Simulation & Virtual Realities: How Gen Z's sense of identity has become based in digital spaces

@ticiaplays on Instagram: "shopping day on indigo 🛍️"

Jean Baudrillard argues that the image “bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum” (1983: 10-11).

In the way Jean Baudrillard considers reality, it can be summarised to argue that there is no objective, stable reality upon which any sort of media or item can reference as the ‘original.’ Reality is, instead, the human condition of trying to make sense of ourselves and a world that has no inherent, tangible meaning. Simulation is this ongoing process and reality is the everchanging result. The rapid developments of technology in the modern era have only pushed us further into this “Desert of the real” in which “the sphere of the real is no longer exchangeable for the sphere of the sign” (Baudrillard, 2010). This means that the functionality of semiotics in this hyperreality has abandoned the traditional relationship between a signifier and signified, resulting in “a culture of ‘floating signifiers’,” where so-called representations are nothing more than copies that are experienced as more real in their own right than the reality they are meant to depict. Notions of authenticity, as defined by Walter Benjamin in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (1936) and originality are no longer relevant to the value of an object, thus making them simulacra: copies of originals that no longer exist.

To break down simulation, Baudrillard proposed a hierarchy of four orders of simulacra. The first order describes the straightforward relationship between a simple copy that clearly represents an original. For example, a photograph or painting depicting a real life person, place, or thing. Within this order, there is no question or doubt about which item is the original. In the second order, The Industrial Revolution gave way to an age of reproduction in which mass production created copies of copies that became detached from the original, taking on a life of their own. Walter Benjamin argued that the ability to produce multiple copies of artworks through mechanical means fundamentally transformed the nature of art and its place in society as art experienced a “loss of aura” that only an original would be believed to possess. As the distinction between the original and a copy continued to be questioned, the third order of simulacra occurred where the copy has become its own reality and the original is no longer identifiable. Finally, it is the proliferation of the fourth order simulacra that Baudrillard argues contemporary society is characterised by. Reality itself has become a simulation in which all meaning is lost to the excess of simulacra.

With the rapid technological changes of the modern day, navigating the media now requires navigating a digital landscape, enabling media operation that is not obligated to reference anything real.

“In the virtual world, I was able to do things such as choosing my own gender-neutral body and creating an appearance that reflects my own sense of beauty, which are not possible in real life. I consider Doku as my digital reincarnation. He is me but someone else at the same time. Just like the Buddhist concept of alayavijnana [storehouse consciousness], he represents a stream of consciousness which lingers in different worlds and different selves.” (Yang, 2020)

Multimedia artist, Lu Yang uses their “digital reincarnation” to explore their own sense of identity. To do this, they place Doku in virtual worlds that represent their own personal reality in their beliefs about the world, while also taking inspiration from religion, neuroscience, popular Asian media, such as Japanese anime, retro video games, and more. With modern technology, it is more than possible to not only “play with our identities and explore ourselves, our many parallel selves, and prepare those selves for new dimensions and universes” but to also convey those identities to others. Lu Yang also creates work that poses the question, if we can simulate senses and emotions through technology, what is reality? The sophistication and mastery Lu Yang has of their craft demonstrates not only what can be achieved in a virtual landscape, but also in its nature encourages viewers to contemplate their own perceptions of reality and the self that is derived from that interpretation of it. For audiences experiencing the LuYang NetiNeti exhibition at the Zabludowicz Collection or pieces of it scattered across Lu Yang’s own website or Instagram profiles online, or even any other art gallery, it is, in a way, possible to experience someone else’s point of view and version of the world. It can be related to Slavoj Žižek’s concept of the parallax view in that there are multiple perspectives to be considered before one can gain any more complete understanding of reality (Žižek, 2006). But as there is more than one way to interpret a given phenomenon or event, the idea that there is a single, objective reality to be known or understood enough to be represented is challenged by the complexity of reality as a construct shaped by the multiple viewpoints we adopt to understand the world. As a result, the reality we consume is a multiverse of individual realities that have gone through multiple filters of perception depending on the platform on which they are seen.

However, the concept of having something such as a “digital reincarnation” or alternate personality that exists within the virtual world, is a phenomenon which the general population would also be familiar with— as observed across social media. The popularisation of social media platforms like Instagram has made this possible in everyday life, especially in ‘Gen Z’ culture.

“Today’s youth are “digital kids”… cognizant of the myriad digital technologies around them— technologies they can control and customise to fit their own lives and styles… They live parallel “online lives” with behaviour that is very different from and often puzzling or frightening to the generations that came before.” (Hirumi 2010, p. 9-11)

Virtual profiles allow us to split and spread our personality traits across various platforms and pages within those platforms. While it suggests an intention to ‘connect’ people, the human desire for socialisation has led most to treat the platforms as an online gallery in which they can curate an idealised version of themselves and their lives. As a result, the distinction between an individual’s modified online persona and their “real” identity becomes unclear. This is especially prevalent in a prosumer era— in which the role of producer and consumer is combined as media production becomes democratised (Jenkins, 2006) and we find ourselves in a position where “we are the screen, the editor, reporter, and subscriber all at once” (Wisecrack, 2015). Content creation has become a viable career option and as social media platforms are built on the foundation of content produced by their users, everyone on it can be considered a content creator by default. The dopamine rush resulting from the “reward” of a “like” on said content not only reinforces the habit of creating a simulated social reality, but makes it genuinely addicting (Haynes, 2018).

The dependency on user-generated content has given people access to both an endless amount of information and tools and opened opportunities for almost every demographic to be represented in one corner or another somewhere across the Internet. As a consequence, it has given a platform to stories that seek to “entertain, please, or upset others” rather than to inform (Chadwick, Vaccari and O’Loughlin, 2018). Internet discourse that takes place in comment sections and online forums alongside that natural instinct of humans to ‘fit in,’ influences their personality in terms of likes and dislikes, language, etc. and can cause polarisation. On top of this, algorithms are designed to collect data on a person’s interests based on their app usage so that their ‘feeds’ can recycle and regurgitate similar content, as well as targeted ads that blend in with the rest. At the same time that this locks users into a cycle of like minded content, this “explosion of information, of events, makes the ability to understand the world nearly impossible” and the only way human beings have learned to cope with such an overload is to only subscribe to messages that are compatible with their own beliefs and emotions, accepting those alone as ‘truth.’ As an outcome, “confirmation bias reinforces itself as social media users turn away from any messages that challenge them” (Morris, 2020). In the sense that everyone is solely seeking representation of ‘their truth,’ simulation enables the existence and acceptance of media that is not backed by fact-based reality, such as “fake news,” tabloid press, post-truth culture and quasi-news organisations promoting conspiracies as journalism.

The advanced level of interactivity in modern apps is what makes it so encompassing and hyperreal, meaning that our consciousness is no longer able to distinguish between reality and simulation of reality. Where social media covers current events — describing the social, political, economic state of the world— video games can be used as a more imaginative space for experimentation. It allows people to recreate reality in order to alter it, without producing the same consequences in their physical world. Sandbox games like Minecraft, Stardew Valley, and Animal Crossing have become increasingly popular, particularly in light of the recent COVID-19 pandemic as they provided a comforting world for people to escape into as a replacement for the life they could not live in the quarantine lockdown. In that time, video games became more reality than the outside world could be. Similarly, life simulation games, such as The Sims 4, see players “practically playing a God” where “certain aspects of yourself [are] presented through how you choose to play the game” (Mad Seedling, 2018). Although it was designed as a “simulated version of life” the uncanny art and movement of avatars deviates from how humans appear and behave in reality. This, however, does not discredit its potential for influencing reality as research into using The Sims 4 as training examples for intelligence assistive robots has been conducted to overcome privacy concerns of using real households for data collection (Roitberg, 2021). Similarly, Grand Theft Auto has been used for making autonomous vehicles. Even beyond the gameplay action, the realism employed by the game world environments alone make their worlds “as real as any other city you drive through and not get out of the car for” (Atkinson and Willis, 2009). Engaging with these “simulated alternatives to urban space” “generate an understanding of space and sociality that is inflected with the possibility of playing with that space, mentally and physically, as the parameters of these games are introduced into the real city by players.” This is why video games have also been utilised by schools to better engage and educate children and teens in a world where at least “97% of [U.S.] teens ages 12-17 play computer, web, portable, or console [electronic] games” (Hirumi, 2010). Traditional methods of teaching can no longer compete with the advanced technology many youths have available to them outside of school as “Kids confront ideas, goals, decisions, and ethics in their complex games that were almost never confronted by kids that young in the past.” In other words, the detail and scale combined with the freedom to explore and take advantage of these virtual spaces however the player sees fit makes video games a perfect example of how reality and simulation have blended to be both the causes and consequences of each other.

Due to the immersive quality of video game worlds, gamers’ experiences may feel as or even more real than their “real world” lives. They give gamers experiences of the real world that could be in some sense representative, and yet so complex and evocative on its own that their relationships, hopes and dreams, are shaped around their experiences in the virtual world.

“They meet in online places, such as multiplayer games, and multiuser virtual environments, such as Second Life. They coordinate, collect, evaluate, create, search, analyze, report, program, socialize, transgress, and a large part of the time basically grow up online.” (Hirumi 2010, p. 11)

The way that ‘Gen Z’ interacts is primarily online and even offline interactions make references to online culture that sound almost like a language of its own. Therefore, it is evident that while video games may echo reality, their cultural impact has reached a point where reality can also echo video games. The communities formed over shared interest in video games are just some of the fan communities (fandoms) that dominate the internet culture the younger generations were raised on. It has become normalised for people to form friendships and even romantic relationships over the internet. Online friends and ‘eDating’ are so common that there are servers (e.g. on Discord, a VoIP and instant messaging software) and apps dedicated to finding people for forming these relationships. Dating apps like Tinder have arguably become the main way for people 18 and older to meet and date people, while apps like Yubo — whose slogan is “Get friends. Get real.” — exist for people aged 13-17 to socialise. Additionally, video game and internet phrases intertwine themselves into everyday language. For example, it has become a trend on TikTok for people to refer to people they encounter in the real world as “NPCs,” a term used in video games for “non-playable characters” or any character within the game’s world that is not controllable by the player (Bardhan, 2022). Besides that, Merriam-Webster has added slang words to its dictionary definitions, such as “sus” (suspicious, often associated with the multiplayer game, Among Us) and “pwn” (to dominate and defeat, used in gaming) with even the Oxford English Dictionary updating to include its own list of slang words like the aforementioned “fake news.” This all acts as evidence that the reality simulated by virtual worlds and online culture has assimilated with the reality outside the screen.

To consider the impact of media and technology on society, one must also consider the impact of capitalism on media. The concept of the “culture industry” as proposed by the Frankfurt School argued that mass media serves the interests of capitalist society by producing and promoting a narrow range of cultural products that reinforce the dominant ideology (Babe, 2012). Their ideas are closely related to Baudrillard’s in that people’s understanding of the world is shaped by media representations that are used to create and reinforce a simulated reality that bears little relation to the true nature of the world. Baudrillard’s agreement with the part capitalism plays in causing simulation is evident in his decision to decline the offer to be a consultant for The Matrix (1999) movie. Although ‘the Matrix’ aims to act as an allegory for our own postmodern condition, inspired by Baudrillard’s book, he had reservations about the commercialisation of his work and worried the project would be too simplistic to capture the complexity of his ideas. As a film project, the entertainment industry attempting to appropriate simulation for profit was perhaps too ironic. However, the trend of science-fiction chalking the problems of consumerism, capitalism and the influence of media on society up to being caused by an alien race, sentient machines, or other entity separate from humanity is not unique to The Matrix. While it is true that themes in films such as The Matrix and They Live (1988) can be interpreted as commentary on capitalist ideology, they never directly critique or address the system itself.

However, it is important to consider that this process of simulation also occurs on a broader level, as reality itself is already mediated before an attempt is made to represent it through film or other means. This challenges Richard Rushton's concept of realism in film, which emphasises the importance of accurately depicting the real world (Ruston, 2010), as Baudrillard's theory of simulation suggests that media representations can create their own reality and shape our understanding of the world in ways that are divorced from objective truth. There is no reality that can be used as a basis for accurate representation because our understanding of reality is too multifaceted, influenced by various forms of representation such as language, media, and cultural narratives. The reality that Ruston stresses the importance of portraying authentically is inherently influenced by how it is represented to us.

While the Frankfurt School believe that the culture industry promotes a false sense of individuality and choice (pseudo-individuation) in favour of standardised, hegemonic content aligned with the capitalist agenda, Jean Baudrillard would argue that simulation is a complex process induced by a variety of factors, including both individual choices and the larger social and economic forces of society. “The media creates a copy of the event” but “we prefer the copy of reality” (Wisecrack, 2015) and thus, simulation is therefore, partially self-imposed.

“The most serious problems posed by advertising derive less from the unscrupulous-ness of those who fool us than from our pleasure in being fooled” (Baudrillard 2001, p. 72)

On the other hand, it is arguable that the relationship between capitalism and the media is no longer clear-cut in the sense that the dominating reality proves that capitalism always seems to catch up with the content and movements that attempt to oppose it, and their meaning becomes lost in consumerist motivations. In other words, capitalism has adapted to appropriate culture as media production becomes more accessible to the general public, rather than being controlled by a small group of elites or large corporations. Capitalism counters the levelling of the playing field for media creators by jumping on the trends of promoting ‘political correctness’ and attaching themselves to the values of whatever social or political message is popular and prevalent. It creates a facade of being a “progressive” brand, whilst reaping the benefits of media exposure from both sides. For example, when the #BurnYourNikes backlash followed Nike’s ad campaign featuring black athletes like Colin Kaepernick taking a knee to protest racism and police brutality, the company’s value increased by 6 billion dollars (HBomberGuy, 2016).

“Once we could have fun denouncing the dark, solid reality concealed behind the brilliance of appearances. But today there is allegedly no longer any solid reality to counter-pose to the reign of appearances, nor any dark reverse side to be opposed to the triumph of consumer society” (Rancière and Elliott, 2009)

Since there is no longer any one dominating ideology and instead, a range of realities represented across the “information superhighway” (Nunes, 1995), capitalism co-opts popular trends for its own purposes. This can further contribute to the process of simulation as media representations become more commercialised and superficial, but better at concealing their true intentions, and it becomes difficult to distinguish between genuine opposition to capitalism and commercialised or superficial gestures towards progressive values. There is no longer any real rebellion or counter culture because there is no longer one agreed upon reality that leaves anything off limits. As “We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning” the illusion of choice granted to us in deciding which products to consume — e.g. opting for econscious brands or ones that align themselves with personal political values— only attempts to obscure the way that the nature of reality has been replaced by images and groundless representations.

In conclusion, simulation is highly relevant to contemporary media practice, as media representations of reality have come to play a more significant role in shaping people’s understanding of the world than direct experience of reality itself. As soon as humanity attempted to define and represent reality, we entered simulation in a way that has become more and more muddled as we navigate a capitalist-driven, media-based world oversaturated with ‘truth.’ What we now call reality is actually an impermanent consensus constantly redefined by the plethora of contemporary media frontiers available to us— like virtual and augmented reality technologies— as society becomes increasingly screen-based. Overall, Baudrillard’s concepts of simulation and simulacra highlight the complexity and fluidity of reality in the digital age.

Bibliography

Andrew, S. (2022). Yeet! Merriam-Webster adds ‘baller,’ ‘cringe’ and ‘pumpkin spice’ to the dictionary. [online] CNN. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/10/us/merriam-webster-new-words-slang-cec/index.html [Accessed 16 Dec. 2022].

Atkinson, R. and Willis, P. (2009). Transparent cities: Re‐shaping the urban experience through interactive video game simulation. City, 13(4), pp.403–417. doi:10.1080/13604810903298458.

Bardhan, A. (2022). TikTok’s Ugly ‘NPC In Real Life’ Trend Reflects The Worst Side Of Growing Up Online. [online] Kotaku. Available at: https://kotaku.com/tiktok-npc-in-real-life-trend-twitter-gen-z-video-games-1849575169 [Accessed 16 Dec. 2022].

Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Univ. Of Michigan Press.

Baudrillard, J. (2001). "Mass (Sociology Of)." In The Uncollected Baudrillard (p. 72). London: Sage Publications.

Benjamin, W. (1935). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. London: Penguin Books.

Chadwick, A., Vaccari, C. and O’Loughlin, B. (2018). Do tabloids poison the well of social media? Explaining democratically dysfunctional news sharing. New Media & Society, 20(11), pp.4255–4274. doi:10.1177/1461444818769689.

DISBOARD. (n.d.). Discord servers tagged with edating. [online] Available at: https://disboard.org/servers/tag/edating [Accessed 16 Dec. 2022].

Haynes, T. (2018). Dopamine, Smartphones & You: A battle for your time. [online] Science in the News. Available at: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/dopamine-smartphones-battle-time/ [Accessed 15 Dec. 2022].

HBomberGuy (2019). WOKE BRANDS. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://youtu.be/06yy88tLWlg [Accessed 2 Apr. 2022].

Hirumi, A. (2010). Playing Games in School : Video Games and Simulations for Primary and Secondary Grades. [online] ISTE. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/westminster/reader.action?docID=3317687 [Accessed 8 Dec. 2022].

Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture : where old and new media collide. New York ; London: New York University Press, Dr.

Mad Seedling (2018). The Sims: Baudrillard and Simulacra | The Gaming Philosopher. [online] www.youtube.com. Available at: https://youtu.be/4AZflAHxa5M [Accessed 4 Dec. 2022].

Morris, J. (2020). Simulacra in the Age of Social Media: Baudrillard as the Prophet of Fake News. Journal of Communication Inquiry, [online] 45(4), p.019685992097715. doi:10.1177/0196859920977154.

Nunes, M. (1995). Jean Baudrillard in Cyberspace: Internet, Virtuality, and Postmodernity. Style, [online] 29(2), pp.314–327. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42946283 [Accessed 8 Dec. 2022].

Petter, O. (2019). All the new additions to the Oxford English Dictionary, from ‘fake news’ to ‘sumfin’. [online] The Independent. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/oxford-english-dictionary-update-new-words-slang-star-wars-latest-a9156126.html [Accessed 16 Dec. 2022].

Rancière J. and Elliott, G. (2009). The emancipated spectator. London: Verso.

Roitberg, A., Schneider, D., Djamal, A., Seibold, C., Reiß, S. and Stiefelhagen, R. (2021). Let’s Play for Action: Recognizing Activities of Daily Living by Learning from Life Simulation Video Games. arXiv:2107.05617 [cs]. [online] Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.05617 [Accessed 8 Dec. 2022].

Rushton, R. (2010). The reality of film. Manchester University Press.

Slavoj Žižek (2006). The parallax view. [online] Cambridge, Mass.: Mit Press. Available at: https://files.libcom.org/files/Zizek-The%20Parallax%20View.pdf [Accessed 17 Dec. 2022].

Wisecrack (2015). Can We Trust the Media? (Baudrillard) - 8-Bit Philosophy. [online] YouTube. Available at: https://youtu.be/5RwhEHzuulA [Accessed 8 Dec. 2022].

Yang, L. (2020). DOKU x The 1975 < Playing On My Mind > – LUYANG.ASIA. [online] LuYang Asia. Available at: https://luyang.asia/2020/11/20/doku-x-the-1975-playing-on-my-mind/ [Accessed 22 Nov. 2022].

Yubo. (n.d.). What is Yubo? The live social discovery app for Gen Z. [online] Available at: https://www.yubo.live/about-us [Accessed 16 Dec. 2022].

Toxic Positivity & Capitalism: Is interruption possible in modern society?

When approaching the concept of ‘remediation,’ our group found ourselves drawn to a theme more personally relevant to us in our generation. In the hindsight offered by this reflection, I found that the phenomenon we had resigned ourselves to representing and counteracting through this project was so conceptually modern, I struggled to find sources that could help define and distinguish my arguments. The topic: toxic positivity.

Toxic positivity disguises itself as optimism and reassurance, but lacks the depth and compassion required to properly validate the feelings of the recipient. Psychotherapist Aimee Hudson and Psychologist Kat Wyeth define the subject as a “tendency to react to other people's struggles and suffering with reductive statements of positivity.” It is an “overgeneralisation of positivity across all circumstances” that “prevents us from acknowledging how we are actually feeling,” and instead creates a “black and white thinking towards emotions” (Wyeth and Hudson, 2022). Although there are usually good intentions behind the behaviour, it tends to have adverse effects that fail to adequately address the root of the problems.

Presentation of our idea to our peers and tutors faced us with the question, “what do we want our audience to do?” Despite knowing generally that what we hoped people would do was unsubscribe from toxic positivity, we were still yet to work out the matter of how. It was not until our lecture on “Realism and Its Interruption” that we were able to explore the concept of disrupting reality.

The thing about living in a culture that promotes this misguided attitude is that there is always the nagging feeling that something is still not quite right; a lingering unresolved negative emotion pushed down by the shallow inspirational quotes, left in the shadows casted by “the bright side.” In becoming the embodiment of toxic positivity, we hoped the “positive” messages repeated in our project would be so saturated, they would spur this negative feeling to grow until it became too irritating, uncomfortable, and overwhelming to ignore the problem. To achieve this, our film began as an unassuming, feel-good mental health and wellbeing PSA to promote positive thinking– favouring pastel colours and old Hollywood film aesthetics to lull the viewer into a false sense of security and comfort. Throughout the duration of our installation, more screens, audio layers, eerie visuals, glitches and distortion were added to increase the feeling of uneasiness. In our lecture, the “moment of interruption” was introduced through the scene in The Truman Show, when Truman Burbank realises his life is a reality TV show and makes the decision to escape (The Truman Show - At World's End, 2016). To my understanding, this concept of interruption is simply the moment in which one is made aware of the reality they are living in. The development of technology and ideology in our modern society has granted us access to more knowledge than ever before. However, the vast availability of information and the fact that corporations have the same capacity for awareness poses the question – is interruption possible in modern society? Is it possible to generate enough of a rift in our passive acceptance of our present reality that we might experience a real life peripeteia?

To answer this, we must first define the reality we mean to interrupt or, in other words, the problem to raise awareness about. This is where I sought out to contextualise toxic positivity and track it back to its fundamentals. Why did we subscribe to toxic positivity in the first place? Since the messages toxic positivity spreads are not necessarily inherently bad, and some of the advice might be genuinely helpful in the correct circumstances, the reason lies in its attempts to advertise happiness, and where it falls short of the mark can be identified in other theories of happiness. In response to psychology focusing more on negative aspects of human nature and how to cure them (the “disease” model), President of the American Psychological Association, Martin Seligman introduced the field of positive psychology in 1998. “Positive psychology calls for as much focus on strength as on weakness, as much interest in building the best things in life as in repairing the worst, and as much attention to fulfilling the lives of healthy people as to healing the wounds of the distressed'' (Peterson and Park, 2003). Traits of Abraham Maslow’s self-actualised individual— considered to be a person who has reached their full potential— includes the acceptance of one’s own flaws, as well as their best traits (Perera, 2020). The common theme is the acknowledgement of human duality and the range of emotions that are part of the human experience.

This is particularly prevalent across social media as the culture it has cultivated is one in which people tend to filter their lives to only show the “best” parts. As American comedian Bo Burnham describes it, “[social media] is just the market's answer to a generation that demanded to perform.” This habit of social performance has translated into an understanding of happiness that is as one-dimensional as the digital personas we curate on our social media profiles (Burnham, 2016). Similarly, content creator Felix Kjellberg, known online as PewDiePie, made a video titled, Forced Positivity on Youtube, in which he addressed the issue of vloggers and influencers feeling the need to project an unnaturally, unwavering “positive” attitude in order for people to enjoy their content (PewDiePie, 2017). As a result, one of the reasons people uphold toxic positivity is out of desire for likeability. Unfortunately, this behaviour ends up isolating people more than fostering genuine connection. People who look up to these social media influencers watch them promote toxic positivity and buy into it. Thus, perpetuating a cycle that creates a sort of Emperor’s New Clothes situation: no one speaks about their true feelings for fear of judgement or rejection. Furthermore, the concept of happiness and peak human performance has been hijacked by consumer culture and defined by superficial values. A Coca-Cola advert invites you to “Open happiness” alongside an image of a Coke bottle, while Trident offers up “a Little Piece of Happy” in the form of a piece of their gum. Neither “refer to the actual product each is selling” but rather, suggest that their product is synonymous with happiness (Communication Theory, 2014). They reduce happiness to something more temporal than sustainable, leading the pursuit of happiness down a potentially hedonistic path that aligns with the capitalist agenda.

Therefore, the reality we intend to interrupt is one in which we think happiness and satisfaction with life is possible without acknowledging and accepting the full spectrum of human emotion.

Which brings us back to the question. Is there any way to disrupt this commonly accepted way of thinking and living? It is difficult to say for sure when it does not appear to be the case among the masses yet. However, it is important to consider how easily capitalism tends to appropriate any revolutionary ideology the new generation begins to rally behind. Sigmund Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays was the first to take his uncle’s “ideas about human beings and used them to manipulate the masses.” He showed American corporations how to link “mass-produced goods to [people’s] unconscious desires” by using the Suffragette Movement to sell cigarettes to women. He staged an event in which debutantes would dramatically light cigarettes on his signal and join the Easter Day parade. He then told the press he had heard “a group of suffragettes were preparing to protest by lighting up what they called torches of freedom” so that the moment would be captured by photographers. With this, cigarettes effectively became a symbol of female empowerment (Curtis, 2002). In today’s society, corporations still use political protests to promote their products. Youtuber HBomberGuy made a video titled WOKE BRANDS, in which he addressed this issue and posed the question, “Can a product be truly progressive?” He remarked that companies now attempt to “buy your allegiance by saying something vaguely progressive” but also benefit from the free marketing that results from backlash in the form of trending Twitter hashtags. One example he gave was the #BurnYourNikes trend that followed a Nike ad campaign featuring black athletes, such as Colin Kaepernick, taking a knee in protest of racism and police brutality. The backlash backfired as Nike’s value went up by 6 billion dollars. (HBomberGuy, 2019). By connecting their product to a prevalent social or political message, companies can place themselves at the centre of discussion, benefitting from either side of the debate. The situation can be likened to the analogy of the “close door” button in most elevators and how “It is a totally disfunctional placebo placed there just to give the individuals the impression that they are somehow participating” (Žižek, 2001). As John Berger put it, “capitalism survives by forcing the majority, whom it exploits, to define their own interests as narrowly as possible” (Berger, 2008). The dominating reality is that capitalism always seems to catch up with that which attempts to oppose it and the meaning becomes lost in the consumerist sea. “Once we could have fun denouncing the dark, solid reality concealed behind the brilliance of appearances. But today there is allegedly no longer any solid reality to counter-pose to the reign of appearances, nor any dark reverse side to be opposed to the triumph of consumer society” (Rancière and Elliott, 2009).

Regardless of whether it is escapable, it is also worth considering whether it is even ethical. In a society where the media is saturated with tragic images and depressing news coverage, do people even want to be snapped out of the realities they have become accustomed to? Is there comfort in ignorance? It is arguable that surface level perception without deeper contemplation is preferable to becoming hyper aware of the dark side of reality. Even in the case of our installation, we relied on the audience’s negative feelings of discomfort and anxiety to motivate them to change. However, there is still the possibility that the feelings we attempted to generate may have been overwhelming to the point of only succeeding in pushing viewers towards some other form of escapism, so as to avoid feeling such discomfort again. In Susan Sontag’s Regarding the Pain of Others, she argues that “one can not look. People have means to defend themselves against what is upsetting… This seems normal, that is, adaptive. One can become habituated to horror in real life, one can become habituated to the horror of certain images” (Sontag, 2004). After a while, people may become desensitised, or simply turn a blind eye in defence against negative stimuli– a self-preservation instinct. It is especially easy to do so when these messages are seen mainly on TV and social media, platforms which blend entertainment with reportage. This may be elaborated on through the case of theatre and cinema. Plato argues that due to the reality of spectatorship, theatre “transmits the illness of ignorance.” For context, Rancière claims that “To be a spectator is to be separated from both the capacity to know and the power to act” (Rancière and Elliott, 2009). Similarly, James Elkins explains “There is also something quietly hypnotic about just looking, something less like hunting and more like dreaming… Just looking is like dreaming, but dreaming fittully, tossing and turning and not knowing quite what's happening" (Žižek, 2001), which aligns itself well with Beaudry’s Apparatus Theory that “suggests movie viewers experience an immobility that makes watching a film akin to dreaming” (Goodro, 2018). Simply presenting images for an audience to view does not necessarily force them to consider their meaning any further.

So is there a solution or is all hope lost? In terms of addressing this issue in media or art, “as long as the performance draws [the spectator] out of their passive attitude and transforms them into active participants in a shared world” it may result in successful interruption. To combat the sensationalisation employed by capitalism, one might take inspiration from Bartleby and his passive resistance in stating “I would prefer not to” (Melville, 1856), a phrase which is “not that a predicate is denied” (Žižek, 2019) but is a polite refusal that is not intense or passionate enough to blatantly incite a polarised response that corporations may exploit. In our final assessment critique in which our classmates experienced our installation, one of the comments we received was about the effect of experiencing it in a large group as opposed to alone. Although we had initially designed it to be viewed in a smaller group or solitary, there was an effectiveness in the fact that the shared experience encouraged connection and discussion rather than increasing feelings of isolation. It may well be that the solution is as simple as creating safe spaces for people to raise awareness and share their thoughts and feelings openly and honestly or, to “unplug” entirely and renounce your role as recipients of media messages.

In summary, yes. Interruption is possible in modern society, in the sense that people can be and may already be aware of the problem within our reality, however, its effectiveness in provoking change of reality is still in question. The answer lies in the willingness of the audience to be interrupted.

Bibliography

Berger, J., 2008. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Classics.

Communication Theory. 2014. The Selling and Socialization of Happiness. [online] Available at: <https://communicationtheory2014.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/the-selling-and-socialization-of-happiness/>

Curtis, A., 2002. The Century of the Self - Part 1: "Happiness Machines". [image] Available at: <https://youtu.be/DnPmg0R1M04>

Ezedike, E., 2019. Happiness as an end: A critique of Artistotle's rational eudaimonism. [online] 10(1). Available at: <https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ijhss/article/view/183278>

Goodro, K., 2018. Movement in “Paprika” and Baudry’s Apparatus Theory | Aperture:. [online] Film.byu.edu. Available at: <https://film.byu.edu/aperture/?p=487#:~:text=Jean%2DLouis%20Baudry's%20apparatus%20theory,film%20and%20their%20own%20thoughts.>

Melville, H., 1856. Bartleby, the Scrivener A Story of Wall-Street. Putnam's Magazine.

Make Happy (2016) Directed by Bo Burnham and Christopher Storer. Available at: Netflix

Perera, A., 2020. Self-Actualization. [online] Simplypsychology.org. Available at: <https://www.simplypsychology.org/self-actualization.html#:~:text=According%20to%20Maslow%2C%20the%20internal,all%20aspects%20of%20their%20lives.>

Peterson, C. and Park, N., 2003. Positive Psychology as the Evenhanded Positive Psychologist Views it. Psychological Inquiry, [online] 14(2), pp.143-147. Available at: <https://shibbolethsp.jstor.org/start?entityID=https%3A%2F%2Fidp.wmin.ac.uk%2Fentity&dest=https://www.jstor.org/stable/1449822&site=jstor>

Rancière, J. and Elliott, G., 2009. The emancipated spectator. 1st ed. London, New York: Verso.

Sontag, S., 2004. Regarding the pain of others. Penguin.

PewDiePie (2017) Forced Positivity on Youtube. Available at: <https://youtu.be/iyGI1uHyyws>

2016. The Truman Show - At World's End. [video] Available at: <https://youtu.be/Gn5kuDdeGzs>

HBomberGuy (2019) WOKE BRANDS. [video] Available at: <https://youtu.be/06yy88tLWlg>

Wyeth, K. and Hudson, A., 2022. Good vibes only? Understanding Toxic Positivity. [podcast] The Psychology Sisters. Available at: <https://open.spotify.com/episode/3BLaha5Af6i0hJ0zw1dmF2?si=b2AJB-ezRYSKNCEfcZatWg>

Žižek, S., 2019. Slavoj Zizek — "I Would Prefer Not To". [video] Available at: <https://youtu.be/uuTkuy9D5lY>

Žižek, S., 2001. Enjoy Your Symptom!. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

How social media platforms enhance participation in the entertainment industry

“the entertainment industry… has integrated notions of audience engagement and fan participation more deeply into its logics and practices”. - Henry Jenkins

The accelerating development of technology in modern society has brought us ever closer to a 'Web 3.0,' with features that align more with this new era of internet. In turn, social media platforms have become the centre of communication, intertwining with every aspect of our everyday lives. The opportunity social media platforms– like Twitter, TikTok, and Instagram– have posed for more active media consumption and creation has thus enhanced participation to the point where fans and ordinary people outside of large entertainment companies have a more direct impact on the design of the entertainment industry itself. Arguably, the success of products produced by the industry hinges on participation across social media.

This participatory culture– defined as “a culture with relatively low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, strong support for creating and sharing one’s creations… in which members believe their contributions matter and feel some degree of social connection with one another” (Jenkins, Ito, and boyd, 2016)– has enhanced the formation and experience of parasocial relationships between entertainer and audience, fan bases as communities, and in some ways, broken the fourth wall, as consumers become producers themselves with tools social media has given them access to.

To start, parasocial relationships generated by the entertainment industry have been redefined. This is because social media has allowed celebrities and other influencers to quickly identify a specific need of their target audience to more effectively fulfill that need with the content they create (Alice Capelle, 2021, 5:41). The comment sections on social media, for example, allow these idols to have direct contact with their audience. Through features such as ‘Live videos’ with comment sections, on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok, users can read and respond to viewers in real-time. They also have the option to reply to comments left on their posts with more videos, as featured on TikTok. Both simulate a real-life conversation and give content creators the ability to immediately answer the wishes of their audience, making fans feel acknowledged by the subject of their appreciation. However, unlike real-life interactions, social media leaves room for careful curation of personalities, and reaction rehearsal which, as a result, forms a relationship with their fans that does not resemble on the outside what it truly is behind interactions. Youtuber, Alice Capelle explains this through the case of vlogger/viewer relationships, and how some vloggers advertise themselves as “sisters,” “girlfriends,” and “friends” of their viewers. She also refers to PewDiePie’s video, Forced Positivity on Youtube, where he admits that in his older videos, he “might seem a lot happier” and “positive” but he “faked it” because he thought that was what it would take for people to want to watch his videos.

To some extent, the fan participation these platforms allow for only creates an illusion of true connection. It is arguable that the genuine emotional investment cultivated from both sides of the parasocial relationship manifests more intensely than it had in the past, as social media removes privacy– encouraging oversharing of personal lives and blurring the line between real and perceived relationships. The ‘Follow’ button used to subscribe to our favourite actors, artists, performers, and more, is the same button we press to connect virtually with people we know personally. A ‘like,’ comment, or ‘retweet’ can be shared and seen by anyone, regardless of social standing. This can lead some participants to believe that they are not only equal enough for a real relationship with the celebrity/influencer/content creator to be plausible and true, but also owed their time and energy. In truth, the usage of social media tools in this way simply helps members of the entertainment industry build a brand image and gain the loyalty of their audience by developing and maintaining these perceived bonds. The consequence, however, is that their continued success relies on their ability to keep up the persona and dynamic they have installed– a task that has become even more taxing with the demand for a constant social media presence. It is an increasingly sharp double-edged sword with the audience and the entertainer on either side.

On the other side, is the near-unstoppable force of the ‘fandom.’ The new generation, accustomed to a never-ending cycle of new media consumption at a very fast rate, has grown up with social media platforms which allow them to perpetuate this cycle– by inducting them into online communities based on their interests and app usage. This is why TikTok has so quickly become a top competitor among social media platforms. Introduced with a similar concept to retired apps such as ‘Musical.ly’ and ‘Vine’ of the early 2000s, TikTok’s 15-second video feature brought about the nostalgia of the aforementioned popular apps, but implicated features from updated versions of platforms such as Instagram and Facebook– like when in 2016, Instagram’s feed controversially changed from chronological to algorithmic. With personalised 'For You' pages, TikTok’s algorithm was designed to cater to the unique interests of users where the more they interact with its content, the more related content they will discover. Similarly, Instagram and Snapchat include 'Discover' sections, where users can scroll through an endless stream of content collected and pushed onto them, related to their liked, searched, followed content. Users can also stay up-to-date on viral content through ‘trending hashtags.’ It is easier than ever to locate and upload media that relates to specific interests, especially concerning entertainment, as users’ participation directly contributes to the algorithms that sort its content. With social media designed to push like to like, fans can more easily find each other and form 'fandoms': a united entity that, in a way, assumes control over their subject’s reputation. Those ‘hashtags’ can provide evidence of this. First used on Twitter by user @chrismessina in 2007 to filter content, the hashtag has grown to be capable of acting as a weapon against not only celebrities but anyone who stands out enough to be noticed by the Internet. Thus began the phenomenon of ‘cancel culture.’ This refers to the way the public may boycott or “cancel” someone or something, in response to an incident that individual or organisation was involved in, past or present. In 2016, one victim of cancelling on Twitter, American singer-songwriter, Taylor Swift became the target of the trending hashtag #TaylorSwiftIsOverParty. The drama and cyberbullying that ensued caused the pop star to delete everything on her social media accounts, before going on her first extended hiatus since the start of her career. Comparably, ‘K-pop stans’ have become “a group who has an enormous degree of cultural and political power in its own right,” with social media as their platform (Judy Knows, 2020). For example in 2020, fans teamed up to dominate right-wing hashtags countering the #BlackLivesMatter protests, such as #BlueLivesMatter and #MAGA, with k-pop and idol-related content.

However, the power that fandoms hold across social media can work in favour of the idol or work followed by the fandom. Because the bond they form tends to stay true to the word’s origin, “fanatic” (Jenson, 1992), the resulting polarisation of the “them vs. us” or “Othering” (Shaw, 2021) mentalities nurtured by fandoms often take their devotion to an extreme. For example, the “BTS ARMY” or the fandom attached to the most popular KPOP idol group, BTS (originally an acronym for Bangtan Sonyeondan) has been inducted by the group’s agency, Big Hit Entertainment to adopt a “purchase, promote, protect” mindset (Judy Knows, 2020). With this, they carry their idol onto a pedestal beyond the close, intimate relationships that were first formed when they were initially building their image and fanbase. Due to their humble origins and revolutionary breakthrough into mainstream media, BTS’s “underdog” status gives the ARMY a heightened sense of importance, where their unwavering support, “through buying, voting, streaming, producing, tweeting, etc.” is even more necessary. As a result, it feels like when their idol experiences a win, the fandom does too. Additionally, “when one becomes a part of the fandom, there is a real sense of being part of an “in-group,” an exclusive community, meeting primarily online through social media, where members feel deeply connected by their shared appreciation and duty. This connection is further deepened by BTS’s awareness of the fact that “what fans really care about is communicating with their artists.” They achieve this through South Korean-specific platforms, such as VLIVE, where they can live stream chat with fans, similar to Instagram’s live video feature. As business strategy professional, Judy Knows explains, this can be best represented by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The “sense of belonging” and pride in witnessing and contributing to their idol’s success satisfies the individual’s ‘love & belonging’ and ‘esteem’ needs.

To take it one step further, Jenkins also asserts that “Participatory cultures involve fans acting not only as consumers but also as producers and creators of some form of creative media.” Fans may follow the footsteps of their idols, entering the entertainment industry in a way that echoes those they observed before them. With BTS again, “all the opportunities to co-create stories with BTS through their narrative universes between fan fiction on platforms like AO3 and Wattpad and Big Hit’s BTS video game ventures” enable fans to “develop and flex their creativity and gain validation for their imagination” (Judy Knows, 2020). ‘Fanfiction’ as a genre was one of the first instances of fans using their creativity to become more actively involved in the content they consumed. In some cases, it even acted as the foundation for works that had reached a commercial, professional level in the industry. Examples include Fifty Shades of Grey by E. L. James, having its origins in Twilight fanfiction– which in itself derived from fanfiction– and the film, After, based on the Wattpad Harry Styles ‘fanfic’ by Anna Todd. More like these have also been shared across fandoms on platforms such as Twitter and Tumblr. New technology and social media pose these “new possibilities for production and also for reception, which make possible new kinds of collaboration and exchange, new kinds of engagement and creativity” (Meikle and Young, 2012) and, as a result, “the “consumers” … are becoming producers” (Jenkins, Ford, and Green, 2013). Hence a new era of “the prosumer” began. American comedian, actor, and content creator, Bo Burnham remarked that “social media is just the market’s answer to a generation that demanded to perform.”

As previously discussed, social media provides a direct line of communication that both A-list celebrities and ordinary people can take advantage of. The option to make Instagram pages public has introduced new players into the entertainment industry: ‘influencers.’ Utilising hashtags and other algorithmic designs to help get their content discovered whilst keeping an eye on the profile ‘insights’ feature to analyse the way other users interact with said content, has allowed regular people to gain a large enough following to make a living off of sharing content via social media. Addison Rae, a 21-year-old from LA, gained popularity on TikTok after a video of her dancing went viral. She has since signed to a talent agency called WME and even attended the 2021 Met Gala. Likewise, new Netflix and Hulu shows, Hype House and The D’Amelio Show turn ordinary teenagers– who also achieved virality on TikTok– into reality TV stars, calling to mind major celebrities like the Kardashian-Jenners. Many independent artists have also found that it is easier nowadays to promote music and get discovered, especially on TikTok, because of the vast array of social media platforms and the features they offer to aspiring musicians and other content creators. A single viral video featuring their original songs, posted by TikTok users, like Tai Verdes, Lyn Lapid, and Salem Ilese, has landed them and countless other musicians real record deals. TikTok's duet feature has also been used to start trends in which people add their own musical talent to another’s, creating a mass collaboration that is remixed and reposted over and over. This was particularly popular during 2020’s quarantine, when thousands of users participated in a rendition of The Wellerman sea shanty, started by Nathan Evans, an ex-postman who has now also been signed to Polydor Records. But social media has opened opportunities for more than just musicians. Small businesses– from handmade jewellery and candles, to clothing and original artwork– can thrive through social media engagement and can also utilise the new ‘shop’ tab on Instagram– similar to Facebook Marketplace– to direct people to their online merchandise.

In conclusion, social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter enhance participation in the entertainment industry to the extent that it has completely transformed the dynamic between consumer and producer, performer and audience. The power is no longer solely in the hands of entertainment companies and agencies because “we now have to recognize audiences as creative” (Meikle and Young, 2012), and acknowledge not only commercial demands but the emotional needs of the fans, as the industry finds itself at their mercy. Social media has, therefore, exposed the complexities of the consumer and empowered them to be more active in how they are entertained.

Bibliography

Make Happy (2016) Directed by Bo Burnham and Christopher Storer. Available at: Netflix [Accessed: 6 January 2022]

Alice Capelle (2021) Vlogger/viewer relationships: what you don't see (parasocial relationships). Uploaded 5 January. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbHjD10t1Wk> [Accessed: 15 December 2021].

Nathan Evans (2020) December 27. Available at: <https://www.tiktok.com/@nathanevanss/video/6910995345421962498>

Hype House (2022) produced Kit Gordon, Deanna Markoff, Luke Neslage, Will Nothacker, and Eric Wattenberg. Available at: Netflix The D’Amelio Show (2021) produced by Eli Holzman and Aaron Saidman. Available at: Hulu Salem Ilese (2020) August 26. Available at: <https://www.tiktok.com/@salemilese/video/6865378435804450054>

Jenkins, Henry. Fandom and Participatory Culture, Grinnell College, <https://haenfler.sites.grinnell.edu/subcultural-theory-and-theorists/fandom-and-parti cipatory-culture/>

Jenkins, H., Ito, M. and boyd, d. (2016) Participatory Culture in a Networked Era. Cambridge: Polity Press, p.4, p.141.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S. and Green, J. (2013) Spreadable Media. New York and London: New York University Press, p.153.

Jenkins, H. (2013) Textual Poachers Television Fans and Participatory Culture. Updated Twentieth Anniversary ed. New York and Oxon: Routledge. Jensen, J. (1992). Fandom as Pathology: The Consequences of Characterization. In L. Lewis (Ed.), The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media (pp. 9-26). London: Routledge.

Judy Knows (2020) The ARMY: BTS's Vast Global Fandom. [online] Available at: <https://judyknows.com/9-btsarmy/> [Accessed: 9 January 2022].

Judy Knows (2020) The Next Generation of Fan Engagement infographic. [image] Available at: <https://judyknows.com/content/images/size/w2000/2020/10/BTS-Fan-Engagement- 2.jpg> [Accessed 3 December 2021].

Lyn Lapid (2020). April 16. Available at: <https://www.tiktok.com/@lynlapid/video/6816496498625334534>

Meikle, G. and Young, S. (2012) Media convergence. Basingstoke, Hampshire [England]: Palgrave Macmillan, p.104.

Messina, C. (2007) [Twitter] 23 August. Available at: <https://twitter.com/chrismessina/status/223115412?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwca mp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E223115412%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10 &ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.platform81.com%2Fthe-history-of-the-hashtag-how -one-symbol-changed-how-we-use-social-media%2F> [Accessed: 10 January 2022].

PewDiePie (2017) Forced Positivity on Youtube. Available at: <https://youtu.be/iyGI1uHyyws> [Accessed: 11 January 2022].

Dr. Shaw, J., Hagen, S. (2020) The Nightstalker: Who marries a serial killer?. [podcast] Bad People. Available at: <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p08m5hwl> [Accessed 9 January 2022].

Todd, A. (2013) After. Wattpad. Available at: <https://www.wattpad.com/story/5095707-after>

Tai Verdes (2020) May 23. Available at: <https://www.tiktok.com/@taiverdes/video/6830319008999312645>