THE SCREENED SELF
Negotiating Authenticity under Observation
Essay

PART 1

Whenever we open the camera on Instagram it is always directed at our own face, nevertheless what is in our field of vision and as soon as we join a Zoom meeting, our face appears in the top-right corner of the screen. Although you might think it would be easy to ignore the miniature version of ourselves, we tend to look at it more often than at the person we are talking to, fixing our hair, tilting our head and adjusting our position. Since recently we are also able to see ourselves scanning our groceries at the self-checkout counters, making us aware that by now self-view monitors are everywhere and we have grown used to seeing ourselves as we speak, work, and interact.

Psycholinguistic studies show that being recorded on video activates the prefrontal cortex triggering psychological mechanisms of heightened self-awareness. In a society that is constantly exposed to self-view monitors, cameras and recording devices, this response becomes structural rather than occasional. As a result, post-internet generations, demonstrate significantly higher levels of self-reported individualism compared to pre-internet generations. So it is only natural that such a digital society would be concerned with topics such as "self-care", "self-improvement", "self-made", "self expression" and "me-time".

When we see ourselves on a screen we not only get self-aware but we also experience another variety of subtle physiological changes. First, the amygdala becomes active, causing cortisol to be released. Then, our heartbeat increases slightly and our pupils widen almost imperceptibly. Our facial muscles show micro-tension and our body becomes slightly stiff.

When we then try to speak in front of a camera, these responses affect the way we are able to express ourselves. Our thoughts are more carefully filtered which causes our speech to sound more controlled and less spontaneous, making it almost impossible to speak freely. So instead of behaving as we naturally would, we become drastically aware of the fact that we are being watched, which triggers "self-editing". Every gesture, every word is filtered under the pressure of judgment, which is intensified by knowledge of the permanence of the recording.

In a more extreme and regulated form, this is exactly what happens within digital dictatorships. Surveillance technologies do not only record behaviour, but actively reinforce citizens to act in line with rigid social norms. By recording individuals constantly, the systems makes it almost impossible for them to act or speak authentically and independently of the behaviours that the system reinforces. By restricting self-expression, the system imposes a unified social script on its population, leaving little room for individuality.

While we may not be living under a digital dictatorship in Europe, we are still experiencing similar mechanisms of control that are even more widespread, diffuse and disguised. Digital systems intensify a network of economic, technological, and cultural actors, all subtly influencing behaviour while presenting it as choice. The result is an almost invisible but pervasive manipulation of conformity disguised as individuality.

In our pursuit of personal self-discovery, many of us ironically base our identity on the same mainstream activities as everyone else: crocheting, yoga, running marathons or buying expensive racing bikes. In the end, our "most authentic self" is not so individual, making it hard to argue that these choices arise from genuine self-expression rather than from following trends and conforming to the social expectations imposed on us. The paradox of this performative individualism lies in the fact that, although people identify as individualists, they express this through shared cultural standarts. Therefore, our concept of the 'self' is less about the individual and more about the conformity of the masses through rigid social scripts.

If technologies reinforce narrow social scripts, the problem becomes critical when this extends to areas of our life where speaking freely and authentically is essential, and where conformity begins to resemble censorship.

A recent study conducted at Harvard University in 2024 demonstrates how this dynamic plays out in academic environments that are usually spaces for open dialogue. The study showed that both students and faculty increasingly feel uncomfortable expressing their opinions in class, being afraid of social backlash or professional consequences. Many participants admitted that they censor themselves during discussions, choosing words carefully or avoiding controversial topics in general. They would rather 'perform' correctness than speak authentically.

This affects not only academics but also politicians, journalists, public figures, artists, or anyone that is confronted with a public audience. Our restricted view of open discourse inevitably leads to a cautious performance that does not allow for the trust, empathy, and room for mistakes required for education and forming opinions.

Speaking and acting freely is crucial not only for the personal development of our own identity but also for the discourse and education that shape the collective identity of institutions and nations. These freedoms are necessary for resisting the influence of larger systems of control. The technological trends we observe today raise some of the relevant questions of our time: Can authenticity exist within societies where social media, surveillance, and algorithmic platforms mediate nearly every interaction? And how can we cultivate spaces for genuine self-expression that resist the influence of systemic pressures, socially enforced norms, and the subtle orchestration of conformity?

PART 2

Acknowledging these issues ultimately raises the question of agency. The real challenge lies not in recognising the issue of authenticity in our mediated reality, but in learning how to act authentically within it. This raises important questions: How can one speak and act authentically in such circumstances? What can I do to actively resist the influence of the gaze?

To deal with these question it is especially interesting to talk with a person that is used to being watched by an audience. While reactions to constant observation are similar for all of us, there is a big difference between non-performers and performers. Politicians, celebrities, influencer, youtuber, reality-tv stars and comedians all express their identity as a part of a performance that is presented to thousands and millions of people. While the rest of us find it difficult to act naturally under the gaze of others, performers are trained to deal with self evaluation and inhibition. In other words, non-performers tend to be controlled by their self-consciousness, while performers learn to control it and act authentically despite remaining fully aware of being observed.

Out of all performers it is especially interesting to look at stand-up comedians, because their work exists within the tension between authenticity and self-performance. Although their appearance is scripted and rehearsed, they want to appear just like they are outside of the stage. But while on stage, comedians face exactly the same problem as our digital society – the realisation of being watched makes them self-aware, which could ruin their whole act of being authentic. The quality of their performance lies in mastering how to be watched without losing the impression of being real. In doing so, they embody the paradox of our self-monitored society: in a mediated world, authenticity may no longer mean being unobserved, but rather knowing how to remain genuine while being seen.

Together with Sra Mukherjee, a stand-up comedian from Amsterdam, I looked into the question of how to deal the gaze of an audience and how she as a performer managed the tension between performance and authenticity over time. During the interview she describes moving from carefully scripting every word of her performance to accepting improvisation, slowly learning to fully own her own performance despite the fear of being seen and judged. By recording herself and practicing within the structural formats that observe her, she discovered authenticity as a skill that needs to be exercised. From these insights, I formulated seven principles that act as a structure for excercising authenticity:

Be present in the moment
Understand that you are being watched
Address the pressure, expectations, and impulses that arise under the gaze
Use your vulnerability and discomfort as entry points for a conversation with the other
Include the audience and figure it out together
Get comfortable
Practise within these structure until it shifts the way you feel, act, and think
Repeat as often as neccessary
Then, let go of the structure

These principles reveal the dynamics of selfhood under observation, where authenticity is not the absence of observation but the skill to act intentionally within it. Observation and visibility do only inhabit authenticity; they can provide a space on which skills, strategies, and forms of agency can be aquired. The comedy stage becomes a space where control and autonomy, norm and improvisation, visibility and self-determination coexist and are continually negotiated.

Surveillance technologies and algorithmic feedback, as well as cultural norms, have a significant impact on our ability to express our authentic selves, and drastically influence our behaviour and identity. Yet, as Sra’s practice showed, the individual does not need to be entirely passive. By being exposed to the gaze, one can reclaim agency, even within highly mediated environments. In this sense, authenticity is neither innate nor fixed, but rather a pragmatic skill acquired by engaging autonomously with the same forces that influence our perception and behaviour, helping us to understanding how self-expression, agency, and authenticity are practiced in systems of observation.