Cultivating an Authentic Online Image
Has social media undermined authentic communication? There has been a wealth of critical speculation about the medium’s power which allows us to tailor our image as we desire it, even to the extent of severely mismatching reality. Certainly, in a lot of the thought detailed in this outlet and elsewhere, it appears near-fact that online communication has changed the nature of human connections. Indeed, in a previous article in this publication, ‘The Syndication of the Friend’, Max Gorynski illustrated how the term ‘friendship’ has been undermined through the self-contained economy of social media, with a new personal distancing the result.
However, in larger social developments it also appears true that people have developed more awareness of the fact of social media’s duplicitous tendencies, even as inauthentic examples continue to exist and thrive on the platforms in question. It’s a curious phenomenon and one which the current COVID-19 crisis has given particular highlight. The recent backlash against social media influencers, particularly on Instagram, has highlighted how the current situation has given followers an increased chance to question who they idolise, and why.[1] It would appear the same online engagement that helped bring about the social media influencer has also undermined them, as their brand-of-self appears false and less relatable.
Social media appears to show a paradox: an environment which is inauthentic, but also one in which incidents of authenticity gain far greater reach and impact. Furthermore, it underlies a lot of recent social development across society across the world. Communication of an authentic image has major ramifications for politics and corporations, as well as individuals. The success of a new brand of politics best symbolised by Donald Trump - known, of course, for his Twitter account and supposed willingness to ‘say it like it is’ - is an example of how behaviour viewed as authentic, regardless of whether that behaviour is good or bad has proved a powerful message. It is crucial therefore that we consider what authenticity means in our modern age and the lessons that can be drawn from this moving forwards.
How should we think of authenticity?
The word authentic in itself merits examination, being a difficult and often vague term to qualify. The best definition of many I came across was to be found in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Their assertion is that authenticity represents an object or quantity “undisputedly of your own origin or authorship”; something that is what it professes to be, and speaks of a unique attribute of its possessor or creator.[2] This idea goes some way to illustrating also why we seek to understand what is ‘authentic’ by qualifying what it ‘inauthentic’. It is generally far easier to qualify something that feels inauthentic than something that is authentic.
Inauthenticity on a human-social level is characterised partially by fear and concern of judgement from others. On a human-individual level, it represents a universal fear of the finitude of life, meaning and lack of clear absolutes. Psychology tells us that the longer we perceive our deadline, the more we increase our perception of the difficulty of the task at hand.[3] Likewise, inauthentic action could be characterised as procrastination from what we ought to be doing.
Why can social media be an inauthentic medium?
Social media makes us more aware of these problems. Qualitative differences between ourselves and others in our network are eased. We feel we are in the same boat as everyone else and do not wish to fall behind, driving a spike in fear-of-missing-out among millennials that is unlikely to be incidental. Humans are naturally compelled to compare ourselves to others, often undermining ourselves in the process. Social media elevates this to new more powerful level as our social relations become more quantified.[4] The syndication of “friends”, “followers”, “likes” etc. has seen the terms in question be transferred from something meaningful to something quantitatively necessary to justify your virtual presence. Even though you can improve your ‘scores’ (working on your pose, using Photoshop, creating timely political posts), the very desire, the perceived need, to write an ideal message, to post a perfect picture, undermines your attempt to share ‘your’ life. In fact, doing so only further confirms the essential inauthenticity of your endeavour.
The philosopher Heidegger explains how when we hand over control of our actions or some aspect of our existence away, it is not to a definitive other but rather a neutral and anonymous large set of others.[5] This illustrates how social media companies convince us their platform is about community rather than a marketable product, which they do in order to figure out our advertising preferences. Algorithms alert us to what the most viewed online videos and stories are, and based on saved preferences of previous clicks, these algorithms alert us to selections of things they believe we will like. Thus, our ability to explore and stumble upon is somewhat undermined.
Undoubtedly this can be helpful, but being introduced to and judging beliefs and perspectives by the number of likes, makes us forget that majority agreement is no guarantee of truth. Our desire to stay up to date encourages our continued engagement and creates the potential for a hazardous feedback loop to form. This loop is informed by fleeting curiosity, seeing something for the sake of it, only paying partial attention with limited interest, and as a result moving swiftly on to the next distraction.[6]
Even one of the best aspects of Facebook and YouTube etc - that you can see the affirmation of your own beliefs and values that are articulated by someone else - can have pronounced downsides. By enabling us to make statements through different sources it enables us to speak without thinking too much. This process, if overused, can also prevent the finding of a personal voice.
Authenticity and your personal profile on social media
It is important to note that there is nothing ‘morally wrong’ with appearing inauthentic. Humans are by definition social animals with the right to self-determination; and besides, individualism has its limits. If your use of social media appears to you to undermine your sense of self, then remembering to log out is a necessary place to start. Furthermore, it is worth questioning the motivation behind being online in the first place and ensuring in your treatment that social media is your tool, not the other way round.
The familiarity of the above incidents of online inauthenticity illustrates that everyone is, to some degree, guilty. Yet, being aware of this guilt hinders few people’s willingness to engage with these platforms, in some cases having the opposite effect. Our own anxieties are easily exploited, even by ourselves; society’s exploitation of those anxieties is as old as civilisation itself. Organisations have simply become more sophisticated about utilising this fact.[7] For that reason, there seems little point also in judging people based on what is a fairly default quality, namely the quality trying to fit in and avoiding thinking deeply about topics of life and death.
Furthermore, since both inauthenticity and authenticity are character traits it would be false to think about them as completely indistinct. At least this is Heidegger’s thesis: that the authentic being of oneself does not rest upon an exceptional condition of the subject and a complete change in character. Rather it is the detachment from the larger “They”, which acts as an arbiter of your decision-making, and instead opting for a smaller “they”, a more chosen audience whose judgement you care about, and which should include yourself.[8]
Authenticity can more easily be expressed if we focus not on over-defining ourselves and instead just focus on momentary realities. This is Heidegger’s subjective theory of the human experience of ‘Being in the world’ which he terms Dasein.[9] To understand this state of being we have to move away from examining the human experience as a whole. We do this with questions such as; what are we? How are we broken down? This kind of approach fits into the realm of an objective mathematical-scientific approach that we typically engage in. Instead of the idea that the mind and body are isolated from each other as assumed by the Cartesian school of thought, this theory of a life-nexus stresses that human experience cannot be observed separately of our body and experience.[10]
Rather the world is experienced immediately and subjectively in the flow of everyday life. Our practical experience of going to work, shopping, sport etc. is different depending on what we are caught up in.[11] The experience of being in the middle of something is the human experience. Worlds do not just reflect the location, but rather ways of being. As we enter a different scenario in our life the world changes as does the way in which we engage.[12] There is a world that surrounds your practical actions that give each world meaning. One example world: your job. In order to fulfill it, you are placed in a particular world and your role helps sustain it, affecting its process and the way it flows. There are multiple worlds for each of the different social interactions you partake in and you may traverse many in the course of a day and on each occasion like the example of your job you co-create a shared identity in your setting and tasks.[13]
With regard to social media, this aspect of Heidegger's philosophy offers a clarification of what the human voice is and how we can communicate it effectively. We should choose to identify with our worlds carefully, interaction with others should consolidate not undermine the structure we have built. It also indicates that the key to appearing authentic is direct communication from your own world in the context of the world you are interacting with be it Facebook, Instagram etc. Tuning into your world and expressing it requires you to define what that world means to you and your being a part of it.
The wider political, social and economic existence illustrates increasingly this sort of attitude to authenticity and the power it wields. Branding particularly in Politics and in the Commercial world has largely developed into a paradigm that is purely objective, all about keeping to the message of a particular political slogan or company product, not to deviate and to keep a particular strategy in mind at all times. This approach, which can be summed up as ‘stage-management’, has overtaken much of the public square concerned about language misuse and conforming to perceived notions of popularity. The inauthentic nature of social media as mentioned above has undoubtedly had a considerable effect in elevating an inauthentic behaviour.
This reality doesn’t deny the importance of a human voice, however, as the current political and larger cultural rebellion in the west illustrates: a human voice that authentically communicates its world is a powerful force. A prime example of this is of course President Trump who through use of his own Twitter account for communication defines his world and place in it to all onlookers. Those who comment on this world, whether their comment is positive or negative, act to extend it. The unfiltered nature of it communicates an authentic mark that it comes from the President directly and the manner in which it responds to the outside world demonstrates the motion and movement that signify a lived human experience. The dynamics of the modern entrepreneur and public figure, to show yourself and be open to the world comes with substantial risk if it comes from a need to overcome anxiety. However, done effectively and maintained it illustrates the confidence someone has in their own reality and its impact on those around it.
It is easy to believe that social media brings out the worst of people online, but at its best it can also serve as an aid to connect core thought and feeling. Reminding oneself that although the nature of social media platform design can encourage cynicism towards honest communication, the aim shouldn’t be to convince the world ‘They’. The difficulty in defining authenticity, and the fact that inauthenticity is a set of universal fears that is shared among the vast majority of people, is reflected online in obsessive tallying of “likes”, “shares”, “posts” etc.
But what is perhaps more interesting is that for all the objective ways in which social media is built to appeal to powerful instincts, and the fact that we consciously engage with them, the authentic human voice has the ability to subvert this paradigm and reframe control. The philosophy of phenomenology and particularly Heidegger’s idea of Dasein appears to effectively define why this could be. Thinking about reality as built out of worlds, which one moves between, clarifies why authenticity is the communication of human experience. Social media offers massive potential precisely because of the inauthentic parts of it, which causes the act of subversion or show of vulnerability to carry so much more power with it. It can allow your lived reality to reach a far greater audience and enable your ability to move through new worlds of hobby groups and niche interests.
The slide towards the inauthentic is inevitable if you believe that society or your online export of yourself is what you conform to, thereby likely revealing yourself as a fraud. But whether you’re looking at it from the perspective of a company, politician or private citizen, consider that perhaps the most effective means of connection is illustration of motion, whether good or bad and the immediate lived experience of the world you find yourself in.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/c35ca1d6-9c3e-11ea-871b-edeb99a20c6e
[2] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authenticity/
[3] Mary C. Lamia, 2019 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/intense-emotions-and-strong-feelings/201905/procrastination-deadline-mania-is-not-irrational
[4] Staehler, Tanja (2014) Social networks as inauthentic sociality. Metodo: International Studies in Phenomenology and Philosophy, 2. pp. 227–248. ISSN 2281–9177
[5] ibid
[6] ibid
[7] Richard Seymour, 2019 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/23/social-media-addiction-gambling
[8] Heidegger, Being and Time, translation John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson, 1962 p. 157
[9] Staehler, Tanja (2014) Social networks as inauthentic sociality. Metodo: International Studies in Phenomenology and Philosophy, 2 (2). pp. 227–248. ISSN 2281–9177
[10] A. Kadir Çüçen, https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Cont/ContCuce.htm
[11] Heidegger, Being and Time, translation John Macquarrie & Edward Robinson, 1962 p.158
[12] ibid
[13] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/, Heidegger Being and Time
