Tats and Mods Lecture Transcript + Slides
From my lecture presentation at Pushkin House with @everyoneisagirl (IG)
Centuries ago, our ancestors fashioned colourful stories of cultural significance and personal identity onto their faces and bodies. As civilizations and ethics progressed in Europe, such practices began to be viewed as more taboo and less appropriate. Writer Emilia Petrarca quotes Guy Debord when enunciating the pressures of capitalism on beauty standards in regard to facial adornments: “The first stage of the economy’s domination of social life brought about an evident degradation of being into having – human fulfilment was no longer equated with what one was, but with what one possessed,” he writes. “The present stage, in which social life has become completely dominated by the accumulated productions of the economy, is bringing about a general shift from having to appearing — all ‘having’ must now derive its immediate prestige and its ultimate purpose from appearances.”(Debord, 1967). We still see this today in the corporate world, wherein ‘81% of hiring managers stated that piercings and tattoos affected their perception of the candidate negatively’(Studio Halia, 2024). The 2020s however, brought forth a resurgence of such adornments in an interesting way- by becoming more present in the digital sphere, through the emergence of AI augmented face filters, skins/mods in gamified communities, and social media digital alter egos. I believe that because of this phenomenon, tangible tattoos/adornments have decreased their ‘taboo’ label as well.
One of the questions that we were asked to answer as panelists was: “How do we react, dismantle, or reconfigure mind/body dualism?” One of the ways that I directly tackle this in my research is how we as users in online communities learn to express ourselves in ways that we view as authentic- with increasingly less amounts of barriers and guidelines.
In an era where expressing yourself is everything and traditional norms that stabilised our societal perception are crumbling down, we look for authenticity and new modes of self-expression. And in digital pathways, such forms of ‘decoration’ are amplifying the space for personal diversity.
As part of my research for my book APEX I asked critical researcher, designer, and lecturer Nella Piatek (@nellapiatek) what she thought about how this can be related to cultures in cyber spaces:
Andrea: Why do you think that tattoos are considered less taboo [over the past 10-15 years] and how has that translated into online spaces?
Nella: I think the online brought a whole wave of new ‘values’ or accentuating some and that would be the idea of individualism, personification- but also the idea of being seen. So, with the advancement of technologies, we started paying attention to how we can externalize more what we internally feel onto things that are tangible- like our flesh- or our rendition online [or skins we use]. Its almost like trying to differentiate because there’s just so much everywhere. With a lot of things being rendered online, you have these stamps of culture- and I think that itself is a stamp of a certain time and a certain [in a funny way] glitch of normativity.
This is where the point of research begins- the anterior of digital normativity. The backend code that led us as a society to perceive in the way that we do now. As in every cyclical Ouroborian process, there seems to be a continuous oscillation between a form of traditional modernity and industrialist post-modernity, that I believe has led to a meta-modernist reality- the new trend paradigm (Evgenieva, 2024).
This is what I notice now when I look at skins/mods/filtered augmented personas, a form of accelerated reciprocity between an increasingly (collectively) conscious society and a changing environment.
A few philosophical theories appeal to this statement: Marshall Mcluhan’s theory of Technological Determinism (Beiro, 2023) and Anne-Marie Willis’ Ontological Design (Willis, 2006)- both describing how space influences societal perception, action, accepted values and vice versa- the former through technology, latter through relational design of self. Willis and Mcluhan are interesting agents levelling the cyborgian playing field, because they force us to think beyond how technology affects us and our daily lives, and take into account how we affect and influence it back.
Thus, is the gradual diminishment of tattoos as a ‘taboo practice’ an existential act, a tangible reflection of human activity engaging in an increasingly free mode of self-expression? If so, then do digital identities/alter egos function within the same framework?
Something interesting was sent to me the other day that I believe works well with this theme we’re exploring:
@modem.works is a platform that explores design and innovation, and this was part of their post for a speculative design film they created for the European Commission’s Future Policy Lab, in collaboration with @purple_martin_studio
The film transports viewers to the mid-21st century, where a groundbreaking device enables humans to experience the world through the senses of other life forms. SYMBIOTIC (the name of the film) challenges traditional notions of intelligence and interconnectedness, with the potential to inspire future environmental policies. Do we then agree that perhaps discussions about the body’s future lie outside of the body itself, and perhaps more on our necessary symbiotic relationship with our environment? With nature? Have you touched grass today and stopped briefly thinking about the economic state of the world right now? … yeah, me neither.
So going back to the question of mind/body dualism let’s first look into what pesky rene descartes means by this: he argues that there are two kinds of substances- mental and physical, and states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot think. His problem with mind-body dualism is that “in the case of voluntarily bodily movements, contacts between mind and body would be impossible given the mind’s non-extended nature. This is because contact must be between two surfaces, but surface is a mode of body, as stated at principles of philosophy part ii section 15”. Through this argument, descartes effectively demythologized the body and handed over its study to medicine. Good because he paved for progress in medical science through the study of physiology and anatomy. Bad, because by isolating the mind, he denied the significance of mind/body dualism in individuals’ experience of health- mental included. Descartes wasn’t the only guy to separate the two of course: we have the buddha who argued that the mind and body were separate but interdependent things back in 500BCE. Plato, who treated the soul as separate form the body it was trapped in. And Aristotle, who argued that the mind was a function of the body. But it was Descartes who treated the mind as a more scientific approach through the induction of the pineal gland, a small part of the brain that makes melatonin, which he posted as the ‘seal of the soul’ and hence allowed for the two substances to engage. In this sense, ‘you’ are a mind- the thing that thinks- with a cute fleshy vessel you use to interact with through a small part of your brain.
And, we can keep going: George Berkeley- or better known as the Bishop of Cloyne- an 18th century philosophical member of the clergy introduced the theory of what we now know as Subjective Idealism. This solves the problem of how the mind interacts with the world by arguing that materials don’t really exist. After all, you can’t have a mind-body problem if minds are all that exist and the ideas that make up the world we are part of. He famously said “to be is to be perceived” and here we are- held in the horrors of subjectivity.
On the side of the internet where I usually reside, I experience a lot of memetic language where to be perceived is actually rather uncomfortable. Why would you worry about being perceived by someone else, in an era where we all seem to have this cover face that needs to stay on 24/7 #surveillancecore when we can be little manifesting fairies in a glade somewhere far from the pointed talons of narcissistic capitalism. We all seem to be yearning for ways to escape, and how could you blame us? When the oversaturated brainrot content we consume daily is an unhealthy mix of genocide and brat summer?
Are these fantastic narratives that we adopt then ways of coping? Is this, escapist nostalgia?
Welcome back mark fisher.
Fisher’s Escapist Nostalgia
The term "escapist nostalgia" was coined by philosopher Mark Fisher to describe a phenomenon brought on by a more negative perspective on capital as a result of increased sociotechnological integration. Fisher noted that pop-culture's simulations of the past are also embedded with the escapist nostalgia for a precapitalist world that mars political protest. The primativist desires of Avatar have taken the place of the accelerationist dystopia of Terminator. (Avanessian and Macky, 2017).
Fisher's thoughts on the transition from 'Terminator' to 'Avatar' offer an intriguing perspective on our collective psyche. He highlights how our culture is shifting from fearing a future overrun by technology to longing for a return to a simpler, pre-capitalist world. This swing in public sentiment is a reflection of our growing discontent with the current sociopolitical climate and our increasing unease with the pace of technological advancement.
I’ve used fisher’s escapist nostalgia to set the stage for a deep dive into the digital identity's fluidity and fragmentation. It underscores the tension between tradition and innovation, the natural and the artificial. The juxtaposition of these themes is not only visually striking but also indicative of the complex dynamics at play in our rapidly changing world. It prompts us to question: As we hurtle toward the future, are we also looking back with longing? And regarding this panel’s question of “is the body a problem, or just a starting point?”, how can we explore this through the increasing use of weird ‘skins’, ‘mods’, ‘ways of life’ and ‘new methods of thinking’ in online spheres?
THE QUEST FOR MEANING
An interesting paradoxic phenomenon I have found during my research is the inherent quest for meaning we as humans yearn to grasp- while simultaneously, it has become a trend to adopt existential nihilistic beliefs with a ‘nothing matters’ attitude as a way to cope with the struggles of our everyday lives.
This debasement of the term ‘meaning’ itself seems to be caused due to the mass-commodification of it as a concept- thus forcing younger demographics like GENz to adopt an existential nihilistic attitude. As Wendy Syfret writes in her book The Sunny Nihilist:
What makes this such an interesting phenomenon is that GenZ is the first generation to grow up with technology having widespread reach to information, and as supported by an interview I did with GenZ music artist Alma: “its enabled us to form more critical and skeptical outlooks on life, because we’ve just had access to more [data]”. But the big problem arises when ‘meaning’ is used as a marketing form to sell products to the masses, thereby depreciating the value of the word itself. As supported by The Extreme Self, “Its not enough to have virtue anymore. You need to signal it to show you have it.”(Shumon Basar et al., 2021), So moving forward, how can we as a society consciously develop when faced with such a [moral] obstacle?
What this signifies for culture-making can be a liberating approach to self-expression online, community-building, and greater sustainability improvements, but also runs the risk of leading to disorientation and existential dread affecting the modern mind. Does this then mean that under a capitalistic regime, where terms such as ‘meaning’ become commodified, the rift between mind and body increase- one where the body is treated as a means for physical output in exchange for rewards of finance and respect of peers? Meanwhile the mind can be left struggling with the overwhelming feeling of needing to seek meaning to reach ‘happiness’.
METAFANTASY AND MYTHICAL IDENTITY REINVENTION
For the last part of my presentation I would like to bring back two of the panel’s questions:
How do we react to, dismantle, or reconfigure mind/body dualism?
What does it mean that certain spaces are now being designed for machines and profit, rather than the movement of bodies?
These two questions in my eyes are very intertwined. As we just explored in ‘quest for meaning’ I brought forth the idea of increased commodification that can lead to the adoption of existential nihilistic attitudes in younger demographics like GEnz. This in itself as you may have guessed, could lead to disorientation that impacts consumer culture, because when you don’t have a structure around you that protects the fragility of ego- critical thought relativizes everything without finding it uniquely believable. So, the duality of mind and body is fought through the problem of consciousness- of which we still know very little about.
One discerned causality of disorientation in an online setting example is that of passive thought. Philosopher Tim Dowdall believes that in the Age of Information, individuals prefer being fed bite-sized amounts of information at an accelerated rate, to the point where they ‘dumb themselves down’ and shorten attention spans. An individual’s consciousness- which Dowdall calls a ‘meta-phenomenon’- is relativized and self-reflecting where they’re able to ask themselves if they want to actually be a ‘slave to this biological machine’. Consciousness allows for critical thought and what makes it more complex than our biological drives is its ability to give life meaning from subjective forces like ‘culture, art, poetry,’ etc. However, if one’s consciousness remains passive to the information fed from mass media, there is a danger of forming existential dread- and that is, the anxiety-inducing despair/uncertainty individuals face when confronted with a lack of meaning in their life/future. This can be common for younger individuals going through big-life changes like entering adulthood/graduating.
So to answer the two questions: I believe online users react to, dismantle and/or reconfigure mind/body dualism through forms of self expression used as ways to cope or be themselves- in certain subcultures this is done in something researchers call a metafantastical narrative. In the same way, what this means for the design of certain spaces to be used for machines rather than the movement of bodies is that then these same bodies (or modes of expression) need somewhere else to go. These online spaces used for that radical, fantastical/mythical form of self-expression is one such way I’ve found that is used. And interestingly in a way, these forms seem to be one of the reasons why tattoos are becoming less taboo and more mainstream, and why mods and skins in online gaming are a common way to express one’s individuality- the search for being yourself without having to adhere to specific guidelines. As Sherry Turkle put it, “when we step through the screen into virtual communities, we reconstruct our identities on the other side of the looking glass.” So then a question arises: If the body is not a problem, but a starting point- which body are we referring to? And if we do include these online bodies into the discussion- are we then identitfying with them because they reflect our desired level of freedom or because they reflect our true limitations?
These questions are very downward spiral worthy, and thinking about stuff like this may very well be one of the causes for identity fragmentation, fluidity of self, and dis/identity. The identity-altering dissociation almost feels like this stable foundation every human has (the base being themselves/ self-understanding) is crumbling. It’s very dystopic, and I feel in a way that its a negative consequence of societal accelerationism, intensified by the unknowing of how our future as a society will unfold. Ester (founder of everyone is a girl) offers a type of solution- changing the perception of what identity means itself:
In an interview i did with her, she said: “It seems that the only way to survive in such a sublime economy of images [one where we already have everything in this abundant overpowering the senses format] is to embrace fluidity and change as your identity itself. Its a bit camus-ean actually,” she states “this idea of transcendental love or hope versus just living for life- loving life.”
The way I understood it was that this more fluid and queer format encourages play, enacting freedom in online spaces. Although this can be confusing and dystopic regarding the times we live in, I believe its also a natural reaction to it. In a capitalistic world, we are taught to be as fast in learning, and as versatile in output as possible. If we don’t even know whether we’re going to survive until 2050, isn’t this split/fluidity a natural defence mechanism against the unknown? And if we take a step back for a moment and reflect on the past, “the moment we invent a significant new device for communication- talking drums, papyrus scrolls, printed books, crystal sets, computers- we partially reconstruct the self and its world, creating new opportunities (and traps) for thought, perception and social experience.” (Davis, 2015).
CONCLUSION
So tats and mods. Our physical and digital bodies. Our irl and online selves/identities. If we go back to the modem works post of the symbiocene era- is that a possible solution of the the mind/body dualist problem? Is the answer in understanding intelligence beyond ourselves, and rather in collective inclusivity and agency?
After all, we only have our bodies and limited understanding of our consciousnesses right now, and all of that goes away when we eventually pass. If that’s the case, then I believe that collective inclusivity and agency represent a constructive path for society to progress in a unified manner. In a world increasingly mediated by digital technologies, our identities are shaped not only by our individual actions and experiences but also by our interconnectedness. By fostering a culture of inclusivity, we allow for diverse voices and perspectives to be heard and acknowledged. This diversity enriches our collective discourse, allowing for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of our shared reality. It also creates a more equitable digital landscape, where everyone, regardless of their background or identity, can contribute meaningfully to the collective consciousness.
Agency, or the capacity to act independently and make our own free choices, is equally crucial in this context. As we navigate the digital world, we must have the ability to shape our online identities and control our digital footprint. This level of agency ensures that our digital selves are authentic representations of our individual identities and values. It also empowers us to participate actively in the creation of our collective digital reality. When coupled with inclusivity, agency can help us build a more democratic, equitable, and unified society in the digital age.
I would like to end this off with a quote written by Shadeh Kavousian:
For the Everyone is A Girl ‘Seduction’ Zine, researcher and creative strategist Shadeh Kavousian summarised this blend perfectly in a hopeful light. It feels like we are at this breakage point- one of loud decentrallisation in online spaces, yet a slow, quiet progression of what I believe is a collective identity and understanding.There is shared anger and fear of the people in power, the wars we are forced to see on our screens, the feeling of vulnerability in regards to AI training on our data, cookies etc. But there is this ‘collective’ realisation that we are not alone in this, signaling a shift towards a more communal, interconnected conception of identity, one that transcends traditional notions of selfhood and embraces the fluidity and multiplicity of the digital age. It is very meta indeed, ‘connected and disconnected, owning nothing and everything’, being one and being part of a whole.