The faulty premises of influencer culture.
In a previous post, I presented the concept of branded personalities and cited Anthony Giddens’ argument that the ego has become a reflexive project of perpetual self-improvement. According to Media & Cultural Professor Laurie Ouellette, lifestyle TV plays a role in influencing citizens to self-improve and empowers individuals to act according to a desired conduct. She argues that this process is part of a state strategy to indirectly govern citizens for the purpose of increasing productivity and minimising dependency on government resources. French Philosopher Michel Foucault gave this process a name when he introduced the term ‘neoliberal governmentality’.
While Ouellette references TV shows such as The Biggest Loser and The Fairy Job Mother, neoliberal governmentality can also be seen through social media influencers such as Kayla Itsines and Lauren Singer. Itsines is the co-founder of ’Sweat’ fitness app with the mission to help women “become the BEST version of themselves”. Singer is the founder of ’Package Free Shop’ and ‘The Simply Co’ who advocates environmentally-conscious living by dispelling “the mindset that someone else will fix the problem of climate change”. Both influencers are branded personalities who push a consumer-focused, neoliberal narrative of individual action.
Media & Communications Professor Tania Lewis argues that this narrative takes responsibility away from governments and corporations. For instance, rather than challenging the cost and availability of healthy food options, Itsines encourages followers to become a paid subscriber of her fitness app. Similarly, instead of advocating for state-wide measures to minimise waste, Singer invites followers to purchase products either from her own businesses or from paid advertising partners. It is evident by their self-promotion that both entrepreneurs have a personal agenda of economic gain. This ties in with Ouellette’s findings, that - together with Lifestyle TV - branded personalities use their influence to support “neoliberal strategies of governing at a distance” where the desired conduct is a productive, self-made citizen who has a positive effect on economic growth.
An individual who is not dependent on shared resources (unless they’ve reached retirement age) raises questions about class, access, ableism and accountability: Who has the means to invest in self-improvement? Who doesn’t? Is the individual or the state accountable for outcomes that affect wider communities?
