“It’s not the truth they wanted, but an illusion they could bear to live with” Anais Nin (1903-1977)
Florence, out of Florence and the machine, not Florence out of The Magic Roundabout (different one), enthusiastically greeted the crowd and then entered into a dialogue. She told people she wanted them to be brave. The brave thing she wanted them to do was put their phones away. ‘We are’, she said, ‘trying to create and experience here’.
Tiger C. Roholt in his book Distracted from Meaning suggests we have to have a new way of thinking about the smartphone suggesting that it is not only a problem as a device of distraction but also a device that can disrupt the development of experience. He suggests that during an experience the moment someone gets their phone out and moves their attention to their device the experience ceases to develop, it ceases to be a shared experience - it becomes individual experiences co-existing in the same space. Developing experiences are just too fragile and structurally complex for this approach to be effective. We have to create experiences together. This smartphone distraction is likely to pull you away not even because of what it is, but because of what it may be. The allure of the potential that someone has made some sort of contact with you. A concerning phenomenon that emerges in a number of studies is that there are more incidents of distraction reported when respondents spot other people distracting them by using their phone rather than their own use even though such use is observed during the study. It's like we don't see the problem in ourselves but are capable of seeing it in others. An embedded habit that we are blind to.
There is an allegorical tale of two fish swimming in the water of the ocean. It is a contemplative and thought-provoking story that I’m told is from Jewish literature and is used to illustrate a profound truth about awareness, perception, and the nature of our surroundings.
In the tale, two young fish are swimming side by side in the depths of the water. They are moving effortlessly through its currents. An older fish swims by them and asks a seemingly simple question: "How's the water?" The two young fish exchange glances, puzzled by the question. They turn to the older fish and reply, "What is water?"
The story encapsulates a powerful message about the way we interact with our environment and how we perceive the world around us. The young fish have been immersed in water their entire lives, to the point where they don't even recognise its presence or its impact. It's their natural habitat just like your mobile phone is part of yours. It, and the rest of your environment, is the very ‘substance’ in which you exist. The question posed by the older fish serves as a metaphor for the unnoticed and unexamined aspects of our lives that are so familiar that we often overlook their significance and influence.
What are we seeing unconsciously that we are not acknowledging consciously? What has influence that we don't acknowledge? What are we seeing and, more importantly, what are we not seeing?
Roholt (and Florence) knows that technology actually removes us from creating experiences in the real world and the 'real world' experience becomes the technology - controlled by the technology - we become immersed in the technology - the technology triumphs. The experience of connection becomes other worldly - mediated through the phone - rather than this worldly, but is familiar enough that we don't perceive it as such.
In the vast expanse of social media, where the boundaries between reality and illusion blur lies a phenomenon that explores the depths of human psychology: mimetic desire. Coined by French philosopher René Girard, mimetic desire delves into the intricate web of human emulation shedding light on the impact it exerts in our digital age. Mimetic Desire seeks to draw us into representations - a copy of reality - rather than the truth of reality. René Girard's theory of mimetic desire revolves around the idea that our desires are not inherently our own but are imitated from others. We don't merely desire the object that the other 'has' we desire the object because we want what they desire. It is their desire we desire not the object they desire.
Girard argued that we tend to imitate the desires of people who are close to us, either physically or socially. This proximity makes it easier for us to observe and emulate their desires. When someone near us desires an object or a status, we are more likely to adopt that desire as our own. Girard also noted that modern media and technology reduce the distance between individuals, allowing for the rapid spread of mimetic desires. Through social media, and other forms of communication, people are exposed to a vast array of models whose desires they can imitate, regardless of physical distance. We are brought closer to the individual artificially – and once we have the thing we desired we ‘realise’ we still haven’t achieved being like them so we become disillusioned and move onto the next thing as there are so many desires of people to desire. Before technology brought these people close to us we had less people to ‘desire’ the desires of so our desires of the desires of those close were more likely to occur. The blacksmith’s son became the blacksmith and so on.
But this concept goes back further than Girard’s idea. Plato talked about mimesis. In "The Republic," Plato argues that art, including poetry and drama, should be censored or regulated because it appeals to the emotions and can potentially lead individuals away from rationality and virtue. He suggests that artists often create illusions or false representations of reality, which can deceive the audience and distract them from pursuing philosophical wisdom and moral excellence.
I get this. I’m reading Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier at the moment and I find I can immerse myself in Du Maurier’s world then I can leave it behind when required as the world it portrays is unfamiliar. Even when a books narrative is set in the contemporary world it is still a different world to mine. The book (fiction at least) is not trying to convince me of anything, although Derrida might not agree. It is telling me a story but not trying to influence me in anyway. But social media is. All of the social media world is familiar enough to us and appeals to our vulnerabilities brought about by desiring the desires of others - so we don't even notice that it is not a 'truth world' - it is an untruth world that is so familiar it deceives and traps us - 'How's the water', 'What's water?'
Plato's critique of mimesis reflects his preference for philosophical inquiry and discussion over artistic representation. He saw poetry and drama as potentially dangerous because they could evoke irrational emotions and promote false beliefs - like social media. Instead, Plato advocated for a rational and intellectual approach to understanding reality. Seems like a good plan! But art does not seem to have done us any harm so will social media be shown to have not done us any harm when we look at it through the long lens. I suggest it will have done us harm (and is doing us harm) if we dare to see it. If we dare to see the role mimetic desire is playing and if we dare to see the damage that our smartphones, where all the social media is, is doing by catastrophically disrupting the creation of shared experiences. ‘Remember that great night we had when we had that meal and you looked at some great things on your phone’ - not going to happen. ‘Remember that night I had on my own while you were in the same room as me - on your phone’.
In its essence, mimetic desire revolves around the concept of individuals imitating the desires and actions of others, often leading to a relentless pursuit of validation and fulfillment - which in turn leads to incessant distractions to check for validation. Social media platforms, with their curated feeds of polished perfection and carefully crafted narratives, serve as breeding grounds for mimetic desires to flourish. From the coveting of lifestyles depicted in influencers’ posts to the relentless pursuit of likes and followers, the allure of mimetic desire casts a spell over our us.
As we navigate the labyrinth of social media, we find ourselves ensnared in the paradox of a quest for the authentic amidst a sea of the artificial. The relentless pursuit of likes and shares becomes a Sisyphean endeavor, keep pushing that rock up that hill, with a perpetuating cycle of validation-seeking behavior that obscures our true selves beneath layers of a carefully curated presentation of self.
Amidst the chaos and uncertainty that all of this creates there exists a glimmer of hope: awareness. By unraveling the influence of desire and its role in perpetuating the myth, we can begin to reclaim the direction of our digital destinies. Through critical reflection and analysis we can overcome artificial desires and work towards authentic and genuine connection.
Girard’s insights into mimetic desire maybe offer this. By getting past this obsession for weak forms of social validation and embracing our inner self - validating ourselves from an internal position - we can emerge unscathed by this technological onslaught. As Alan Watts says, and I often paraphrase, if you’re looking for yourself out there you’re looking in the wrong place. You’re right here.