I read Mark Zuckerberg’s definition of identity (Odell, p. 163) as one and absolute as a consumerist trope, which wants to turn human consumers into a product—a product that is manifested as a brand with a distinctly monolithic self. This, I guess, helps the manufacturers of this product—the social media companies in this context—to orient their consumers’ choices to which they want to produce. We know how social media sells user data for profit, and having the users only one single self would benefit the companies they sell info to, to offer targeted advertisements their users would probably buy. That would run the cycle. It is interesting to observe how capitalism works as a culture by influencing our understanding about ourselves, and thereby shaping our society.
While I do not agree with this statement, I was thinking that not only capitalist systems try to reduce individuals to one identity, but traditional social theories also use the same scheme to group people to address a common issue. This reminds me of Kimberie W. Crenshaw or Patricia Hill Collins’s works on intersectionality that criticize those social theories and emphasize that identities are more complex. I, for example, identify myself with different communities—I am a woman, woman of color, Bengali, atheist, immigrant, mom, grad student and so on…and it is impossible for me to choose only one from the list. However, I acknowledge that I do not always show or share all my identities, the self I share is context dependent. So, while sometimes we consciously brand ourselves as someone, we are also aware of the other selves we carry along. (270) [SN–17]
[Odell, 2019]
Image by jcomp on Freepik
