Social Media - Why it Sickens the Self and Divides Society

“WHAT HAS GOD DONE?” These were the first words sent via the newly invented electric telegraph in May 1844. This message turned out to be prophetic. Because the communication technologies that followed the telegraph, from the telephone to radio, television, computers, the Internet and now smartphones and

social

media

, have radically altered the fabric of

society

. In this video series we are going to explore some of the effects of using modern communication technology. Because while they are notable achievements of human ingenuity, these technologies are a double-edged sword. Communication is easier than ever, but so is the ability of governments and corporations to track and monitor us.

The

media

and educational gatekeepers of yesteryear have been irreparably weakened by the rise of the Internet and

social

media – which were a boon to curious minds – but these technologies are also being used to manipulate us through censorship and rampant propaganda. And while they create new possibilities for how we work, learn, and entertain ourselves, these technologies have an addictive side that promotes anxiety disorders and a wasted life. In the first video of this series we will explore how the use of these technologies, and specifically the use of social media, is altering the way many of us answer the fundamental question: "Who am I?" Our answer to this question, or the story we tell ourselves about ourselves, forms our identity or

self

-concept.

How we approach life's challenges, what we believe we are capable of, how we treat others, what we value, and even how we see the world are all influenced by our

self

-concept, or as psychologist Michael Mahoney writes: “Like a spontaneous projector.” of different shapes and frequencies of light, he formidably constrains and interprets the reflections of his own pieces. He is a navigator or sculptor always present but invisible on a lifelong journey. . .” (Human Change Process) Michael Mahoney, Human Change Processes The health or illness of a

society

is an emergent byproduct of the health or illness of the self-concepts of the people who populate that society.

A society filled with individuals with weak self-concepts, self-concepts that fear novelty, are imbued with helplessness, plagued with anxiety, plagued with self-hatred, or lacking in self-sufficiency, can only be a sick society. “For one thing is necessary: ​​that a human being achieve satisfaction with himself... only then is it tolerable to contemplate a human being. He who is dissatisfied with himself is continually ready to take revenge, and we, the rest, will be his victims…” Nietzsche, The Gay Science Our self-concept is in continuous development and is the product of many factors, including our upbringing, education, biology, environment , interpersonal relationships and intrapersonal experiences.

But one of the most important factors in shaping our identity is the predominant identity formation mechanism in our society. To understand what an identity formation mechanism is, we will examine the two mechanisms that preceded the emergence of social media, namely sincerity and authenticity. Sincerity prevailed in the West until a few generations ago and was based on the idea that one's identity was intimately tied to a set of social roles. These roles were not chosen by the individual, but were assigned by the family and community. One's own identity then emerged in the attempt to play these roles sincerely. “In earlier times, identity used to be assigned by the social roles into which one was born.

Along with birth comes not only gender, but also tribal or ethnic identity, social class, profession and religion.” (You and Your Profile) Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul D'Ambrosio, You and Your Profile In the 19th and 20th centuries, greater social mobility and greater equality of opportunity unleashed a new freedom of expression. The predetermined social roles of class, gender, religion and ethnicity became less important and the identity formation mechanism of sincerity was replaced by authenticity. Under authenticity one discovers, realizes or creates one's identity and therefore identity formation becomes an individual task. For some, this turns out to be a blessing, as it opens up possibilities and potentials that are hindered when one is expected to sincerely conform to predetermined social roles; for others, it is a burden, since freedom of expression comes with responsibility for the created self. .

But something strange has happened with the rise of social media: many people are returning to an identity formation mechanism that resembles sincerity, an identity formation mechanism that Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul D'Ambrosio in You and your profile is called profilicity. Like sincerity, profilicity is directed at others and depends on the audience's reactions. In all honesty, family and community are the audience that passes judgment on how sincerely or adequately one performs predetermined roles. In the case of profilicity, the audience is a generalized peer group consisting of hundreds, thousands or even millions of social media users and this audience plays a somewhat different role than in the case of sincerity: the audience not only judges the identity one forms, but also helps shape identity. same roles that one strives to play.

Because prophilicity involves creating profiles on social media by selectively viewing images and other bits of information, or in a more passive way by simply observing the profiles of admired personalities and then using these idealized profiles as roles to play in real life. Or as Jeremy Weissman explains in The Crowdsourced Panopticon: “. . . A simultaneous exchange occurs between the two entities, our digital self and our real-life self. As we broadcast idealized portraits of our real-life selves online, we in turn adjust our real-life selves to meet popular approval when we are broadcast online again. At a certain point, our real-life and digital selves practically merge.” Jeremy Weissman, The Crowdsourced Panopticon Forming an identity through the mechanism of prophilicity has serious drawbacks.

First, it promotes an unhealthy degree of conformity. Because to be successful in the world of social media is to settle, since a successful profile is measured by metrics such as likes, shares and follows. But prophilicity requires not only conforming to peer group preferences, but also conforming to the standards set by those who manipulate social media algorithms, or as Weissman writes: “Through the ever-widening gaze of an omnipresent audience.” online, we can "They can be excessively pressured, even coerced into collective opinion, since the mechanism of likes, dislikes, friends and followers of social networks constantly subjects us to the judgment of the crowd along with that gaze." Jeremy Weissman, The Crowdsourced Panopticon By promoting hyperconformity, prophilicity limits our potential as a widespread peer group of social media users, and the manipulators of social media algorithms have no interest in many elements that make up a healthy sense of self same.

With profilicity, if we step too far out of line, if we are too unique, or if our value system strays too far from what is considered acceptable, we will be rejected, shamed, and ostracized. Appearances, superficialities, and attachment to popular culture values ​​are what matter with prophilicity, not with the cultivation of a harmonized mind, a healthy body, and a fulfilled life. Furthermore, if we live in a sick society, this sickness will be embodied in the preferences of the generalized peer group, and therefore, by seeking validation from this crowd and embodying their preferences, we lock ourselves into a sick sense of self. “Once we give up our true selves to play a role, we are destined to be rejected because we have already rejected ourselves.

However, we will fight to make that role more successful, hoping to overcome our destiny but finding ourselves more trapped in it. We are trapped in a vicious circle that continues to close, diminishing our life and our being.” Alexander Lowen, Fear of Life But the defects of prophilicity are not limited to the stunting of our potential, as this method of identity formation also promotes a rigidity in belief systems that hinders social progress and generates social conflict. Because an integral part of building a successful social media profile is the demonstration of virtuosity by supporting the moral values ​​of the widespread online peer group.

Unlike times past, when virtuosity was displayed through actions or verbal statements that were ephemeral in nature and limited in scope to family, friends and community members, social media creates a permanent record of stances. morals for all the world to see. On social media, our moral stances follow us into the future with a tenacity previously unknown to most people. As a result, even when presented with facts, information or experiences that run counter to the narratives used to support their views, many people refuse to correct them, as this is tantamount to denying an important aspect of their narratively constructed identity. social networks, or as Moeller and D'Ambrosio explain: “Identification with the cause becomes so central and primary that, curiously, one prefers news that the problem is really as bad as one fears, since this affirms the value of the cause and, therefore, of the identification itself. with that.

If climate change or civil rights ceased to be an issue, the identity of those who identify with these causes would be undermined and deflated. Each person's profile – sometimes built and maintained with the effort of a lifetime, and in which one is deeply involved – would lose its social validity and become obsolete. The stronger the identification with a cause, the more caring for the cause also becomes caring for oneself.” Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul D'Ambrosio, You and your profile Under profility, the search for truth has given way to the maintenance of identities and this is the recipe for a polarized society.

To make matters worse, with social media algorithms being manipulated by tech companies in ways that serve powerful institutional interests, many people do not realize that the moral stances of popular culture are simply stances that promote the agendas of corrupt corporations and governments. But the social impacts of modern communication technologies go even deeper than this, because, as we will explore in the following video, these technologies may be leading us to the dystopian, carceral conditions of a crowd-sourced panopticon: to a world in which They are both prisoners and guards in a state of massive and omnipresent surveillance.