As a zombified patron of the social networking phenomenon, it is hard not to notice certain recurring themes throughout this endless correspondence we rate on a par with oxygen as essential to human existence. It is a well documented fact that few of us can now even go to the toilet without feeling the need to submit a lengthy report of the event to countless friends, girlfriends and mostly forgotten colleagues from some office we may have frequented 20 years ago. Most of us, of course, trawl the social networking sites in search of anything sufficiently amusing to distract us from the reality of our own mundane existence. As we escape into a world of wit, wisdom and shared holiday photos, life becomes that bit more bearable nestled amidst the occasionally inspirational offerings of our circle of similarly attention-bent acquaintances. However, those more astute attention seekers amongst us are in the process required to sift through a perpetual stream of decidedly uninspiring “Status” posts in order to reach such hidden gems.
But are these banal statements to be dismissed so quickly? Here, in an excerpt from his new book, “Social Networking and the Subconscious,” Dr Leonard Hirschbaum examines the use of the Facebook status as a vehicle for profound insight in the modern world. Viewed by many academics as a cornerstone for the future of psychiatry, his groundbreaking work questions the validity of the inane Facebook status as a symbol of mental vacuity, suggesting instead it may actually be indicative of a deeply perceptive mind.
The following passages contain Hirschbaum’s interpretation of some typical correspondence between several Facebook “friends.” These friends were selected at random from a group of socially promiscuous young adults recently observed at the Mount Sedorf Institute for the Slightly Simple.
Case Study 1: Housework as an expression of hostility and repressed desire
Dawn Hughes: “Dishes washed, dried and put away, washing machine on, time for the soaps...”
Becci McAndrew likes this.
Becci McAndrew: “You need a dishwasher. Lol.”
Dawn Hughes: “Lol. I wish... a fireman would be nice”
Becci McAndrew: “Ooh yes, that hose would be handy...”
Clare Dawson likes this.
Clare Dawson: “Lol! Just settling down for the soaps too – my bathroom and toilet are now gleaming... Bliss!”
Dr Hirschbaum’s Interpretation:
Here we have a typical exchange between like-minded people who see their relaxation time watching television as divine reward for their efforts performing routine household chores. In the first statement, Dawn Hughes claims to have not only washed her dishes, but also to have dried them and “put [them] away.” This can be seen not only as representative of a need for extreme order, but also as an aggressive statement towards any inactive partner present (or not present) who may have been expected to assist in the ritual. Becci McAndrew’s bitingly sarcastic response, suggesting that the use of a dishwasher may go some way to ease the burden of dishwashing, is clearly an attempt (for presumably personal reasons) to “fan the flames” of a situation that is evidently already getting out of hand. This loss of control is perfectly illustrated by Dawn Hughes in her subsequent statement in which she wishes for a Fireman to arrive at her home to assist in domestic matters. The significance of her choice in a “Fireman” should of course not be overlooked, with its Freudian implications regarding fire hoses (hinted at in Becci McAndrew’s response: “Ooh yes, that hose would be handy...”), and also the scaling of tall buildings with said fire hose in tow. Further, her hostility towards a presumably underperforming spouse is only thinly veiled in the comment “a fireman would be nice.” This inability to repress inner fantasy together with the aforementioned symbolism of “putting” her “dry” dishes “away” clearly suggests a pressing need to resolve her marital issues sooner rather than later if a potentially messy break-up is to be avoided. On a final note, much significance can be gleaned from Clare Dawson’s closing declaration that her “bathroom and toilet are now gleaming.” This jump in subject matter from “Fireman” to “Toilet” speaks volumes of a personality desperate to unlock subconscious desires and eventually “flush away” associated feelings of remorse and guilt. To use the word “bliss” in the same sentence as a “gleaming” toilet also suggests an underlying need to be seen as attractive by the opposite sex. If this desire is fulfilled, the patient subsequently projects the so-called blissful state onto the concept of sitting in front of a television set to watch soap operas.
NB. In the above exchange, the commonly used abbreviation “L.O.L.” is utilised several times to express amusement at some previous comment. This particular phenomenon will be analysed separately in a later chapter, entitled, “LOL: Is it the New “Absolutely?””
Case Study 2: Toenail clippings and their relationship with the Super Ego
Gaz Patterson: “Just cut me toenails.”
Stevie Simmons: “Hey! Just cut mine too. In front of the footy.”
Gaz Patterson likes this.
Gaz Patterson: “Lol. Cheryl gone nuts, may have blinded the dog actually...”
Cheryl Patterson: “He did nearly blind the dog, told him to use the sodding scissors instead of clippers.”
Stevie Simmons likes this.
Stevie Simmons: “I’m also a clipper man.”
Gaz Patterson: “Can’t beat the feeling. I file too...”
Stevie Simmons: “Lol. I should file – caught wife’s leg in bed once with rough nail, wot a mess.”
Dr Hirschbaum’s Interpretation:
In this revealing exchange, Gaz Patterson sets the tone for the following posts with his startlingly frank opening gambit, “Just cut me toenails.” His use of the word “me” to refer to himself, as opposed to the grammatically correct “my” is of course highly significant and should perhaps be analysed. Although consciously used to project an image of street credibility, the underlying subconscious motivation here is clear: a chance to draw attention to oneself from oneself (by thinking, typing and seeing the word “me”), as well of course as drawing attention from oneself to oneself (by thinking, typing and seeing the word “me,” but misreading it as “you.”) Finding himself (as well as his “self”) the subject of attention from his own self (himself), Gaz here is also reaching out to his readership in the hope of gaining sufficient attention to sate a narcissistic drive for perfection in the eyes of others both within himself, his self, and also that (or those) of any others who may still be following the text. Stevie Simmons’ response, claiming not only to have also cut his toenails, but actually in front of a football match (for reasons of simplicity we must assume that this match was on television rather than on a football pitch in front of him) can be seen as a clear attempt to outperform his friend. The fact that Gaz Patterson then goes on to “like” this post suggests his Super Ego is shifting up a gear, as he grapples with the associated guilt of his previous post and its unashamed declaration of self-obsession. His subsequent distraction technique involving his wife and a dog apparently struck by an airborne toenail clipping confirms this regression, while his wife herself (who it should be noted fails to cut her toenails throughout) compounds his feelings of regret with her use of the word “sodding” to describe an absent pair of nail scissors. Stevie Simmons, whose own rampant Super Ego has clearly depicted himself (whether to his “self” also is not clear) in possession of the moral high ground, then goes for the jugular by declaring himself ”also” to be a “clipper man.” This mockery of his now-dethroned acquaintance speaks volumes, particularly when compared to Gaz Patterson’s “last chance saloon” parting shot claiming that he also files his toenails once they have been clipped. Finally, there follows in the closing post of the exchange irrefutable proof of the complexity of the psyche: Our formerly all-conquering Stevie Simmons suddenly morally implodes by calmly admitting his utter failure to file his freshly cut toenails, even going on to describe the macabre one-time consequences of this perceived misdemeanour. And so, the clear victor in this exchange eventually turns out to be the collective Super Ego itself (or “of” itself, or themselves), although of course we can assume the dog too finally came through with unimpeded vision.
Case Study 3: Astro-physics as a social vehicle for the near-subnormal
Prof. J.D. Bergman: “Whether we are searching the cosmos or probing the subatomic realm, our most successful theories lead to the inescapable conclusion that our universe is just a speck in a vast sea of nothingness.”
Dr Isaac Rosenthal: “Surely though, recent progress in string theory, cosmology and quantum mechanics has brought about a change of heart, has it not?”
Prof. J.D. Bergman likes this.
Prof. J. D. Bergman: “Yes, but the multiverse is not some kind of optional thing, it’s there and we need to deal with it.”
Dr Isaac Rosenthal: “I agree. One of the things that keeps me awake at night is the need to explain why the physical laws underlying our universe seem so finely tuned as to allow galaxies, stars, planets, complex chemistry and life itself to exist?”
Prof. J.D. Bergman: “Yes, but rather than put it down to God or blind luck, I would suggest that our existence sets parameters that can be proven to explain how our universe was in fact plucked from the infinity of the multiverse.”
Dr Isaac Rosenthal likes this.
Dr Hirschbaum’s Interpretation:
The above correspondence can be seen as representative of the desensitisation of critical thought so commonly seen in social networking. The subject matter discussed, namely the possible explanation of existence, belies a profound lack of stimulation and cultural awareness in the lives of the two friends involved. When stripped of their superficial banter, it is clear that these two friends have very little meaningful to say to each other, probably as a result of over-exposure to common social distractions, such as mobile networking and reality television. Prof. Bergman’s hackneyed opening remark, suggesting we exist within a “speck” amongst “nothingness” undoubtedly portrays a cynical personality likely to be burdened with the daily pressures of the very existence he supposedly attempts to analyse. This theory is further endorsed in his following statement, where he utilises the symbolism of the multiverse to represent his apparently sizeable personal problems, which he finally acknowledges he must “deal with.” Dr Rosenthal, on the other hand, at least attempts to paint a more positive outlook, though having been spoon-fed from the pulp of prime time TV and the glossy world of celebrity he probably wouldn’t be in a position to explain why. His reliance on his friend for any kind of conversational impetus is highlighted by his use of the term “...has it not?” and can be seen as confirmation of our previous assumption that he may well read a “red-top” daily newspaper. Indeed, in his second post, Dr Rosenthal describes his interrupted sleep patterns. This is a common observation amongst the more active social networkers in our study, who often stay up all night whilst networking on several platforms simultaneously. “Catch-up” TV during the following day (often entirely spent in with the curtains closed) provides the opportunity to keep up to date with popular entertainment, while those who are actually employed in some kind of work may be tempted to “pull a sicky.” In his closing post, Prof. Bergman (undoubtedly an Alpha Male) confirms his dominance over his more optimistic though intellectually inferior friend by suggesting his own personal theory relating to the origins of existence. This pseudo-intellectual pomposity can easily be discarded however, when we take into account Prof. Bergman’s already alluded-to personal problems and their inevitable effect on his mental stability. His use of the phrase “the infinity of the multiverse” is a worrying choice of words in this case and would probably indicate an acute state of depression and the need for close psychiatric observation. Finally, as Dr Rosenthal opts simply to “like” Prof. Bergman’s closing offering, we are granted indisputable proof of Dr Rosenthal's profound lack of depth and his inability to partake even in the lowest forms of conversation.
****************************************
Dr Hirschbaum’s book, “Social Networking and the Subconscious” is available from 1st June from some good bookstores. Reserve your copy... well, some time, anyway...
©Matthew Jenkins, May 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment