In Being and Nothingness Jean Paul Sartre refers to the “gaze” of another as being the biggest threat to our existential freedom. The idea here is that humans resort to objectifying each other because we cannot accept that other people have independent consciousness. So by default it brings us comfort to make other people objects in our personal universes. However there is tension when we experience the “gaze” of another, because we then realize that we are being objectified in their world. This helps to explain why when we check out at a coffee shop or see a firefighter on the side of the road, we simplify their existences to “cashier” and “firefighter” respectively. When someone else sees us, they apply their own labels, robbing us of our fundamental right to define ourselves. There is a point…
Facebook puts our lives on display to others whenever they feel like gawking at us, which reduces our ability to define ourselves as we wish. Anyone with access to our profiles can log on at 2am and objectify us. As younger generations mature and shed their former selves as most healthy adults do, they may be victim to objectifications based on their “former selves”. Now not only can they not control who is objectifying them and how, but they cannot dictate which version of themselves is being objectified. I can only imagine what Sartre would have thought about this technological slight to our existential freedom. After all, the man was pained by the idea of someone on the street merely having an opportunity to glance at us.
Sartre may have a point however, particularly as it pertains to the inevitable miscommunication of one’s personal identity through the online social medium. It is difficult to keep track of all photos posted, of all things said. “Untagging” a photo may remove the digital watermark, but leaves the content unaffected. Plus it makes a person seem petty and overly concerned about image, a statement in itself. To some extent, the average person is now subjected to one of the hardships of celebrity, without any of the associated upsides (and without the help of top-shelf PR).
But before you grab your pitchforks and deactivate your Facebook accounts to bring down the oppressor (not to worry Zucks, my readership is about six people) there could be some upsides to society here. Perhaps troubled individuals from younger generations will be forced to confront their pasts in a way that brings them to peace with it? Or perhaps overexposure to everyone’s blemishes desensitizes the public to mistakes made in years past? This issue is particularly salient in the political arena, where mudslinging takes the better half of campaign strategies. Independent of any possible benefit, I believe expectations of privacy have changed and will continue to change so that people are more comfortable (or less uncomfortable) with their image being available for public consumption.
Sartre’s solution: Stay off Facebook, never let anyone unwittingly define you.
A Utilitarian solution: Hop on board, say absolutely nothing about yourself and become friends with everyone else you know. Now enjoy the informational asymmetry where you know everything about everyone else and they know nothing about you. (This assumes of course that friends of yours would be willing to add you with a blank profile and that they aren’t employing the same strategy).
My solution: Actually learn what the various privacy settings are, only make friends with people you are actually friends with, and try not to do stuff you’ll regret in front of other people’s cameras.