Marcus Aurelius would be disappointed.
In the past few decades, the opportunity for self-expression has hitched a ride on the skyrocket of technological development.
Social media is a force of nature. It’s like death and taxes— inevitable, inescapable, and controlled by elite, corporate fat-cats who view it as a tool to control the masses.
The term “social media presence” is a staple in the average person’s life. I mean, come on, it’s so easy to keep up!
All you need is:
An Instagram for your friends and family— but don’t post anything too crazy, employers don’t consider the ability to have fun a professional advantage
A Twitter, for a fast-paced cycle of opinions and trends that anyone and everyone can contribute to (yes, I mean anyone)
A Facebook to post on your Grandmother’s birthday wall and convince her you’re not who you are on your Instagram
A LinkedIn garnished with a generous amount of artificiality for your professional profile
don't get Reddit
And a Snapchat, because how else are you going to talk to anyone, ever?
Try not to think about the weirdly dystopic, Orwellian nature of social media. Instead, think about how you’re going to keep up with everyone.
Cultivating an effective social media presence means self-development and expression. It’s an unprecedented chance to control exactly what the public sees of you, and most people capitalize on that.
But, why?
Social media is no stranger to criticism. Everyone knows a myriad of ways to pick it apart both conceptually and practically, but people ignore the “social media is making us less connected” cliché, favouring the chance to express themselves online, unhindered.
To understand the need for digital self-expression in modern society, we must look into the historical origin of how and why people were able to achieve self-constitution, or as French philosopher Michel Foucalt defines it, “technique of self.”
Theresa Sauter’s article “What’s on your mind? Writing on Facebook as a tool of self-formation” delves into the “culture of publicity” that makes engagement with social media synonymous with self-improvement. Sauter cites “self-writing” as the primary goal of social media, and its origin dating back to the ancient societies of Greece, Rome, and uncontroversial Christianity.
Notably, she recalls Foucalt's analysis of their writing:
"Foucault showed how the ancient Greeks and Romans utilised different writing techniques in order to work on themselves (1997b: 208) as part of the practice of the care of the self – the epimeleia heautou (Foucault, 1986). Ancient Greeks and Stoics managed their conduct based on the principle of askesis, ‘a training of the self by oneself’ with the goal of self-mastery (Foucault, 1997b: 208)"
Sauter specifically points to Roman emperor and stoic Marcus Aurelius:
"Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations are an example of how the ancients used writing in their hupomnemata to ensure good conduct and mediate a way of life"
Through Meditations, Aurelius famously pioneered the stoic philosophy, one that values emotional regulation and self-discipline.
a video explaining stoicism and how to practice it
Yet I wish to examine stoicism as a prime case of digital hypocrisy— and how self-writing like Aurelius' isn’t the same when it’s online.
Not to say Aurelius was a hypocrite himself (although, his self-emphasized modesty and humility paired with his status as quite literally the most powerful man of his time may lend some credibility to that claim), but rather, his philosophy of self-improvement, materialistic detachment, and emotional regulation has ironically generated a sizeable online community.
I'll get to the irony later.
I posit that Sauter’s parallel of Meditations and modern self-writing on social media can be deconstructed when we investigate the online presence of stoic philosophy.
Let me explain: Marcus Aurelius, in all his bearded glory, is thought by historians to not have written Meditations for the public, and as succinctly explained by Stanford University:
"The second century CE Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius was also a Stoic philosopher, and his Meditations, which he wrote to and for himself, offers readers a unique opportunity to see how an ancient person (indeed an emperor) might try to live a Stoic life"
Thus, his work of self-writing was primarily for his own spiritual gain, meaning that the mass publication and popularity of the journals directly contradicts his intentions. Aurelius never even titled the work; Meditations was prescribed to it by others. So when Sauter ironically refers to the book as a form of self-writing by using the one thing about it Aurelius didn't write—the title—we can see that the way its inherently addressed in today's age doesn’t account for the external influence and commodification of his journals after his death. But I digress.
Or, do I?
All of this is only the beginning of how Aurelius’ self-writing for self-improvement has been misinterpreted and misrepresented in contemporary society. If Aurelius were alive today, would he write in a personal, private journal? Or would he employ “techniques of self” on a Twitter account? I think the answer is obvious when considering his original intentions.
There is perhaps no better example to show both the fallacies of online self-writing and the corruption of the stoic principles Aurelius pioneered than online stoicism communities.
Brace yourself, we’re diving into Reddit.
A cursory look at the subreddit r/Stoicism would make one think that it’s a well-meaning community, supporting their members in their journey of self-discipline. Members write their own “meditations” on the forum, immortalizing their thoughts and cementing their status as stoics like their mascot Aurelius.
The obvious criticism here is that Aurelius intended for stoic writings to be wholly personal, a reflection of his own thoughts and feelings that he knew better than anybody; Meditations was a journal, not a publicized work. A community dedicated to gain that same enlightenment collaboratively is ironic.
So let’s examine what I posit is the perfect example of how the subreddit’s existence is not the same self-writing of Meditations, but a method of gaining social capital in the dopamine-driven, validation seeking world of social media:
a stoic anecdote.
Can you imagine Marcus Aurelius, in the grandiose, intense role of a powerful nation’s emperor, realizing that writing down his most private thoughts has resulted in this user using stoicism as a coping mechanism for getting rejected after an uncomfortable, stalker-ish pick-up attempt?
I think he'd burn his journal. After all, he's not supposed to be attached to material things.
It’s clear that this user had posted this anecdote solely for social capital and validation— evidenced not only by the self-indulgent title that paints him as an unstoppable force of stoic nature, but also by his lack of response to the criticism in the comments.
A principal of stoicism is to detach oneself from the need for external validation, and yet Reddit upvotes and awards with actual monetary value take away from the self-sustainability of the philosophy. This isn’t self-writing, it’s just self-aggrandizing.
Aurelius’ work is regarded as the pinnacle of stoic writing because he wrote it for himself, not for social points. Even modern-day stoic books can’t hope to encapsulate that form of authenticity, as they are commodified for others. Self-writing should be for the self.
Despite all of this, I still truly do believe hope is out there. The modern-day authentic self-writers still exist, yet their probably luddite-esque personalities are a big reason why they can’t achieve the same notoriety as the Roman emperor. Besides, it’s not like we should encourage them to share their work anyway; that would devalue it. Perhaps we all should indulge in self-writing individually, by journaling while sequestered from the watchful, validating eye of social media.
Honestly, I’d take just stopping the whole “hitting on girls at the gym” thing. Just because you study ancient philosphy doesn't mean you can act in an regressive manner. Downvoted!