Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/263088893
Parasocial Relationships
CITATIONS READS
15 19,222
1 author:
David C Giles
The University of Winchester
97 PUBLICATIONS 3,741 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by David C Giles on 15 June 2014.
Parasocial Relationships
1 Introduction
I love Molly. The more I start to think about and analyze the depth of her mothering
for her own children and for Harry, the more overwhelmed with emotion I become. 1
I don’t think Snape has ever said anything untrue, or anything that did not happen or
was false, not about anyone. I don’t have any doubt about it. 2
In October 2007 author J.K. Rowling stunned millions of Harry Potter fans
by suggesting that one of her characters, without any overt indication in
the books, might be gay. Arguments raged among fans, some claiming
that it had been evident all along, and that Rowling had struck a blow for
gay pride, leaving others distraught that their image of Dumbledore,
presumably as heterosexual, or asexual at best, had been tarnished forever.
Leaving aside the questionable (or perhaps thrillingly postmodern) act
of an author publicly ›outing‹ her own characters and providing spurious
›backstory‹, this act of extra-textual revelation may have served to further
reinforce Potter readers’ impression that the characters on the page exist
as real, tangible people who play a meaningful part in their day-to-day
experience. By announcing that Dumbledore is ›really‹ gay, despite any
mention or suggestion of sexuality in the novels, Rowling was effectively
presenting Dumbledore as an authentic human being with a life beyond
the text.
Did Potter fans need Rowling to perform this act of validation? If we
study the above quotes, taken from two Harry Potter fan sites, it becomes
clear that Dumbledore is not the only ›real‹ entity emerging from the pages
_____________
1 <http://www.leakylounge.com> (Potter discussion forum).
2 <http://www.chamberofsecrets.com> (Potter discussion forum).
2 David C. Giles
of the books. The first fan ›loves‹ the character Molly and is ›over-
whelmed‹ by her behaviour; the second claims that Snape is unfailingly
honest, thus opening up a second layer of realism (for what has Snape got
to be honest about, other than things that never ›really happened‹?)
These quotes are typical of millions posted on fan sites throughout
cyberspace that refer to figures, real and imaginary, who have come to life
for the fans involved, where the amount of information, whether factual
or fictional, about the figures, have left in people’s minds an impression
they somehow know the figure, just as they know individuals in their
immediate social circles. Harry Potter, Prince Harry, Harry Hill… in the
imagination of the reader or viewer these distinctions blur. There are just
Harries, as real as Harry who lives next door; perhaps more real, since
they barely know Harry next door except to see him occasionally putting
out his rubbish.
In an urbanised, increasingly alienated society, these imaginary Harries
have become our social frame of reference. As James Caughey has argued,
any society has a cast of characters that its members are expected to know
about – whether spirits, leaders or media figures. 3 Such figures can act as
social ›glue‹, to provide common cultural ground among strangers. And it
does seem that we spend a good deal of our social interaction time
conversing about people we have never met, yet feel that we know. And
we spend yet more time privately, consuming media – watching television,
listening to the radio, reading newspapers – and reading books and
watching films, and surfing the internet. All these activities immerse us in
a virtual social network where we come to know faces, voices, bodies,
beliefs, opinions, ways of looking at the world, sometimes to a degree of
intimacy that might not even be possible with a romantic partner, let alone
Harry next door.
This phenomenon – a ›feeling of knowing‹ that comes from media use
or cultural activity – is something that most people identify with, at least
from an anecdotal point of view. We all seem to have a story about
running into someone famous, or at least someone we recognise through
the media, who at first strikes us as an old friend or colleague, until a
second or so’s reflection brings us to the realisation that he or she is
someone we have never before actually met in the flesh.
It happened to me once, when I was a student in the leafy Georgian
English town of Cheltenham, where the local cricket team, Gloucester-
shire, play an occasional match at the Boys’ college. I saw this portly
middle-aged gentleman looking slightly lost at the corner of the street by
the college cricket ground one summer evening, and at first took him to
_____________
3 Caughey: Imaginary.
Parasocial Relationships 3
_____________
4 Horton / Wohl: Mass.
5 Scannell: Radio, p. 19.
6 Horton / Wohl: Mass, p. 224.
4 David C. Giles
_____________
7 Ibid., p. 229.
8 Levy: Watching.
9 Rubin / Perse / Powell: Audience.
10 Giles: Media, p. 189.
Parasocial Relationships 5
reply you could hardly say that you and that person had a relationship.
After all, it could be that the e-mail address does not exist.
So the parasocial relationship is not like a social relationship, which is
why the term parasocial is used. This, however, leads people to assume
that the relationship must be ›imaginary‹, and that the person is
experiencing an illusion that the media figure is somehow involved in a
relationship with them – rather like the psychiatric syndrome ›erotomania‹
where people believe themselves to be sexually involved with a famous
person. 13 This interpretation of parasocial phenomena has alienated many
communication and media scholars from the broad concept, leading to
charges that it ›pathologises‹ media users. This is, I believe, an over-
reaction to a very limited conceptualisation of the phenomenon. For any
individual in modern society, parasocial relationships are experienced with
many thousands of media figures – real, fictional, perhaps even
nonhuman.
To some extent the problems with parasocial interaction arise from the
limited way in which the concept has been conceived, and explored, in the
literature. Most research involving parasocial phenomena has used the
parasocial interaction scale in some form or other, but the parasocial scale
usually measures only interaction with one chosen figure (typically ›my
favourite soap character‹ or whatever). This may be useful for the
purposes of a study with a broad interest in soap (where the researcher
might be primarily interested in what motivates viewers to prefer certain
characters), but as a global index of an individual’s parasocial life, it is of
course useless. It could even be argued that it is not much help in
understanding how individuals interact with soap characters. It is unlikely
that each respondent in the study will only have a meaningful relationship
with one character, or that they can even identify one single favourite
character (indeed, many studies measuring parasocial interaction fail to
gather information about respondents’ ›favourite‹ media figures).
Then a great deal of the literature on parasocial interaction defines it in
a very narrow fashion. Many researchers use the term to refer to the way
that television viewers (invariably television rather than media generally)
respond to the presence of a figure on the screen. Some of the items in
the parasocial interaction scale seem to invite this interpretation, for
example »When I’m watching the newscast, I feel as if I am part of their
group«, and »I sometimes make remarks to my favorite newscaster during
the newscast«, 14 which suggest that the viewer is responding to the figure
as if he or she were another person in the same physical space.
_____________
13 Franzini / Grossberg: Eccentric.
14 Rubin / Perse / Powell: Audience, p. 167.
Parasocial Relationships 7
_____________
15 Auter / Palmgreen: Development.
16 Brown / Bocarnea: Celebrity-Persona; Bocarnea/Brown: Celebrity-Persona.
17 Schramm / Hartmann: The PSI-Process.
18 Hartmann / Stuke / Daschmann: Positive, p. 26.
8 David C. Giles
The remainder of this chapter will be rather speculative, I’m afraid, but it
simply reflects the fact that the research hasn’t been done: we are still
awaiting serious developments in this field. Nonetheless I will mention,
where relevant, ongoing research that is seeking to push some of the
boundaries of the parasocial concept.
_____________
19 Ibid.
20 Cervone: Architecture.
Parasocial Relationships 9
_____________
21 Giles: Illusions.
Parasocial Relationships 11
suggests, this distinction has become more important with the advent of
the Internet and the increased potential access to real-life media figures.
When Harry Potter replies to a fan post, there is no ambiguity as to his
reality status.
The distinction of different levels of parasocial interaction was the
cornerstone of my 2002 paper. 24 The model identified three levels: real
(newscasters, celebrities, etc), fictional human (soap characters, human
protagonists of novels or films), and fictional nonhuman (cartoon or
fantasy characters, animals). In recent research I have been attempting to
identify differences between parasocial interaction with these figures. It
hasn’t been easy. The only variable which seems really to identify the
different levels is an extreme one: reactions to the envisaged death of the
figure. I asked respondents to select ›least favourite‹ figures from each
level. While most respondents were happy to see their least favourite
fictional nonhuman character meet a messy end, they were less keen to see
their least favourite real figure die. However much they might dislike
Victoria Beckham, the dislike doesn’t really extend to seeing her dead. But
for most other parasocial activity, reality status seems (at this stage in the
project) to have very little impact.
These findings suggest that parasocial interaction with fictional figures
shares a common basis with any other kind of parasocial activity, at least
while we are content to maintain the relationship at a parasocial level (and
not making strenuous attempts to make contact with the figure, in which
case we enter the world of fan activity, which is not quite the same thing).
Recent research on narrative engagement and realism points the way
forward for a theoretical framework that ought to underpin much of the
future research on parasocial phenomena. Busselle and Bilandzic argue
that there are two types of realism that influence our engagement with
narratives. 25 One is external realism – the degree to which the elements of
stories reflect our real world experiences (setting, character, action). The
other is narrative realism – the plausibility and coherence of the story itself.
Through our engagement with this aspect of stories, we are effectively
›transported‹ into narratives to an extent that we lose awareness of the
external world. 26
How does this work in terms of parasocial interaction? The power of
narrative realism may be sufficient to overcome the lack of reality status of
the media figures – so we respond to fictional characters at the same level
as real people. There is plenty of evidence that this happens, and not just
_____________
24 Giles: Parasocial.
25 Busselle / Bilandzic: Fictionality.
26 Green / Brock / Kaufman: Understanding.
Parasocial Relationships 13
during the act of viewing – for example, soap actors being chastised by
members of the public for the moral failings of their characters. 27
Narrative realism may account for the similarity of responses in our own
research towards celebrities and cartoon characters.
It might also account for our complex relationships with figures that
transcend the media that they appear in. Harry Potter is one: we know
him as a literary protagonist and as a film character. The latter representa-
tion has of course coloured the former: for many people Potter is
indistinguishable from the actor who plays him.
James Bond is an even more complicated example, because not only
does he have parallel representations in written fiction and film, he has
been represented in film by such a variety of different actors that we have
all had, over time, to re-examine our relationship with him (the same
applies, albeit largely in a visual context, with the British TV figure Dr
Who). Only the narrative is left for us to engage with, and yet we
undoubtedly enjoy – to a greater or lesser extent – parasocial relationships
with Bond and Potter.
5 Final Thoughts
_____________
27 Tal-Or / Pepirman: Fundamental.
14 David C. Giles
with the fate of our favourite member of the Simpson family because the
narrative context of the cartoon enables us to make these parallels.
In addition to the persuasive power of narrative we have to consider
some potential individual differences. One such possibility is that of
anthropomorphism. It is possible that some individuals have a tendency
to anthropomorphise more than others – children who are able to bring
dolls, teddy bears, puppets and possibly imaginary friends to life (albeit in
a well-organised narrative context), adults who can become as attached to
pet animals as to humans. This possibility forms part of my current
ongoing research programme.
One thing is certain however: the phenomenon of parasocial activity is
far more interesting than it has been conceived so far in the academic
literature. I hope that in writing this chapter I can stimulate someone,
somewhere, to take up some of the themes as a serious research project.
References