The Empty Religions of Instagram

[Altair]

Are online efforts encouraging self-actualization taking the place of religion? The author of this NY Times article (a woman who aims this piece primarily at women) seems to think so, and thinks they're a poor substitute.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/opinion/influencers-glennon-doyle-instagram.html

[MadZealot]

Are online efforts encouraging self-actualization taking the place of religion? The author of this NY Times article (a woman who aims this piece primarily at women) seems to think so, and thinks they're a poor substitute.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/opinion/influencers-glennon-doyle-instagram.html

"... a blend of left-wing political orthodoxy, intersectional feminism, self-optimization, therapy, wellness, astrology and Dolly Parton."
When I read this I had to check the source. In another publication, this would read as a right-leaning critique of all things evil and left. "Alternative scripture" would be the snarky catchphrase.

Lots of interesting observations in this piece, and I think the author is right. We don't go to church as much, but we still crave community. That craving naturally becomes a pang when we're in the midst of lockdown. And, in an era wherein an entire political party (and thus, half the country) have morphed into a dominionist personality cult (with its own online QAnus component, no less) the idea of searching online for 'moral authority' does not seem terribly odd. In fact it seems quite natural. I follow Marc Bernardin and Stephen King on twitter, because I admire them, but also want to know what they think.

As for online community, it's a piss poor substitute. We do our religious gatherings in a meet. But we're also foodies, so we miss out on the collective food-and-bullshit sessions that go with our devotions. Yes, meeting online is better than nothing. But.

As for instagram "influencers," I really don't get how they became a thing. They seem, to me, be another form of paid advertisers, but I'm not gonna fault them for learning how to hustle and monetize social media to their benefit. I only really downloaded insta because it's a quick-and-dirty photo editor; my feed is more about random shots than it is about preaching or influencing. But that might just be age showing, along with the ever-advancing curmudgeonliness. Stay the hell off my lawn.

[PerditaPickle]

But that might just be age showing, along with the ever-advancing curmudgeonliness. Stay the hell off my lawn.

I'm right with you.  I don't even know how to Twitter, not really.  Never tried Instagram, nor Reddit.  And I can't Tumblr -- can't even Pinterest!  YouTube I'm addicted to, but I just do not get the rest.

As for influencers, they fall into two categories for me (as mentioned, I don't Insta, so I'm thinking of YouTube here); there are the individuals who happen to have grown a large following and that's largely fair play to them (although I do find click-bait incredibly irritating).  And then there are the ones who are affiliated with some corporation or another (or in some cases they are the marketing team of said corporation), and I'm a bit ambivalent because it's a bit of an insidious form of advertising, without necessarily appearing to be advertising (to, say, the younger 'market' -- or maybe the younger market are more savvy than I'm giving them credit for, I dunno).

[Morag]

Are online efforts encouraging self-actualization taking the place of religion? The author of this NY Times article (a woman who aims this piece primarily at women) seems to think so, and thinks they're a poor substitute.

I suppose if you're defining "religion" as "Christianity" which the author seems to be doing.

It came across to me like a piece of handwringing, "Why aren't the children going to church anymore??" because apparently even pieces written by fellow Millennials need to infantilize our generation.

It also seems as if she's talking about "influencers" on social media as replacing our religion, but then mentions several women I would not class as "influencers" except in the original sense of the word (that they influence others).

The modern use of the term "influencer" tends to refer to people who basically work as advertisers for a variety of brands. The new advertising is social-media based and none of it is labeled as an ad; it's just a person living their life and happening to buy these particular products (which they of course love).

The fact that these women have become, for lack of a better term, spiritual leaders on Instagram doesn't necessarily mean they're influencers (as far as the marketing definition of the word goes) and painting them all that way seems dismissive, at best, of their individual accomplishments.

The exception to that for me is Gwyneth Paltrow; she's using fame garnered from acting to push alternative health shit that is useless at best, dangerous at worst.

But Brené Brown is a professor and author about the exact sorts of topics she talks about on her social media. Gabrielle Bernstein is the author of seven books; Glennon Doyle the author of 3 and creator of an online community. And that's not all they've done; I'm just summing up.

These women are, for better or worse, walking the walk of the things they talk up. And the article in question seems to be accusing them of not doing so -- instead of just focusing on disagreeing with what we should be focusing on. That feels disingenuous to me. 

All in all, the author of the article seems to have a pretty narrow view of what religion is, and I doubt she'd find my hodge-podge of pagan faiths would fit the bill. She thinks we should go back to church, without considering that church is a toxic  place for many. She thinks that we should be wrestling with bigger questions than self-actualization.

Whereas I'd argue that starting with the self is the only way you can even start to wrestle with the bigger questions.

I wouldn't trust someone on Insta talking about "Why are we here? Why do we suffer? What should we believe in beyond the limits of our puny selfhood?" because those are questions I think are best grappled with on a personal level. No two people's answer will be the same.

But someone on Insta talking about how to get to a point where you can accept yourself? Talking about how to love yourself, warts and all? Talking about courage, vulnerability, empathy, and how to cultivate those things? Chances are they might actually know what they're talking about in that respect, and knowing those things are -- in my view -- stepping stones to being in a place where you can even begin to grapple with the big stuff.

[PerditaPickle]

I'd argue that starting with the self is the only way you can even start to wrestle with the bigger questions.

I wouldn't trust someone on Insta talking about "Why are we here? Why do we suffer? What should we believe in beyond the limits of our puny selfhood?" because those are questions I think are best grappled with on a personal level. No two people's answer will be the same.

But someone on Insta talking about how to get to a point where you can accept yourself? Talking about how to love yourself, warts and all? Talking about courage, vulnerability, empathy, and how to cultivate those things? Chances are they might actually know what they're talking about in that respect, and knowing those things are -- in my view -- stepping stones to being in a place where you can even begin to grapple with the big stuff.

Very valid points, which I agree with (not just the above actually, your whole post -- thanks for taking the time to write it out)

[Haptalaon]

Are online efforts encouraging self-actualization taking the place of religion? The author of this NY Times article (a woman who aims this piece primarily at women) seems to think so, and thinks they're a poor substitute.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/05/opinion/influencers-glennon-doyle-instagram.html

ooooh related to this concept is a trend that a couple of people have identified now, that the modern face of new cults, is wellness brands - sort of somewhere between yoga/self-care/wellness themes, multi-level marketing schemes, and old-fashioned cultyness.

(by cult, think specifically the negative use of the word - a controlling small group with a lot of power over its participants emotions, finances, lives etc)

Like The Gateway podcast which is a multi-part investigation about a specific guru-influencer-cultleader

[Jenett]

Like The Gateway podcast which is a multi-part investigation about a specific guru-influencer-cultleader

Fixed your link problem! (No quotes, just url=link with square brackets around it, and /url in square brackets at the end. It trips me up too. You were also missing a : because it did something weird to the formatting. All better now!)

Also, seconding the podcast, which is a great look at this particular kind of issue.

[Hariti]

Are online efforts encouraging self-actualization taking the place of religion? The author of this NY Times article (a woman who aims this piece primarily at women) seems to think so, and thinks they're a poor substitute.

She seems to be focusing on a single aspect of certain religions, rather than the larger umbrella of roles religion plays in people's lives. She might have a point within the narrow scope the article covers, but it seems somewhat sensationalist and overblown.