artificials manifesto: two.

Existence generates information. Information, if used properly, generates control. Control is a form of power.

This applies to everyone, but to make it simpler to explain, examine it applied to fame. Famous people, generally, are watched closely. Whether this is due to a perverse need to observe the failings they attempt to hide, or just a side effect of the adulation of the masses, is somewhat irrelevant. The point is basically, that if Britney Spears goes to rehab, it's very difficult for someone in the west to avoid learning about it, depending on how media-saturated their lifestyle is. If you or I were to enter a rehab facility, the people around us would know. The separation is one of scale, but in either fashion, it's a matter of anything you do generating information that people can use. With enough eyes on you, everyone can know everything you do. This is a fact of celebrity, and some protections have been developed over the decades to deal with it. From the major studios creating the image of their biggest stars dating to avoid suspicions of homosexual relationships, to a state where every major public figure has an individual or team working on image and public relations. But these protections are having trouble now. We've reached a place where putting the genie back in the bottle is becoming impossible. Democratised media outlets (i'm looking at you, blogosphere) and a rising demand for 'authentic' interaction with a celebrity persona leads to situations where those with the most eyes on them are forced to act on impulse, and held to impulsive actions. An example would be the reaction of K-OS to a poor review in NOW magazine by accusing the author of racism. Whether or not it was deleted from his myspace account, nothing disappears in a world of screenshots, cached pages, and easily distributed media. An individual has to live or die by their actions, because nothing can be taken back.

This isn't just true of the famous. I only went to them as an example because it's obvious in that case. If you participate in the modern world, someone is paying attention to what you read, what you spend, how much you wake, what you listen to and like, and what you say. It's not the same people, and I have a lot of trouble with the idea that it's for some kind of conspiracy to take away your freedoms. The point is that the information is out there, and people can find at least some of it with minimal effort. Have you deleted the blog posts you made in grade 9? Every account for every message board? I haven't. If people know even a little about me, the names I like to use online, etc, they could probably develop a pretty good profile for how I behave in conversation. (Actually, more than that, but projected persona will be discussed later) It's exceedingly difficult to opt out of participating in the modern world, even if it's just google targeting ads to the content of your emails. Think about how an individual could use this. Imagine the person who had coffee with you last night searching your name, or finding your blog or message board account, and just reading the volume of information. Would that make you uncomfortable, someone walking into the next conversation with that level of background? Likely. At the same time, have they really done anything wrong? The information was put there with the intent of being public, at least to the people who know you. Imagine how Britney feels.

This is why control, or at least awareness of the social persona you put forward, is so important. It would be worth reading PSFK's Red Coat, Black Coat approach to these ideas.

Your options, in terms of things actually worth doing, are to either act always within a controlled social character, and artificial persona, or to live a life of transparency. Both are more than a little daunting, but any other option is a half-measure to one of the two, and essentially similar to inaction. One of these options is about taking control, and the other is about taking ownership.

Ownership of oneself and ones actions, essentially being transparent, is exceptional in our society. However, it is also apparently becoming more common with those who live in this society. Taking ownership of ones trail of actions is to essentially deny the concept of shame. If you try to hide things, then anyone knowing them is in a position of power. Transparency creates a situation in which anyone who knows about your actions is immediately authorised to do so. It ties to the natural choice to 'be yourself', which may or may not be an honest desire of many. This choice, to accept that you are, in essence, being watched, and instead of changing behaviour, continue to live as you would otherwise, can possibly reduce the impact of the opinions of others on your self conception. At the same time, it's taking a passive role in the perceived identity that will guide the behaviours of others around you. As much as I like this ideal, it's based on the ideas that people can avoid factoring in the opinions of others into their lives. If that was true, behaviour would be a lot less standardised.

Artificiality offers the alternative of control, in terms of what information is made available for others to construct a perception of your persona / identity, and in guiding what interpretations are made directly and indirectly. This comes with the assumed cost of subjugating 'self'. Taking control, and working for access (via social connections and assumptions) is something that everyone does. I contend that it will only get more difficult when your potential employer starts the interview by questioning you about the myspace post where you talk about 'drinking all weekend and showing up to the big meeting on the verge of puking'. People become aware of technology and it's implications before it begins to change culture. The question is, will your hope of transparency as expressing a legitimate you, despite what anyone may think, do anything except hinder you further in life pursuits?

[Part three, which should be coming within the next week, we be discussing the sacrifice of the self, and the connection between identity and the subjugation of a presumed 'unaltered' self. Also, Baudrillard is dead. Moment of silence.]
artificials manifesto: one