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?