Parasociality is such a buzzword in recent years. Rightfully so because it gives a name to something society has exponentially involved itself with more and more over the last two decades (can I just say it feels wrong to say 2 decades and realize that 20 years ago was 2005?).
For anyone who doesn’t know what parasociality is: It’s a one sided relationship that gets built where the other person involved is not at all or only vaguely aware of the other relationship member. Parasocial interactions (consumer person interacting with media of other person) can gradually develop into a parasocial relationship (cross-situational relationship a consumer person holds to a media person).
This has been a thing since way before the internet, even before Hollywood there were readers who had a parasocial relationship to their favorite author. In a time where we are connected permanently and on apps that have marketing (and therefore psychological manipulation) as their goal, this has become a larger phenomenon. Which is obviously also the reason why the term has recently blown up in casual usage. I do, however, find that most people use it only when it fits in a criticism, like they themselves are somehow not engaging in parasocial interactions regularly by simply being online.
So let me make this abundantly clear: While it might not be evolutionarily built into us, in a world that has been connected for way longer than the internet has existed, parasociality is normal. And by normal I mean you cannot have our current world without it. I’d even argue that science depends in part on some level of parasociality, but that’s not the topic of today’s piece. It is normal to have one-sided interactions with all sorts of media and people. Having a whole relationship that is one-sided is also not that new. Have you seen how people used to write into their newspapers and magazines when their favorite write had a piece in the paper? Have you seen how people have obsessed over actors even back in the 70s. The Beatles are also a study on its own when it comes to fandom and the parasociality involved in fandom. Entire magazine genres depend on parasociality. All that before the advent of social media. So, yes, parasocial relationships are normal, develop naturally even, because we feel connected to both similar traits but also people just neutral and distant enough for us to project onto.
The problem with parasociality isn’t parasociality itself, it is what parasociality is the potential breeding ground for in a world that puts profit over humanity systemically. Parasociality in a world with very little to limit its negative effects can turn into the dehumanization and commodification of other people online who are or aren’t famous (take one look at comment sections in sports fandoms). Parasociality in someone that has tons of systemically unmet needs can turn into an OCD-level obsession with a person that affects them negatively. And as an extension of obsession, a smaller but still not ignorable percentage of people will turn that into cyberstalking and real life stalking. The parasociality to psychosis pipeline definitely exists and there are not enough ways we keep it in check without any shame attached. I personally belief shame attached to any part of parasociality makes people even more prone to get into the obsession side of it actually.
If we look at our current media landscape and how society interacts with it you can simplify the power dynamic of parasociality to three sides. The target of the parasociality (if it is at mass that is a celebrity), the person having the parasocial relationship (viewer, reader, etc.) and the industry that provides the media that makes the parasocial relationship possible.
The famous or publicly focused person is a part of the equation that is still a human being (something I constantly have to remind people of). They play a PR game to some extent even if they aren’t working with actual PR agencies. I’d say that our recent phase of cancel culture online has had a significant effect on public figures being less real and human online and making mistakes openly. Which I hope is clear: Would reduce the parasociality tipping over into obsession for many because it humanizes the target of the parasociality. The celeb also simply acts based on what people before them have done to upkeep some level of status quo and to protect themselves from being shunned (which we ARE mentally wired to prevent). It’s no secret on here that I work with sexual violence in my social work and that includes occasionally working with content creators as either perpetrators or advocates. Seeing that these people are just as human, messy and sometimes fucked up as any other person definitely helped me a LOT in how I navigate fandom spaces. It helped me humanize the target of parasociality instead of over-sciencifying them into a factor of this equation. The main thing they can do is show that humanity they have, the mistakes they make and anything that falls in that vein. Unfortunately that is not in the interest of the very PR and marketing that is often not only tied to their income but also industry standard that peers will push them into keeping up.
I hope you’re picking up what I’m putting down: The celeb being parasocial-ed is not the main person responsible to prevent people from dehumanizing them so much that they can be obsessed over and worse. All they can do is walk a balance act of being just real enough unless we collectively wanna argue for the absence of people that are famous which will frankly never happen even if we lived in a solarpunk society. Hypervisibility will always exist unless we suddenly enter the age of zero connection again. Public figures can have mentors and therapists that help them figure all of this weird mess out, but even those run largely on some status quo we’re all used to.
I’m not going to lie. The average person CAN do some shit to prevent parasociality from taking on its bad forms. Regularly reminding yourself of the fact that everyone has deep flaws is one of them. I frankly have never met a successful person that doesn’t have either trauma or some very odd personality trait that gets in the way for them regularly. It certainly helps working with public figures at least once in your life because that shit will give you memories to recall whenever you need the stark reminder that this person on your screen indeed has said some fucked up or deeply awkward shit at some point. HOWEVER, I also don’t want to frame all of this as if the sole responsibility for preventing parasocial relationships from souring is on the person that is getting reeled into having these parasocial interactions. We all live under a system where our needs are not met. Even if they were met we’d still have people that’d be more prone to still having parasocial relationships that turn deeply obsessive. It’s not the unmet needs alone. It’s not the social isolation social media creates alone. You can only give yourself as many safety stops in the system of your personal life before even the failsafe fails some of you. And frankly, we’ve built amazing shit with the good parts of parasociality.
Parasociality doesn’t just create stalkers and people so obsessed with someone they’ll crash out if the person they look up to fucks up majorly. Parasociality is what drives people to do fan art, found communities about shared interests and write the entirety of the entries on Archive of Our Own (I see you, I am you lmao). It would be delusional to expect all of fandom to vanish even if a perfect world exists (plus most fandoms outside of music are about a general thing, instead of fans of specific athletes are at large also just fans of the sport for example). You cannot outwork the fact that in the age of data you cannot outrun marketing. You innately want to project yourself onto others and moreso in a world that doesn’t fulfill your needs and prompts you to practice escapism.
I also find that by your mid 20s most people have gained a grasp on how to humanize people they look up to. Although as an older Gen Z I’m worrying about this becoming rarer in younger Gen Z and below since short form content does have an affect on how our brain takes in a well-planned marketing/PR plan of a person. We’ll see.
Which brings me to the third factor in the power dynamic with a more vague name and description. The industry I’m refering to here is basically whatever drives media. I don’t necessarily mean the social media platforms or publishers themselves, because those will always be innately money-driven under capitalism. I’m speaking of the marketing and PR standards that each media upholds. Doesn’t matter if that’s the international music industry, the sports industry or Hollywood. The individuals in those industries have the power to standardize things and change standards because several industries of this size do have unions or things resembling a union. Let’s ignore for a second that most of those are filled with white rich men who have an interest in upholding the status quo for their money and privilege to stay. Ethical marketing is a thing and it can be standardized. There are ways to protect consumers, public figures AND the industries themselves that would lead to reduction in the type of status quo PR that leads to stalkers and obsessive fans. Like with so many other issues outside of parasociality, the big power for changes lies with groups of people that have the power to change the baseline but won’t.
It should not be lost on you that flavors of parasociality are slightly different based on industry. The way people obsess over music artists (looking at the marketing capitalist hellscape that is K-Pop) is all about aspirational obsession and analysis of ever step of a person. The way people obsess over athletes is more about finding humanity in overly polished elite sports that the fans themselves don’t necessarily want to be in. The way people obsess about authors is all about control and (currently) purity culture (and honestly so easily fixable if some giant authors would have more backbone to address this type of culture). Content creators experience more of a tangential obsession. For them the relatability results in many casual fans, but the stalkers they do get are therefore that much more hard-hitting. Of course there are a select few that have a cult following and usually a lot of drama connected to them that keeps them in the Zeitgeist. But a majority of content creators, especially newer ones, are starting to master just being themselves online while still having mindfulness about their safety and that leads to less deifying.
There is so much sad irony in the fact that many people at the receiving end of parasocial relationships feel a ton of pressure because of it and there is nearly zero research on micro and macro levels of fame and therefore barely anyone actually specializing in helping with that topic. Yes, we have therapists and coaches who wing it, but with research they combine together from different parts of psychology, not based on research about how fame actually affects the mind and what common issues are when someone is hypervisible. In a world where people have increasingly become at least micro-famous I find it an injustice that not a single person in the humanities has sat their ass down and followed up on the few studies we have about this from two decades ago (RIP Dr. Donna Rockwell). This isn’t even solely about funding in my opinion, although that would help. This is the type of shit someone could do case studies and qualitative research in without publishing it in an academic publication, but just share it with the general public through the very methods we all consume. It’s a giant reason for why I’m working on my podcast that centers all around humanizing successful people. I’d love if other people gathered an interest in this cross-section of psychology, communications and sociology. Fame social work sounds kinda like it would be my thing lmao
As you can see, big systemic things lead to individual negative outcomes with parasociality. At large parasociality has led to some amazing creative and communicative outcomes online and offline. We need to really research the effects of fame on people and we really need to pressure unions and associations in influential fields to advocate for changes within industries that lead to a decrease in creating too-deep obsessions in their audiences. I mean at the core of it all this entire piece is once again a critique on how money as the driving force is ruining everything, but who’s surprised by me being an anti-capitalist social worker? The most feasable solution that isn’t a change in economic system, it’s industries setting standards. A difficult feat, speaking as a woman in a male dominated field myself.
Remember: You don’t know that person. That person might be a shitbag in private. It’s okay to be a fan, but don’t tie your emotions to how good of a person a stranger is. Know that being parasocial isn’t something to be ashamed about, but also use it to check in about which needs you need fulfilled right now.
If you want to support my writing I prefer people using Ko-Fi for one-time and monthly financial support since the payment processor Substack uses is not following GDPR guidelines for the country I live in correctly.
Through Ko-Fi you can do one-time donations AND subscription payments. Using an external subscription service means that all my Substack posts are able to stay free to everyone.
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.