I think at times that our experiment in television has had an adverse reaction with people who have watched too many broadcast personalities and started losing their own sense of identity.

Instead of having the time to develop their own character within a small community of real-life people, they are becoming, in part, a composite of voices, personalities, actions, intonations, and fragments of media that have nothing to do with their own intrinsic selves.

If the passively consumed phrases, memes, bits, and pieces of conversation are learned through mimicry and start to overtake what should be our own reasoned thoughts and identities, where do we emerge from the entanglement of these others’ words and actions? Likewise, do people become who they are from practicing mimicry of others in the same profession, assuming the characteristics, mannerisms, and behaviors that allow them to appear in the expectation of those who encounter them? So, if the barista becomes the character of a barista, do we see anything of who that person really is? Do we want to? At that moment, they are there to serve a function, and we need to know nothing about their private life. But what if private life is nothing more than a reflection of bad media, video games, jobs, musicians, and celebrities?

When we look at furries and cosplayers, we see the adult acting out their internal dialog and imagination in a public arena, so in effect, they, too, are on stage as the characters they are imitating. While wearing masks and playing roles have been part of human culture for millennia, prior to the past decade, this was reserved for ceremonies, rituals, and theater within a community where it was only consumed by those present.

Are these people in costume that much different from the bicyclist who adopts the character of the biker with all the requisite lingo, clothes, and attitudes? The same goes for motorcyclists, who not only move in conforming packs but are often composite figures of the proto-biker. What I’m wondering about is our inclinations toward herd mentalities where the “individual” is likely certain they are acting uniquely.

These last examples are of those who externally display the influence of mass media. I’m curious, though, if there is a much larger part of our population who don’t necessarily have overt outward characteristics but have attitudes and speech patterns highly influenced by and originating primarily from our broadcast media and that are, in some cases, dominant in their conversations.

Many right and left-wing extremists adopt the lingo of their fellow radicals who foster tight groups by pulling in close those who are indoctrinated and demonstrating characteristics most similar to their own. These dogmatic organizations are mostly intolerant towards those who are too many degrees away from their ordained ideology. Why has it become beneficial to society to have fostered so many clones in lockstep ideologies as opposed to encouraging individualism? To answer my own question, I suppose the correct response would be that this is the way it has always been.

For hunter-gatherers, the men would imitate the strongest, most skillful hunter. In the industrial age, the apprentice mimics the craftsman and throughout religious history, the disciple would kowtow to the authority that commanded them to follow dictated principles. In today’s age, the half-educated nitwit imitates the YouTube personality who has become the cult leader of a dispersed group of followers. We are media circus clowns afraid to venture into ourselves as the responsibility to be unique often implies a kind of isolation: better join the crowd and take your meds.