An interesting comment on the Facebook link to this:
The reason why influencers are a thing is that people find them relatable in some way -- either because they believe this person is like them or that they want to be like that person.
They fill in a gap left by the increased isolation of individuals in society, so it feels a little bit like actual friendship used to. And of course friends influence each other all the time quite powerfully -- this dynamic doesn't require credentials and is sometimes even harmed by them.
It doesn't really substitute properly, though, because the relationship is parasocial, so there is an element of celebrity culture going on there, as well. Successful influencers also make use of techniques designed to grab and hold people's attention for the 30-60 seconds needed to get that viral edge.
The term is Opinion Leader in Communication studies. It meant that contrary to the idea that mass media (newspapers, for example) has a direct and immediate effect on an audience (Powerful Effects theory), it rather took two stages of influence, specifically from someone known to an individual who does attend to mass media content and who communicates that to his acquaintances thereby affecting their opinions and behavior through a relationship. Fr. Damick points out that our Opinion Leaders are now mediated figures from YouTube, TikTok, podcasts, etc. But being mediated, especially visually, they partake of the allure of the parasocial appeal we have gotten from movie stars and other celebrities ("intimate strangers" as someone once said). Now, Andy Warhol's prophesy is fulfilled, everyone can become Influencers for at least 15 minutes.
The first mainstream look at this was probably the Frontline doc, Generation: Like. It looks at how companies recruit kids to feature their products or endorse their brands on social media. I'm not sure much has changed except it's all much bigger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqamKb7gTWY
We are living through a period of major change. It's been going on for years. About 5 years ago I read Martin Gurri's book "The Revolt of the Public," and then started reading his blog, "The Fifth Wave." He's quit blogging, but writes for Discourse Magazine (a Substack publication) and sometimes for The Free Press. His blog title reflects changes in communication throughout history. The First Wave was the invention of writing; the Second was the development of the alphabet, which made writing easier. The Third Wave was the invention of the printing press. The Fourth was electronic communication--telegraph, telephone, then radio and TV. But always, someone had to pay the scribes, pay for the printing press, pay to run the telephone lines or operate the radio and TV stations. But the Fifth Wave was the Internet --which has caused the Establishment, worldwide, to lose control over the flow of information. One example Gurri cites in the book was the demonstrations that eventually brought down Mubarak in Egypt. They started with a Facebook post by one young man. At one point the Mubarak's government found that young man, and tried to negotiate with him--only to find out he had no real authority. He began it all, but was not really leading it after that. It had taken on a life of its own.
I was born in 1950, and like Matt, grew up in the old world. When I was a kid in the Cincinnati, OH area, we had 3 TV stations, one for each network--plus a PBS station, if you had a TV that could get the UHF band (a lot of them didn't back then). I saw the rise of talk radio, sparked to a large degree by Rush Limbaugh. I saw the computer revolution; my older son grew up as a computer hacker--no degree, just acquired skills. He's worked as a professional programmer for years.
I think that there's one word that describes a lot of what has been and is going on: de-centralization. The 20th century could be described as the era of Centralization--Big Government, Big Business, Big Everything. Now it's reversing. And this is affecting a lot of things in our society, even churches. Yes, mega-churches are still around, but lately I'm seeing stuff about a new movement of "micro-churches."
One other thing that may be a factor in a lot of this: back in the '80s, I read the book "Megatrends" by John Naisbitt. One thing he predicted, way back then, was that the rise of High Tech would result in people wanting what he called "High Touch"--more personal contact and at least a feeling of relationship, rather than distance. This shows up in all kinds of areas--campers buying custom knives from a local blacksmith rather than a mass-produced tool, buying guitars from a small luthier shop rather than Martin or Gibson, and getting news and opinion from online niche outfits rather than the Mainstream Media. I'm into this myself--I have my own Substack. My readership isn't huge, but I have more readers than I had at Blogger in the past.
I think the Dor Brothers nail the "influencer culture". The issue is summed up in something I asked a wise Elder in my church of Christ congregation about 50 years ago: "Art, why do people fall for such B.S.?" He said, "You know, if people aren't in the market for BS they wouldn't be buying it." I think it's more that the "influencers" are marketers and salespeople who have identified a lucrative BS (or even non-BS) market niche and are basically pandering to it for profit. It's symbiotic.
That wink-wink irony is key. It takes one to the conclusion that the most authentic part of influencers is that they are authentically and expertly deceptive. Like what those street magicians do. They fool you in a very authentic and entertaining way and the harder you try to pin their trickstery down the more fun they - and you - have.
An interesting comment on the Facebook link to this:
The reason why influencers are a thing is that people find them relatable in some way -- either because they believe this person is like them or that they want to be like that person.
They fill in a gap left by the increased isolation of individuals in society, so it feels a little bit like actual friendship used to. And of course friends influence each other all the time quite powerfully -- this dynamic doesn't require credentials and is sometimes even harmed by them.
It doesn't really substitute properly, though, because the relationship is parasocial, so there is an element of celebrity culture going on there, as well. Successful influencers also make use of techniques designed to grab and hold people's attention for the 30-60 seconds needed to get that viral edge.
— Father Andrew Stephen Damick
The term is Opinion Leader in Communication studies. It meant that contrary to the idea that mass media (newspapers, for example) has a direct and immediate effect on an audience (Powerful Effects theory), it rather took two stages of influence, specifically from someone known to an individual who does attend to mass media content and who communicates that to his acquaintances thereby affecting their opinions and behavior through a relationship. Fr. Damick points out that our Opinion Leaders are now mediated figures from YouTube, TikTok, podcasts, etc. But being mediated, especially visually, they partake of the allure of the parasocial appeal we have gotten from movie stars and other celebrities ("intimate strangers" as someone once said). Now, Andy Warhol's prophesy is fulfilled, everyone can become Influencers for at least 15 minutes.
Often with riches from major corporations. Thus, their power is real.
The first mainstream look at this was probably the Frontline doc, Generation: Like. It looks at how companies recruit kids to feature their products or endorse their brands on social media. I'm not sure much has changed except it's all much bigger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqamKb7gTWY
Oh, that’s spot on. Frontline did some amazing stuff on the toxic elements of TV and youth culture. That grew into digital stuff
We are living through a period of major change. It's been going on for years. About 5 years ago I read Martin Gurri's book "The Revolt of the Public," and then started reading his blog, "The Fifth Wave." He's quit blogging, but writes for Discourse Magazine (a Substack publication) and sometimes for The Free Press. His blog title reflects changes in communication throughout history. The First Wave was the invention of writing; the Second was the development of the alphabet, which made writing easier. The Third Wave was the invention of the printing press. The Fourth was electronic communication--telegraph, telephone, then radio and TV. But always, someone had to pay the scribes, pay for the printing press, pay to run the telephone lines or operate the radio and TV stations. But the Fifth Wave was the Internet --which has caused the Establishment, worldwide, to lose control over the flow of information. One example Gurri cites in the book was the demonstrations that eventually brought down Mubarak in Egypt. They started with a Facebook post by one young man. At one point the Mubarak's government found that young man, and tried to negotiate with him--only to find out he had no real authority. He began it all, but was not really leading it after that. It had taken on a life of its own.
I was born in 1950, and like Matt, grew up in the old world. When I was a kid in the Cincinnati, OH area, we had 3 TV stations, one for each network--plus a PBS station, if you had a TV that could get the UHF band (a lot of them didn't back then). I saw the rise of talk radio, sparked to a large degree by Rush Limbaugh. I saw the computer revolution; my older son grew up as a computer hacker--no degree, just acquired skills. He's worked as a professional programmer for years.
I think that there's one word that describes a lot of what has been and is going on: de-centralization. The 20th century could be described as the era of Centralization--Big Government, Big Business, Big Everything. Now it's reversing. And this is affecting a lot of things in our society, even churches. Yes, mega-churches are still around, but lately I'm seeing stuff about a new movement of "micro-churches."
One other thing that may be a factor in a lot of this: back in the '80s, I read the book "Megatrends" by John Naisbitt. One thing he predicted, way back then, was that the rise of High Tech would result in people wanting what he called "High Touch"--more personal contact and at least a feeling of relationship, rather than distance. This shows up in all kinds of areas--campers buying custom knives from a local blacksmith rather than a mass-produced tool, buying guitars from a small luthier shop rather than Martin or Gibson, and getting news and opinion from online niche outfits rather than the Mainstream Media. I'm into this myself--I have my own Substack. My readership isn't huge, but I have more readers than I had at Blogger in the past.
I think the Dor Brothers nail the "influencer culture". The issue is summed up in something I asked a wise Elder in my church of Christ congregation about 50 years ago: "Art, why do people fall for such B.S.?" He said, "You know, if people aren't in the market for BS they wouldn't be buying it." I think it's more that the "influencers" are marketers and salespeople who have identified a lucrative BS (or even non-BS) market niche and are basically pandering to it for profit. It's symbiotic.
That wink-wink irony is key. It takes one to the conclusion that the most authentic part of influencers is that they are authentically and expertly deceptive. Like what those street magicians do. They fool you in a very authentic and entertaining way and the harder you try to pin their trickstery down the more fun they - and you - have.