Book Review: "Selfie" by Will Storr

You're going to hate me but I got the idea for reading this book from a YouTube video where I heard of the book. Do I think the person in the video had read the book themselves? Well, before I managed to read it I would've said yes, but afterwards my answer is probably not - or at least they had cherry-picked things to read. The book was a lot more expansive and had a lot more depth than I found by ways of the video. Anyways, I still like the fact that it had pointed me towards reading this deeply philosophical and psychological book about why selfies became a cultural phenomenon.

The author argues that the modern Western “self” is a cultural invention shaped by ancient Greek individualism and Enlightenment humanism which is easy enough to understand because if you're obsessed with yourself you're going to end up where we are now. This philosophy didn't necessarily teach self-obsession but it did teach the concept of having a self and learning about yourself in ways that the former more collectivist philosophies probably didn't preach so much. It's all about how human exceptionalism, rational agency, and personal responsibility were culturally constructed. Personal responsibility is a big one since this one seems to have dimished over the last ten to fifteen years. And in the Enlightenment, since religion was having its dying moments, the philosophy was busy promoting the belief that the individual is autonomous, improvable, and morally accountable. The book basically states from this that the 'selfie' idea was not born in a vacuum - there is actually a logical and philosophical line we can trace to it from the past.

The author connects the rise of Western individualism to the emergence of “perfectionist” ideologies in modern life. He argues that the belief in an improvable, rational self naturally leads to a fixation on self-improvement and self-blame - this is probably one of the downsides which has also been exemplified by the 'selfie' culture today. The Western self is conceived as capable of limitless progress, failure becomes a personal moral fault which I guess is autonomy taken to the other extreme in which everything is your own fault regardless of differences in circumstances between you and the ideal you look to emulate. This cultural ideal fuels everything from wellness culture to entrepreneurial hustle myths, creating an environment where people feel constant pressure to live up to an impossible standard. As we can see here, we don't have a culture that can only take the positives from that Enlightenment value of the self, we must take the good with the bad. The only problem we have is that social media only exemplifies the bad. For example: when is the last time you felt joy by scrolling through social media? See. I told you. Social media works if the bad can be harnessed and empowered to become the normal.

The author also explores how neoliberalism intensifies self-obsession by framing life as a competitive, market-driven project. He outlines how post-1980s neoliberal ideology reframed individuals as mini-enterprises, responsible for maximising their personal “value.” This is perhaps why everyone and their pet dog has a side-hustle. This economic worldview infiltrated selfhood, encouraging people to brand themselves, optimise productivity, and pursue endless growth - which is also why today we have difficulty being 'bored'. He shows how job insecurity, performance measurement, and economic inequality deepen the internal pressure to perform and perfect the self at all times. I'll say it before you do: businesses today of whatever kind, only fuel this kind of culture. The work-life balance no longer exists and you are now expected to work hours you aren't paid for as a form of 'duty' towards the company. It makes for miserable people and miserable people don't ask questions. Compliance through misery is not just something businesses and public services rely on, but it is also the groundwork for social media and doomscrolling.

Storr examines how social media technologies weaponise ancient psychological biases toward self-comparison. He draws on neuroscience and behavioural psychology and explains how the brain evolved to monitor social status for survival. Social media gives these mechanisms an artificial environment where comparisons such as: likes, followers, beauty, success, are instant and global, creating perpetual inadequacy. This is where it gets really dark because the algorithm we know now, will purposefully show you things to get a response out of you and the best way psychologically to get a response out of someone is to make them angry or upset. Social media is a net negative to society when used this way. Also, I am aware of the irony that technically I am a social media personality but please recognise the fact that the philosophy around social media is focusing on the way it uses your own psychology against you. I would never tell you to compare yourself to me, it's definitely a silly thing to do.

The author also shows that the “perfect self” we chase is biologically impossible due to evolved constraints and personality traits. There are studies by Robert Plomin in this book! (If you don't know who he is, I recently read a book by him called Blueprint). The studies emphasises that personality is highly heritable. Traits like conscientiousness, neuroticism, or extroversion are largely innate. Yet Western culture insists we can reinvent ourselves through sheer willpower. This can only lead down one road: a perpetual barrell of self-loathing coated in the want to look or seem like others on social media. The selfie is basically a microcosm of all of this. It encompasses many of the things that are wrong with the social media world which is also why it makes us feel 'better' to post a few that look what we would deem as 'acceptable', but are usually highly edited.

Apart from this weird bend of the 'autonomy' argument in which everyone is out for themselves to create their own meanings (inherently, this doesn't work, meaning is created from interaction as much as it is from autonomy), he concludes that a more compassionate understanding of the self requires embracing realism over perfectionism. I know you're thinking 'no shit, Sherlock', which is probably fair - but after this analysis, compassion can be an unrealistic expectation when you've basically said that autonomy culture has been designed for centuries and centuries. But we do need to be more accepting intrinsic limitations, recognising the role of luck and genetics, and cultivating self-kindness rather than relentless ambition. It's a great sentiment but after that entire book, I'm not sure whether that is entirely a productive conclusion.