The Soul of Mark Zuckerberg: What DuBois can tell us about Facebook
by zunguzungu
It’s so easy to hate on facebook and its creator these days, contemptuous slimeball that his/its actions and words indicate him/it to be. Still, this quote is worth exploring:
“You have one identity…The days of you having a different image for your work friends or co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end pretty quickly… Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” – Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook and enormous tool.
I’m going to start with what he categorically rules out, the notion that it might be a good thing to have more than one identity for yourself (which, by the way, Michael Zimmer and Henry Farrell also address). For example, when W.E.B. DuBois read Goethe’s “Two souls alas! are dwelling in my breast” in The Faust, he liked what he could make that idea say to the position of the American Negro, how the idea of “double consciousness” could so nicely describe the subjective position of being black in America. As he wrote in “Of Our Spiritual Strivings,”
“the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world,—a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.
DuBois would vacillate for his entire career on whether this was a gift or a curse, but it may be that this ambiguity was what made it such a powerful analytic category, for it let him describe how power inflects identity by describing both the burden of being forced to occupy contradictory categories and the kinds of epistemic gift that this could actually impart. In other words, while DuBois tried to describe the psychic toil of being both white and black at the same time — since black people live in and conform to both a white world and a black world — he also argued that this gave black people a particular kind of insight into both worlds that white people lacked, a parallactic view through which reality became a three-dimensional Picasso painting instead of being defined by (and limited to) the single-perspectivism of whiteness.
Which is why I think the categorical disparagement of people who don’t fit into a single category by a callow white male of Harvardian privilege like Zuckerberg isn’t inadvertent or coincidental, and is worth lingering on. It’s the same sort of thing as when Christopher Hitchens freaks out at the sight of a Muslim woman hiding her face from him, even employing the same “you must be a bad person then” response as he does; an attempt to assert the cultural right to autonomy will send a radical interventionist like Hitchens into full combat mode. And by the same token, a man who monetizes information given value by its scarcity will have the same reaction, not only oblivious to the reasons we might have to hide that information (as he must be) but actively hostile to those efforts because overcoming the limits you set up is how he makes bank.
They see, in other words, what they have to see, only one side of the veil. For Hitchens, after all, “Muslim” is a cage, an identity that constrains, for if you are Muslim, the burden is on you to prove that you are not an evil terrorist. Yet when DuBois used the same word “veil” to describe the objective correlative to “double consciousness,” the kinds of real-world inequalities of power that caused blackness to signify while whiteness disappeared from view, he meant both sides of it, the power-inequalities you can only see if you see from both sides, if you are doubly conscious.
As he put it, ethnicity is a function not of birth but of juridical power; in the best definition I know, he wrote that “the black man is a person who must ride “Jim Crow” in Georgia.” Power is the ability to define others while not being, yourself, defined in turn: Hitchens, for example, gets to tell you about what you need to do, while you don’t get to tell him shit. Being normal to your different gives him the epistemic position from which to intervene, since — and this is the point of it — whiteness is the ethnicity that is not an ethnicity, the ethnic perspective that gets the privilege of imagining itself to be transparent and unlimited.
Non-white males, however, as DuBois was neither the first nor the last to point out, tend to come more easily to the realization that this is horseshit of a particularly green and runny character. Being a white male tends to constrain your perspective by making your own ignorance disappear from view because the privilege of being powerful is not having to know about or exert that power to enjoy it; such power exerts itself, and ignorance of the process is just one of the nice little perks. Hitchens, after all, doesn’t have to worry his pretty little head over the fact that he doesn’t have a clue what the fuck he’s talking about when it comes to Muslim women; white men don‘t have to have real knowledge about minorities in order to speak with authority about them. So when he looks at a veiled Muslim women, all he sees is what (he thinks) she can’t see, never having to think about all the ways he has no idea if this is true or not. His own ignorance is on the other side of his own veil, which he can then blithely project onto her.
However, that’s the kindest reading, the passive ignorance of being on the giving side of a power relation. Hitchens is also, quite flagrantly, someone who enjoys using the privilege of being powerful to do violent things on people who aren’t, be they the Muslim women whose sartorial choices he gets to dictate or the Iraqi people whose invasion he gets to enjoy. Which is where we get to Zuckerberg, whom this quote reveals to be not only oblivious to why people might choose to control how much the world gets to see of them but actively hostile to it (something facebook’s actions demonstrate as well). “Radical transparency,” as these people put it, means opening everyone up to everyone else’s surveillance, but that’s precisely the opposite of a democratizing move if the underlying power relations remain, as they certainly do.
After all, why is it that people want to control their privacy? It isn’t so much that people want to “hav[e] a different image for your work friends or co-workers,” as he sort of innocuously puts it; it’s not an issue of choice for people who need to have a different image for their boss than the one they have in real life. The less the people who sign your paycheck know about you, after all, the less they know that you’re not simply a simple worker-drone toiling away in their sugar fields, and that can be an urgent thing in a time where everyone who works for someone else could be replaced at any time. But even the less dire firewalls we try to build in our lives are fundamentally about asserting our ability to choose; we hide things from our friends and family to the extent we fear they’ll disapprove and make that disapproval meaningful by intervening. We compartmentalize not because we’re split between different notions of ourself, but because the multitudes of identities we each contain bump up against people’s expectations that we each be a particular way.
And here’s the thing: powerful people don’t have to worry about any of that. Just as Hitchens never has to worry about Muslim women telling him what not to wear, neither need the owner of facebook ever worry about being surveilled against his interest or will, or of it mattering much if he is. Knowledge is power not in a Friedman-esque globalization-will-democratize-the-world kind of way, where opening up barriers makes us all the same, but in a much more Foucaultian sense: when you have power, knowledge is the medium through which you exert it (including the ability to believe what you want and make it authoritative). Knowledge without power is forgotten, ignored, and impotent while power without knowledge just creates new “knowledge” (as in Hitchens’ ability to know whatever he needs to know about Muslim women). But since powerful white men can experience that power through their singular and unambiguous identity — and since white privilege is about enjoying the benefits of being the default category without having to do anything to claim it — the sight of people whose identities limit and subordinate them exerting control over those identities becomes a threat, a limit that has to be vaulted over. What Muslim women hid, Hitchens will demand his right to see. And what you make private, Facebook will monetize.
Brilliant.
Love, C.
Many people have been eltganely banning the sun’s harmful UV rays with . Tell me who doesn’t know of the classic shape of Ray-Ban glasses frames? Often misspelled internationally into Ray Ban glasses or and even Rayban glasses frames, the world all over agrees that Ray-Ban still is and will always be the bestselling brand of sunglasses.
facebook has been the wonderful site not only for me but for whole pelope of the world.thanks for creating such social networking site .and wish for your future life..
I have been a blogger for just over 4 years and maaiintn and operate 7+ blogs. I never would delete or ban a comment for any reason unless it was blatantly offensive, disrespectful or spam. Arguments and opposed point of views facilitate discussion and a blog is about discussion, if are just writing a story/article without any intention of facilitating communication then just disable comments altogether.That being said, respect and professionalism are necessary. I don’t ever approve hate speech or blatant disrespect on my blog sites. I have always appreciated when my readers pointed out either something I missed in my article or didn’t consider in making my points, it doesn’t happen often but when corrects or retractions are needed I am more than happy to update the post and cite the reader who cased me to correct or retract something.
Good post, Aaron. One of these days I should post my screenshots of the hilarious attempts at emotional manipulation FB puts up when you deactivate your account.
Don’t compare Hitchens to this man. Hitchens is a legend!
Hitchens is full of shit. His writings on atheism have gone downhill over time, and his view of Muslims–no, of Arabs in general–are disgusting.
Learned, lapidary and illuminating. Thank you for writing intelligently on a topic that is mostly discussed stupidly.
To add an extremely mundane postscript to all this: deleting your FB account is hard and maybe, for all we know, impossible. It’s like the end of a fairy tale — you search through the enchanted castle to find the hidden key, utter the secret formula while turning it in the lock, then run as fast as you can away without looking back! If you look back even once, even if you didn’t try to look back, even if you just had your login stored somewhere, you have to do it all again. It’s almost as fun as Farmville.
Aye, you’re white if you’ve never had to think about what you are.
This is perfection, thank you.
Thanks, ya’all. On re-reading this post, I discovered there to be an embarrassing number of typos, which I’ve now removed; I don’t usually re-read my stuff, and I suddenly feel naked. Am I always this bad? yikes…
This really is as excellent an essay as most of the commenters suggest, and could be expanded to 10,000 words with no loss of brilliance (although that might benefit from a look at Hitchens’s book on the Clintons and maybe some Marshall Berman to illuminate Hitchens’s generation’s take on “authenticity”). But anent the typo issue: I usually see “Du Bois” written with a space in it, like “Le Guin”: is that consistent with your experience?
This is excellent.
@Jillian C. York
Brilliant, Thanks.
Yes, marvelous post, Aaron (and, no, there aren’t usually so many typos!).
Regarding Hitchens: his conception of himself as always and forever on the side of the oppressed minority interest against the majority is exposed yet again as just that, a conceit. Even when he used to be “right” more often there was a always a smug superiority emanating from his “writing”, but now it’s smugness with little more than tics and gestures always in service of his entirely unreflective anti-theism. The title of your earlier post is “Blaming the Victim”, obviously a reference to the book he edited with Said about Palestine. I can’t decide if he wants us all to remember that he did that kind of thing, as a proof of his bona fides, or if he’d rather we forgot, so we don’t notice the glaring discrepancy.
[…] has written a beautiful piece analyzing Zuckerberg via DuBois, and then comparing the former to Christopher Hitchens, another man […]
Richard,
I imagine he has an interest in not looking too close at the question of whether his current work is consistent with his pre-“US invades the world” position; he wants to be on the side of both the powerful and the strong at the same time, just in different ways.
Just great. thank you for framing what’s wrong is much more urgent and material terms.
This is an interesting argument, but I’m not sure you need to lean upon race as much as you are. If you do then perhaps considering this from Fanon’s sense of the schemata would help. I.e., the subject as already forced to create a persona based upon history. Of course, the split in consciousness happens way prior the creation of a FB profile (which might be regarded as a symbolic, but certainly we should understand this split as constitutive).
Wow, good post and a great dissection of a priveleged and naive man’s comment. What I find ironic about Zuckerberg’s comment is that it completely ignores the way countless people use FB and other sites as ways to share and network secretly within oppressive regimes, with dangerous conseqiences if their aliases and true identities are discovered. In such cases, having more than one identity is not only advantageous but absolutely necessary. As an Arab/Muslim-American I have lived my life with at least 2-3 identities at a time, not by my choosing, and believe me I’ve tried to unite them, quite awkwardly at times. The truth is that we do have different identities, that even include more simple relationahips like inter-generational ones within our own families. I might show a picture of myself out in a club to my friends or cyblings but I’m not about to walk up and show it to my auntie, uncle or grandparent no matter how cool and sophisticated Mark Z thinks his new FB social norms are. Multiple identities have to be dealt with at times and for reasons of respect as well as situational necessity. Our integrity and freedom are expressed not by their number but by what we do with them.
I think you have fundamentally misunderstood what Zuckerberg is talking about. You should be talking about Althusser. Zuckerberg makes an argument for self-motivated interpellation. DuBois, on the other hand, makes an argument that is, at heart, essentialist.
The difference between what y’all signed up for and what one is born into–it’s all the difference and your argument misses it completely. Y’all make it sound like Facebook is the state. Just quit already.
I realize this is out of turn with the back-patting and such, but yeah.
Thoroughly enjoyed. Well done, sir.
Online Potenzmittel
[…] is not commensurate with a Zuckerbergian dismissal of all secrecy, or even the more interesting claim that secrecy is necessary for […]
[…] just links and blockquoted excerpts. In May of 2010, he had a big day when he posted about “The Soul of Mark Zuckerberg,” deconstructing one Zuckerberg quote with the help of W.E.B. DuBois. That post ended up […]
I am a third generation american of mexican descent. At this juncture of time Zuckerberg’s vision of everyone hopping onto the uninhibited transparency bandwagon of ones life through FB is pre-mature. Despite the onslaught of social networks the internet has to offer. If you are not on FB now,than you are obviously living w/out it and you will probably not end up using it in the future. Zuckerberg’s vision will come to fruition one day, most of us will be gone by then. The current rate of membership to FB is unbeknownst to me. I believe FB can sustain its future now, but lacks the users needed to take it to the next level. The population is growing older, but at a snails pace. When it comes to the internet there is nothin slow about it. Zuckerberg wants to completely bridge the gap now but he cannot, not now, due to reasons beyond his control. The advantage FB has is time though, eventually FB will get there in 1 generation. After that, every life will make FB part of theirs.
Wow, thanks for writing this – this was most epic.
I have only just recently stumbled upon your blog. I find this post an amazing display of the intellectual power of empathy.
[…] Brady’s writing is of the highest order. I’ve heard many criticisms about Facebook, and many of them very good, but no position has maginified the acute problem of Zuckerberg’s philosophy as Brady’s The Soul of Mark Zuckerberg: What DuBois can tell us about Facebook. […]
I think another fundamental point is that what is on facebook is selective and a very basic representation of any individual. Is a person made up of a string of comments about what they are up to?
Also, who says that the persona presented on facebook is in any way the truth? Most people will not write any negative aspects of their life on facebook but keep it at a superficial level. Also, the persona presented will be constrained by the ‘friends’ that will be reading on facebook. Having your boss, work collegues, family and friends on facebook will constrain the content that will be posted until in becomes about projecting an ideal or selective self.
Mark Zuckerberg doesn’t realise the limitations of his own product which will, in turn, limit the development of this product going into the future.
[…] just links and blockquoted excerpts. In May of 2010, he had a big day when he posted about “The Soul of Mark Zuckerberg,” deconstructing one Zuckerberg quote with the help of W.E.B. DuBois. That post ended up […]
[…] [Full article here.] […]
Brilliantly short-sighted.
[…] dog has a Facebook fan page. The “real name” policy, as Aaron Bady writes in this brilliant essay, is rooted in a myopic and privileged notion of a singular transparent identity. Bady writes: […]
[…] The Soul of Mark Zuckerberg: What DuBois can tell us about Facebook […]
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/02/facebook-real-name-policy-protest
This is enormously wrong. Mark Zuckerberg and his site are overrated. What was said opened my mind and intellectual leanings. I’m glad so many are done with this little megalomaniac and his/its “policy of truth.”