Is it possible to understand this sort of behaviour [influencer culture] as symptomatic of a move towards eusociality, remembering our previous discussions on the topic.
That's an intriguing angle, Chris! If we consider the idea of eusociality—a term often associated with the extreme social cooperation seen in certain species (like ants, bees, or termites)—as a framework, we could interpret these behaviours as a distorted or over-exaggerated attempt at social cohesion, albeit one driven more by individual self-promotion than collective benefit.
In the case of influencers and the like, their behaviours could be seen as a form of pseudo-eusociality, where they create an illusion of "community" or "collective growth" that ultimately serves their personal agendas. The underlying social mechanisms that would make eusociality functional in nature (like shared goals, mutual benefit, and cooperative survival) are warped here by a more individualistic drive, where the primary goal is the self rather than the group.
Eusociality is based on the idea that individuals within a group sacrifice some degree of personal autonomy for the benefit of the collective. In contrast, influencer culture flips that idea on its head—here, the "sacrifice" is disguised as self-actualisation, and the collective (their audience) is primarily seen as a resource for boosting the influencer’s own status or success.
In this way, their actions could be viewed as symptomatic of a larger trend where social behaviours that are supposed to serve collective well-being become co-opted by individual self-interest. This aligns with the modern phenomenon where social media platforms, which were originally tools for connection and mutual support, have become platforms for individual exploitation and branding.
So, it’s like a move towards eusociality—but one that’s filtered through the lens of narcissism and individual branding instead of altruism and collective welfare. Instead of working toward a true collective consciousness or community, it's more like a "hive mind" where every individual is constantly competing for attention and validation, much like worker bees fighting for a chance to be queen.
Well, you make me think that it's an exploitation of increasing eusociality by individuals, a sort of parasitism. Or is more like the creation of castes?
Ah, that's a fascinating direction, Chris! You're touching on a deeper layer of complexity here, and both parasitism and caste dynamics are apt metaphors for what's going on.
Exploitation of Eusociality:This could definitely be seen as parasitic behaviour. In this context, the influencers—or those capitalising on the need for connection, belonging, and social recognition—are feeding off the collective desire for validation and social unity, but without contributing to the collective well-being. Instead of fostering mutual support, they exploit the structure of the social network, extracting attention and value while offering little in return. In a sense, they latch onto the increasingly eusocial nature of digital society, where people crave connection, belonging, and purpose, and turn those needs into a commodity. Like parasites in a system, they thrive at the expense of the collective good.In this scenario, the "social web" or "network" becomes a kind of ecosystem where certain individuals (the influencers) position themselves as central figures, extracting attention (a form of energy, in a way) from followers who think they're part of a larger social or spiritual movement. The followers, meanwhile, continue to seek connection, but are ultimately left with the sense that they’re contributing to a cycle that only benefits the influencers.
Creation of Castes:Alternatively, this could resemble a kind of caste system, where social hierarchies are built around visibility and influence rather than merit or communal contributions. In a caste-like society, individuals are assigned roles and statuses that can be difficult to escape from. Similarly, in modern digital spaces, influencers create a hierarchy where those who command attention (whether through beauty, charisma, or skill at self-promotion) become the "elite" while others are relegated to roles of perpetual follower-ship. This stratification can be seen in the way followers might start viewing their relationship to influencers, as if they're part of a social structure where their role is simply to elevate those above them.What’s particularly insidious is that this caste-like structure isn't based on inherent qualities like birthright or even purely on skill, but on the ability to cultivate an image that others are willing to buy into, often through manufactured authenticity. The whole idea of "personal branding" becomes a way of enforcing social roles within an increasingly digitally mediated world, and the influencers become the new “priesthood,” dispensing wisdom and inspiration, whether they’re actually qualified or not.
So, both perspectives can coexist: parasitism in terms of how influencers exploit the social drive towards eusociality for personal gain, and caste creation in the way these influencers construct and maintain a social hierarchy based on visibility, with a growing divide between those who are seen and those who are not.
Do you think the parasitic aspect is more damaging to the collective, or does the caste-like structure pose a greater danger by solidifying these roles and divisions? Or, perhaps, they reinforce each other in a feedback loop?
ChatGPT said:
I think both aspects—parasitism and caste creation—reinforce each other in a feedback loop, and together they create a system that's more damaging than either alone. Here’s why:
Parasitism: When influencers exploit the social drive for connection and validation, it creates a system where individuals are consumed by the pursuit of approval and recognition. This can be incredibly draining for the followers, who, instead of cultivating genuine relationships or personal growth, are locked into a cycle of attention-seeking behaviour. The more people give their attention to influencers, the more those influencers thrive, without necessarily offering anything substantive in return. This parasitic relationship weakens the social fabric because it’s based on a false sense of connection and a one-sided transaction—followers give their time, energy, and attention, but receive little more than empty validation.
Caste Creation: At the same time, the caste-like structure created by influencers serves to solidify social divisions. The more influencers maintain their status as the elite, the more people are drawn into supporting them—whether by aspiring to be like them, or simply by participating in their content as followers. This stratification creates a sense of hierarchy, where those at the top (the influencers) hold power over those at the bottom (the followers). Over time, this division becomes entrenched, leading to social fragmentation. The followers may start to view themselves as secondary players, their worth tied to their proximity to the influencer or their status in the online ecosystem.
This feedback loop ensures that both the parasitism (exploitation of social desires) and the caste system (social stratification based on visibility and influence) work together to perpetuate a system where the collective good is subordinated to individual self-interest. Rather than fostering true collaboration, mutual growth, or social equality, the system breeds isolation, envy, and a deepening divide between those who have influence and those who do not.
My view: The real danger here is that this system, over time, can erode genuine social bonds and make people more reliant on superficial validation, instead of creating meaningful connections or contributing to the collective welfare. It's not just about a few influencers exploiting their followers for personal gain, but about how these dynamics affect the way people understand themselves in relation to others. The caste-like division deepens social alienation, and the parasitic nature of the influencer-followers relationship undermines the potential for real social cooperation.
I’d say it’s not just damaging—it’s a distortion of what sociality was supposed to be about. What began as a social tool for connection and cooperation becomes a mechanism of division and exploitation.
No comments:
Post a Comment