The Dramaturgy of Casual Instagram
Written by Grace 🦑
In Abeba Birhane’s article, Descartes was wrong: ‘a person is a person through other persons she draws on Ubuntu philosophy to explain the formation of selfhood through other people. Birhane explains through this framework how we are not born into personhood, stating:
“People are born without ‘ena’, or selfhood, and instead must acquire it through interactions and experiences over time.”
- Abeba Birhane
This fluctuating and ambiguous notion of self is often attributed to French Philosopher Rene Descartes's notion of the self-contained and self-sufficient individual; inherently rational, mind-bound self. Conversely, Ubuntu is a Nguni Bantu term meaning "humanity" that can also be translated as "I am because we are", an aphorism that stands in opposition to Descartes. Conforming to philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin’s conception of self, the truth is born between people collectively searching for truth and we need others in order to evaluate our own existence and construct a coherent self-image.
This philosophy of socially acquired selfhood is ever present in the performance incentive that we’re seeing in the online world – specifically Instagram. As discussed in Jia Tolentino’s 2019 book Trick Mirror: Reflections on Self-Delusion, there is a formation of a second self by way of internet interactions. According to Tolentino, the internet is defined by a “built-in performance incentive”
“In real life, you can walk around living life and be visible to other people. But you can’t just walk around and be visible on the internet—for anyone to see you, you have to act. You have to communicate in order to maintain”
- Jia Tolentino
On the internet, visibility demands communication, which reinforces mechanisms of social rewards in the online world that substitute the offline ones. This could explain why everyone is so self-righteous on Twitter, delusional on Tiktok, and seemingly hot and worldly on Instagram. In order to create a version of self that is well-received and nice to look at, one must curate a feed of tasteful images that projects the individual’s idealized self.
This replicates Erving Goffman’s analogical model of self-delusion presented through a metaphor of theatre. According to Goffman, individuals will perform actions in everyday life as though they are actors performing on a stage. The stage in question refers to social media as a medium with the actor as the users of the platform.
Instagram launched at the turn of the decade in October 2010, and has since developed a distinct aesthetic language: the ideal image is the one that instantly appears on the phone screen giving way to a performance incentive online. The Instagram aesthetic is also marked by the familiar human desire, documented in aesthetically pleasing pictures of nameless influencers and a homogenous hotness that seems to blend together. Enter stage right, the “Make Instagram Casual Again“ fad that is symbolic of a collective yearning to abandon the polished and curated images of popular culture and return to a more “casual” version of the app’s past. This movement gave rise to a new wave of “laid-back” influencers who exemplify an uninhibited and more relatabley authentic version of selfhood. This fad encourages people to post whatever they want on Instagram—a large bug you saw on the ground, cooking dinner, a blurry picture of an abandoned chair on the sidewalk and weeping while holding up a peace sign. Being a try-hard is out, according to this fad, the new trend is to be authentic and project an effortless spontaneity to the world that rejects the idealized curation of Instagram’s past.
Or so they say.
Or so they say. While this fad yearns to cast away the straining curation the app has become known for, it remains an ironic theatric demonstration. The actor sheds one role for another but remains onstage nonetheless. Be honest, no matter how easygoing and “casual” an Instagram presence might seem, it is unrealistic to think that the app will return to its roots of a relaxed and carefree posting experience. The “casual” Instagram experience is an artifice of performance that claims to be authentic but is truly just the same curated collection that it was before, just with blurrier photos.
4 notes
·
View notes
no but the way he shares this with us. these intimate bts shots of them hanging out in their lounge clothes, completely in their comfort zone. it's so personal it's so real it feels like i'm seeing my friends' post on insta after a messy holiday. it's also such a flex that your band and crew are all friends and so fucking happy just to be a part of it all
145 notes
·
View notes
A apt distinction between Dafpork and Baffy (followed by a long ramble)
Since the looney tunes show era, it's not uncommon for looney tunes fans and even modern looney tunes to define Daffy and Porky's dynamic to be of the bully and doormat variant. Doesn't help when the latter half of the classic looney tunes shorts assert Daffy to be dull but domineering, and Porky to be competent but meek.
I don't reject these portrayals, but I do find it reductive to reduce Porky's aptitude for hubris, or Daffy's capacity for emotional intelligence... sometimes intelligence, period. Especially when people write them in comparison to how they write Baffy's dynamic.
So, here's a comic strip that encapsulates both Dafpork and Baffy's dynamics in a way that helps me summarise my points. The premise is the same for both: Daffy tells the latter a joke.
Here, Daffy tells a harmless (albeit flirtatious) joke. And Porky responds by crushing his trash can over Daffy's head and remarking on the quality of his humor.
As best friends, this is their normal -- usually Daffy initiates by tormenting Porky, and Porky will retaliate (sometimes dishing out more than Daffy may have earned). Other times Porky initiates and Daffy responds accordingly. This is how they banter.
Now let's move onto Baffy.
Here, Daffy tells a joke, and Bugs seems all too familiarised to his antics. Then Daffy pushes for a compromise, Bugs gives in. And then Daffy makes him regret the decision.
As best friends, this is their normal -- Daffy initiates by tormenting Bugs, Bugs anticipates this and usually shuts him down. Daffy pleads with Bugs to humor him, Bugs allows it, and then immediately regrets it (to varying degrees of legitimacy).
This is to say:
Porky can fall into the trap of being a doormat, but when it comes to Daffy, is a lot more emotionally volatile to the point of explosive anger. They're also very good at playing to their roles in relation to each other, making their interactions in shorts snappy, varied, unpredictable and hilarious.
Bugs is more attuned to psychological warfare and mind games, but has a track record of giving into Daffy's whims against his better judgment. He also has shown/admitted many times that he has a soft spot for Daffy, which makes their shorts carry this level of unspoken familiarity that is rarely found in classic looney tunes.
In the shorts, Dafpork operate like the duo that click the moment they clock each other, while Baffy operate like the duo with undisclosed history. Which I find super interesting when in terms of chronology, it should technically be the other way around since Dafpork shorts are greater in bulk and came way earlier before Baffy.
All this goes to show that truly, in my heart of hearts, Porky is NOT as soft-hearted as modern looney tunes media may have you believe. And Bugs has an understated weakness to pitiable pleas from sensitive birds.
46 notes
·
View notes