Living as digital personae
3/3 Hall of Mirrors: Digital personae and the fractured dividual
The self has always been a multiplicity. In the internet age, it has fractured along the breaks of media platforms. Now let’s get to the juicy bit: What are the implications for identity and the culture at large? What is the nature of the Deleuze/McLuhan cocktail we’ve concocted in the previous articles? We’ll see that it’s both a “Split Spectrum” and a Molotov Cocktail.
We’ll explore two major implications:
Schizophrenia is the new normal
Identity becomes a weapon, a toy, and an object of desire
I’d argue that we’re still at the very beginning of culture adjusting to the new media landscape. There will be new freedoms, harsh downsides, and lots of unpredictable second-order implications. One thing is sure, we’re in for a wild ride.
Schizophrenia is the new normal
We are in a paradigm shift of identity - from authenticity to profilicity. Our norms will have to adapt, from what is considered “healthy” to what gets treated as a clinical disorder. Have you noticed that thought leaders on Twitter wear the term “Schizo” with a certain pride? Schizophrenia will become the new normal. This follows from the explorations in the previous article: As the self is fractured and cut off from the grounding of the bodily and perspectival dimensions, patterns once pathologized as schizophrenic will become more and more prevalent.
This move is prefigured by Deleuze & Guattari’s practice of “Schizoanalysis”, aimed at unfolding complex relationships between dividuals and social structures. Schizoanalysis seeks to break down fixed categories and boundaries, encouraging a multiplicity of perspectives and experiences. It emphasizes the importance of affect, desire, and intensity in shaping subjectivity and social relationships. D&G imagined a therapeutic modality that doesn’t strive to create a whole, integrated person, but rather leans into the multiplicity.
Rather than necessarily being a psychological disaster on a mass scale, the normalization of schizophrenia could be seen as an adaptive response to the colliding multiplicities of the self and the internet.
Harmonization, not integration
Integration is a key concept of current psychotherapy (e.g. CBT). It is the process of uniting different aspects of one's self or experiences to form a cohesive, balanced state of mental and emotional well-being. This might need to change. For dividuals on the internet, clinging to a notion of the self as a “whole” whose unity needs to be preserved at all costs, brings many negative consequences:
Impossible pressure to conform to the expectations of all different platforms and contexts at once
Identity distress where most parts can’t be expressed, only the vanishingly small common denominator across contexts
Cognitive dissonance and repression caused by noticing one's sense of self inevitably changes across platforms
Once the irreconcilable differences between dividuals become too obvious, cognitive dissonance and repression are bound to sweep away any attempts towards integration. At the limit, the distinct dividuals could even enter into psychological war with one another over who gets to be the “true self”. That might even lead to pathological schizophrenia, ironically.
Living as digital dividuals means striving for harmonization, not integration. Harmonious differentiation is the process of acknowledging and embracing the distinct parts of one's self or experiences without necessarily forcing unity. It enables dividuals to express different aspects of their identity or feelings in different contexts (with different personae) without conflict. Since the self was never a unity to begin with, diverging parts are not a problem. No need for integration. Instead, different parts could be actively supported in their differentiation and encouraged to have symbiotic relationships with one another. The professional persona on LinkedIn can be so polished since all of the rage and frustration are expressed on the anon Twitter account.
Digital personae need grounding in the real world
“Touch grass” has become the ironic warcry of chronically online people for a good reason. Not just the relationships between different parts are important, but also folding in the different dimensions of the self. The more disconnected from the bodily dimension, the “flatter and faster” the online personae will be. If completely decoupled from the “real world”, digital personae could enter runaway feedback loops that make harmonization impossible. Conversely, more feedback between digital personae and perspectival-bodily dimensions could ground the multiplicity of self more adaptively.
The body is the alchemical cauldron where different digital personae can learn to work together.
Grounding makes harmony in a digital dividual possible. Example activities include
IRL social interactions
Physical labor
Physical exercise of all kinds
Touching grass (spending time in nature)
In the future, the internet may find other ways to re-establish the connection (e.g. full-body immersive VR simulations).
Identity becomes a weapon, a toy, and an object of desire
What is happening is a transparency-opacity shift with regard to identity: From looking through identity (sincerity and authenticity), we can now look at it, taking it as an object that can be manipulated (profilicity). We can clearly see that our persona on LinkedIn is very different from the one on Instagram, and we hopefully understand that neither defines us as a self. This opens up new possibilities. The use of identity (or the lack thereof) can be leveraged in relationship to power structures (notably as a defense against control). It can also be a tool for more fluid and free expression. At last, it may also lead to a commodification of identity - the persona as an object of desire and consumption. The example of “finsta” vs. “insta” illustrates all of these points: A fake instagram account is pseudonymous and isn’t subject to the same amount of social control. It often opens up freer expression as a result. However, it’s still an instagram account after all, just signaling the desirability of its persona in an edgier way.
Pseudonymity is a defensive weapon against control
In a society of control, the fragmentation of identity is adaptive as a defense against control by powerful media platforms. By taking on different identities on different media, the power of the institution controlling the platform as well as the impact of potential social damage is limited. Managing multiple personae across platforms is a form of risk management: Should any of them get banned, at least the others and their social graph remain.
In a digital age, being able to link together all of someone's distinct personae means having enormous power over them. Especially old power structures, notably nation-states, want to contain this proliferation of dividuals and bind them all back to a single bodily self over which they have power. Biopower is how Foucault described how governments control, discipline, and regulate populations and individuals. Biopower relies on individual bodies with a single name. You can’t put a Twitter profile in jail, or deny entry to the country, etc. The control structures states developed are aimed at bodies, not at profiles. Digital IDs, credit scores, IP address tracking, etc. are all attempts to tie social expression back to individual bodies. We might expect more political pressure on platforms to disallow pseudonymous profiles as wearing many masks becomes more common.
We’re going back to the future with increasingly fluid identities: It used to be common for people to go by different names in different contexts before the prevalence of nation-states. In mediaeval Europe, last names were not devices to establish ID, but a random descriptor, from physical characteristics to professions or towns of origin. Last names changed fluidly as professions changed or when people moved. Similarly, in many indigenous societies and the Japan of the Samurais, it was common to change names many times, whenever a significant life event occurred. The gradual standardization and regulation of names is a prime example of Biopower - the control over bodies and populations.
But it’s not just the state that wants to link together distinct personae back to a single individual. From cancellation mobs trying to tarnish social reputations for different reasons to platforms banning accounts with no recourse, pseudonymous internet users are safer in many ways. Each platform/medium is a line of power, controlling access and how information flows. If any of them continue to be used (as opposed to a single monopoly), the competition between them will mitigate the amount of power they have over any given dividual. For those political reasons, we can expect support for the proliferation of personae across digital media. It is a defense against the Biopolitics of nation-states and the control structures of media platforms alike. Pseudonymous profiles are a defensive weapon against control, just like network-level obfuscation with VPNs and onion-routing.
If we are indeed in societies of control, we can also expect to increasingly see identity as a battleground for power struggles: Proliferating personae aiming to evade attempts to control, whereas the controlling powers strive to link them back together into a single identity. More profiles - more tracking - VPN use - blocking of IPs - switching of platforms - campaigns against pseudonymous media. A cat and mouse game around identity.
Identity as a toy: Free expression and identity R&D
“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” - Oscar Wilde
Pseudonymity and anonymity can not just be used for reasons of power and politics. Obscuring some parts of identity lessens the grip of prior social commitments and affiliated groups. The emerging space allows for new ways of creative expression, including deliberate play with identity.
Certain communities have been playing with identity in this way for years, especially on certain parts of Twitter, where so-called “Anons” and “Alts” are a common sight. People use different Twitter accounts to express different aspects of their personalities and to experiment with identities. For instance, they could have a public account linked to their IRL identity, a pseudonymous account that some friends know is connected to the former and an anonymous account nobody knows is theirs.
"Being Your Selves: Identity R&D on alt Twitter'' explores this topic of self-expression and identity creation. The piece grapples with the multiplicity of the self as it maps the transition from analog singularity to digital plurality, driven by the boundless persona experimentation and fluid role-playing prevalent on alt Twitter. It explains how pseudonymous profiles can be used as a laboratory for identity R&D, with users gleefully transcending conventional selfhood boundaries. How some dividuals on Twitter freely engineer diverse alter-egos, and playfully navigate the inherent dissonance and harmony among their myriad identities may be the first example of successful Schizoanalysis.
The desire for identity: Commodification of profiles
Finally, having turned identity into an object will likely lead to another, perhaps darker, consequence: The commodification of identity. As soon as identity is no longer something we are but something we have (a profile), we will inevitably start turning our desire toward it. Girard’s mimetic theory of desire describes how desires are formed by imitating what peers desire. The profile of a digital persona is an expression of desire by the dividual who created it: How they want to be seen. Following Girard, we can hypothesize that if the persona is successful in how it presents itself, its audience will start desiring a similar profile. Mimetic social desire could explain a lot of what is happening on social media, from copypasta to icon signaling in profile names and fashions in profile pictures.
Identity and selfhood stop being a means for creative expression and start being an object of desire and ultimately consumption. People have already figured out how to create markets of identity for this desire to be served (and capitalized on).
Numerous profile cottage industries blossom around social networks: There are markets for leveled-up characters in role-playing games. On social media, one can buy the impression of being well-liked by buying followers, or by paying influencers to post on one’s behalf. Instagram influencers earn kingly wages by advertising products to their followers. Psychologically, those followers buy the products because they feel a bit more similar to the influencer, the identity (beautiful, successful, etc.) they desire. They only consume the products as a proxy for what they are really after a desired identity.
According to Lacan, the infant recognizing itself in a mirror is key for identity formation, a moment Lacan calls the 'Ideal-I.' Initially, the child is happy to identify with this image, but this changes when it realizes the image is an inaccurate representation of its complex self, leading to alienation and ultimately desiring the other. This initial self-identification and subsequent alienation process as per Lacan's mirror stage seems similar to how consumers interact with idealized images such as profiles of influencer personae. Roland Barthes supports this view by suggesting that visual culture not only entertains but also subtly transmits societal ideologies to encourage ego formation. We can extend this to our analysis: Each desired profile on social media leads to ego formation, altering the viewer's perceived identity. The plethora of images and profiles on social media allow for multiple identity formations, easily formed and easily discarded. This piece explores these threads in more detail.
We are consuming identity online.
In spaces where pseudonymity is more widespread, we can see that the financialization of these pseudonymous profiles follows suit: NFT projects that provide rare and unique images often used as profile pictures have entered ridiculous price bubbles in recent years. Crypto Punks, for example, were selling for millions a piece at some point. Besides the obvious speculation, what drives the hype is the ability to acquire an identity that comes with status attached to it. To have a Crypto Punk, you must either be very rich or have been very early to the party. The self for sale can therefore be located on the intersection of “wealthy” and “crypto-savvy”.
Each picture of a pixelated face is unique and is used exclusively by the owner as a profile picture (irrespective of whether it is tied to other aspects of the self). Over time, the same Crypto Punk can be used by different people, allowing for sales and resales. The pseudonymity is what makes this worthwhile: The identity of “rich and in crypto” can be taken on and off fluidly, depending on the circumstance.
A branching path
Viewing the self as multiplicity might be the key to an adaptive response: Instead of trying in vain to rescue a unified self, digital dividuals can be supported to differentiate symbiotically and harmonize together. Far from a looming psychological crisis, the rise in schizophrenic patterns might be a response to the internet's impact on our self-concept.
Living as multiple personae could allow for more fluid, creative expression. The proliferation of pseudonymity will open up many political and economic dimensions, including renewed struggles around the right to privacy. How the dynamics of maintaining multiple online personae will unfold remains to be seen. Also their psychological impact, and the power struggle over identity control in the digital age.
As these developments unfold, our very way of experiencing ourselves and the world around us will transform. As we let go of eternalized ideas of ourselves, “becoming" will triumph over “being”. Let’s rejoice in throwing away the maps of a fixed identity and go back to the territories of our ever-changing social expressions. And remember, touching grass is not just a meme, it's good advice.