Why? It all goes back to performance and the panopticon. The employees at that store all have their own standards, so I have to maintain that. In addition, they know that my standards are always tested being on camera, so I’m under scrutiny to not make mistakes or be useless.

This got me wondering about gender dynamics, relations, and identity: how do these narratives, scripts, schemas, play out as a performance?

Hartsock in the Feminism/Postmodernism reader specifically critiques Foucault that while he has “…obvious sympathy for those who are subjugated in various ways, he writes from the perspective of the dominator, ‘the self-proclaimed majority'” (165). Hartsock also points out the complexities and controversies of the politics of recognition as, “…power relations are less visible to those who are in a position to dominate others” (165). Thus, how valid are some of his theories to apply for someone who is marginalized? Hartsock also points out that Foucault suggests that those in the margins are accountable for their own actions which sounds a lot like blaming the victim.

Going back to Part 1, I mentioned that through the years growing up, I chose to act as one-of-the-boys, as well as dismissed my ethnic culture so as not to appear too “off the boat fobby”. Yet, my WordPress blog Gravatar and my Facebook profile picture is a picture of Sailor Mars…very ironically iconic and symbolic of my Asian identity. I also will point out that being once young, I admittedly have posted suggestive ‘girly’ photos of myself while intoxicated, scantily clad and so forth. In fact, those pictures are still up on my profile. Whether it’s for my ego, or whether I choose to embrace my silly youthful mistakes, or whether I just don’t care to upkeep my profile, that is a whole topic I dare a psychologist to analyze and tell me what they think.

The question I am trying to get at here is this: are we really perpetuating a cycle of our identities based on what others expect of us? I like to think I do things for myself, but the rude awakening of reality has told me that I put way too much effort in thinking if you all will approve of every move I make first. It’s all apparently very silently and internally calculated, then channeled. And somehow, I believe my actions are authentic, but perhaps it’s more contrived than I’d like.

Identity Crisis .:Part 1:.

I know that it’s been awhile since I’ve written. Yes, it’s fast approaching midterms and the first round of assignments, and I’m aware those aren’t valid excuses because of time management….so you got me there. But, what I’m about to write did trouble me for a bit. Not in the-world’s-going-to-end kind of way, but my-world-in-my-head shaking—thought-provoking—wait-a-second—huh?!! kind of way.

While Goffman elaborates on how humans have crafted the art of putting on our masks designated for each situation, Foucault assumes that we are watching each other and making sure these acts are up to standards. So, in a sense I act the way I do because I’m expected to.

Or is it that I act according to how the public perceives me?

Or…I act how I want people to see me?

Hmm, all are very good possibilities, and all, or some, or one could be true. Then, who am I?

Growing up, I disliked the possibility of being labelled and stereotyped as a vapid, dippy, girly girl. I also grew up in a predominantly White-Anglo-Saxon town, which did not help my identity as an ethnic minority. I battled my parents strong cultural beliefs, practices and values, and secretly pretended to disregard my cultural identity at school. I decided that I needed to become white-washed. In high school, I made it a point to be friendly to everyone, but keep my distance from the girls, and infiltrate the boys. I decided to be one of the guys. So what does this all mean?

At risk of exposing myself, at some point(s) in my life, I chose these identities of me and actively constructed them for myself. In the Foucauldian sense, I saw that I needed to be white-washed because I was too different that people in my community would not be able to process and understand my culture. The community standard in living in the panopticon of cookie-cutter suburbia was to act like everybody else, which meant to dismiss my culture and be a banana. Goffman would have told me that I am performing my “whiteness” and “guy mentality” as an act based on my surroundings. Since everybody around me was White, I performed being White. Furthermore, though I opted to hang with the boys rather than waddle in the drama of the girl cliques, I ultimately managed my identity to fit in with the guys.

So I became who I am based on my surroundings and company? Does this really account for how my identity was and/or is formed, and does this reflect my authentic true being? I’m not the greatest with philosophy, so maybe this explains my struggle with this post.

While my thoughts are still percolating, tossing in the wrench of the computer, social media, and online identity throws me in for a loop. How is my online identity constructed? Do I build it as I am, or how I want others to see me? Has my Facebook identity evolved and changed like I have, or does it stay stagnant locked in a matrix somewhere?

Computer, I ask you this as a friend…how much of my identity do you control and hold?

to be continued…

Sam 2, Computer 1

N’ah, I’m Just Frontin’

Next in line in laying my foundational theory is Canadian sociologist: Erving Goffman. His basic premise is that we as individuals all put on performances of our selves. He compares our daily face-to-face interactions with the public, and within the private, to a theatrical production: setting, script, props, costumes, cues, audience reaction. The components of our daily lives change much like scenes change; thus, where we are, what we do, say, or meet all change along with it.  We merely adjust accordingly based on our needs and surroundings.

If I may tie this in to Foucault, we all probably feel the need to adjust our “performances” as we know that we are all covertly being watched and moderated. I wouldn’t be going to the grocery store in my underwear. We take social cues that one must put on clothes before leaving the house. That is what is expected of us.

Now if I were to go to a country bar in an evening gown, I may be casted some awkward glances, feel highly overdressed, and more than likely be the ridicule of the night. Though I’m not harming anyone, or participating in anything illegal, I would take the social cue that my performance be deemed a little on the socially inappropriate side and opt not to do it again. Or if I was happily walking down the street and ran into a friend, exchanged hellos, and then learned that they lost their job, I’m more inclined to change my chipper demeanor to one that is a little more solemn.

Interestingly, Goffman links some aspects of our performances to social mobility and status symbols: “…performance is ‘socialized,’ molded, and modified to fit into the understanding and expectations of the society in which it is presented”, and “The notion that a performance presents an idealized view of the situation is, of course, quite common” (35). As it seems, we tend to like to put our best foot forward. Yes, we do this because we don’t want to infringe upon someone else, or upset and disrupt them as the ‘nice’ people that we are. But, we also do this because we want to be seen in the best light possible so that we are thought to be highly esteemed and respected individuals.

Who doesn’t want to be respected? I get it. But Goffman also stated that: “…fronts tend to be selected, not created” (28). What does he mean by that? That we are all practicing self-illusion?! Makes sense…I go to a job interview, I’m professional and competent. I go to a party where my ex might be there, I make damn sure I’m looking knock-you-off-your-socks salacious.

No arguing with Goffman there, he’s called me out. I’ve selected which Sam to be, and how Sam should conduct and look during that time. My question then is while Goffman emphasizes the performance in self-illusion aspect, I turn it back to authenticity and ask which part of these performances are real, and which am I just confusing with status and social mobility?

Is idealized Sam really me?…

I’m watching you…

Part of my argument in my research is the notion that social media is an institution. Enter French Philosopher Michel Foucault:

Cute lil guy don’t you think?

He elaborates on the idea of the panopticon… “A pan-o-what-a?!” you say? Before you question my research and start asking me whether I’ve seen a frying pan transform into some kind of Optimus Prime, I will expand. The panopticon originally stemmed from Jeremy Bentham – mostly from the behaviours of prison and the idea of surveillance. Foucault, furthers Bentham’s theory and in short, the idea behind the panopticon is about power, discipline, and regulation. Specifically, it is an omniscient quality that asserts an invisible power by ordering and structuring social regulation. As such, we at the individual level are ordered at a social level, which ultimately infiltrates into the regulation of our morals. A set of unspoken-but-agreed-upon rules that govern us into cordial, civil social subjects amongst each other.

An example of the theory of the panopticon could be the school setting. For the most part, we know that when the bell rings, we know to make our way to the classroom. But how do we know to do this? Yes, because it’s the rule. But we follow this rule by taking the social cue that everyone else is doing it too. We have a choice to be late, or not go. But, we also know there are consequences to those options because we are governed into knowing these possibilities. Hence, we are socially regulated to go to class when the bell rings, and morally regulated to go knowing the repercussions if we don’t ,or are tardy. Psychology lovers out there, I’m guessing you’ll compare this to the idea of classical conditioning. What I take from the panopticon, is the notion that we get autonomy by conducting ourselves in orderly fashion and creating a sense of cohesion, but also keeping us in check so that one person doesn’t get too carried away towards a free-for-all-every-man-for-himself idea.

As I tie this into my research, I am suggesting that social media serves as a panopticon. Social media as the institution, and us users are the police and watch-dogs of each other. As I creep someone’s profile, I am making judgements of what they post, how they look in their pictures, what they say, and so forth. Should they make a mistake (an honest misstep to a massive faux-pas) I might be inclined to step in to correct said action. Notice that there’s always someone who’s taking stealth photos of someone dressed highly inappropriately, ready to post on their page to comment, remark, laugh? Or felt the need to take a picture of someone who ticked you off somewhere in public, then share and vent to your online friends?

I debated this with my boyfriend the other day. He at first didn’t seem too concerned as his argument was that people will always make comments, remarks and criticisms. And yes, while we seem quick to judge and harp on someone over a forum or comments section, it is easier as we can hide behind the computer screen. I agreed, but then pointed out that while I have laughed at a friend’s Instagram post at a stranger’s expense, I also am uneasy with the idea that perchance there could be some photo of me online somewhere with derogatory and harsh captions because I shoved someone down the stairs (this NEVER happened!), when it was a circumstance of a very packed stairwell and I nudged past them. There’s always two sides to a story.

With the accessibility of the internet and social media, we all seem to feel the need to point these occurrences out online and call someone out on their action and criticize. To a point, we are asserting our power and discipline, and taking social regulation to a whole new level. But ever thought about the moral aspect of it? We are after all, violating someone’s privacy rights by taking their picture without their knowing.

Whether I care about your actions or not, I am at the end of the day, watching your every move.