Or is it?? — Baden
Note here how it’s commonalities of discourses that defined the orientation under which the theory was interpreted and integrated into personal contructs. The directionality of travel had already been established by the prevailing (sub)cultural context in a way the various groups of intellectuals were clearly not aware of; otherwise, they would have had the means to challenge their assumptions! — Baden
I would argue that we always know implicitly what that overarching framework is that guides our motives and understandings, even if not at a level we can verbalize. We mustn’t confuse our inability to articulate in words the contrast poles of our core constructs with their being invisible or unconscious to us. — Joshs
this premise misses what Benjamin and Adorno have in common with postmodernist thinkers. They agree that we are impacted by the sublime that has always remained unthought and unrepresentable. — Number2018
I think you highlight here how the process of commodification neutralises the effectiveness of self-development by appropriating it under its rubric, fostering an instrumental attitude towards it that tends to undermine its proper logic, almost as if partaking in the commercial aspect of the process (buying a book, paying for a course) is the solution and partaking in whatever therapy offered just more work to get through to get our money's worth. — Baden
Undoubtedly, Heidegger's philosophy of time significantly supports your affirmation of an individual's capacities to maintain autonomy and adaptability. I would argue that phenomenology cannot provideas Heidegger argues, events always mater to us, are relevant and significant. This is because a pre-understanding operates to make the world familiar to us at some level. This pre-understanding is that frame , that totality of relevance, that makes the world
recognizable to us — Joshs
Our personal identities are concerned more with general psychological character and our social identities more with occupation, career, status etc.—not that these don’t overlap or aren’t located on the same spectrum, but that personal identity tends to reflect ideologies of “individuality” (which in so far as they remain within the social sphere [in so far as we are “sane”, i.e. recognizably social actors] are just more social narratives) and social identity tends towards ideologies of the collective. — Baden
Or else: It's unthinkable to them that what they make could be mere assumptions (and as such subject to revision); but rather, they believe that what they claim about another person is the ultimate truth about that person.Note here how it’s commonalities of discourses that defined the orientation under which the theory was interpreted and integrated into personal contructs. The directionality of travel had already been established by the prevailing (sub)cultural context in a way the various groups of intellectuals were clearly not aware of;
otherwise, they would have had the means to challenge their assumptions! — Baden
According to Heidegger, the Being of entities can only be grasped in the present through the awareness that something appearing 'here and now' has the temporal structure of a 'making present' of something. So, it is only through temporality the meaning of Being can become articulated. Yet, in our current environment, the totality of pre-calculated and pre-programmed situations precisely targets the moment of 'here and now'.
There is no more future; it has already arrived as an overwhelming aggregate of pre-formed retentions. There is no past because it is separated from individual memory and "settled" in the collective digitalized network. Only the present remains, that is, the continuing time of perception, in which the perceiver cannot distinguish himself from the perceived. — Number2018
↪Number2018
According to Heidegger, the Being of entities can only be grasped in the present through the awareness that something appearing 'here and now' has the temporal structure of a 'making present' of something. So, it is only through temporality the meaning of Being can become articulated. Yet, in our current environment, the totality of pre-calculated and pre-programmed situations precisely targets the moment of 'here and now'.
There is no more future; it has already arrived as an overwhelming aggregate of pre-formed retentions. There is no past because it is separated from individual memory and "settled" in the collective digitalized network. Only the present remains, that is, the continuing time of perception, in which the perceiver cannot distinguish himself from the perceived.
— Number2018
Is this from Baudrillard? Doesn’t sound like Deleuze. — Joshs
For Foucault, Baudelaire aspires to overcome "the ephemeral, the fleeting, the contingent' character of modernity and recapture 'something eternal that is not beyond the present instant, nor behind it, but within it.'…At the heart of the present is an instant of the intensive novelty. The newest replaces the new so that the endless repetition re-establishes the ongoing eternity. — Number2018
Our personal identities are concerned more with general psychological character and our social identities more with occupation, career, status etc.—not that these don’t overlap or aren’t located on the same spectrum, but that personal identity tends to reflect ideologies of “individuality” (which in so far as they remain within the social sphere [in so far as we are “sane”, i.e. recognizably social actors] are just more social narratives) and social identity tends towards ideologies of the collective. — Baden
What I see is that the enormous social pressure has created an environment in which you're not really free to "explore" different identities at all — Judaka
:smile: Indeed, there are destructive social forces, as have already been proven through studies and experiments.Though I will strenuously deny cartesianism if ever accused of it, I will gladly join forces with the cartesians in common ideological combat against social forces that I consider destructive. — Baden
I think the online social element is being criminally underplayed in your OP. — Judaka
Perhaps the OP might have better been about the context of social media, rather than commercial environment. Then I would agree with it. — jgill
Need to reiterate the quite reasonable risk that I've missed something, but anyway. What continually popped into my mind while reading your OP was the handful of documentaries I've watched about Facebook and Facebook addiction. In one case Mums in their 30s to 40s, would post pictures about their holidays, children, and pets. What they'd eat, and do for the day, and the excitement that came with a like of their picture or a nice comment. Presenting all the good parts of their lives, while leaving out the bad. Some treated it like it were a full-time job. — Judaka
In a separate case, there was a documentary on how multi-level marketing schemes would attract mothers who perhaps had had their children leave home. To sell accessories, cosmetics or clothes, and to present this image of themselves on social media as living a great life. As things would start to go poorly, they couldn't face the shame of admitting their failures online and so felt forced to maintain the lie. They preferred to continue their losing strategy than embarrass themselves to friends and family. — Judaka
So, I guess my question is, doesn't this create the condition where social identities are deeply individualistic?
I don't really see this "proliferation of identities" that conflict with each other, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean. What I see is that the enormous social pressure has created an environment in which you're not really free to "explore" different identities at all. In fact, if you mention the wrong political idea online, the worry is the grave social implications it will have. And people would rather lie about doing well than admit there's a problem because they're focused on the social image they're cultivating.
In consumer culture, a teenager will follow social influencers and conform to what's happening on social media to fit in and cultivate an image. If there's any intent to cultivate an identity, it's because it's trending and there's a need to follow to fit in. However, for adults, it's probably more likely to see the goal of presenting success to others, a happy family and marriage, etc. — Judaka
The thesis presented here then is that this phenomenon of multiple and fractured identity formation, the creation of self-conflictual selves (subjectively experienced in the long term as unhappy, meaningless and anxious selves, characterized by indecision, irresoluteness, and inaction) is not a bug but a feature of advanced society and the more “advanced” the society the more a feature it tends to become. — Baden
The other part of this which I want to challenge is the characterisation of political disorganization and powerlessness. US society doesn't seem filled with indecision and irresoluteness... Isn't it the complete opposite? To me, it appears fanatical, social media facilitates this kind of peer pressure and herd mentality which drives users into a frenzy. The political mobilisation through social media is unlike anything ever before seen, simple hashtags can organise massive movements so quickly. — Judaka
The thesis presented here then is that this phenomenon of multiple and fractured identity formation, the creation of self-conflictual selves (subjectively experienced in the long term as unhappy, meaningless and anxious selves, characterized by indecision, irresoluteness, and inaction — Baden
I think it would help to give a simple example of what you take an identity to be. Are you talking about what it means to be a modern woman or a father figure or what? If we want to create a sphere which we call "identity" and try to separate from it other aspects, work, for instance, then we need a more clear idea of what an identity is. — Manuel
The more powerful the online conditioning, the more resolute and actively engaged we are with extremes of identities (again, online experiences tend to push us to the extremes because of competition for social capital) but also the more potential for inner conflict in less homogenous social capital environments. Paradoxically then, the very resoluteness of one identity can lead to a more generalised irresoluteness of the self. — Baden
↪Number2018
For Foucault, Baudelaire aspires to overcome "the ephemeral, the fleeting, the contingent' character of modernity and recapture 'something eternal that is not beyond the present instant, nor behind it, but within it.'…At the heart of the present is an instant of the intensive novelty. The newest replaces the new so that the endless repetition re-establishes the ongoing eternity.
— Number2018
This is Nietzsche’s eternal return of the same
— Joshs
This is Nietzsche’s eternal return of the same, which Heidegger depicted thusly:
“The "momentary" character of creation is the essence of actual, actuating eternity, which achieves its greatest breadth and keenest edge as the moment of eternity in the return of the same. The recoining of what becomes into being-will to power in its supreme configuration-is in its most profound essence something that occurs in the "glance of an eye" as eternal recurrence of the same. The will to power, as constitution of being, is as it is solely on the basis of the way to be which Nietzsche projects for being as a whole: Will to power, in its essence and according to its inner possibility, is eternal recurrence of the same.” — Joshs
↪Number2018
For Foucault, Baudelaire aspires to overcome "the ephemeral, the fleeting, the contingent' character of modernity and recapture 'something eternal that is not beyond the present instant, nor behind it, but within it.'…At the heart of the present is an instant of the intensive novelty. The newest replaces the new so that the endless repetition re-establishes the ongoing eternity.
— Number2018
This is Nietzsche’s eternal return of the same
— Joshs
No, it is not. — Number2018
Mark the singularity of events. . . . Grasp their return. . . . Define their lacuna point, the moment they did not take place. (Foucault, ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’). Through the figure of Baudelaire, Foucault re-affirms the reality of the Nietzsche’s Dionysian aesthetic existence.
— Number2018
Heidegger’s account of Nietzsche’s eternal return is entirely different from Foucault and Deleuze’s interpretations. — Number2018
Here, technological progress, particularly through mass and social media, provides us with the “freedom” to tie ourselves in ever more convoluted psycho-social knots which present themselves to us as novel experiences or experimental or disposable identities, while having the same fundamentally stultifying character of limiting our ability to narrativize a coherent and unified self in a meaningful social context. — Baden
Possibly. But do you think this is what is happening in practice? Do you think people are becoming deeper, more thoughtful and more in touch with themselves? Do you think modern societies are progressing away from frivolousness, stupidity, and superficiality towards character, intelligence and creativity? Do you think there is less and less evidence of mental conflict evidenced through reduced levels of mental illness, unhappiness, anxiety and drug use? Or are you positing this is as a positive potential in current society that has yet to be realised? — Baden
Im going to try and restate those reservations. It seems to me that the philosophical resources you draw from (post-Marxist Frankfurt school critical theory, among others) to form your concepts of self, identity, the social and their interconnections, remain too attached to the concept of the bounded subject even as they critique metaphysical notions of the self. Your aim is to rescue a notion of subjective unity from its dispersion and fragmentation by social forces. Personal development depends on finding a way to resist the irresoluteness of online identities. — Joshs
“...the unitary self maintains its oneness by repressing all that does not fit. Thus censored, the illegitimate parts of the self are not accessible.”... [But our postmodern selves] “do not feel compelled to rank or judge the elements of our multiplicity. We do not feel compelled to exclude what does not fit.” — Turkle
“Sherry Turkle [advocates] the notion that cyberspace-phenomena render palpable in our everyday experience the deconstructionist “decentered subject”. According to these theorists, one should endorse the dissemination of the unique self into a multiplicity of competing agents… into a plurality of self-images without a global coordinating centre, that is operative in cyberspace.” — Slavoj Zizek, On Belief
“Turkle explores how technology is changing the way we communicate. In particular, Turkle raises concerns about the way in which genuine, organic social interactions become degraded through constant exposure to illusory meaningful exchanges with artificial intelligence. Underlying Turkle's central argument is the fact that the technological developments which have most contributed to the rise of inter-connectivity have at the same time bolstered a sense of alienation between people. The alienation involves links between social networks favouring those of proper conversations.” — Wikipedia
I think the philosophical approaches that offer the most effective and direct critique of this way of thinking fall into the postmodern camp of poststructuralism ( Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze). The social constructionist work of Ken Gergen also belongs to this larger thinking.
While there is significant overlap between the postmodern and the critical theoretic vantages concerning the importance of social practices in shaping individual thought and feeling, for writers like Gergen subjectivity is an effect of discursive interchange. He conceives the relationship between two or more persons not in terms of "interacting" individuals, but of elements of an inseparable system in which the relationship precedes the individual psychologies. The ‘I’ through-and -through is a socially created construct. — Joshs
The social can no longer be thought of in opposition to the individual. This means that forces of domination are not possessed by individuals , groups , institutions , corporations, governments, media centers. They flow through, within and between subjectivities , in this way constantly creating and recreating individuals and groups through dialogical interchange. — Joshs
Gergen writes “Successful bonding calls for a transformation in narrative. The “I” as the center of the story must gradually be replaced by the “we.”
You write that technology-fueled cultural trends encourage “multiple and fractured identity formation, the creation of self-conflictual selves”, which limits “our ability to narrativize a coherent and unified self in a meaningful social context.”
For Gergen the goal is not to carve out a self-narrative that distinguishes the individual in some way from the social context it interacts with, but “to coordinate our actions within the common scenarios of our culture.”
In other words, the relational bond is a dance co-created by a ‘we’, not an interaction between internally unified selves. Loneliness and isolation would be symptoms of a dance whose shared unfolding is uncoordinated , not the failure to produce coherent selves participating in the dance. — Joshs
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.