Is It Possible to Get Identity Right?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ย. 2024
- alternative title:"Philosophy of Identity: Genuine Pretending"Can we get identity right? It is a question asked by a viewer in our last video on "identity". #identity #authenticity #profilicity
We take the chance to answer some of the questions and try to address some of the interesting and important issues about identity.
A quick recap of the three concepts discussed in the last video:
1. Sincerity demands commitment to roles. The outside is real, and
the inside must back it up honestly, otherwise it is considered a
dishonest fake.
2. Authenticity demands the pursuit of originality. The inside is
real, and the outside must be an accurate representation of it, otherwise it is considered a hypocritical facade.
3. Profilicity demands the curation of profiles. The outside is
real, and the inside must be truly invested in it, otherwise it is
considered a deceptive fraud.
Video mentioned:
Identity After Authenticity: Abigail Thorn's Profile
• Identity After Authent...
Daoist Philosophy: Life and Death | Zhuangzi’s Butterfly Dream:
• Daoist Philosophy: Lif...
To know more about profilicity: Existence in the 21st Century | You and Your Profile:
• Existence in the 21st ...
Dr Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Program at the University of Macau.
Prof. Moeller and his colleague Prof. Paul J. D'Ambrosio wrote a book on how "profilicity" works, which is an interesting and very relatable concept, especially at today's time.
You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity(May 2021):
cup.columbia.e...
(If you buy this book, or any other by Hans-Georg Moeller, from the Columbia University Press website, please use the promo code CUP20 and you should get a 20% discount.)
To know more about Genuine Pretending:
www.amazon.com...
I think one of my favorite things about finding this little channel is that the professor responds so generously to criticism.
In a sense it's even more brutal. It's like an intellectual version of "u mad bro?"
I think it's also because he doesn't really have a stake in this TH-cam thing. Sure, he has a channel, but his livelihood doesn't depend on being perceived as (generally) right on TH-cam.
He hasn't minded being called fascist fake left psuedo intellectual so far so I assume he does not take that as a criticism
Discussions about identity always bring these lines to my mind: "Do I contradict myself?
/ Very well then I contradict myself, / (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" (Walt Whitman, Song of Myself, Section 651)
very poetic
An interesting contradiction that Whitman embodied was the careful curation of his public image, including the obsessive attention to the nobility of his tomb. This is the great ambiguity of “Song of Myself:” myself is every person, but it’s also, me, Walt Whitman, bathing and admiring myself.
Thank you for all the good questions and kind supports! We really appreciate them.
Please free feel to continue ask more questions or comment your critiques.
We are preparing some more interesting videos slowly, so please look forward to it.
The next one (probably) will be related the (re)presentation of Daoism.
I know I asked some questions about Daoism last video but in my studies I’ve found differing people emphasizing Ziran over Wuwei and vice versa and was curious if you could touch particularly on Ziran and what it really means.
I was also reading Wunengzi and chapter 4 (Having no worries) deals with death and it confuses me greatly! If you could speak about Daoist views on death I’d be most interested.
It says: “As for people, they most despise death, which is to say that they despise the shape and skeletal body being rigid and not moving. As for the shape and skeletal body, blood, flesh, ear, and eyes, they cannot be empty and yet vital, therefore we know that they are not implements of life. Therefore the reason you should not wait to call death the point at which there is no movement and stiffness; rather, death is at its root already there when we run about and move around! Therefore that which runs about and moves around relies on nothing more than that which is not dead. And, secondly, it is not that which is able to move around and hasten about by itself. The body and skeletal shape are originally dead; therefore it is not dying today, therefore it is not dead today, and therefore it is not going to die! As for death, it is the most despised by people. But there is no death to be despised, besides the shape and skeletal structure; is there anything really to disturb feelings of utmost harmony and satisfaction?
Thank you for engaging with us! I find your work on identity very interesting and I am looking forward to upcoming videos. I also pre-ordered your new book. I am curious to see your arguments in detail and perhaps also learn a bit about Luhmann in the process.
I find the idea behind another book of yours "The Moral Fool" very interesting. However, not knowing much about Eastern thought beyond the typical anecdotal stuff most Europeans are familiar with, I wonder if the book is an appropriate read for someone like me.
It seems like paradigms of authenticity vs profilicity are not disjoint or contradictory. It seems almost like early debates between theories of linguistic meaning before the distinction between semantics and pragmatics was more formally accepted.
Can you reject identity altogether? Can you not engage in one of the 3 "technologies" or is recognition of genuine pretending as good as it gets in distancing oneself from identity formation. Since you are knowledgeable in eastern philosophy, I wonder whether this is explored in the context of Emptiness and no self, open and empty individualism, something western philosophers don't spend much time on as it seems. Would be great if you could say (or write) something on that. Thanks!
Don’t you think identity is just part of a device to I flare our egos and really identity isn’t that important. It’s quite primitive if you think about it. It just helps as a reference point of what am I what I was born as what am I now what shall I be and how do I show the world I’m this and that and to myself .
Really like your channel. Feels like sincere debate or teaching instead of gotcha knowledge you see in other channels. Glad i discovered it!
Right? Finally, a channel that feels like talking to a real human!
Very interesting channel. Discussing philosophy more on an academic level rather than on the level of edutainment as with Abigail or as self-help like channels in the vein of the School of Life. It’s not often that you come across channels that are willing to discuss philosophy like this. I look forward to seeing how you choose to evolve your content.
What is with this pathological obsession with Abigail?
@@amorpaz1 it's just his way of making the channel get attention I think. Ngl, it's the reason why I checked out this channel.
@@amorpaz1 I believe they've done a couple of videos on her because in their initial video they commented on the idea that these educational videos centered around the presenter and their performance. Soon after they learned of Abigail's coming out as trans and used that to discuss the performative aspect of identity altogether.
@@bigfat4172 It feels a bit creepy to me
@@amorpaz1 i mean, if they were using any other public figure to use as a springboard in discussions I'd doubt it would come off that way. She's barely mentioned in this vid anyway. Besides it's a pretty straightforward-ish academic conversation. There's nothing mean spirited about it or anything. Im sure Abigail would probably enjoy the videos or at least appreciate it as a more interesting critique than she usually gets.
I have been struggling a lot these days with my own identity, at 39, honestly I didn’t quite expect an identity crisis at this point… so, why? I honestly feel this one comes from outside, this issue is affecting us all, i don’t think it is a coincidence that trans thinkers and creators have become so relevant at this point in history, trans people have experienced reality in a very unique way, in which many fundamental questions about the very essence of ourselves, which often are overlooked in the “normal” life experiences of people that fit in more within the expected identities, are a constant presence. These reflections have been incredibly helpful for me, as well as Abigail’s videos I must say… so thanks ! One thought I want share: profiling can be very therapeutic, as it allows for people to really create and control how all those “random” qualities they possess become way more than “a sum of all of them”, it’s a conscious act of self creation
I can't believe i'm going to write something as bonkers as this but here goes. I got to know someone a few years ago who communicated with... beings, non-physical entities - they were channelled thru a colleague of his. He had hours and hours of recordings which he let me listen to as i was curious. According to these recordings, our planet is the planet of addiction, we find it very hard to let go whrn we die, we keep choosing to come back. So many of us have vague memories of being a different sex in a previous life. I found this a fascinating concept, it makes a lot of sense to me
"to take on an identity and to have an identity and to express an identity is based"
I've read and heard a lot of interpretations of "American Idol" over the past 20 years, but this one is the most useful for understanding today's digital society, where the necessary skill is not "how to interpret art" but "how to interpret the interpretations of art."
I'm a 56 year old male to female transsexual who underwent gender reassignment surgery 26 years ago. Although I deliberated the matter for years and finally committed myself to living my chosen gender, I didn't expect that within a few years, the loss of my sex drive would make gender constructs personally irrelevant to me, (in addition to giving me the use of my mind 24/7). I miss the kick of being young and pretty, but these days my vanity doesn't extend past wanting to look clean & healthy. Although I am legally a woman and still prefer to be treated accordingly, gender doesn't really matter to me anymore. Now I understand that this--permanent relief from my sexuality, from the gender dysphoria--is what I was after. For what it's worth, I never felt that I was "born in the wrong body," or believed that I had been "acting" as a male, but cliches like those are useful for navigating the medical gauntlet that controls access to hormones and surgery.
Thank you so much for your excellent comment. I have also heard similar experiences reported by a plethora of post-transitioned male to female individuals who lost their sex drive and had changes occur in their thinking, personality, and priorities or interests.
The chemical and hormonal aspect of what is driving people to feel certain ways and desire to associate themselves with certain ideas, movements, and images, is complex but can be increasingly clarified through de-politicized honest introspection and testimony regarding personal experiences, which, without an agenda, may provide stories which can shine a light on the experience of having certain hormones influencing the thinking, and then having such factors removed, also cultural and social influences which may play a part in how one may prefer or determine the way they would imagine they would like to be treated.
There was a great video by a medical doctor about his personal experiences with what they considered to be auto-gynephilia (in their own case) which went into some detail about hormones, hormonal studies, certain medications that were given to mothers in earlier periods and which may have contributed to certain hormone imbalances or deficiencies, and a whole ton of great idea, which was unfortunately removed or taken down (by the author themselves most likely, possibly due to criticism but maybe for concerns regarding their reputation or the reputation of their family which are religious members of the LDS Church). I'll be contacting them again to see if I might be able to get them to put the video up again or at least send me a copy, because it was full of so much useful information, insight, and personal experience.
Thank you again for your wonderful and candid comment, it is much appreciated and further confirms many things that I have been hearing from an older and more experienced generation with these particular issues. Some of the younger people are radically re-defining the ways and reasoning given for certain things associated with transitioning. You may be interested in seeing a video by "Jubilee" the TH-cam Channel called "Do All Transgendered People Think the Same" and there is only one person of a more advanced age and experience among the variety of younger people speaking, and they tend to have a seemingly more matured understanding of the subject as well.
@@aFoxyFox. Well said! Thank you.
Please continue this series - it's super interesting to listen to
The "nostalgia for authenticity", which I probably hold to some degree myself, I think comes from it's structural similarity to a more "spiritual" approach to life. Jung's process of individuation specifically comes to mind, but also the general idea of journeying inward rather than seeking validation outward. Though in most instances of spirituality I'm familiar with, the closest thing to a conclusion, regarding identity as well as many other human experiences, is effectively your notion of "genuine pretending". Where one recognizes a form experience like identity to be inherently paradoxical and thus not something to be overly or even at all attached to.
So it would seem the closest thing to "getting identity right" would be not identifying at all. Which, if even possible, would likely necessitate a lack of self consciousness.
This video is very interesting because it echoes what Contrapoint's Aesthetics and "Transtrenders" videos talk about trans idenity. Professor Moeller says that none of the 3 technologies (as of now) could get identity right. Similarly, Contrapoint pointed out that none of the 3 theories, namely biological (transmedicalism - Tiffany), psychological (self-identity, queerness, rebellion (?) - Tabby), and social (performativity - Justine), could get trans identity validated by society (well at least for the less accepting part of society). And in "Transtrenders", the conclusion was "Maybe we don't need any theory. Maybe we don't need to prove ourselves" and Natalie suggested another way to fight for trans rights was just simply "Trans Liberation now!" in her video JK Rowling.
I teach young kids (13.15 years) and they are always caught between the hard places and rocks of groupthink and individualism. i wish I could distill this lecture into 3 minutes. I'll try... It could take he stress off.... I tend to remind them that life is not a fixed event, but rather a process, and it's good to stay curious (thirst for the mind).
I love your point about authenticity nostalgia and authenticity bias! I agree that this is a problem in many theorists' work - it has been common to talk about the postmodern condition in terms of things that have been lost due to the decline of modernity, a loss of meaning rather than in terms of a paradigm shift that allows new forms of sense making.
Professor, thank you for making this video. I've been benefiting a lot from your videos, as they've been helping me recognize my dispositions towards authenticity and profilicity. Luhmann discussion on there being a multiplicity of public spheres resonated with me deeply; I find that it validates an idea about the nature of oppression, namely that oppression manifests not in some generalized way in the public domain, but uniquely and with respect to those smaller domains. This is because there isn't some general public sentiment about minorities (for instance), but as Luhmann asserted, a multiplicity of sentiments held by smaller public spheres. That isn't to say those sentiments can't be shared by those spheres, but opens up a conversation about their (and thereby oppression's) complexity.
With this in mind, to say that some group of people generally faces oppression (and the systems of belief which assert such), while not exactly false, fails to capture the complexity of oppression, and results in people ignoring other kinds of oppression and how other people (outside of those they name) experience them.
I noticed that you stated you were feeling some burnout from posting online. Please pace yourself if you can; TH-cam burnout isn't something to scoff at, and it would be a shame to lose a channel like yours from it.
Identification is at the same time integration and differentiation - G. Deleuze
man i cant believe its only been a year since I first watched this video. introduced me to systems theory. i read luhmann, am still reading luhmann, but now I'm also studying chemical engineering at my university which is just systems theory but with more math. so cool. these videos definitely changed the trajectory of my thought patterns so thank you.
Has anyone watched the Monogatari series? 😅
This discussion reminds me of Kaiki: " The fake is of greater value. In its deliberate attempt to be real, it's more real than the real thing"
I don't remember that specific arc of Monogatari but it sounds interesting. Monogatari is incredible in the way it deals with questions of identity. Really makes me want to watch through that show again
Is it the little girl that became a snake god arc? It's been a long time since i binged the whole series
@@reybladen3068 It's from Nisemonogatari. He doesn't say it himself, though. He's quoted by Kagegurui. Here:
th-cam.com/video/H7PgWg_i4EY/w-d-xo.html
@@cassif19 thanks for refreshing me
That sounds a lot like what Baudrillard talks about in Simulacra and Simulation
Identity means things line up. An identity is probably useful if it is a means to an end. As long as identity is a tool (well it is always a tool for something), but a tool that can tap in to the material conditions of existence. Thus it becomes more fleshed out as a catalog of effective and ineffective responses with associated levels of confidence. If you would like to know who you are, you need to test yourself, learn to trust your precog, your intuition. Your body will usually try to tell you what to do, before the mind enters a state of anxious consideration. The more you test, even through folly, the stronger your identity becomes. There is a feedback quality to it, I think.
As a continental-leaning interpreter of matters of identity, while taxonomizing a polemicist like Baudrillard as well as a certain archetype of French intellectual appears productive within your definition of authenticity, I'm interested in how you would fit something like Zizek's Hegelian negativity of the subject _(Who am I? I don't know and I don't want to know!),_ or Deleuze's rhizomatic multiplicities _(As many, I am none),_ within your classifications. They are, per my reading, opposed to the entire idea of a centralized or constructed identity, whether it is situated or validated internally or externally.
Either way, the inversion of authenticity in your profilicity has already been useful in revisiting some of my prior ideas about postmodernity. I think this is one of the more crucial topics to think about in our age of confusion: personally, through engaging in philosophy, in breaking free of rigid structures of identity, designing new ways for the self as a process. For others, perhaps, in constructing a healthier, unified, cohesive sense of identity as a structure (or superstructure). I place problems related to understanding and narrativizing this structure (or its lack) at the root of many social ills today, not in the reductive American cultural imperialist woke/anti-woke, black/white, male/female sense of simple, pronounceable binaries, but in a far more ubiquitous and abstracted way.
Your videos made me really want to read your book. Keep up the good work!
First thing to note is that virtually all philosophy is sophistry. Just learn how to speak truthfully and then everything else falls into place easily. Most of these "philosophical problems" stem from inaccurate use of language, either accidentally or deliberately
@@someguy8732 How did you get lost on philosophy TH-cam only to type out this inexplicable non sequitur: accidentally or deliberately? Jeez dude, take yourself down a notch and get prepared to learn something, or go watch School of Life, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or whatever it is that could explain this take.
@@supine2491 it's a typo, just edited it. Should be clear now
@@someguy8732 I understood what you meant to write, it's just that you haven't read enough Wittgenstein (much less Derrida) to understand what you're claiming. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying it without even attempting to connect it to anything at hand. It doesn't even qualify for an also-ran.
Anyway, not arguing on TH-cam about philosophy, simply expressing confusion, so have a nice day.
@@supine2491 Hey, if you don't mind, I'd like you (and anyone like you, or who would like to become like you, and sharing in your manner and interests) to keep in touch with me if possible at theartismagistra@gmail.com , it can be quite difficult to find people to discuss matters like these which you brought up.
You may be interested also in joining a very small private forum that I'm part of that tries to discuss these ideas and ideas like these, possibly in a manner which might be more crude or difficult but you might still enjoy it if you were to join (unfortunately the owner of the website is currently busy so might not be able to accept entry just yet).
I'd be very well pleased to hear more about your thinking and ideas, various things you might like to discuss or tend to refer to, all of it, since even just your comment here was really quite filled with wonderful information, insight, questions, and references that I really enjoyed hearing about. I would not mind hearing much more about the topics that are usually crossing your mind of a philosophical nature or more ideas like these you've referred to and alluded to, and your personal takes on subjects as well.
Here or via my email at theartismagistra@gmail.com as it can be difficult to find opportunities to discuss these things with practically anyone, or at least I have been having a lot of trouble finding anyone pleasant and non-hostile who is well-read and able to bring up and utilize these sorts of subjects within a discussion. The constantly hostility and bickering I see online is often pretty disheartening.
To address some of the confusion over the term "performance," I like to return to Gender Trouble itself and remember that Butler draws on the notion of performativity that comes from JL Austin's speech act theory. This is *not* the same as pretending or acting in a theatrical sense; in fact, in other places, Butler draws a distinction between performing gender on a stage and performing gender on, say, a bus, even though there is some useful slippage between the two terms. For Austin, performatives are a type of speech that do or accomplish the very things they name--the most famous examples being a promise or the phrase "I now pronounce you husband and wife." Telling someone that you're promising them something is, in fact, making the promise itself. The doing occurs through the speaking if you will.
Butler then expands and reworks this idea, noting that making a promise also implies that there is a "you" (a subject) who can make the promise in the first place. That is, a performative speech act not only does the thing it names, it also calls into existence a subject who can do the thing--a subject we normally assume to arise from a "real" and "authentic" self, but who is also, from another angle, an effect of speech.
From there, Butler develops the notion of gender performativity. She's less interested in individual performances than in how doing gender produces a sense of a "real" and "authentic" self who exists prior to the performance and originates it. Even more specifically, she uses this concept to explain how gender performativity produces a sense of a "real" and "authentic" sex binary--that is, we tend to assume that sex comes first and that gender is its mere expression. Butler flips this notion on its head, basically arguing that the sex binary is an expression (or an effect) of the gender binary, an idea that helps us denaturalize both binaries and their attendant heteronormative baggage. This does NOT mean those binaries aren't real--they're very real given how consequential they are; the point is that they're not inherent, stable, or inevitable. I think this is why her conceptualization is so hard to grasp, given how counter-intuitive it is. Of course, its counter-intuitive nature is, in some ways, the entire point! Plus the leap she makes from performativity in speech acts to gender performativity is both the strongest and arguably weakest aspect of her argument--so it goes.
If you're interested in this stuff, I highly recommend Butler's book Bodies That Matter, in which she fleshes out her ideas in response to critiques of Gender Trouble. If you want an underrated book by Butler, check out Exciteable Speech, which tackles issues of hate speech, free speech, and censorship.
Nah, Butler's use of the word performative is straightforward. Acting or behaving in a way to align oneself with the acts or behaviors of any identity (class, race, religious, gender, etc....) is by definition a performance. The paradox and pathologies and neurosis only occurs in "authenticity" regimes in that light, which is eclipsed by profilicity in which case Abigail can dress up as an other-kin on Tumblr and as a woman on youtube and as a fridge magnet on onlyfans and not feel the need to say that she is 'revealing' her true self; she/he/it may embody multiple personas simultaneously without the weight of authenticity to shackle her.
I agree. Identity is not a "thing". Identity is just a manner of speaking of something. Trying to find "Real Identity", being of things, or persons, is an impossible task, leading directly to Theseus' Ship Paradox. Identity is always an ambiguous concept, and that is GOOD actually: it allows communication.
I come late to the party but have me in this comment section too:
The right technology to use when creating identity would be the most suited to a certain social environment, atleast if we adhere to a kind of evolution theory.
For example, if we want to have a better identity in a more traditional environment, like a family wich values legacy and roles, the best way to create identity would be "identity": pick a role wich is best suited for your personal traits and commit to it.
Likewise, if you're in a work environment with an emphasis to individuality, like a sales department, that'd be "authenticity": differentiate yourself with hobbys, beliefs and even behaviors like the manner of speech.
And to cover the three of them, if you are in a socially distanced environment (like the one we are living in with the covid regulations), you can build identity by utilizing the potential of social media: posting your thoughts, your pics, your opinions, your shares... To make a narrative about who you "are" and what you "do with your life".
Professor, thank you so much. These are my new favorite movies on the internet. I have not found many other channels offer such comprehensive and filling content of this type, let alone responses to comments and follow-up discussions. Your voice is a rarity which I truly enjoy.
An interesting thing with identity and identity politics, is that they remain in the area of genuine pretending or non thought, until one is resisted, then the identity is thought of, enemy and ally are created. Thought the sharing of persecution or persecuted. But all wish to go back to non thought. It is only in the physical disruption these identities are forged. So many identities have three part the object, the resistance and the protector. Only when the resistance and the protector go away can the object return to non thought.
Great video and channel love it!
Wow. Really amazing channel! I love your calm and reflective way of addressing other arguments and positions. Also great to see Luhmannian Theory getting more exposure internationally. Finally subscribed + Gruesse nach Macau!
The case of the "Pop Idol Show" manufacturing this "general peer" is interesting, if not a bit terrifying.
It seems as if this system, and other social system, can produce a kind of abstraction of a thinking subject, a generalization as you seem to put it. The horrifying thing about this subject is how it is a Frankenstein of all these objective quality; the jury's reaction, the studio audience's reaction both to the jury and the music, the cameras connecting that audience to the home audience, and the manufactured environment of the contest.
Instead of a rational societal spirit, it is as if the entire production process were a kind of orgy that birthed this "pop music taster" as a semi-physical entity.
With Jung system of persona, ego, shadow, Anima/animus SELF
All of the systems you mentioned sincerity, authenticity, profilicity are all performed by the persona.
Authenticity became a value for those who wanted to shed the previous highly restricted persona system. But the whole psychological system was very misunderstood. And it became a baby boomer status concept with human potential workshops and being YOU etc.
This is a very good video thank you. I can't help but think about your insistence on treating all forms of identity formation equally. You say, in your answer to the Beudrillard question, that writers like him and Han have a form of authenticity nostalgia. You might be right. They might also idealize authenticity, and this might be a form of over-identification. Nevertheless. As you have pointed out different forms of identity technology, when over-identified with, lead to different psychological and social maladies. This sounds to me like a good basis for critique of these different identity technologies. To what harms do they lead? It also opens up the question, which you answer in your way with genuine pretending, about how to go beyond the different identity technologies and their pitfalls.
Also, society often forces you to use a certain identity technology. E.g. in a job interview you might be asked to present your story. This asks you to construct a profile. But which technology is expected might also change depending on where you do the interview.
So in having to genuingely pretend, in having to apply these technologies to different degrees, in observing within yourself the emotional and social effects these technologies have on you, you can genuinely develop a preference for some forms of pretending. Or perhaps your experiences with them might drive you to find ways of pretending that go beyond these three categories.
All of this is to say that I don't agree with your insistence that it is not fitting to take a moral stance vis-a-vis any of the identity technologies you describe so well. Imo, since different technologies result in different harms we can judge them, choose to privilige one over the other (without over-identifying) or try to go beyond them.
I think this is precisely why many queer or transgender people say they 'do not wish to be perceived' (however impossible that may be). I think it serves as a critique more generally of the social performances that are so ingrained in us. Firstly, on the level of labels, all terms for gender and sexuality are simply descriptors of behavior- when we assign those descriptors unto ourselves, they are generally helpful (I suppose, in the sense of 'genuine performance'), yet when they are imposed on us, they can become hurtful or traumatic. Worst of all, when the internal experience does not match the external behavior and descriptive labels we communicate to others, there is a state of 'dysphoria'.
But, because so much of the discourse is focused on these labels, I think the act of performance is often diminished in importance. I would connect the idea somewhat to amour-propre, whereby the performance of gender is not concerned with an uncorrupted expression of personal identity for one's own happiness, but instead to seek approval from others through the outward portrayal of gendered behavior. This leads to personal happiness because when others' perception of us aligns with our internal self image, we experience 'gender EUphoria', if you will.
Personally, I believe a more useful path to euphoria would be through expressions of personal identity that aren't predicated on socially constructed ideas like gendered behavior, being 'authentically one's self' without the need for the performance of any role, though I'm not sure if that's truly possible.
I actually think, in regards to the modern world, simulacrum, and a “lack of” authenticity or an authenticity nostalgia, I disagree here. I think the point is that in the modern day there is more and more a trend to value this form of authenticity the most, especially in late stage capitalism, and such throws off the balance we try to strive to be within. That’s how I interpret those sorts of authors and ideas in this sort of framework, that because of the huge emphasis on one for so long, we grow frustrated with it and feel it to be fake, a need to re-balance, if that makes sense.
Great video!
I agree, carefree wandering strikes me as being too relativist when it comes to the different types of pretending. Ie highly commodified, self referential pretending of philosophy tube, of Ant and Dec, of Kanye West, of Disney movies is much more alienating to be exposed to than the sort of spontaneous, natural forms of pretending that were more dominant in the past, as ofc to survive capital is forced to expand into ever more markets and determine the content of more identities and of more features within identities.
Sort of the difference between pretending for some social benefit or direct use and pretending for or as a result of culture being increasingly dominated by, relations for exchange value
I'd like to know if he has a class collaborationist view on the state
My theory is that everything is linked to cptsd, from anxiety disorders to schizophrenia and cluster b. Then there's the divide. People with trauma try to manifest their internal worlds externally by accepting pathological ways to deal with life and pathological explanations for its functioning. "normal" people get over their anxiety and as a result area able to find the right solutions for their problems and can thus exist in this reality reality without suffering. One is forsaking of life and the other is accepting of life.. One is changing the world to suit their unique unique needs, other is accepting the world the way it is and struggling hard to exist in a rational manner. One is childish other is mature. One is childish childish because people who get trauma are emotionally stuck in the age they first inherited their trauma. And in a lot of ways we're all traumatized traumatized.. Life itself is trauma
Excuse my double words, my screen is damaged lol
I'm new to the discourse of genuine performance. My first impression is that it takes a meta modern standpoint, that is to say that in both meta modernism and in genuine performance the necessity of stepping over skepticism is implied. Im a big fan of this. Im a big fan of a return to sincerity and away from cynicism and irony.
I must admit that, although im sympathetic to putting oppression at the center of so much discourse, im far more interested at the work that orbits the concept and this work is a gem.
First of all, thank you very much for these uploads. More so than clarifying quite a few things about philosophy, thus restructuring my personal understanding and to an extent ordering the chaos that philosophy always seemed to be - it still does, but at least to a lesser extent - in such a way that it has afforded me more in the way of control of my own thought processes as well as some tools to keep my navigation through the treacherous waters of our times in check - an intellectual map, if you will - they have also contributed to bringing about many more new questions, so expanding my horizon also, which I think philosophy is much - if not all - about. Now, in the way of questions, at about 15:20, professor Moeller starts elaborating a little bit on the concept - if I'm using the term right at all - of the "General Peer". I am not sure whether it has been brought up by the professor himself or by someone else in the comments here or in another video, but the part where he talks about "öffentlichkeit" and the notion of the "public", brought to my mind a dialogue which I'll be posting shortly, from the move "Das Leben der Anderen" (The life of others). It's the scene where the Stasi agent openly engages in dialogue with the actress he was tasked to be monitoring (I found the dialogue in German, so, I'll post it in German, but I will also be translating it in English as best I can):
-Kennen wir uns?
(-Do we know each other?)
-Sie kennen mich nicht, aber ich kenne Sie. Viele Menschen lieben Sie, weil Sie sind wie Sie sind.
(-You don't know me, but I know you. Many people love you because of who you are.)
-Ein Schauspieler ist nie so wie er ist.
(-Actors is never who they are.)
-Sie doch. Ich habe Sie auf der Bühne gesehen. Sie waren da mehr so, wie Sie sind, als Sie es jetzt sind.
(-You are though. I have seen you on stage. You were then more who you are than you are even now.)
-Sie wissen wie ich bin?
(-You know how I am?)
-Ich bin doch Ihr Publikum.
(-I am your audience.)
Now, I have seen the movie a couple of times and I know it's mainly concerned with ethical dilemmas and it also serves as a critique on the politics and society of the DDR. That said it's not my intention to judge it on these respects or comment on it as such, rather to draw a parallel there with the notion of the "General Peer". Obviously, I understand that in the movie the agent has had a specific agenda and he was not at all a peer to an actress. But it struck me, especially as in the dialogue the word "Publikum" is used, which even more than "öffentlichkeit" implies, I think, the specific act of observation of her as pertains to her performance as an actress. More so, since the agent was the silent and distant observer of some authority, it also implies the act of observation of her as a human being as pertains to her ethics perhaps and to her general conduct as well, I'd say, an implication which I think is not only made quite obvious by the aforementioned dialogue - especially since we know who he is, even if she doesn't herself - but also is juxtaposed - and perhaps in a way even transposed by the line "Sie waren da mehr so, wie Sie sind, als Sie es jetzt sind." - to her perceived performance as an actress. Or rather, that the actions through which herself as an actress is realised are at least as much if not even more genuinely hers than the actions through which she as an everyday person is established, since those have been apparently imposed. In other words, I get from the dialogue that she was more genuinely herself as an actress than she ever was in her everyday life, which would make sense, given also the rest of the movie, where society is portrayed as heavily controlled and people aren't free to express themselves, thus art liberates and it's dangerous to the authorities etc.
But even under this kind of framework, which I suppose is quite different to the one discussed in this video, in that moment in the movie I think we have an approach to the notion of both profilicity and the General Peer, although this is where it gets foggy for me. For one, are my observations in the right direction at all? And also could one be a General Peer even simply to a human being, or is this exact notion that the concept of General Peer goes against? Is there no such thing as "simply a human being"? Or, to put it another way - which may make even less sense - could we say that even the notion of a "human being", at least as pertains to how we communicate and identify with dominant narratives that shape our conduct in our everyday lives - whether we realise it or not - belongs to yet another system found in the multiplicity of public spheres, or would it be too much of a generalisation? If it would be the latter, would it then mean we can't regard ourselves as peers to each other when we consider our performative acts as pertain to class, race, gender, politics and other aspects of identity, or would it just mean that a General Peer is "general" as in generally encompassing a specific aspect of identity but not going beyond it? Again, if it is the latter, wouldn't this mean then that we end up making an even more general, overarching judgement, finally encompassing every aspect, so resulting in a much more multidimensional image? If so - and this is the last if, I promise - wouldn't those judgements still be implicitly made by juxtaposing the performance of the person in front of us with some sort of presuppositions we've inherited or even perceived standards that were unbeknownst to us imposed on us by whatever dominant narratives - which in turn we ourselves shape as we go along? And what's more, isn't this act of observation and comparison just like that of the Stasi agent in the movie, except - and that's a very crucial exception - brought now to the foreground, instead of silently watching from afar? Could even this act of observation - I mean our own, not the agent's, but you can of course expand on that too if you'd like - be considered a performance too, under the framework of profilicity, or even a function of the latter? In the end, isn't this act of observation contributing to the pressure to overly commit to identifying? Don't we thus find ourselves in a dilemma, where we have to observe and rate one's profile - and so our own too - by using this technology of identification at the same time going against the wisdom of Daoism, which would be one good way to relax?
I knew I would get carried away and I'm sorry for such a long comment. I think I better read your book for answers, and to some extent I expect you to suggest that. Whether you took the time to read the whole this comment or not, I thank you all the same, again, for your overall contribution and your fantastic channel!
Great video! Really makes me think :)
My pocket change:
It seems to me that we have two identities: an implicit and explicit one.
The implicit is intangible, internal, (subconscious?) perception of ourselves which is intuitively felt, and (I posit) impossible to abstract, reason about, or express.
The explicit identity is the result of expressing our implicit identity through the imperfect media of the world. It can be build through genuine pretending, using the described modes of sincerity, authenticity and profilicity. As such, it does not fully or accurately capture implicit identity, and is weighed down by cultural baggage and the limitations of the modes of expression.
However, it can be abstracted, reasoned about, and expressed. Naturally this abstraction and reasoning can happen externally by expressing our explicit identity to others, but perhaps (counterintuitively?) it can happen entirely internally, as in sitting-on-a-park-bench thinking-bout-your-life.
Two patterns emerge from this:
One: there is a natural feedback between implicit and explicit identity. They way the world and you yourself perceive your explicit identity (which can be reasoned about, and often is), gradually influences your implicit identity, and over time may change it entirely.
Two: It is quite common, imo, to have a "relaxed", "multi-modal" implicit identity, which can depending on your activity or mood align with many different explicit identities (sometimes I am a student, sometimes a musician, other times an athlete, etc...). At least for me personally, I have such a vacillatory implicit identity.
This can be both freeing and distressing - it allows you to experience a greater range of life's experiences without judgement, but can leave you lost and feeling disconnected from a defined sense of self.
In case of existential, implicit identity dread, I find it helps to have a strong structure that can reaffirm your explicit identity and set you back on track (e.g. supervisor asks you to read 2 papers by friday - "Ah yes, I am student", teammates ask if you're coming to train - "Ah yes, I am athlete")
Thanks for reading; it was cathartic to write, even if possibly ill-reasoned :)
I think this lecture goes well with the french movie "Holy Motors"
Fantastic movie, looking forward to Carax' newest one for sure! Lovers on the Bridge was also great
Thank you for your very in depth clarification and elaboration regarding the differences between the Lacanian concept of the Big Other and your own, very interesting. I also loved your section about the Daoist approach to identity, it made me reminisce about some of those quirky Alan Watts videos out there which profess a similar approach if my memory serves. Fascinating stuff.
Hello, to whoever is organizing these and to the Professor, if you could try to get onto the TH-cam channel show "Tiggernometry" by showing them this video or one on similar topics and seeing if they will have you in order to discuss some of these things, I think it will bring a lot more people to this channel and will bring a lot more people to these ideas which I think should be more well known or widely available.
They've regularly been conducting interviews via web camera and things like that, and I think it wouldn't actually be too difficult to impress them with these ideas and topics which they are often discussing, and then to appear on some episode with them for an interview (which are usually very relaxed and easy going) and most beneficially I think that these kinds of videos encourage all kinds of people to become more educated, to be more cautious when thinking about ideas and more nuanced in arguments and thinking, since so many times people are taking expedient and easy roads to debate and thought on matters through the use of shortcut methods, force, "signaling", and other methods to quickly shut down interesting dialogue and observations.
It would generate traffic back to this channel ideally, and encourage further videos potentially which could offer a kind of a free education on interesting subjects which generally is not easy to access in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, even at schools here. Just like it is the mission of doctors to heal, I think it should be the mission of educators to teach, and the generation of traffic to this channel may end up supporting the Professor, his projects, and his reputation and ideas in several ways.
Please consider it, and also becoming involved or having interviews in other channels and shows who would bring your important contributions, ideas, and the general sort of value of carefully thinking about things and discussing them this way, to many more people (which might end up improving a lot of lives and interactions once they have involved themselves with thinking and dialogue like this).
theartismagistra@gmail.com is my email, anyone can feel free to keep in touch and I can continue to provide recommendations also once I become aware of such, but I thought "Tiggernometry" might be a good start really for a show with a wider audience that would be extremely well suited and welcoming to these ideas and sorts of discussions (since I have seen them present in interviews there, but often without credentialed professionals in some cases, so I think they would be very pleased to have these ideas available on their channel and connecting with you and back to you).
I hope this message reaches you well, and thank you very much for putting up these videos, I've promoted them within my circles of contacts as well since I was extremely pleased with the manner of the discussion as well as the content discussed.
I am very happy to have stumbled upon this channel recently. Thank you for your engagement with this medium.
If at some point you found the gumption to do it, I would love to hear you expound on what insights--if any--the now maybe slightly altmodische coryphaeus Habermas has brought to the table which might still be useful in some form for us today (I'm thinking here also of your remarks against him in your "Is it possible to get identity right?"-video).
It seems to me everyone readily dismisses Habermas on practically every subject on which he has spoken (on which there are many), and as a former Habermasian I largely
think they're right to do so in a lot of cases. Yet I still think that he's the only one to tackle head-on the issue that no matter the contingencies we find ourselves in, we will always need (or lacking a recognition of this need: imply) a normative baseline to refer back to if we want to justify any kind of critical disposition to said contingencies. And it is this critical attitude that I hear being brought up again and again, even amongst his critics, including you in this great video essay.
Very interesting! I'll have to watch more of your videos, but I really like the interpretation of Taoist concepts in this way. I've been a huge Zhuangzi fan ever since first reading it, and a big part of that is the deconstructions of the ideas of usefulness and the ideas of being "enough", and as a result the role of identity and authenticity. I never really put it together in these ways, before, but this helps me understand why I tend to think the way I do about identities and all that.
Please continue. Your videos are excellent.
Concerning identity: When identity is necessarily constructed and it is constructed by one of the technologies you describe (sincerity, authenticity or profilicity) and when this implies that it is not possible to "get identity right", because it is always just a construct "that functions in accordance with the used technology" as Sebastian Hosu said quoted by you, then isn't it so, that at least we could strive to develop "better technologies"? They may not be "better" in an absolute or moral sense, but they may be less problematic by design in that they lead to less false identification of what you are with what you represent or play on the stage of society.
Wouldn't it be possible to develop a technology to construct an identity, which would require less pretending, because it would make it more obvious or transparent to everyone that you are just some shapeshifting fluidal representation actualising yourself in every moment? Like a child putting on different costumes just for fun, without anyone thinking of the child as "really" being what it looks like? In some modern radical vedantic thought the self as "eternal" is interpreted as "always new". Eternal is that which is continously actualising itself and is new in every moment, so that in other words and in accordance with buddhism, there is "no" self or: The very definition of the self is that it cannot be grasped (and thereby mentally "constructed right" in form of an identity) due to its ever-changing nature.
When our identity is that which we construct and what we consider as what is defining us, while the very act of giving ourselves such an identity is limiting and petrifying our "nature" as described before, when different technologies are constructing identity differently, then some other technology could deconstruct it too. In order to remain sane in this society, one may need to oppose the very idea of identity. And in how far we need this construct in order "to function" in this society of functional differentiation? And if this construct is so fundamental for the society to function (I mean both the economic, political and other systems), couldn't it be that by deconstructing identity we could fundamentally change the systems?
Thanks for your encouragement and reflections. In line with the Buddhist (and Daoist) "no self" conception of identity, "pretending" is not a bad thing--and unavoidable. "Less" pretending, therefor is not really an option. However, it is possible, as you say, that it becomes "obvious or transparent to everyone that you are just some shapeshifting fluidal representation actualising yourself in every moment". Importantly, "everyone" here includes oneself. Maybe a "better" technology, as you say, is one that makes it easier to achieve such obviousness and transparency. Perhaps profilicity has this potential.
But there are other arguments for privileging one technology of identity over another. The way in which these technologies relate back to the body is relevant here. I am not biased toward authenticity technologies (mainly because as Trilling inadvertently highlighted these technologies are too dependant on the historical canon and narrative, an ideological belief in the power of knowledge, etc), but I am biased toward understanding the body as a multiplicity of forces (the Nietzschean body, Elizabeth Grosz work in particular). In many ways, prolificity builds on authenticity through a further distancing on oneself from their own agency and self-knowledge (self-knowledge need not be explained through positive ideas, we can have ideas of our self-knowledge through a negation of our created identities). By this I mean to say that the sites where the technology of profilicity is developed are themselves nested within an ideologically driven space for capital accumulation, for abusing our attention, and so on. Both for ideological reasons and for a distancing of our own self-relation to our self-as-multiplicity (which again is through a negation of the internal sense of authentic or inauthentic behavior) can prolificity been seen to be at least more alienating (we are relying more on more on the mind, on an aesthetic of profiles, etc). Profilicity as a technology is dangerous because it preys off of our inherited ontological ideologies from authenticity.
This is really key, the professor’s analysis seems to stop short of actually having any sort of stance, or to not tie these ‘social technologies’ to any sort of material social order. ‘Profilicity’ is the proto-ideal (or ideal, we’ll see) social logic of capital, period, and its relation to capital as such should prick the ears of any critique. This isn’t about overidentification with one technology over another, it’s about the socio-economic hellscape of hyper-capitalist cyberspace.
These videos are great. But can I maybe have an suggestion for a video in the futere, what about an introduction to Kant?
You got it
this was very well done: where others are driven by emotion, you are a nice change of pace. your take on the matter is extremely professional. thank you for your work.
I'm enjoying reading "Genuine Pretending" right now.
As an artist, a ballet dancer and a curious, lifelong reader, I feel Camus has a good idea about who is living an authentic life. As an artist, and performer, I am in a constant state of imagination and reality, of performing and realizing. If an artist does not become obsessed with imagination, which happens often, he can live the closest to an authentic life. He understands the contradictions, the performances, and the immutable nature of personality. He is an empty vessel.
Being in a "constant state of imagination and reality, of performing and realizing" is a general predicate of any human being. Don't think that only artistic performance is "living an authentic life". I work as a mathematician, but I see this is true for any human activity. Envy of the presumed 'artistic freedom' is an idealisation common in intellectual circles. 😊
@@tellingitlikeitis9765 I also do not think that artistic performers only live an authentic life. I read my post again and see that I am not clear. I was speaking to my own experience of being around artists who are addicted to imagination and live in a selfish bubble, unable to listen to others or even enjoy a walk outside. I agree that the artistic life is idealized far too often, and that a lot of artists can only survive in a made up world that is far from authentic.
So far, I have only been able to identify myself through art. And even then, I am be aware that all of it is derivative. The only semblance of originality and individuality comes from the amalgamation of ideas that were fed to me.
Do you think following truth as best you can towards others and yourself is the best/only way to be truly original?
Or at least as original as one can be?
Meaning this:
1. Doesn’t follow truth: is really derivative of others
2. Follows truth: is derivative of others(like an amalgamation) but it’s difficult to isolate that derivation because following truth leads one into a very (seemingly original) path
I can relate to this a lot. My ideas all come from somewhere; heck, even my personality is only derived from my parents, friends, media, etc. Suppose I were to come up with an "original" idea, what would be its root? Its root would lie in me, the "original" creator, and I myself am not original, but actually - as you said - an amalgamation of ideas that were fed to me. In that sense, originality would contradict my being.
@@deanmccrorie3461
I think it is a very complicated issue. Ultimately, I don't believe it is possible to not follow truth. Even following the false, one will arrive at truth at some point.
1. True/False
My perception of the world can be incorrect, skewed in some way, but the world itself is not and can never be false. The reality is always true. But then again, if one was to understand reality through an individual's or individuals' perception of it, then yes, there can be a false reality.
2. Derivative/Original
As to the question of derivative/original, I think it may be very similar to true/false. Objectively, there is only derivation, but subjectively, originality may be possible, through the amalgamation of derivatives, for example.
@@dahterrasse
Yes, we as humans have evolved to 'fit' the world we live in. All that we can do, all that we are capable of reflects this relationship. We praise ourselves for achieving incredible things, like climbing mountains, discovering gravity, starting a family, but all of those are natural consequences of our biological build-up. There is nothing really unique about any of it. But once you look at a individual case, you realise how different and captivating it can be.
Let's look at language, which offers so much freedom of expression, one might even think with endless possibilities. But every book ever written uses the same words, the same tropes, the same narrative devices. This would be the level one derivative, the collective derivative. It would apply to things like languages, anything that can be perceived through our senses (for example colours in a painting), basically anything that the human brain 'can' do. And then, let's suppose, there is the level two individual derivative, as a collection of experiences that make up an individual, our memory included. Here, in the amalgamation of derivatives, originality may exist, perhaps simply because we can no longer pinpoint where this or that idea comes from.
@@yrwestillhere I pooped over a canvas that’s original and the truth nobody is copying me
authentic performance: I heard a Catholic nun describe her spiritual experience as a grace from God. The feeling she has is not from within her, but from outside of her. That is how she described her authenticity, however, she is saying that her "true identity" comes from someone else.
What a wonderful channel this is 🦋 Thank you for truly stimulating lessons!
This channel has renewed my interest and understanding of philosophy thank you.
Did Shakespeare have some sort of divine intuition when he wrote “all the world’s a stage”?
I have not seen all the videos on this channel, I have not read all of Mr. Moeller's books, although I have read a couple on Luhmann who I am also very fond of, and I appreciate the intent of alleviating an overemphasis on these technologies as well as the concepts themselves and the explanations given because Mr. Moeller is clearly very good at what he does. Nevertheless, is it me or is the negative language used for the technology of authenticity a bit much especially in comparison to the more generous language I perceive is being used for Sincerity and Profilicity? He states, the moment you feel guilty is the moment that you are starting to over-identify with the authenticity and forgetting about genuine pretending. Perhaps I should read the book on genuine pretending, but "guilt", can be understood as an indication that one is out of balance also in the other direction, i.e. in the direction of not paying enough attention to something or in not taking something seriously enough. I think that the idea is to find balance and I would agree with that aim but I do not see that that aim is fulfilled by taking a dismissive attitude towards guilt. That said, on the whole I do think this discussion and these concepts are very helpful even though confusing at times as well for the reason I have just explained.
Thank you so much for your extremely engaging videos.
I was wondering if you were familiar with Robert Pfaller’s work; On the Pleasure Principle in Culture, Illusions Without Owners? His use of Mannoni’s concepts of foi and croyance as different forms of conviction (regardless of the content of convictions) are linked with, to use your preferred terms, technology of the self, and I wonder what your concepts of authenticity, sincerity and profilicity would illuminate here. Pfaller’s exploration of politeness as ‘magic’ rituals which no one directly posits as true, but nevertheless have, through enacting them, profound effects on mood and solidarity, would seem to match nicely with your concept of “genuine pretending.” Indeed ‘pretending’ would be the operative word as he uses Huizinga’s concept of play to formulate the mechanisms of its efficacy.
If you are familiar with his work a video on where your approaches converge and or diverge would be absolutely fascinating. Again, many thanks.
I wonder, to take a page from Wittgenstein, if we are merely playing "identity games."
After watching some of your videos, I’ve been wondering: is there an aspect of dimensionality, or maybe progression, to these different modes of identity? As I process this idea, I feel I use the three technologies to establish different aspects of who I am. At work, I express a sincere identity as an employee; when playing music, I express an authentic identity as an artist; and when online, I express a profilitic identity as a community member. When I was younger the three would frustrate each other as I focused on being authentic over everything else, but after years of therapy I find myself at ease gliding from one to the other and even finding some unification of the three by accepting them all as valid.
Still, I find it is in my nature to be skeptical of profilicity as I feel it leads so many people to be dishonest and narcissistic. Maybe this is an expression of fanatic profilicity; or perhaps it’s an expression of my own fanatic authenticity.
Many thanks. It seems to me that many people share your feelings about using these technologies--as well as your misgivings about profilicity. I certainly do.
This is certainly a symtom of fanatic authenticity.
1. Why do people curate profiles? Because they wish to form social bonds. This is impossible in sincere modes due to lack of rigourously enforced social roles, and is also very hard in authentic modes due to lack of shared objectives and spontanious meetings respectively caused by the specialized economy and isolating technologies such as cars and video calls.
2. How does profile-centric social bonds encourage truthful profiles? Because untruthful profiles are not recipocated. I.e. if you create a untruthful profile, then you try to engage with people in reality on the basis of that profile, and you cannot live up to it, people will disengage with you very quickly (just try creating a fake dating profile and see how well it works for you). Of course, untruthfulness is still certainly a huge problem in profilcity due to the "fake it til you make it" strategy, caused by the high price of rejecting/firing people. In east asia, i.e. China/Korea/Singapore, formal credentialing systems have an ancient history, and are a powerful and effective response to untruthful profilcity, by providing a factually verified foundation to your profile. I am confident that social credit scores will be incorperated as a critical dimention of proflicity there. In the U.S., we will likely take another route, shifting the nature of work to make jobs much more transactional, allowing people to quickly rid themselves of untruthful empoyment, employer, and other buisness connections. This should allow the natural recipocal forces to encourage people to create truthful profiles. The rest of the rich world will likely split the difference between these two approaches.
3. How does profile-centric social interactions discourage narcissism? Because in a prolific mode, there is no reason to focus on any inner love of your fabulous self, only on the loving devotion to a grand profile. In fact, I consider narcissism as we know it today as almost purely egoism, an authentic phenomena. The profilic version of this pathology is gradiosity, and is best iconified by Donald Trump's brand image (pre-2016 Donald Trump is a great example of profilcity in a pre-social media era). The sincere mode of this phenomena is pride, the dark side of obsession with your commitment to your values. Of the 3 modes of narcissism, grandiosity seems like the least problematic, although that is probably because of my fanatical profilicity.
As for using different honesty modes as technologies to improve our lives, this is actually a key flaw of authenticity. Sincerity and profilicity allow for switching between these different modes, as long as one honesty mode takes priority in any conflicts. Authenticity does not allow for easy mode switching, authentic people have to use advanced techniques such as "mental containers", etc, which is rarely worth it.
Im working my way backwards in your videos to understand how you understand identity. Im now at the point where I think you equate identity with personal identity. And thus always connected to performance and social interaction. This clear things up, as its not my default use of the term.
may i ask how you usually understand the word identity?
While I don’t completely agree with the framing of identity in these videos, they did help me see through the lie of authenticity being the superior identity paradigm. In many ways, inauthenticity is more natural than authenticity.
/1 of 5/ In continuation of the previous post - I wouldn't say that I identify with my nationality or gender, let alone that I'm 'committed' to them in any way. It just happens to be an objective fact that I was born and live in a certain country and have an organism belonging to a certain sex. This entails adhering to a few conventions pertaining to speech, manners and clothing, and the reason I adhere to them is not in order to express anything about my innermost self, but just because it's less trouble to do so than not to, and they mean nothing either way. I can see how political and philosophical beliefs can be deeply held and important parts of your personality and your attitude to the world, but how is being Swiss or Austrian, wearing a skirt or trousers an important conviction, principle or mission in life?
great stuff, i really agree with everything except on a technical level about identity as not being related to a true self, its a question of what level of analysis you ask the question. in retrospect you had one life, one set of thought and so on, this could just be called the true self, everything that went into what happened as experienced. this isn’t particularly useful for figuring our what we want to know about these categories of analysis, its because of the specific nature of the self in the sense i outlined that these modes of analysis are appealing or touch upon our lives at all, but just like teleology, it should contain one sentence namely it has a specificity to it in retrospect. but like metaphysics vs physics, the former tells you how to make sense of the overarching logic and the otnher is about the variously games that can be played given what is certain, like the absence of true contradictions, due to any example you could give of one is simply an example of a deduction and is itself not contradictory ect, only within its own deductive system. in physics or chess we follow rules and interpret outcomes from a rule based system to ensure we dont regress in our practical understanding, and the same goes for identity and these things, i think you outlined that well in the video. All i wanted to add is that the character of individual differences and the character of the features of selves are themselves not contingent on the “true” self, or material basis, or logical basis for identity to be concrete and defined in the strict sense. this isnt fatalism at all, because a thing can be defined and yet as detailed as you want, all if these conflicts and doubts, discussions and reactions are what we mean by free will or an unspecified self, but those features are not in conflict with the notion that it is really spesific, there is a true self, and part of the structure of the true self is the obfuscation of it and the layers of identity, authenticity, single inclinations to things ect, its like that office episode meme, its the same picture. :) thats all i want to add really, but we still have to figure out good moves so to speak, figuring out every position in chess is infact a win, draw or loss by some argument, doesnt make you a good player, bit being a good player doesnt defeat the argument either, knowing that fact changes nothing about how we play chess at least in principle, we know the position we are playing is either of them, but to assign them an objective from the 3 options you have to understand all the possible sequences of moves, the same goes for identity but to play the game of the analytical self, or make determinations about it you have to know everything that goes on in the entire world as it is. its simply futile as a heuristic for doing stuff or even changing your mind, the fact or proposition that the self has an unique and specific basis of identity that is. and thats not in conflict with what you said about taoism at all :) but as you outlined the fact that we cant really get at the difference between ourselves in retrospect and what we want or think we want for ourselves/identify with in the moment fully, and that partly the source of the reductions we come up with, but its still a good analysis to talk about genuine pretending and such, and that as you said points out a contradiction in the way we use those two words, because we think of them as contradictory but they are used in that statement is a way we can make sense of. :) which is all not in conflict a spesific self, but at the exstreme of that argument yiu then have ti view the true self as just the entire world as it is, and how that informs all
the nuance that you are, some portions like a flashlight on the moon might only be so subtly influencing and contributing to you experience that you will never know it, but it is as fundamentally connected to the brain as any other signal, even one from within the same brain, what matters is that the intrinsic experience takes these inputs to outputs that are wildly nuanced in relation to for example a a rock tumbling down a hill, and yiu can view every process as tumbling down a hill, thats how complexity arrises in nature at least in our current view of physics, saying there is a true self, is just in this view saying there is a process going on, the character of that process is unknown in detail, and we cant know our “true” selves in this sense of the word, its just fundamentally the same question as knowing the true reality. anyway i liked the video 👍🏻 my entire point was 1 small detail i hope you see what i mean. i belive what we are doing by doing logic or talking about stuff is actually to play a game as the universe in first or 3rd person same thing, to figure out how to think about stuff, our personality or experience is just a part of those dynamics, but what fatalism gets wrong is that what we think is us exercising free will; projecting the future or having feelings about things and changing your mind, all of those things will change the outcome, and if anyone becomes a fatalist all they are doing is trowing away all of thise things as useless, which they are not, the question is if we try, are we lucky enough to get better at those things as measured by ourselves after the fact? seems to me thats what we are trying to do, and thats might have been predetermined in the absolute but who cares:).
Stupidity is one of the most authentic human expressions.
I am shocked and grateful for your willingness to address this is with both compassion and logic. You have probably heard of female philosophy profs getting death threats for expressing similar concepts. My comment may seem over the top but this has been just a horrific experience for so many of us.
Yes. It's also telling that many of the theorists he mentions are white men (the turn to Daoism may be the major exception). Which is not to say that they're illegitimate; in fact, I agree with a lot of what they and he has to say. But these issues are also discussed at great length and great detail within queer theory, feminism, critical race theory, disability studies, etc. The entire beginning of this video, for instance, restates Judith Butler's argument about gender performativity (except she's more concerned with how gender performativity creates a sense of an originary gender/sex binary, rather than just a generalized gendered self, and then how those binaries naturalize and normalize heteronormative relations of reproduction, as well as open them up to "repetition with a difference"). I personally would be fascinated hearing a discussion about the overlaps/tensions between Daoist cautions against over-identification and queer theory's cautions about left-leaning identity politics.
Unfortunately, I think that if he actually cited this type of scholarship, his work would not generate the kinds of responses that it does; instead, we'd probably get a bunch of people accusing him of having some kind of political (aka illegitimate) agenda. I find Wendy Brown's book "In the Ruins of Neo-Liberalism" very helpful in understanding this dynamic; in it, she discusses the dismissal of both the "social" and the "political" within contemporary anti-democratic movements.
All of that said, I find this channel a much needed breath of fresh air!
I will check out Wendy Brown. Thank you!
I love your channel! All your videos have such sweet sweet nuance. Can you talk about existentialism soon? I watched a video where you talked about amorality and how every situation is unique and particular, which sounds a lot like the foundation of existentialism (at least with respect to how I've heard Sartre describe it). When you add in your discussions about authenticity, I'm really curious about what you agree and disagree with in the philosophy.
I agree with the issue of over-identification through all three paradigms/technologies. But at the same time, similar lines of thought have been used as weapons against trans people (and other "contested" identities). The invalidation of trans identities (for the lack of a better word) lays an implicit foundation to discriminatory practices ("they are just trying to get into our bathrooms", "they are delusional, so it's better to keep away", etc.). The idea of 'not over-identifying / not seeking constant validation' is a good idea to be applied to oneself, but can be disastrous if applied in general (ushering in gaslighting).
First, I don't see how this specific idea can be reasonably used as a justification for discrimination. If somebody should claim that trans people are too invested in their identities, that is the very opposite of the notion that they are just cynically using their assumed identity as a means to get access to the opposite gender. Nor is being too invested in an identity the same thing as being delusional. I'm not sure what you mean by 'keeping away' - if it's just not communicating a lot with trans people, surely nobody is obliged to do that and this can't be considered a 'weapon' or a 'discriminatory practice'. Second, in general, I don't think the possibility of misuses is a valid reason to object to an idea. Third, in recommendations about what is 'a good (idea)', it is impossible to discriminate in a principled way between 'people in general' and 'oneself (applied to every person in particular)'.
These aren't paradoxes. She simply means now she can be her genuine self
Your book sounds interesting but now that i want to buy it i feel like I'm letting the algorithm coop my wants and desires for profit.
well, you gotta use the system against the system. So be grateful you got manipulated into buying something worthwhile instead of something useless, I guess
@@theonlygoodlookinghabsburg2081 I meant more in products in general, but this is a valid point
It's fine to be 'used' if you are conscious of yourself the whole time and are happy with the result. In this case, you are not being used but are using mutually using system to your own benefit and theirs. You are using the system as well as them. It's like someone who allows them to be picked up at are bar one night because they want a one night stand. They might be aware that the person they went with is using them, but they want a one night stand too and wants to use them too. The key part of this is whether you can control over the situation and whether the situation benefits you too. In this case, it is okay to let yourself be exploited. This is a choice. It's really hard not to participate in exploitative situations, the difference is whether we have control over this situation and whether this benefits us too. Do you want to be the gambler visiting the casino one night or the gambling addict visiting the casino every day? The difference is, if you have control, you can ultimately use the tools you gained through your own or others exploitation to dismantle the system, whereas if you don't have control, you can't.
@@SpiderMan-gf1lc And you're the arbiter of what's worthwhile and what's not?
@@amorpaz1 nope, OrangeOwnage49 is. It's he who's buying after all
Very interesting video, as always.
Implicitly, profilicity is described as a modern phenomenon and you map sincerity to certain related but strongly defined roles, i.e. women are sisters, mothers, etc.
My question is why shouldn't we consider all social performance / changes in our behavior in a given situation as different profiles? -- and while you note that sincerity is more delimited -- why shouldn't we nest these profiles into some conception of the "ideal person?" After all, we can simply say that there are competing conceptions of the so-called ideal person which have various profiles.
I ask because it seems biased toward the present (I'm assuming the implicit idea that people of the past had less complex identities / interactions) and I'm wondering why we shouldn't recognize profilicity as existing within medieval/early modern discourses in literature or later ones on science and religion, e.g. Protestant vs Catholic, commentary on governments or other religions, anonymous or pseudonymous writings, etc. Why not just conceive profilicity as a repertoire/technology existing within what is conventionally / individually perceived as the sincere/authentic self?
Nevertheless, I think all the identity technologies described in this video and the earlier ones are useful or productive.
I don't mean to be rude but is this your work or is reportage of other people's work. Obviously all of us stand on the shoulders of giants, I'm just trying to work out if I need to go and read all your work?
Whilst I disagree with some of your ideas, you provide an academic foil to my ideas, which is extraordinarily useful
Thanks in advance
Question: What is the problem that the technologies of identity solve?
One thing that comes to mind for me: They solve the problem of individual people needing to navigate a social world / economy that is too large to know each of them individually. (This seems to apply to profilicity and sincerity anyway, less so authenticity.)
I guess here navigating meaning something like representing the self in a way that is easily managed/organized/trusted by social institutions (for instance an economic unit), or easily interpreted/trusted by other people (as a social unit).
The ineffability of identity seems to share a form similar to finding Gödel's incompleteness in math. At some point you encounter a result which feeds into yet another predicate and continue your journey. In our daily lives there can be many features which require reason to make decisions from heuristics; indeed how boring life would be if every problem could be solved in this lifetime.
Absolutely fantastic, and extremely refreshing. Thank you.
Etymologically, identity cognates with indentical, from the Latin for "same." It doesn't seem possible to me to be identical to anything because ones reference point is always the self. And what is your "self" identical to other than yourself? Even identical twins have different names, personalities and experiences. I'm not really educated enough to participate in a graduate level philosophy course, but it just seems that this thinking of "identity" we should be asking, well what do I want to be identical to?
+
Brother, you deprecated yourself by claiming your lack of education, but then asked the most astute question I've seen on this thread. And this is precisely why I keep hammering the point that philosophy should be an open discourse, because random people with life experience and critical mindsets come up with the brightest questions and insights.
In short, absolutely. Exactly right. The question that gets glossed over here is what should we identify with and why? And ontologically speaking (the philosophy of what it means to be, or being), these are incredibly difficult dilemmas to resolve. What history indicates is that without a society which caters to and encourages role participation, then you don't have productive activity, be it social, artistic, commercial or military. However, if these roles are too constraining, limiting, demanding, or are in some way degenerate or counter-productive, then participation wanes and cultural withdrawal occurs, or fractures emerge and citizens move away from the state, both figuratively and literally (and potentially even geographically, as was the case with the establishment of the Americas).
So the trick would be to cultivate a social order whose roles are demanding enough to be fulfilling and purposeful to engage in, suitably constrained by role-specific standards appropriate to the role-identity such that they filter out those whose innate characteristics are unsuited to the role, but liberal enough that they allow for people's idiosyncratic self-expression, provided that they are sufficiently well-suited to the role in the main.
This might well be an impossible task, if the standard sought is perfection at least. But we might minimally endeavour to beat the social orders that came before us. And attempting to achieve the tasks listed above is where I imagine our energies should be exerted.
Great question though. Well written too. Study Philosophy. You have the knack for it. :)
Well I was Phil major in college but I dropped out to be an artist instead. I found that I really don't think in words as well as in other things so the writing was just too much. But I love the course work and readings!
Thanks for the really nice reply - I thought your point about social roles with enough (let me paraphrase) flexibility, coherence, and hmmm - strength - would that be a fair word - anyway thought this was a great point. I'd push back a bit though bc people are always going to make mutations to the role. even when the role is obey strictly, it will change because now it's not just a prescription, but a living tradition.
So I'd like to add to your idea, and say that maybe, because as you point out, there is a kind of limit preceding perfection asymptotally, what the "role" could be is a series of possible pathways to the role - like a heros journey, or something out of gurdgieff.
Also, did anyone in these comments reference "The Book: How to be a Genuine Fake"? Great little book from Alan Watts
Edit: the subtitle is probably not that at all, lol, but that topic is explored. I think the subtitle is like, "on the taboo of knowing yourself" something like that
This is brilliant! Thank you for sharing your expertise! ❤️
identity is the opposite of what humans are meant to be. remove labels, become free.
These videos are really interesting and informative. Would love to see a video about Hegel.
GOOD EVENING PROFESSOR WE MISSED U
For some reason, the bit about authenticity and Taoism brought to mind the philosopher Diogenes.
I'm always disappointed online by how many online people both misunderstand both gender and how it relates to your sense of self.
I couldn't have been the only one how close the definitions of Sincerity and Profilicity are.
(edit, it wasn't, he addresses it in this very video)
"Sincerity demands commitment to roles. The outside is real, and the inside must back it up honestly, otherwise it is considered a dishonest fake."
"Profilicity demands the curation of profiles. The outside is real, and the inside must be truly invested in it, otherwise it is considered a deceptive fraud."
curation of profiles = commitment to roles
backing up honestly = being truly invested in
dishonesty = deception
fake = fraudulent
and of course all three together are just different way of saying "don't be fake, be really what you appear to be"
Bo burnham explores these themes, especially in INSIDE. Which is getting a lot of attention, hopefully it directs people to further education or awareness
We will never be satisfied by a self-created identity as it will always be false, or as you put it, a performance. Not only can we not create an identity that is authentic, we cannot communicate it truthfully for it will be interpreted differently by every person we meet, and most likely, change according to whom we are talking to. The mistake here is to confuse 'trying to appear' (A decent definition of performance) with our genuine Being (beyond yet including, words, forms and concepts such identity). Although it might feel like we can consciously control and modify the expression of our being to suit our conceptions, if the distinction isn't made that we are not literally what we think of ourselves, and certainly not what others think or say of us, then the very floor of our existence will feel as if to lay precariously upon the scattered minds and feedback of others and indeed ourselves. Perhaps the performance will go well for a while and the audience will play along, but we are not describing our real selves, our physical or transcendent nature remains whole and self evident outside of words. In short, we can try and control how others see us in various ways, but through our control it will always be false, our true self will remain in it's entirety. Unphased by opinions, validation and adjectives.
I think the prof might say that trying to appear as something is part of our genuine being.
Great Work! So glad this popped up in my recommendations😅
I agree with your explanation of the philosophical definition of "performance". Like, I read Mother Night. You are what you pretend to be.
But words have multiple definitions. You have to bear in mind, apart from doing philosophy, she also acts professionally...
To me, it seems very related with the idea about The self in George Herbert Mead. To Mead, language isn't perfect, so, humans always look for a new way to communicate their selves. I think identity works in a similar way.
So the subject/object definition is eroded, or modulated by context. The general peer is an expression of this process
Forgive the basic question, how can we differentiate between which technology someone is using? It seems to me one could say Abigail is using sincerity, because she is committing to the role of a woman, and someone could also say she is using authenticity, because her outside is now an accurate representation of her inside. I'm not well studied on philosophy, apologies if I'm missing something annoyingly obvious lol!
How does identity function when one is (physically) alone? You cannot be performing your identity, because there is no audience (presuming you don't wear your persona while by yourself, still doing tasks you do not authentically enjoy because they are expected of you by society when you play your role).
Am I performing, genuinely or not, for myself?
Have i met myself as my own soulmate, standing as a genuine person before myself?
/2 of 5/ Now, the efficient treatment of psychological health problems is not a suitable matter for ideological discussion, but in terms of outlook on life, I am struck by the way trans people appear to take gender identity extremely seriously, I'd say religiously. I can't help getting the impression that they are much more committed to their preferred gender than many cis people, including myself, are to ours. Somehow having a certain clothing, certain mannerisms or a certain set of genitals is to them, apparently, a matter of supreme importance, of life and death. This seems to presuppose that something about a personality - whatever that mystical feature is - simply requires a certain set of clothes, mannerisms and genitals as an 'expression' of it. However, as far as I can see, such requirements on 'expression', or, more accurately, congruence between different characteristics of a person are conventions established by society - the so-called gender roles. What simply 'feels' right to trans people and what their 'authenticity' is said to demand just so happens to coincide with the roles defined by society. Who says that any psychological characteristic requires a female/male body? Society does. Whatever ineffable psychological features are considered to be masculine/feminine - itself a very dubious matter - there is no objective reason why they must correspond to a certain anatomy. Accepting social requirements is not just something you 'authentically' are, it's something you do - and I would generally say that one shouldn't yield to meaningless social requirements at enormous physical and financial costs. Unless, again, it is to be seen as a medical condition that they can't help, as the case is said to be.
this is exactly why on the last vid before this i said that cis people spearheading this discussion with regards to trans people is not the best idea.
you're blaming trans people for a 'fixation' on a social expectations to perform in 'correct' gender roles, for a social problem that makes bigots feel entitled to invalidating identities based on those roles not being fulfilled. and while dysphoria of body and voice may exist as a separate matter, the 'performance' for validation of gendered terms isn't exactly a fun task. dysphoria resulting in medical intervention is a separate matter entirely usually, and a huge portion of trans folks would rather anatomy not be gendered _at all._ because it doesn't apply to intersex, trans or even a fair number of cis people. as a result most of us are of the idea that gendered terms for anatomy are more harmful than helpful, due to medical assumptions that arise from checking F or M on paperwork (when it would be more helpful to check if you have breast tissue, a prostate, etc instead).
but for social roles, cis people are just as (if not more at times and in some ways) fixated as trans people... roles for men are incredibly rigid, and roles for women are incredibly punishing, and cis people seem to have little hesitation at correcting your pronoun usage or getting offended over diminutive terms that tend to be gendered (bro, sweetie, etc) that are applied to them that they perceive as wrong. amab children who like 'feminine things' are ostracised by peers and snapped at by parents, whereas afab children who like 'masculine things' are constantly affirmed they'll 'grow out of it' or told to be 'more ladylike'. this is a constant thing, and children are capable of understanding gendered toys from age 2 up. this is a cisgender-enforced social pattern, not a trans problem. trans people have to perform above and beyond to get the correct validation from this society, but blaming trans people (esp younger, newly out trans people) of being fixated on that is blaming people who don't get validation without putting in that hard work, because of a society of primarily cisgender people who have extremely strong opinions about signs of 'men' and 'women' and get upset when people or things don't match their expectations of those gender roles.
not all trans people desire surgical or any medical intervention, either. you still show a misunderstanding and apply anatomy to gender, which tells me you don't know the discussions on gender and identity that happen in trans spaces and have a lot to learn
@@russianbot8576 /1 of 2/ Thank you for your reply! Well, you're probably right that there's a lot I still need to understand - I really didn't quite understand some parts of your comment and/or how they related to what I said. Be that as it may, it seems to me that your comment still assumes that everybody simply *must* perform a (rigid) gender role and get 'validation' of their performance from society. Yes, *some* people will try to enforce such rigid gender (and other social) roles on others - IMO, these people are idiots and everybody not only can, but *should* tell them to mind their own business, instead of obeying their demands and seeking their 'validation'. And this is easier to do nowadays than at any other time in history, since society is probably more open-minded towards women doing 'manly' things and men doing 'womanly' things than it ever was before. The way I see it, all a person is really required to be seen as a member of their gender 99% of the time is just to wear the right set of clothes.
@@russianbot8576 /2 of 2/ Of course, you are right, in a sense, that for trans people 'passing' is more difficult than just putting on a set of clothes. However, that depends on what you mean by 'passing'. IMO, it's not all that difficult for a trans person to just signal their basic *desire* to be treated as a member of a gender that differs from their genetic sex. That desire will be satisfied by open-minded and polite people, and frustrated by bullies and believers in the sanctity of sex-gender alignment. What is difficult is: (1) avoiding even being identified as trans by the above-mentioned believers, so as not to have to deal with their 'righteous indignation'; (2) avoiding being even *intuitively perceived* as strange; (3) being perceived by many people as *attractive* members of their target gender. Indeed, I think that these objectives are very often impossible to achieve to a significant extent, so IMO, it's much more rational not to invest a lot of effort into them. However, trying to achieve them is, in a way, consistent with the initial desire - I mean the overall focus on being treated in a well-defined gender-aligned way by society. The question that really remains a mystery to me is why anybody has to want to be treated in a well-defined gender-aligned way in the first place. Being a 'proper man/woman', or just being a man/woman, are not jobs, and they are not ideals worthy of pursuit either, IMO - I don't see why they have to be embraced as such. They mean nothing, and investing an enormous amount of emotion, thought and effort in them simply puzzles me.
The man alone in the desert has no identity. Identity is conferred by others in an encounter with others and essentially what others want to determine is whether or not they want you in their social space and if so on what terms.
Personality could be said to be the techniques we perform to try and influence the identity conferred on us.
Authenticity could be said to be a quality of personality in which the personality is in some sense genuine. It seems that this genuineness springs from a level of self knowledge . The “well
adjusted” personality then attempts to influence identity so that the conferred identity is congruent with the individual’s sense of self. But there are also many social pathologies around this relationship.
In this way, identity and authenticity can be said to be in competition and express a power relationship.
It would follow that “performing identity”represents the domination of the individual by others since their personality is wholly subsumed by the social identity conferred on them.
Baudrillard's nostalgia is that of a nihilist, in his essay on nihilism he mentions his focus is on sites of disappearance.
The only way is no way, the best way to think is have no thoughts, you must have acceptable behavior but only if its done voluntarily
Regarding "performing": I agree with what you explain regarding performing in general, but I don't think that is relevant to what Abigail was saying, which is actually really simple. By saying "I'm not performing anymore" it's abondantly clear that she's refering to not having to pretend being a man anymore when in reality she feels more like a woman. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. She doesn't imply that she's not perfoming anymore as a youtuber, as an actress, or even as a woman. She is refering to the SPECIFIC performance that she was stuck into with her dysphoria, the "pretending to be a man" experience. Hence I don't see any paradox here with her other performances. For sure, I'm happy to hear about all the peformance issus you're bringing up, but I'd wager that this conversation would go on more clearly without going back to abigail coming out repeatedly.
Sorry to be late but two questions:
1.,- in the case of torture, can we say that the torturer and the tortured are "pretending" and therefore face no consecuences, makes me go back to kant
2. In indigenous tales (peru-rainforest) humans and animals are pretending, such as humans can become animals and animals can become humans, makes you think about what makes humans special and separate from the species
Can identity really only be ascertained in retrospect? You are a sum of your past. The appreciation of you by others would be in accordance with them and their perception. You could actually be blind to your identity as perceived by others.
Very informative and interesting video. Another question I would have is: Is it possible to get identity WRONG? Even if identity performance leads to what is here called 'pathologies' or 'over-commitment' or 'identity fundamentalism', are not these still 'right'? Maybe this is explained in the concept of 'genuine pretending' and I have simply missed something.
Not a comment specifically on the contents of this video, but a question which may be fitting, as this channel mentions taoism a lot and you are, if I understand it correctly, of german origin: As a german speaker, I am looking for good, unabridged german translation of major taoist works, notably the Tao Te Ching and the Zhuangzi. Could you recommend any? (If it is okay for you to "advertize" specific works here)
How do you incorporate Social Identity Theory and it's body of knowledge into what you say about Identity? Could you explore this in an upcoming video please? Thanks for the very interesting video!
This was interesting and surprisingly not transphobic, thank you for this.
so here we simply redefined what "performing" means, just to be contrarian, or what? i don't see any other motive, because the now new meaning of the word is rendered useless, since it is effectively impossible not to perform
You're missing the key point of performativity (which uses the term "performance" in a very specific way that is not reducible to "acting" in a theatrical sense--but that's a whole other post): the point is not that everyone's performing, which is a rather banal observation, but that those performances create a sense of a "real" and "authentic" self who comes prior to the performance and originates it. So, for Judith Butler, gender is performative because it creates a sense of a "real" and "authentic" sex binary, which then anchors a whole set of power relations and hierarchies--and can also disrupt and recreate those relations at the same time.
/4 of 5/ This may be a coincidence, but the focus on who is allowed to have the existing roles rather than on questioning the roles themselves appears to align with the spirit of the age: it reminds me of the focus on having more women/black billionaires/generals/presidents as opposed to fighting the iniquities of the system under which billionaires, generals and presidents have the power they have in the first place. Or on the focus on allowing more people from poor countries to immigrate into rich countries, as opposed to changing the global system so as to allow poor countries to become better places to live.
I wonder if your choice of terms obfuscates the point - for example, "pretending" to me implies that it is not genuine, so to describe all expression of identity as pretending is loaded, which you then have to dig your way out of with the word "genuine." Performance is better, but the semantics here can be a problem - for example, a "stage performance" as you describe seems to have the same issue, where as the word performance (as a psychologist would use it) to describe the elicitation of behavior would be appropriate. When you shift to the idea 1) that identities are exhibited through behavior and 2) those behaviors may be genuine or not, then the paradox disappears, yes?
Do you accept Trilling at the end of Sincerity and Authenticity? Should we become a Jesus-like figure with "upward psychopathic mobility"? What do we do with this knowledge of identity.