The ‘marketplace of ideas’ is here made real and tangible—for better or for worse. In this edition of Surrounded, the British American journalist Mehdi Hasan debates (or at least attempts to) 20 ‘far-right conservatives.’ And like everyone else with a pulse and a penchant for masochism, I clicked. Unsurprisingly, what unfolded was less a debate and more of a political endurance test. For 100 minutes I sat, cringed, gasped, and felt disgust seep into every part of my body as self-identified fascists (and hyper-online groypers) eagerly mouthed and aggressively pushed their repugnant world views. They were so horny.

Let me give you one of my favorites:

(Mehdi Hasan): So, you don’t believe in democracy?

(Fugly groyper): No, I don’t. Absolutely not.

(Mehdi Hasan): What do you believe in?

(Fugly groyper): AUTOCRACY!

He later goes on to state that his authoritarian hellhole would be ruled by an “aristocrat in-line with catholic teaching.” He turned out to be an online groyper named Connor who goes by the pseudonym ‘pinesap’ online—he was fired from his job just days later. Others simply told Mehdi Hasan that although being a naturalized citizen, he has no right to be in this country and that he should “get the hell out”. When debating far-right weirdos, racism, xenophobia, and undertones of white nationalism will almost always be present, but what surprised me most was the unconditional bigotry and the excitement to unleash such bigotry on a platform that attracts millions of eyeballs. I wasn’t just thinking about opposing ideologies and the content of their rhetoric; I was thinking about the rules and business model of the game itself. What does it mean to platform such hateful and extremist views? Are online discourse platforms constructing the digital architecture for the ushering of the Fourth Reich? Are the ad-dollars’ worth the already noticeable repercussions of normalizing openly fascistic views on a segment for online ‘normies’?

I couldn’t help but think of two prominent political thinkers: John Stuart Mill, the 19^th century utilitarian and champion of liberty, and Herbert Marcuse, the 20^th century German critical theorist. Are we honoring Mill’s free-speech principal and the clash of ideas, or are we, as Marcuse warned, tolerating the intolerable in a way that reinforces oppression and dehumanization? This post is my attempt to make sense of it.

Mill’s On Liberty

Writing at the aftermath of the French Revolution, John Stuart Mill was worried not just about overtly tyrannical governments, but about something more banal—the pressure to conform within society. In the wake of the French Revolution, approximately 17,000 people were executed via guillotine during Robespierre’s reign, and an estimated 10,000 died imprisoned. Mill interpreted this generally as a crisis of liberty but also as a warning on curtailing speech—that democracy could still become a kind of soft tyranny. Not just by state-mandated censorship as well as through peer-oriented pressure and public opinion. “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion, [states Mill], is that it is robbing the human race” (Mill, pg.21)—for Mill, liberty wasn’t just about laws. It was about the space to think, speak, and act without fear of being crushed by the masses and ensuring that the government cultivates an environment ripe for discussion.

Mill’s fears were not hypothetical, throughout history governments and public opinion have been repeatedly silenced. Most notably, the crusade against communist during the Red Scare led by former senator Joseph McCarthy. Anti-Vietnam war protestors were beat, gassed, arrested, and silenced for speaking out against a war they deemed unjust. Today, when considering peer-oriented pressure in speech, the pressure of saying the “wrong” thing is embedded into the very way we navigate online spaces.

Mill argued that free speech must be tolerated and upheld as an absolute principal, even if it is offensive. Direct harm to others is Mill’s only exception, stating: “As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it”(Mill, pg.83). So, under this principle, you can believe and say what you want as long as you're not directly harming someone. But of course, that raises uncomfortable questions: What is considered harm? Is emotional harm considered enough, or what if speech contributes or inflames a culture of violence? These are the foremost questions that contextualize a century old debate into modern digital culture.

He grounded the justification for free speech absolutism on four core tenets:

1. “The opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly true” (Mill, pg.22). Think of the Catholic Church’s persecution of Galileo when redefining Copernicus’ heliocentric theory (that the Sun, not the Earth is at the center of the solar system).

2. “Though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth—it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied” (Mill, pg. 59). In other words, the clash of ideas ultimately leads to a more complete truth. Before the Iraq War, many critics who doubted the validity of ‘WMD’s’ were silenced and deemed ‘unpatriotic’, yet their views contained the very truth the majority deliberately overlooked.

3. “Even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds” (Mill, pg.59). Here, Mill makes his most important point, and one which Marcuse will find problematic—the idea that the truth must endure the process of deliberate contestation. Tolerance thus becomes something that is good for its own sake, instead of serving as a vehicle for social progress. This is a key component of modern-day debate culture and is exemplified in the Jubilee video at hand. Many of the contestants’ biggest quarrels with Mehdi Hasan is his immediate shutdown when realizing he was sharing a stage with an induvial who considered him to be subhuman. In the eyes of the 20 far-right conservatives, Mehdi had to prove and (in Millian terms) ‘earnestly contest’ his humanity—and bravely he declined.

4. “The meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost—and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession” (Mill, pg.59). Once more Mill proves to inform our contemporary political climate by expressing the dangers of ‘dead dogmas’. Without constant deliberation, ideals that are upheld as ‘core-national values’ lose significance and devolve into nothing but symbols and empty slogans. During the Cold War, the promise to defend “freedom and democracy” often justified interventions that supported dictatorships or wars.

And yet, Mill’s vision of a vibrant intellectual marketplace relies on conditions that no longer exist. In the world of viral slogans, algorithmic echo chambers, and memeified politics (which have become the focus of conservative rhetoric), speech often circulates not to persuade, but to dominate, distract, or deceive (think of conspiratorial thinking). The “dead dogma” that Mill feared is no longer a sleepy truth but a zombified one animated not by reason and deliberation, but by an algorithmic echo.

Marcuse & Repressive Tolerance

The ideal of pure tolerance implies social conditions in which rivalling opinions all have a fair hearing. Marcuse understood this as a question of inequality in the very marketplace of ideas Mill championed. Writing in the wake of fascism’s rise and the failures of liberal democracy to contain it, Marcuse argues that tolerating all viewpoints equally (especially those that reinforce domination) undermines the emancipatory potential of free expression. Marcuse wrote this essay in dedication to his students at Brandeis University who challenged the university’s sponsorship of military research during the Vietnam war. Once challenged, the university appealed (in Millian undertones) to academic freedom to discredit student-protestors and defend the right of professors to contribute to the war effort.

This is the problem of uncritical tolerance: should we constantly have to deliberate over one’s humanity? Rather than sharpening truth through open contest, uncritical tolerance often enables reactionary forces to flood the discourse with falsehoods and bigotry (both seen on Jubilee’s video). In Marcuse’s words, “tolerance is an end in itself” (Marcuse, pg.33), shifting from action to inaction. What might have sparked real transformation devolves into an oratory spectacle—political theatre. It’s a remarkable formula really: as the Trump administration humiliates the working class, Mehdi Hasan is asked to justify his right to exist on a debate stage.

Pure and uncritical toleration limits qualitative social change. It doesn’t promote real social change but rather defers it by treating the stupid opinion with the same respect as the intelligent one. It makes the system that demands such tolerance seem neutral, even benevolent. Yet this very objectivity and seeming impartiality, Marcuse warns, “fosters a mentality which tends to obliterate the difference between true and false, information and misinformation, right and wrong” (Marcuse, pg.43). For instance, Jubilee’s format simulates balance between differing opinions, but it masks the asymmetry of power between marginalized voices and their deniers (this is exemplified best in Jubilee’s ‘Midde Ground’ series). A false equivalence is cemented between the oppressor and the oppressed, the racist and the anti-racist, the fascist and the freedom-fighter.

Toleration of ‘free discussion’ is merely a boundary setter, a clarification as to what form of dissent is permissible. You can see this in the way capitalism co-opts and assimilates resistance. Just look at the arc of the BLM movement: radical protest was quickly repackaged into corporate slogans and Instagram-ready branding. The system stayed intact. The revolution got merch. Marcuse isn’t just saying “be intolerant.” He’s arguing from a dialectical standpoint: freedom for the wolf is death for the sheep. Real tolerance must be grounded in a commitment to human liberation, not in neutrality for its own sake. That commitment must be praxis, not just principle.

Conclusion

Ultimately, not every idea deserves a mic—a platform is not a neutral space but rather an invitation. Mill gave us the marketplace; Marcuse warned us it might become a circus. And Jubilee? They sold tickets.

In the Second Sex, Simone De Beauvoir begins her chapter ‘The Narcissist’ by stating that narcissism is a process of alienation. That, the obsession with the mirror posits the ‘self’ as an absolute end, which culminates in a distinct form of self-objectification. Characterizing narcissism as a ‘heroine’, Beauvoir recognizes how it manifests as self-induced entrapment—an attempt to cope with woman’s ‘inferior’ condition. Today, in the age of the digital profile—where one is compelled to curate and positively represent themselves—narcissism prevails. In this essay I will attempt to apply a Beauvoirian tone to online identity presentation. First, I will present an overview of narcissism and briefly summarize Beauvoir’s Narcissist chapter. Then, in highlighting social media’s primary functions (mainly the need to present oneself ideally), I aim to show how social media platforms have endorsed a narcissistic turn. Culminating in a social ethos grounded in vanity, external validation, and a hyper-fixation of the self.

Narcissism: A Philosophical Overview

Narcissism (which allows for a narrative of our thesis), finding it’s literary origin in the story of Narcissus, tells the story of a boy conceived by a river god and nymph named Liriope, whose destiny was foretold to be long if he failed to recognize himself. And, despite being adored for his beauty, Narcissus could not reciprocate affection. Eventually, consumed by self-love and vanity, Narcissus fell for his own reflection, and wasted away by the water's edge, leading to his transformation into the narcissus flower (daffodil). The story of Narcissus symbolizes unrequited love and self-absorption. In a phrase: Narcissus was dominated by the mirror, chained to his appearance, and enslaved by his sense of self-love. Today, in the age of the digital profile, we are all narcissus.

In his memorable ‘Moral Maxims and Reflections’, Francois de La Rochefoucauld captures the grim and corrupting essence of an unrestricted obsession with the self, when stating that self-love ‘makes people idolators to themselves, tyrants to all the world besides.’ The infatuation with the self is thus seen as the concentration of an immobile image, a deifying of the self, and a process of self-alienation.

Narcissism in The Second Sex

The Narcissist chapter is the first under the section of ‘Lived Experience’ coined ‘Justifications’. When reconciling these two terms, Beauvoir is attempting to make sense of the ways in which women—grappling with their given conditions—cope with their supposed ‘inferiority’. Recall that for Beauvoir, the liberation of the ‘other’ sex can be achieved if and only if it is demanded collectively . And that some women, actively preventing the wheel of liberation from turning, ‘seek to attain individual salvation on their own’ . In other words, narcissism for Beauvoir is both a reaction and a method of coping with the ‘otherizing’ of women. It is a way of confining oneself into a cell of inauthenticity—an illusion and an inner dialogue product of an infatuation with the ‘self’. This is what Beauvoir means when stating that ‘circumstances invite woman more than man to turn toward self and to dedicate her love to herself.’ To reiterate, the ‘circumstances’ at play here are the socio-cultural-psycho-political norms and practices of exclusion that women have historically endured; narcissism is merely a manifestation, and one which Beauvoir deems a ‘radical failure’.

Described as an extreme form of self-love, narcissism can be outlined in a dual process of an insatiable desire for superiority and a perpetual dependence on the validation of others. This is what is hinted at when Beauvoir states that ‘all love demands the duality of a subject and an object.’ A process which for Beauvoir, arises from the very development of the self. The pre-pubescent self, asserts Beauvoir, ‘[is] autonomous—with a free future opening before them…as a child—the woman lived her condition in an individual way.’ In other words, as the young girl matures into womanhood, she is confronted with the pressure of facticity. By this, I mean the need to adapt to a pre-established, pre-arranged role: ‘the narcissist, the woman in love, and the mystic.’ Essentially, the woman’s story is pre-determined; they must simply act. Confined to behavioral stereotypes, the worshiper of the self becomes fixed and trapped in their ‘imaginary double’. Acting in bad faith and sedated by a ‘heroin’, ‘her whole life is transfigured into a sacred drama.’ Although Beauvoir’s focus lies on feminine narcissism, I argue that her theoretical contribution may further enlighten the conversation contra narcissism.

Profilicity: Social Media Curation

Serving various functions, social media mediates romantic relationships (dating apps), business relations (LinkedIn), and social interactions (X, Instagram, Facebook, etc). Despite their distinct functions, social media platforms overwhelmingly require users to engage in online self-representation, or what I refer to as 'online avatarism.' This process involves individuals being in control of what they choose to externalize or digitally display. With this in mind, we begin to see Beauvoir’s renewed relevance to our contemporary hyper-online culture.

Social media platforms, through their comparative, social-capital economy, have shifted self-narration towards a distorted self-love reliant on external validation. Today, social media identity presentation has become a primary source of both digital success and stress. Essentially, the digital realm of personalized profiles and online avatarism is dictated by a constant need to represent oneself positively and is evaluated by a comparative, peer-rating-economy. In other words, social media has transformed man into homo-comparativus, who’s internal satisfaction is validated by the engagement of the other. Recall Beauvoir’s validation thesis, in which she states that the ‘narcissist’s generosity is profitable to her: better than in mirrors, it is in others’ admiring eyes she sees her double haloed in glory.’ Or, made more apparent—’they need gazes to contemplate them, ears to listen to them; they need the widest possible audience for their personage.’ The ‘I’, in this sense, becomes relative and wholly dependent on the evaluative gaze of the ‘other’.

The digital realm epitomizes the relative ‘I’ and cultivates a glass-house society in which one is perceiving yet always being perceived. And in a glass house society, identity presentation—necessitating constant evaluation—becomes a fundamental pillar of acquiring social capital. In other words, the insatiable desire to self-curate is thus a byproduct of our values being captured by social media’s endorsement of narcissism; of defining success (and online identity) as a game of identity extension, social capital, and vanity.

Once internalized, the relative ‘I’ takes precedence, leading to a potential narcissistic turn. Exacerbating self-admiration and inflaming our self-love, the digital profile compels one to create an ‘alternative self’. Elena Russo observes that excessive self-admiration, ‘create[s] a sort of bondage of the self to the opinion of the public’. Fearful of visible negative peer evaluation, one must, in other words, conform to the comparative gaze of the ‘general peer’. When fully digested, the conformity to the general peer manifests in a form of entrapment—an inauthentic, alienating behavioral pivot. Elsewhere, writing on the harms of living in reference to others, Montaigne writes:

‘[It] does us much more harm than good. We defraud ourselves of our own advantages to make appearances conform with public opinion. We do not care so much what we are in ourselves and in reality as what we are in the public mind.’

Many today, attempting to display themselves authentically, curate their image and essentially commodify themselves to be evaluated. Hans-Georg Moeller, in ‘Beyond Originality: The Birth of Profilicity from Spirit of Postmodernity’, marks the authenticity crisis as one explained by a proliferation of profilicity. By this, he means a ‘technology for shaping identity through curation, display, and validation of profiles’ . Proposed in contradiction to authenticity—which can be achieved only by creating oneself truthfully and originally—profilicity signifies a pivot towards ‘display’ and ‘curation’; the image essentially displaces the original…the ‘aesthetic’ devoid of experience. The image—one’s digital extension of self—works as catharsis. Alluding to this very authenticity crisis, Beauvoir recognizes the totalizing essence of an infatuation with the appearance, stating: ‘because she has not realized herself in her life, the heroine cherished by the narcissist is merely an imaginary character.’

With this in mind, social media does not just create a perpetual anxiety over one’s projected image, but it also alienates us from our first-order desires—from our very essence.

Identity in the age of the digital profile, tainted by a need for idealized-identity presentation, becomes performative and takes a narcissistic turn. In a process dictated by a demand to perform, one must act and become who they wish to be seen as. And, in simplifying our conception of digital success into thinly quantifiable metrics (Likes, RTs, Followers, Comments, etc.), social media has constructed a glass-house society.

Conclusion

This essay attempted to apply a Beauvoirian tone—particularly focusing on the Narcissist chapter in the Second Sex—to the age of the digital profile. Through a close reading of Beauvoir’s text, I attempted to highlight how Beauvoir’s concept of narcissism can further enlighten the literature on narcissism in social media identity presentation. Synthesizing Hans-Georg Moeller’s concept of profilicity with narcissism in Beauvoir, I claimed that the hyper-fixation with the online self-curation has culminated in a prioritizing of the image over the experience.

We’ve all experienced, to at least a certain extent, feelings of anxiety, angst, and uncertainty. Either from an insatiable desire to express oneself authentically or by a sensation of ‘wanting to’ yet simultaneously feeling constrained. By constraints I mean those seemingly immovable objects and circumstances that are presented and received as absolutes —whether it be socio-economic factors such as poverty and lack of opportunity, or a deep-rooted feeling of indecision and unpredictability–life remains ambiguous. Existentialism, which proposes a vantage point to confront this dilemma is characterized as both a social and inter-personal reflective relationship. Positing the individual in a place of action, existentialism attempts to liberate man from a seemingly endless gaze into the abyss—a purgatory of choice. Conveyed in cinema, pop culture, literature, and art existentialism is commonly retold in Hollywood hits such as Lost in Translation, The Lobster, The Truman Show, and Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, amongst many others. In this sense, existentialism captivates and intrigues the mind due to its universal applicability. In short, existentialism operates in the medium of creating personal meaning. Reaching into the very ambiguities of life, it positions man to not shy away but rather embrace freedom—to grasp and impose oneself on a predetermined world.

Existentialism Defined

Put simply, existentialism is a philosophical viewpoint that posits man as a primary figure in the world. It emphasizes on one's ability to choose, act, and self-actualize freely and authentically–one must invent themselves. ‘Create your path’, shouts the existentialist firmly entrenched in the inventive corner of your soul. Existentialism speaks to that unquenchable thirst for self-expression that humans so desperately crave yet in unison negate. Often, we are tainted by our facticity, i.e., what is given and predetermined–height, class, religion, race, family, etc–but the existentialist must recognize and transcend such obstacles.

In other words, existentialism recognizes that one must create oneself authentically and that one is the primary source of value. Still, at the same time, one must comprehend the gravity of pre-established circumstances. This is what French philosopher Simone De Beauvoir means when stating that existentialism positions “the value of the individual as the source and reason for being of all significations and all colors, yet it admits that the individual has reality only through his engagement in the world.”^[1] Existentialism thus posits, although a philosophy interpreted as a practice of individual salvation, that one must exercise their will under the guise of universal freedom. Mainly, through a posture against oppression. This is what Jean-Paul Sartre had in mind when expressing that ‘in choosing myself, I choose man’^[2] and echoing Sartre, De Beauvoir asserts ‘the will of free being is sufficient for the accomplishment of freedom, yet–this will can posit itself only by struggling against the obstacles and the oppressions that limit the concrete possibilities of man.’^[3]

A Brief History

Existentialism has its origins in a interplay of philosophical, religious, and social developments across history. Early inklings of existential thought can be found in ancient philosophies like Stoicism and Epicureanism, as well as in the introspective works of Augustine, Montaigne, and Pascal. However, it wasn't until the nineteenth century that existentialism solidified into a significant intellectual movement. This period saw the emergence of a secular and scientific worldview that eroded traditional religious frameworks, leaving individuals adrift and isolated. This is partly what Nietzsche warned when stating ‘God is dead and we have killed him.’ Protestantism's emphasis on individualism further exacerbated these feelings of disconnection from communal bonds.

The Industrial Revolution and the rise of modern states further compounded this existential crisis by creating impersonal and alienating social structures. Existentialist thinkers like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Sartre critiqued the conformity and emptiness of mass society, while literary figures such as Dostoevsky, Camus, and Kafka depicted the existential angst of individuals within bureaucratic systems.

These social upheavals laid the groundwork for nihilism, where humanity grappled with the absence of inherent meaning or purpose in existence. Marking the loss of traditional moral absolutes and the subsequent existential void. In response, existentialism posed urgent questions about the nature of existence, challenging conventional philosophical frameworks to confront the absurdity of human existence head-on.

Key existentialist thinkers like Kierkegaard explored the limitations of human existence in relation to God, while Nietzsche introduced the concept of the will-to-power and the idea of the ‘overman’ (Übermensch). Sartre and De Beauvoir further developed existentialism by rejecting the notion of God and proposing an ‘atheistic existentialism’, emphasizing human responsibility in creating meaning.

Why Existentialism

A main tenet of the criticisms directed at existentialism is one of pessimism and nihilism. In short, critics accuse the existentialist doctrine of breeding feelings of hopelessness and abandonment in what Nietzsche coined a ‘godless world’. Essentially, in ones turning away from God and his ethics, the gaze into the abyss will ultimately result in nothing but deep-rooted forlornness. The existentialist pushes back on such criticisms based on self-creation and by suggesting that the project of invention holds intrinsic value. In other words, the attempt at imposing oneself authentically onto the world is a good and an end in itself. Thus, values and ethical principles must be authoritatively endorsed not by ‘eternal and superterrestrial laws but as the search for a valid foundation of human history.’^[4] Namely, man's principle project is the very act of creating new values rooted in both oneself and universal freedom. The existentialist rejects the claim of nihilism because from this very gaze into absurdity, and the refusal to embrace ‘ready-made’ values, one will give the world new meaning and ‘constitute a kingdom of ends.’^[5]

Following the existentialist ethos of creation, and to finalize my discussion on existentialism, I’d like to highlight Jean-Paul Sartre’s paper cutter metaphor which highlights the thesis that existence precedes essence. The paper-cutter, to use as a primary example, is firstly conceptualized (via its function and future use) and then manufactured. In other words, it is a product given meaning by its producer and is brought into existence through a technical view of the world–its essence precedes its existence. Unlike the paper-cutter, both Beauvoir and Sartre contend that existentialism believes that one is thrown into the world, indicating that one firstly exists and is not pre-defined. Consequently, one must thus establish and create their essence by imposing oneself onto the world and inventing–’man is nothing but what he makes of himself.’^[6] Man's existence is primary, his essence secondary.

This thesis (existence precedes essence) was mainly directed at Christians, creationism, and the disciples of the story of Genesis. For them, humans are created, like the paper-cutter, under the domain of an all-knowing, omnipotent entity they call God. When we hold God as the creator, as many do, we are essentially positioning ourselves as pre-defined beings conceptualized and designed through the eyes of a supreme entity; we are disclosing and betraying both our potential and our freedom.

Existentialism is thus a philosophy that promotes both individual and social flourishment through the recognition of one’s ability to choose and act. A doctrine that confronts the ambiguities and contradictions of self and society, that transcends anxiety and the absurd, and one that embraces man as a self-actualizing project. To conclude my commentary on existentialism, I’d suggest the reader to reflect on the futility of life devoid of authenticity.

Stop, think, contemplate, overcome, and act! Do not let yourself be spoon-fed ready-made values, I shout from my humble corner…invent!

‘Whoever sees the abyss, but with eagle’s eyes, whoever grasps the abyss with eagle’s talons: he has courage.’^[7]

^[1] De Beauvoir, S. ‘What is Existentialism’, pg. (325)

^[2] Sartre, J. (2004). Basic Writings of Existentialism. Modern Library. (pg.347)

^[3]  De Beauvoir, S. ‘What is Existentialism’, pg. (325)

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6]  Sartre, J. (2004). Basic Writings of Existentialism. Modern Library. (pg.345)

^[7] Nietzsche, F. (2006). Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Cambridge University Press. (pg.233)