A Quick Theory of the Self
The narratives of subjectivity are supplied by the institutions that one encounters in society; these take the inchoate and infinitely generative biological, neurological, genetic stuff that is the raw material of identity and bound the set, permit it to take coherent, knowable shape. The institutional framework provides means to think identity out of the raw material. It reduces the infinite possibilities to a select finite set that suits the existing social order. It supplies a grammar, a syntax to the genetic stuff that makes it speak something comprehensible to the individual and his society. (Lacan’s and Althusser’s version of subjectivity—we route the inchoate stuff of self through social institutions so that they mirror/speak it back to us, and we obtain self-knowledge, the selfhood that society makes out of us.) This self then reproduces the institutions that made it, doing the work that sustains their power to shape subsequent generations. That is, until technological disruptions change the reproductive circuit.
In consumer society, marketing is the main discourse for impoverishing the narratives of self. It provides idealized prefabricated social imagos around which any given individual’s self can crystallize. But Web 2.0 platforms are taking over for marketing, or at least marketing is evolving through these platforms into something more integrated with the discourse of friendship. Marketing and friendship have become inextricably intertwined, so that having a friend is an inherently commercial operation. Worse, the same came be said of having a self—it will need to be grounded in commercialized, corporatized discourse before we apprehend it—our self-knowledge comes to us preloaded with the prerogatives of corporate consumerism, which has at that point transcended the need for overt marketing, as the marketing is interwoven with the ways, the language, the terms, the categories in which we know ourselves.
Social networks externalize those ways, integrate them as a seamless, coherent platform. The narratives of subjectivity are even more impoverished by the restricted classifications of digital data possible within these platforms, though it remains generative to the subject himself—it seems to solve the (false) mystery of self more completely than any technology heretofore offered—but the sad irony is that the technologies produce the mystery and the ersatz solution. The self we are compelled to produce online is winnowed, smaller, with less potential for growth and less curiosity, the more we produce it and add to the archive that will dictate our future choices.
Its permanently insecure subject and its economy of identity are geared toward reproducing not the capitalist system necessarily but its own peculiar consumerist modalities. The hyperpersonalization that emerged from capitalist individuation combined with a return of communal needs in the new form of the digital network. If you go to the most recent issue of Fibreculture, you can read all about that.
Comments
In *The System of Objects,* Jean Baudrillard writes: “The objects-cum-advertising system therefore constitutes less a language, whose living syntax it lacks, than a set of significations. Impoverished yet efficient, it is basically a code. It does not structure the personality, but designates and classifies it. It does not structure social relationships, but breask them down into a hierarchical repertoire. In its formal expression it constitutes a universal system for the identification of social rank.”
Baudrillard’s analysis presumes something anterior to the system of objects, something perhaps less inchoate than the “raw material” of your quick theory of the self. I wonder then, how you account for Desire, that is desire as such as opposed to desire-for (i. e., alienated Desire, desire objectified in things). This implication I found in need of address in your otherwise fascinating and well-considered discussion—especially since you invoke Lacan.
Comment by Anton Steinpilz from generationbubble.com — November 7, 2009 @ 8:17 am
I think Baudrillard is thinking there in terms of Veblen and invidious comparisons in consumption—that the system of objects is a code for reproducing class relations—the anterior thing presumed perhaps. But one of the rewards of subjectivity is investment in a hierarchy—think the density of identity construction in a hypermediated world makes the hierarchies multiple, striated, conflicting, etc. Complicates the model of “imitating our betters” sometimes implied in analyses of consumption up to the past few decades.
Not sure how to account for “desire as such.” Libidinal force? Postulate that human “species being” entails the pursuit of self-knowledge?
Comment by Rob Horning — November 7, 2009 @ 10:44 am
With all due respect, I recommend that you consider learning about the true understanding of ‘self’. Get a copy of The Power of Self Separation Acceptance or Rejection. You will have some real insight into what we refer to as self. Knowing who you really are can be empowering and at the same time frightening. Start today, you will enjoy the journey.
Comment by Carl — November 8, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Carl, and I presume that you are Carl Florenco, author of the book that you are schilling, let me just say, I have learned more from reading the very first word (what word is that? Buy the book and find out!) of Napolean Hill’s Think and Grow Rich, than from reading your entire book from cover to cover.
Comment by Anselm from Tierra del Fuego — November 8, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
Anselm, I am just trying to help you, as for the word that you used “schilling” The schilling was the currency of Austria. The other reference that you used “Napolean Hill’s Think and Grow Rich “has nothing to do with “self”. That is if you are referring to Napoleon Hill allow me to help you with this, his area of expertise is personal development and investment, my area is behavior. I highly recommend that you learn about “self”, your life will improve. At this stage you have nothing to lose.nselm,
Comment by Carl — November 8, 2009 @ 5:33 pm
Rob,
It is refreshing to read a theoretically informed account of the self on a “pop” website. While I agree with your analysis of the latest technic of interpellating the subject as consumer via web 2.0, I had two possible objections to the totalizing picture you present of social media.
I wonder if your statement about friendship and marketing “becoming inextricably intertwined” is really that new. I imagine that friends have always marketed to one another whether consciously such as through business referrals or unconsciously by wearing a particular style of clothing.
Second, I agree these platforms provide an impoverished narrative of subjectivity, however I am not convinced that this leads the subject into seeing the narratives as their self. In other words the fact that these platforms are impoverished may make them less convincing as narratives because people can see that what is represented online is only a small part of who they are as a person. Of course, I am sure some people overly identify with their 2.0 persona, yet most people likely use it to keep up with friends who know them in other ways and share a narrative that goes beyond the one provided by social media.
Comment by Joshua from Brooklyn — November 8, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
Carl, thank you kind sir. You have already helped my “self” more than you can ever know.
Comment by Anselm from Tierra del Fuego — November 14, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
Anselm, You are welcome. Have a good day.
Comment by Carl from Florida — November 14, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
— PopMatters sponsor —