Talk:Youth and American Identity, and Presentation of Self (Group 11)

Erikson claims that in the transitionary stage of adolescence, young individuals face a crisis of identity and ego obscurity. As Nick wrote in this wiki, "For adolescents to cope with these repercussions they become more susceptible to falling in love in order to find and identify themselves." Ultimately, Erikson identifies the solution to this identity crisis as the presence of a lover in which individuals use as a mirror to affirm and clarify their sense of identity that is so desired. I contend that there has emerged a new type of lover or "mirror" that adolescents can use to project and affirm an image of their own ego. Social media platforms such as Instagram and Snapchat are means to project a version or desired image of yourself and quickly get confirmation of affirmation of that image. I have definitely felt this tension and used social media to present a version of myself in order to receive affirmation of that image. I actually believe function this is inherent in social media platforms today. Whether this is good or bad is up to discussion as this stage of identity obscurity as Erikson describes is tough and solutions such as love and now social media may be positive solutions.

Do you see social media as operating the same way as a lover that Erikson describes? Is this good or bad?

Hi Hugh,

I definitely agree with what you're saying! Many university-age students engage in building a profile, which essentially consists of only putting one's best moments or highlights forward, to be seen by their cohort. In doing so, not only is this false image projected (in line with Goffman's notion of performing character), but the actor is then able to receive social confirmation of their image in the form of likes, with Instagram and Facebook in mind. Through this process, the individual does not even have to imagine themselves as an object – since the likes/reactions/comments already tell them what others think of them – or at the very least, attempting to assume role and read the thoughts of others becomes drastically easier because of this one-click approval via social media.

Personally, I believe this is a bad thing – after all, Goffman states that the individual's interpretative process is informed by their referential group, and if one believes that these 'best-foot-forward' profiles are truly representative of their peers, then they will adopt unrealistic standards for themselves. Also relevant is the notion of poster's remorse, where an individual deletes a post simply because it didn't garner enough likes, therefore apparently not garnering enough gratification.

I definitely agree with the comments, many people in recent years have taken to the phenomenon of social media. Not only is it a way to connect with your peers but it is as Erikson said a way for people to see how they are in comparison to their similar others. Erikson suggested that to sooth this identity confusion and the complexity of gaining social roles is through the growth of cliques and stereotypes. Through social media, it is almost like an online clique. Everybody wants to befriend the other and they want to fit in; be it through a means of likes, reactions or comments. We want to assume these roles and I don't think it is the best for our society. These individuals are "eager to be affirmed by their peers" and they aren't really creating a role for themselves. They are aligning their interested to the generalized other which is the social media model in a way.

I agree that social media has become a platform for self affirmation. I also agree that, as explained by Jaden, that individuals have the urgency to elaborate their front stage by putting their "best-foot-forward". In my previous experience, I've seen arguments take place on Facebook threads. Most often, the individual with the most "liked" comments are encouraged to continue their argument because they perceive to have the "correct" opinion. In contrast, individuals with the least "likes" may accept defeat to avoid further embarrassment. The fear of losing face is quite striking, especially when you're exposed to a potentially large audience. Having said this, I think that we should be cautious of how social media can be used for self validation. Social media can be liberating in a sense that you have access to information and the opinion of others, but, as Weber would say, social media can become an iron cage once it is over utilized. I have seen where popular YouTube vloggers have had to distance themselves from social media because their source of happiness became dependent on their fans' comments. Social media becomes engrained in everyday life, and eventually, individuals may begin to engage in certain events not for pure enjoyment, but for "show". It's become such a prevalent phenomenon that we have a collective understanding of what it means when our friends encourage us to "do it for the likes".

I agree with your point that the individuals consciously construct their own profiles and identities based on the information that they receive and the communication that they have. Social networking sties are platforms that allow the users to give the performances and shape their identity. A lot of users present themselves in ways that match specific audience expectations or are socially acceptable. I think one of the purpose of constructing the self is to achieve a particular social goal.

Yes I do agree with you. Social media has definitely flourished and has become a way for people to portray themselves however they like. I can see it being very much like Eriksons lover, social media allows you to only show the parts of yourself that you want the world to see. This helps people gain confidence over social media by gaining likes or views on whatever they post and by being able to choose what you like to post this allows you to post only what will make you look good(what people want to see). This can create a false reality of what one looks or is like in real life because you only get to see the side they share on social media which is usually what they know people like to see.

I believe that social media has its benefits like how it allows people from all over the world to communicate and stay in touch, it is also a great way for people to advertise themselves (linkedin) and products but like Jaden mentions this best foot forward profile of people creates a high standard for everyone. When looking at profiles you tend to take into account that what you see is this person at their very best and you either put pressure on yourself to be the same or you imagine them on a more average day. This now hurts the people who have more honest social media pages that show them in everyday settings and people will look at them and expect this to be the "best you got" and be less impressed then the persons page where they strategically pick what they post.

I agree that social media is becoming more and more essential, especially with teenagers and young adults. They idealize how they would like to be presented through different forms of social media like facebook, tumblr and twitter. The more likes and retweets they have, the more "popular" they are and would gain online and social recognition for it. Social media provides a way to connect with people around the world but it really is a platform to show others how well they are or how many friends they have to build their identity in society that may not be who they really are in real life.

As much as I agree with you that social media now, especially with adolescents, is basically a popular-meter but I disagree on how you say that the connecting aspect of these platforms is only a front, that again it is all about the likes and retweets. As someone who has lived in numerous places throughout the world and thus have had to leave friends and make new ones every couple years I can assure you that these platforms are fantastic for keeping in touch with old friends that now live in different continents. If these applications didn't exists there would be no way at all for me to know how they were doing and what they are up to and now thanks to this these people do not disappear totally from my life.

I think that it's a very healthy strategy to try to take into consideration, but firstly, I do think it's a little generous (at least for my experience), to say that people currently ARE taking into account that this is what people look like "at their best" while scrolling through Instagram (especially when one is already dealing with issues of self-worth). Secondly, and more unavoidably, and in considering this high standard that you talk about, I feel that the level of social media affirmation of one's "best possible self" is going to be a lot less for adolescents with less social capital than others. Heck, there was even a kind of beef (I think? it might have been overblown, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't) that Selena Gomez had the most liked Instagram photo of 2016, beating out the Kardashians and Jenners. Both of these go to show that the "absolute" level of likes, comments, shares, etc. doesn't matter nearly as much as one's likes relative to their peers.

I think some of the current social applications like Instagram and Snapchat enable people to construct a specific identity base on the desires of the users. While the uses have total control over the content expressing themselves, the content they post only favours their ideal identity or the type of person they want the viewers see them. Just like what Erikson discussed in the American Identity part, the identity is always changing due to the changing environment. For apps like Instagram and Snapchat, one can easily change their identity at east on the internet by changing the type of content they post.

I think that social media is not operating as a lover, especially for people who want to "find and identify themselves." Because I think that as lovers, people not only show their good sides, but they also show their vulnerable and flawed side to each other. The aspect of accepting those flaws is what lovers do in my opinion. However social media serves as a platform for people to profile themselves as likable and perfect. People perfect themselves on social media, and try not to show any flaws. For instance people would put their best traits and experiences on their career or dating profiles. At the same time social media, just like a lover, does affirm the person that he/she is desirable through comments and likes.

I do agree that social media creates a very one-dimensional platform for one to portray the 'self'. However, I don't think it is as radically different from the way people present themselves off social media. While there is more agency to choose exactly what people see about you when you are online. We constantly re-adjust our sense of self depending on where we are, who we are with- who we think the generalized other is. I actually find that the biggest phenomenon of this rising creation of a 'profile' is the stagnant nature of the self. The notion that the profile you are creating is the profile that everyone sees, it does not change its form based on who the 'generalized other' is. This is interesting because we are suddenly very aware and conscious of how construct our 'self' whereas before it was definitely more subconscious. While, I do agree that this preoccupation and obsession of the creation of the virtual self could be a detrimental thing, I question the extent to which it differs from how we truly act in first- encounters or new social situations.

Hi Nick. I really liked your post but I would like to challenge your introductory statement asserting an underlying belief that adolescence "is a challenging and confusing stage every young person must face." It is indeed very interesting to think of this claim, our commonplace thoughts on adolescence and Erikson's analysis itself in the light of Margaret Mead's famous work Coming of Age in Samoa (1928). Her main findings seem to indicate that girls in Samoan society did not undergo the state of crisis, anxiety trouble that we strereotypically associate with adolescence within our capitalist society. Importantly, Samoan society differed form the American one by being stable and monocultural, closer to Durkheim's conception of "traditional" rather than "advanced" society. Considering Mead's research, Erikson's analysis and Durkheim's theories, do you think that adolescence in the way we conceive of it (characterized by identity crises, "falling in love" phases and temporary overidentification) is a product of the nurture of what Durkheim calls "advanced societies" rather than a "natural" stage of human life?

This reading seems to compliment Mead's notion that communication and the other provide opportunity for the individual to become an object or a 'self'. Unfortunately though as noted in this reading, it gives the opportunity for some individuals to be excluded from dialogue and conversation. I think it is important to note how not only does communication and interaction with others form self identity, but also may form group identity as well that bears pro's and con's. For instance, as mentioned in a comment, 'young people struggle to define themselves and search for an identity due to the cruelty of exclusion and segregation between minority groups and people who are different'.

Speaking of group identity, I found it intersting how Erikson pointed out that youth are cliquey and suggest that this is a result of their need to protect their identity from outside invasion. So in this way, communication and interaction with others within the group is forming a collective identity. Maybe individuals who struggle to find an identity because of segregation between minority groups have an easier time of banding together, however as mentioned above there can be pros and cons. For example, gangs may be created due to the exclusion of the individual members from society. Can anyone else think of different examples?

Nick notes the quote: "In searching for the social values which guide identity, one therefore confronts the problems of ideology and aristocracy, both in their widest possible sense which connotes that within a defined world image..." While reading this I couldn't help but to think that a lot of the times individuals do not go "searching" for social values, but due to their ubiquitous nature social values are forced upon us. This poses me with similar questions that Mills urges us to contemplate: What interactions are independent of society, where does society mediate? If we become dependent on the social values that society does impose us with, then our lack of agency creates an opportunity for us to conform into our groups. For Mead, our Me increasingly starts to gain power than our I, we are forced to become the objects in our own society. Although I agree with Erikson of this creating a collective identity, I am sceptical, as this introduces a situation in which society is creating harm for an individual by trading their personal identity for the collective identity.