Tag Archives: performativity

General Media Theory

What Papers, Please tells us about governed bodies and inscription

4 Comments

By: Christine Choi

When trying to make sense of the oppressive systems and structures in place, video games may not be the first to come to mind when it comes to examining the system in place. Yet, the video game Papers, Please, provides an interesting insight and commentary on what it means to put in a position of performing that status quo. The concepts in Grant Bollmer’s book Materialist Media Theory provided foundational groundwork with relevant ideas in this game. As a result, it brought attention to the following: what kind of context do video games provide for us when it comes to understanding the representation of bodies as well as the inscription of such bodies? As much as Papers, Please exaggerates and parodizes the border control and immigration systems, it simultaneously reveals the biases of the immigration system as well as the player themselves. 

Papers, Please, is an indie game where you play as an immigration inspector for the fictional country “Arstotzka.” Throughout the game, you make decisions to let them cross the border based on people’s “validity” of their documentation, which determines whether they are permitted to enter the country. The laws that determine what counts as a valid document continue to grow more and more convoluted as the game progresses, which makes detecting discrepancies even more difficult. Depending on if their documentations are all correct, their passports get stamped with “approved” or “denied” accordingly. The premise itself already highlights how we, as bodies living under the legal institutions that define us, have forced us into the inscription of legal documents that indicate our right to exist as well as our subscription to performing such practices.  

Inscription Using Documents

As the immigration inspector, you are already assigned to the act of inscribing into each entrant’s document via stamping in their passports. However, each body and the inscriptions that represent said body (i.e. the passports, entry permits, etc.) have much more than what is inscribed (or is not inscribed) in their documents. For whatever reason each entrant was unable to provide the correct details in their documents, they each had their own lives that brought them to the border—details which cannot be inscribed within their very legal documents. It makes Bollmer’s argument about analyzing the “margins,” a space in which we can find “traces of a history that this barbarism worked to exclude from existence,” all the more relevant in contextualizing their presence at the border (54). You, the player, can make the decision on whether you do perform that very duty that this authoritarian institution has tasked you with through the institutional practices of inscribing. Doing so, however, means that you have made the inherent decision to push these people into the “margins.”

Performativity in Papers, Please

The game’s mechanic of finding “discrepancies” in the information in the documentation also happens to be one of the ways that illustrates how “legible bodies”—bodies that are “produced by legal, medical, and psychological practices of writing and documentation”—are rendered illegible by the immigration system (Bollmer, 67). The game appears to task the player with a relatively simple task: to carry out, or rather, “perform,” the laws that govern our bodies. As a result, the bodies perform the act of being a legal entrant to Arstotzka by carrying and presenting with valid documentation—or at least attempt to. Failing to find the discrepancy results in citations for violating protocol—get three of these, and it will be deducted from your salary. Even with the presence of the repressive state apparatus—the agreement to obey the laws due to the “threat of police violence, or in this case, the government representatives—the game incites as well as punishes the player for acting against them (Bollmer, 27). Throughout the gameplay, there will be several characters that ask you to approve the entry of those who do not carry valid documents and deny the entry of those who do, citing reasons such as wanting to stay with their family or the fear for their safety if certain individuals are let in. This is how the game presents the player with the agency of whether they want to perform within the legal and governmental practices or perform outside of them, even if that results in a protocol violation.

Game-sensing Systemic Marginalization of Bodies

But why analyze the legibility of bodies and the inscription of documentation through a video game? When trying to understand the systemic challenges that arise from the documentation of our very being, one helpful framework to understand it is through the perspective of “game-sensing.” “Game-sensing” refers to how gamers “attune to a game system” which often takes form in navigating through the game’s mechanics and environments (Guillermo 156-157). Kawika Guillermo, in their book Of Floating Isles, described how video games are able to show the ways in which we game-sense the racialized systems that we co-exist in (157). The game-sensing of Papers, Please, as stated by Guillermo, “attunes us to the violences of nationalist othering by revealing the overlapping practices of border security with state-enforced racism” (162). Despite the seemingly immateriality of the bodies in digital video games, Papers, Please exemplified how studying these media objects through the media theoretical lens.

The notion that video games, as media that are viewed as inherently self-serving and pleasure-seeking, are unable to delve deeper into the real-world oppression that are inscribed within society, has been frequently countered with the recent emergence of indie games such as Papers, Please. It shows us how games can in fact materialize the immateriality of systemic marginalization of immigrants. In the game, the laws behind who gets to enter Arstotzka quickly change following a terrorist attack at the border. We see this parallel real-life events, such as the formation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as a response to the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11th, 2001 throughout the United States (“TSA History”). Games such as these can illuminate on how the TSA operates has been racialized by using the actions of extremist groups as reason to further marginalize racial groups. By contextualizing these games to the media theories that we continue to study, we can do more than just game-sense the systemic racialized injustices: we can challenge the existing hegemony in place and maybe eventually, see it lead to political change (Bollmer, 32). 

Works Cited

Bollmer, Grant. Materialist Media Theory An Introduction Grant Bollmer. Zed Books, 2021.

Guillermo, Kawika. Of Floating Isles: On Growing Pains and Video Games. Arsenal Pulp Press, 2025.

Papers, Please. Directed by Lucas Pope, 3909, 2013.

“TSA History | Transportation Security Administration.” Transportation Security Administration, www.tsa.gov/history. Accessed 3 Dec. 2025. 

Other

Becoming Cultural Products: Digital Subcultures and the Culture Industry

5 Comments

A Critical Response to Molly Kingsley’s The (Not-So) Secret Double Lives of Mormon Wives: Digital Subcultures on Reality Television”

Introduction:

In the post The (Not-So) Secret Double Lives of Mormon Wives, media theorist Molly Kingsley examines the intersectionality of reality television, digital subculture, and the commercialization of social media through the niche digital community “MomTok.” This community is centered around a group of young Mormon mothers whose popularity leads to a Hulu series, The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives. Kingsley argues that MomTok demonstrates how digital subcultures often form around central figures who guide the community’s interests and social norms. She discusses how digital subcultures often lose meaning due to being susceptible to external commercial pressures. Although these subcultures often begin as a space of identity and representation, their visibility on digital platforms is easily manipulated by monetization, performativity, and the demands of the culture industry. Kingsley’s argument provides a strong foundation for understanding how the authenticity of social media slowly dissipates due to commoditization. Building on her analysis, I plan to expand this discussion through the theoretical frameworks of Jenna Drenten’s “Curating a Consumption Ideology” and Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno’s theory of the culture industry. Together, these theories demonstrate that MomTok, Reality Television, and influencers not only participate in systems of commercialization but ultimately become cultural products of the system itself.

Platformization, Performativity, and Consumption Ideology 

Kingsley discusses the performativity of MomTok, highlighting how influencers construct digital identities for public visibility.  This topic becomes more significant when examined through Drenten’s framework of platformization. She describes platformization as the “penetration of infrastructures, economic processes and governmental frameworks of digital platforms in different economic sectors and spheres of life, as well as the reorganization of cultural practices and imaginations around these platforms” (93). This means that digital platforms reshape cultural production by interweaving themselves in social and economic life. Platformization alters how cultural goods are created and monetized. This is made evident by influencers altering their identities to fit within the economic structures of the platform. Within Momtok and “The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives,” influencers commercialize most aspects of their lives. These digital subcultures thrive on mindful curation of their personal branding to maximize platform revenue. This curation encourages audiences to adopt the consumption ideologies ingrained within these platforms. An ideology that normalizes the purchasing products and adopting lifestyles glamorized by influencers, while fueling envy among their audience.

As discussed by Kingsley, reality television intensifies the performativity of influencers. This is evident with the popular MomTok Influencers transitioning from TikTok to Hulu, entering them into a larger, more commodified platform that thrives on drama, conflict, and controversy. Through reality television, these influencers become the cultural product being consumed, as every view, every tweet works to push their careers. This shift allowed the members to reach a wider audience meanwhile further integrating themselves into a capitalistic system that benefits from emotional vulnerability and spectacle. Drenten reminds the audience that social media influencers often overlook the negative outcomes of pushing controversial forms of consumption. As the digital landscape advances controversies, scandals, and dramas have become economic goldmines. Influencers are becoming the very products that social media uses to push capitalist ideals. Their lived experiences are shaped into media commodities whose purpose no longer serves storytelling but rather promotional content aimed to generate monetary value. ​

Reality Television & The Culture Industry

When examined through the framework of Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno’s The Culture Industry, the commodification of influencers becomes apparent. Horkheimer and Adorno argue that under capitalism, cultural products become standardized commodities designed for mass consumption. They highlight the intersectionality of labor and entertainment, demonstrating how mass media advances structures of power. Instead of creating social change and critical thinking, the culture industry produces mass media that pushes ideologies of consumption and promotes false realities. Although this theory predates social media, it remains relevant with influencer culture and reality tv. This is evident with the influencers of MomTok becoming cultural products. Their identities, family lives, and moral dilemmas are turned into viral content aimed at attracting views and sponsorship. Their lives become packaged and mass-produced for the audience’s consumption, blurring the lines between authenticity and performativity. Although these influencers might seem genuine on screen, their personalities are being manufactured to bring fame and visibility to their shows. This ultimately reduces them to commodities of the entertainment industry. This mirrors the culture industry’s process of creating seemingly unique and innovative content that in reality is shaped by industry norms. In the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, the members are exchanging privacy and agency for profit. The influencers and the audience become embedded in a system that focuses on controversy and consumption over authenticity or critical reflection.

Conclusion

Kingsley’s argument sparked an interesting conversation on the instability of digital subcultures when confronted by capitalism. The shift from MomTok to reality television demonstrates how digital subcultures can be easily exploited by commercialization. What began as a niche community of self-expression discussing Mormonism, femininity, and gender roles easily became a place of controversy. The reality show ultimately worked to undo the curated family-friendly “personas” crafted by the influencers. In favor of shocking, dramatized “personas” that are more profitable to producers and the entertainment industry. 

When viewed through the framework of Drenten, Horkheimer, and Adorno, it’s apparent that these subcultures not only lose meaning but become platforms of pushing ideologies of consumptions. The influencers of Momtok are not merely participating in the culture industry. They are culture products themselves, with their identities being curated, monetized, and mass consumed. Their lives are entertainment commodities that are displayed for the audience’s enjoyment. The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives serves as an example of how digital subcultures work as part of the culture industry, promoting unrealistic desires and controversial ideologies. As Media Studies students, it’s important that we acknowledge the systems at play and learn not to take social media at face value. We must understand that digital platforms can be places of social change and critical thought if used correctly. If we fall victim to commercialization, we can easily lose the core values of these digital communities. Momtok and its journey into reality television demonstrate the intersection of social media, platformization, and the culture industry.

Works Cited

Drenten, Jenna, et al. “Curating a consumption ideology: Platformization and gun influencers on Instagram.” Marketing Theory, vol. 24, no. 1, 10 Oct. 2023, pp. 91–122, https://doi.org/10.1177/14705931231207329. 

Horkheimer , Max, and Theodor Adorno. “The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception.” Dialectic of Enlightenment, 31 Dec. 2020, pp. 94–136, https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804788090-007. 

Kingsley, Molly. “The (Not-So) Secret Double Lives of Mormon Wives: Digital Subcultures on Reality Television” UBC Blogs, 22 Nov. 2025, https://blogs.ubc.ca/mdia300/archives/901

The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, by Jeff Jenkins, Jeff Jenkins Productions, 2024. Hulu, www.disneyplus.com.

Written by Aminata Chipembere

Image created by Aminata Chipembere

General Media Theory

Not (Yet?) a Swifty

10 Comments

If Spotify recommends Taylor Swift to me one more time, I might start believing it knows something about me that I don’t. It’s strange how a platform can make you question your own musical identity, even if you, like me, have never listened to T. Swizzle. Perhaps she and Westside Gunn have more in common than I thought, or perhaps there are assumptions even my own listening choices cannot defy.

Genre as Culture on Spotify

Spotify may be a useful site for finding music and creating playlists, but it is also important for examining how genre and identity are produced today. In looking at how Spotify organizes genre and distributes listening statistics, as discussed in Muchitsch & Werner’s paper, we can understand genre not simply as a descriptive category but as a system of representation that shapes how listeners come to understand themselves. Genre formation has long been recognized as unstable — “fleeting processes whose boundaries are permeable and fluctuating, yet nevertheless culturally and socially safeguarded” (Brackett, 2016 qtd. in Muchitsch & Werner, 2024, p. 306). Genres constantly shift and divide, giving rise to newer sub-genres like indie pop or bubble grunge. But genre is also representational; it defines a type of music and, by extension, a type of listener.

Metadata and Identity

Spotify’s use of genre as metadata allows us to better see how they construct identities — genre becomes an identity category embedded into algorithmic logic, a technical shorthand for grouping users and predicting their future behavior. Besides recommendations, the advent of personalized playlists — like the well-known (and awful) “Just For You”s — are examples of how technology actively dictates the media we encounter. The algorithm assumes an identity about the listener and continually supplies content that reinforces that assumption. Although it appears that our listening habits inform the algorithm, the relationship is indeed reciprocal. Technology also shapes our perceptions of our own identities by offering back a curated and often reductive portrait of who we “are” as listeners.

Bollmer and Performativity

This feedback loop often goes unnoticed because of the widespread belief that technologies are neutral. Bollmer’s work on representation, identity, and performativity challenges this assumption, reminding us that representational identities—such as those produced in digital platforms—affect our capacity to act and perform within society. Especially as branding culture dominates the media landscape, individuals frequently become the “faces” of genres, embodying particular aesthetics or attitudes. These stylized identities influence how other listeners understand themselves and how the algorithm categorizes them in return. And, as we know but will not explore fully here, these categorizations are far from unbiased.

For Bollmer, identity is something both enacted and mediated. We cannot fully control how we are represented, nor can we detach ourselves from the biases and conditions that shape how we perform in the world. At the same time, we are constantly surrounded by stimuli that instruct us in the ways we should construct our identities. Playlists and music taste are only slim examples of the performative acts through which we present and negotiate a sense of self. Spotify, by mediating genre, participates in this process, co-producing musical identity through representational systems that determine what counts as meaningful performance.

What does this mean for users?

Rather than stable categories, genres have become interfaces for identity. Users construct self-image through listening habits, while platforms translate those habits into data profiles that feed back into the listening experience. Mood playlists—“chill,” “in love,” “rainy day,” “main character”—make this even clearer. They frame music not only as sound, but as a tool for managing and performing the self. In this way, Spotify exemplifies how contemporary media systems blur the lines between what we choose and what is chosen for us, shaping identity through the very categories that claim to represent it.

Identity as “Self Work”

Tia DeNora’s idea of music as a “technology of the self” deepens this understanding of genre and identity. For DeNora, people use music to regulate emotion, construct moods, and shape situations—music is a tool for self-presentation and self-maintenance. But when platforms pre-organize music into specific categories, they intervene in this process, prescribing what kinds of selves the listener might want to inhabit. What once felt like personal, intuitive self-work becomes filtered through Spotify’s mood-based playlists, quietly guiding the identities we perform and the emotions we deem appropriate.

Implications

The implications of this are subtle but significant; If identity is enacted through musical choice—as Bollmer and DeNora both suggest—then algorithmic curation narrows the range of performative possibilities. The listener performs the self through their music, but the platform anticipates, predicts, and nudges that performance, creating a closed loop where identity is both expressed and engineered. Genre, once a loose cultural concept, becomes a data-driven identity label that platforms use to categorize and influence behavior. And because these systems appear neutral, the shaping of identity through recommendations often feels natural rather than infrastructural.

In the end, the relationship between genre, identity, and streaming platforms reveals far more than how music is organized—it shows how contemporary technologies dictate who we are allowed to become. Spotify doesn’t just categorize sound; it categorizes people, returning our listening habits to us as ready-made portraits of taste and selfhood. Between Bollmer’s emphasis on mediated identity and DeNora’s conception of music as self-shaping, it becomes clear that our musical preferences are never solely our own. They emerge from an ongoing negotiation between personal expression and platform governance. And if my “rap-only” listening history can still make Spotify insist I’m a Taylor Swift fan, it’s worth asking: are we using these systems to express ourselves, or are they teaching us who we ought to be?

Bollmer, Grant. Materialist Media Theory. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2019.—Introduction.

DeNora, Tia. “Music as a Technology of the Self.” Poetics, vol. 27, no. 1, 1999, pp. 31–56.

Muchitsch, Veronika, and Ann Werner. “The Mediation of Genre, Identity, and Difference in Contemporary (Popular) Music Streaming.” Popular Music and Society, 2024, pp. 302-328.

Written by Allie Demetrick 

Photo from Spotify