#learning that there is no amount of external validation that is worth disregarding my own

[heartoftheancientsea]

I love that I can now recognize when a lesson has appeared in my life, so that I can instead treat it as an opportunity rather than enter a victim state

#learning how to respect my own boundaries #learning that there is no amount of external validation that is worth disregarding my own

[giving-an-account-on-youtube]

The apology video 101

The public apology on YouTube operates on a somewhat consistent set of rules, and differs from public apologies on conventional media outlets.

These videos are made by influencers, or “cults of 'micro-celebrity‘”, who become influential to a population by promoting themselves as idols (Cocker and Cronin 456). Cocker and Cronin propose new media micro-celebrities, also known as ‘the common people’, differ from their predecessors on traditional media outlets due to a “communal interdependence between the contemporary culted figure and his/her community of followers” (457). However, the prevalence of charisma leaves their followers vulnerable to manipulation, as influencers often act not for the better good but for their own personal gain (458).

This may help explain why the apology takes on a new form, as the persuasion and manipulation tactics these micro-celebrities have acquired allow them to avoid addressing the real consequences of their actions, leading to the least amount of actual remorse felt and expressed to their audience. 

Let’s learn about how to make an apology video via PewDiePie, an influencer who has a ton of experience doing so:

PewDiePie’s Golden Rules

1. Emphasize that making this video has been painful. Use a sigh for further emphasis.

2. Never admit you were wrong, in fact shift blame at every chance you get! You can also underplay your mistake as much as possible, for instance, emphasizing that it was 6 years ago. However, also emphasize that you take full responsibility.

3. Victimize yourself: “I’m getting cyberbullied; I have received death threats”

Oh, and these aren’t officially stated as rules but:

4. Get someone else to write a script so that it doesn’t sound like you, since you’re bound to mess up. Also use a different tone than your usual videos.

Look at Logan’s energy intonation and language in his apology:

vs. literally ANY other video of him. Just watch the first minute of this masterpiece:

&

5. Treat your apology like your audition for the lead role in the Greek tragedy put on as your eighth grade school play.

Note: it’s obvious that PewDiePie is being sarcastic and that these manipulation tactics are antirules. Or, are they? Perhaps they operate effectively when they are used subtly as to not exceed human consciousness, and when they are not used conjunction. They are after all persuasion strategies that can evoke empathy and the illusion of remorse more than an abrupt “sorry”, regardless if they are unethical and avoidant strategies.

In other words:

An apology video is a convention on YouTube in which an influencer deemed corrupt creates an often scripted, performative account of their mistake that was uncovered. Often pressured into doing so, they are hailed into taking an account of themselves. What they try to conceal is that often, the blame is redirected to someone else while they seemingly are still held accountable.  As well, they often have lawyers and PR teams telling them exactly what to say. This and other manipulation tactics can work to effectively say nothing in the entire video while seemingly addressing the audience in an intimate way.

Why would anyone worship such figures? They sound horrible.

Beyond the entertainment value inherent in their charisma, a sort of in-group mentality forms among the culted followers where their self-worth and status are elevated from being part of the collective, and they come to recognize that they are crucial factor to creating this figure in the first place (Cocker and Cronin 462). I guess you could say, they are in effect playing God.

This mentality is damaging as the followers actually are not actually part of a  democracy, since there is an unequal axis of power between the consumer and influencer (qtd. in Cocker and Cronin 458). As Galloway states, network bidirectionality, once thought to promote democracy, promotes the control and subjection of users (291).

This is carried out through a decentralized network on YouTube where power imbalance is promoted. It is a system where “hierarchical star [centralized] subnetworks, the hubs of which are interconnected via backbone links into a larger amalgam” (288). YouTube itself is not decentralized, but the operations of its users make it appears as a variant of such where users aggregate on multiple channels to be controlled and influenced simultaneously by many different users at once.

According to Jagoda, it is not the form of the network that determines whether or not there is democracy; networks themselves exist in a long tradition of control and capture, leading to inevitable reconstructions of these apparatuses (14). However, Jagoda does not discount the ability for subjects to oppose this power.

In this sense, followers may revolt against an influencer if they feel they are being manipulated. This may be partially based on the fact that their self-identities are threatened by ‘discursive and productive monopolies’ and thus they react to defend themselves (qtd in Cocker and Cronin 467). Criticism towards an influencer can evolve into ‘cancel culture’, an organized boycott of a channel in which former followers delegitimize and “destroy the force, effectiveness or validity of” the influencer (qtd. in Asmelash). This is accomplished by posting hate videos, nasty comments about the person, refusing to watch their videos, unsubscribing from their channel, allegations about the person (both true and false), and/or an overall divestment from their goods and services (e.g. tickets to their live show, their ‘merch’, etc.)

While the radical cases of followers revolting on YouTube marks the potential for power to be redistributed on YouTube, it must be noted that the power structure followers are revolting against are not merely symbolic: they are too in fact people. While influencers fabricate stories and manipulate their audience, the psychological warfare of an army of criticism can lead to negative consequences. For instance, take this high schooler’s account of being cancelled: “I have issues with trusting perfectly normal things. That sense of me being some sort of monster, terrible person, burden to everyone, has stayed with me to some extent. There’s still this sort of lingering sense of: What if I am?” (Yar and Bromwich)

It’s also unhealthy for those who are doing the cancelling, as Amitay states: "For the people who are doing the cancelling, in the short run it makes them feel good. It gives them an illusion of power, of control, of virtue. Afterward, the people with insight realize, 'I haven't actually done anything good. I'm avoiding my own issues” (qtd. in Cross Country Checkup).

Cancelling someone also prevents the perpetrator from making the decision to improve from their mistakes (Yar and Bromwich). However, it could also be said that cancelling can’t prevent them from repeating their actions again in the future, nor can it reverse the damage imposed while that person was in power (Asmelash). Finally, it is clear that in many cases cancelling someone doesn’t actually work (Ellis). This means that in effect the force of cancel culture is an illusion.

So, if cancelling someone isn’t a solution, then maybe influencers must become more aware of how they impact their followers, and when apologizing address their followers in a way that they at least seem to take responsibility for their actions.

Why give an account of oneself in the first place?

The way that the “I” gives an account of itself is from a position determined by norms and structures external to itself (Butler 4). Thus the self constructs a hypothesis about its emergence, hailed by the structures of power under a ‘system of justice and punishment’ that operate on it (5). Nietzsche believes "accountability follows only upon an accusation... one made by someone in a position to deal out punishment if causality can be established. And we become reflective upon ourselves, accordingly, through fear and terror” (Butler 6). This reflects why influencers may not be regretful of their actions; according to Nietzsche, the driving force behind their account is not primarily moral.

Giving an account of oneself admits the possibility of one’s wrongdoings...

The narrative form of taking an account of oneself implies that we accept causality, albeit not necessarily blame, of our negative effect on others (6). While this does not necessarily mean giving an account is an apology, it links itself intrinsically to a mode of relationality with the world. Maybe an account is a somewhat moral form after all.

Foucault also argues that an account is not a mode of operant conditioning but an outward mimesis of moral standards (Butler 8). The subject’s creation of the self in relation to moral standards is increasingly complex and unresolvable:

“The norm does not produce the subject as its necessary effect, nor is the subject fully free to disregard the norm that inaugurates its reflexivity; one invariably struggles with conditions of one's own life that one could not have chosen. If there is an operation of agency or, indeed, freedom in this struggle, it takes place in the context of an enabling and limiting field of constraint. This ethical agency is neither fully determined nor radically free. Its struggle or primary dilemma is to be produced by a world, even as one must produce oneself in some way. This struggle with the unchosen conditions of one's life, a struggle —an agency—is also made possible, paradoxically, by the persistence of this primary condition of un-freedom” (Butler 10).

The self is always operating in a bidirectionality with others, and is not always aware of its actions, thus operates as a fractured and fluid entity that cannot fully be transparent to itself (10-11). One’s inability to fully account for oneself is insignificant in the service of one’s duty to use that account to relate to others (14). In fact, the self is a fractured, imaginary phenomenon, that only exists when it is linguistically constituted in address to another (16).

So, when an influencer gives an account of themself, they must acknowledge their subjection in the world and reliance on other people, as the social systems around them and the vastness of the other (their audience) can thrust them into this action. They can be constitutive in their self-knowledge only to a certain extent. Hence, we realize that although followers have no control over the actions of the influencer in terms of the future, in the instant of demanding they take account of oneself they have momentarily interrupted the axis of power, engaging in a linguistic levelling of the field.

Okay… So how does one actually give an account of oneself?

The ultimate goals of taking an account of oneself is to use a personal narrative to respond to said accusations. In this process you should use persuasion and accept or deny blame (6). Butler also claims that silence can be expressive in questioning. Does this seem familiar? Yes, PewDiePie seems to somewhat agree! While he may be sarcastic that you should redirect all blame (as he truly believes you should take your responsibility for your actions), Butler’s radical claim is that you can do either.

Further, since the “I” has access only to a partial and fractured account of its history, any narrative of its motives is a fictional creative exercise of making sense of past actions (21). While this means that any justification is made acceptable, since it is not possible to accurately represent the self, there should be no claims to authenticity made during an account.

Taking an account is therefore not a willing act in knowledge but a construction of the self given performative aspirations. It is a relationality with the other through speech act, affective content and persuasion. We could say, in this sense, no influencer is thus capable of learning from their mistakes, as their mistakes too will be forgotten and therefore reconstructed. Any claims to the future become redundant phantasms.

The performative

When influencers claim they will improve on their past actions, they are thus not ontologically accountable for doing so. Any speech act should be regarded as performative.

How shall we construct this performative?

Let’s look at Miller’s essay Performativity​ as​ Performance​/​​ Performativity ​as​Speech ​Act:​​ Derrida’s​ Special​ Theory ​of ​Performativity.

Austin’s theory of a ‘felicitous performative’ indicates the interlocutor as accountable for any speech act due to an enduring stable self (Miller 227). This already discounts the theory from being compatible with an account of oneself. 

Thus we may look at its dichotomous theory, Butler’s performativity doctrine that any act is in effect valid since selfhood is an illusion and thus we can enact any identity we choose (Miller 229). This seems to be more compatible with her own conclusions of taking an account of oneself. 

Derrida would be a contender except that his theory of performativity accepts the possibility of bringing an idea into the world through a speech act, denoting there is causality and truth value to a declaration (Miller 230).

James Charles’ first apology *FAIL*

James Charles redirects his apology to extreme, avoiding taking an account of himself like the plague. This video is total bucket of hogwash, as he effectively does nothing to persuade people as to think he has remorse the entire video. The effect is that nobody believes him or takes him seriously.

Let’s go through each of PewDiePie’s and Butler’s tips on taking an account of oneself and see how James held up:

PewDiePie

1. Emphasize that making this video has been painful. Use a sigh for further emphasis.

James risks looking disingenuous as his sighs were so overexaggerated and frankly ridiculous. PewDiePie notices at one point James starts to smile but blows out air very slowly to try to mask it.

2. Never admit you were wrong, shift blame at every chance you get but also emphasize that you take full responsibility. You can also underplay your mistake as much as possible, for instance, emphasizing that it was 6 years ago.

James claims he takes total blame for what he did, but arguably the most ridiculous part of the video is when he contradicts this saying he already spoke his truth yet says receipts don’t matter. While this is seemingly in line with PewDiePie’s suggestion to contradict yourself, the less offensive way to do this is to redirect responsibility by blaming someone else, rather than underplaying the mistake to the point where you fail to address it.

3. Victimize yourself: “I’m getting cyberbullied; I have received death threats”

While he doesn’t exactly do this, the fact that he says he’s upset that he disappointed people who look up to him as a role model could be a more covert way to blame audience for shaming him.

As well, by saying ‘there will always be people who don’t believe me’ is in effect victimizing himself as someone that will be unjustly hated, while ignoring the fact he has given them no reason to believe him in the first place.

Butler

1. “use your narrative to respond to said accusations. In this process you should use persuasion and accept or deny blame” (6).

Perhaps the largest fault of James’ video is his claim that any account of himself is irrelevant. He thus reveals that relationality is not important to him, and denies the psychic damage he has imposed on those involved in the scandals and his audience, who no longer trust him.

James addresses that he has brought up ‘the Coachella Situation’ twice already and that addressing it again is irrelevant. Yet, a lot of his viewers were left confused as this was their first time hearing about the situation, so the video is in effect pointless.

James also says: “At this point, the truth really does not matter.” He is in effect implying that he has no position on his own innocence, which is exactly what Butler cautions against.

He never discusses any specific damage he has caused to people, nor addresses any of the rumours made about him. He even goes so far to address his mother, who has nothing to do with the situation, and praise her for raising him well. Neither PewDiePie nor I can begin to understand why James would address his mother over his YouTube channel instead of calling her like a normal personal. This really emphasizes how the video is overtly performative and not genuine. The least he could do is apologize to those actually affected.

James says sorry to Tati for everything he put her through over the past few weeks. But, he doesn’t apologize or address the situation with the boys he apparently harrassed to say if he is guilty or not. Nor does he apologize to his audience, who feel that he has been and continues to be disingenuous to them as well.

What’s worse is that instead of taking blame, or appearing to take blame before redirecting the accusations, for actually doing what he did (whatever that is, he didn’t address it!), he takes blame for telling people about it. This really makes him look like he is hiding something, rather than taking responsibility.

2. Silence can be expressive in questioning.

Yes, this is true, however, the amount of silence and parsing that James uses comes across disingenuous. Especially in comparison to his other videos where he talks twice the speed of an average YouTuber. Thus the constructedness of the video becomes apparent. PewDiePie’s subscribers mentioned this on his reaction video, for instance Summer H-B commented “I never thought the day would come when someone would tell James to speak faster, but here we are.”

3. There should be no claims to authenticity made.

James opens up the video by saying “A lot of my career over the past few years has been about me making mistakes and trying to learn from them... But I have always tried.”

This may seem genuine enough, but he then proceeds to say “I wish I could say this is the last time I’m going to make a mistake, but it won’t be.”

If Jameds claims that he tries to get better from his mistakes, he should not move on to claim he will continue to make them. From Butler’s account of performativity, it is okay to make promises as long as they remain empty and believable. As long as the other person can make sense of them being true, there is no reason to ask them to believe you. The onus falls on them to make a decision, as you have no moral ground to be telling the truth. While we know that the self has no real access to authenticity, to a naïve audience a promise of improvement may make his claim to authenticity admissible. Yet, his seeming contradiction takes away any validity from his account.

As he proceeds, he says “I know that I will disappoint people more and more as I continue to grow every single day.”

This phrasing camouflages itself as an attempt to improve the self, but ultimately is exposed by Foucault’s acknowledgement that the self is incapable of improvement without the constitution external to itself by others. In other words, to say you will attempt to improve yourself but do not expect the support of others poses a contradiction, as it is impossible to become a whole person without relationality. Thus any promise of improvement is at once deconstructed by the others conception of the self. James may be phrasing it this way to subconsciously excuse himself from any further reactionary and damaging actions he takes. So any attempt that James made in this video at self redemption are futile. This becomes particularly apparent when PewDiePie deconstructs his actions in the video itself.

PewDiePie’s suggestions to James:

Keep your message clear and concise, the quicker a message is to say the quicker it will spread.

Actually address the situation for those who are not aware, otherwise you do not gain the opportunity for support. As well, it invites people to come up with false accusations since you are not defending yourself.

Don’t say ‘there will always be people who don’t believe me’ because you are trying to persuade these people! You’re putting blame on them which is insulting and further victimizing yourself.

An apology video should be about and addressed to the people you are apologizing to.

James says "Other times I have acted out of impulse,” but nothing has changed in this video. By uploading it the day after Tati’s, it further adds to his image as reactionary and is released when people are still at their height of anger and prejudice against you. It would be wiser to take time to process the situation and come up with a mature and thoughtful response.

PewDiePie suggests a better narrative for James to use: “becoming famous so young has caused a negative impact on my personality and now that I realize that I will work to repair myself and the relationships I have damaged. I’m sorry to everyone that I hurt and disappointed. What I did was wrong.”

From these suggestions, it seems that PewDiePie is advocating for a performative technique to save James’ self-image. However, he closes the video by saying the best technique is to just be honest. This seems to contradict himself, as he admits that he does not know a ton about James or anything at all about the situation, yet he constructs a narrative about how James can ‘be honest’. So, maybe by ‘honesty’ PewDiePie really means to simply take account of oneself in a way that will be positively received by the Other.

Next up... James’ new and improved apology!

In this video he took Pewdiepie’s advice for making a better apology video (not self-improvement), shockingly. First we will go over paranoid reading and the function of knowledge as performative to fully make sense of his strategy.