New mass media

One of the striking characteristics of the new mass media—radio, television, and the movies—is that they give the illusion of face-to-face relationship with the performer…

The most remote and illustrious men are met as if they were in the circle of one’s peers…We propose to call this seeming face-to-face relationship between spectator and performer a para-social relationship. (HortonWohl 1956, p. 215)

Illusion of intimacy

It is an unvarying characteristic of these ‘personality’ programmes that the greatest pains are taken by the persona to create an illusion of intimacy. We call it an illusion because the relationship between the persona and any member of his audience is inevitably one-sided, and reciprocity between the two can only be suggested. (HortonWohl 1956, p. 216)

Parasocial motivations??

. . .

• put people at ease & relatively safe (no rejection)
• help people figuring out identities (role model)
• projection, aspiration & self-esteem (e.g., Batman inspires fitness)
• love to hate (Joffrey Baratheon (GoT))
• hope (Lopez & Affleck) (Jay Derrick in Wong 2021)

“Wife guy”: John Mulaney

“Try guy”: Ned Fulmer

Ali Wong

Examples?

Who do you have a parasocial relationship with?

How deep is your investment?

. . .

Is there a community aspect to this?

Theoretical frame?

What are the two main concepts employed? (MalikHaidar 2020)

. . .

• Community of Practice
• Peripheral participation

Community of Practice

1. What it is about – it’s joint enterprise as understood and continually renegotiated by its members
2. How it functions – mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity
3. What capability it has produced – the shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artifacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time. (Wenger 1998)

• developed in the context of situated learning
• the community exists for the exchange and interpretation of information
• for retaining knowledge in “living ways”, as stewards of competencies
• homes for identities (Wenger 1998)

Peripheral participation

Method?

. . .

participant-observation and interviews of 10 stans

Novel finding?

. . .

KPop is a Community of Practice

Legitimate peripheral participation

Through peripheral participation (the initial contribution as a newbie), [newcomers] are able to contribute and gradually make their way towards being noticed and gaining followers.

the difference between Lave and Wenger’s (1991) idea … and the K-Pop stan twitter community in question is the fact that … very few [new accounts] rise to the status of big accounts (MalikHaidar 2020, p. 11)

Limitations/weaknesses?

• small study
• not that novel

Wrap up

• Write a “3-minute paper” (bullets are fine) on the difference between a parasocial relationship and community of practice.

How do you describe the difference between a parasocial relationship and community of practice? ▶