The expansionary individual
Today we are getting extremely good in having many selves insides ourselves. Continually we create new selves and identities for ourselves, almost as a survival mechanism to be able to deal with the age of uncertainty we seem to be living in these days. We have become global selves and every global self wants whatever another self has, adding new selves to our own identities. Driven by new technologies and virtualization of our lives online, this expansion of the self further increases. McCracken calls this the expansionary individualism.
Towards hyper-individualism
New generations seem to be better at managing all these different selves than older generations are. For the youngest their identity stems more from the experiences various of their selves have had than from their true identities. More and more their judgment on an experience doesn’t come from within, but rather from outside, from their environment. The selves inside don’t even ‘communicate’ to each other anymore, which puts a burden on the responsibility of the individual for his actions.
It seems to me, that the management of the expansionary individual is increasingly getting optimized by all the technology we are able to use. The digital generation is much better at that. But in essence nothing has really changed from the old way of creating and having multiple selves. The time might be different, but we still experience traditional transformations, status transformations and modern transformations (check the book for extensive descriptions of these transformations). A post-modern individual would suggest that the basis on which we form our identities has completely changed and a totally new set of beliefs underlies all the individual decisions.
I’m not sure if that is really the case. Shouldn’t we rather talk of hyper-individualism in which we have become best in organizing, managing and optimizing all the different roles we can possibly play. It is exactly that optimization, which makes it possible to become expansionary individuals.
I’m curious what you mean with ‘optimization’? What does it look like? It seems so easy the way you formulate it, but I think with ‘all the selves we have inside’ (if that is ‘true’?) as you describe it optimization isn’t that easy and I’m wondering if technology is the one and only answer to it…
You disagree with the premise that we have many selves? Why?
With optimization I mean the way, that especially young people, seem to be able to have many selves, made explicit online. They always know (from each other) who they are in a given situation. So, whereas advertisers might have difficulty in knowing if they are talking to jake19 or reddemon27, their friends know on instant what the ‘person’ is they are talking too. I believe that technology did have an impact on that. Especially for the ‘digital natives’ among us, that don’t see technology as technology but as a tool, that can help them (amongst other things) to have multiple identities.
But there definitely might be more answers here…
The question is also in the definition. I would consider that there is one self (if not schizfrenic). You might manage multiple identities but that isn’t new… an identity is for a large part constructed by its context, so in fact it might be still one identity with several flavours to show (you act different towards your mother than you grilfriend, I guess =). So the question with digital natives is… are they somebody different online… so does acting with a female avatar (while being male) make them a different self (do the feel think and behave female for real… thus not mediated but inside?), I guess not. Does the fact that they have a female avatar online but dress like a hiphop dude at school make them have to manage two identities… that might be true… since real-life and digital life are for a large part disconnected, you might argue that the context is so singular that it constitutes a new identity… but that should go far beyond having a fake name and a female avatar… Otherwise it is one identity with a different ‘dress’. But it is for a large part ‘definition’. If you define identity as a means of identification than every false name or image creates a false identification and thus multiple identities but most def. not multiple selves =)
Optimizing is indeed interesting… is optimizing the infrastructure to manage as much identities as possible, create the best experienced identities, to make the most different identities?
I think, especially if you take a wider perspective and look on identities and selves in a longer timeframe, you’d have to conclude that we have many selves today.
I’m borrowing from McCracken’s thoughts here, but in traditional societies (in Western sense, quite a while ago), the only self or identity someone had was determined once. In tribes you either are a ‘bear’ or you’re not. And once you’ve transformed into a bear through all kinds of rituals, you will never change again. Compare that to today: we are continually changing ourselves and transforming. Especially if you look at it over time: Madonna is the most clear example of someone reinventing herself over and over again, not staying the same at all. I would argue here that new generations, or maybe even the generation of today is able to have those kinds of transformations not only in a sequential form, but rather that people switch between them all the time. The best example of this is given by McCracken himself when he analyzes the movie ‘Any Given Sunday’. He shows how all the characters on that movie are not just the characters, but also their personalities in what we would call reality. And even the director is multiple identities at the same time: director, writer, actor (in a cameo role) and sports commenter (which he plays in the movie). He is able to switch between those roles, so is the audience.
Does that clarify it better?
It clarifies, but I don’t agree =) Madonna her image has changes and her ’self’ probably evolved… so multiple selves I still find diffucult to grasp… multiple idenitites, I understand what you mean but I still would most likely prefer to call it something ’show different parts of their identity’. The tribal example is great and that is an example where (even) i would agree that that is a change of idenity (how the group recognizes you)… but is it multiple identities or an evolving identity… can the tribal-member choose between identities continious?
Hello Jorgen,
Thank you for sharing this multiple selves site.
Many selves seems obvious to an attentive observer because we behave differently depending on the context. Our behavior change is required if we have many different roles, both personal and professional. One might argue these are simply facets of the same self, but our ability to express of these parts of our personality is necessary to function in different contexts.
Many selves is an excellent paradigm.
Would you say optimization is used for identification only or could it have other purposes, eg. how everyday decisions are made? If so, how do you conceive of optimization - as a process or as a separate self, say, an optimal self, or both?
Sorry for not responding sooner to you…
I would say, optimization is used for the management of various identities and selves. I don’t see it as a separate self, as that would imply that it creating an ‘optimal’ self would be possible to ‘create’ for yourself. Rather, I think that you make different kind of decisions when you make everyday decisions. For instance: as a consumer I might want to buy the cheapest product available in a store, but as a concerned citizen I might want to choose to buy a product that has been produced in a more sustainable and more costly way. But managing these differences, or should we say: getting these differences in balance is something that we get better and better at…maybe.
There is an interesting question between identity and self here though, that Arjan raised before, that I am still pondering about. Arjan states that he believes in one true self, or so I think he is saying, and that it is thus impossible to have many selves. So the distinction is more between identities.
What do you think about that: do we have one true self and just express it in various identities depending on the context or do we really have multiple selves?
am i correct then that you would call optimization ‘a process’ such as increasing awareness
your question was “do we have one true self expressed in various identities depending on the context or do we really have multiple selves?”
we are trying to make a model of self. what is this “self” - the part we identify with?
One Self / Many Roles - Do we have parts of our personality expressed in totally different ways ?
Many Selves - Can the self be considered as the 50 States, each a separate, different entity united in a single body, sometimes sharing common values and sometimes not?
you mention Arjan, who apparently believes in one ‘true self’ . A “one true self ” model assumes there is also a possibility of having a “false self” ; theorists have also called this an “adapted self”.
Unfortunately the “true self” model would imply favoring the “true self”. Who wants to be a “false self’? here’s another analogy - just as monotheism implies there is one “true god” and favors allegiance to this one true god - of course, depending on which “one true god” religious model we believe in, all other gods are false. Arjan is implicitly prejudiced against the “multiple self” paradigm when using language such as having a “true self”.
the second part of your question “do we really have multiple selves” can be asked many ways. Multiple Selves can be experienced as “various identities” and as ” healthy adapatdation to the environment”. Without this ability to switch roles we become limited, rigid and unable to adapt.
Yes, I would call optimization a process. Would you consider it as a process as well? You talk about developing a model of self…could you elaborate on that?
And I might have put words in the mouth of one of the other commenters on this thread (Arjan), but I think you’re making a good point here.
This is the first time for me posting and its a very interesting thread, so here is my 2 cents.
I also feel that people are inadvertently allowing hyper individualism to intersperse with there real world lives. That is, people are willing and better at creating a Self at Work, at Home, with different groups of friends etc. Its something that people are not consciously aware that they are doing.
Maybe the selves can also be broken down into types, so for example, One could have different “Selfs” at work. maybe this is due to the professional social groups and tools they take part in, i.e. they have or create different selves for those tools/networks. Maybe this can be due to the social circles they run with at work and the kind of self they project or want to project.
How do you feel about the idea of the “self” being partly influenced by the tools and medium it is using to create an aspect of they’re hyper individualism. For example, is having a “Self” on Facebook different from having a “Self” on a gaming site, say Playstation Network, there both social networks/tools but would those aspects behave, or be perceived differently because of the differences of the tools available to communicate and create those aspects of Hyper individualism between the two. Say for example all the tools and methods of communicating were the same in all online social networks, would that mean that the hyper individualism would be less different and more amalgamated. Just a thought.
Sorry if its not completely clear. Wrote this in a rush.
Hey Liqorice, thanks for your comments and sorry for not replying sooner.
Let me first pose a question back at you: if you are able to ‘express’ your identity in different ways using different kinds of tools, does that mean that you are really a different self? That’s not to trick you, just to get your opinion on comments raised before in this thread…
In reply to your thoughts: I would say that the technology itself doesn’t have an impact on the hyperindividual. I think it has more to do, with how the individual wishes to behave in different contexts. So, even if it were possible to make use of the same tool in Facebook and on the PlayStation Network, the individual might opt to be someone else on both networks. I might be just Jörgen on Facebook, but maybe I’ll be DarkRaven on the Playstation Network, because I want to behave differently. Now, I do agree with you that the different technologies used are an incentive to continuously reevaluate yourself as you are confronted over and over by that question ‘who are you’ when you have to create yet again a profile. That might trigger people to create different exponents of their individuality…
Hello Jorgen,
by definition (yours and mine) optimization is a process.
my question is, what mode are we in when optimizing? is it what I describe below or do you see it differently?
would you say we need to have the ability to detach ourselves from our environment when optimizing? do we step back from our involvement with our various roles, emotions, Selves, whatever you want to call them - and in order to optimize - do we objectively observe, critically discuss, analyze…
When doing this, could you attribute this the ability to an “optimal Self’, sometimes called Awareness or the Aware Self,? Is this the same idealized adult that economists called the “rational agent” a decade ago?
or do you define optimization differently - perhaps you see optimization simply as the ability to express many different Selves?
as for developing a model of Self, we are working on it right now. You and I and everyone who has ever asked this sort of question
Here’s what I am working on- the multiple Self model appears to be based on a simple theory that explains observable human behavior in non-judgmental terms, and, in an more elaborated form, it enables us to make accurate predictions..
Great question! Can you compare it to the Rational Agent or Aware Self?
I think there’s nothing new about having many selves actually. We as human beings are extremely good in adapting to all kinds of situations and many selves is a result of that (or should we say a precondition?). As I’ve said before, it is of all ages and cultures. What’s new about it, I guess is that today, we don’t transform from one self to another and stay like that, we continuously negotiate between the many selves inside of us. I do think, there’s a generational ‘catch’ here: the digital native is much better in those negotiations than older generations are.
Now, my first guess on your question would be, that it is instinct. I’m not too sure, if we are very ‘aware’ of the optimization as it happens. Perhaps upon reflection afterwards we do realize that we’ve gone through an optimizing process, but at the moment it happens? I’d also say it would be instinct because I think it is virtually impossible for people to make rational decisions based on a desired outcome. Maybe even more today in Western societies than before, people don’t know what they want (on a side: I guess that is what is causing many of the problems we face as a society today). We’ve reached the top of Maslov pyramid (or as Susanne Piet, calls it: the penthouse of the Maslov pyramid
) and we think: now what? So, making a rational choice about which action to take, or which Self to use, doesn’t feel like a rational agent kind of process. So maybe there’s an emotional agent??
I do think that the optimizing process is a process of detachment though. For instance: when a digital native celebrates the weekend, he or she might do that in 5 different kinds of selves. Visiting different venues, being digitally present in environments as well, etc. If you were to ask them: ‘how was your weekend’, they will not be able to answer that. They first have to consult with the environments in which the 5 selves were present and form an opinion on the feedback they get from the people they interact with. Only then will they conclude that they’ve had a great weekend or not. Now, that, in itself is a rational process based upon emotions, and it requires detachment of the present self to make that judgment and formulate an action ie an answer.
It’s interesting to note here as well, that ‘identity’ I think is an expression of the experience of the self. It might be the communicator to the external world or something like it. And today we can see a development from ‘creating identity’ or finding a true self, from private to public. What do I mean with that? It used to be, that we would pose in front of the mirror at home, looking at our reflection (the identity) and ask: ‘is this me?’ Today, more and more, that process takes place outside the private life and in the public sphere, when girls go shopping for clothes together for hours for instance and create their identity in search of what self they are, not by asking that question to themselves, but to their environment: ‘is this me?’. So in that respect, they are gathering information and knowledge from their environments to make a judgment (which is rational agent like), but not with the a ‘known outcome’. On the contrary it is a continuous exploration without an end?
Sorry, I guess I’m rambling a bit here, as the thoughts keep coming…
I’ve ben reading alot of these commetns but alot of it is too interlectual for me to understand, is it about us having ’somebody’ inside of us that represents ourselves or or true selves?