The word performative circulates widely in our current society. It appears in online discourse, political commentary, and everyday conversations, often used to criticize shallow or insincere behaviour. In its common definition, the Oxford English Dictionary describes performative as: “Of action, speech, behaviour, etc.: done or expressed for the sake of appearance, especially to impress others or to improve one’s own image, typically with the implication of insincere intent or superficial impact.” This meaning focuses on the surface, and insinuates something staged, hollow, and self-serving. This meaning has become even more visible through contemporary memes, especially the “performative male” trend spreading through contemporary social media. These videos mock exaggerated male displays of tailored “feminine” habits, suggesting that certain gendered behaviours exist mainly as performances for a desired audience. However, when introduced in media studies through Bollmer’s Materialist Media Theory, the concept of performance takes on a very different meaning. Instead of describing behaviour done “for show,” Bollmer argues that media perform the world, and have a direct effect on our thoughts, behaviours, and actions. Rather than focusing on the intention, he examines how media shapes what becomes possible in experience and in social life (Bollmer, 2019, pp. 7–14). This contrast opens an important space for media theory, by proving that words do not carry stable meanings across contexts. When a term like performative crosses between popular culture and theory, it lands differently and shifts in significance. By examining these shifts, we gain a clearer understanding of how media produce, condition, and intervene in human action. Under this framework, performativity is not about appearances, but about material consequences.
What does it mean to be performative?
The Oxford Dictionary definition frames performative as a critique. When we say someone’s activism, fashion sense, or interests are “performative,” we imply their behaviour and identity revolves around self-branding for the purpose of impressing others. The same applies to social media: a post can be performative if it signals virtue or outrage without genuine commitment. This meaning depends on intentionality – a performative gesture is insincere because the actor intends to cultivate an appearance rather than effect real change. Bollmer challenges this intention-based thinking by arguing that we should analyze media not by what they represent, but by what they do. The main idea is that media produce realities through their operation. They play an active role in behaviour, identity, and social structures at the level of matter, code, infrastructure, and embodiment (Bollmer, 2019, pp. 20–24). This reframing connects to other theorists like Verbeek, who argues that technologies mediate human perception and action by amplifying some possibilities while reducing others (Verbeek, 2006, pp. 364–370). For Verbeek, the “intentions” of technology are embedded not in user consciousness but in the object’s inherent design, allowing them to guide and shape experience. Media perform through the affordances they create, the choices they structure, and the values they materialize. Taken together, Bollmer and Verbeek move us away from the idea that meaning is determined by the human user. Instead, they argue that true meaning emerges from interactions between humans and media environments. The performative concept becomes a tool that reveals how media act in the world and how they participate in shared life.
“Performative Male”: A Case Study
The recent caricature of the “Performative Male” offers a helpful cultural contrast. These memes exaggerate male behaviour by depicting specific tasks – drinking matcha, reading feminist literature, carrying Labubus – as elaborate displays of effort and identity. A “performative male” performs actions or participates in cultures mostly inhabited by women in an attempt to create a relatable energy. The joke lies in the clear theatrics of this performance: obviously none of these behaviours are exclusive to women, but a man walking around in public with a barely-touched matcha, a Labubu clipped to his thrifted Carthharts, and Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex in a screen-printed tote bag mimics a peacock performing a mating dance. This meme reflects the Oxford Dictionary’s meaning. The performative male’s labour is exaggerated for the sake of appearance, and his entire identity becomes a performance piece. The humour works because the behaviour signals attention-seeking rather than genuine action. In this sense, the meme critiques performative masculinity and the inflated self-presentation that digital culture rewards.
However, from Bollmer’s perspective, the meme itself reveals a deeper layer of performativity. It shows how platforms like TikTok and Instagram actively shape behaviour – content creators learn to exaggerate, dramatize, and stylize actions because the platform’s algorithm rewards visibility, clarity, and engagement bait. The meme becomes a product of platform performativity, and displays how media systems encourage and incentivize specific forms of conduct. The meme becomes an example of performativity not because the individual man is insincere, but because social media platforms’ architecture performs social expectations. Media environments materialize what counts as visible or valuable behaviour.
Performative in Media Creation
Understanding performative through both the Oxford Dictionary and Bollmer’s definitions enriches our media theory toolkit. The Oxford Dictionary’s definition helps us analyze cultural performance, signalling, and authenticity, whereas Bollmer’s definition helps us analyze how systems act, intervene, and materialize social relations. Together, they give us a multifaceted view of how meaning moves between people, technologies, and infrastructures. The concept also teaches us that media theory is not just about interpretation, it’s about tracing consequences. When we understand media as performative, we recognize that they are active participants in shaping human experience and are capable of producing emotions, habits, and forms of life – not just images or videos. In a digital landscape dominated by AI, algorithmic feeds, and platform-driven identities, this shift in understanding becomes essential. We can no longer ask only what media say, we must ask what media do.
Citations
Bollmer, G. (2019). Materialist media theory: An introduction. Bloomsbury Academic.
Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Performative. In OED Online. Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.com
Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905285847
Hello! The analysis in this article about the nature of performance has given me a lot of insight. I’ve also often noticed how online platforms are filled with calls for “authenticity”—no more crafted personas, no more pretense. The popularity of reality shows and amateur bloggers reflects this desire. Yet, on the other hand, even though many people claim to dislike it, accounts and content built around clear personas and performative acts still attract massive attention.
Originally, I attributed this phenomenon to the media strategies of different creators, but your article has prompted me to consider what truly drives this kind of performance: Is it human choice, or is it the platform itself? It’s like staging a theatrical play: even if the story needs to feel close to real life, you can’t simply replicate an ordinary person’s day exactly as it is. Perhaps this is what media does to people and society—it turns every space where we observe others’ lives into a “stage,” and those who seek support and attention naturally step into the role of “actors.” Great work!
Thank you for your insightful comments, Betty! Your observation about crafted personas gaining traction on social media reminds me of Zhou’s work on Remodeling Masculinity, Sexuality, and Culture in China. His study on “sissy” culture on Douyin yielded results about famous creators veering the line between quietly resisting gender norms while also knowing how to leverage their appearance to cater towards social media algorithms. At the end of the day, anything we do is arguably a performance, especially within our heavily surveilled society, so I am at no position to judge anyone that takes advantage of this constant viewership.
I really enjoyed reading your blog because you took a word we all use casually, “performative”, and showed how completely different it becomes when put into a media theory context. The contrast between the Oxford definition and Bollmer’s idea of media performing the world was explained in a way that actually made sense without feeling too academic or heavy.
The “performative male” meme section was honestly my favourite part. It was funny but also super effective at showing how the everyday meaning of performative works. And the way you flipped it to show that the meme itself is shaped by platform behaviour, not just the person performing, made the whole argument stronger. It actually made me think about how much of what we see online is influenced by algorithms and not just people trying to be relatable.
Overall, the post flowed really well and kept me interested the whole time. You balanced theory and real examples nicely, and the ending tied everything together by showing why this shift in meaning matters for understanding media today. It’s the kind of blog that feels smart but still super readable.
Thank you for your kind words, Meha! I definitely agree with your observation that what we see online is influenced by algorithms rather than creator experiences themselves — this reminds me of how much of our personalities and popular culture these days is shaped by viral videos and social media posts. Rather than quoting movies or songs, short-form videos reach the eyes of so many people that they become, even just for a while, engrained into our expression of identity. Technological intentionality really plays a part here, because ultimately it is the platform’s choice on what to push to viewers and spark a reaction/recognition that carries onto their daily life. It’s an interesting thought about agency and autonomy!
Hi! I really enjoyed your post! Your explanation of the word “performative” was clear and engaging, especially the contrast between the Oxford Dictionary definition and Bollmer’s perspective on media performativity. I liked how the “performative male” meme illustrated both everyday cultural performance and the deeper influence of platform architecture. Your point that media actively shape behaviours and social expectations, rather than just reflecting them, made me reconsider how much of what we see online is produced by systems rather than individuals. I also appreciated how you connected this to algorithmic incentives and platform affordances, showing that performativity isn’t just about intention but material consequences.
Hi Christina, thanks for your comment! You definitely said it right, the “performative male” meme is a clear display of how platform architecture influences our daily performance. It’s an interesting paradox of the concept of a performance — it started with men acting “performative” with the intention of gaining female attention, before it became a meme and other creators performed the act again as a character rather than with the original intention. Now, many acts considered normal and well-liked when they standalone (drinking matcha, reading books) might gain a laugh from your friends at your how “performative” your behaviour is just because it became associated with the online meme. It really makes me think about the line between performativity and genuineness — is there a difference, or is everything a performance to some degree?
I really enjoyed reading this and it made me think a lot about how casually we use the word performative without noticing how differently it operates in theory. It made me want to ask whether you think people online ever notice the systems shaping their behaviour, or if the platform’s influence mostly stays invisible to them. I was also curious how you see intention fitting into this. If someone is doing something for show, but the platform is also shaping that behaviour, do you think the intention even matters anymore, or does the system end up doing most of the work.