This article studies the negotiation of humanness in artificial sociality by examining the cyborg case of humanlike virtual influencers and their performance of authenticity, drawing on phenomenological ethnographic research. Based on the findings, I propose the framework of “meta-authenticity”—the flexible, co-constructive process of self-referential (in)authenticity performances. Virtual influencers’ meta-authenticity was a dynamic outcome of collaborative performances by entangled human and nonhuman actors. Meta-authenticity’s theoretical and practical contributions are demonstrated, including through an illustrative application. Then, I reflect on meta-authenticity’s implications on human cultures, such as regarding artificial sociality’s capacities to provide authentic interaction on and as per demand, followed by suggestions for ethical practices. As an accountability-integrated framework, meta-authenticity encourages nuanced critical assessments of artificial sociality’s “real” actors and consequences.
AbidinC (2015) Communicative intimacies: influencers and perceived interconnectedness. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology8. DOI: 10.7264/N3MW2FFG.
2.
AbidinC (2018) Layers of identity: how to be “real” when everyone is watching. Real Life. Available at: https://reallifemag.com/layers-of-identity/ (accessed 31 March 2024).
3.
AndrejevicM (2004) Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
4.
AndrejevicM (2009) Exploiting YouTube: contradictions of user-generated labor. In: SnickarsPVonderauP (eds) The YouTube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, pp. 406–423.
5.
ArditiD (2020) The voice: non-disclosure agreements and the hidden political economy of reality TV. Popular Communication18(2): 138–151.
BarthesR (2013) Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang.
10.
BaudrillardJ (1994) Simulacra and Simulation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
11.
BishopS (2021) Influencer management tools: algorithmic cultures, brand safety, and bias. Social Media + Society7(1): 20563051211003066.
12.
BlackTC (2019) Just a robot keeping it real. tba: Journal of Art, Media, and Visual Culture1(1): 44–59.
13.
BoellstorffT (2008) Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
BraidottiR (2013) The Posthuman. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
15.
ByunKAhnSJ-G (2023) A systematic review of virtual influencers: similarities and differences between human and virtual influencers in interactive advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising23: 293–306.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
20.
ChasinA (1995) Class and its close relations: identities among women, servants, and machines. In: HalberstamJLivingstonI (eds) Posthuman Bodies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 73–96.
21.
ChenK-H (1987) The masses and the media: Baudrillard’s implosive postmodernism. Theory, Culture & Society4(1): 71–88.
22.
ChoudhryAHanJXuX, et al (2022) “I felt a little crazy following a ‘doll’”: investigating real influence of virtual influencers on their followers. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction6(GROUP): 1–28.
23.
CotterK (2019) Playing the visibility game: how digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New Media & Society21(4): 895–913.
24.
DepountiISaukkoPNataleS (2023) Ideal technologies, ideal women: AI and gender imaginaries in redditors’ discussions on the replika bot girlfriend. Media, Culture & Society45(4): 720–736.
25.
DuffyBE (2017) (Not) Getting Paid to Do What You Love: Gender, Social Media, and Aspirational Work. London: Yale University Press.
26.
DuffyBEHundE (2019) Gendered visibility on social media: navigating Instagram’s authenticity bind. International Journal of Communication13: 4983–5002.
27.
EnliG (2015) Mediated Authenticity: How the Media Constructs Reality. New York: Peter Lang.
28.
FortunatiLEdwardsA (2020) Opening space for theoretical, methodological, and empirical issues in human-machine communication. Human-Machine Communication1(1): 7–18.
29.
FreemanD (1995) Asking “good” questions: perspectives from qualitative research on practice, knowledge, and understanding in teacher education. TESOL Quarterly29(3): 581–585.
30.
GambinoAFoxJRatanR (2020) Building a stronger CASA: extending the computers are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication1(1): 71–86.
31.
GildenA (2021) Endorsing after death. William & Mary Law Review63: 71–86.
32.
GoriunovaO (2017) The lurker and the politics of knowledge in data culture. International Journal of Communication11: 3917–3933.
33.
GouldingC (2005) Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology: a comparative analysis of three qualitative strategies for marketing research. European Journal of Marketing39(3/4): 294–308.
34.
GrayMLSuriS (2019) Ghost Work: How to Stop Silicon Valley from Building a New Global Underclass. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
35.
GrusinR (ed) (2015) The Nonhuman Turn. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
36.
GunkelDJ (2018) Robot Rights. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
GuzmanAL (2018) What is human-machine communication, anyway? In: GuzmanAL (ed.) Human-Machine Communication: Rethinking Communication, Technology, and Ourselves. New York: Peter Lang, pp.1–28.
38.
GuzmanALLewisSC (2020) Artificial intelligence and communication: a human–machine communication research agenda. New Media & Society22(1): 70–86.
39.
GuzmanALMcEwenRJonesS (2023) Introduction to the handbook. In: BramoulléYGaleottiARogersBW (eds) The Sage Handbook of Human–Machine Communication. Los Angeles, Washington DC: Sage, pp. 3–10.
HancockJTNaamanMLevyK (2020) AI-mediated communication: definition, research agenda, and ethical considerations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication25(1): 89–100.
44.
HarawayD (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books.
45.
HarawayD (2016) Staying With the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham: Duke University Press.
46.
HaylesNK (1999) How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
47.
HearnASchoenhoffS (2015) From celebrity to influencer: tracing the diffusion of celebrity value across the data stream. In: MarshallPDRedmondS (eds) A Companion to Celebrity. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 194–212.
48.
HenrichJHeineSJNorenzayanA (2010) The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences33(2–3): 61–135.
49.
HillA (2005) Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. London: Routledge.
50.
HonerAHitzlerR (2015) Life-world-analytical ethnography: a phenomenology-based research approach. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography44(5): 544–562.
51.
HundE (2023) The Influencer Industry: The Quest for Authenticity on Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52.
KatzJCsordasTJ (2003) Phenomenological ethnography in sociology and anthropology. Ethnography4(3): 275–288.
53.
KavkaM (2019) Reality TV: Its Contents and Discontents. Critical Quarterly60(4): 5–18.
54.
KimDO (2023) Real but fake, real because fake: Technologically augmented K-pop idols and meta-authenticity. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research. DOI: 10.5210/spir.v2023i0.13437.
55.
KimE(Anna) KimDEZShoenbergerH (2023) The next hype in social media advertising: examining virtual influencers’ brand endorsement effectiveness. Frontiers in Psychology14: 1089051.
KuijerLGiaccardiE (2018) Co-performance: conceptualizing the role of artificial agency in the design of everyday life. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, April 21–26, Montreal, QC, Canada, pp. 1–13. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
58.
Lambert-BeattyC (2009) Make-believe: parafiction and plausibility. October129: 51–84.
59.
LatourB (1996) On actor-network theory: a few clarifications. Soziale Welt47(4): 369–381.
60.
LawJ (2009) Actor network theory and material semiotics. In: TurnerBS (ed.) The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 141–158.
61.
LingR (2016) Soft coercion: reciprocal expectations of availability in the use of mobile communication. First Monday21(9). DOI: 10.5210/fm.v21i9.6814.
62.
LombardMXuK (2021) Social responses to media technologies in the 21st century: the media are social actors paradigm. Human-Machine Communication2: 29–55.
63.
MarwickAE (2013) Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
64.
MasoI (2007) Phenomenology and ethnography. In: AtkinsonPDelamontSCoffeyA, et al (eds) Handbook of Ethnography. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 136–144.
65.
MiyakeE (2023) I am a virtual girl from Tokyo: virtual influencers, digital-orientalism and the (Im)materiality of race and gender. Journal of Consumer Culture23(1): 209–228.
66.
MortensenMKristensenNN (2020) De-celebrification: beyond the scandalous. Celebrity Studies11(1): 89–100.
67.
MurdockG (2018) Media materialties: for a moral economy of machines. Journal of Communication68(2): 359–368.
68.
NataleS (2021) Deceitful Media: Artificial Intelligence and Social Life After the Turing Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
69.
NataleSBallatoreA (2020) Imagining the thinking machine: technological myths and the rise of artificial intelligence. Convergence26(1): 3–18.
NeffGNagyP (2016) Talking to bots: symbiotic agency and the case of Tay. International Journal of Communication10: 4915–4931.
72.
ÖhmanCFloridiL (2017) The political economy of death in the age of information: a critical approach to the digital afterlife industry. Minds and Machines27(4): 639–662.
73.
OliveiraAB da SChimentiP (2021) “Humanized robots”: a proposition of categories to understand virtual influencers. Australasian Journal of Information Systems25: 1–27.
74.
PapacharissiZ (2012) Without you, I’m nothing: performances of the self on Twitter. International Journal of Communication6: 1989.
PfadenhauerMGrenzT (2015) Uncovering the essence: the why and how of supplementing observation with participation in phenomenology-based ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography44(5): 598–616.
RobinsonB (2020) Towards an ontology and ethics of virtual influencers. Australasian Journal of Information Systems24: 1–8.
80.
SalisburyMPooleyJD (2017) The #nofilter self: the contest for authenticity among social networking sites, 2002–2016. Social Sciences6(1): 10.
81.
SandsSFerraroCDemsarV, et al (2022) False idols: unpacking the opportunities and challenges of falsity in the context of virtual influencers. Business Horizons65(6): 777–788.
82.
SayesE (2014) Actor–network theory and methodology: just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency?Social Studies of Science44(1): 134–149.
SipleyG (2024) Just Here for the Comments: Lurking as Digital Literacy Practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
87.
SkjuveMFølstadAFostervoldKI, et al (2021) My chatbot companion—a study of human-chatbot relationships. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies149: 102601.
SparrowRSparrowL (2006) In the hands of machines? the future of aged care. Minds and Machines16(2): 141–161.
93.
StahlM (2011) The Synthespian’s animated prehistory: the Monkees, the Archies, Don Kirshner, and the politics of “virtual labor.”Television & New Media12(1): 3–22.
94.
StarSL (2010) This is not a boundary object: reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values35(5): 601–617.
95.
SteinJ-PLinda BrevesPAndersN (2022) Parasocial interactions with real and virtual influencers: the role of perceived similarity and human-likeness. New Media & Society26(6): 3433–3453.
96.
SuchmanL (2020) Agencies in technology design: feminist reconfigurations. In: Wallach W and Asaro P (eds) Machine Ethics and Robot Ethics. London: Routledge, pp. 361–375.
97.
TaylorSHBazarovaNN (2021) Always available, always attached: a relational perspective on the effects of mobile phones and social media on subjective well-being. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication26(4): 187–206.
WadaKShibataT (2007) Robot therapy in a care house—change of relationship among the residents and seal robot during a 2-month long study. In: RO-MAN 2007—The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 26–29 August 2007, Jeju, Korea. New York: IEEE. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2007.4415062
102.
WellmanMLStoldtRTullyM, et al (2020) Ethics of authenticity: social media influencers and the production of sponsored content. Journal of Media Ethics35(2): 68–82.
103.
WilliamsDKimDO (2019) Third places in the ether around us: layers on the real world. In: DolleyJBosmanC (eds) Rethinking Third Places: Informal Public Spaces and Community Building. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar Publishing.
WolfeC (2010) What is Posthumanism?Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
106.
YuanJE (2024) Making virtual celebrity: platformization and intermediation in digital cultural production. International Journal of Cultural Studies28(1): 316–331.
107.
ZaborowskiR (2016) Hatsune Miku and Japanese virtual idols. In: WhiteleySRambarranS (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Music and Virtuality. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 111–128.
intimacies: influencers and perceived interconnectedness