Kid Finsta
This weeks prompt immediately brought me to a piece of news I read last year about children hiding their "true" social media accounts from their parents. They have their various "finstas" "fakebooks" and fwitter... fitter? fwatter... we'll workshop it... where they post their model lives for their parents and then under some secret name post their "real" identity for their friends. Here are some articles:
https://www.today.com/parents/parents-you-know-about-instagram-do-you-know-finsta-t117541
https://www.theparentswebsite.com.au/hidden-life-teens-social-media/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/well/family/the-secret-social-media-lives-of-teenagers.html
"Many teens use shortened versions of their names or aliases for finsta accounts, which they often see as an opportunity to share a less edited, less filtered version of their lives." (NYT)
To me, this poses an interesting series of questions about the generation of self online. Which is the real self, in this scenario, the unfiltered version sharing whatever they feel like in the mediasphere, or the more regulated one? Are either of them the complete picture of self? How do we define identity in the digital age?
The answer, I believe, relates to intent, but lies outside our personal control. If, for example, I go online and post a bunch of stuff that will make my mother happy, and I am doing it for the reason that I want to make my mother happy. If I ostensibly don't believe it, I am trying to say that I am not creating my true identity. Alternatively, if a high school kid posts a bunch of Nazi material on a fake account believing they are establishing their right-wing, national-socialist identity, I think the argument could be made that they ARE showing something truthful about themselves.
However, both me and this Nazi kid are betraying something truthful about ourselves that goes beyond our ability to control it. In this scenario, I post things I think will make my mother happy, despite not believing them, but in doing so I am betraying my true identity as someone who wants his mother to think well of him. Nazi boy is trying to reveal what he perceives to be universal truths about the state of race or government, but is instead betraying a sense of alienation and hatred. Or alternatively, perhaps he is showing a delight in being a contrarian. He takes pleasure in saying things that offend others because it gives him a sense of power. There is an undercurrent of self beneath it all.
Whatever our respective reasons are for taking these actions, we are unable to completely manicure the image of ourselves we desire. That is because identity is relational. My morals, my sense of self, my desired method of expression comes in relationship to others. If I am a loner my identity is defined by not wanting to be with others. If I am an attention seeker, my identity is augmented by the likes I receive for my posts. I suppose this is a Foucaultian way of understanding the world, but I still think it makes sense in the digital age.
https://www.today.com/parents/parents-you-know-about-instagram-do-you-know-finsta-t117541
https://www.theparentswebsite.com.au/hidden-life-teens-social-media/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/07/well/family/the-secret-social-media-lives-of-teenagers.html
"Many teens use shortened versions of their names or aliases for finsta accounts, which they often see as an opportunity to share a less edited, less filtered version of their lives." (NYT)
To me, this poses an interesting series of questions about the generation of self online. Which is the real self, in this scenario, the unfiltered version sharing whatever they feel like in the mediasphere, or the more regulated one? Are either of them the complete picture of self? How do we define identity in the digital age?
The answer, I believe, relates to intent, but lies outside our personal control. If, for example, I go online and post a bunch of stuff that will make my mother happy, and I am doing it for the reason that I want to make my mother happy. If I ostensibly don't believe it, I am trying to say that I am not creating my true identity. Alternatively, if a high school kid posts a bunch of Nazi material on a fake account believing they are establishing their right-wing, national-socialist identity, I think the argument could be made that they ARE showing something truthful about themselves.
However, both me and this Nazi kid are betraying something truthful about ourselves that goes beyond our ability to control it. In this scenario, I post things I think will make my mother happy, despite not believing them, but in doing so I am betraying my true identity as someone who wants his mother to think well of him. Nazi boy is trying to reveal what he perceives to be universal truths about the state of race or government, but is instead betraying a sense of alienation and hatred. Or alternatively, perhaps he is showing a delight in being a contrarian. He takes pleasure in saying things that offend others because it gives him a sense of power. There is an undercurrent of self beneath it all.
Whatever our respective reasons are for taking these actions, we are unable to completely manicure the image of ourselves we desire. That is because identity is relational. My morals, my sense of self, my desired method of expression comes in relationship to others. If I am a loner my identity is defined by not wanting to be with others. If I am an attention seeker, my identity is augmented by the likes I receive for my posts. I suppose this is a Foucaultian way of understanding the world, but I still think it makes sense in the digital age.
Hm. I think I need a finsta. I don't have an insta, so it'd be a finsta without an insta, kind of like how Baudrillard talks about simulacra as copies without originals. I'm old, is what I'm saying.
ReplyDelete