Information Glut as a Catalyst of the Fragmentation of Self: Implications of Advertising

The first paper to get a grade for this semester! There are four from this semester still floating around in a professor's computer waiting to be slapped with a grade.

Finally, the boost of confidence needed - just in time to tackle an 18 page behemoth...and with just 16 days to go...

Let's not forget the three other papers left to write.

Um, sure...no stress.

This is the first time this many papers have been put off this close to deadline. Good thing graduation is just a mere few weeks away...(but wait, what's that about getting a second degree?! More on that later...)

Here is it, as requested by one Mr Charles Bivona (of Facebook, Twitter and Blogging fame), in all of its 98% glory. The instructor for the class (Advertising and Society) is a tough cookie, and the topic chosen turned out to be logistically difficult in stringing together concepts to create a coherent argument, so the grade was a surprise. Of course now that it's done it looks ridiculously easy.

[as an aside, The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life by Kenneth J Gergen is a good read]

Access PDF via GoogleDocs: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0L6-YMPxtu7cjM0eEphSklNbDQ/view?usp=sharing

or read it here...

Information Glut as a Catalyst
of the Fragmentation of Self: Implications of Advertising

In The Saturated Self Kenneth Gergen focuses on social saturation caused by technologies themselves as the forerunners to increasingly fragmented self identity. However apt Gergen’s argument may seem, there are byproducts of the relationship between people and technologies that may be the real perpetrators. One such byproduct of technology and human relation is the increased abundance and dissemination of information and knowledge through information technologies. As much as there is an abundance of information, so is there a wide range of types. This critique will focus on a particular kind of information, which is that created by advertising. The position is that it is information itself that impacts identity control, not necessarily technologies. Rather, it is the ways in which information is created, distributed and processed through technologies that proliferates ostensible fragmentation of self identity.

Each stage of the technological revolutions - from printed words, to radio and film - has changed the shape of information and society^[1], including how we understand and manage self identity. Focusing on information technologies, a connection can be created between advertising and the fragmentation of self identity in the post modern world. There are also strong implications for its nurturing of the “[...]populating of the self, [as well as] the acquisition of multiple and disparate potentials for being”^[2] as it fosters dissonance and anxiety in identity control. 

As cable television meant the end of shared cultural experience through nightly news^[3], so does information technology further contribute to the loss of cohesive shared experiences, facilitating the fragmenting of self. New advertising strategies attributed to the rise of information technologies and computer-mediated environments may extend this further, not only propagating it, but catering to a fragmented identities in society.

Advertising as Information and Culture

Advertising is a form of marketing communication and a medium of information. Advertising provides information about a product’s capabilities and characteristics, but it also informs culture through the use of symbols, creating “cultural materials”, cultivating and confirming stereotypes, influencing how we understand ourselves in the social world, as well as impacting the perceptions of the world in which we live.^[4] The primary way in which we receive these information messages is through technologies, which have progressed from print to today’s information technologies. Whether we acknowledge it or not, advertising information affects the subconscious, which guides our cognition in our self-identification construction.^[5]

Reflecting on the writing of Karl Marx, Neil Postman, in Technolopy, proposed that technologies influence people’s perception of social and mental life^[6], which in effect influences culture. As Gergen further illustrates,“emerging technologies saturate us with the voices of humankind”^[7] and these voices, whether they be in the form of entertainment, advertising, or social interaction, carry information messages. The exposure to these vast range of messages can lead to loss of coherent identity and to the fragmentation of self identity, “increasing sensitivity to the social construction of reality”^[8], thereby increasing anxiety as we struggle with information that does not conform to our concept of self in a process called cognitive conservatism.^[9]

The messages and information of advertising continues to change, mirroring the evolution of society.^[10] With the growth of information technology, advertising messages continue to become more about the consumer of the product than the product itself, pandering to the insecurities of the target audience.^[11] Advertising uses “cultural cues to communicate fairly complex messages [...] exploiting stereotypes and cultural references”^[12] further capitalizing on anxieties of fragmented self-identity.

Evolving Advertising as Catalyst

There is a sweeping shift in our exposure to advertising information, as well as advertising’s exposure to our information. As marketing moves away from a traditional approach^[13], developing new strategies like niche or target advertsing, taking advantage of innovations like cookies, tracking pixels, and developing emotional analysis software^[14], the ability to cater to aspects of the fragmented self identity increases and persists. As technologist David Weinberger asserts, “by pulling together implicit data from multiple sources, marketers can avoid being fooled by our lopsided self-presentations on any one site”.^[15] This not only validates the fragmentation of identity but facilitates the maintenance.

However, it is not perfect validation just yet. As Nikhil Seith wrote in an article for AdWeek, while meaningful messages cannot be crafted if identity is not understood - which is achieved through data - so far marketing isn’t doing an adequate job. Cookies aren’t really enough. The answer, according to Seith, is The Internet of Things - wiring your physical world to your digital world in order, which will combine increasing amounts of fragments and craft a more cohesive identity.^[16] Therein lies the holy grail of advertising in its quest to profit from the satisfaction and validation of every theoretical fragment of self.

Social Influence of Advertising Information

A technology focused and saturated society is a condition of ”culture [and] a state of mind”.^[17] Gergen asserts that saturation by technology is contributing to the reformation of society, and that this has implications on knowledge and information.^[18] As the shape of knowledge and information becomes an increasingly social construction, involving networks of people, so does the dissemination of cultural information inform an even greater population.^[19]

Cultural information provided by advertising is further distributed by the ever growing population of social networks, through visible relationships constructed with products and services by following the accounts, and by activities such as “likes” and “retweets” and “thumbs up”. These types of valuable “peer recommendations”^[20] also reinforce the messages, giving new authority to the cultural claims of advertising and its information

Through the new network of knowledge not only do previous authorities on information lose the “singular” power of their voice^[21], contributing to “the erosion of authority”^[22], but the amount of information is expanded.  The revitalized authority of advertising messages in the hands of the masses, incorporated with the vast networks afforded by information technologies, leads to “dynamic” cultural influences and “multiple cultural knowledge systems” which individuals employ to “understand, interpret, and behave” in any given situation.^[23] Given the multiple contexts of the world and information that information technology provides, “no transcendent voice remains to fix the reality of selves [into place]”.^[24]

The Influence of Information from Advertising Relationships

In the information fueled world of the technology focused society, the definitions of reality become redefined,^[25] including definitions of self and identity, creating platforms through which  “a barrage of new criteria for self-evaluation” are realized.^[26]  Further, expectations are redefined due to increased information which “may also disrupt the social and psychological processes underlying identification through which individuals come to understand who they are as persons”.^[27]

As Gergen states, “the technological achievements of the past century have produced a radical shift in our exposure to each other” pushing people closer, subjecting them to growing numbers of  populations, which propagates unimagined relationships.^[28] There is an endless juxtaposition of information messages from diverse social groups competing with those of companies and products through advertising. This increases the amount of cultural information, cluttering media and culture^[29] with complex arrays of cultural messages about who a person is or should be, which increase identity control anxieties.

Interaction with products and brands through the aforementioned social networking fosters the “manifestations of relatedness” in which “face-to-face encounter[s]” and “reciprocal interchange” become irrelevant in fostering and maintenance of valid relationship paradigms.^[30] Gergen warns that “[...] one must be prepared for the possibility that media figures do enter significantly into people’s personal lives”.^[31] This effectively plays out in celebrity endorsements and ‘celebrity as brand’ where personalities essentially become the brand or product.^[32]  There is an undeniable allure and power of celebrities as a persuasive power.^[33] By using celebrity to forge “genuine, long-term relationships” brands create “meaningful ways to engage customers” by infusing “genuine personality in their brand” or product and cultivating a bond.^[34] This creates an environment in which a consumer can have a perceived relationship with entertainment personalities, particularly through social networking. The cumulative effect of this advertising strategy creates a significant informant of a branded personality whose messages can have a powerful impact on the fragmented construction of self identity, “allow[ing] customers to makes a statement about who they are”^[35] through their relationship with the brands.

All social situations, whether it be “non-digital” or information technology-mediated, are environments where “we make ourselves intelligible to each other” while gathering “[information of] others’ patterns of being”.^[36]  Brands strive to create relationships with consumers^[37] through advertising strategies such as branded personalities, creating a plethora of identity information, and therefore become a further catalyst to the construction of self identity.

Understanding ourselves through interpersonal relationships, group affiliations, and advertising messages^[38] - sometimes presented by a figure who is influential on an interpersonal level - continually adds to, influences, and changes the information we have available for identity control. While all of these social relationships may be seen as a catalyst to the “multiphrenic condition [...] in which one swims in ever-shifting, concatenating, and contentious currents of being”,^[39] it is still the information provided that is used to guide, shape, and instruct self identity.

The Rational

In Gergen’s postmodernism sphere, we are doubtful about who we are, “dismantled” and lacking any “real and identifiable characteristics – such as rationality, emotion [...] exist[ing] in a state of continuous construction and reconstruction”. Accordingly, this postmodern dystopian perspective encourages the “[...] populating of the self, reflecting the infusion of partial identities”^[40] creating environments in which Gergen claims there is no essence of self to remain true to.^[41]  Gergen attributes this phenomenon to social saturation, but it may be something more; it may be the seemingly disordered heap of information that technology encourages, and it may be a reasonable response to the circumstance.

The fragmentation of self may be a completely rational and natural outcome in the domain of an advanced technological world experiencing a glut of cultural information. Drawing from a modernist perspective of self, where “knowledge of the world is built up through observation [and] it is not by virtue of heredity that we are who are, but by observation of the environment”,^[42] we can infer that our environment influences and shapes our identity. We are what we see, hear and learn. We are what we are exposed to, and if we are exposed to scads of mixed information messages over time, then we become fragmented. Therefore, varying cultural messages, which influence us subconsciously^[43] will shape identity and corresponding gradients of self.  To put it plainly, rather than understanding identity as being an innate inherited construct, we can recognize it as flexible. Just as we have learned to “juggle multiple principles of [information] organization [in the networked world] without even thinking about it”^[44], over time so have we learned to monitor and implement aspects of identity, while in some instances, becoming overwrought with the violation of our sense of identity.^[45]

Gergen’s assertion is that “the fully saturated self becomes no self at all”^[46] and that technology which leads to social saturation is to blame. This smacks of “technodeterminism”, attributing the fragmentation of self to new technologies gives technology authority and power.^[47] We are not being “made” by technology, even though its influence can certainly be seen as a factor. It is not technology, nor simply the social aspects perpetuated by it; it is the propagation of and exposure to its information, the glut of it, that fragments our sense of self.

To better clarify, if it was purely a social issue, and one was exposed to one hundred people in an echo chamber, fragmentation would be unlikely compared to being exposed to one hundred people with twenty different polarizing viewpoints. Ergo, social saturation does not guarantee a fragmented self identity.

Conclusion

In a rejection of Gergen’s usage of the term ”multiphrenic condition” and “unlimited multiplicity”, what he sees as “multiplicity” can be defined as “adjusted self” and is just one coping mechanism used when presented with a challenge to identity, like incompatible demands, in which an outcome can be a redefined identity.^[48] People have always had to maintain separate “selves” - i.e. work self, family self, social self - “performing a variety of roles” throughout any given day in a process called identity management.^[49] It is true that information technologies, such as social medias, intermixes these places or states of identity - for instance causing your “work identity” and “social identity” to collide - causing friction in maintaining all of the so-called “selves” a person must sustain as they move not only through the tangible world, but the digital as well. The condition of which he speaks is not that of separate identities, but gradients of a single identity that society encourages the individual to compartmentalize in order to be accepted.

Gergen asserted that “[Information] technologies of social saturation are central to the contemporary erasure of individual self”.^[50] However, they may not actually be an erasure. These technologies, and more aptly the information produced through these technologies, may add, or simply alter “an individual’s sense of self”^[51], encouraging self realization and reinforcing self perception while influencing all aspects of their identity.^[52] Additionally, information technologies create opportunities, “enriching our potential for seeing connections and understanding things in contexts we have never considered” before.^[53] In this way these technologies are an enhancer, not an erasure. Perhaps the answer lies in a more sophisticated understanding of the impacts of advertising information on self identity, the opportunities new technologies afford, and the recognition of the consequences of errant acceptance of vast array of messages that society is bombarded with every day through information technologies.

^{--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------}

^Footnotes

^[1] Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. 67.

^[2] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 69.

^[3] Weinberger, David. Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2007. 130.

^[4] Bartholomew, Mark. "Advertising and Social Identity." Buffalo Law Review 58 (2010): 931-76.

^[5] Bartholomew, Mark. "Advertising and Social Identity." Buffalo Law Review 58 (2010): 938

^[6] Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. 21.

^[7] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 6.

^[8] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 16.

^[9] Adler, Ronald B., and Russell F. Proctor. 14th ed. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2014. 45.

^[10] Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint :, 2009. 162.

^[11] Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. 170

^[12] McChesney, Robert Waterman. "Does Capitalism Equal Democracy: Advertising." In Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet against Democracy, 41-46. New York, New York: New Press, 2013.

^[13] Weinberger, David. Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2007. 118

^[14] McChesney, Robert Waterman. "Does Capitalism Equal Democracy: Advertising." In Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet against Democracy, 41-46. New York, New York: New Press, 2013. 157.

^[15] Weinberger, David. Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2007. 163.

^[16] Sethi, Nikhil. "The Future of Advertising Hinges on Understanding Identity." AdWeek. December 9, 2013.

^[17] Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books, 1993.71

^[18] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 119.

^[19] Weinberger, David. Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2007.

^[20] McChesney, Robert Waterman. "Does Capitalism Equal Democracy: Advertising." In Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet against Democracy, 41-46. New York, New York: New Press, 2013. 157.

^[21] Weinberger, David. Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren't the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room. New York: Basic Books, 2011.

^[22] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 16,

^[23] Hong, Ying-yi, and Desiree YeeLing Phua. "In Search of Culture’s Role in Influencing Individual Social Behaviour." Asian Journal of Social Psychology 16 (2013): 26-29.

^[24] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 138.

^[25] Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books, 1993. 48, 60.

^[26] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. Xix, 76.

^[27] Nach, Hamid, and Albert Lejeune. "Coping with Information Technology Challenges to Identity: A Theoretical Framework." Computers in Human Behavior, 200, 618. *citation of Burke, 2000

^[28] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 41, xi, 53.

^[29] McChesney, Robert Waterman. "Does Capitalism Equal Democracy: Advertising." In Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet against Democracy, 41-46. New York, New York: New Press, 2013.

^[30] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 170, 155-156.

^[31] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 56.

^[32] Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 221.

^[33] Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint :, 2009. 227.

^[34] Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 268, 221.

^[35] Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 221. 196.

^[36] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000.4, 69

^[37] Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009. 242, 268.

^[38] Bartholomew, Mark. "Advertising and Social Identity." Buffalo Law Review 58 (2010): 931-76.

^[39] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 80.

^[40] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 7, 49.

^[41] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 4, 138.

^[42] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 41.

^[43] Bartholomew, Mark. "Advertising and Social Identity." Buffalo Law Review 58 (2010): 931-76.

^[44] Weinberger, David. Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2007. 11,40

^[45] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 17.

^[46] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 7.

^[47] Weinberger, David. Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren't the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room. New York: Basic Books, 2011. 173-174

^[48] Nach, Hamid, and Albert Lejeune. "Coping with Information Technology Challenges to Identity: A Theoretical Framework." Computers in Human Behavior, 200, 618-29.

^[49] Adler, Ronald B., and Russell F. Proctor. "Communication and Identity: Creating and Presenting Self." In Looking Out/looking in, 51-58. 14th ed. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2014.

^[50] Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. 49.

^[51] Nach, Hamid, and Albert Lejeune. "Coping with Information Technology Challenges to Identity: A Theoretical Framework." Computers in Human Behavior, 200, 618.

^[52] Gonzales, Amy, and Jeffrey Hancock. "Identity Shift In Computer-Mediated Environments."Media Psychology 11, no. 2 (2014): 167-85.

^[53] Weinberger, David. Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2007. 124.

Bibliography

Adler, Ronald B., and Russell F. Proctor. 14th ed. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2014.

Bartholomew, Mark. "Advertising and Social Identity." Buffalo Law Review 58 (2010): 931-76.

Gergen, Kenneth J. The Saturated Self: Dilemmas of Identity in Contemporary Life. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000.

Gonzales, Amy, and Jeffrey Hancock. "Identity Shift In Computer-Mediated Environments."Media Psychology 11, no. 2 (2014): 167-85.

Hong, Ying-yi, and Desiree YeeLing Phua. "In Search of Culture’s Role in Influencing Individual Social Behaviour." Asian Journal of Social Psychology 16 (2013): 26-29.

McChesney, Robert Waterman. "Does Capitalism Equal Democracy: Advertising." In Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning the Internet against Democracy, 41-46. New York, New York: New Press, 2013.

Nach, Hamid, and Albert Lejeune. "Coping with Information Technology Challenges to Identity: A Theoretical Framework." Computers in Human Behavior, 200, 618-29.

Reilly, Terry Edward, and Mike Tennant. The Age of Persuasion: How Marketing Ate Our Culture. Berkeley, Calif.: Counterpoint. 2009.

Postman, Neil. Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books, 1993.

Sethi, Nikhil. "The Future of Advertising Hinges on Understanding Identity." AdWeek. December 9, 2013. http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/future-advertising-hinges-understanding-identity-154330.

Weinberger, David. Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Holt Paperbacks, 2007.

Weinberger, David. Too Big to Know: Rethinking Knowledge Now That the Facts Aren't the Facts, Experts Are Everywhere, and the Smartest Person in the Room Is the Room. New York: Basic Books, 2011.

Critical Reflections on Why Truth Matters - Part 3 of 3

If you want to know what "this" is all about, or why it is, start with Critical Reflections on True to Life: Why Truth Matters - Part I: Cynical Myths and Critical Reflections on True to Life: Why Truth Matters - Part II: False Theories. The intro to those provide context to this final reflection for the three part series. (spoiler: it was for a University course)

For the regular readers of this, and previous reflections, thank you for reading. Hopefully you have been inspired to think further about truth, knowledge, free will, and reality.

As always, feel free to comment, argue, etc.

Critical Reflections on True to Life: Why Truth Matters by Michael P. Lynch

Part 3: Why Truth Matters

“If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.” 

― Mark Twain 

As previously stated in class, truth matters because we care about people being honest with us, and all healthy relationships require trust, which requires honesty. As Lynch points out throughout the third section, truth among people in society is important to get things done and to maintain levels of trust (152). Truth is an important ingredient in achieving common goals and sharing information, and lack of truth – lies – are a violation of communication, which is damaging to society. Truth is a central aspect of many parts of life and things would be very bad if everyone lied all the time. Without truth, things would fall apart, both in society and in interpersonal relationships.

If this is not enough to convince the reader they should care about truth, Lynch presents agreeable alternative reasons, aside from simply caring about truth for its own sake. He highlights the intrinsic value of truth to self. Caring about truth in general, Lynch says, is a path towards authenticity, self-awareness, self-regard, and self-respect, and knowing the truth about what you care about is part of intellectual integrity. (35) People who care about the truth, and acknowledge what they care for it, therefore have a good sense of the degrees of self and have increased self-respect, according to Lynch. It would be nice to think most people care about self-respect, however, often times it seems the opposite.

Lynch says that caring about truth and honesty leads to authenticity and integrity, and that “our lives go better when they are lived authentically and with integrity”. (20) Additionally, caring about truth is essential in knowing ourselves and being self-aware. “What we can know – or not know - about ourselves runs the gamut”, says Lynch (121), but we can know and understand ourselves better through truth. Therefore, truth becomes a building block in self-understanding and identity construction.

Further, caring about truth leads to the knowledge of what matters to us and promotes self-reflection; a lack of which he attributes to internal traits such as laziness, lack of discipline, but also external factors such as, poverty, hunger, lack of education, cultural discouragement of reflection (Lynch, 122). Additionally, not caring about truth or what we think leads to self-deception and when “we don’t really care about what we think we care about and we live our lives with bad faith” (Lynch, 122).

People who approach truth with ambivalence experience instability. While Lynch claims that sometimes this is inevitable due to “overpowering and contradictory pressures of outer circumstances” (123), I would like to assume he means ambivalence about specific truths (i.e. religion), and not truth overall, because to not care about any and all truth just seems, to be frank, dumb.

Logically, caring about truth requires “being open-minded and tolerant of others’ opinions, being careful and sensitive to detail, being curious, and paying attention to evidence […] being willing to question assumptions, giving and asking reasons, being impartial, and being intellectually courageous” (Lynch, 129-130). The pursuit of truth also includes the willingness to admit when one is wrong, and is not a matter of consistency, but a matter of the ability to consider information and adjust beliefs accordingly. Not standing up for what you think is right is a lack of intellectual integrity, according to Lynch, but defending a view without bothering to examine it for truth is also a lack of intellectual integrity. In lack of intellectual integrity is the lack of authenticity, which indicates lack of self-control. These are all very agreeable assertions.

An important part of caring about the truth and seeking the truth, in Lynch’s eyes, is sincerity, which has “instrumental value” (153). Lynch says caring about truth, seeking truth, is risky; but caring about truth also leads to authenticity and degrees of happiness, which gives life meaning, because in not caring about truth, one lacks of self-respect, and lack of self-respect leads to unhappiness – again, very logical. As Ellen J. Langer, professor of psychology at Harvard University says, “Self-respect […] may hold the key to achieving the peace of mind we seek”, and by self-respect, she means acceptance. (Langer, 1999) As Lynch has said you cannot accept yourself if you do not know yourself, which happens in-part through caring about the truth. What Langer suggests also coincides with Lynches theory on happiness in caring about and valuing the truth, and living a “life lived well”. Happiness, while it can be allusive, becomes more attainable through truth.

You can hardly talk about truth without talking about lying. Lying involves belief, but in a different way, when “what you say is not what you believe” (Lynch, 147). Lying is just as complex as truth. According to Lynch there are many kinds of lies, from ambiguous to equivocal. According to Lynch there are justifiable lies, which are ones used to “save-face” or protect the feelings of others, or in some cases, such as in the government, used to temporarily protect national security. Some lies a “tall tails” or “yarns”, and some are outright “bullshit lies”. Lies, then, can be just as subjective as truth, but are generally intentional and meant to be misleading or deceiving and other nefarious motivations. Additionally, lies harm people, and lies breed more lies. Not very noble ends, really.

In the end chapter, Lynch dipped his toes into politics and truth, while interesting, and seemed like a personal rant about his issues with liberal democracies. What really stood out is that when discussing “the liberal” he used pronouns such as “herself”, “she” (165). I am also not so sure that I agree with Lynch when he states that “liberalism is presupposed a concept of objective truth” (167). If anything, conservatism seems more inclined to objective truth (based on religious “truth”), while liberalism is more subjective, and that is why conservatives assert that liberals “don’t believe in truth” (evidence of which can be found doing a very quick Google search). In any case, it seems that when Lynch took to the political soapbox and with him a broad brush of personal opinion, certainly detected throughout the claims in other parts of the book, also. This does not make what he says any less “true”, but for people who want to deny truthiness in his truth, it is an opening for contention.

Ultimately when it comes to choosing between the truth and a lie it is important to remember, like with anything, that you should treat others as you would have them treat you. Surely there are few people in the world who want to be lied to. At the end of the day not finding value in truth, at least for the same of it, and rejecting truth as something exists is dangerous, just as is thinking there is no such thing as free will and becoming a victim of self. Giving up on truth embraces doom, for who wants to live in a society where nobody believes in truth.

Lynch never had to convince me to care about truth, because being lied to hurts. However, he did present new ways of thinking about truth, especially in relation to truth being a potential catalyst in becoming a better happier person. Hopefully more people come to see that there is a clear value in truth, both personally and for society.


References

Langer, E. J. (1999, 11 1). Self-esteem vs Self-respect. Retrieved from Psychology Today: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199911/self-esteem-vs-self-respect

Lynch, Michael P. True to Life: Why Truth Matters. Cambridge: MIT, 2005. Print.

Patriotism and Religion in Persisting Social Stratification: The Evolution of Knowledge - A University Essay

Image Source

Okay, so the plan was to not write another blog entry until paper four was complete (we just submitted paper three, which was the proposal for paper four).

BUT...finally, paper two for College Composition II, which we wrote over a month ago, was graded and returned. We've been anticipating the instructors response because, well, it was pretty personal, as well as potentially controversial. Also, we've been pretty excited about sharing it with people and maybe getting some hate-mail.

For those unfamiliar with what second-level college composition is, the class aims to teach the analysis of how contemporary authors complete research, form positions, compile data/statistics, and use sources. The emphasis is on information literacy and learning how to judge the credibility, usefulness, and perspective of written sources. The course works to raise important theories of knowledge and awareness about how people make judgments, why they trust information encountered, and how sources of knowledge shape what we know. In addition the class teaches how evidence and interpretations are used to persuade readers. The outcome is aimed at teaching students how to construct and write effective extended research projects.

As we've written before, we really lucked out with our College Composition II instructor, the book she chose for the class is awesome, and right up our alley.

The premise for this essay was to consider how knowledge is constructed, and sometimes remodeled by the wealth of information around us through consideration of our personal knowledge. Using one chapter from Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, we were to consider the knowledge we brought to the reading of that topic, including what ideas, prejudices, or questions we already had, where they come from, and how various sources of knowledge influenced us. In addition the paper was to discuss specific elements from our experiences with knowledge, making sure the essay maintain an academic tone by reflecting on past knowledge in light of careful consideration and with the application of new knowledge. (summarized from 'Knowledge Making' essay instructions)

So, anyway, there's some context.

The instructor had some really nice things to say, and she graded it a 99%, and requested permission to use it as a model for future classes. (the screenshot is posted at the bottom)

It was, like, the best Thanksgiving present ever.

Now...on to the paper...

Download .pdf via Google Drive :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0L6-YMPxtu7UFJzY0NNeHJleTQ/edit?usp=sharing 

or read here....

Patriotism and Religion in Persisting Social Stratification

The Evolution of Knowledge

Knowledge develops and evolves over time, free of restrictions it never stops. Every time a person opens a book, turns on a television, goes to a movie, listens to a speech, meets a new person, an opportunity to challenge what they already knows presents itself. While some may frame distinct sources of their knowledge in particular sources or events, few may critically consider why they have the knowledge that they do, or the influences that have changed and challenged their way of thinking over time. The acceptance of new information in opposition to existing knowledge, and dismantling biases built on learned prejudices, lies in an openness and freedom to experience people, religions, cultures, and ideas outside of one’s own. To insulate oneself against these experiences, often due to ingrained prejudices, creates not only a rift in one’s ability to grow, but also hampers the progress of society. In addition, left without adequate levels of information, people can be led to make potentially dangerous conclusions about society, people, and events. Knowledge is a gateway to freedom, both in philosophy and as a cornerstone of democracy, the encouragement and development of knowledge is a powerful force behind the sustainability of truly democratic and free societies, as well as essential to personal freedom and social structure.

The greatest shifts in what I understood about the opportunity the United States provides both citizen and immigrants, and how social class, poverty, and inequality are largely surreptitious parts of this system, came throughout my youth from my own life experiences. The basis of my knowledge and beliefs about social class in my country was heavily influenced by religion, and the conflict between what I knew from church and Christian elementary school, what I experienced entering into a rural public school system in middle school, then later a city high school, opened doors to new knowledge. Reflection on the different ways people treated me in different schools at various (perceived) economic stages of my family’s life, challenged me to questioning the very belief system imparted on me.

The premise that America is the “Land of Opportunity”, and the generalized notion that the United States is “special” because “anyone” a part of it can make it to the “top”, was not something I grew up believing, but rather it was something I grew up knowing. One can know and understand a concept, while not believing it to be true. Knowing that I lived in what many have perceived as the “greatest country in the world” where “with enough hard work any person could be successful/wealthy” was an idyllic premise that had no foundation in my real life experience. In my preteen youth, my father was a full-time factory worker and a “sustainable farmer”, sometimes selling grain at the grain elevator and using the rest of the crops to feed livestock. My mother was a small business owner, owning a home-based health food store in the country; she was also a stay at home mother, tending animals and a garden so we could eat through the winter. They were hard workers, but remained poor.

In the beginning, church on Sundays and studying five days a week in a Christian school created a very narrow understanding of poverty and class. Living in a remote area cut off from many influences, being very limited to what television programming was allowed, even having the television removed for brief periods, and strict guidelines on what types of books were permitted, insulated my knowledge from the reality of social inequality. Never imploring openly in my childhood about why my parents worked so hard, yet never got ahead, why the toys were never new, why our clothing were second-hand and ill-fitting, and why in middle school I was made fun of for it…these things remained undiscussed and I was left to consider the answers on my own. Even today, when confronted with the topic, my father will deny we were poor, or low income, despite having infrequently been able to afford new clothes for his children, having toddlers enrolled in WIC [Women, Infants, and Children] and Head Start (government programs reserved for low-income families), and intermittently being on public heating assistance through frigid winters. Therefore, when Loewen says, “the tendency of teachers and textbooks to avoid social class as if it were a dirty little secret only reinforces the reluctance of working-class families to talk about it” (212), supporting his theory of a “subculture of shame” (211), it reinforces what I already know; but creates a deeper understanding of why that shame lingers for some, even after they manage to become successful much later in life.

Two major events caused a change in the base of my knowledge about social class, happening almost simultaneously - the experience of entering the public school system after years of private Christian education, and being aware of and questioning the underlying role of religion in relation to “my” country. Entering the public school system for the first time in the 6th grade, my exposure to distinct social stratification was experienced through ridicule and bullying largely in part due to, based on the names called and things said, my ill-fitting second-hand clothing. This wealth of new knowledge based on personal experience about how income plays a part in the way people treat and think of other people, began to painfully shed layers of false understanding built up by years of insulation from the reality of this truth. That same year, my Dad would sit my brothers and me in front of the television, and discuss with us Revelations, the final book of the Bible that deals with the “End Times”. It was 1990, the height of the Desert Storm war. He equated this political war that was taking place with foretold warnings of End Times, not offering up any other real foundation for understanding what was occurring. Initially fearful, being only about eleven years old, I recall confusion and skepticism. These are two of my very few clear memories of childhood. The impact of information given, and the things experienced in school, planted seed for inquiry about my family’s economic station in life and how God relates to the politics of my country. The questions grew, lingered long.

It would not be until many years later, as a teen in the mid-90s, after two missionary trips to inner-city Monterrey Mexico to preach to, and feed the poor, still trying to cling to ingrained religious ideals, that the lingering skepticism started to bloom. While the poverty in other countries like Mexico is hard to juxtapose with the poverty of United States and other “developed” countries, the people there were/are no less hardworking than many of the poor and low-income of the United States. I began to consider the impoverished state of the world. Taught that all people are the Children of God, all of the world’s people belonged to Him, why did the inequality exist, why was there such a sharp contrasts between the classes everywhere? Why would “my savior” would want his “children” to be so poor that they lived in shacks built of garbage and refuse on abandoned train tracks, languishing in the dirt? Why had the United States been the one “blessed” by God; why were the people of the United States his people and why did he allow his own “chosen” people to go hungry? Why. Why. Why. There are no answers for questions that you are not supposed to ask.

Strangely, but perhaps not, the movie The Devil’s Advocate (1997) finally created the jolt needed to accept that there were no answers, except for one. One cold afternoon I went to a local second-run theater alone, as I often did, to see any movie that happened to be playing. Alone in the warm theater, snug in my comfortable seat, I became grossly offended by the character John Milton, played by Al Pacino, and his passionate oration:

“Let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He's a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do, I swear for His own amusement, his own private, cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It's the goof of all time. Look but don't touch. Touch, but don't taste. Taste, don't swallow. Ahaha. And while you're jumpin' from one foot to the next, what is he doing? He's laughin' His sick, fuckin' ass off! He's a tight-ass! He's a SADIST! He's an absentee landlord! Worship that? NEVER!”

I was offended. I nearly left the theater. But I stayed. I stayed primarily because it was cold outside but also out of intrigue. I stayed and watched, almost reluctantly accepting this new “experience” and thought about why I was offended. It turned out I was offended because what he was saying rang true in my heart. It helped me form the answer I had long sought. Suddenly I understood that the only logical answer was that my knowledge of God was a lie. All things being unjust, God’s existence became highly questionable.

I felt free. In the admission that the very basis of my knowledge may be wrong, may be a lie, I realized I now had the freedom to question all of my knowledge, where it came from and why. If I now felt free to question God’s existence, could I not also question why government would mislead populations about the opportunity it can afford them, while at the same time hard working people’s struggle to stay out of poverty continued to persist and society increasingly deemed them inadequate citizens.

The very thing Loewen states about why social stratification remains minimalized by special interest groups, that “[…] what American society needs to stay strong is citizens who assent to its social structure and economic systems without thought” to “[…] defend our economic system mindlessly” (216) rings true. Critically thinking citizens revolutionize societies. Being aware of how definitive Patriotism and definitive Christianity parallel in begging

to be unquestioned by their members, and how patriotism and religion in the United States often embody each other, I came to understand how the two persist together in maintaining class structure issues. The common notion that “The United States is blessed by God” inherently ties patriotism and religion together, so then, as a Christian American, questioning your family’s position in the social structure, if it even occurred to a person to do so, may be considered unpatriotic, and unchristian.

The ultimate patriotic ideal persists further, unquestioned in textbooks and classrooms, viewed through the lens of the religious eye. For example, true Patriotic ideology tells you that you can do and be anything because you live in the greatest country on earth, full of endless opportunity as long as you worked hard enough. It explains away failure to achieve by equating it with lack of personal effort, creating shame, yet it does not provide an answer for why people who work hard often don’t get ahead. In a turn to Religion you discover that the Bible often tells you that poverty isn’t so bad, that in many of its teachings you can find it is perhaps God’s will for his people to be poor.

20 And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 21 “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. “Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh.” (Luke 6:20-21 ESV)

18 Behold, what I have seen to be good and fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life that God has given him, for this is his lot. 19 Everyone also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and rejoice in his toil—this is the gift of God. (Ecclesiastes 5:18-19 ESV)

With verses such as these the Bible appears to explain away “failure to achieve in the face of opportunity” by equating it with God’s will for you to inherit “The Kingdom of God” and accept “his lot for you”. Occasionally you can find the Bible equating wealth with danger, a slippery slope whose potential end result is an abandonment of your savior, as indicated in Hosea 13:6 (ESV) 6 ”but when they had grazed, they became full, they were filled, and their heart was lifted up; therefore they forgot me.” These messages then, encourage complacency. Alternatively, in the scant verses that do touch on the topic of poverty, causation linked to sloth or laziness reiterates the message of ideal patriotism, that poverty is the effect of “lack of personal effort”. Ultimately, left unexplored, the messages about poverty and social stratification created through the means of patriotic and religious idealism does not address causation, further propagating the negative standards caused by “brushing the issue under the rug”.

The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn by Diane Ravitch, another key influence on my evolving knowledge, has provided me the insight to understand why Loewen says History textbooks “minimize social stratification” (216) throughout history. Special interest groups who influence textbook publication, those who decide what topics are allowed to be included, how information is allowed to be presented, and which get used in their schools, are heavily invested in the outcome of formal education and suppression of revolution. The tendency to completely omit topics, such as income distribution and class structure from classrooms and textbooks, prevents having to teach or discuss “the events and processes in our past” (Loewen, 209) that have impacted social class. This lack of acceptance to the correlation of historical and current government influence on social inequality creates a dissonance, which insulates the populations from important information, making it easier to explain away class inequity with false religious and patriotic notions, creating enduring archetypes of social class and poverty.

It is through these experiences and influences on the information I already had, that my foundation for the acceptance of knowledge continually grows; shaping me and how I come to understand the world and people around me. The liberation through accepting new information in opposition to existing knowledge, and challenging learned prejudices is important on a grand scale. To fear new knowledge, to fear change, only works against social transformation, works against any real progress as a person, and as a country. People should be encouraged to question things, to seek real answers, to let their knowledge evolve. Therefore, knowledge should not be hidden away, it should be celebrated in order to maintain a solid democratic foundation, to minimize the persistent negative social structure paradigms, and let true freedom flourish. A countries thoughtless unquestioned ideal of economic social structure, i.e. “The Land of Opportunity”, built on lack of information, misinformation, and/or lack concrete answers is dangerous; dangerous in that it restricts its members of the knowledge and understanding and in doing so undermines freedom, undermines progress, and undermines Democracy.

-------------------

Screenshot from the grading rubric:

Our first paper for this class is here, if you're interested:

- Rhetorical Moves and Devices In Writing: A University Essay (October 24, 2013)

-----------------

Thank you for reading! Feel free to leave a comment or...whatever...

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!