[Le Devoir de philo] When popularity becomes authority

Authority, according to the philosopher Hannah Arendt, requires the establishment of a hierarchy “of which everyone recognizes the correctness and legitimacy”. In other words, authority is a matter of perception. For it to exist, everyone must consciously accept its existence and its implications. Popularity, on the other hand, is defined by the philosopher Gloria Origgi as a favorable judgment about a person by a large number of other people. To be popular, we need prominent people to talk about us in a positive way. You also have to be liked by the people. Thus, a popular person rises in the social hierarchy and acquires a certain influence. We can therefore observe the presence of a link between authority, which requires acceptance and respect for the hierarchy, and popularity, which allows for ascent in the social hierarchy.

This raises questions about access to a position of authority. Is popularity necessary for a person to achieve it today? On the one hand, the electoral system of our country ensures that the person elected must be judged favorably by the people, that is to say popular, and social networks easily show us who is popular. However, to assume power, a person must have some experience in the chosen field and skills, even if he collects less than likes.

When we think of the institutions supposed to exercise a certain authority over the people, the political sphere immediately appears to us. However, political institutions have undergone a transformation that makes them increasingly inoperative, which means that popularity is becoming a key element in gaining power. What transformation? According to Hartmut Rosa, sociologist, philosopher and author […], decision-making in politics happens faster and faster these days. It is “because of the high speed of technological innovation, economic transactions and cultural life” that “more and more decisions have to be made in ever shorter periods of time”. In other words, the increasing speed of technological progress forces the political sphere to try to adapt to this frenetic pace. Rather than argue at length, politicians rely on the power of image: “There seems to be an ‘aesthetic shift’ in politics: elections are won by the side cool politicians and parties. “We smell the perfume of popularity…

Hartmut Rosa also developed the concept of “compressing the present”. The present is that moment we use to reflect on the past and the future, to calm down and take stock. Since more and more changes occur in society in short periods of time, the moment called “present” by Rosa loses its importance, it is “compressed” between several events. This compression of the present once again highlights the discrepancy between the speed of technology and the impression of slowness that emerges from the political sphere, because the latter seems to be more in the “present”.

Compression of the present also has another, more subtle effect. As mentioned, time for reflection is becoming increasingly rare. Let’s now project ourselves to the XVII^e century, at the time of René Descartes. This philosopher advocated the superiority of understanding and the importance of reflection. According to him, it is important to use our understanding and take the time to reflect in order to make the right choices: “ [Si on] knew[t] always clear what is true and what is good, [on] won’t be[t] never in pain to deliberate what judgment and what choice [on] should[t] TO DO. In other words, since we can’t know everything, it is absolutely necessary to take a moment of reflection before making choices.

Today, according to Rosa, acceleration makes us feel rushed, rushed, as we try to keep up with society. This brings on a feeling of “time starvation”: we feel that we don’t have enough time to do everything there is to do and we try to maximize it. As “reflecting” and “questioning oneself” are rarely found on our agenda, the time devoted to them becomes increasingly negligible. Thus, it becomes very difficult to make wise choices. In the absence of periods of reflection, one can only rely on quick images caught here and there, as well as on public opinion. It’s easy, thanks to social media, to determine who is popular and to quickly join this school of thought.

All these conditions being met, one can understand why politicians must bet on their image, because the image is now of great importance. One can also understand why very popular public figures, such as the actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, manage to win elections against more experienced candidates. (Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor of California from 2003 to 2011; he won the election twice!) Thus, authority is now accessible to popular people.

However, some might say that popularity is not the news authority, since she has almost still been the authority. Indeed, the appearance of democracy in ancient Greece corresponded with the rise of rhetoric, or the art of speech. This practice was intended to train good orators—the sophists—to influence the decisions of the people. […] Aristotle also proposed a definition of rhetoric, which is divided into three elements. The first, theethos, translates to the “moral character of the speaker”. It’s about our perception of him, whether or not he inspires confidence in us. This first element is reminiscent of our conception of popularity according to Origgi, which implies that the person is well judged, but also that of authority according to Arendt, which is a question of perception. The second element of rhetoric, the pathos, targets emotions: the disposition of the audience towards the message transmitted to them contributes to the importance they attach to it. Finally, the argument, or the logos, constitutes the last element of the rhetoric. Thus, in the days of ancient Greece, the public’s perception of the speaker was already as important as what he said.

Finally, for the sociologist Max Weber, the authority that we recognize in someone depends on his charisma, his “gift of pleasing, of imposing himself in public life”, a notion that is in line with the principle of pathos. In short, if authority in ancient Greece was already exercised by the sophists and they were popular, popularity is a form of authority that has existed for a long time.

Admittedly, the concept of popularity as authority, if it was already very present in ancient Greece, is becoming more and more important nowadays because of the advent of social networks. For Gloria Origgi, popularity is increasingly quantifiable. It is measured by the number of likes, views on broadcast platforms, positive comments. Because of social media, popularity is always about numbers. According to her, when you browse the Web, “you no longer look at authenticity, you only look at the popularity of things”. Number of likes, information that is obtained on the spot, becomes excessively important. Why ? Because popularity “tells us about quality”! Since, according to Hartmut Rosa, our world has accelerated and we have the feeling of running out of time, it is important to know quickly, quickly, quickly what is good and what is not. This content is loved by thousands of people? Perfect ! Let’s take a look and join the movement! […]

Technological acceleration means that authority, which should be held by the political sphere, is therefore in the hands of popular people. The image has replaced long debates. Although popularity as an authority has always been present, it takes more space today because of social media, which makes it easily quantifiable. However, it could be interesting for popular people to take on a new role for which they might be qualified: to act as spokespersons expressing the ideals of the majority of the population. Perhaps we would then be able to reach the concept of general will set out by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Suggestions ? Write to Robert Dutrisac: [email protected]. To read or reread the old texts of Le Devoir de philo, visit our website.

To see in video