Covid-19 [un]productivity: exploring ideas of motivation through micro and macro social theory

You will have seen posts on social media surrounding productivity during this pandemic. Some will be encouraging you to be productive and others will be telling you not to listen to the encouragers. It was when I first heard somebody talk about motivation during Covid-19 on YouTube, that I was inspired to explore this idea. They said something along the lines of:

“you need to do something because you want to do it at the time but also you need to think about your future and how what you do now will meet your goals”

At the moment, I am re-reading Mouzelis’ (2008) Modern and Postmodern Social Theorising: Bridging the Divide. In the first chapter, the author discusses social theories and how they criticise each other. So, when I heard the above quote I started thinking about how micro and macro social theories can relate to this idea of motivation.

Macro sociology

Macro social theory studies the collective phenomena within society: class struggles, impacts of institutions such as the Church, media and the family. The classic theories of Functionalism and Marxism are examples of this macro sociology. To these, the social world exists as structures and institutions which shape our lives and how we act.

“…but also you need to think about your future and how what you do now will meet your goals”

The second aspect of the quotation above states that motivation should come from thinking about your future and how it will help meet your goals. This could be interpreted as referring to institutions of work and even the family and what they require in order to successfully participate within these. For instance, completing CPD now in order to yield the required experience for a job promotion and be able to afford a big family house.

Macro social theory has been criticised for its emphasis on structure informing the roles of individuals. Macro social theory, on its own, does not account for free will and portrays individuals as passive products of these overarching structures.

Micro sociology

Micro social theories developed in the 1960s and 1970s and include symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology. These social theories see individuals (labelled as actors) as the producers of social life, rather than passive products of structure.  To these, the social world exists because actors are constantly reproducing and transcending practices.

“you need to do something because you want to do it…”

The first part of motivation, contained within this quote, is that you should want to do something because of the mere act of doing. This directly relates to micro sociology as the act itself is the motivation and is contained outside of any previous engagement with the ‘something’ that is being done. The focus is upon the practice in the present.

Micro social theory, of course, has also been critiqued. Whilst, it does account for what micro social theory lacks, it overstates agents. Micro social theorists refuse to combine their ‘social’ focus on action with ‘system’ perspectives which take structure and institutions into consideration. By doing this, micro social theory produces trivial and obvious conclusions on action.

Indeed, if we took only the first part of this quote into consideration, of course motivation involves wanting to do something. What would be the point in life if we did not enjoy doing the act we are doing? However, once we factor in societal experiences of poverty, racism, sexism and requirements of specific institutions: our motivations may not always be driven by ‘what we enjoy at the present’; otherwise, we would not get anything done, some acts, whilst enjoyable, can be at some points, tiring and even boring (my experience of referencing whilst at university: I enjoyed university but I had to reference in order to get my degree!)

Overall, the quote perfectly sums up the need for both social theories. How these theories are aligned is another subject, one which I look forward to re-reading about in the coming chapters of Mouzelis’ (2008) Modern and Postmodern Social Theorising: Bridging the Divide.

#doitforthegram: social media and consumption

Last night I watched Snatched, a comedy starring Amy Schumer who plays Emily who is a “self-obsessed 30 something year old”. Throughout the film, Emily is going through negative life experiences, such as a breakup, but this does not affect her ability to pose in selfies as if she is “leading her best life”. In fact, even in one selfie, she employs a ring light, something which was once confined to professional photographers and gradually filtered down to YouTube and social media influencers and then to generic selfie takers in the form of smartphone attachments. Throughout the movie she engages in two conversations with two characters who question her use of social media. The first is James who is wining and dining Emily in order to trap her into being kidnapped by a South American gang. James is talking about all the places he has been around the world which impresses Emily; Emily replies with something along the lines of “wow, your Instagram must be amazing” to which James replies, “I’m not on anything like that”. It could be seen that the writers’ juxtaposition of Emily and James worked in a way to highlight Emily’s social media consumption which could be seen as a microcosm for today’s social media users. The second conversation is with her mother: Emily states that she has to show people “how much of a good time she is having” so that people can compliment her on her life in the comments section. Emily’s mum says that she needs to just live her life.

Watching this film, for me, has come at a time where I am more sceptical about my consumption of social media. Especially during this sun and heat that England is currently experiencing in which more of my Instagram feed is people I follow swimming in Spanish looking [yet English] seas, swimming pools, beer garden drinks and bikini selfies. It’s not that I feel jealous looking at these, it’s that I feel I should also be posting about how great my life is in the sun. There are sociological discussions surrounding individuals on social media being both consumers and producers of media. I can see this in my thoughts, through consuming other posts, I want to produce similar posts to show how great my life is. Snatched shows how the pressure to show one’s best life on social media even during something as life threatening as being kidnapped in South America.  Indeed, there has been transparency surrounding this on Instagram with the hashtag #doitforthegram being used over the past few years. Posters transparently detail that what they posted was not candid but, rather, to show their Instagram feed within a certain light. Often, these are referred to as #plandids. I recently took a month-long break from social media to decide how I would deal with this pressure, but as of yet, I am still unsure.

“Enhancing your natural beauty”: my type of capitalist marketing

Adverts are ubiquitous. When I was growing up, the only time I would see adverts was while watching television. However, with the rise of digital technology, adverts have found themselves penetrating everyone’s life: whether you are watching a YouTube video or scrolling social media, you can even get adverts on the front of your smartphone’s lock screen dependent on push notifications of some apps. The one thing I have noticed whilst being forced to watch adverts is the rise of negative, preventative marketing of consumer products. What I mean by this is the rise of products marketed as “anti” insert an adjective here: “anti-frizz”, “anti-blackhead”, “anti-humidity”, “anti-spot”. This type of marketing perpetuates the idea that we must cover our “imperfections”, imperfections that are created and defined by these companies. Who decided that having frizzy hair, spots or blackheads was not ideal? Is there a health benefit to not having these? As far as I am aware, the only reason products aim to irradiate these characteristics is to profit from cosmetic ideals. This type of marketing is what causes self-esteem and insecurities amongst young women.

Of course, it can be said that any type of marketing involves selling a product to fulfil capitalist created material needs; but I have to say, I am a contradictory fan of capitalism and its many products. There is no way to eradicate these products, in a similar critique to that of work by Karl Marx: overthrowing capitalism is next to impossible. Therefore, my ideal beauty product marketing is selling the purpose of products as “enhancing the natural”. These products minimise the guilt I feel about indulging with capitalism and makes me feel like the product I have bought does not define my beauty: I am already beautiful, the product is just adding to this.  With or without this product my features are valid. I believe taking this marketing approach is beneficial to both companies and the consumer. The consumer will feel good about themselves, which in turn, may increase the chances of repurchasing this item. I have found that responding to this type of marketing is what has allowed me to no longer feel insecure about not wearing makeup. 10 years ago, I never would have considered going “bare-face” at work or at social events, but now it is my norm. Of course, this could also be due to my self-concept as I have aged, but I do think that positive marketing has had an impact.

Altogether, as we cannot stop the inevitability of capitalism, I believe that if companies are going to heavily market consumer products, it should be done in this positive, uplifting manner.  

Gender, Age and Technology in ABC’s Modern Family

I have just finished watching Modern Family Season 6 Episode 16 “Connection Lost”, throughout watching this I could not help but view certain scenes from a sociological perspective. This episode was a prime example of sociology in everyday life through the interplay of social characteristics such as gender and age with concepts of capitalism and new technology. It provoked me to flesh out these thoughts within the words below, no knowledge of Modern Family is required to follow my thoughts.

This 20 minute episode saw a side story which revolved around Claire, a mother to three teenagers and wife to a ‘Realtor’ (an American estate agent), and her perspective on a family issue. Although Claire was physically away from her family at an airport in Chicago, the medium of screen casting (digitally recording a computer screen) on her Apple laptop, the whole cast was seen throughout the episode. The plot developed through Facetiming, messaging on Facebook and searching Google. Indeed, this episode creatively shows how ubiquitous digital forms of communication has become, social media is the dominant form of communicating with others. The mere fact that an entire episode uses an Apple laptop to explore a storyline advocates this point. This was a clever idea from the writers, this difference provokes me as a viewer to watch more attentively and relate to the use of sponsored social media use, the only thing missing was the use of emojis.

Indeed, this did provoke a conversation between myself and my partner: we joked how much Apple, Facebook and Google must have paid for the sponsorship or what the writers got in return. There is no doubt about it that this advertisement worked, I bought into Claire’s life, I wanted her laptop, I wanted to use the websites she did, have the applications that she had open, and effortlessly socialise with my family whilst at an airport for who knows what reason. The fact that we do not know why Claire is actually at the airport adds to the craving of this glamorous ‘on the move’ life. Upon reflection, my desire for this does reflect Marx’s concept of commodity fetishism: the idea that physical objects that are bought and sold, such as a laptop, have characteristics that they do not hold outside of societal context. For instance, the Apple laptop for me, as a viewer of this episode, hold the power of effortlessly socialising which instigates my desire for the object. This is the foundation of capitalism, buying a ‘life’ through material possessions to achieve the capitalist desires that are advertised throughout media. Of course, I do not want to discredit Modern Family as a driving force of capitalism. Whilst I was under the mystical powers that this form of commodity fetishism encapsulates, my partner was critical and argued against the use of Apple in comparison to Android. Indeed, one could argue that the avocation of android is no different and this still involves capitalist values in some way but the mere fact that we both reacted in different ways to this promotions shows how this sociological concept should not be definitive.

This episode also struck me with how it related gender and age with technology. As technology was obviously at the forefront of this episode, we saw Jay, the 60 something year old father to Claire struggle with technology. He would often answer face time by putting the phone to his ear or accidentally calling Claire on Facetime when he thought he was taking a video. Such portrayals positioned Jay as the self-proclaimed stereotypical ‘old man out of touch with new technology’. Indeed, it was not only Jay that was the victim of social pressures of being tech savvy, Claire identifies herself as this to avoid a fight with her husband. When Claire hangs up on Phil’s, her husband, Facetime whilst he plays Halo, Phil is upset and askes Claire why. Claire responds “Oh you know me, I don’t get Computers” whilst effortlessly multitasking with shortcuts on her laptop. The juxtaposition of this confession with the fact that the viewer can see the tech skills that Claire is exhibiting on her laptop fuels the comedic value of the show. Through playing up to her gender and position within her family, she is playing societal norms to her advantage. The very fact the writers include this for comedic value shows that not only is this gender norm now being challenged within the media but also the mother is positioned as knowing how to play society so she ‘win’.

Overall, I believe the writers of this episode got it spot on. The intrigue that the episode offered due being different sparks the viewer to watch and buy into Claire’s digital life. Indeed, it provokes me to think, could the writers get away with creating a whole series based around screen casting now that the communication has become so ubiquitous in everyday life and within the modern family?

Reference for Marx's Commodity Fetishism: https://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/ch05.htm