Social media masquerades as an opportunity to extend your agentivity, but all it does is increase your feeling of being an object. Which is in itself an impressive magic trick
As someone trying to grow on this site, this was an interesting and also terrifying concept I didn't consider. Thanks for putting this out there it was a great listen!
I remember a lecture in high school or college talking about Sartres’ idea that every first encounter quickly sorts into an A and a B, a dominant and a subordinate. Like most of my profound memories from my past education I think I remember things slightly wrong…but it stood out as somehow important and fundamental. Thank you for discussing this topic.
An interesting episode of this podcast. I will look for the rest of episodes. Two quick questions: Aren't influencers in a way influencers precisely because we allow them to influence our thoughts and our decision-making? In a way, this has more to do with the audience than with the person him/herself. Isn't the term "content-creator" rather misleading? Writers, musicians, filmmakers, people who write user's manuals, etc. are also content creators and nobody refers to them as such. Keep up the good work, and greetings from a college professor in Tennessee!
@@BartWronsk What I meant is that in all of these things there is a certain kind of content. Bear in mind that I didn't only mention art, but also things like user's manuals. My point is that the idea of content cannot be limited to what one posts on social media or TH-cam. And yes, art does have content, even if it isn't just content.
I find it interesting how David is searching for a clarity of how to describe the Lil Miquela phenomenon. The relationship between self, peer, and society-at-large through social media still feels novel and in-flux (yeah, millennial here) and so presumably still in a moment of discovery and re-orientation? The social media experience feels intimately ouroboric - there is a process of self-commodification whereby we reinvent our personal branding for external consumption to stay relevant in social markets (eg Joseph E Davis "The Commodification of Self") - while also symbiotically consuming others doing the same thing (thus objectifying or even, in extreme instances, fetishising other identities) and the aggressive promotion of what's popular / trending. There is also the nuance of a moral construction of self in society (Trilling's "Sincerity & Authority", Miller's "You & Your Profile: Identity after Authenticity"). Maybe these things coupled together result in the Brud-Corp-blind-phenomenon of "selling good"? As well as consuming the parts of ourselves that we see in others / influencers (reinforcing or validating our sense of fashion eg bookshelves? or superiority), there are also those instances where we fleshcraft the tastes of influencers as an identity a la mode to become closer to a moral ideal (subjectively speaking, thinking product advertisement (buy this, be like me) or the exaltation of celebrity / influencer (do this, be like me) etc) - so maybe not totally accurate to describe it as self-eating...maybe modern construct of self = ouroboric frankenstein? Interesting insight on Talcott Parsons and the idea of influence being a form of behavioural engineering - considering how well informed modern audiences are, this would presumably raise questions of participation vs complicity? Very interesting though. Loving the episode. Thanks for the informed takes!
One facet you did not cover - I think - is the commodification of the "relations" influencers have with the influenced. Commodification of relations is nothing new, but I think that it is hiding in plain sight in the case of influencers is quite fascinating.
Thanks for the influential podcast ! So I will try to keep my comment short .i will hone in a few things ,that i felt my mind wrestling with . Firstly ,I see why Elle uses Simone de Beauvoir as one of her influencers. Other then the fact she is the existential queen of existentialism , Simone de Beauvoir projects a air of confidence ;she speaks easily, reasonably quickly ,without having to stop and start a lot .( speaking from with- in to out with fluency , thus influence ) . Simone de Beauvoir speaks from her body not about her body . That projects a mystery or aura about her as is influence ! Secondly ,at the risk of being hit over the head with Nietzsche hammer , though with a Derrida deconstruction approach to the many usages of the phrase ' coming out " . In the Christian Bible , when asked about how to say the Lords Prayer ,the answer is : When reciting the prayer ,enter your closet ( meaning fold your hands , closet meaning soul ,hallow space ) than recite " Our Father .....etc) .That in itself is influence , in - fluency . Modern usage ranges from psychoanalysis ( opening up ); or as David eludes to means a homosexual coming out , openly saying that he or she is gay ." Coming out " since has been used as coming out in the open about various things . Thirdly , may i offer a suggestion in aid of Elle search for off the 'top of her head ' quote by Plato. Here i will " being off the top of my head " use his idea that , medicine can be a cure or a poison . Tying this in with the topic at hand , influence , influence can be good or bad , harmful or helpful. ( I know , to get the gist ( or geist ) i created binaries ) . Fourthly , "content creator " to me feels awkward and intentional constructed , to oppose to saying God. i feel content creator has a I of ego ownership .feeling as having a paton on it . it eliminates the mystery or aura about the person . The late Queen Elizabeth is a prime example of one that has a aura ,a spiritual .moral energy about her . That is what people are currently emotionally responding to .Her just" being there " influenced millions . Her ,like Nelson Mandela . when in a room has all eyes on them and not on other top world leaders in the room . A paradigm of excellence !
Perhaps having criteria is our consciousness in the end. And, paradoxes wake us up to the usefulness of ourselves. A sense of "we" is recognized as our "belonging" here and in the rest of the world. To be encouraged to have consciousness is beauty. And, objectivity is our patience. Knowledge is the result of looking over some sort of system. And, knowledge is something new, or newly made. Things are, well, things to which we give our time, like planting a garden both for the sake of beauty and for usefulness. Yet, to wonder if something is an idea is to begin to recognize loss. The core is of our doing, and to put this or that in a certain manner is to break out from one way to another. When I think of questions, I think of poetry, that the very question in question is poetry, especially if our wonder is our gratitude. Applying this would be a triumph if the act of applying is a triumph. This present day, influencers do something with something. Following them brings potential to their usefulness, and we are asking for some hope. When it is given to us, we feel a sense of usefulness because giving is usually done to make use of something. When it is not, we suffer losses. There is a pressure to weave together those actions, especially if those actions are translations, if those actions translate into our joy.
Social media masquerades as an opportunity to extend your agentivity, but all it does is increase your feeling of being an object. Which is in itself an impressive magic trick
An identity-product.
“You are valued.”
That’s really just Instagram. There are at least 30 social media
@@skaterdude14b right
As someone trying to grow on this site, this was an interesting and also terrifying concept I didn't consider. Thanks for putting this out there it was a great listen!
I remember a lecture in high school or college talking about Sartres’ idea that every first encounter quickly sorts into an A and a B, a dominant and a subordinate. Like most of my profound memories from my past education I think I remember things slightly wrong…but it stood out as somehow important and fundamental. Thank you for discussing this topic.
An interesting episode of this podcast. I will look for the rest of episodes. Two quick questions: Aren't influencers in a way influencers precisely because we allow them to influence our thoughts and our decision-making? In a way, this has more to do with the audience than with the person him/herself. Isn't the term "content-creator" rather misleading? Writers, musicians, filmmakers, people who write user's manuals, etc. are also content creators and nobody refers to them as such. Keep up the good work, and greetings from a college professor in Tennessee!
Music, craft, and art is not content! :(
This commodification of culture even in the language makes me very sad.
@@BartWronsk What I meant is that in all of these things there is a certain kind of content. Bear in mind that I didn't only mention art, but also things like user's manuals. My point is that the idea of content cannot be limited to what one posts on social media or TH-cam. And yes, art does have content, even if it isn't just content.
I find it interesting how David is searching for a clarity of how to describe the Lil Miquela phenomenon. The relationship between self, peer, and society-at-large through social media still feels novel and in-flux (yeah, millennial here) and so presumably still in a moment of discovery and re-orientation?
The social media experience feels intimately ouroboric - there is a process of self-commodification whereby we reinvent our personal branding for external consumption to stay relevant in social markets (eg Joseph E Davis "The Commodification of Self") - while also symbiotically consuming others doing the same thing (thus objectifying or even, in extreme instances, fetishising other identities) and the aggressive promotion of what's popular / trending.
There is also the nuance of a moral construction of self in society (Trilling's "Sincerity & Authority", Miller's "You & Your Profile: Identity after Authenticity"). Maybe these things coupled together result in the Brud-Corp-blind-phenomenon of "selling good"? As well as consuming the parts of ourselves that we see in others / influencers (reinforcing or validating our sense of fashion eg bookshelves? or superiority), there are also those instances where we fleshcraft the tastes of influencers as an identity a la mode to become closer to a moral ideal (subjectively speaking, thinking product advertisement (buy this, be like me) or the exaltation of celebrity / influencer (do this, be like me) etc) - so maybe not totally accurate to describe it as self-eating...maybe modern construct of self = ouroboric frankenstein?
Interesting insight on Talcott Parsons and the idea of influence being a form of behavioural engineering - considering how well informed modern audiences are, this would presumably raise questions of participation vs complicity?
Very interesting though. Loving the episode. Thanks for the informed takes!
One facet you did not cover - I think - is the commodification of the "relations" influencers have with the influenced. Commodification of relations is nothing new, but I think that it is hiding in plain sight in the case of influencers is quite fascinating.
It will be great if this podcast also have videos.
Thanks for the influential podcast ! So I will try to keep my comment short .i will hone in a few things ,that i felt my mind wrestling with . Firstly ,I see why Elle uses Simone de Beauvoir as one of her influencers. Other then the fact she is the existential queen of existentialism , Simone de Beauvoir projects a air of confidence ;she speaks easily, reasonably quickly ,without having to stop and start a lot .( speaking from with- in to out with fluency , thus influence ) . Simone de Beauvoir speaks from her body not about her body . That projects a mystery or aura about her as is influence !
Secondly ,at the risk of being hit over the head with Nietzsche hammer , though with a Derrida deconstruction approach to the many usages of the phrase ' coming out " . In the Christian Bible , when asked about how to say the Lords Prayer ,the answer is : When reciting the prayer ,enter your closet ( meaning fold your hands , closet meaning soul ,hallow space ) than recite " Our Father .....etc) .That in itself is influence , in - fluency . Modern usage ranges from psychoanalysis ( opening up ); or as David eludes to means a homosexual coming out , openly saying that he or she is gay ." Coming out " since has been used as coming out in the open about various things .
Thirdly , may i offer a suggestion in aid of Elle search for off the 'top of her head ' quote by Plato. Here i will " being off the top of my head " use his idea that , medicine can be a cure or a poison . Tying this in with the topic at hand , influence , influence can be good or bad , harmful or helpful. ( I know , to get the gist ( or geist ) i created binaries ) .
Fourthly , "content creator " to me feels awkward and intentional constructed , to oppose to saying God. i feel content creator has a I of ego ownership .feeling as having a paton on it . it eliminates the mystery or aura about the person . The late Queen Elizabeth is a prime example of one that has a aura ,a spiritual .moral energy about her . That is what people are currently emotionally responding to .Her just" being there " influenced millions . Her ,like Nelson Mandela . when in a room has all eyes on them and not on other top world leaders in the room . A paradigm of excellence !
Social media the place in which you can be whoever you want whenever you want. the problem is that that "being" and "reality" just don't exist.
Perhaps having criteria is our consciousness in the end. And, paradoxes wake us up to the usefulness of ourselves. A sense of "we" is recognized as our "belonging" here and in the rest of the world. To be encouraged to have consciousness is beauty. And, objectivity is our patience.
Knowledge is the result of looking over some sort of system. And, knowledge is something new, or newly made. Things are, well, things to which we give our time, like planting a garden both for the sake of beauty and for usefulness. Yet, to wonder if something is an idea is to begin to recognize loss.
The core is of our doing, and to put this or that in a certain manner is to break out from one way to another.
When I think of questions, I think of poetry, that the very question in question is poetry, especially if our wonder is our gratitude. Applying this would be a triumph if the act of applying is a triumph.
This present day, influencers do something with something. Following them brings potential to their usefulness, and we are asking for some hope. When it is given to us, we feel a sense of usefulness because giving is usually done to make use of something. When it is not, we suffer losses.
There is a pressure to weave together those actions, especially if those actions are translations, if those actions translate into our joy.
Thanks both for your podcast. :)
Thank you for this episode! Very poignant and relevant
Of course they create something.
The “product or service” created by content creators or influencers is the BRAND. They are MARKETING the BRAND.
Nice one
I need to upgrade my bookshelf lmao
prixeless
hyperreal influence ...