The desire to be a self and a brand is historically learned, not innate

Evidence

Today, though, we often assume that the desire or demand to be a self is innate, inborn. In the 2006 New York Times article on “self-photography” referenced throughout this introduction, we’re told by Jim Taylor, a trend consultant, that “self-branding is a big deal for kids, and self-produced entertainment is a big deal,” a statement that, in the context of the article, conflates self-branding with self-discovery and assumes that children naturally crave the ability to produce user-generated content. … We want to be seen, we want to be brands, we want others to love us and like us and see us and share us. — Grant Bollmer, Katherine Guinness, The Influencer Factory, 106

Categorization

• XREF: Pairs with the chapter’s own Veblen move and the reader’s interest in how the Corpocene historicizes the self. — connects to: Structure is a historical stage of group self-making, not a timeless property. — Fredric Jameson, Marxism and Form, 532; Self-branding’s legitimacy rests on cultural taken-for-grantedness, not evidence. — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 423