Ian Hacking’s work continues to maintain its relevance after his recent passing. He even uses DID (well, he refers to it by its older name, “multiple personalities”) as a core example to refer to what he calls the “looping effect” of kinds or classifications.
“This story can be placed in a five-part framework. We have (a) a classification…
Ian Hacking’s work continues to maintain its relevance after his recent passing. He even uses DID (well, he refers to it by its older name, “multiple personalities”) as a core example to refer to what he calls the “looping effect” of kinds or classifications.
“This story can be placed in a five-part framework. We have (a) a classification, multiple personality, associated with what at the time was called a ‘disorder’. This kind of person is now a moving target. We have (b) the people [classified]. There are (c) institutions, which include clinics, [and universities and media]. There is (d) the knowledge… disseminated and refined within the context of the institutions. … There is expert knowledge, the knowledge of the professionals, and there is popular knowledge, shared by a significant part of the interested population. There was a time, partly thanks to those talkshows and other media, when ‘everyone’ believed that multiple personality was caused by early sexual abuse. Finally, there are (e) the experts or professionals who generate (d) the knowledge, judge its validity, and use it in their practice. They work within (c) institutions that guarantee their legitimacy, authenticity and status as experts. They study, try to help, or advise on the control of (b) the people who are (a) classified as of a given kind.”
Social media has hollowed out the gatekeeping functions of institutional expertise (c) and enabled direct peer to peer transmission of whatever is left of the expert knowledge (d) among members of the affected group (b). With predictable consequences.
Social media also turbocharges the “looping effect” by giving people real-time feedback about their self-presentation that affects both how they act on social media and how they think about themselves.
Ian Hacking’s work continues to maintain its relevance after his recent passing. He even uses DID (well, he refers to it by its older name, “multiple personalities”) as a core example to refer to what he calls the “looping effect” of kinds or classifications.
“This story can be placed in a five-part framework. We have (a) a classification, multiple personality, associated with what at the time was called a ‘disorder’. This kind of person is now a moving target. We have (b) the people [classified]. There are (c) institutions, which include clinics, [and universities and media]. There is (d) the knowledge… disseminated and refined within the context of the institutions. … There is expert knowledge, the knowledge of the professionals, and there is popular knowledge, shared by a significant part of the interested population. There was a time, partly thanks to those talkshows and other media, when ‘everyone’ believed that multiple personality was caused by early sexual abuse. Finally, there are (e) the experts or professionals who generate (d) the knowledge, judge its validity, and use it in their practice. They work within (c) institutions that guarantee their legitimacy, authenticity and status as experts. They study, try to help, or advise on the control of (b) the people who are (a) classified as of a given kind.”
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v28/n16/ian-hacking/making-up-people
Social media has hollowed out the gatekeeping functions of institutional expertise (c) and enabled direct peer to peer transmission of whatever is left of the expert knowledge (d) among members of the affected group (b). With predictable consequences.
Social media also turbocharges the “looping effect” by giving people real-time feedback about their self-presentation that affects both how they act on social media and how they think about themselves.