This text began as a defense of the characters that inhabit us, our own fictions, and their expressions in virtuality. However, as usual, I succumbed to a nearly endless diatribe, raising arguments to dismantle possible ideas. In the end, the defense of performance turned into a rejection of essence, such as authenticity. In other texts, I mentioned the need to consider the amplifying potential of the Internet and the social context in which the development of technologies occurs when reflecting on digital habits. In this sense, virtuality amplifies the calls of our time. Amid the calls to become our best selves, to establish our personal brand, to explore all possibilities, and to express our opinions on almost everything, there is the call to express ourselves authentically and in a way that represents our own essence, showing ourselves as we truly are. After all, this would represent integrity. Obviously, this call is expressed in the use of technology. In Zuckerberg's words: “You have one identity…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…Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” [1] Curiously, criticisms of social media make use of similar arguments, supported by the idea of the impossibility of multiple and concurrent ways of being. Like when they mention that there is no real in the virtual, that we are merely characters in constant performance. I believe that these comments and arguments have roots in two points: assuming that there is an authenticity outside the network and an accessible essence; and believing that knowing more, learning more, is always beneficial. In this text, I limit myself to exploring the first point. The notion of essence can be seen as a way of dealing with the lack of guarantees of existence, with the anxiety of the uncertain and the indeterminacy to which we are, in many ways, subjected. To think that there is an essence to be achieved, accessed, capable of alleviating our anxiety and giving meaning to our existence, can be comforting. However, it can also be a source of discomfort and serve the discourses of self-improvement and the instrumentalization of care. Not presupposing an essence requires us to accept and deal with ambivalence and contradiction, both in ourselves and in others. We must be capable of recognizing the nuances and complexity that come with being human. In order to do this, accepting that we will select what we choose to represent may be an option, and this is, to some extent, a performance. Authenticity in this context is interpreted as synonymous with self-expression free from performance, which would bring us closer to an essence. However, what is being referred to as performance may serve a function of containment of limitation. Let us imagine what a world would be like without performance, where we all always express exactly what we are feeling and thinking, which is part of what we are. At the very least, it would be chaotic. I, like many, prefer to call it unbearable. Thus, perhaps we are always performing, for even if we idealized being always transparent, that would not be possible. How would we convey, at the same time, two lines of thought that confront each other, composing a conflict or dilemma we experience at a given moment? How would we fully convey two emotions that coexist? Containment, the imposition of limits, allows us to act in an adaptable manner, to recognize ourselves and others, and to avoid being overwhelmed. Does this mean that it is possible to be whatever I want? That I can do whatever I want? No. The selection of representations also has limits; they can be social, ethical, economic, or biological impositions. Different representations imply different characters, but they do not mean different actors. What Representations Are We Willing to Interpret, and Why? What is relevant may be to consider how this character interacts with our own narrative, whether it is a source of exhaustion, or if we identify with it so much that we come to believe we are it and only it, forgetting that no narrative can sustain itself with just one character. Do I fear appearing different from the character I maintain on social media? Are there drawbacks to sustaining this character in light of the daily activities that life demands? Do I forgo other possibilities for myself because of it? If this character were to step out of the scene, how would it be? What is the impact of this character on the lives of others? How does it affect others? Does it come closer to or further away from what I desire to be or think I am? Perhaps the new question is: in service of what or which narratives are our supposedly virtual characters? "(...) time is a powerful force. It transforms our preferences. It reshapes our values. It alters our personalities. We seem to appreciate this fact, but only in retrospect. (...) It's as if, for most of us, the present is a magic time. (...) It's the moment at which we finally become ourselves. Human beings are works in progress that mistakenly think they're finished. The person you are right now is as transient, as fleeting and as temporary as all the people you've ever been. The one constant in our life is change."  - Daniel Gilbert [2] References: [1] Zuckerberg em David Kirkpatrick The Facebook Effect (2010). [2] Daniel Gilbert — The Psychology of Your Future Self. Photo by Barthelemy de Mazenod on Unsplash This text began as a defense of the characters that inhabit us, our own fictions, and their expressions in virtuality. However, as usual, I succumbed to a nearly endless diatribe, raising arguments to dismantle possible ideas. In the end, the defense of performance turned into a rejection of essence, such as authenticity. In other texts, I mentioned the need to consider the amplifying potential of the Internet and the social context in which the development of technologies occurs when reflecting on digital habits. In this sense, virtuality amplifies the calls of our time. Amid the calls to become our best selves, to establish our personal brand, to explore all possibilities, and to express our opinions on almost everything, there is the call to express ourselves authentically and in a way that represents our own essence, showing ourselves as we truly are. After all, this would represent integrity . express ourselves authentically and in a way that represents our own essence, showing ourselves as we truly are. After all, this would represent integrity Obviously, this call is expressed in the use of technology. In Zuckerberg's words: “You have one identity…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…Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” [1] “You have one identity…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…Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” [1] Curiously, criticisms of social media make use of similar arguments, supported by the idea of the impossibility of multiple and concurrent ways of being. Like when they mention that there is no real in the virtual, that we are merely characters in constant performance. I believe that these comments and arguments have roots in two points: assuming that there is an authenticity outside the network and an accessible essence; and believing that knowing more, learning more, is always beneficial. In this text, I limit myself to exploring the first point. The notion of essence can be seen as a way of dealing with the lack of guarantees of existence, with the anxiety of the uncertain and the indeterminacy to which we are, in many ways, subjected. To think that there is an essence to be achieved, accessed, capable of alleviating our anxiety and giving meaning to our existence, can be comforting. However, it can also be a source of discomfort and serve the discourses of self-improvement and the instrumentalization of care. Not presupposing an essence requires us to accept and deal with ambivalence and contradiction, both in ourselves and in others. We must be capable of recognizing the nuances and complexity that come with being human. In order to do this, accepting that we will select what we choose to represent may be an option, and this is, to some extent, a performance. Authenticity in this context is interpreted as synonymous with self-expression free from performance, which would bring us closer to an essence. However, what is being referred to as performance may serve a function of containment of limitation. Let us imagine what a world would be like without performance, where we all always express exactly what we are feeling and thinking, which is part of what we are. At the very least, it would be chaotic. I, like many, prefer to call it unbearable. Thus, perhaps we are always performing, for even if we idealized being always transparent, that would not be possible. How would we convey, at the same time, two lines of thought that confront each other, composing a conflict or dilemma we experience at a given moment? How would we fully convey two emotions that coexist? Containment, the imposition of limits, allows us to act in an adaptable manner, to recognize ourselves and others, and to avoid being overwhelmed. Does this mean that it is possible to be whatever I want? That I can do whatever I want? No. The selection of representations also has limits; they can be social, ethical, economic, or biological impositions. Different representations imply different characters, but they do not mean different actors. What Representations Are We Willing to Interpret, and Why? What is relevant may be to consider how this character interacts with our own narrative, whether it is a source of exhaustion, or if we identify with it so much that we come to believe we are it and only it, forgetting that no narrative can sustain itself with just one character. to consider how this character interacts with our own narrative, whether it is a source of exhaustion, or if we identify with it so much that we come to believe we are it and only it, forgetting that no narrative can sustain itself with just one character. Do I fear appearing different from the character I maintain on social media? Are there drawbacks to sustaining this character in light of the daily activities that life demands? Do I forgo other possibilities for myself because of it? If this character were to step out of the scene, how would it be? What is the impact of this character on the lives of others? How does it affect others? Does it come closer to or further away from what I desire to be or think I am? Perhaps the new question is: in service of what or which narratives are our supposedly virtual characters? Perhaps the new question is: in service of what or which narratives are our supposedly virtual characters? "(...) time is a powerful force. It transforms our preferences. It reshapes our values. It alters our personalities. We seem to appreciate this fact, but only in retrospect. (...) It's as if, for most of us, the present is a magic time. (...) It's the moment at which we finally become ourselves. Human beings are works in progress that mistakenly think they're finished. The person you are right now is as transient, as fleeting and as temporary as all the people you've ever been. The one constant in our life is change."  - Daniel Gilbert [2] "(...) time is a powerful force. It transforms our preferences. It reshapes our values. It alters our personalities. We seem to appreciate this fact, but only in retrospect. (...) It's as if, for most of us, the present is a magic time. (...) It's the moment at which we finally become ourselves. Human beings are works in progress that mistakenly think they're finished. The person you are right now is as transient, as fleeting and as temporary as all the people you've ever been. The one constant in our life is change."  - Daniel Gilbert [ 2 ] 2 References: [1] Zuckerberg em David Kirkpatrick The Facebook Effect (2010). Zuckerberg em David Kirkpatrick The Facebook Effect The Facebook Effect (2010). [2] Daniel Gilbert — The Psychology of Your Future Self. Daniel Gilbert — The Psychology of Your Future Self. Photo by Barthelemy de Mazenod on Unsplash Photo by Barthelemy de Mazenod on Unsplash Barthelemy de Mazenod Unsplash

Why Talk About Digital Habits?

Talk to me about jobs

Newsletter

Read My Stories

Too Long; Didn't Read

Make resilience your competitive advantage

Why Not Be Authentic on Social Media?

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Untitled Story

Why Talk About Digital Habits?

Dopamine Pumps: Neurohacking Habits

What If There Was a Right Way to Argue Online?

The Art of Mastering Atomic Habits

Why Talk About Digital Habits?

Why Talk About Digital Habits?

Dopamine Pumps: Neurohacking Habits

What If There Was a Right Way to Argue Online?

The Art of Mastering Atomic Habits

Why Talk About Digital Habits?

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps