You may recall that in past work I looked at how members of the same micro-social community would reinforce each other’s autobiographical narratives towards a community based and shared prototypicality. That thesis was based in part on the interpersonal “co-construction” of an individual’s narrative that Pasupathi (2001) theorized to be an inherent aspect/effect of any narrative delivery. While her seminal work focused on co-construction and development of the autobiography over one’s lifespan, some of her current research is also exploring co-construction with the self when presenting to a projected audience (for example, when writing).

There are aspects about both of these that are fascinating, and both these angles arise in my own thought process, but I have become increasingly interested in a third option, what one might consider co-construction against a non-dynamic other. In this way I have begun to consider extensions on my original thesis, but with particular focus on media. This is probably not a surprising direction given that I have always been more interested in the short-term enculturating effects of Pasupathi’s theories.

When thinking about our interactions with media (and most of the time I am thinking of marketing, explicit or otherwise) I am curious about the ways in which we knowingly and unknowingly construct our cultural and individual identities relative to this media presence. Can artifacts of the marketplace act as co-constructers of our identity? If so, what and how? What are the identity driven consumer choices one makes and in what way is that identity created, presented, and preserved? Perhaps more to the point, why do you go to Banana Republic instead of the Gap? Presuming that any additional quality can only cover a portion of a higher priced item, is the marketed identity attached to that given product the “value added” that results in a consumer’s willingness to pay a premium for the label?

It seems we are quickly ending up with interplay of consumer behavior with personal psychology in an environment flush with excess capitol. Is the consumerism of identity and personal meaning the natural byproduct of a nation of excess when no unifying culture or religion exists? Of course, this seems to present a clear 2nd tier in marketing. If the first tier is to encourage the consumer to pick one brand over one of equal evaluation (say in quality and cost), than the second is to restructure the consumer evaluation such that one product has a greater value than the other — and then charge more for it. I am sure this is a topic that has been thoroughly covered in academic marketing. It would be interesting to learn the nomenclature that is used.

While typing that example, I was thinking about Wonderbread. Bread is probably a very bad example, as it squarely falls into a category of consumable necessities. One has to eat, and the range of prices for bread is not that large, probably in part due to a soft-limit on the superior quality one manufacturer can claim over a competitor. If we were to broaden the scope to the food industry as a whole, we would probably see the range we need, but I would propose a simpler example.

When it comes to marketing, I think about pop culture, and more specifically fashion. For me it serves for better analysis. Peers are taken aback in skepticism at the range of analysis to which I subject fashion. Over coffee today, I made the claim that “fashion is political”, harkening to feminist ideologies and the public self as political (while patting myself on the back for the irony). For one friend this was too much. I however, despite Adam’s protests, will hold to my beliefs.

Fashion is, whether actively or passively, the initial public presentation of the self. And as such, it is compulsory. It is an external representation of the internal. It is inherently interpersonal, while simultaneously possessing the ability to be as individual as one chooses. To top it all off, fashion is sexual, as thus hold the potential to speak to our deepest relational and progenerative needs. Borrowing from neuro-cognition, and to provide an alternative summary, fashion provides an external interpersonal interface and so acts as a cognitive map tethered to a social judgment.

The compelling complexity of this seeming straightforward situation is one of origin and control. If high-fashion is art, but its application in lower forms consumerism, which is in control: designer or consumer? If art makes a statement, who is the consumer of that statement? It would seem that consumers dictate the acceptable range of fashion that makes it to our local retailers. Clearly the middle ground is walking down our streets.

Regarding Adam, who thinks little about what he wears, I am left wondering if his opposition is related to an implicit loss of control. That was not my intent, but it merits mention that much like anarchy itself being a form of government, Adam, wearing his denim and T’s, unconsciously dresses in a predictable uniform as well.

This entire analysis of product control, however, negates marketing, and more importantly, construction of identity. Amidst the plethora of consumable options of presumably equal structural quality, each with different implications for the interpersonal domain, how is aesthetic engineered in such a way that it resonates with the audience? In the reverse, what does it mean intra and interpersonally if you purchase this item? How does marketing present the identities of people consuming the product presented? To what extent are the expressed attitudes important influences in the purchase making process? Presuming that others have proved that they are, who are you once you have made that purchase?

To pull this back to my past, how does co-construction of self occur in the presence of the passive participant? How do we tease apart the dynamic play of identity in the face of modern commercial marketing?

Let us make a claim that the passive participant is at its core, a collection of ideas. In the context of Pasupathi’s work, this could be the listener who never contributes to a story, who simply listens to the narrative as presented. In the context of marketing, visual advertising seems an ideal example. A print ad, for example, has no means of dynamic interaction. Instead it must present a set of complex ideas, all with the objective to influence consumer behavior. But the presentation is static. The degree to which the exchange is dynamic is within the individual.

Past work would passively acknowledge this as “the context”, a framework in which the interpersonal dynamic, the co-construction, takes place. If the context is simply an aspect of culture, what are the ways in which we narrate ourselves into those aspects, claim them as our own, and later dismiss them?

While such a construct makes sense in a traditional narrative telling, it seems to fall short of the actual process that we engage in daily. And perhaps this is the heart of my interests. How does engineered context establish an audience, and what are the key elements to its success and failure? Once it’s created, and given the dynamism ensured by the movement of consumers, how does this context live and evolve? And at the heart of it all, the individual, are purchases made that conform to our sense of self, or does each new acquired product carry with it an addition to our identity, the by-product of the exchange between individual and the engineered context?