Introversion, Lofi, and Economics: shaping concepts in a world of subjectivities
Is there any keyword to describe an introvert’s little world?
It’s Friday afternoon. You have just finished your last task of the day. On the next wall, you see the clock illuminating 18:01 behind some multicolored and abstract drawings. Slowly, people around you start to leave the ambiance. They invite you for some drinks in a bar on the next street, but you gently refuse. So, while the complex and purified numbers continue to multiply in front of your eyes, the time pass and pass until you, in some moment, realize that you are the last person in that materialized institution called office.
The world now seems to appear quiet, but still, there are thoughts going on in your mind. With a click, the giant crystal screen ahead turns black. You then lean more on the chair, closing your eyes and letting your body naturalize itself with that comfort. Your fingers are hurting a little bit, and your temples are expanding with all the possibilities that could happen in global finances in the next weeks. Looking through the window, though, all the scenario shows itself exactly like you: in layers of gray, green, yellow, and blue.
In the chaotic jungle of skyscrapers, secular trees continue to grow in their stability, the remnants of sunlight embrace with passion and love all the human beings returning home and, at the end of the world, the sea eternally perseveres in its messages of peace, tranquility, and harmony. It was definitely a long day, you think. But now it’s over. It’s Friday.
The continuity of this narrative may lead us to a new variety of discussions and reflections to be thought. Turning off all the lights and leaving your work’s place, you may choose some walking in the park to fulfill yourself with fresh air and a cup of coffee, or simply some session of Netflix with hot tee and popcorn. Well, regardless of your choice, if you find yourself constantly in these circumstances, there’s one little thing that you should know: perhaps you are an introvert.
Maybe you already know it, or maybe not. The question here is that introversion doesn’t characterize, in essence, that shy, apprehensive, and different individual who shows himself solitary from the rest of society. These ones are just some of the expressions that may manifest in an introvert’s personality. They don’t describe precisely what introversion represents to individuals.
Even though, we have to take into consideration that words like those upon are somehow connected with social values and images that we have about these individuals. “Shy” and “solitary”, for example, are normally used when talking about some of the “biggest” traits in introversion. In the same way, “coffee”, “book”, and “rain”, when analyzed in everyday’s discourse, recover this social idea of a more introspective ambient — distant from the chaotic and often aggressive society.
So, in this relative context of multiple definitions and perceptions about introverts, after all, what could mean introversion? And if it is really linked with a social perspective, how its aspects are constructed in a world dominated by Economics, International Politics, and Diplomatic Relations?
Starting to think about these questions, introversion and extraversion seem to be related to how individuals perceive and experience the world. They represent two essential mechanisms of impression which all people have, two dimensions of involvement, two sides of the same coin. As Carl Jung described it, extraversion embodies this basic posture and attitude in which “the object works like a magnet upon the tendencies of the subject”, while introversion indicates the scenario where “the subject is and remains the centre of every interest”.
When we look at some of Jung’s definitions, many questions may instigate our minds about the dimensions and possibilities of his theory. Talking about introversion and extraversion, or about archetypes, collective unconsciousness, alchemy, or any other topic of this nature, it seems that there is something in our existence that makes us fascinated by this kind of knowledge. Abstract, metaphysical, and deep knowledge. Within this context, it wouldn’t be so wrong to say that our minds seem to be connected with these ideas and philosophies for longer than we could imagine.
But disregarding the way these questions could lead this essay, there is one thing to notice and recognize when discussing introversion and extraversion: the relation between object and subject. Understanding the role of these two terminologies is quite vital when shaping concepts within an increasingly subjective epistemological reality.
When Carl Jung described extraversion as being related positively with the object, he tried to say that the external world seems to be the focus on this type of attitude. From this perspective, it can be pointed out that the object represents everything that is outside us. Literally, it could be everything: people, places, situations, behaviors, interpersonal relationship, and even more abstract questions, like Gnosis (the knowledge), poetry, philosophy, and aesthetics — these last four objects, by the way, were used by Jung in his analysis of psychological types’ problem through history.
On the other hand, when indicating the focus of introversion’s attitude, the subject’s side represents the complex phenomenon that establishes the observers of reality (being reality another object). In other words, it is commonly understood that it describes the active spectrum that interacts with objects, like a scientist trying to find cancer’s cure, a big company researching about ways of obtaining more profit, or a simple teenager going to a party.
It’s necessary to point out that those concepts cannot be limited just to psychological approaches. Maybe the most important conclusion about the epistemological role of both object and subject is that they are associated with all the spheres of our existence. And when it is said that it permeates all spheres, it means that our bodies, our minds, and also the societies we create are related to this dialectical connection.
With these definitions and notions in mind, it becomes easier to understand the theoretical significance of introversion and extraversion in a human’s personality, separating the real connotation of these concepts from their social aspect.
Extraversion has its meaning connected with the object’s side. It describes the attitude in-out, when the psyche energy goes from the subject to the object. That’s why extroverts are normally associated with parties, friends, and communication: because all of these ones are objects of our daily lives. Extroverts express themselves through objects. They need to be in contact with the external world in order to direct their lives.
Alternatively, introversion represents the other part of the equilibrium. Here, the dimension of the psyche is focused on the subject. Because of this, being real-life dominated by many kinds of objects, the little world of an introvert seems to be more interesting — and safe — then going out with friends or communicating with strangers. In their virtual structure of mind, constructed by experiences and other factors, introverts establish their great traits by observing and feeling the world internally with their perceptions. That’s why a cup of tee or walking in the park with headphones are, for them, more than simple activities.
We all know, though, that life doesn’t go straight line all the time. Actually, it seems that life struggles to maintain itself in a straight line. As it was noted, those “simple” activities, like the tee or the park, don’t portray as simple for introverts. But in a world of extroverts, where qualities like communication and adaptability are associated with leaders and successful people, it isn’t so hard to see the social judgment on those who prefer to read a book than to go out with friends on a Friday after work.
What happens is that, in human dimensions, introversion and extraversion aren’t just psychological attitudes, as Jung described. They also are social traits, hierarchizing society between those who participate in it (extroverts) and those who don’t on the same frequency (introverts).
Thinking about these questions, we can ask ourselves with the following observation: how difficult is for us to imagine and create other chronologies with a type of life’s perspective like the anecdote of the beginning of the text, where the subject is the essential protagonist of his world, filled of objects, chaos, and actors waiting for interaction?
In some first moment, it could not be so easy to assume if there is any mental figure, associated with generic characteristics of introversion, that shows itself present in individuals’ imaginary. Since our lives are already heavily influenced by models of heroes, villains, men, women, and so on, introversion doesn’t seem to be an outstanding feature of some famous character known from history or art’s universe.
The contrary, though, can be easily presumed. Actually, from the fool university’s student to the rich and charming guy next door, the majority of films have a standard/stereotyped extrovert character, mainly when talking about the comedy ones.
But thinking a little more, we soon find the answer to these inquiries, perceiving with this that the presence of introversion’s components in our lives happens in the same intensity as other apparently more concrete elements of the social environment, such as work and religion.
The situations that we can conjecture are numerous. The quiet man that smokes on the top of a building watching the night of a whole city with his pessimistic and independent eyes. The self-reliant woman who reads continuously some Jane Austen’s book while listening to the rain and feeling the warmth of her little kitten on her feet. Or the young boy who likes to sit on the roof of his house to observe the stars with a cup of tee and with the company of his doggy.
With these examples, it can be seen that our lives are more influenced by elements of introversion than we could ever think. And no. Those peculiar desires of having a drink alone on a rainy and cold night in Paris do not escape to the exception.
But as noted, introversion is seen mostly as inferior to extraversion on these social aspects — it isn’t so difficult to find narratives in which the nerd character is subject to the extroverted boss. From the moment that both attitudes acquired this social side, they started to act like any other institution that prescribes our lives. And being institutions, they create our society at the same time that are consumed like a product by it, shaping social behaviors and being shaped by the biggest industries in the world like if they were a flexible mass. That’s why there is this indirect social hierarchy between extroverts and introverts.
There are many definitions of an institution through the Academy’s history, ranging from sociological perspectives to more economic ones. In this context, Robert Keohane, an institutionalist of International Relations’ discipline, brings a comprehensive conceptualization about an institution, which can be used in broad contexts of analysis.
According to Robert Keohane, institution “may refer to a general pattern or categorization of activity or to a particular human-constructed arrangement […] that prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activity, and shape expectations” .
When observing society, the concept of an institution may present, in a first instance, some distance from our everyday empirical reality, like the configuration object-subject. But the question here is that our lives are totally immersed into the influence of institutions. You may not know it, but things like family, gender, religion, age, social class, and skin color, for example, are institutions of our society. Like Keohane’s definition, they prescribe behavioral roles, constrain activities, and shape our expectations in the social environment.
It’s incredible — and, at the same time, terrible — to see so many human dimensions, especially the biological, psychological, and ethnic ones, being transformed into institutions and hierarchizing society. It’s always about men and women, white and black, heterosexual and homosexual, native and migrant, rich and poor, and on and on. These social categories are, according to Charles Tilly, historically constructed by unequal relationships between opposing types, segregating people into better or worse worlds on most institutional spheres of our existence. And introversion and extraversion don’t seem to be distant from this logic.
But as Foucault, and many other intellectuals, revealed about discourse and legitimized actions of violence, institutions, which establish those social categories upon, are preconceived ideas, words constructed historically. And because they are constructed, they can be deconstructed. This is what we see from worldwide movements like feminism, semiotics, post-structuralism, and decolonial analysis: the deconstruction of established truths.
For a long time, introversion was treated as a disease in our society. Everything not externalize was seen as “abnormal” — and it is exactly from the logic of “abnormal” where the principle of power grows to those ones considered “normal”, prolonging their normality in an externally “normal” society. This is what happens in those social and unequal categories: men historically need women to reaffirm their masculinity and power over women. Extroverts historically need introverts to reaffirm their power over introverts. That’s the origin of power in our species.
Nowadays, fortunately, introversion is no longer seen in pathological terms as it was in the past. Although the distinction between introverts and extroverts can still be observed, the tendency in our capitalist society is the harmonization of those dissimilar relations. Just as it makes no sense to exclude a woman from work’s institution, it doesn’t make sense, in the society of efficiency, to segregate people according to their attitudes of personality.
The changing context of these institutions was, with no doubt, the Twentieth Century — the known Age of Extremes by Eric Hobsbawm. With women confronting more and more the patriarchal institutions, the African Countries defying the colonial European thinking, and the ethnic movements deconstructing the social hierarchy between black and white, the world started to see the rise of a new international discourse. A speech based on equal opportunities, freedom of thought, and deconstruction of historically constructed truths — like the objectification of women and the subjectivation of blacks and homosexuals as sick people of society.
It was this empowerment of voice — and often the conquest of a voice —that reflected intensely in the conservative and excluding institutions of our society, revolutionizing and shaking the internal worlds that compose it. From the economy to the arts’ universe, historically oppressed social archetypes, such as women, gays, lesbians, the poor, blacks, the native, and the handicapped peoples, have increasingly become part of the hierarchy of power. With the new international discourse, it is here that we also see the emergence of several vigorous figures associated with introversion — and consequently far from the extroverted imposition of the world.
It is the case of the examples observed previously in this text, like the man who smokes on the top of a building or the girl who reads quietly in a park. These images started to permeate more and more the collective imaginary of society, transforming the outdated view of socially inferiorizing the psychological attitude of introversion. With these new images appearing as exponents, it can be said that for the first time introverts began to have a more definite real perspective to be achieved, a positive directive in their favor, like the warrior who aspires to be the hero or the wronged who wants to be the revolutionary.
When one observes the construction of the power’s atmosphere that emerged from this new discourse, it can be noticed a set of words, images, attitudes, and sensations that are frequent in the formation of the collective consciousness about this new perspective of introversion. In addition to the introspective atmospheres that words like rain, book, night, silence, and winter can bring, what we can perceive from most of the words that touch the power’s figures of introverts are the antisystemic logic and the indivisible peace that comes out as a stance of war in the chaotic world of objects.
These idealized introversion’s figures seem to be the ultimate result of what it is observed by the definition of introversion. The focus on the subject becomes so great that it sublimates the sensations of the introvert that is put in the midst of external extroversion, raising impenetrable barriers to the pleasures lived in his intimate world. What can be seen on the subject of these idealized figures is such an impressive aspect of independence and autonomy that the introvert seems to be outside society — even if physically and mentally present. And this is what most frighten extroverts about introverts: their independence from the world.
The plenitude and peace that inhabit the archetypes of introversion seem to set themselves up as unsettling postures to those whose attitude turns to the object. Often extroverted individuals display anger, incomprehension, and even envy of introverts who, with simple headphones or a book in their hands, seem to disconnect from the world in a magic way, as if they had discovered the key to release themselves from the illusion we live. But these reactions are understandable. It is not difficult to conjecture situations where extroverts try in many ways to pull the introverted friend back into the world of objects as if he had gotten out of the right way. Often extroverts succeed. But there are certain cases, as in the archetypes of introversion, that this situation doesn’t occur in the same way.
It would be difficult to describe precisely the way in which introversion builds itself in social terms when there are so many contexts and dimensions to be considered. On the other hand, it seems that there is a word in particular that has being agglutinating the extensive set of ideas that forms the collective consciousness about introverted individuals. This word not only refers to the key concepts of how introversion is socially constructed but also creates and strengthens its powerful, unbeatable, and independent atmosphere, rescuing the sublimation of sensations observed in introverts’ archetypes.
It’s Lo-fi.
Lo-fi is an abbreviation of Low Fidelity and originally represents musical production with low quality and made in improvised environments — unlike professional studios. In this context, it needs to be said that although many artists from the past could be considered on lo-fi’s musical ambiance, the term was first used only at the end of the Twentieth Century.
It is well-known, though, that lo-fi took other proportions just a few years ago, transcending as a musical genre with its own aesthetics and flourishing itself in a series of subgenres rapidly incorporated by the internet and the velocity of information. By the way, lo-fi became a phenomenon between introverts and more subject-oriented people. It may be its slow-tempo beats, or just something else —the question here is that the discourse about introversion is conquering a whole new space within the collective consciousness of society with lo-fi.
Now it isn’t only the mercantilization of a more powerful image about introversion — something that was mostly seen in the Twentieth Century. It is more. People are actually listening to this musical genre, achieving with these new feelings of introspective pleasure and developing their introverted side, historically repressed by institutions.
As it was observed before, all the subgenres of lo-fi are historically recent in Music Industry, many of them coming out only after 2010. However, once side by side with the internet, they rapidly gained masses of fans around the world — mainly when talking about the introverted ones. Because of their unique proposal, which combines slow-tempo beats and nostalgic ambiances, lo-fi and its ramifications can establish that silent excitement that we all have when our bodies and minds search for some moments of necessary loneliness.
In this context, it needs to be pointed out, though, that this capacity of enhancing — and even awakening — sensations and impressions of our introverted side doesn’t comprehend the only reason why lo-fi has rooted itself as a new musical movement based on the subject. It seems that much of lo-fi’s emergence — and its capability of indicating how introversion is being socially constructed today — has to do with the type of society that is in ascension since the 1970s. A society much more stressful, dynamic, flexible, and extreme.
When talking about capitalism’s history, there are many paradigms — historical moments in which institutions turn more or less to the same ideological guidelines — that have risen and declined in our society, influencing thereby all spheres of our system, like the modes of production, the thinking of people, the way the economy functions, and so on.
In the light of this, the 1970s represents just one of these paradigms — just one of these historical moments where we can see modifications on ideological foundations that guide institutions. But this doesn’t change the fact that the global transformations originated after the two oil crises — 1973 and 1979 — may symbolize the biggest metamorphosis that capitalism passed since the First Industrial Revolution and the Henry Ford’s Five-Dollar Day.
As a result of the 1970s, Economics, Politics, Social Relations, International Relations, and all other dimensions associated with human societies started to be oriented by principles of dynamism, short-term, flexibility, informality, and mainly — for the purpose of this text — focused on the particular efforts of individuals.
It is because of these new ideological aspects that diversity has emerged in the world — the rise and conquest of a voice — , and institutions like the marriage stopped limiting people within social roles. But, at the same time, it is also because of these aspects that the uncertain has dominated the economic life of millions of people, and the International Relations have become monopolized by the foreign capital of the multinational corporations, as indicated by Susan Strange.
The changing context of the 1970s has created a world of extremes. On one side, the focus on the particular person, replacing the previous focus on social roles seen in traditional societies, made social environments more colorful and inclusive. On the other, the cult of the individual overwhelmed ordinary people with exaggerated responsibilities, creating this society where more and more we see young people committing suicide by the excess of pressure they face in “being someone”.
At the heart of this sickly and inflated society of extremes, it isn’t hard to understand why there are so many people seeking for movements and philosophies whose logic turns away from this savage capitalism and excessive world of chaos, volatility, and objects to be dealt in our daily lives. From this point, it becomes more clear when talking about lo-fi and all of its features discussed before, like the relation subject-object, the impression of being distant from this world full of data, and so on.
Taking into consideration the emergence of this flexible society, lo-fi seems to present this idea in which we can all have this refuge far from the chaos, the dynamism of information, the movement of stocks, the falling of Bitcoin’s price, and from other complexities of today’s world. That’s why that, when analyzing the way lo-fi’s discourse is being constructed, we often see the same idea being presented: an individual living within this society of extremes but not being affected by it.
If you watch some lo-fi’s video on YouTube, you will see that its most constant impressions are focused on this centralized individual who shows himself in the midst of a world filled by extroverts, objects, and excess of information. Because of this, it can be seen that the essential point of lo-fi doesn’t escape from the historical relation observed before: the introverted subject inserted in the extroverted nature of society.
In this context, if the construction’s idea about lo-fi is given by the dialectic between object and subject, it can pointed out that all other dimensions materialized on this discourse follow this logic in which the subject is totally invulnerable to external influences, filtering only the good things of the world while feeling them all in his inner essence. It is because of these dimensions and concepts — that establish lo-fi’s social construction — that we can understand how introversion is being built today. Once lo-fi is a final product, it indicates all the materials used in its conceptualization.
The scenario (object) in which lo-fi is presented, for example, usually consists of a lot of information and chaos. Big cities, messy rooms, and crows of people are just some of the images that can be seen when analyzing lo-fi’s discourse. No matter the place — it will always be possible to see the object behaving as something too big or chaotic to be dealt with.
On the other hand, it also can be seen that lo-fi refers to introversion’s social construction because the individual (subject) is always the scene-centered figure. Here, the question doesn’t depend on the age, skin color, or sexual orientation of the person. It is always about his attitude towards the chaotic world that surrounds him — an attitude given in terms of distance, independence, peace, and silence.
The individual’s image presented can be listening to music, studying, reading, walking, or just contemplating nature. While the situation oscillates between the peace of the subject and the chaos of the object, there is a third element that appears in the middle of both sides. The introverted subject constructed by lo-fi always seems to have an instrument that protects him from the world of objects, creating a psychological barrier, sometimes physical, between his inner sensations and everything else that is outside him.
It can be a headphone, a computer, a book, an umbrella, a coffee, or just a window in front of his eyes. This instrument is what introverted individuals normally use to run away from reality. Sometimes it takes just a few minutes to really enter the world of inner sensations — the scenario lived by the archetypes of introversion. Sometimes it is a little bit harder. But this instrument always represents an artifact used by those figures seen on lo-fi’s videos and on other images’ constructors, like animes, movies, and series.
In addition, these instruments, as well as other kinds of ambiances, like the rain’s atmosphere, seem to demonstrate the fourth element on the social construction of introversion: the focus is not only on the individual, but mainly on his private sphere of feelings, sensations, and impressions about the world. Lo-fi’s videos indicate precisely the contemplative status that we all have when observing the world on a Sunday morning when we are lazy on a Saturday afternoon, or when we drink some coffee on that dark and rainy Friday night.
When talking about introversion and its social construction through some materialized discourse maker like lo-fi, it can be seen that many words that we consider and say when thinking about these questions are, actually, just products of our society. Once, it was common to think that introversion was a disease. Now, it acts just like any other aspect of our capitalist society: with potential for capital accumulation.
Because of this context, shaping concepts in an increasingly flexible, dynamic, and extreme world is essential for establishing the ways in which the institutions are being transformed. It is not possible to live fully today when there are so many economic and social factors controlling masses of people throughout the world. In our society, the owners of information and knowledge are those who know how to get out of the system, or how to control it.
Finally, observing how introversion is socially constructed, we can better understand ourselves and come closer to the idealized archetypes of introversion — those figures of power totally autonomous and independent of the world. As seen with lo-fi, knowing about the world of objects is the secret ability that introverts can acquire to deal with the chaos and excess of extroversion of society. Anyway, it will always be those moments without worry and interaction. After all, today is over. It is Friday.
