Identity and Representation on the Neoliberal Platform of Youtube

Identity and
Representation on the Neoliberal Platform of
YouTube

Andra Teodora Pacuraru Student Number: 11693436
30/08/2018
Supervisor: Alberto Cossu
Second Reader: Bernhard Rieder MA New Media and Digital Culture
University of Amsterdam

Table of Contents

1

Introduction

YouTube is a great example of neoliberalism with each person responsible for their own capital, and introducing the notion of personal branding. This all leads to each

individual’s own identity, which they build for themselves and heavily depend on. This plays

a crucial role in their quest towards becoming micro celebrities. Advertising and monetization

eventually became the heart of YouTube’s capital, all of which are highly dependent on the

aforementioned. The goal of this paper is to show how all of these factors come into play, by analysing three cases of YouTube celebrities who all have minority identities of different sorts; how they have applied themselves, how it was received, what kind of social impact they aim to make and why YouTube is their chosen platform. Through all of this, we can begin to answer the question of, can people with underrepresented identities stand out and showcase their unique voices in the neoliberal world of YouTube?

The first chapter of this research paper will consist of the theoretical framework. It will discuss relevant aspects of neoliberalism, such as homo economicus and human capital, the emergence of personal branding and micro-celebrities, as well as the concept of identity and how that is constructed, and how the emergence of the Internet and mass selfcommunication have made an impact on how people construct their identities. The chapter will also introduce YouTube, from its inception to how it has changed in order to best monetize its content, the way it positions itself as a platform, and how it can affect its users’ visibility and marketability. Lastly, it will take a general look at how YouTube micro-celebrities can turn their presence on the website into a money maker.

The second chapter analyses the three chosen case studies: Lilly Singh, Hannah Witton and Alex Bertie. This will be done through a mix of data analysis of various aspects of their YouTube channels (such as monthly subscribers gained, monthly views, total subscribers and views growth) from the website Social Blade and content analysis of their channels which tracks the evolution of the users in terms of video quality, topics and so on. Other relevant

topics included in this analysis are the users’ collaborations, their sponsorships and

endeavours outside of YouTube.

2

The third chapter will focus on discussion, tying together theoretical aspects

introduced in the first chapter with findings from the case studies’ analysis. It looks at the way

the chosen users construct their identities and use them for different reasons, from building their brand to simply building a community, and what effect their visibility potentially has.

3

Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework

Neoliberalism & Personal Branding

For Foucault, the difference between classical liberalism and neoliberalism is based on how each mode of governmentality focuses on economic activity. In classical liberalism, that is based on exchange: in the marketplace, that means an exchange of goods and services for money or other goods, but also socially and for the state, an exchange of some freedoms for rights and liberties. Neoliberalism, however, changes the focus of economic activity from that of exchange to that of competition. This change is important: exchange was considered natural, while competition is seen by neo-liberals as an artificial relation which requires the constant intervention from the state on the conditions of the market (Read 28).

Both types of liberalism have the notion of homo economicus, which is “the way in

which they place a particular “anthropology” of man as an economic subject at the basis of

politics” (Read 28), but once again, this changes from exchange to competition. In classical liberalism, homo economicus is “the man of exchange, one of the two partners in the process of exchange” (Foucault 225). In neoliberalism, homo economicus is an entrepreneur of himself, who is his own capital, producer, and source of his own income (Foucault 226).

In neoliberalism, every person has their own human capital, which includes innate elements and acquired elements. Innate elements are biological and hereditary, such as race, class, or hereditary medical conditions. There is nothing anyone can do to change some of these elements, and they can be viewed as advantages or disadvantages from the perspective of employers. From this point of view, people coming from minorities or from a lower class background may have an automatic disadvantage in many situations where they are looking for employment or other opportunities. Some of these innate elements can also affect

acquired elements such as someone’s education, training, and other additions to their

knowledge. While human capital analysts assume that a person decides on these things by weighing the pros and cons of them for their future, some people may not even have the means to reach their full potential in these areas because of other circumstances.

4

Human capital also includes the individual’s body of work, their habits, even harmful

ones like smoking and other addictions. Some of these aspects can be changed if someone chooses to actively invest in their human capital by giving up something harmful or changing

their lifestyle (Becker, Foucault). “The theory of human capital investment relates inequality in earnings to differences in talents, family background, and bequests and other assets” (Becker 12). Van Doorn sees human capital as “a machine that advances a rationality in which

a plethora of different qualities, capacities, attributes, and values are integrated into one common measure – or a set of interrelated measures – thus rendering them comparable and measurable in terms of their market value” (360).

In this view of the world, the worker becomes human capital and their salary is a

revenue earned in the worker’s investment in their skills and abilities. Activities that increase

their human capital and their potential revenue are also investments in oneself. Neoliberalism

operates on “interests, desires and aspirations rather than through rights and obligations”

(Read 29). One way in which labour has changed under this world of competition is the trend of moving away from long term contracts, towards temporary, part-time or freelance labour. This strategy can be seen as more beneficial to companies, who do not have to commit to long-term contracts and expensive health care plans for their employees. By making workers consider themselves as their own companies or entrepreneurs, this way of thinking also makes it less likely for them to come together and organise themselves as a group against their employer, because they are all in competition with each other (Read 28; van Doorn 359).

Read sees neoliberalism as a “restoration not only of class power, of capitalism as the only possible economic system” but also as a “restoration of capitalism as synonymous with rationality.” (Read 32).

Increasing one’s human capital can become more important than the actual profit of

one’s current human capital, as it can open up more opportunities in the future. The purpose

of the worker in this environment becomes increasing the value of their human capital, or at least preventing the depreciation of it, more than it is making money in the moment (Feher, in van Doorn 358). The tricky part is that the valuation of human capital in neoliberal conditions is speculation and is dependent on the judgments of others (van Doorn 358).

5

Rankings and ratings, particularly online, have also changed the way people present themselves, even in a more personal setting. Everything becomes public performance on the Internet. This has led to the appearance of the reputation economy online, where the entrepreneur has to be careful with how they manage their reputation in order to increase their human capital, it is an important asset that can become profitable under the right circumstances (van Doorn 362).

The concept of personal branding was first introduced by Tom Peters in a 1997 article

titled ‘The Brand Called You’. In it, he said “We are CEOs of our own companies: Me Inc. To

be in business today, our most important job is to be head marketers for the brand called You” (Peters). Under this logic, anyone, no matter what they do, is capable of being their own brand and their own manager. Just like a company, a person needs to have a selling point, which in this case would be something unique about their personality. According to Arruda (in Chen), the personal branding process needs to follow three steps: extract, express, and exude. First, the person in question has to identify a unique attribute, or attributes, within

themselves, that can hold value. Second, they need to create a “person brand statement”

around this attribute. Lastly, they need to create a strategy in order to make this brand visible to other people (Chen, Exploring Personal Branding on YouTube 334). It can be seen how personal, or self-branding, ties into the neoliberal concepts of homo economicus and human capital, where a person has to be its own entrepreneur

The concept of personal branding has grown in recent times thanks to the rising presence and importance of social media, with platforms such as Twitter, Instagram or YouTube offering everyone the potential to reach a very large audience. YouTube is an important space in this conversation, where people can post all kinds of videos that would reflect their personality, their uniqueness, and their self-expression in a public space that can attract attention. They can directly target a certain type of audience that can identify with them or be interested in what they have to say. They can continue to promote themselves and thanks to the metrics available on social media, such as subscribers, followers, views and ratings, they can present themselves as commercially viable for advertisers, sponsors, etc. Social media also offers a direct line of communication between the person, or the brand, and their audience or consumer, through which they can receive feedback and insight into what

6

they are doing right and what they might be doing wrong, how they can improve, what the audience may want to see.

Gandini calls self-branding a “form of digital work”, where the worker invests in social

relationships and expects a return in the form of a reputation (124). He equates self-branding with social capital, which can be used by the worker to make themselves appear more attractive to employers, or in the case of social media celebrities, advertisers, as well as using any relevant contacts acquired through this work in order to continue raising their capital or reputation. Thanks to social media, reputation can now be put into tangible indicators such

as numbers and rankings, making it a very important aspect of people’s profiles.

Khamis et al argue that there are three reasons for the rise of personal branding: the promise of fame to ordinary people who aspire to become micro-celebrities, if not more; the potential for a reward for them doing this, thanks to neoliberal individualism; and witnessing the commercial success of other micro-celebrities and social media influencers (194).

Page (in Khamis et al) believes that there is “particular emphasis on the construction

of identity as a product to be consumed by others, and on interaction which treats the audience as an aggregated fan base to be developed and maintained in order to achieve social or economic benefit” (196). The people looking for some sort of success through social media, be it becoming micro-celebrities or building up their profile to have a higher chance of finding employment, use (or attempt to use) this tactic strategically; their public persona is highly curated and it represents only a small part of their actual life.

Turner identifies what he calls the ‘demotic turn’ as a change in media, where there is

a growing visibility of ordinary people. This idea applies to social media, where people do not need to be part of an existing narrative structure, but they can create their own brand which can be whatever they want it to be. In this way, social media is a very different way for ordinary people to reach celebrity status or visibility from reality television, which before social media was one of the rare ways for people who were not working as entertainers to be seen by an audience. Another difference between the two is that by using social media, people do not need to have an affiliation with anyone in the industry (like a reality television contestant would, with the reality show or network they appeared on), and while they are

7

hoping to reach that point through their work, their initial goal is to get the attention of an audience (Khamis et al 197).

Mass Self-Communication & Identity

In Communication, Power and Counter-Power in the Network Society, Castells

discusses concepts of politics, power, counter-power and a new system of self masscommunication. He says that the way the majority of the people in a society thinks

determines that society’s set of values and norms. These are reflected in that society’s

politics, which uses the mass media system available to influence the minds of its citizens. “What does not exist in the media does not exist in the public mind” (241), which means that it is important to have visibility, especially for groups of people or growing social movements who are marginalized in one way or another and need to be seen in order to be understood

by the majority. Castells defines power as “the structural capacity of a social actor to impose its will over other social actors” (239) and counter-power as “the capacity by social actors to challenge and eventually change the power relations institutionalized in society” (239). The

media system in each society is where power is decided. Due to the diffusion of the Internet and the growth of access to tools equipped with mobile communication and digital media

devices, a very high percentage of the world’s population has access to the Internet and

mobile communications, and these people can now connect with each other on a global scale as well as a local one. Castells calls this mass self-communication. This helps the growth of social movements around the world, as well as minorities of different types finding a community online if they cannot find one locally.

Similarly, the emergence of the Internet, combined with globalization, has caused a shift in the public sphere, creating a global one in addition to a local one. In The New Public

Sphere, Castells defines the public sphere as “the space of communication of ideas and

projects that emerge from society and are addressed to the decision makers in the institutions of society” (78). Just as previously mentioned in the case of politics, the media is also the biggest part of the public sphere as the society in question organizes its public sphere thanks to media communication networks. The digital era has only made this easier. The Internet can

8

help organize societies or groups of people, but it is also a space for debate and constructive dialogue on a bigger level than what was possible before, which can affect public opinion in both good and bad ways.

Identity, as defined by Castells in The Power of Identity, is “the process of construction of meaning on the basis of a cultural attribute, or a related set of cultural attributes, that is

given priority over other sources of meaning” (6), but they only become identities when the

person in question internalizes them and constructs meaning around that. A person can also have a plurality of identities. In order to construct their identity, a person uses aspects of their biology, their history, their geography, their religion, their institutions, their personal fantasies and so on and rearrange their meaning. The culture of societies is defined by the opposition between communalism (which “roots itself in religion, nation, territoriality,

ethnicity, gender and environment) and individualism (which spreads “as a market-driven

consumerism, as a new pattern of sociality based on networked individualism and as the desire for individual autonomy based on self-defined projects of life”) (Castells,

Communication, Power and Counter-Power in the Network Society 240). Tubella (2005) also

points out two types of identity building, individual identity (“the sense of oneself as an

individual endowed with certain characteristics and potentialities” (257)) and collective

identity (“the sense of oneself as a member of a social group, a sense of belonging, a sense of being part of a collectivity” (257)).

Castells sees three forms and origins of identity building. The first one is the

legitimizing identity, “introduced by the dominant institutions of society to extend and

rationalize their domination vis a vis social actors” (The Power of Identity, 8). The second one is the resistance identity, “generated by those [social] actors who are in positions/conditions devalued and/or stigmatized by the logic of domination, thus building trenches of resistance and survival on the basis of principles from, or opposed to, those permeating the institutions

of society” (8). The third one is the project identity, “when social actors, on the basis of

whatever cultural materials are available to them, build a new identity that redefines their position in society and, by so doing, seek the transformation of overall social structure” (8). Resistance identities can induce projects and eventually become legitimizing identities by becoming dominant in society. On the other hand, they can also help form communities and

forms of collective resistance against society’s oppression.

9

Because the Internet spans cultural and geographical boundaries, it has a big impact on the expression and perception of social identities. People can now find resources by themselves in order to construct their own identities, and they have increasing access to

“non-local knowledge”. In the case of minorities and resistance identities, this can be a huge

help in understanding themselves, becoming more seen and increasing the awareness of their identity if they are in a society where they are not seen in the general public.

YouTube & Micro-Celebrities

YouTube was founded in 2005 by Steve Chen, Chad Hurley and Jawed Karim. In just a few months, investors were already interested in buying into the company. YouTube started gaining attention from advertisers once a video of Brazilian football player Ronaldinho doing tricks, which was actually an advertisement from Nike disguised as an amateur video of the player during training, went viral in October 2005 (Cloud). This was the first video to reach a million views on the website (Dracott). Despite pressure from advertisers, Chen and Hurley decided against having ads play before videos (Cloud). While that would have been better for them financially, the move helped make YouTube a community-driven space.