Archives for category: Social Criticism

Continuing with the theme of social media being terrible, I’ve decided to take a look at how social media fosters our relationships. It’s got “social” right there in the name, so you’d think the whole idea would be that it increases our interactions among our friends and family.

And it certainly tries! We can access information of our colleagues and loved ones no matter where they are in the world. If I have a sister on the other side of the country, I can look at her page to see what she’s up to, I can look at the pictures she’s posted, or I can even leave her a message saying hi. It’s a brilliant revolution in communication that unfortunately we’ve managed to fuck up irreparably.

95% of the time we go on Facebook, it’s not to see what an individual person is doing, nor even to see what a small group of people are doing. We typically go on Facebook to go on Facebook. We now deal with our relationships in generalities, as social media is a wash of our compatriots, often hidden among unknown associates that we met at a party or something three years ago.

This makes the very act of being “social” impersonal. If I do go and visit my sister’s page, the word we’ve developed for checking up on a loved one is “stalking.”  Our relationships over social media have a voyeuristic quality to them, and whether rightly or wrongly, this makes us inherently uncomfortable with them.To view someone’s page has that very negative connotation that makes people uneasy connecting, even if it is in a relatively trivial manner, with the people they would consider their friends.

Therefore, most of us rely on updates from our Newsfeeds. If the information is fed to us passively, then it does not require the sympathetic connection that actively engaging with our loved ones otherwise would. Learning about our colleagues needs to be almost accidental, for fear of being a “creeper”.

If I see my sister’s photos, the unspoken agreement is that I was not actually seeking to learn about her life, but that this social relationship is built on the contingency of me happening to be online at the time, and chancing across her update.

Social media does not foster relationships, it deadens them. Yes the internet allows for great communication across vast distances, but the connections involved become contingent and meaningless. If you wish to stay in touch with friends and loved ones, you can use your phone as an actual phone, rather than rely on the empty exchanges of social media.

There is a surprising amount of disdain for physical beauty. It’s only skin deep; it’s what’s on the inside that counts; sexual objectification is bad; fashion is vapid, etc. There is a condemnation of beauty standards, typically within progressive circles, that suggests that everyone is beautiful and to say otherwise is patriarchal oppression. To be fair, unhealthy beauty standards that require unrealistic weight and body imagery are certainly oppressive, but that is not the only standard, and to rid the world of beauty through the leveling of attractiveness into a wash of monistic equality is asinine.

It’s like someone purposefully never learning to read because they ‘don’t adhere to society’s rigid intellectual standards,’ and claiming that they’re just as smart as everyone else because ‘who gets to decide what “smart” means anyway?’

And this is true, to an extent. The validity of intellectual accomplishments could be argued to be just as subjective as what constitutes someone’s beauty. But not having something and claiming to have it is ignorant when pursuing it can allow you to achieve a portion of it. Just as you can develop your intellect through listening to the news, reading, discussing ideas with other people, etc. you can develop your beauty as well: exercise, a healthy diet, taking care of your appearance through hair styles and grooming, fashion and accessories, or even well-designed tattoos can all improve someone’s physical appearance.

As I said, there are as many avenues that one can trace in order to find beauty; just as there are many for intellectualism. There’s the business-y, sharply dressed look, just as politics is a field wherein one can hone their minds. There’s the nerd-chic hipster look which could be likened to the hard sciences. The heavily tattooed Suicide Girls-esque display could be comparable to the intellectual pursuits within psychotherapy. There are many, many ways to be beautiful.

However, those who claim that the overweight, unhygienic, unshaven, gluttonous blob of a man with his hairy ass hanging out the back of his pants is just as beautiful as anyone else is the same as saying that the man who genuinely believes that if the woman is on top she can’t get pregnant because of gravity is just as smart as everyone else. If the height of your intellectual peak is knowing all there is to know about the shape-shifting lizard lords that run our government, you can claim to be smart all you want, and you may even find that a couple people might agree with you, it’s just that most people won’t.

Beauty and intellect have their subjective sides, (with all the ambiguity that that implies) but if one’s aim is to pursue them, recognizing the views of the majority is a necessary step in being taken seriously within them.

But why pursue beauty? Beautiful people are often considered more charming, persuasive, trustworthy, likeable, healthy and confident than their uglier counterparts. As Goethe says, “Whoever beholds human beauty cannot be infected with evil; he feels in harmony with himself and the world.” It seems that beauty is an incredible social benefit for people. The difference between a romantic gesture and a creepy one is the attractiveness of the suitor, after all.

Of course, the benefits to beauty seem to be somewhat superficial, since a beautiful person is quite likely to be just as trustworthy as an ugly person, despite how they may be perceived. However, Plato tells us that “physical excellence does not of itself produce a good mind and character: on the other hand, excellence of mind and character will make the best of the physique it was given.” This suggests that to optimize one’s other capabilities, it helps to be pretty.

If we insist on the universality of beauty, all we are doing is reinforcing its universal importance. There are many fine qualities outside of beauty, and to emphasize beauty over the rest of them is just as absurd as discarding it as unimportant. One is not obligated to pursue beauty, just as one is not obligated to pursue academia. But if one is looking to improve themselves, ignoring the physical aspect of the self is detrimental to that process. It is a personalized art form, and our unique beauty is typically an expression of our character and our values. Denouncing beauty standards, and flattening its effects to include the entire populace is a rejection of art, and is ignorant of the importance that beauty has for us all.

We are not all beautiful. Some of us are ugly as shit.

Humanity today is considered “plugged-in”. We have, and some claim to even need, constant access to our phone. Most people have laptops, iPads, desktop computers, and many other electronics on top of their phones with which they can access basically the same technology, and the largest trend within this technology is Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tinder… all the social media conglomerates that make up the contemporary lifestyle. It is considered bad business to not have a social profile in today’s economy, and individuals without these outlets are often considered social pariahs, or old beyond obsolescence.

This social media technology is a relatively new phenomenon that has no precedence to anything remotely similar within the entirety of human existence. That’s quite something. This massive overhaul of civilization within such a brief amount of time must surely have altered the way human beings behave, and I hope to examine some of these consequences.

The three events that alerted me to the issues I’m going to discuss are the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, the increase in clientele of art galleries and museums that allow photography for the sake of the selfie, and the capturing of newsworthy events in the form of the selfie.

Judging by the fact that I used the word “selfie” twice already, it’s pretty safe to say that the insertion of the ‘self’ is the issue. I don’t believe that it is an issue of selfishness or narcissism that is at play, as the term “selfie” seems to imply, because selfishness is about hoarding and social media is supposed to be about sharing. If the Social Being was selfish, they would simply be absorbing the experience of the museums for themselves, and would not be donating to charity at all. I don’t believe narcissism is fully involved either because what is behind the person in the selfie often has as much value as the person taking the picture.

However, the Social Being is not sharing anything in the strictest sense of the word either. If one were to share the experience of an art piece in a gallery with others, even over social media, they would probably find a better representation than a cell phone picture could provide, and would need to write more than 140 characters to properly convey the emotional response or cultural impact of the piece. If one sought to raise money for ALS, they would talk about the seriousness of Lou Gehrig’s disease, its terrible symptoms and possible treatments, and the need of special equipment that the donated money could be put towards. Spreading the news would be important in-and-of-itself, and pictures would be accompanied by articles by professional journalists that have legally binding accountability and time to do the research that would provide the complete story.

The old criticism of society was that we were reckless consumers who needed material goods in order to create meaning in our lives. We bought useless products when their only value was their accumulation. I no longer believe this to be the case. We no longer define ourselves by the objects we own, nor do we need to worry about Fight Club telling us that these objects own us. Most people can’t afford to accumulate material goods these days anyway.

But rather than shed the consumer nature and embrace self-created meaning, we have internalized the process and become products ourselves. We no longer accumulate goods to fulfill our lives, we accumulate pseudo-experiences to increase our capital worth. We want others to consume us, and to do that we use social media to extol our charitable nature, our appreciation of the arts, and our role as citizen journalists. Why else have a thousand followers on Facebook and Twitter if we only ever actually deal with a few close friends and family members in our everyday lives? The reason that celebrities and businesses maintain their social media profiles is because their branding requires them to advocate themselves in whatever ways they deem marketable, and it is this same process that individuals follow to maintain their own nature as a product to be consumed.

If we are not trying to sell ourselves as products, if we are truly charitable, cultured, and socially conscious, then why add our selves into the process? Why does allowing “selfies” in museums increase their clientele? Why do social causes like Movember and the Ice Bucket Challenge raise more money than the deadlier heart and pulmonary diseases? Why do more than a third of Americans get their news from social media, and what does the handsome Soren Bowie have to say about that?

We are not our social media profile, just as McDonalds is not their advertising. The Social Being is a hamburger patty covered in Vaseline in order to make it look shiny, and the person behind it is inevitably going to be a slumped-over burger with the lettuce spilling everywhere and making a God-damned mess.

The Social Being is not only a deception to others, but it is dehumanizing and degrading us into being products rather than people. The Social Being goes beyond objectification, because objects can at least be appreciated for their own merit, whereas products only have value in their marketability.

The obvious solution is to remove ourselves from social media, to engage in person to person relationships and forego the whole demeaning process, and this is a solution I would openly advocate. But for those who choose to remain on social media, if you remove yourself from the process, this may counteract the cheapening of your Self. Try to think of social media like you’re having a conversation with a person or a small group. When having a conversation, you don’t cram yourself into the other person’s face, or constantly make mention of your own involvement in the story. You’re already the one telling the story; that necessitates your involvement or interest by definition.  When speaking in a personal conversation, you’re also aware of your audience. You speak to the person or the group, not so that those around might overhear.

The most valuable thing a person can do is be authentic to themselves and to those around them. Social media precludes that.