This very interesting article reminds me of psychoanalyst Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death, which makes a similar point - although not about fashion ;)) Becker argues that much of human behavior, including neurosis, heroism, and even evil, is driven by a largely unconscious terror of death, and that culture and religion function as "immortality projects" to manage this awareness. Thanks for your thought provoking piece!
I think likening performance to fitting in with your in-group feels like the opposite of what I've experienced from the people around me partaking in the trends. A lot of those who have thrifted the outfits, drank the matcha, and blasted Clairo through their wired earbuds have done it for social capital, whether that be attention from the people they are attracted to or for social media clicks. What you associated with trust and collaboration, I associated with individualism.
Source: I got third place at a performative male contest in Cambridge, MA.
Great read, was a lot of fun to dissect and was a really interesting perspective!
One could argue that performing for social capital is the exact essence of currying trust and collaboration within the group. Even if it is through individuation, such an individuation would be 'en vogue' in a Western culture where individuation is admired. I can imagine that one who consistently pursues individuation in a culture where it is not as admired (e.g., certain Eastern cultures) would earn neither social capital nor trust.
Source: I participated (but did not rank nearly as high as you) in a performative male contest
“In fact, taste is one of the highest forms of performance, in that it represents a higher order of associative fashion.“ - I wonder if you also mean literal taste as a sense (such as kinds of foods, drinks, spices) and even taste in other things beyond fashion that are not as directly performative but still indicatives of the same. Like mannerisms, body language, etc.
I think most forms of taste ultimately are the product of pattern recognition of stimuli -- largely through experience, although recently increasingly due to media due to its proliferation in modern society.
From an associative perspective, it is indeed reasonable that many of these forms also stand to affect one's performance unto others -- one is judged not only on their fashion, but also in their mannerisms and body language. An interesting exercise would be to critically parse between manifestations of taste that primarily seek to perform (i.e., for others) against those that primarily seek to express individuality (i.e., for oneself).
Ciao, nice essay, "taste conveys seriousness in craft," that point was nicely formulated,
though I had a few ideas as I was reading,
I think you substitute performativity with persona (if we're following the Jungian thread ;) ). The persona being your social mask - the mask you show the world (these can take on many forms in the form of roles: mother, daughter, teacher, writer, etc.)
You define performativity as a way of influencing others, though I don't know that I would agree. Performativity is a necessary requisite for being/existing in the social world, and of course, that naturally comes with exerting influence. if you are performing, you are acting, and thus entering and creating the world, so yes, exerting influence.
But I think that comes from existing as human beings on this earth - rather than something that is curated in order to exist.
I think you hit on the crux of the title of the essay -- We Perform, therefore We Belong. In a Hobbesian "state of nature", where every individual fends for themselves, Darwinianism would favor the ones who can run fast and climb far over the ones who dress well. It is only upon the introduction of "society" that I would argue the performativity to be central.
This article makes a strong case for performativity being fundamental to social interaction. It's often written off as shallow, but framing it through the lens of cooperation and credibility makes a lot of sense. The Prisoner's Dilemma parallel is particularly insightful; building a reputation for cooperation, even through 'performance', is hard to argue with.
As a part time dabbler in perfomative male behaviors myself (which canvas tote bag I choose to leave the apt with is of utmost importance, or course), I wonder where mimicry lies within the mix. And further, aspirational mimicry. With fashion this can feel probably a tad shallow, but I think about children performing/mimicking behaviors for their parents, and later, our (adults) aspirational mimicry of others as a way to move us towards our goals. Ie, it isn't authentic... yet. But if I can copy someone's suave enough maybe one day it will truly be an authentic espression of my true nature.
I'm not sure. But alas, I think today calls for a wonderful taupe canvas tote from a candle maker in Brooklyn. I am sure people will notice and talk of my impeccable decision for days to come.
Taste often begins as subconscious pattern recognition -- we wear certain fits because it accords with an aesthetic that we've internalized as acceptable, despite perhaps being unable to articulate the stimuli which engendered this subconscious aesthetic. I think this encapsulates what you say about mimicry, such that it is no stretch to say that many forms of taste are predetermined by mimicry, which eventually forms into more conscious and intentional decision-making.
yeah that makes sense. I wonder then, at what point, if ever, authenticity arises (if that means anything). Is authenticity itself even aspirational if it seems to be the case that it's initially inauthentic, and then later just well-internalized mimicry that we call taste?
Erving Goffman (and I) would argue that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The internalization of stimuli through pattern recognition describes what nurture does (in opposition to nature in the age-old psychological debate). I believe that it would be too restrictive to ascribe to authenticity only that which we derived from nature, given how truly transformative nurture can be to our identities.
This is interesting. Clothing can signal cooperation by aligning to group norms, but it also sometimes signals the lack of cooperative intent. Consider unconventional attire such as facial tattoos, haircuts with fully shaved sections, someone who wears all leather, etc. Such attire might signal an unwillingness to cooperate with some norms. But this signal of cooperative intent is relative to culture, group, event, etc. Unconventional attire can signal belonging to a specific in-group, even while it may signal a reduced willingness to cooperate more broadly.
The effect of clothing on cooperation is also event-contingent. Even among businessmen, wearing a suite to a casual Sunday potluck might reduce trust, rather than increase it, because the outfit fails to correspond to the group intention at that time and at that place.
I suppose a very minimal level of cooperativeness is shown by the choice to wear clothes at all. Not wearing clothes is often illegal, so failing to wear clothes signals rebellion or insanity.
Given this mandate of wearing clothes, we are forced into some level of performativity, whether we like it or not: something must be chosen to be worn. When attempts are made to wear clothes that signal personal traits and values, this involves more performativity, but it is simultaneously read as more authentic (i.e. a creative person with elements of non-threatening unconventional attire). Someone who's clothing aligns with their actions might gain more trust because they are choosing to reveal something true about themselves even when the clothing choice fails to be maximally conventional or situationally appropriate.
For me the question is about what is being lost. Performing may be convenient and self-serving. But can it secure belonging? Only if we accept belonging as dependent upon specific performances, which means that it can be taken away as soon as there is a mistake in the performance. I wouldn’t call that belonging.
It’s not just belonging that is being lost, but ultimately the opportunity to experience each other without a mask, in presence, in connection that does not have to be manufactured, which could ultimately be framed as real connection.
Performativity makes sense if we see human interaction as a transaction, in which we are providing a performance and in exchange for that social capital, we are receiving validation or collaboration. But isn’t that simply falling into accepting the influence of the market logic into our relational experiences?
What about human interaction as reciprocal, where we simply give, and times we also receive? As opposed to the transactional, where we only give on the condition that we’ll get something back.
On a micro, individual level, I allude to some of what you mentioned in a short writing after the poem. I’d be interested in how religion also plays a large part, since I grew up in a high-control religion that dictated what clothing you could or had to wear. For those I know from high-control religions, it played much more of a role for performance than mothers.
Indeed, it is important to think about whether being "Performative" is inauthentic, and when it is too readily used as a catch-all pejorative adjective it is, I would argue, uncharitable. Winnicott is helpful here for his perspective on the way in which the "False Self" protects the "True Self". There is a need for being "performative" sometimes. https://alexmonk.substack.com/p/psychic-exuviae-part-two-the-false
And does our performativity begin in infancy as we imitate the physical behaviors of our adult caregivers, & the sounds of their voices? As we become "inducted" into the language games that are so crucial to our survival? Thereby learning to perform the great pretense that we humans are more conscious of reality, than we truly are?
Happily engaging in the self-hypnotic nature of our literacy skills during adulthood, because our behaviors are overwhelmingly, non-consciously orchestrated by our nervous system, and have become, for most intents & purposes, functionally automatic?
Especially when using our finger tips to type letters on a keyboard, in order to form words that are NOT the reality they describe? And because of our functionally automatic behaviors, failing to notice that the reality of those highly dexterous features of our human anatomy, on the end of our arms, is NOT a Word?
When I think of a 'performative' person, I usually picture someone acting disingenuously. Do you think there’s a meaningful difference between the 'everyday' performances we all use to maintain social order and those who very deliberately present themselves in a specific, perhaps artificial, way? Maybe the level of performance is a spectrum, and when we perceive that someone is performing too much, we view that as inauthentic?
Ultimately I believe that both these acts are founded by the same core concept of performing, whereby one changes the way one appears / acts for an audience. That being said, there are two ways to interpret this 'meaningful' difference. One is through intention -- the latter provokes by actively pursuing deception (although it is arguable that the former also has elements of deception involved). The other interpretation is externally through the outcome -- if one attempts to deceive, but does it very well, it becomes indistinguishable from the former scenario. Only once we are able to detect the hint of deception would it become an incredibly meaningful difference.
I agree with you, if only I find myself to be a hopeful rebel too. I do think there are two interpretations of belonging though -- one that centers on the "feeling" of belonging that you discuss, and one that centers on the "consequence" of belonging that I argue in this essay (to be included or excluded from a group).
I believe the world births romantics and idealists, only to harden them to become realists and pragmatists. It would be ideal in the Prisoner's Dilemma if everyone chose to cooperate fully in every instance. But in any instance where the possibility that one can gain exists (even despite the suffering of another), it is most prudent for you to be the one to gain. The same can be said of the game of performativity in the world.
This very interesting article reminds me of psychoanalyst Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death, which makes a similar point - although not about fashion ;)) Becker argues that much of human behavior, including neurosis, heroism, and even evil, is driven by a largely unconscious terror of death, and that culture and religion function as "immortality projects" to manage this awareness. Thanks for your thought provoking piece!
To be is to be perceived. And what better way to be than to be perceived forever ;)
I think likening performance to fitting in with your in-group feels like the opposite of what I've experienced from the people around me partaking in the trends. A lot of those who have thrifted the outfits, drank the matcha, and blasted Clairo through their wired earbuds have done it for social capital, whether that be attention from the people they are attracted to or for social media clicks. What you associated with trust and collaboration, I associated with individualism.
Source: I got third place at a performative male contest in Cambridge, MA.
Great read, was a lot of fun to dissect and was a really interesting perspective!
One could argue that performing for social capital is the exact essence of currying trust and collaboration within the group. Even if it is through individuation, such an individuation would be 'en vogue' in a Western culture where individuation is admired. I can imagine that one who consistently pursues individuation in a culture where it is not as admired (e.g., certain Eastern cultures) would earn neither social capital nor trust.
Source: I participated (but did not rank nearly as high as you) in a performative male contest
“In fact, taste is one of the highest forms of performance, in that it represents a higher order of associative fashion.“ - I wonder if you also mean literal taste as a sense (such as kinds of foods, drinks, spices) and even taste in other things beyond fashion that are not as directly performative but still indicatives of the same. Like mannerisms, body language, etc.
Very very cool!!
I think most forms of taste ultimately are the product of pattern recognition of stimuli -- largely through experience, although recently increasingly due to media due to its proliferation in modern society.
From an associative perspective, it is indeed reasonable that many of these forms also stand to affect one's performance unto others -- one is judged not only on their fashion, but also in their mannerisms and body language. An interesting exercise would be to critically parse between manifestations of taste that primarily seek to perform (i.e., for others) against those that primarily seek to express individuality (i.e., for oneself).
Ciao, nice essay, "taste conveys seriousness in craft," that point was nicely formulated,
though I had a few ideas as I was reading,
I think you substitute performativity with persona (if we're following the Jungian thread ;) ). The persona being your social mask - the mask you show the world (these can take on many forms in the form of roles: mother, daughter, teacher, writer, etc.)
You define performativity as a way of influencing others, though I don't know that I would agree. Performativity is a necessary requisite for being/existing in the social world, and of course, that naturally comes with exerting influence. if you are performing, you are acting, and thus entering and creating the world, so yes, exerting influence.
But I think that comes from existing as human beings on this earth - rather than something that is curated in order to exist.
I think you hit on the crux of the title of the essay -- We Perform, therefore We Belong. In a Hobbesian "state of nature", where every individual fends for themselves, Darwinianism would favor the ones who can run fast and climb far over the ones who dress well. It is only upon the introduction of "society" that I would argue the performativity to be central.
This article makes a strong case for performativity being fundamental to social interaction. It's often written off as shallow, but framing it through the lens of cooperation and credibility makes a lot of sense. The Prisoner's Dilemma parallel is particularly insightful; building a reputation for cooperation, even through 'performance', is hard to argue with.
As a part time dabbler in perfomative male behaviors myself (which canvas tote bag I choose to leave the apt with is of utmost importance, or course), I wonder where mimicry lies within the mix. And further, aspirational mimicry. With fashion this can feel probably a tad shallow, but I think about children performing/mimicking behaviors for their parents, and later, our (adults) aspirational mimicry of others as a way to move us towards our goals. Ie, it isn't authentic... yet. But if I can copy someone's suave enough maybe one day it will truly be an authentic espression of my true nature.
I'm not sure. But alas, I think today calls for a wonderful taupe canvas tote from a candle maker in Brooklyn. I am sure people will notice and talk of my impeccable decision for days to come.
Taste often begins as subconscious pattern recognition -- we wear certain fits because it accords with an aesthetic that we've internalized as acceptable, despite perhaps being unable to articulate the stimuli which engendered this subconscious aesthetic. I think this encapsulates what you say about mimicry, such that it is no stretch to say that many forms of taste are predetermined by mimicry, which eventually forms into more conscious and intentional decision-making.
yeah that makes sense. I wonder then, at what point, if ever, authenticity arises (if that means anything). Is authenticity itself even aspirational if it seems to be the case that it's initially inauthentic, and then later just well-internalized mimicry that we call taste?
Erving Goffman (and I) would argue that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The internalization of stimuli through pattern recognition describes what nurture does (in opposition to nature in the age-old psychological debate). I believe that it would be too restrictive to ascribe to authenticity only that which we derived from nature, given how truly transformative nurture can be to our identities.
Well taken. So patterns (maybe genetic, for example) within ourselves could be authentic in the same way.
This is interesting. Clothing can signal cooperation by aligning to group norms, but it also sometimes signals the lack of cooperative intent. Consider unconventional attire such as facial tattoos, haircuts with fully shaved sections, someone who wears all leather, etc. Such attire might signal an unwillingness to cooperate with some norms. But this signal of cooperative intent is relative to culture, group, event, etc. Unconventional attire can signal belonging to a specific in-group, even while it may signal a reduced willingness to cooperate more broadly.
The effect of clothing on cooperation is also event-contingent. Even among businessmen, wearing a suite to a casual Sunday potluck might reduce trust, rather than increase it, because the outfit fails to correspond to the group intention at that time and at that place.
I suppose a very minimal level of cooperativeness is shown by the choice to wear clothes at all. Not wearing clothes is often illegal, so failing to wear clothes signals rebellion or insanity.
Given this mandate of wearing clothes, we are forced into some level of performativity, whether we like it or not: something must be chosen to be worn. When attempts are made to wear clothes that signal personal traits and values, this involves more performativity, but it is simultaneously read as more authentic (i.e. a creative person with elements of non-threatening unconventional attire). Someone who's clothing aligns with their actions might gain more trust because they are choosing to reveal something true about themselves even when the clothing choice fails to be maximally conventional or situationally appropriate.
For me the question is about what is being lost. Performing may be convenient and self-serving. But can it secure belonging? Only if we accept belonging as dependent upon specific performances, which means that it can be taken away as soon as there is a mistake in the performance. I wouldn’t call that belonging.
It’s not just belonging that is being lost, but ultimately the opportunity to experience each other without a mask, in presence, in connection that does not have to be manufactured, which could ultimately be framed as real connection.
Performativity makes sense if we see human interaction as a transaction, in which we are providing a performance and in exchange for that social capital, we are receiving validation or collaboration. But isn’t that simply falling into accepting the influence of the market logic into our relational experiences?
What about human interaction as reciprocal, where we simply give, and times we also receive? As opposed to the transactional, where we only give on the condition that we’ll get something back.
On a micro, individual level, I allude to some of what you mentioned in a short writing after the poem. I’d be interested in how religion also plays a large part, since I grew up in a high-control religion that dictated what clothing you could or had to wear. For those I know from high-control religions, it played much more of a role for performance than mothers.
Thank you for this piece!
https://jempoetry.substack.com/p/at-the-edges-of-such-rooms?utm_source=direct&r=3hblwj&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
Indeed, it is important to think about whether being "Performative" is inauthentic, and when it is too readily used as a catch-all pejorative adjective it is, I would argue, uncharitable. Winnicott is helpful here for his perspective on the way in which the "False Self" protects the "True Self". There is a need for being "performative" sometimes. https://alexmonk.substack.com/p/psychic-exuviae-part-two-the-false
And does our performativity begin in infancy as we imitate the physical behaviors of our adult caregivers, & the sounds of their voices? As we become "inducted" into the language games that are so crucial to our survival? Thereby learning to perform the great pretense that we humans are more conscious of reality, than we truly are?
Happily engaging in the self-hypnotic nature of our literacy skills during adulthood, because our behaviors are overwhelmingly, non-consciously orchestrated by our nervous system, and have become, for most intents & purposes, functionally automatic?
Especially when using our finger tips to type letters on a keyboard, in order to form words that are NOT the reality they describe? And because of our functionally automatic behaviors, failing to notice that the reality of those highly dexterous features of our human anatomy, on the end of our arms, is NOT a Word?
When I think of a 'performative' person, I usually picture someone acting disingenuously. Do you think there’s a meaningful difference between the 'everyday' performances we all use to maintain social order and those who very deliberately present themselves in a specific, perhaps artificial, way? Maybe the level of performance is a spectrum, and when we perceive that someone is performing too much, we view that as inauthentic?
Ultimately I believe that both these acts are founded by the same core concept of performing, whereby one changes the way one appears / acts for an audience. That being said, there are two ways to interpret this 'meaningful' difference. One is through intention -- the latter provokes by actively pursuing deception (although it is arguable that the former also has elements of deception involved). The other interpretation is externally through the outcome -- if one attempts to deceive, but does it very well, it becomes indistinguishable from the former scenario. Only once we are able to detect the hint of deception would it become an incredibly meaningful difference.
I agree with you, if only I find myself to be a hopeful rebel too. I do think there are two interpretations of belonging though -- one that centers on the "feeling" of belonging that you discuss, and one that centers on the "consequence" of belonging that I argue in this essay (to be included or excluded from a group).
I believe the world births romantics and idealists, only to harden them to become realists and pragmatists. It would be ideal in the Prisoner's Dilemma if everyone chose to cooperate fully in every instance. But in any instance where the possibility that one can gain exists (even despite the suffering of another), it is most prudent for you to be the one to gain. The same can be said of the game of performativity in the world.