Facebook leaves you with one identity

Have a look at this article, it opens up an interesting idea about the role of Facebook when it comes to identity. The usual idea with Facebook and identity is that it allows you to construct an identity, perhaps one that is perhaps different to the one your friends, family or employers see - it's another side to you. However, this article suggest that because so much of people's life is being lived or recorded and uploaded to Facebook that you end up only being to have ONE identity.

A quote from the article:

"Facebook appears to be deliberately and systematically making it harder and harder for people to vary their self-presentations according to audience. I think that this broad tendency (if it continues and spreads) impoverishes public life. Certainly, the self that I present on this blog is very different from the self that I present in private life (I’m a lot more combative, for better or worse, in electronically mediated exchanges, than I am in person). It’s also very different from the self that I present on the political science blog that I contribute to. Both differ drastically from the self I present to my students. I don’t think I’m unique in this. And one of the things I like about the Internets is that I can present myself in different ways. This isn’t the result of a lack of integrity – you need to present different ‘selves’ if you want to engage in different kinds of dialogue."

So the author is suggesting that in general the internet is liberating in terms of identity and self presentation (so you can rowdy and rude on one forum, more kind and considered on another), but this in contrast with Facebook restricts this idea of fluidity in identity. Your identity isn't mediated - it isn't as selective and edited as you think.

Imagine Facebook being one room. In this one room are your parents, your siblings, your best friends, your teachers, your school friends, your girl/boyfriend, you pals from your football/hockey team - and they all want you to be the version of you they are used to. So you have to be rowdy with your football pals, be polite to your Mum and Dad, and be the romantic caring type to your loved one - everyone gets to see every side of you. You're exposed.

This is something Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's creator, seems to be proud of:

“You have one identity,” he emphasized three times in a single interview with David Kirkpatrick in his book, “The Facebook Effect.” “The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly.” He adds: “Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.”

Perhaps he's right. Perhaps this stripping of privacy will become the norm so every break-up, drunken picture, emotional outburst, argument, birth, loss etc. will now be played out in front of your Facebook friends. But what do I care - I'm not on Facebook. Ha!

Here's another arcticle that contemplate the threat to our identity by the transition from a physical way of consuming media to a virtual one.

 

Future of Youth Representations/Collective Identity


The 2011 film Submarine is a quirky, artsy take on adolesence but still uses established and popular notions of youth (storm and stress, alienation) in its representations.

In Section B it would be good if you could talk about the past, present and potential future of your specific topic. The past and present is fairly simple, so here's few suggestions for the future.

Has the representation of youth change from past to present? If yes, can you extrapolate the developments any further?

Or are we still going to have the same representations as we had before e.g. Demonisation, Popular notions of adolesence etc?

Do you really think representations of youth will change? (N.B. remember our class' attitude to Year 12s - rowdy, arrogant, thinking that they own the place - are you just going to become typical adults in terms how you treat the younger generation?)

The norm, both in the past and currently, is for older creators to construct representations of youth: John Schlesinger was 37 when he directed the Billy Liar, Keith Waterhouse was 30 when he wrote the book. Inbetweeners is written by guys in their thirties. Creator of Misfits, Howard Overman, is 36.
Skins, however, uses experienced writers and writers of the age group they are trying to depict. Tim Dawson was 19 when BBC 3 'comedy' Coming of Age first screened. So is this the future - younger writers/directors getting involved to create more truthful, relevant representations?

Or will truthful, relevant representations be found on the internet where UK youth are already in control (to a degree) of how they are represented through Youtube and Facebook?

There's no right or wrong answer - just don't say that in the future kids will be on hoverboards and live under the sea.

Billy Liar - Observations

Billy Liar (1963)
Directed by John Schlesinger

Combined social realism ('portraying life as it is lived' using elements of documentary style)/kitchen sink drama, with fantasy (Billy's day dreams).

Made at a time when Britain 'never had it so good' - there was prosperity, social change, upward mobility (opportunity to move up through the class system). This was especially the case for youth through education (Grammar schools/university), parents that were financially secure so didn't need looking after - so the youth had more opportunities and freedom - for Billy this includes the freedom to dream.

Billy and Liz are two different representations of youth - Liz who uses this freedom and opportunity and Billy who wants to but seems reluctant to escape his life.

Billy's fantasies are not subversive - rather than desiring the freedom that Liz has, he aspires to be the war hero, the government minister or from a wealthy background. He wants the success that exists within the existing social structures.

There is a circular nature to the film - we begin with Billy dreaming in bed and we end with Billy dreaming on the way home. So despite all the drama - has anything really changed for Billy?

Billy's daydreams usually involve a newsreel type commentary - it could be argued that he uses media structures and templates to construct his fantasy identity.

Similarities with modern day representations:
Experimentation with different identities.
An idea of youth being a period of 'becoming, rather than being' - finding a role.
A time of 'storm and stress' with inter-generational conflict.
Risky behaviour - sex, partying, petty crime.
Dreaming, aspiring to improve life, become something better.

Differences with modern day representations
Family and the way it suffocates is significant - today the parents/adults are often seen as absent.
The explicitness of the depiction of sex/crime/violence is significantly different.
Billy wants to climb the existing social structure rather than reject it.
Class and the place in society is a more pressing issue.
Youth - mainly through Liz - is seen as something to envied and cherished.

 

To what extent is human identity increasingly mediated?

This is one of the tougher of the prompt questions but does give you plenty of scope to discuss how the media shapes our identities and how we use the media to construct identities.

First thing to deal with is this idea of identity being ‘mediated’:

One definition of ‘mediation’ – ‘a negotiation to resolve differences’ is useful as it introduce the idea of us using negotiated readings of media to help us construct media. So not taking the messages at face value but understanding them in context and using our own experience.

Then there’s Thomas de Zengotita use of the word for his book Mediated: The Hidden Effects of the Media on You and Your World in which he asserts that almost everything (info, values, news, role models) comes to us through some media (TV, print, web, magazines, films) so will undoubtedly colour/influence our view of life and therefore our own self-definition.

So firstly, there's the process the audiences make in terms of understanding media representations and relating them to themselves. Then there's looking at how the media construct representations (making a conscious selection of what to include and how to present it) in order to create identities for individuals or groups of people.

Using these ideas we can look at this question as asking to what extent is our identity constructed by media, to what extent do we use media and to what extent does media reflect identity.


Useful theory 1: Jacques Lacan - Mirror Stage
‘Lacan's concept of the mirror stage was strongly inspired by earlier work by psychologist Henri Wallon, who speculated based on observations of animals and humans responding to their reflections in mirrors. Wallon noted that by the age of about six months, human infants and chimpanzees could both recognize their reflection in a mirror. While chimpanzees rapidly lose interest in the discovery, human infants typically become very interested and devote much time and effort to exploring the connections between their bodies and their images. In a 1931 paper, Wallon argued that mirrors helped children develop a sense of self-identity.’

While it's not vital to remember all of the above the assertion is that we gain an idea of self-identity through reflection. Lacan suggested a "mirror stage" in which a child begins to develop an identity; it is a point in their life when they can essentially look into a mirror and recognise themselves. It can be argued that audiences are able to form and develop their identity and change the way in which they see or recognise themselves.

Useful theory 2: David Gauntlett's Construction of Identity is very useful as it discusses the power relationship between media and ourselves when it comes to constructing identity.

'The power relationship between the media and the audience involves a 'bit of both' or to be more precise, a lot of both. The media sends out a huge number of messages about identity and acceptable forms of self-expression, gender, sexuality, and lifestyle. At the same time the public have their own even more robust set of diverse feelings on the issues. The media's suggestions may be seductive but can never simply overpower contrary feelings in the audience.'

Useful Theory 3: Althusser's Interpellation
Here's one definition. And here's an attempt to explain it: Interpellation is the process where a human subject is constructed by pre-given structures. This has been taken up some media theorists to to explain how media texts impose their ideology (their set of ideas) on the audience. If you think about it, we're bombarded by messages from the media, messages that make certain assumptions about us (taste, place in society etc), and as soon as we engage with the message we are positioned as a 'subject' rather than an individual. The idea is that we are controlled by these messages and go some way to defining our identity.

This is an quite an extreme view and doesn't account for the fact that texts often have multiple meanings and audience approach texts with different uses in mind.

Useful Theory 4: Judith Butler's Performativity
Butler says: 'There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; ... identity is performatively constituted by the very "expressions" that are said to be its results.'  In other words, gender is a performance; it's what you do at particular times, rather than a universal who you are. The idea behind this is our identity (specifically here gender identity) is not defined by biology but is actually a performance learned as we grow. As media students we can apply to our study of identity as many of these performances and notions of idenity will be learned from the media.

Look at these two magazine covers and think about what messages they are putting out about how we should fufil our gender roles. (Or relate it to UK Youth by thinking what roles and performance we learn from Inbetweeners or Skins.)

Use the above theories to begin a response then explore the ideas yourself - here's some things to think about

1. Can you personally relate to the idea of creating identity using the media? Are there any characters or media personalities who you feel represent you? Do you share the same qualities? Which qualities do you reject and which do you aspire to have?

2. There are examples of Collective Identities being heavily influence by the media particularly youth sub-cultures that are often defined by the type of media they consume:
Mods: fashion (often tailor-made suits); pop music, including African American soul, Jamaican ska, and British beat music and R&B; and Italian motor scooters.
Rockers: 50s biker films, Marlon Brando, Elvis, rock’n’roll.

Even counter-cultural groups (groups that reject mainstream values) like Punk can be define by the type of music consumed and also what media they rejected and are oppositional to. So they were still influenced by the media to the point they took a confrontational stance toward it.

Today, even though there might not be clearly defined sub-cultures, they are still ‘scenes’, members of which are still defined by what music/films etc they consume. Can you think of any? Emo? Steampunk? Goth?

3. Identities are often constructed then perpetuated by the media.

a) The ‘Chav’.
Before the mid noughties most regions had their own term for the type of working youth the term refers to – they were Townies, or Meaders/Bedmies (Bristol). But through Media (websites, news, comedy) use of the word ‘Chav’ it became an all-encompassing term.
It then became a stereotype constructed and re-constructed by the media. For example – you had Vicky Pollard (Little Britain) - Lauren (Catherine Tate Show) – Goldie Look Chain etc,
The result of this is that we have Kelly from Misfits who is created as the stereotypical chav – dress, accent, hair, earrings, pet – even her reason for being on community service was ‘chav’  - head butting someone in Argos!
Misfits creates this stereotype intentional to then deconstruct it with Kelly’s character development.

b) Demonisation
Look here for the role that the Media plays in Demonisation. It can be argued that the Media as created the 'hoodie' - the scary youth - by giving them a high profile in the news, then using this representation in films such as F, Attack the Block, Harry Brown and even Misfits. This representation fits the 'narrative arc' so is continued and perpetuated. If a representation is repeated enough then it can be percieved to be a truth or at least an audience expectation. 

4. Media creates identities and types of behaviour that are seen to directly influence behaviour or people’s reaction to that type of behaviour. For instance ‘Skins Parties’.

5. The Media is designed to create narratives and therefore identities for people:
a) Watch Big Brother and the way they create characters for the housemates with intro vox-pops, selective editing and reaction shots. Here's Charlie Brooker talking about these types of techniques.

b) Susan Boyle – her whole identity was carefully created from the sandwich eating in the BGT queue, to the music used, to the crowd reaction shots to the image she has now. Can you think of any other examples?

c) (This is big area to explore but it can be argued that the existence of the teenage social group is a media construction. The thought is that due to the post-war prosperity and baby boom in the 1950-60s they was a huge amount of young people with money to spend and so products (films, music, books, magazines) were created to target that demographic)

6. Because of democratisation of the media, we can use media, explicitly to create our identities?
How do you use the internet to create a representation of yourself? Are you on Facebook – how does that create identity – what is the template? How about online worlds and games? Do you (or others) use Twitter or Youtube to express yourself?
How do Collective Identities use the internet to define themselves? Are online communities or Facebook groups important?
The creators of Misfits used Twitter, tumblr and Facebook to construct identities for their characters

7. Have a look at this article, it opens up an interesting idea about the role of Facebook when it comes to identity. The usual idea with Facebook and identity is that it allows you to construct an identity, perhaps one that is perhaps different to the one your friends, family or employers see - it's another side to you. However, this article suggest that because so much of people's life is being lived or recorded and uploaded to Facebook that you end up only being to have ONE identity.

A quote from the article:

"Facebook appears to be deliberately and systematically making it harder and harder for people to vary their self-presentations according to audience. I think that this broad tendency (if it continues and spreads) impoverishes public life. Certainly, the self that I present on this blog is very different from the self that I present in private life (I’m a lot more combative, for better or worse, in electronically mediated exchanges, than I am in person). It’s also very different from the self that I present on the political science blog that I contribute to. Both differ drastically from the self I present to my students. I don’t think I’m unique in this. And one of the things I like about the Internets is that I can present myself in different ways. This isn’t the result of a lack of integrity – you need to present different ‘selves’ if you want to engage in different kinds of dialogue."

So the author is suggesting that in general the internet is liberating in terms of identity and self presentation (so you can rowdy and rude on one forum, more kind and considered on another), but this in contrast with Facebook restricts this idea of fluidity in identity. Your identity isn't mediated - it isn't as selective and edited as you think.

Imagine Facebook being one room. In this one room are your parents, your siblings, your best friends, your teachers, your school friends, your girl/boyfriend, you pals from your football/hockey team - and they all want you to be the version of you they are used to. So you have to be rowdy with your football pals, be polite to your Mum and Dad, and be the romantic caring type to your loved one - everyone gets to see every side of you. You're exposed.

Also here's another discussion on how digital technology - specifically the internet - is affecting how we construct our identity.

Have a read here about a blogger who constructed an identity to bring like to political issues in Syria. It's a very interesting story and throws up question about how we use digital-media, specifically the internet, to explicitly construct identities and for what reasons.

 

 

 

Youth Marketing

 

Interesting Powerpoint on how institutions see 'Youth' in terms of qualities and values in order to sell things to you. Flip to slide 19 to see what it says about 13-17 year olds, apparently it's all about creating an 'identity'.


http://www.slideshare.net/guest10a9e56/youth-marketing-a-guide-to-understanding-youth-development-phases-by-dan-pankraz

Here's two articles looking at the effects of marketing on youth culture one a bit wordy and one just getting to the point.

Open letter to the makers of Harry Brown

If you're not that bothered about the way your generation is being portrayed in film, then meet someone who is - Owen Nicholls on the NME blog.

Daniel Barber, Gary Young and all,
A couple of weeks ago I had the displeasure of watching your film 'Harry Brown'. I was fortunate enough to get paid to watch it, so this isn't an attempt to ask for my money back, instead I'm here to ask one simple question. What is this film?
Is it an attempt at a 'horror' film in the style of 'Eden Lake'? If so hats off to you guys. It left me shaken and upset, as good horror films should and had the pre-requisite of 2-dimensional, truly 'evil' characters that deserved nothing more than death, which the audience, myself included, hoped would be dished out by the excellent Mr. Caine.
Or is it pornography for Daily Mail readers? A wank-fantasy that they can strum themselves off to sleep to in their deluded state that Britain truly is a broken place where such a retched hive of scum and villainy, as presented in your film, walk the streets terrorising everyone they meet just to get their rocks off.
If that is the case then apologies from me, you didn't make the film with a lefty-Guardian reading hippy like me in mind. No harm done, you can stop reading now.
Or were you attempting to make a documentary-style expose of the lives of people on Council Estates? If so, you've done a bad, bad job. By making your film so unashamedly one-sided (Kids are evil, Harry is justice, Harry is right) the element of film-maker as documentarian falls completely flat. You've painted anyone under the age of 20 with such a broad stroke that they become characatures of the, already discussed, Daily Mail fantasy.
You've also failed as a 'documentarian' to give any reasoning behind the behaviour of the gang. Most people working with inner-city gangs will state that the main reason kids are attracted to gang culture is that they themselves are scared. The gang is their protection from fear. An exacerbated problem that your film never attempts to raise. Instead they are just drawn as true scum of the highest order deserving of Harry's vigilantism.
If this is purely a piece of entertainment then one huge question remains. When did subtlety go out of the window in films? The scene in the drug dealers lair was as abhorrent and distasteful as a 'Saw' or 'Hostel' film. A half dead young girl being repeatedly raped on video for almost 10 minutes is the definition of unneccesary. If, in a film like 'Irreversible', it is done for a reason (to anger and upset and want the retribution that you've just seen is folly) then it is done for a reason. The only reason I can think of for it's inclusion here is to make it okay for Harry to kill the villain with impunity.
It's beneficial for your response that I mention I'm a fairly lucky person. I was born in a nice part of the country to loving, caring parents. I'll be the first to admit that my thoughts are misguided and a little naive. I do look for good in people, I do believe there are multiple angles to every story and I do wish "we could all get along".
But one thing I do know a little about is films. Not a lot, but a little, and I have no idea what your film is? It's been almost uniformally praised so I must be missing something but I've yet to find a single review that answers any of my questions. Maybe you can.
Yours Faithfully,
Owen Nicholls
And if anyone else not present in the making of this film wants to share their opinion below, I'd be glad to hear your take on what I found to be a truly detestable piece of cinema that left the kind of taste in my mouth that a pint of Listerine couldn't get out.

Hoodies - Cinema's new bogeyman

What's interesting about the above article as since it has been written the 'hoodie', as a character type within the media, is continuing to develop and is used more and more as a short cut for everything bad about society and potentially evil. Here is a interesting post from Pete Fraser which mentions how the imagery of the 'hood' has been used throughout history, also there's more stuff here about moral panics.

Just to get back to hoodies, and so in turn British (mainly working class) youth, they are now commonplace bad guys in films and TV. Just have a look this trailer for the film F which was shot at CRC and stars up and coming stunt sensation Austin Phillips.

In the film Heartless, the whole world of the Hoodie - the dark inner city, high rise flats - becomes the setting for a tale of demons and the supernatural. Gone is the classic gothic setting for horror - now the streets of the inner city are the scary places.

Cherry Tree Lane again places UK youth as the bad guys. Again there's an issue with class a well as just like Edene Lake it is a Middle Class family that is under attack.

And now, just to confirm what an established screen representation the hoodie is, whole films can based upon a parody of them such as the new film from Joe Cornish, Attack the Block. Look how the 'hoodie' is described (for comedy purposes) as the 'Deadliest species in the galaxy'.

Have a look at this short film, Cubs, which uses the hoodie characters to suggest urban crime and delinquency only to deliver a punchline that raises questions about how violence by different social classes is perceived.

What are the social implications of different media representations of groups of people?

To answer this question you could pull in some of your audience theory used for question 1b).

1) If we apply a basic effect model to the representations of youth, particularly the negative ones there could be detrimental implications. (Also some interpretations of the work of theorist Althusser believe that the power of the mass media resides in their ability to place a subject in a way that their representations are taken to be reality.)

If representations of youth seen in Eden Lake and Harry Brown are not decoded as being a selective representations then it could result in creating or perpetuating stereotypes (commonly held public belief about specific social groups, or types of individuals).
This could then lead to creating distance between social groups - which could in turn lead to ignorance and more fear.  So adults (particularly vulnerable ones) will become afraid of today’s youth, will be reluctant to engage them and demonise them instead. It can also create tension within social groups with young people becoming afraid of other young people.

Have a look at the articles on demonisation here (and a good article on Surive the Jive blog here) to make notes on the consequences of demonisation. The bits in bold might help. Also here is an interesting article why some people think generating fear is useful in political sense. Here's a really interesting documentary on demonisation - the first ten minutes is worth watching to see how the public's perception of youth crime is so warped. (If the hyperlink doesn't work look for a Channel 4 documentary called Teen Trouble.)

2) If we take David Gauntlett’s view that we use the media as ‘navigation points’ for developing identity, what are the consequences if the representations of youth are negative or unrealistic?

Stewart Lee believes that watching Skins as a teenager would have left him feeling lonely as it portrays a lifestyle that he couldn’t associate with. Do you associate with the representations of youth in TV and Film?

3) However, if we stick with David Gauntlett’s view and apply it to positive or constructive representations there can be benefits. Telling stories and showing lifestyles that youths can associate with is a positive – possibly so they can share the trials and tribulation of growing up, and allow them to put life in perspective.

How could Inbetweeners be seen as useful representation for UK youth?

4) Constructive or positive representation could do the opposite of demonisation, potentially breaking stereotypes and telling the stories behind the negative headlines.

So how does Misfits try to break the classic teenager stereotypes?

Where is the blame placed for the behaviour of the youths in Eden Lake?

What do we learn about the lives of the gang members in Attack the Block?

5) If the representations offered did not sit well with today’s youth they reject mainstream culture. This use to lead to creating subcultures, scenes etc. but now youths can partially control their own identity and representation in media with the use of the net – youtube rants, memes, Facebook pages.

6) A possible negative implication of forming an identity using MySpace or Facebook is that it is a templated format so you are limited in how you express yourself. Also there are many other consequences of Facebook defining your identity.

Some thoughts on Skins

 


It's an interesting points, particularly about Skins potentially making teenagers feel lonely if their life doesn't match what they see on screen. But here's Charlie Brooker suggesting that Stewart Lee might of missed the point as there's a certain morality to Skins:

'When I saw the initial trails for the first series of Skins (Mon, 10pm, E4; Thu, 10.35pm, C4) last year, I harrumphed like a 400-year-old man. It looked like Hollyoaks getting off with Trainspotting on the set of Christina Aguilera's Dirrty video. The advert showed Tony, one of the main characters, romping in a shower with two girls at the same time, which looked about as far away from my teenage years as it was possible to get. And when episode one rolled by, my harrumphing appeared justified. The minute I saw Tony in action, I thought "oh, so he's the hero, is he? Supposed to think he's cool, am I? Well I don't. I think he's an arsehole. Ha! Take THAT, Skins."

But the series had wrong-footed me. It thought Tony was an arsehole too, and spent episode after episode showing his friends slowly coming to the same conclusion. He was shallow and cruel, and the final episode ended with him getting hit by a bus. If I was a teenager, that's precisely what I'd want to see.

In-between now and then, Tony's been in a coma, emerging just in time for the start of the second series. The cocksure grin has been replaced by a hundred-yard stare. His brain's taken such a kick to the nuts, other people have to cut his food up for him. He can't write his own name or unbutton his flies. And the memories of most of his sexual conquests have been wiped, unlike his backside, which he has to clean using an automated spout on a special toilet.

In short, Tony's eating humble pie by the fistload. So having spent series one setting him up as a hideous bell-end, the programme now invites you to pity him. It's a great start. A confident one, too: in fact, the show oozes confidence from the off, opening with a wordless dance routine in a church, just to confuse you.'
Charlie Brooker, Guardian

Here's Adam and Joe being silly about Skins - if you don't fancy listening to the whole thing zip through to 7.50 mins