Masquerade
- imaccolour
- Jan 18, 2016
- 38 min read
Updated: Mar 9
7,853 words
Identity is often seen as a fixed set of attributes defining a person, but it is more accurately a dynamic process influenced by inner qualities, external representations, and layered experiences. Modern communication channels like media, advertising, and technology shape these ideals, promoting unattainable standards of beauty, health, and success. While the impact of these images on identity formation is complex and varied, their pervasive presence is undeniable. This has led to a rise in individuals adopting inauthentic identities, driven by societal pressures and media influences.
This thesis explores the postmodernist view of identity as a performance, while also considering the potential benefits of flexible, pre-made identities that individuals can adopt and discard. The terms identity, self, and inner ego will be used interchangeably to refer to an individual's inner qualities.
Ch.1: Is there anyone there?
There are innumerable factors that define identity, and while it could be argued that identity is unfaltering and constant, like nationality, this fails to recognise how much of our identity is shaped through the lens of others. ʻTo look like nobody else is a sufficiently mortifying reflection; to be in danger of being mistaken for one of the rabble is worseʼ (Quentin Bell, On Human Finery cited in Robinson, 1961). Bellʼs observation highlights the fine line between dressing like nobody else and being lost in sameness, can be used to also comment on the contradictory human need to be socially acceptable while preserving a unique sense of self (Layder, 2004). This introduces the important notion that people are inherently accustomed to change in response to snap judgments. In order to control that process, one must present their desired persona to the world, not just through outer representation but also through social interaction and performance.
Dramaturgical sociology, a notion coined by Goffman (1959), uses this notion of social interaction through the metaphor of theatre. From this perspective, people are the actors and social interaction the stage; actors present their repertoire of characters in order to create, maintain and deliver a particular self to different audiences. The notion of different situations requiring different behaviour is common knowledge (Rowan, 1990), however the argument lies not in the recognition of the different selves but between authenticity and performance.
Shakespeare fully comprehended this notion that people develop throughout their life through the medium of performance. ʻAll the worldʼs a stage, and all the men and women are merely players; they have their exits and entrances, and one man in his time plays many partsʼ (Shakespeare, 2006). By comparing life to a play, Shakespeare alludes to the notion that our lives are a product of social interaction, performance and crucial observation of the role provides greater understanding of the individuals responsibilities in society (McCraken, 2008). Also, the medium of theatre made performance seem enjoyable and enriching, a way of controlling how others perceive you (Finkelstein, 2007) but due to societal customs it placed restraints on individual freedom, especially in Shakespeareʼs era. Therefore, it is never clear whether the essential dialogue and exchange of information between performer and observer is a true reflection of the inner self.
A crucial part of dramaturgical theory is the role or mask one adopts, and while the role is generally an image the actor wants to portray, it becomes a marker of a self that the individual projects. ʻThe self is dissolved into the various masks that one adoptsʼ (Negrin, 2008, p.24). This theory is unlike many traditional concepts of inner self as an internal entity (Butt, 2004), but it is a self that arises once a performance takes place and therefore in order to fully express oneself one needs many masks and characters (Schwartz, 2004). While this can be seen to fuel commodity culture, this fails to address the influence of contemporary society on identity formation. Individuals are consistently told to recreate themselves, integrate and discard identities and lifestyles as per societyʼs customs (Gergen 1991). For many, pre-occupying one with consuming identities and reenacting them can be simultaneously entertaining, fulfilling and tedious, nevertheless it is part of their psyche, an authentic identity in exchange for social acceptability.
The social reality is dependent on many aspects of theatre, not just the role but also script (conversation), stage (setting) and costume (appearance), all of which provide individuals with the tools to manipulate their audiences' perceptions of reality. ʻWhen we think of those who present a false front or ʻonlyʼ a front, of those who dissemble, deceive, and defraud, we think of a discrepancy between fostered appearances and realityʼ (Goffman, 1959). While it is naïve to assume that the disguise is in some way devious, it does lead to a certain level of insincerity and insecurity (Heine, 1971). The fragile dependency between actor, audience and performance has become crucial to the understanding of identity where creating and successfully executing a particular image or mask, false or real, has begun to be the sole marker of a credible identity. A notion capitalised and alluded to in advertising.
Image one, a campaign for Mint Vinetu, the advert appears to be a woman reading the classic novel Frankenstein yet what the audience notices is that her face is obscured by another face on the book cover. Coupled with the handwritten style command Become Someone Else, the audience gathers that through reading, the model has become the character. In perfectly super-imposing the face onto the model the creators of this advert remind consumers of being able to identify with characters, encompass their world and ultimately try different personas. ʻWhether advertising reflects the present or the future, it supports an image of society, and that is enough to warrant our attentionʼ (Belk and Pollay, 1985). Image one can certainly be seen as a reflection of society and tests the audiences understanding through the optical illusion. Hence, in alluding to society the advertisers are readdressing audiences to the need for a strong narrative and to show that classic literature, sold at the bookstore, fulfils this.
Furthermore, on a connotative level, the image arguably reflects the academic argument that behind the façade there is no inner self (Marcuse, 2002). When taking this into consideration, the image takes on another meaning. Directly behind the illustrated face are the words of an author, specifically a script of someone elseʼs life. While academics have argued that we are only ourselves in relation to others (Doniger, 2005), the preoccupation with social behaviour has led identity to be defined not as a set of unique traits but as a cast of characters. ʻThe false faces of the urban masquerade not only hide identity, but no one would know who it was even if he peekedʼ (Klapp, 1969). A society full of masked individuals has taught us to always try and unmask the actor, to reveal some authentic personality. This distrustful nature makes it even harder to maintain an unfaltering self as it perpetuates self-consciousness of the identity within (Gergen, 1992) and doubt of the supposed reality presented to them.
Another compelling notion that must be discussed uses this dramaturgical model and argues that the masquerade doesn't need to viewed as fraudulent but as an expression of the inner ego. ʻWe assume masquerades lie, and they often do, at least on the surface. But often masquerades tell a deeper truth, that masquerading as ourselves reaffirms an enduring self inside us, which does not change even in our masquerades, intentional or helpless, make us look different to othersʼ (Doniger, 2005). Doniger challenges this assumption that the façade hides the inner self, or lack thereof, by maintaining that in being you the masquerading process changes from concealing to revealing the truth. ʻThe paradox of the masquerade appears to be that it presents truth in the shape of deception... it reveals in the process of concealingʼ (Tseelon, 2001). In this way individuals use the inner self as a tool to overcome a society that champions falsification and to renegotiate societyʼs views on reality, authenticity and identity.
Yet, in exaggerating the superficiality of the role, it still pervades an air of restless self-expression and acceptance from others. ʻThe view of ourselves that we present to others therefore is not ourselves as we are, but ourselves as we would like to have others see usʼ (Benson, 1974). Regardless of whether the performer knows that they are being true to themselves, the lack of knowable distinctions between authenticity and fakery ultimately leads to individuals beguiled by ideal representations of identities.
In using dramaturgical sociology as a framework it has provided an extensive and multifaceted discussion on the dichotomy of performance. There appears to be two overarching arguments that encompass this topic where some academics believe that we have become a collection of masks with no inner ego or self. On the other hand, others argue that despite the façade, there is still a core personality within. While there were compelling notions put forward particularly by Goffman and Doniger in which the performance is used to accentuate the inner self, this theory fails to recognise that constant editing of the self becomes saturated and inauthentic. ʻThe fully saturated self becomes no self at allʼ (Gergen, 1991). As Gergen identifies, the seemingly permanent inner self is a collection of masks that are self-regulated and discarded at will leaving no authentic identity.
However, it is difficult to discuss this topic as a single entity within contemporary society so diverse in response to expectations concerning identity, whether through performance or not. There is a requirement for more case studies of 21st century ideals that contribute to the necessity of performance to further assess whether an authentic permanent identity is becoming obsolete in a society where choosing idealised selves is more important to the development of the self.
Ch.2: What role does advertising play in the demise of the inner ego?
Advertising is defined simply as a way of communicating with users of a particular product or service (Oxford English Dictionary, 2001). It is used to inform and persuade consumers to attain certain products through every possible media outlet, from television to radio, newspapers to posters. A limitless space of aspirations and fantasies realised and attained. The ease in which adverts integrate with everyday life allows the images we consume to not only influence behaviour, values and lifestyles but also promote a certain way of life as being absolute.
The key to the resounding success of advertising lies not with the primary purpose of selling products, but the inscrutable manipulation of the shared fears and desires of the public. ʻCommercials manipulate peopleʼs strongest desires and greatest fears to convince them to buy the proffered productsʼ (Kanner and Soule, 2004). This manipulation manifests in images that are able to promise unattainable dreams by altering the consumersʼ individual and shared reality (White and Lannon, 1977). An alteration manifesting itself into individuals striving for an imagined ideal self, warping desires towards consumption and surface representation with little to no consideration to the demise of the inner ego.
Image Two exemplifies the insecurities and warped desires many people have been coerced into reliving. This seemingly simple advert for a fitness company, entitled Spend More Time On You, although initially unclear of what the company is selling, it becomes evident that what is being sold is the new you. ʻWhat advertising constantly sells is the idea that there is a product to solve each of lifeʼs problemsʼ (Goodman and Cohen, 2004). Though it is clear that the advert is selling the gym as a means to achieving an ideal for all (Polay, 2007), what the image negates is the process of the transformation. This is further emphasised with the before and after layout which alludes to the idea that achieving dreams is just as instant as simply looking at the two photos. ʻPublicity both promises and threatens... It suggests you are inadequate as you are but it consoles you with a promise of a dreamʼ (Berger, 1994). In presenting a dream that requires little work coaxes individuals into a lifestyle that is forever beyond their means due to the restriction of information in how to achieve it (Cashmore, 2006).
This prophetic language of hope is also shown with Spend More Time On You written on the advert. The verb spend evokes action, telling the audience to consume as soon as possible and the use of more makes the assumption that you already spend time on yourself, but there is always more work to be done. It is this language of advertising, persistently challenging and reinforcing the idea that there is always room for self improvement that touches on the increasing self-esteem issues facing individuals and the pressure to conform to Western ideals not on the inner self.
This is further demonstrated with the relationship between the woman and the elephant topiary, considering these are the only aspects that change significantly. The message is clear; spending more time on outer beauty there is less time to do enjoyable hobbies (OʼShaughnessy, J. and OʼShaughnessy, N.J., 2002). It is eluded that she is happier and more fulfilled because she is in control of her weight, conforming to societyʼs expectations, which equates thinness to success, and therefore more visually pleasing and acceptable to the viewer and herself (Finkelstein, 2007). One could then argue, that although the woman has gained self-esteem, she has lost what makes her authentic and crucially an individual. These ideologies appeal to the insecurities and dissatisfaction of individuals whilst affirming the values of society in the hope that individuals start imitating and ultimately identify and associate themselves with the product or company (Wernick, 1991). Advertisers are given free reign to subliminally limit individuality in favour of universal conformity. This advertisement tells audiences that it is important to remain true to who you want to be at the expense of who you already are.
The perceived normality also acts as a mirror; especially advertising that overtly addresses the viewer. One important case study integral to this is the I AM Generation campaign for Nikon cameras, developed in 2014, incorporating television, printed and digital adverts. This campaign is very effective, as it isnʼt directed to a particular class or gender but towards consumers who are unable to define themselves. I Am Brave, I Am Sexy, I Am Happy, I Am Nikon. In providing a handful of broad adjectives evokes something in each individual. For instance, someone may not believe they are sexy while some others do, or have been told they are, but what Nikon does is almost define whom you are without you realizing. ʻIn buying something that has it, or at least its aura - a quality that emanates subtlety - a consumer steps closer to being the person they want to beʼ (Cashmore, 2006). This advert tells individuals that they can join those who are sexy or brave as long as you buy a Nikon camera. Though individuals must already naturally belong to that group, or adjective in this case, in order to buy a product (Williamson, 1978), this negates the manipulation of a desire for acceptance where in which those who do not naturally associate can become part of the group represented. Similarly, in using I Am, Nikon are overtly using these positive adjectives and applying them to the company, making them more appealing and somehow trustworthy. They appear to know you better than you know yourself and are able to see what you are capable of becoming.
The imagery used to accompany this text creates a hyper-reality in which audiences are presented with real-life scenarios to show how people use their Nikon. The I Am Brave (Image Three) captures the moments normal people have, which not only makes it identifiable, to an extent, but makes someone wonder, what does a cricket on a stick taste like or what is it like to have children. In pondering these questions, subliminal or not, there is a deeper investigation of the inner self. The sense of longing or relief of not having children simultaneously evoke and satisfy emotions in certain individuals. ʻThe false categories invoked by advertising... obscure the real structure of society... Thus instead of being identified by what they produce, people are made to identify themselves with what they consumeʼ (Williamson, 1978). Nikonʼs advertisements exploit consumersʼ need to become accepted and unique by displaying the individuality of others through the eyes of a product. Therefore, one begins to associate a particular lifestyle with the assemblage of commodities presented to us (Featherstone, 1991). Everyone is a potential victim of advertising. We begin to lose ourselves in the images and begin to interpret the images to suit our own desires, not our needs nor our identities.
While Nikonʼs I Am campaign seemed to define someoneʼs identity through buzzwords, there are other advertisements that use self-persuasion in order to address its audience. Self-persuasion places individuals in the unique position of solely changing their own beliefs, attitudes, behaviour or lifestyles for the better. In advertising, this is achieved primarily, though not exclusively, through direct communication and an understanding of the individual. Image Four, unlike the previous examples, use the assumption that their target markets have a stable identity and so appear to be celebrating this fact.
The Barclaysʼs Blue scheme (Image four) rewards you for being you. This broad and unspecific slogan provides Barclays to sell to different markets at the same time, providing greater market incentive (Klein, 2010). At first glance this unusual slogan asks very little of the consumer but questions the viewer whether they are prepared to earn the implied reward and if so one must join Barclays Bank. The information as to what the reward is excluded, but the other slogan, earn rewards, save money, slightly contradicts the initial phrase. In order to be rewarded by Barclays Blue you need to be a Barclayʼs customer in order to save money. The notion of becoming a Barclayʼs customer in order to claim rewards is unsurprising, but the reference to being you is baffling because what if being you means joining HSBC or First Direct then pretending to be someone else in order to take advantage of these rewards goes against this philosophy. A misrepresentation perfectly summed up by Sinclair (1987): ʻʻImperfectʼ information is made to seek out perspective consumers - whether they want it or notʼ (Sinclair, 1987). Although this advert appears to be championing the individual and their uniqueness, it only communicates to those who already hold Barclays in high regard, to those unsure of who they are but not to those who know who they are.
The vast and varied visually stimulating images that consistently expose individuals to fantasies and aspirations have the unique ability of affecting values, reality and eventually identity, whether consciously or overtly. Analysing the Spend More Time On You advertisement and Nikonʼs I Am campaign provided a greater understanding of how advertisers can subliminally warp desires and reality in order to sell a product. Both campaigns were able to influence consumers in presenting a desirable reflection of the everyday individual. A consumer can reconstruct and maintain a new and improved identity through the consumption of this product (Cashmore, 2006). Conversely, the Barclays advert encompassed different identities by presuming individuals have an authentic self and rewarding them for that. However, while one could argue that it is difficult to discuss consumersʼ response as it is not only a private but ineffective for many, the simple act of glancing enables the ability to view oneself as incomplete. This inevitably leads many individuals pursuing multiple, customisable and changeable identities through consumption in the hope of satisfying the false needs advertisers create.
Ch.3: Are we increasingly becoming the reality television tropes we watch?
Reality television, ʻLove It or Hate Itʼ (Image 5), has come to define 21st century culture, irrevocably changing the television landscape. In staging a mediated reality as authentic itʼs able to assert, challenge and alter our assumptions concerning beauty, health, relationships and money, to name a few. Its growing popularity with audiences has spawned countless subgenres, and in turn occupying a significant proportion of the medium. Whilst it is impossible to discuss every format of this genre, this chapter will primarily focus on the fictionalised identities shown and the response from audiences either negating or assuming said identities, however temporary.
It is common knowledge that the reality in reality television is a completely constructed phenomenon. Thousands willingly suspend their disbelief of this fictitious reality for the sake of short-lived entertainment. ʻReality no longer has the time to take on the appearance of reality. It no longer even surpasses fiction: it captures every dream even before it takes on the appearance of a dreamʼ (Baudrillard, 1983). This hyperrealism is the inability to distinguish reality from simulation and is used to engage audiences by reflecting the mundane back to the audience. In using this format it legitimises any outlandish behaviour, flawed moral or political views and dysfunctional relationships because it successfully masquerades as factual entertainment worthy of attention (Hearn, 2006). As a result, television executives are able to successfully influence audiences to invest in a scripted fictional reality and develop fleeting relationships with characters rather than focusing on issues and desires in their real life.
Whether it provides a communal experience or an escape from the hardships of real life, reality television provides viewers with relatable characters that are more genuine than those in real life; the mediated reality supersedes real-life (Kavka, 2008). The people paraded on screen are superficially normal, ultimately weakening the distinction between them and us created by the television screen. This unique scope of simultaneously showing audiences that they could become as famous as those on screen (Cashmore, 2006) and a glimpse into how those have been changed by television distinguishes it from any other genre. ʻAt the level of narrative, reality television shows offer instruction about how to become a media celebrityʼ (Hearn, 2006). Reality television provides the mechanism in which participants are given the opportunity to construct and perform a persona others would like to see; to generate and brand themselves in a way that guarantees longevity on television and future fame. This spurious attitude pervaded by television informs observers that it is more important to construct a commercial persona than to remain genuine.
This notion of self-commodification is heightened further with surveillance shows such as Big Brother (2000-), a televisual Petri dish of voyeurism and moral condemnation with highly individual contestants made to perform tasks by an omnipresent authority for the benefit of the viewersʼ fleeting attention (Walsh, 2010). The surveillance format makes a spectacle of backstage behaviour (Briggs, 2010), encouraging the assumption that what is being presented is veritable, due to its live coverage and visible surveillance mechanisms. However, the irony is that cameras no longer provide this opportunity for authenticity but a stage to perform, blurring the line between reality and fabrication of the contestants. ʻThe desire to be watched, to be witnessed by others uncovering oneʼs intimate identity and even everyday rituals… reveals the craving for an observer to witness the minutiae of oneʼs social performanceʼ (Biressi and Nunn, 2005). The masking of actuality popularizes the principle that creating an identity relies solely on performance; the rehearsal of already pre-established images and most importantly the validation of this identity through others. While this may acknowledge the fluidity of identity, reality television suppresses this into pre-established models by inveigling contestants, guaranteeing control over reality and the ideals presented. This dominance upon individuality creates an unconscious fear of being oneself, especially if itʼs inconsistent with media standards (Goffman, 1959). This increases the amount of concentration in maintaining outer ideal standards for an anonymous power at the expense of an internal reality.
The perennial criticism by various commentators who highlight reality televisions destructive attempts to mould the future (Bignell, 2005) and influence viewers has begun to mirror the demise of reality television. Despite the success of reality television, the most successful shows in fully directing individuality use the premise of reality television but arenʼt classified as such. One such program is Friends (1994-2004); a situational comedy (sitcom) that exploited the intimacy created by television and created an environment where viewers could experience living in an alternate world whilst remaining securely in their own reality (Bernstein, 2002). The show was able to create familiar settings, such as the coffee house or homely apartments, which were regularly used in storylines creating regularity audiences, grew accustomed to. ʻThey do make allusion to reality, and that they need only be ʻinterpretedʼ to discover the reality of the world behind their imaginary representation of that worldʼ (Althusser, 2001). In using the appearance of New York, creators were able to manipulate and limit what is representative of American culture making the hyper-reality seen on Friends more believable and all encompassing (Hegarty, 2004).
But the secret to Friendsʼ success was the six recurrent characters. They became the ideal friendship group with each main protagonist distinguishable by a unique set of traits. What made these characters more realistic than reality participants was due to the fact that none of was perfect. The irrational fears, foolish emotions and desires are all reflective of real-life, contributing to its sustained popularity (Quaglio, 1980). This was encouraged by its format as a comedy where audiences were encouraged to laugh, with the help of a laughter track and live audience, at these charactersʼ human imperfections. While reality television also encourages this, in Friends laughter was used to not laugh at characters but laugh with. In encouraging association it made the characters almost caricatured version of the public allowing self-mockery and accept imperfections. While this may liberate audiences to see critical truths and ways to address them, it created a sense of familiarity and intimacy where there was none (Cashmore, 2006). This false familiarity has created a culture where audiences allow themselves to be seduced by television shows offering escapism, enlightenment or entertainment where many have come to emulate the look, actions and views of these characters leading to the disillusionment of reality (Benson, 1974) and the falsity of identity.
Friendsʼ highly popular formula cemented the characters in television history and in the populacesʼ minds, continuing to do so. As a result, the actorʼs who played them become virtually anonymous, the character and person become indistinguishable (Langer, 2006). This has been exploited by Episodes (2011-), by using Matt Le Blanc the creators were able to dismantle the image of him and the associations he has with the beloved show Friends. From highlighting the inescapable connection between Matt Le Blanc and the beloved character Joey twelve years later to a surprise cameo from David Schwimmer who, like Le Blanc has lost contact with the other Friends casts in the show touches on the mediaʼs relentless fuelling of nostalgia surrounding Friends. Many individuals, as a result, have become disillusioned about what makes an authentic identity because of the emphasis on character and performance. The preferential treatment of outer ideals over an authentic permanent identity highlights the notion of reality become progressively weakened (Sontag, 1999).
This reality is further undermined with the dismantling of Matt LeBlancʼs public image, becoming a classic pseudo-celebrity stereotype; exposing the distorted truths told by reality television and the mass media through self-mockery. This is underlined by the representation of normality played by Beverly and Sean, two outsiders to the world of Hollywood. Their attempts in the first season to remain authentic to their original script and the ultimate re-working and deliberate oversimplification of said script provide audiences with an insight into the workings of television and the executives who prefer representing the copy and image to the original (Feuberbach, 1853 cited in Sontage 1999).
This need to remain authentic is also portrayed in the characters themselves, while initially both were frustrated with Hollywood, but as the seasons progress Sean becomes seduced while Beverly remains uptight and sceptical. It could be argued that they represent the public divide between those struggling to maintain authenticity in the face of the mounting influence of the media and those that follow its ideology. ʻIn our liquid modern times the world around us is sliced into poorly coordinated fragments while our individual lives are cut into a succession of ill-connected episodesʼ (Bauman, 2004). The reliance to conform is embodied in the character of Beverly who projects a fostered appearance of competence in order to be accepted by those surrounding her (Hogg and Abrams, 1988), which gradually becomes part of her identity. The compliance of the socially acceptable mask as crucial to oneʼs identity increases the disillusionment about what makes an authentic identity and therefore a regression of the original inner self.
Reality television is a commodity, full of pseudo-celebrities and false realities contributing to the debasement of popular culture and of identity. Due to the media also influencing identity and beliefs, there are no alternatives and so both consumerism and reality television become the sole reference in the formation of genuine identity (Strinati, 1995). While it could be argued, television shows such as Friends provided individuals with a template with which to base their identities on, and while an important and crucial aspect in their lives, it was based on the presumption that fictionalised characters existed. In becoming the reality television tropes we watch there is a severe lack of original, authentic identities. However, shows like Episodes, parody reality television and the media through documentary-style programs that highlight the irony of believing in the actorʼs character or public persona as real and emulating this falsity in order to maintain an authentic identity.
Ch.4: How did the celebrity become the marker for a successful identity?
Society has a morbid fascination with other people that are more successful and better looking. The celebrity encapsulates this; both idealised and despised for their wealth, fame and lifestyle. Though celebrities do not directly affect an individualsʼ personal life, every private and public detail of theirs is made available through intrusive media. The intrusive media fuels public fixation and adds value them as the visual embodiment of what many people desire most. The marketable image of celebrity alters perceptions of authenticity, fuelling the fixation of the celebrity persona affirms its status as the marker of a successful identity, which, to what degree is variable, can ultimately lead to a loss of any inner self.
A celebrity is someone who is in a state of fame, recognised for talent, wealth or sheer infamy (Oxford English Dictionary, 2001). While there is still recognition of talent, there appear to be more whose celebrity status is ephemeral, helped with the rise in reality television, social media and tabloid journalism. These distinctions, Rojek (2011) argues, of the achieved (recognised for talent) and attributed (known for being known) celebrities have become increasingly blurred. The sensationalism surrounding these figures has become a saleable commodity, encouraging impulse consumption and sheer imitation. ʻAs celebrity becomes an increasingly common component of media content; it is not surprising that celebrity should become one of the primary locations [...] in the construction of cultural identityʼ (Turner, 2004). This mimetic behaviour while a key human condition is used by the media to encourage the populace to become personally attached to someone distant leading to an over-familiarity and emulation of looks and actions (Gonzalez and Bovone, 2012). The exploitation of this in order to promote and harness certain ideologies creates a fictitious reality that over time has come to define these manufactured images as legitimate, trustworthy and necessary, whether indicative of the self or not.
Todayʼs consumers want styles and products that transform them into those they admire (Klapp, 1969), an emotional fulfilment achieved through mimicry and commodity consumption. Image Six, a double-paged article in Heat magazine of Jennifer Lawrence, provides information on how Lawrence transforms into the well-known star by offering the tools to visually copy her process from experts. While there is nothing to suggest that these are in fact specialists, the magazine instructs readers to trust and follow this advice, making the article, the experts and more importantly the celebrity system trustworthy in representing authenticity.
The production of the imagined ideal undermines the self-worth of individuals, surfacing potential undisclosed anxieties ensuring a consistent inclination towards the marketable celebrity image. ʻIdealised media models and celebrities... do not just promote products they also communicate lifestyle and identity instructions to consumersʼ (Dittmar, 2008). The before and after transformation in Image six communicates a lifestyle where appearance constitutes success, which omits the personality and talent of Lawrence that made her famous, and therefore affirming the importance of the Utopian model over the inner identity.
Magazines such as Heat, focus on the looks and lifestyles of achieved celebrities, an identical approach to attributed celebrities, such as Kim Kardashian. Due to their lack of talent they appear to be criticised more for altering their self-image towards flawlessness by the same media outlets championing these ideals. This can be seen in Image 7 (p.28) showing Kim Kardashians, and her sistersʼ, plastic surgery. It is almost certain that this was used in order to evoke condemnation, confirmation or surprise from its readers, enticing them to find out more. The contrast of journalist focus in both Image six and seven, from providing tools to become Lawrence to exposing Kardashian as shallow and fake illustrates the mediaʼs treatment of celebrities. Yet, both feature transformations, from good to bad and vice versa, a visual instruction in how to be.
However, there is no discussion as to why Kim Kardashian has undergone surgery and one could argue that the mediaʼs fickle fixation with a certain persona not only affects normal people, but celebrities. ʻAs long as consumers maintain interest in them, they remain celebritiesʼ (Cashmere, 2006). The ever-expanding casts of stars are made to compete to maintain interest. Therefore, Kardashian is merely trying to maintain public interest through outer representation; being noticed is more crucial than being oneself.
While the claim of media manipulation is well documented, particularly in recent years, when used in the context of Kim Kardashian it provides three-dimensionality to her persona. Her countless photographs of herself on social media and publicizing private notoriety have brought her the reputation of narcissist in the media. In spite of that, itʼs possible that she is herself manipulating the system that made her name. In marketing images of herself in the way celebrities are expected to, immaculate make-up and posing, she is guaranteeing the vast exposure to audiences who, in turn, assert her fame (Cashmore, 2006) whilst remaining in control of her public presentation. Her value as the embodiment of a star becomes a reality due to her very existence confirming it so (Dyer, 1988), cementing her stardom regardless of othersʼ views. In this sense, Kim Kardashian, arguably, is a very successful businesswoman; in endorsing media-driven renown she has been able to create a strong yet definable persona that becomes her advertised trademark (Boorstein, 1998). The clear representation of celebrity as character provides people with a mask that allows the satisfaction of hiding identity, becoming someone idolized without the responsibility by the majority and ultimately remaining anonymous (Klapp, 1969). While this can be seen to cement the ideology that success depends on the ability to market oneself as one-dimensional, in inventing an ideal self it becomes a tool in protecting the inner self.
This split dichotomy of the self has become a topic ripe for discussion for celebrities who have spoken about the struggle in maintaining the fabricated celebrity image and their authentic identity, the public and the private self. The need to unmask the celebrity, as illustrated by Image 5, has fuelled the invasive paparazzi trying to capture an insight into the real person (Dyer, 1998). ʻThe increased opportunities to glimpse into their personal lives via intrusive media, means that people can get ever closer to their idols and spend considerable sums of money doing soʼ (Pringle, 2004). Due to the rise in the private celebrity becoming so common in the media, it not only legitimises the intrusive media but also unsurprisingly becomes a primary location in constructing identity (Turner, 2004). However, the discussion as to why people are so desperate to expose stars as normal people has been negated. While it is eluded that becoming close to stars manifests in commodity consumption, while partly true, individuals are able to successfully maintain a private self in a society enamoured with outward presentation because they see how well many celebrities cope. ʻStars articulate what it is to be a human being in contemporary society; that is, they express the particular notion we hold of the personʼ (Dyer, 2007). Celebrities are able to articulate how to maintain privacy and individualism in a contemporary society culturally constructed by media marketability, which enables individuals, to a large extent, to maintain an authentic self just like the celebrities they admire.
In more highbrow journalism, on the contrary, the demeaning of talent or lack thereof is virtually non-existent, in newspapers such as the Guardian, the Independent or the Observer in the UK are less biased and provide readers with information about the celebrity not the image. The Guardian has written articles on both Jennifer Lawrence and Kim Kardashian, much like the tabloids mentioned previously. The one written about Lawrence recognised and admired her talent and charm; ʻbeing respected might be a worthier goal than simply being adornedʼ (Hoby, 2015). Kim Kardashian receives similar treatment, ʻdespite all the phoniness, rehearsed dialogue… there is some grain of authenticity to the Kardashiansʼ (Brockes, 2012).
In reading both tabloid and broadsheet press, although very different in content, have the same focus. The celebrity. A person with the unique ability to engage audiences from across the world of all ages, holding them high esteem for journalists in both media outlets and therefore its readers. However, this type of journalism is more educated, expensive and closer to reality than tabloid newspapers, which marginalise readers unable to afford or understand the content and while the Guardian website has included a section dedicated to celebrity online the stigma remains. What this does show is how celebrity culture is coming to define contemporary society and this emphasis on character and performance and the sheer bombardment of imaginative ideals have led to a sharp increase in individuals focusing on the outer ʻidealʼ through inauthentic surrogate identities, in this case celebrities.
The allure of fame isnʼt a new phenomena but has been exhausted by the invasive media, as well as communication advancements that allow ordinary individuals to have short-lived fame by appearing on reality television or influential on social media (Noser and Zeigler-Hill, 2014). Being well known has led to a destitute culture that permits fame on the basis of entertainment, ridicule and appearance. To gain celebrity status one must merely be aware of how to become exposed, enough to warrant the attention of the media and therefore the public. ʻCelebrities... operate as marketing tools... they represent the achievement of individualism - the triumph of the human and the familiarʼ (Marshall, 2000 cited in Redmond and Holmes, 2007). While individualism is seen in the few, such as Jennifer Lawrence, for the majority individuality has become monotonous with predictable reality stereotypes and tiresome clichés.
Yet, the media, in presenting fame as accessible, immediate and reachable, many individuals emulate the actions, behaviour and lifestyle of these celebrities and so are able to perform vicariously through another persona (Pringle, 2004; Klapp, 1969). As a result, it makes maintaining an authentic identity harder as society has been misled into believing that having fame, beauty and character constitutes admiration and greatness (Boorstein, 2006). A perpetual cycle of admiration, fantasy, imitation and disappoint which guarantees the mediaʼs role in validating the established values of society, enabling the mass consumption of goods whilst guaranteeing its involvement in the construction of inauthentic personal identity.
The affectation with the concept of celebrity and the creation and selling of this image whether real, superficial or a combination of the two, has become irrelevant. A shift signified by celebrities like Jennifer Lawrence whose talent is negated and Kim Kardashians mediated life that have to adopt the celebrity persona to be admired and accepted, a false notion society have begun to mirror. A process that is common knowledge, from stylists building the ideal images to manipulating audiencesʼ attention towards consumption and in conforming to the beliefs, actions or identities affirms the celebrity persona as inauthentic yet desirable, the importance of appearing rather than being.
Ch.5: When did etiquette impinge on identity construction?
This thesis aimed to contribute to the already established research on identity construction by developing the theory of identity as performance. This dramaturgical theory sees identity as a collection of masks a person adopts in different social interactions with certain behaviour being exhibited. However, while acknowledging that identities are formed through different selves, it failed to contextualise whether performance suppresses or accentuates the inner self. This study argued that performance and the choice of the ideal selves has taken centre stage leaving behind any authentic permanent identity and using advertising, reality television and celebrity culture to support this.
The sensory assault that is 21st century culture has resulted in a culture that prides itself on the ability to choose and discard identities, manipulate reality, uphold certain limited ideologies and negate talent for outer representation. Through each chapter it has been evident that the overarching governing bodies control media messages in order to market individuals as saleable commodities. Advertising reminds consumers of deep-set fears of unattainable aspirations through the consolation of products that provide anointed beauty, success and happiness (Cashmore, 2006). Reality television took this mediated reality further by asserting and altering beliefs on certain issues by presenting the diversity of character but confined them into archetypal roles (Gauntlett, 2008). Finally, celebrity culture, much like advertising, markets an image as the visual embodiment of what the ideal is, affirming that in order to have a successful identity one must perform this pre-established model to be noticed.
It is important to note at this point that the belief that the communication outlets mentioned are solely to blame for the proliferation of feigned performances and mass deceit is unreflective of the full argument. The relationship between media manipulation and the publicʼs emotional investment, which has resulted in the masquerade, provides an insight into the system orchestrating ideologies. It is clear that the majority of people are intelligent enough to understand that what is being presented is a fantasy (White and Lannon, 1977). While there are some who blindly follow this media doctrine, the simple fact is the media is able to skilfully present infinite opportunities to moderate what it means to be an individual (McNamee, 1996). The quest for self-fulfilment is integral and the perpetual cycle of suspending disbelief, entertainment and false hope allows individuals to continually evaluate and discard surrogate identities for the thrill of becoming someone else. Therefore one could argue that these pre-made identities benefit individuals, as they are able to perform limitless roles to either understand, build upon or enjoy the process of identity (Goffman, 1959; Doniger, 2005).
All the media outlets mentioned communicate a distorted reflection of contemporary culture and while it is inconclusive in discovering whether this mediated reality successfully alters permanent identity, what this does highlight is that there is always an agenda. The sharp transformation of technology and shift from substance to image (OʼShaughnessy, J. and OʼShaughnessy, N.J., 2002; Pollay, 1985) has led to a saturated society. This saturation is evident across reality television, celebrity culture and advertising and because there appear to be no dependable and influential alternatives to this, people have become increasingly suspicious and untrusting of traditional claims of authenticity. Self-image is consistently being judged against the ideal identity and therefore one becomes multiphrenic, a repertoire of characters, whether genuine or putative, ultimately leading to the loss of an enduring authentic permanent identity.
Bibliography
ARTICLES
Andrejevic, M. (2012) ‘Reality TV Is About Surveillance’. The NY Times. Available at:
BBC Media Centre. ‘Matt LeBlanc plays Matt LeBlanc’. BBC Two. Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/episodes/mattleblanc
Botton, A.D. (2014) ‘Don't Despise Celebrity Culture – the impulse to admire can be precious’. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/dontdespise-celebrity-culture-angelina-jolie
Brockes, E. (2012) ‘Kim Kardashian: My Life as a Brand’. The Guardian. Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/sep/07/kim-kardashian-life-as-brand
Hoby, H. (2015) ‘Jennifer Lawrence: Whip-smart and Witty Star Who Likes a Good Fight’. The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/18/jenniferlawrence-a-list-actress-loves-to-speak-her-mind-film
Poniewozik, J. (2003) ‘Why Reality TV Is Good For Us’. Time. Available:
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,421047-2,00.html
Walsh, J. (2010) ‘Big Brother: The Series That Made Surveillance Acceptable’. The
Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/bigbrother-the-series-that-made-surveillance-acceptable-2055154.html
Washington, J. (2013) ‘How Reality TV Is Changing The Way We Live’. Huffington Post.
Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/03/how-reality-tv-is-changing-theway-we-live_n_3005701.html
BOOKS
Abbinnett, R. (2003) Culture & Identities, Critical Theories. London: Sage.
Anderson, W.T. (ed.)(1995) The Truth About the Truth. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons
Alberoni, F. (2007) ‘The Powerless ‘Elite’: Theory and Sociological Research on the Phenomenon of the Stars’, in Redmond, S. and Holmes, S. (eds.) Stardom and Celebrity A Reader. London: Sage Publications, pp. 65-77.
Althusser, L. (2001) Lenin and Philosophy and other essays. Mew York: Monthly Review Press.
Anderson, F. (2005) ‘Fashion: Style, Identity and Meaning’, in Rampley, M. (ed.) Exploring Visual Culture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp.67-84.
Andrews, M., Leeuwen, M.L. and Baaren, R.B. (2013) Hidden Persuasion: 33 Psychological Influence Techniques in Advertising. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
Basar, S., Coupland, D. and Obrist, H.U. (2015) Age of Earthquakes a Guide to the Extreme Present. New York: Blue Rider Press.
Baudrillard, J. (1983) Simulations. New York: Semiotext(e).
------- (1994) Simulacra and Simulations. USA: The University of Michigan Press.
------- (1996) The System of Objects. London and New York: Verso.
------- (1998) Consumer Society: Myths and Structures. London: Sage Publications.
Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press
------- (2002) Identity: Then, Now, What For? in Kempny, M. and Jawlowska, A. (eds.) Identity in Transformation. Connecticut and London: Praeger Publishers, pp.19- 31.
Bauman, Z. (2004) Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Belk, R.W. (2011) ‘The Human Consequences of Consumer Culture’, in Ekstrom, K.M. and Brembeck, H. (eds.) Elusive Consumption. Oxford and New York: Berg, pp. 67-85.
------- (2004) ‘Are We What We Own?’, in Benson, A.L. (ed.) I Shop Therefore I Am. Oxford: Rowan & Littlefield, pp. 76-104.
Benson, L. (1974) Images, Heroes, and Self-Perceptions. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Berger, A.A. (2004) Ads, Fads & Consumer Culture. 2nd Edition. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Bernstein, R.J. (2002) Acting Live: TV Performance, Intimacy, and Immediacy (1945-1955), in Freidman, J. (ed.) Reality Squared. London and New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, pp.25- 49.
Bignell, J. (1997) Media Semiotics: An Introduction. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
------ (2005) Big Brother” Reality TV in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave Mcmillan Biressi, A. and Nunn, H. (2005) Reality TV: Realism and Revelation. London and New York: Wallflower Press.
Boorstein, D.J. (2006) From Hero to Celebrity, in Marshall, P.D. (ed.) The Celebrity Culture Reader. New York and Abingdon: Routledge, pp.72-90.
Boyle, D. (2004) Authenticity: Brands, Fakes, Spin and the Lust for Real Life. London: Harper Perennial.
Briggs, M. (2010) Television, Audiences and Everyday Life. New York: Open University Press.
Butt, T. (2004) Understanding People. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Campbell, C. (2004) ‘I Shop Therefore I Am: The Metaphysical Basis of Modern Consumerism’, in Ekstrom, K.M. and Brembeck, H. (eds.) Elusive Consumption. Oxford and New York: Berg, pp. 27-44.
Cashmore, E. (2006) Celebrity Culture. New York: Routledge.
Davis, G. (2005) ‘From Mass Media to Cyberculture’. in Rampley, M. (ed.) Exploring Visual Culture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp.214-228.
Dittmar, H. (2008) Consumer Culture, Identity and Well-Being. Hove and New York:
Psychology Press.
Donald, J. (1996) The Citizen and the Man About Town, in Hall, S. and Gay, P.D. (eds.)
Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage, pp.170-190
Doniger, W. (2005) The Woman Who Pretended To Be Who She Was. Oxford and New
York: Oxford University Press.
Dyer, R. (1998) Stars. London: British Film Institute.
Eco, U. (1998) Faith in Fakes. London: Vintage
Edwards, C. (2010) ‘Structure, cladding and detail: the role of textiles in the associations between identity, interior and dress, 1880-1920’, in Myzelev, A. and Potvin, J. (eds.) Fashion, Interior Design and the Contours of Modern Identity. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, pp.67-83.
Elliott, R. (2011) ‘Make Up People: Consumptions as a Symbolic Vocabulary for the Construction of Identity’, in Ekstrom, K.M. and Brembeck, H. (eds.) Elusive Consumption. Oxford and New York: Berg, pp. 129-143
Entwistle, J. (2000) The Fashioned Body. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Ferguson, H. (2009) Self-Identity and Everday Life. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Fetveit, A. (2002) Reality TV in the Digital Era: A Paradox in Visual Culture?, in Freidman, J. (ed.) Reality Squared. London and New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, pp.119- 137.
Ficher, J.B., Evenson, S.L. and Lutz, H.A. (2005) The Visible Self. 2nd Edition. New York:
Fairchild Publications.
Finkelstein, J. (1991) The Fashioned Self. Cambridge: Polity Press.
------ (2007) The Art of Self-Invention. London and New York: I.B. Tauris & Co.
Frankfurt, H. (1976) Identification and Externality Persons, in Rorty. A.O. (ed.) The Identities of Persons. London: University of California Press. pp.239-251
Frosh, S. (1991) Identity Crisis. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fiske, J. (2010) Understanding Popular Culture. 2nd Edition. London and New York.
Gauntlett, D. (2008) Media, Gender and Identity. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis.
------- (2007) Creative Explorations. London and New York: Routledge.
Gay, P.D., Evans, J. and Redman, P. (eds.)(2000) Identity: a reader. London: Sage.
Gergen, K.J. (1996) ‘Technology and the Self: From the essential to the sublime’, in Grodin, D. and Lindlof, T.R. (eds.) Constructing the Self in a Mediated World. London: Sage, pp.127-140.
Gergen, K.J. (1991) The Saturated Self. USA: Basic Books.
Giannetti, E. (2000) Lies We Live By: The Art of Self-Deception. London: Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Giddens, A. (2013) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. New Jersey: Wiley.
Gilbert, R.L., Foss, J.A. and Murphy, N.A. (2011) ‘Multiple Personality Disorder: Physical
and Personality Characteristics of the Self, Primary Avatar and Alt’, in Childs, M. and
Peachey, A. (eds.) Reinventing Ourselves: Contemporary Concepts of Identity in Virtual
Worlds. London: Springer-Verlag, pp. 213-234.
Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Books.
------- (1963) Behaviour in Public Places. New York: The Free Press.
------- (1967) Interaction Ritual. New York: Doubleday & Company Inc.
Golden, E. (2004) ‘Clothes, Inside Out’, in Benson, A.L. (ed.) I Shop Therefore I Am. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp.133-153.
Gonzalez, A.M. and Bovone, L. (2012) Identities Through Fashion: A Multidisciplinary
Approach. Oxford: Berg.
Goodman, D.J. and Cohen, M. (2004) Consumer Culture. California: ABC-CLIO.
Gundle, S. and Castelli, C.T. (2006) Glamour System. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grossberg, L. (1996) Identity and Cultural Studies: Is That All There Is? in Hall, S. and Gay, P.D. (eds.) Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage, pp.87-107
Hall, S. (1990) ‘Cultural Identity and Diaspora’, in Rutherford, J. (ed.) Identity: Community, Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence & Wishart Limited, pp. 222-237.
------- (1996) ‘Who Needs ‘Identity’?’ in Hall, S. and Gay, P.D. (eds.) Questions of Cultural Identity. London: Sage, pp.1-17.
Hearn, A. (2006) “John, A 20-Year-Old Boston Native With a Great Sense of Humour”, inMarshall, D.P. (ed.) The Celebrity Culture Reader. New York and Abingdon: Routledge, pp.618-633.
Hegarty, P. (2004) Jean Baudrillard Live Theory. London and New York: Continuum.
Heine, P.J. (1971) Personality and Social Theory. London: Allen Lane.
Holmes, S. (2006) “When Will I Be Famous?” Reappraising the Debate about Fame in Reality TV,in Escoffery, D.S. (ed.) How Real is Reality TV? Jerfferson, North Carolina: McFarland &Company, Inc. pp.7-25
Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (1988) Social Identifications. London and New York:
Routledge.
Houtman, D. and Koster, W.D. (2011) Paradoxes of Individualization: Social Control and
Social Conflict in Contemporary Modernity. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Howells, R. (2003) Visual Culture. Cambridge: Polity.
Hurlock, E.B. (1976) The Psychology of Dress. New York: Arno Press.
Iqani, M. (2012) Consumer Culture and the Media. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
James, W. (1905) Psychology. London: Macmillan and Co.
Jenkins, R. (1996) Social Identity. Third Edition. London and New York: Routledge.
Kasser, R., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E. and Sheldon, K.M. (2004) ‘Materialistic Values:
Their Causes and Consequences’, in Kasser, T. and Kanner, A.D. (eds.) Psychology and the Consumer Culture. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 11-28.
Kanner, A.D. and Soule, R.G. (2004) ‘Globalization, Corporate Culture and Freedom’, in Kasser, T. and Kanner, A.D. (eds.) Psychology and the Consumer Culture. Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 49-67.
Kavka, M. (2008) Reality Television, Affect and Intimacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kidd, W. (2002) Culture and Identity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Klapp, O.E. (1969) Collective Search for Identity. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston,
Inc.
Klein, N. (2010) No Logo: no space, no choice, no jobs. 2nd Edition. London: Fourth Estate.
Kosslyn, S.M. (1980) Image and Mind. Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press.
Kotlowitz, A. (1999) ‘False Conncetions’, in Rosenblatt, R. (ed.) Consuming Desires.
Washington: Island Press, pp.65-27.
Langer, J. (2006) Television’s ‘Personality System’, in Marshall, D.P. (ed.) The Celebrity Culture Reader. New York and Abingdon: Routledge, pp.181-195.
Lawler, S. (2008) Identity: Sociological Perspectives. Cambridge: Polity Press
Layder, D. (2004) Social and Personal Identity: Understanding Yourself. London: Sage.
Leary, D.E. (1990) William James on the Self and Personality, in Johnson, M.G. and Henley, T.B. (eds.) Reflections on the Principles of Psychology. Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.101-137
Levine, J.M. and Prisin, R. (2012) ‘Majority and Minority Influence’, in Levin, J.M. (ed.) Group Processes. London: Psychology Press, pp.135-163.
Lyon, D. (2001) Surveillance Society. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
------ (2007) Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
Malone, J.C. (1990) William James and Habit: A Century Later, in Johnson, M.G. and Henley, T.B. (eds.) Reflections on the Principles of Psychology. Hove and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.139-165.
Marcuse, H. (1972) An Essay on Liberation. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Marcuse, H. (2002) One-Dimensional Man. 2nd Edition. London and New York: Routledge
McAdams, D.P. (1993) The Stories We Live By. New York: The Guilford Press.
McCall, G.L. and Simmons, J.L. (1966) Identities and Interactions. New York: The Free
Press.
McCraken, G. (2008) Transformations. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
McNamee, S. (1996) ‘Therapy and Identity Construction in a Postmodern World’, in Grodin, D. and Lindlof, T.R. (eds.) Constructing the Self in a Mediated World. London: Sage Publications, pp.141-155.
Mitchell, T.W.J. (2005) What Do Pictures Want? London and Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Morreale, J. (2007) ‘Faking It and the Transformation of Identity’, in Heller, D. (ed.) Makeover Television. London and New York: I.B. Tauris & Co, pp. 95-106.
Napier, D.A. (1986) Masks, Transformations, and Paradox. London and California: University of California Press.
Negrin, L. (2008) Appearance and Identity: Fashioning the body in Postmodernity. UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Nettle, D. (2007) Personality: What makes you the way you are. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Nochlin, L. (1971) Realism. Maryland: Penguin Books.
O’Shaughessy, J. and O’Shaughessy, N.J. (2002) The Marketing Power of Emotion. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Polay, R.W. (2007) ‘The Distorted Mirror’, in Hovland, R., Wolburg, J. and Haley, E. (eds.)
Readings in Advertising, Society and Consumer. New York: M.E. Sharpe, pp. 291-318.
Potter, J. (1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London Sage.
Pringle, H. (2004) Celebrity Sells. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Quaglio, P. (2009) Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Riesman, D., Glazer, N. and Denney, E. (1961) The Lonely Crowd. New Haven and London:
Yale University Press.
Ritzer, G. (2008) The McDonalization of Society 5. California: Pine Forge Press.
Rojek, C. (2004) Celebrity. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.
Rose, N. (1998) Inventing Our Selves. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rowan, J. (1990) Subpersonalities: The People Inside Us. London and New York: Routledge.
Ryan, M.S. (1966) Clothing: A Study in Human Behaviour. London and New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Sartre. J.P. (1972) The Psychology of Imagination. London: Methun & Co Ltd.
Schroeder, J.E. (2002) Visual Consumption. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Schwartz, B. (2004) The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less. New York: Harper Perennial
Searle, J.R. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality. London: Allen Lane
Sennett, R. (1970) The Uses of Disorder: Personal Identity & City Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
------ (1998) The Corrosion of Character. New York and London: W.W. Norton &
Company.
Shakespeare, W. and Dusinbeere, J. (2006) As You Like It. London: Arden Shakespeare.
Sinclair, J. (1987) Images Incorporated: Advertising as Industry and Ideology. London and New York: Croom Helm Ltd.
Skeggs, B. and Wood, H. (2012) Reacting to Reality Television. Abingdon and New York: Routledge.
Sontag, S. (1999) ‘The Image-World’, in Evans, J. and Hall, S. (eds.) Visual Culture: The Reader. London: Sage, pp.80-94
Sparke, P. (2010) ‘Framing the Modern Woman: Elsie de Wolfe, from clothes horse to interior decorator’, in Myzelev, A. and Potvin, J. (eds.) Fashion, Interior Design and the Contours of Modern Identity. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Publishing, pp.205-224.
Strinati, D. (1995) An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture. London and New York: Routledge.
Tonnies, F. (2014) Custom: An Essay on Social Codes. London and New Brunswick:
Transaction.
Tseelon, E. (2001) Reflection on Mask and Carnival, in Tseelon, E. (ed.) Masquerade and
Identities. London and New York: Routledge, pp.18-37
Turble, S. (1996) ‘Parallel Lives: Working on Identity in Virtual Space’, in Grodin, D. and
Lindlof, T.R. (eds.) Constructing the Self in a Mediated World. London: Sage, pp.156-175.
Turkle, S. (1995) Life on Screen. New York: Touchstone.
Turow, J. (2011) The Daily You. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Velleman, D.J. (2006) Self to Self: Collected Essays. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Verhaeghe, P. (2012) What About Me? London and Australia: Scribe Publications.
Vestergaard, T. and Schroder, L. (1985) The Language of Advertising. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell Publisher.
Walker, J.A. and Chaplin, S. (1997) Visual Culture: an introduction. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.
Warner, H. (2014) Fashion on Television: Identity and Celebrity Culture. London:
Bloomsbury.
Weedon, C. (2004) Identity and Culture: Narratives of Difference and Belonging. New York: Open University Press.
Wernick, A. (1991) Promotional Culture. London: Sage
White, H.C. (1992) Identity and Control. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Williamson, J. (1978) Decoding Advertisements. London and New York: Marion Bayers.
Wilson, E. (2011) Adorned in Dreams. Rev. edn. London and New York: I.B. Tauris & Co.
Woodward, K. (ed.) (2004) Questioning Identity: Gender, Class, Ethnicity. Second Edition. London and New York: Routledge
FILMS
Self Made (2010) Directed by Gillian Wearing [DVD]. Manchester: CornerHouse Artist
Film.
JOURNALS
Ahuvia, A.C. (2005) ‘Beyond the Extended Self: Loved Objects and Consumers’ Identity Narrative’. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 32, No. 1, pp.171-184.
Belk, R.W. and Pollay, R.W. (1985) Image of Ourselves: The Good Life in Twentieth Century Advertising. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 11, Issue 4, pp.887-897.
Belk, R.W. (1988) ‘Possessions of the Extended Self’. The Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.139-168.
Brubaker R. and Cooper F. (2000) ‘Beyond “Identity”’. Theory and Society. Vol. 29, Part 1, pp.1-47.
Burke, P.J. and Stets J.E. (2000) ‘Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory*’. Social Psychology Quarterly. Vol. 63, No. 3, pp.224-237.
Chevner, A., Hamilton, R. and Gal, D. (2011) ‘Competing for Consumer Identity: Limits to Self-Expression and the Perils of Lifestyle Branding’. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 75,
Issue 3, pp.66-82.
Firat, F.A. and Venkatesh, A. (1995) ‘Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption’. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 239-267.
Gleason, P. (1983) ‘Identifying Identity: A Semantic History’. The Journal of American History. Vol. 69, No. 4, pp.910-931
Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J. and White, K.M. (1995) ‘A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical
Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory’. Social Psychology Quarterly. Vol. 58, No. 4, pp.255-269
Holt, D.B. (2002) ‘Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectic Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding’. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.70-90.
Howarth, C. (2002) ‘Identity In Whose Eyes?: The Role of Representations in Identity
Construction’. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 145-162.
Klein III, R.E., Klein, S. and Kernan, J.B. (1993) ‘Mundane Consumption and the Self: A
Social-Identity Perspective’. Journal of Consumer Psychology. Vol. 2, Issue 3, pp. 209-235
Madow, M. (1993) ‘Private Ownership of Public Image: Popular Culture and Publicity Rights’. California Law Review. Vol. 81, Issue 1, pp. 127-240.
Noser, A and Zeigler-Hill, V. (2014) ‘Self-Esteem Instability and the Desire for Fame’. Self and Identity. Vol. 13, No.6, pp. 701-713.
Papacharissi, A. and Mendelson, A.L. (2007) An Exploratory Study of Reality Appeal: Uses and Gratification of Reality TV Shows. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media.Vol. 51, Issue 2, pp. 355-370.
Robinson, D.E. (1961) ‘The Economics of Fashion Demand’. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 75, no. 3, pp.376-98.
Somers, M.R. (1994) ‘The Narrative Constitution of Identity: A Relational and Network
Approach’. Theory and Society. Vol. 23, pp. 605-649
Strelitz, L.N. (2002) ‘Media consumption and identity formation: the case of the ‘homeland’ viewers’. Media Culture Society. Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 459-480
Stryker, S. and Burke, P.J. (2000) ‘The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly. Vol. 63, No. 4, pp.284-297.
Waldman, S. (1992) ‘The Tyranny of Choice’. New Republic. Vol. 206, Issue 4, pp. 22-25.
TEVELISION PROGRAMMES
‘Episode 6’ (2012) Episodes, Series 1, episode 6. BBC Two Television, 26 April.
‘Episode 5’ (2012) Episodes, Series 2, episode 5. BBC Two Television, 11 June.
'Episode 5' (2015) Episodes, Series 4, episode 5. BBC Two Television, 9 June.
'Upgrade Me' (2010) Upgrade Me. Produced by Jeremy Monblat. Presented by Simon Armitage.
First broadcast 2012 [DVD]. London: BBC Four DVD.
'Episode 4' (2008) Ways of Seeing, Series 1, episode 4, BBC Four Television, 1 October.
‘Episode 3’ (2012) The Graham Norton Show, Series 11, episode 3. BBC One Television, 30 April.
Comments