Parasocial relationships, the flip side

Okay so aside from a quick update, I haven't posted in 6 years. It's not that I don't have thoughts. Maybe I have better outlets for them? But today I want to ramble on about a topic without boring my Discord friends so it's time to dust off the old blog. I'm going to start by saying *I'm insecure*. I worry endlessly about what other people think of me. Yeah, yeah, I know, they aren't thinking of me at all. But when I'm talking to them, is there ever just a flash of "this chick is weird" in a not good way? And just when I think I'm, you know, okay, someone comes along to make me question all over again. Most recently, it was Oliver Thorn's brilliant short film, Artists and Fandom, which you can watch here: https://youtu.be/3IG0Y63LkDM Go ahead, I'll wait. Now of course this is Ollie's personal if educated opinion and experience. And he certainly wasn't talking to me as our contact would be generously described as minimal. But *could* he have been talking about me? He's not the first one to address parasocial relationships. I felt similar dread when Wil Williams wrote a piece on them specifically in the podcast industry (yeah I feel *very* indicted) I invite you to read here: https://wilwilliams.reviews/2019/01/04/podcasters-are-people-the-intimacy-of-medium-vs-parasocial-relationships/ So since I have strong feels about this, I thought maybe it would help me - and maybe others - to write about parasocial relationships from the other side. From the point of view of the fan. A couple of starting principles. Parasocial relationships (I'm just going to say PR from now on) are by definition one-sided. They are a relationship between a consumer and an image. The people and things behind the image (and this goes for Oliver as well as breakfast cereal) can manipulate this relationship for well-meaning or not-so-well-meaning ends. I just want to point out that, to one extent or another, the fan is being used. To sell something, to get more YouTube hits, or occasionally to become a better person. But used nonetheless. Now a word about art, and not the same words Ollie used. Art is self-expression and therefore reveals some part of the artist to the viewer (or listener). Sometimes you may not understand what is being revealed (like abstract art) and sometimes it's very clear. But there is a vulnerability being uncovered for public consumption. And this creates a power imbalance. I'm going to go out on a limb and say artists create because they want to be seen. They want to be known. There is a deep human need to be witnessed and acknowledged and hopefully accepted. If it weren't important for strangers to do this witnessing, this acknowledging, this accepting, people wouldn't display or share their art, or they'd just go into therapy where their vulnerabilities remain protected by doctor patient privilege. Blogging is actually the same thing. I'm not saying this ramble is art. But my thoughts and opinions are acts of creation. Writing them down is an act of creation. And rather than writing them in a notebook and shoving it in a drawer, I'm putting it on the internet. In the hopes that you will understand. In the hopes that you will agree. In the hopes that you will disagree. In the hopes that somehow this will create a connection between you and me. So does that not make art an act of reaching out? Are we as the recipients of art not expected to reach back? I mentioned before about the power imbalance. The artist is exposing themselves which puts them at a disadvantage. But at the same time, hopefully they feel some fulfillment by being "seen". The human response is to try to correct this imbalance by exposing our own vulnerabilities and experiencing that same sense of being "seen". But the PR model presupposes this to be unhealthy. It's fine to form attachments to artists but it is not acceptable to try to make it a two-way relationship. If you want to be seen, you too must become an artist and express your vulnerabilities not to the ones who created this need in you, but to more strangers. Is it any wonder everyone has a blog and a YouTube channel, not just artists? Is it any wonder people sign up for talent shows and reality TV? We have an ingrained drive to find our place in the social hierarchy through acceptance into higher and higher status groups, and in a culture where anyone can be a celebrity and where we are becoming increasingly isolated from the people sitting next to us, it is instinctual to seek approval, to seek connection, with the highest-status person we think we can reach. I mean, you went to high school, right? This is Lord of the Flies 101. It also brings to mind an episode of the sci fi television series Crusade - a terrible virus infects a spaceship, transmitted by touch. The crew form a human chain, holding hands as the virus races from person to person, out the airlock and into open space, and when there are no more people, the virus dies in the vacuum of space. So instead of creating two-way bonds, we create an endless string of one-way bonds in an attempt to feel validated. So my argument is that it is not unhealthy or bad to try to create a two-way connection with a stranger who has been vulnerable to you. But celebrities seem to want it both ways. They want to be able to benefit from the PR through box office sales and Twitter followers but don't want to deal with these same people *talking to them*. I am taking this a little to its most ridiculous conclusion. A little. Obviously the real problem is with boundaries and what a lot of PR essayists bash on about is that the fan perceives a relationship which is not there. And have we not all had people in our daily lives we thought we were a lot closer to than it turns out we were? When you find out you're only a "4" friend when you thought you were a "5"? (this is from my as-yet-completed friendship scale) But even I, as the logical, level headed person you've met in this essay, am not always clear on the boundary. I tread lightly around the edges, mostly. I have sent letters of appreciation to performers who have done some particularly moving work. I do not expect them to then validate me. But there is the tiniest element of selfishness in even that act. At the same time as I am saying, "your work is important to me", I am also saying, "I exist". "See me". This is still only a 1 on the friendship scale but it is something. If I admire someone's work, and I like what I know about them as a person, of course I would love to move on up the friendship scale, just as I would have loved to have gotten closer to the cool theatre kids in high school. But I have to accept that this is unlikely and move on. Also I would like to interrupt myself to say that I think the way we treat performers in the media is appalling. I personally do not read tabloid stories *about* celebrities, at the same time I enjoy interviews and their opportunities to talk about themselves and their work. I am only interested in consuming information they wish to put into the public domain. I think they are entitled to private lives. We may as a species want to see pictures of them walking their kids to school (or in a bikini on holiday) but I don't think that justifies photographers following them around on the streets. This is not news, it is not in the public interest, and we are not entitled to it. This is definitely PR gone wrong. Oliver Thorn, if you want to talk about "giving the people what they want" you really needn't look any further than any Insta account with a young woman posing in her underwear or … whatever the male equivalent is. Are these photos body-positive or cries for attention? Okay back to my main point, if I had one. Right, so you've got the Andrew Scotts on the one hand who are a 1 on the friendship scale. Then at the other end you've got people who write audio drama alone in a closet and then are surprised that people all over the world enjoy their work. And these often quite shy people emerge squinting into conventions and festivals to discover they are beloved of strangers. In my experience, they are generally very keen to engage and move up the friendship scale. Maybe not as high as I'd like, but certainly into non-binary numbers. And it is a little weird when, by enjoying their art, you do know a little bit about them, but even the most popular do not consider themselves celebrities and are consequently not standoffish (if they are standoffish, it's usually social anxiety). I should note I have also experienced this level of mutuality in theatre. I no longer "do stage door" as it only exacerbates my own neurotic "us vs them" world view. But one of the reasons I fell so hard for The Grinning Man (the greatest musical production ever) was the fact that the people involved loved the fans as much as we loved them. Too often, commercial entertainment loves fans' money, but not them. Much like harassment, stalking is in the eye of the beholder, and it is often not clear to the fan what makes the artist uncomfortable. Building up a whole imaginary romance and expecting the artist to participate is a hard no. Sending lingerie to an artist is another no. Ollie mentions being bought clothing (he does not say "inappropriate" clothing) as being a boundary-crosser, whereas other artists are ecstatic to be sent gifts. I'm a gift giver, it's true. I do beadwork and I have made jewelry and pins as gifts for some of the people to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. I have never given underwear. None of my gifts have been sexualised as, for me, that's an absolute no. I once recorded an album's-worth of cover songs to try to "share back" with an artist. I don't think at the time I was trying for the "I'm an artist too and therefore am justified in creating art" angle but just that it was what I had to give. This is probably a whole therapy session on its own. I have seen fandoms ruined by fans. Yeah. It happens. I even refused to use the word "fan" because of its roots in "fanatic" when Cumberbitchmania was at it's height. I became an "aficionado" because I can use words with many syllables. Or an admirer, because that was true. I wanted to distance myself from the people I felt had formed an unhealthy attachment to a performer. But almost without exception these fans just wanted to get to 1 on the friendship scale. For a person they admired to know that they existed. When I love something, I can get overexcited. I get passionate. I run out of superlatives. And I want to share that excitement with the people who created the thing. I think this can maybe be overwhelming sometimes. I don't think I do anything quote unquote wrong. I am certainly not dangerous. I try to make sure I don't get more personal than I would with any other stranger (but I can get *real* personal with strangers). But I do feel a greater paranoia when building a maybe friendship with an artist than with someone who is not a creative or whose art I do not consume. Because I worry that they are judging my every move, to make sure I don't cross this invisible boundary, that I don't try to get too close, constantly on guard for toxic behaviour. I don't know how to navigate through this if artists don't communicate their boundaries. I'm sure Oliver (yes, I'm picking on him because he has so recently delved into the topic) thought it would be educational to identify types of toxic fans, but the descriptions of behaviour he found unacceptable were still vague for someone needing a set of rules for "do" and "don't". There really was never any risk of my sending clothes - or naked pics - to him. But now I feel quite uncomfortable responding directly to him or addressing him. Even this blog post, in which he features heavily, is written about him and not to him. I don't want to be mistaken for a … debater? I think if I got to know Ollie I'd probably really like him, but now, he just makes me nervous and I feel judged. No matter how many times he says "the vast majority of my fans are lovely and very much appreciated". I'm not sure if I've made a point here. Takeaways: I'm insecure. And I assume everyone else is insecure as well, even paranoid. Because I don't know what level of intimacy makes an individual uncomfortable and they are unlikely to communicate this clearly to me, I am inevitably going to stomp all over boundaries but the last thing I want is to invade anyone's personal space. I'm happy with a high degree of emotional and psychological intimacy (or I wouldn't be posting this on the internet). I know I will be judged and misjudged and that makes me a little bit miserable. But the desire to connect to another human being is natural. And as Wil says, podcasters are people. Artists are human. I'm not going to stop trying to make these human connections because someone is a creative (hell, that's generally the most attractive thing a person can be). I will make people uneasy and I will alienate some but occasionally I will make a real connection. And then I will forever question that connection, if history serves. But as long as creatives use their art to reach out, I'm probably going to reach back. Namaste, y'all.