![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I have often observed that social media is the modern equivalent of a cocktail party; everybody in the neighborhood comes over and tries to be witty and friendly, and a few people say some things that are ill considered, and a few people are delightful, and a few people leave earlier than you'd like and a few people stay longer than you'd like.
So it's hard for me to get too irritated about people posting baby photos on facebook or sending ambiguous tweets like "sigh." By and large, my use of social media has not changed my friendships; there's nobody I particularly like less after seeing them misspell something or grammar police somebody or link to a debunked article or make a duck face. (I have also not made any friends through social media, which contrasts with the lasting and significant friendships I have found through blogging.)
However, social media tends to make more obvious something with which I am annoyed offline: glibness. Superficial thinking is well suited to any headline-driven medium, and that applies to character-limited postings, particularly ones which scroll and refresh quickly and beckon for an instant thumbs up or thumbs down. It's not inevitable, certainly. Culture jamming is possible, and even rewarded. Furthermore, deep thinking isn't always essential. ("Frozen gummi bears are the best!" Yes. I like the white/clear ones particularly, and may occasionally call them polar gummis.)
But there is a sweet spot of earnestness and surface skimming that makes me want to shatter my own teeth. I don't want to be too hard on the people who do it, because their hearts are in the right place. The posts are usually (always) in the realm of social activism, but the glibness I'm talking about is roughly equivalent to patting yourself on the back for knowing the quadratic formula without understading what it means in a practical rather than number-plugging sense.
I rarely comment on the (to my mind) obnoxoius posts, and when I do, I do so warmly. But they kill me. It's my own fault, because I should just be happy that people know the quadratic equation. But it kills me.
So: some consciousness raising about consciousness raising.
"Consciousness raising" as it is currently used is a term that came out of New York feminism in the 1960s. Initially, it was a communal activity built around sharing your own truth. You had a lot of women coming from different backgrounds, most of which included social isolation. The goal of the movement was to make women more aware of each other's individual struggles and see them as part of a framework of oppression. For instance:
This kind of consciousness raising was very much in keeping with the "personal is political" idea, and was similarly criticized in some circles for being trivial and biasing toward what we might today call #firstworldproblems.
However, it crossed over quickly to the gay community, which rallied around the idea that coming out was not only self-liberating, but something which helped other gay people who might still be in the closet. The 1990s cry "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" is the end result.
In essence, conciousness raising started as a concept that was internally focused (I am going to join a group of likeminded people, and we are going to learn about ourselves) and moved into a realm of external billboarding (I am going to make sure the people outside this group know this problem exists). "The personal is political" underwent a parallel shift from "look at the problems in your personal life and realize they're coming from external political forces" to "all of your personal decisions are a public act of political expression."
This leaves consciousness raising in an odd place, serving multiple masters. Today, when I say "consciousness raising," whose consciousness do I imply is being raised? Am I trying to increase my own understanding of what is common or uncommon? Am I signaling a shared identity to a marginalized group with whom my affiliation and solidarity might otherwise be invisible? Or am I trying to make the general public aware of an experience or line of thinking which would otherwise go unseen by the majority?
It is possible I am sometimes trying to do all three at once. This is not the same thing as succeeding at all three. It would be nice fairy dust if I could find a sentence which simultaneously made me feel great, made people like me feel great, and instantly gave everyone in the world both the desire to change an existing system of oppression and a prrocess for doing so. But since different symbols mean different things to different people in different contexts and we can't even agree on things like what cheap sugar water to drink despite billions of dollars of marketing, it is more often the case I will have to target my efforts and measure my success accordingly.
Or not. Usually it's or not. Usually, it's the fairy dust option. Hence glibness. Nobody's consciousness is raised.
There are four basic consicousness raising styles I have observed, which I will rank from lowbrow to highbrow.
1. Jesus saves, breast cancer exists.
Although these posts have a pseudo-persuasive or confrontational presentation, they are at base a form of community self-identification with a group which enjoys mainstream acceptance and support (go bears). I have an easy time ignoring these posts, because they're not intended for me.
2. If we all get the right hair cut, it will end inequality.
This is the glib stuff I can't stand. It proposes a simplistic, individual-by-individual solution to an extremely complex structural problem, with a tone-deafness to the people who live with that problem or a lack of awareness of the underlying science.
You've seen a million examples. The rain forests are facing environmental collapse; let's all plant deciduous trees on the other side of the world! All our children will do well in school as long as we commit to reading to them 15 minutes a night! I'm so sad because I see all these little girls wearing skirts, which means they will never play sports.
The solutions proposed are mostly harmless and not particularly difficult, which is why I'm annoyed with myself for being annoyed. Worst case scenario, they're noise that covers up the work of the deep thinkers, and/or they let the sloganeer off the hook when it comes to doing real work. (I've done my part for the Syrian refugees by empathizing with them.) But realistically, most people not making this kind of post are also not reading heavy intellectual work on the subject and are also not taking action, so it's a wash.
Like category one, these posts are intended for the post-maker rather than the post reader, although the post maker likely believes otherwise. The difference is that where category one is about affirmation by asserting your allegiance to something widely agreed upon, category two is an attempt to avoid confronting an existential crisis. (If you're looking for the key to why I'm annoyed despite myself, bingo.) They're the agnostic equivalent of "God will provide," and a promise that bad things won't happen if we can just be good enough, if we just pay attention.
Consequently, I would advise that although these posters might appear to want to talk about the issues and might seem to welcome a personal disclosure in the classical tradition of consciousness raising, one which deepens everyone's understanding of, for instance, the girls-and-skirts issue as lived, this is not the case. Nor is the poster interested in an appropriate charity, nor oddly enough in being reassured their kids will be ok even if they aren't read to. This is an existential crisis being avoided. It is only masquerading as conciousness raising. Stay out of that mess. Protect yourself.
3. This is intersex awareness day; a living wage is $15 an hour
Now we're getting to actual consciousness raising. These posts are a reminder that an issue exists that is often invisible to people who aren't directly experiencing it. It may include a call for direct political action, or it may simply be an attempt to "pierce the bubble," warning you to be aware of your assumptions. You could think of them as an intellectual speed limit sign.
4. My name is Foucault and I have some ideas about the way we view mental illness
Sometimes, more often than you'd think, somebody draws your attention to a useful and relevant concept you genuinely never heard of. Patriarchy, privilege, double consiciousness, sunk cost, postmodernism, the spectacle, alternate sexualities, colonialism, and on and on. Suddenly, you have a new and very powerful lens with which to re-explore what you already know. Your consicousness has been raised. You are now operating on a higher level, with an inkling that there are higher levels yet.
Category four is the ideal, or my ideal. It's context dependent; whether something is category three or category four depends on the audience (who may or may not for instance already be aware of intersex issues). It's also possible to convince yourself you are operating in category four when you are actually in category two. But category four doesn't promise to solve anything; if anything, it manages to simplify and complicate at the same time.
So it's hard for me to get too irritated about people posting baby photos on facebook or sending ambiguous tweets like "sigh." By and large, my use of social media has not changed my friendships; there's nobody I particularly like less after seeing them misspell something or grammar police somebody or link to a debunked article or make a duck face. (I have also not made any friends through social media, which contrasts with the lasting and significant friendships I have found through blogging.)
However, social media tends to make more obvious something with which I am annoyed offline: glibness. Superficial thinking is well suited to any headline-driven medium, and that applies to character-limited postings, particularly ones which scroll and refresh quickly and beckon for an instant thumbs up or thumbs down. It's not inevitable, certainly. Culture jamming is possible, and even rewarded. Furthermore, deep thinking isn't always essential. ("Frozen gummi bears are the best!" Yes. I like the white/clear ones particularly, and may occasionally call them polar gummis.)
But there is a sweet spot of earnestness and surface skimming that makes me want to shatter my own teeth. I don't want to be too hard on the people who do it, because their hearts are in the right place. The posts are usually (always) in the realm of social activism, but the glibness I'm talking about is roughly equivalent to patting yourself on the back for knowing the quadratic formula without understading what it means in a practical rather than number-plugging sense.
I rarely comment on the (to my mind) obnoxoius posts, and when I do, I do so warmly. But they kill me. It's my own fault, because I should just be happy that people know the quadratic equation. But it kills me.
So: some consciousness raising about consciousness raising.
"Consciousness raising" as it is currently used is a term that came out of New York feminism in the 1960s. Initially, it was a communal activity built around sharing your own truth. You had a lot of women coming from different backgrounds, most of which included social isolation. The goal of the movement was to make women more aware of each other's individual struggles and see them as part of a framework of oppression. For instance:
"My husband expects me to be charming and social with his friends, and help host their evenings together. But when my friends come over, he just disappears. He doesn't even know their names."
"My God, my husband does that too."
"Mine too. I thought it was just my husband's personality."
This kind of consciousness raising was very much in keeping with the "personal is political" idea, and was similarly criticized in some circles for being trivial and biasing toward what we might today call #firstworldproblems.
However, it crossed over quickly to the gay community, which rallied around the idea that coming out was not only self-liberating, but something which helped other gay people who might still be in the closet. The 1990s cry "We're here, we're queer, get used to it" is the end result.
In essence, conciousness raising started as a concept that was internally focused (I am going to join a group of likeminded people, and we are going to learn about ourselves) and moved into a realm of external billboarding (I am going to make sure the people outside this group know this problem exists). "The personal is political" underwent a parallel shift from "look at the problems in your personal life and realize they're coming from external political forces" to "all of your personal decisions are a public act of political expression."
This leaves consciousness raising in an odd place, serving multiple masters. Today, when I say "consciousness raising," whose consciousness do I imply is being raised? Am I trying to increase my own understanding of what is common or uncommon? Am I signaling a shared identity to a marginalized group with whom my affiliation and solidarity might otherwise be invisible? Or am I trying to make the general public aware of an experience or line of thinking which would otherwise go unseen by the majority?
It is possible I am sometimes trying to do all three at once. This is not the same thing as succeeding at all three. It would be nice fairy dust if I could find a sentence which simultaneously made me feel great, made people like me feel great, and instantly gave everyone in the world both the desire to change an existing system of oppression and a prrocess for doing so. But since different symbols mean different things to different people in different contexts and we can't even agree on things like what cheap sugar water to drink despite billions of dollars of marketing, it is more often the case I will have to target my efforts and measure my success accordingly.
Or not. Usually it's or not. Usually, it's the fairy dust option. Hence glibness. Nobody's consciousness is raised.
There are four basic consicousness raising styles I have observed, which I will rank from lowbrow to highbrow.
1. Jesus saves, breast cancer exists.
Although these posts have a pseudo-persuasive or confrontational presentation, they are at base a form of community self-identification with a group which enjoys mainstream acceptance and support (go bears). I have an easy time ignoring these posts, because they're not intended for me.
2. If we all get the right hair cut, it will end inequality.
This is the glib stuff I can't stand. It proposes a simplistic, individual-by-individual solution to an extremely complex structural problem, with a tone-deafness to the people who live with that problem or a lack of awareness of the underlying science.
You've seen a million examples. The rain forests are facing environmental collapse; let's all plant deciduous trees on the other side of the world! All our children will do well in school as long as we commit to reading to them 15 minutes a night! I'm so sad because I see all these little girls wearing skirts, which means they will never play sports.
The solutions proposed are mostly harmless and not particularly difficult, which is why I'm annoyed with myself for being annoyed. Worst case scenario, they're noise that covers up the work of the deep thinkers, and/or they let the sloganeer off the hook when it comes to doing real work. (I've done my part for the Syrian refugees by empathizing with them.) But realistically, most people not making this kind of post are also not reading heavy intellectual work on the subject and are also not taking action, so it's a wash.
Like category one, these posts are intended for the post-maker rather than the post reader, although the post maker likely believes otherwise. The difference is that where category one is about affirmation by asserting your allegiance to something widely agreed upon, category two is an attempt to avoid confronting an existential crisis. (If you're looking for the key to why I'm annoyed despite myself, bingo.) They're the agnostic equivalent of "God will provide," and a promise that bad things won't happen if we can just be good enough, if we just pay attention.
Consequently, I would advise that although these posters might appear to want to talk about the issues and might seem to welcome a personal disclosure in the classical tradition of consciousness raising, one which deepens everyone's understanding of, for instance, the girls-and-skirts issue as lived, this is not the case. Nor is the poster interested in an appropriate charity, nor oddly enough in being reassured their kids will be ok even if they aren't read to. This is an existential crisis being avoided. It is only masquerading as conciousness raising. Stay out of that mess. Protect yourself.
3. This is intersex awareness day; a living wage is $15 an hour
Now we're getting to actual consciousness raising. These posts are a reminder that an issue exists that is often invisible to people who aren't directly experiencing it. It may include a call for direct political action, or it may simply be an attempt to "pierce the bubble," warning you to be aware of your assumptions. You could think of them as an intellectual speed limit sign.
4. My name is Foucault and I have some ideas about the way we view mental illness
Sometimes, more often than you'd think, somebody draws your attention to a useful and relevant concept you genuinely never heard of. Patriarchy, privilege, double consiciousness, sunk cost, postmodernism, the spectacle, alternate sexualities, colonialism, and on and on. Suddenly, you have a new and very powerful lens with which to re-explore what you already know. Your consicousness has been raised. You are now operating on a higher level, with an inkling that there are higher levels yet.
Category four is the ideal, or my ideal. It's context dependent; whether something is category three or category four depends on the audience (who may or may not for instance already be aware of intersex issues). It's also possible to convince yourself you are operating in category four when you are actually in category two. But category four doesn't promise to solve anything; if anything, it manages to simplify and complicate at the same time.
