Trickster Magazine

I have this thing that I try to follow people I’ve actually met and know. Sorry, but I find it difficult to give a fuck about posts about art, face or body, and to feel any kind of interest after reading how grateful 🙏 someone is to be featured in an exhibition, how happy a prize made them, that they have the resources to buy a flat, or to live. Umm, r u grateful fr when you don’t gram about it? Otherwise, no one will know how grateful you are ... For me it's a job.

Why do I, or we, care about followers then? If someone has 14k followers and is following 64? Well, who doesn’t ... It’s only natural, I guess, to feel something when someone is signalling that they don’t care, which, btw, is so in rn . They don’t care, or they reason that they want to keep their feed “clean”, “calm”, “close friends only”, while posting content that’s curated, grateful, fit and "healthy." And edited, waist cinched, cheeks bitten, tummy small, ass fat, hair on FLEEK, etc. Here and there r brand deals, dieting tips, which begs to inquire what year we're living in. 2026 and dieting?? "this healthy meal so good & fresh that pants fall off by themself." It's screaming eating disorder. Get help.

No hate. I used to want to be one of them. I felt envy and thought they had their shit under control and actually thought that this was it–I will be happy with myself if I fill ten pages of my diary each day; and stay skinny; and have clear poreless skin; and meditate 2 hours each day; and stretch my fascia; and give money to people who need it; and answer all emails, Dms, messages first thing they arrive on my Do Not Disturb iPhone Pro MEGA MAX M10 chip XXXL. And now I kind of am. What’s next? I smile humbly and wish you all peace 😌. On my Instagram live 🙈🙈🙉. Jk. I’ve been seeking the TRUTH.

The truth is some kind of authenticity. “They’re so authentic!!!”––“You have to be authentic … (to be successful)”––“Just be authentic!” AUTHENTIC!!! The constant struggle of “being you” without understanding the fuck this “you” even is. “Just do it,” they say. And believe me when I say that I’ve tried to do it. Countless times.

One would even say that authenticity is the most important thing ever. Or am I not original using emojis in a fancy magazine 😝😝😳?? With my unfiltered, gen z language?? 

Who hasn’t read an article or seen a video where someone says that the road to success is authenticity, especially on social media (where paragraphs of this article will also be posted, hence my “originality”). But then again, are brand deals or ads authentic

Marketing? Am I really original when I use emojis, hip lingo, etc., in my smart philosophical essay about authenticity?

Last question: if everyone pursues originality, isn’t the very pursuit no longer original? Or as Italian sociologist Elena Esposito puts it, “nothing is as unoriginal as the desire to be original” [1]. The fuck. Confusing …

Circling back to “authentic” influencers, we sort of know that behind the “success via authenticity” lie “inauthentic” goals as well. Obviously, they’re staging their videos, editing and shooting them, I don’t know, 7 times. It’s not giving original, spontaneous, intuitive, or authentic. Deals with brands that market themselves with signals of originality, like Nike, so the proud wearer can furthermore signal to others that they’re authentic. That’s sus, as I would’ve said two years ago. We’re saying that they or we are authentic, but … if you’re “too authentic,” piss or shit in public, or do whatever Amanda Bynes or Britney Spears did, you could be put into a mental ward. By a man. One has to resemble authenticity that is familiar to others. SHOCKING: authenticity is not so authentic after all.

I have this funny picture here. Look at the happy people jumping on the beach as if it’s something “normal.” Whatever that means. There’s no pretense of authenticity whatsoever. It is neither taken nor posted spontaneously. It is not meant to document an “authentic” moment in one’s life to be stored in an autobiographical album or as part of a deeply reflective self-narrative. It is meant to communicate with “anyone” (which, strangely enough, can include all those in the photo).

But why do we take or post such photos? Is it really for ourselves? For me, it’s clear these pictures are for others—to get validation, which is fine; we all need it. We want others to see that we’re having fun or are happy. I took similar photos possibly because of peer pressure—“show you’re having fun! 😩” When these photos get likes, it encourages more of the same, continuing the persona. This cycle becomes part of my identity: the “you” next to “be.”

Catching the drift? One more example—but first, I must add that my goal here isn’t to ridicule influencers or people taking similar photos, or to claim that smartphones are BAD, social media is DANGEROUS, or we’re all INAUTHENTIC sheep scrolling our precious humble lives away. No-no, I just want to make a theoretical point!

Now, these two pictures, posted by “The Theme Park Guy” Stefan Zwanzger on his blog, were both taken at the same spot in a Chinese theme park: one in 2010, the other in 2017. Both show people watching a performance. In the first photo, the audience looks directly at the show. In the second, the audience views it through their smartphones, seeing the performance as it will appear to those who later watch it online. Already, as we experience something, we observe it as others would see it. Multitasking! Even though research suggests that “true” multitasking is not possible [2]. It’s difficult and takes a lot of energy.

The point I want to make is that the jumping people and theme park pictures are similar. The first shows how “authenticity” identity is performed, while the other two hint at behind-the-scenes reality—one could argue the 2010 picture seems more “authentic” than the 2017 one. Here, 'first-order observation' means looking directly (2010 pic), and 'second-order observation' means seeing something as others might see it (2017 pic). Press save.

Second-order observation, unlike direct observation, sees something—or oneself—as being seen. It observes indirectly, viewing from another observer’s perspective. In second-order observation, both the object and its observer are considered at once. This increases complexity (multitasking), as shown in the two theme park pictures. Their faces show focus and commitment, unlike the 2010 picture, where people appear relaxed and smiling. Or maybe they’re faking it, idk.

Niklas Luhmann, a leading 20th-century German sociologist, writes in Introduction to Systems Theory (2013) [3] that by the century's end, nearly all social systems adopted second-order observation: “You get your information on the facts merely by looking at what others have to say about it.” This is, in fact, how we know about global warming, economic trends, Oscar winners, or the latest 🔥💯 political controversies.

This explains why we take staged beach photos and present curated versions of ourselves as “authentic” on social media, even when we know it’s not genuine. The desire for authenticity is shaped by how we think others perceive us. Since others say that being “authentic” equals success, I should show myself as those, who people describe as “authentic,” but in my own “authentic” way. By talking about my trauma? Trauma culture!, which hasn't turned out too helpful! It’s like the Spiderman picture where they’re pointing at each other.

I wear Nike’s “Just Do It” to show I’m doing it. In first-order observation, I’d simply buy the shirt because I like it—it’s cute and good quality. In second-order observation, I think it’s a good shirt because others are wearing it or I’ve seen countless ads of celebs wearing it. People, including myself, recognise Nike as a sports brand, which implies I’m fit and healthy. Others also understand the message behind “Just Do It.” I push my boundaries. I fight!

A little pivot–have you seen the aggressive H&M ad campaigns with every possible celeb/influencer who’s 🔥 rn? And who I assumed we’re conscious abt fast fashion. Charlie XCX, Alex Consani … Boots … that’s boots girl. Not chic at all. Dissapointed.

In a first-order observation “age” (which I’ll explain in a sec), we’d know the actual shirt before the brand, which is the sewer or designer who sells it and whom we’d likely trust. They’d then maybe explain why this shirt is better or more interesting than another. It’s all about the shirt. ALL ABOUT IT.

But in second-order observation “age”, we often know about the brand (& its identity) before the actual product. We decide to buy based on whether the brand is FIRE or whether it fits our identity. I buy a Patagonia backpack, which represents environmental consciousness and is durable, based on the reviews (I do my research), or a Louis Vuitton duffle, which signals financial status, class difference, and fashion (to some ...), though not always boasting the best quality. In this era, the profile of a commodity often outweighs the product itself, making things more complex but also providing better opportunities for critique than before.

At this juncture, let’s clarify what I mean by “ages.” Hans-Georg Moeller, a professor of philosophy currently working at the University of Macau in China, outlines in his book, co-written with Paul J. D'Ambrosio, a professor of Chinese philosophy at East China Normal University in Shanghai, You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity [4], three distinct “ages” that society has gone through. Their book ✨inspired✨ me to write this essay.

The first, and possibly the oldest, in civilisations is sincerity, which was an age when people lived up to their assigned social roles. Kind of like a monarchy, authoritarianism today, still. It dictated identity according to a predetermined role, enforcing adherence to cultural, religious, or gender norms. For example, a classic, the maternal housewife was concerned with cooking, cleaning and child-rearing. It formed identity in relation to one’s hierarchical position—identity is a role to adopt with little “personality” because it’s based on trust in the system and hierarchy. But sincerity lost ground as ancient power structures (i.e. Ancient Chinese) dissolved, and thereby the next “age”, authenticity emerged, demanding the pursuit of originality.

Authenticity was an era in which people questioned social roles in an attempt to live as their “true selves,” as I discussed earlier. Authenticity emphasises the contradictory demands to discover or create an original self, with its stereotypical image that implies that genuine human identity lies, or ought to lie, behind the “masks” taken on in society, and with the ideology of individualism that accompanies it and values personal autonomy over collective bonds. Think about your favourite influencer who reflects on a social situation, telling how they actually felt and what they really thought, thus being perceived as “authentic”. They lowered their mask … so vulnerable, so brave.

And what’s the third “age,” you might ask? How and why did we move on from authenticity? As time went on, mass media gave rise, and most of us had to face the paradoxicality of authenticity–that it’s impossible to achieve and we’re all as much authentic as we’re inauthentic, we faced an identity crisis. Kind of.

Identity formation kind of became a “job” (also capitalism)–one has to constantly update it to reflect their changing thoughts, appearance, ideas, activities, and so on, to be as transparent as possible. And the more you update your “profile”, the more transparent you are, thus a more validated, believable, and accepted identity. Welcome to the age of 247 live-streaming! The third age, as Moeller suggests, is the age of profilicity, which then means "shaping (individual or collective) identity through the curation of profiles".

Nowadays, we manoeuvrer as if we’re profiles, which makes identity building even more complex (second-order observation, multitasking). Mainstream media shits out articles saying that one has to be “authentic” in order to be successful (not understanding that authenticity is being used in a profilicity framework; we're SO PAST authenticity); some of my friends say that social media is shallow and for the stupid, “everyone’s a narc!”; few young people can’t figure out which is real––social media or the “real life," because feeds are filled with gym-selfies and skinny pics, which some think people look like fr. Meanwhile the money-hungry grift to the max (i.e. the jolly manosphere, the far right, etc.). Parents are in a panic and are pushing for social media bans, mass surveillance, suing Meta, which in turn funds the same groups that sue it [5]. 

The “narcissism” of it all! The moral condemnations of selfie-taking, scrolling and other related social media phenomena (but blindness toward the money-making of Big Tech with our data) clearly represent it. It’s a little misplaced, no? 

Moeller and D'Ambrosio write that rather than a case of mass narcissism, the concern with one’s self-image and profile reflects, first and foremost, the social proliferation of second-order observation. To perceive that one is seen, and how one is seen, is only rational in a society where second-order observation prevails. So, the idea that one can exist in society without vanity, with no concern at all for how one appears to others, devoid of any reputation, can be regarded as much more vain and selfish than simply accepting that one’s own image emerges only through the observation of others.

What if, instead of moralising and judging others, we develop our critical thinking? Which seems to b not so in rn. This, of course, is possible only if one understands how the “identity technologies” function. Or more broadly put, how the world functions.

Do you know anyone who has over 1000 followers and follows fewer than 100? Instead of wanting to be like them, like I did, believing it’s something authentic, it may help to understand that this is just how they want to be seen. Here, we can follow the same logic we used with the jumping-on-the-beach picture. It’s staged to convey an image, which, in the case of the followers-example, could mean the person wants to be seen as not really caring about their followers' number (while caring enough to signal it). Besides, research shows that when an influencer seems "out of reach," follows very few people, it actually negatively impacts engagement in some contexts [6]. It’s not relatable.

To function in a society and to be able to have a sense of self, we NEED a “face”–a face that others recognise us by and that we accept as ours when looking in the mirror. It's not possible to live without it. The ever-changing variety of our bodily functions 💩, the incongruities of our mental and emotional experiences, and the diversity of our social engagements have to be integrated into an orderly and distinct unit. It's usually the job of an artist.

People sometimes literally kill themselves because they can't cope with the pressures of fitting in. Others may become obsessed with saving face and commit suicide when they feel that their social esteem is taken away from them and their identity is no longer tenable. In the case of “honour killings,” people become murderers because they fear that someone else will make them, or their family, lose face. Like?? This what happens when people overcommitment to a role-related identity and sincerity. THAT'S #cringe.

A youngsters quest for authenticity can also drive them into despair or to the brink of suicide. The impossibility of achieving perfect authenticity, given its paradoxical nature, can be a source of a variety of mental problems. This impossibility can, too, give rise to a suspicion that others are inauthentic, leading in turn to distrust and general dissatisfaction with social life. It can also lead to an overemphasis on individual concerns (i.e. wasting a lot of money on fillers in your 20s 🤡) or to histrionic displays of pseudo-originality (i.e. everything, literally everything is so, ngl, cringe).

Any of the previously mentioned identity technologies, sincerity, authenticity, and, of course, profilicity, if zealously pursued, can threaten individual and social sanity. A person or a society that tries too hard to be fully sincere, completely authentic, or wholly prolific can end up in a whammy. As long as we don’t get that second-order observation, social media, etc. isn’t the problem, but how the wealthy capitalise on the lack of knowledge, thus the lack of regulations that would make the gaping hole of financial violence clench a little. Or a lot. Pwease, uwu.

All too often, critics of profilicity phenomena suggest simply replacing one identity regime with another. Kind of like the half-assed return-to-innocence pursuits with the social media bans. Advocates of a new political sincerity argue that sincerity-based identity is preferable to profilicity and that we should return to it. Those who decry social media as a threat to authenticity take authenticity to be the only correct model of identity. These are problematic idealisations of sincerity and authenticity.

Rather than defending any identity as the right one, it serves our well-being to adopt a suspicious attitude toward them all. To maintain sanity, strict identity regimes are better kept at a certain distance and met with a good dose of scepticism. The strategy to tackle them should be subversion rather than revolution, which typically ends up in just another regime.

OBVIOUSLY, profiles need curation, and, OF COURSE, one needs to always take care of them. However, as the professional Magic the Gathering player and popular streamer Louis Scott Vargas, in his advice to a viewer who brags about his recent success, notes: “We are in a world where, like, you are rewarded for people knowing about your accomplishments, and it’s good to let people know in a tasteful way about them. But, on the other hand, if you do it too much or inelegantly, it kinda backfires.” [7] So true ...

Despite their tendency toward conformity and mediocrity, as we’ve seen on Instagram, profiles are also dynamic, diverse, and flexible. Profilicity is not totalitarian! It allows for the inclusion and coexistence of other identity technologies. #inclusive #diverse #openminded #trans

And there are always opportunities to withdraw from profilicity and to exercise sincerity in the family or in a religious community; and one can still experience authenticity in friendship or art. For those, who’ve had it!!! Although, often, such exercises and experiences will also be put into the service of profilicity, which is OK, too. They hardly escape one's profile curation and can easily become part of one’s profile identity. Nevertheless, by accommodating sincerity and authenticity, profilicity allows for a multidimensional approach to identity work!

By adopting second-order observation as its modus operandi, profilicity shows a good deal of sensitivity to the fact that profiles must be staged for exhibition purposes. This allows for a more nuanced, liberal, and, indeed, critical and self-critical attitude toward identity, like in the case of the follower example I had trouble with.

In profilicity, identity is formed through profile curation. Curation literally means caring, caring in the senses of caring about, caring for, and taking care of. Moeller and D’Ambrosio end their book with a cute perspective, suggesting that in profilicity, too, people can be caring. Here, what counts is that care is publicly shown and seen. Under conditions of second-order observation, we cannot know whether anyone, including ourselves, cares sincerely or authentically. What we have access to is the profile. And you can prove that you are truly invested in your profile by making it deeply caring.

Rather than finding the identity of oneself and others, including prolific identity, good or bad, or right or wrong, the truly liberated profile will understand how and why identity is achieved. They will be critical, but not judgmental.

To end this jargon with something that you could actually use irl, I thought about proposing an alternative to the confusing “be authentic”. Anytime you hear someone saying shit like that, you could inform them, that you bitch are a profile not some authentic or original absolute “you”. Jk, b critical NOT judgmental. So maybe, in this time of age, instead of being authentic, one could b caring? Especially towards those who post a lot. And are dieting.

References

1 Elena Esposito, “In and Out: Fashion and the Culture of Transitoriness,” YouTube video, 41:39, September 7, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9loww3vyj90.

2 American Psychological Association. (2006, March 20). Multitasking: Switching costs. https://www.apa.org/topics/research/multitasking 

3 Niklas Luhmann, Introduction to Systems Theory, trans. Peter Gilgen (Cambridge: Polity, 2013)

4 Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul J. D’Ambrosio, You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity (New York: Columbia University Press, 2021)

5 Lenney, B. (2025, December 7). Meta's manipulation disguised as child safety. Deseret News. https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2025/12/07/child-safety-bill-backed-by-meta/

6 Hendricks, A. C., & Bright, L. F. (2023). The psychological predictors of influencer engagement on Instagram. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 12(1). https://thejsms.org/index.php/JSMS/article/download/1143/625/5357

7 Louis Scott Vargas, “Modern Horizons—Draft | Channel LSV,” YouTube video, 57:23, June 26, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjbzcRdoB90.

CREDITS
Text by Gregor Kulla
Visuals by Diandra Rebase