Curation in the Age of Platform Capitalism The Value of Selection, Narration, and Expertise in New Media Cultures

6.2 The “Self” and Liberal Governance

The individual and its spiritual corollary, the “self”, are a key site of struggle, legitimacy, reflection, and value in capitalist modernity, and the fundamental unit upon which an assemblage of legal, economic, and political strategies unfurl, ranging from the right to property, vote, and self-expression to consumerism and lifestyle politics. Yet the self is a construction that does not exist prior to its articulation and discursive foundation in modes of socialization and social contexts generally (Skeggs, 2013). If someone is forced to spend their whole life in an empty, white-walled room, this person would develop a very diferent self than most people. In conditions of social interaction, the articulation of the self is contingent on variables including class, ethnicity, gender, bodily ability, and educational background, among others; as these variables are enacted in these conditions, they define what the boundaries of the permissible, the expected, and the possible are for individuals and social groups. The claiming of the self, then, involves the implicit or explicit negotiation, transgression, or submission to these boundaries, and enacts an (always re-shapable) subject position that provides particular vantage points from where someone views their place in society. Furthermore, the self, as Skeggs argues, is part of a system of social exchange “in which classed personhood is produced through diferent technologies” (2013: 5, emphasis added). Skeggs uses the concept of technology in the Foucauldian sense, which implies a form of power that aims to mark and produce individuals in ways that are compatible with the broader political and economic reproduction of society (Behrent, 2013: 82). In political contexts, where the “self” assumes prominence, such technologies are socially difused, crossing over state and market rationalities, including government policies, such as introducing audits in workplaces to make the work environment more competitive, or media representations, such as the promotion of particular notions of success. For instance, to avoid being perceived as unsuccessful, a person may strive to accommodate to prevalent norms about success, including in work, family, and love relationships, and would thus shape their selves according to this striving. Norms are then shaped by technologies of power and are themselves subject to change and diversification. A social technology exercises soft power, that is to say power via which a population is questioned by diverse and often competing expert authorities (the food expert, the psychology expert, the fashion expert, and so on). In the context of the therapeutic, while these authorities suggest the proper ways of conducting and managing the conflicting and always negotiable borders between the normal and pathological (“it is normal” to have negative emotions, asserts Castillo [2022e]), they intensify a preoccupation with the problems around the self, instead of, say, social inequality and power relations, and thus authorize governable subjects in neoliberalism.

130

Cultures of Platform Capitalism

The oeuvre of the sociologist Nikolas Rose and the so-called governmentality school is worth mentioning here. Since the 1980s, Rose’s prolific work has grappled with “these little engineers of the human soul, and their mundane knowledges” (Miller and Rose, 2013: 5), which Rose calls the “psy-disciplines”, namely psychology, psychoanalysis, psychiatry, and psychotherapy (Rose, 1999). The psy-disciplines pivot around “heterogeneous knowledges, forms of authority, and practical techniques that constitute psychological expertise” and are generative, in the sense that they make it possible for human beings to “conceive of themselves, speak about themselves, judge themselves, and conduct themselves in new ways” (Rose, 1991: vii). These disciplines are a key technology for regulating the self and shaping “governable subjects” in advanced liberal societies (Rose, 1999: 40). The term technology, then, refers to applications of power that are less based on overt violence and more on the “subtle manipulation of human behavior”, in which “bodies are prodded in certain directions, molded according to particular norms, and forced to act in coordination with one another” (Behrent, 2013: 84). Neoliberal media culture, in particular, suggests a psychologized ontology with the individual or the business as its fundamental units, organizing an entrepreneurial regime of truth (Foucault, 1977), that is to say, a systematic viewpoint that proposes a taken-for-granted market rationality across every aspect of social reality (Wilson, 2017: 52). In this culture, there are prominent ideological injections shaping governable subjects, such as to be autonomous and creative, as we already with McRobbie’s idea of the “creativity dispositif” (2018: 11), or to be empowered and assertive, as with Rosalind Gill’s and Shani Orgad’s idea of a “confidence cult” (2022: 4), which we discuss later in this chapter.

Life coaching is a present-day instantiation of the psy-disciplines, an up-todate “little engineer of the human soul”, with its expertise being distributed and assigned in a rather disorganized and voluntaristic manner. An institutional certification, for example, a university degree, is one of the possible modalities of legitimization for becoming a life coach, and probably not the main one. Instead, coaching legitimacy mostly relies on the coach’s own “charismatic authority”, as Hendriks (2017: 59) puts it (more on this concept in the next section). This deregulated and seemingly anti-institutional

Curating Mindsets, Micro-Celebrities, and Intimacies

131

132 Cultures of Platform Capitalism

ethos of life coaching is a carryover of the legacy of self-help, which is in many ways its more direct disciplinary heir on matters pertaining to the self. The genre of self-help emerged in 19th century England as a byproduct of liberal-bourgeois political thought, emphasizing individual excellence and the quest each person should undertake against the paralyzing arduousness of the state. The state and its institutional authorities are a priori suspicious for imposing conformity; in order for an individual to morally and economically succeed they should look inside and improve themselves. This is evident, for instance, in the writings of the founder of self-help literature, Simon Smiles, who publicized the values of individual morality to the working classes. While Smiles’ politics were responding to diferent developments of his time, including the failed workers revolutions of 1840s, self-help popularized an ethic that emphasized “the virtues of hard work and improvement, […] a cult of respectability which placed harsh pressures upon the poor, and […] the rejection of state action to improve social conditions” (Morris, 1981: 91). Thus, in Self-Help, written in 1859, Smiles proclaims that, “even the best institutions can give a man no active aid” and that “the utmost they can do is, to leave him free to develop himself and improve his individual condition” (1889: 21). Individual self-improvement is however not merely a personal enterprise but partakes in nobler political implications, as “helping and stimulating men to elevate and improve themselves” is “the highest patriotism and philanthropy” (1889: 23).1 This idea involves a self-civilizing quest, a courageous fight against the barbaric instincts that reside in each one of us (more in Section 6.4). The regulation of these instincts through introspection, discipline, and self-control can eventually advance societies toward loftier states (in this sense, those with unregulated instincts can be held responsible for dragging societies back). Expected to self-excel, the working class in the self-help imperative is molded after the image of the bourgeoise through an endless quest for self-improvement to which it is most probably destined to fail as class and social relations are not in its favor.

Thus, the therapeutic—including self-help, coaching, and psy-expertise— corresponds to liberal forms of governance; yet to what extent these forms of governance correspond exclusively to liberal power and its application (often in a colonial manner)2 is the subject of ongoing debate (Nehring et al., 2020: 8). The reach of the therapeutic is abundant in non-Western regimes of governance, including China (Hendriks, 2017; Yang, 2020), Russia (Salmenniemi and Voronaand, 2014), the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (Fanti, 2020), and India (Bhatia, 2018), among others. The mushrooming of platforms greatly contributes to the accelerating difusion of therapeutics to diverse parts of the world. As in the previous cases we saw, this difusion is not linear but marked by processes of adaptation, as practices, discourses, and forms are localized to diferent political, social, and economic contexts. There is also the question of language, access, and wider cultural settings. It is not enough to speak about globalization in reference to the spread, and in some cases tremendous success, of English-speaking coaches (such as, say, a globally recognized coaching persona like Tony Robbins). Language-wise there are booming national coaching scenes that act independently of the authority of English-speaking coaches making reference to other regimes of knowledge; we can think of how the Russian coaching industry has been impacted by occultism, Eastern spirituality, and the theosophy guru Helena Blavatsky or the Chinese psy-scene by Confucianism (Yang, 2020). More than an English-language driven dissemination, there is a non-linear process of the continuous adaptation and rearrangement of psychological imaginary as platforms help in making this imaginary recognizable and part of the everyday life in vastly diferent cultural and political settings. Similar to how psychologization became widely difused in the United States thanks to another techno-social apparatus, that is the “paperback revolution” in the late 1930s (Illouz, 2013: 43), the architecture of social media, whether in Chinese, American, or Arabic public spheres, encourages an individualist confessional style, whose “excelling” can bestow authority on particular individuals to be able to improve the lives of others (Abidin, 2018; Attwood, Hakim and Winch, 2017). The authority of these individuals, whether influencers, micro-influencers, internet celebrities, or micro-celebrities (Sections 3.4 and 6.3), can rely on a certain display of success and thriving so as to inspire their followers and audiences.

Accumulating inspirational capital, which can be used as a means to provide coaching advice, encodes “universal” signifiers of capitalist culture, such as “success”, “growth”, and “confidence” in national, local, niche, and micro contexts. There are some nearly transnationally appealing props for encoding these signifiers, such as helping cute animals or posing with (your) kids, which trigger collective sympathy, but more often the accumulation of inspiration is audience dependent. For instance, the indicators of thriving and success among some Russian-speaking aspiring coaches I have followed, rely on what their audiences would consider as exceptional such as “having a nice family” or “moving to Paris”, which may not be the case in other national contexts. These situations provide curatorial anchoring points that can evidence some kind of success to their followers, and around which an inspiring profile can be sustained via daily updates, photos, posts, reels, and stories.

In this race for inspiration, irrespective of the geographical framework, modern therapists have to be modeled as charismatic and compelling personas. To gain credibility, at least among the lower classes and mass consumers, the common coaching narratives of leadership, excellence, and growth need pointers to paragons of overcoming obstacles in life. Potentially, the more desperate one was before the transformation, the more convincing they can be. To go back to the introduction, the break-up coach recounted a devastating break-up with a boyfriend who she loved; it was the laborious overcoming of this ordeal that made her wiser, as she understood how to deal with break-ups. Or, in a podcast titled “Delay Discounting”, Castillo explains a theory according to which people need to wait for the right circumstances until they reach a professional decision rather than just accepting what they

Curating Mindsets, Micro-Celebrities, and Intimacies

133

134 Cultures of Platform Capitalism

find along the way. Castillo describes how she had the audacity and patience to refuse to side with “instant gratification” by not taking whatever was available right in front of her; she patiently waited for better things to come (Castillo, 2022d). In a sort of virtuous circle, the validity of this theory can be proven by Castillo’s own success in professional life (which refers to the self-generated cycle of abundance that we will see in Section 6.5 with men’s dating coaching). In the following section, we will discuss in more detail the constitution of inspirational personas in the context of media platforms.

6.3 Digital Gurus, Micro-Celebrities, and the Claim to Charisma

The legitimacy of the coaching guru, as argued already, is more improvisatory if compared to the legitimacy of more institutionally sanctioned knowledge experts, such as university-trained psychologists; degrees are not enough and the actual life experience of the self-help or coaching guru should often bear witness to “charismatic authority” (Hendriks, 2017: 9). For Hendriks, charismatic authority is defined

not by reference to the personality traits or innate characteristics of the authority figure, but by reference to the nature of the social relationship between the authority figure, on the one hand, and the followers and students, on the other.

(2017: 4, emphasis added)

In the context of this relationship, the guru can make a “claim to charismatic authority” (2017: 92), enacting an inspiring and credible persona hoping that the followers will be convinced by this claim and trust the guru to help solve their problems. If charismatic authority relies on the relationship between an authority figure and their followers, then digital platforms mediate the qualities of this relational dynamic: an aspiring guru can propagate a claim to charisma across dispersed sites, for instance, by hosting a YouTube show, maintaining an account in Instagram, sharing short clips in Tik Tok, making a Facebook group, a personal or fan page, organizing courses in Coursera and Udemy, creating podcasts for Spotify and Apple Podcasts, and adding links to all the above in their website. The coach can employ the design and connectivity afordances of platforms, facilitating the aesthetic and technical features that would accompany their curated persona.

But how do platforms mediate this relationship and the claim of charisma that a coach needs to make? Contrary to the pre-modern guru, who had to communicate their charisma in physical proximity to their followers by speaking at a gathering, the contemporary coach can potentially have a global reach thanks to the internet. Media technologies are prosthetic extensions that transform the relationship between the authority figure and their followers (Lury, 2013). Older technology, like the megaphone, could only amplify a guru’s voice within a limited range. Later, printing technologies could overcome the proximity barrier by making this voice a transmittable object, which by means of reproduction and duplication can be transported in diverse geographical locations.3 Inventions like the audio recording, radio, television, and video shrank time and space even more. Social media platforms provide the coach with a simplified interface for setting up a personal brand as well as, importantly, an audience that can stick around on its own accord, to go back to Chapter 3. Yet platforms, as sociotechnical apparatuses, do more than that. By making their afordances readily available, they confront any cultural producer with the curatorial imperative as the latter becomes an everyday and relatively efortless encounter. By seizing this encounter, the coach should organize a business model in the context of a potentially global marketplace of supply and demand; in contrast to gurus of the past, modern life coaches can own multiple virtual spaces through which they can reach audiences, and manage the production, distribution, and returns of their coaching business as well as its overall aesthetics and design. It is not simply the guru’s voice that is amplified by the platforms; the mere availability of platforms means that potential gurus can turn into little artists and little entrepreneurs at the same time.

In the more gatekept traditional media, a coaching guru would for instance get a ten-minute television slot in a morning show or a one-page interview in the popular press, that is, the guru’s performance would be subject to the editorial processes of the medium. On a platform, the guru possesses “unlimited airtime”—potentially infinite temporal and spatial bandwidth for writing, speaking, and generally curating their persona. This is a shift from representational to presentational media, as David Marshall calls this transition, bringing about the possibility of articulating a “widening dimension of the public self” (Marshall, 2010: 40), a self that is distributed throughout the digital information landscape and scrutinized by audiences and followers. In reference to the celebrity culture that Marshall writes about, the representational regime of traditional media bent heavily toward the editorial function of the medium and its managers, as “culture and politics have relied upon a media filtering system to organize and hierarchize what is valuable, significant, and important” (2010: 45). Conversely, in presentational media, this filtering is not the responsibility of an external editor but largely becomes a task that the (aspiring) celebrities need to address themselves or with the assistance of independently contracted social media managers. Coaching gurus curate their online identities via personal or partly outsourced (depending on the budget) curatorial labor coalescing aesthetic considerations around design, visuals, layouts, logos, texts, photography and audio, and organizational concerns around pricing, subcontracting, networking, hiring, collaborating, and micro-managing relations with followers. In other words, platforms confront coaches (and cultural producers in general) with the apparatus of curation as the editorial function is now theirs to manage.

The platformization of the coaching persona then gives access to technological afordances for potentially elevating a coach to a micro-celebrity (or even more alluringly a proper celebrity). The term micro-celebrity refers not simply to a recognizable person within a niche online milieu, say about climbing, perfumes, or wines, but to an online practice that involves constructing audiences as fans by curating a carefully crafted personage (Marwick, 2015).4 It is defined less by the number of followers but by a set of techniques that correspond to laboring skills: “a self-presentation technique in which people view themselves as a public persona to be consumed by others, uses strategic intimacy to appeal to followers, and regards their audience as fans” (Marwick, 2015: 337). The prehistory of online micro-celebrity, dates back to the models of the erotic web cam industry, who are one of the earliest examples of online self-presentation via these techniques and laboring skills (Abidin, 2018; Jones, 2020; Senft, 2008). For Theresa Senft (2008), who popularized the term micro-celebrity in reference to the camgirls of the late 1990s, the micro-celebrity refers to “a new style of online performance in which people employ webcams, video, audio, blogs, and social networking sites to ‘amp up’ their popularity among readers, viewers, and those to whom they are linked online” (2008: 25).5 The camgirls were also the “beta testers” of all the subsequently established labor practices that were employed to achieve internet fame, including the “building of self as a brand, and engagement in a specific form of emotional labor” (2008: 8). Micro-celebrity labor difers from that of the traditional celebrity most notably in the ways it connects with fans by practicing intimacy, authenticity, accountability, and especially continuous relatability (Lewis, 2020; Raun, 2018).6 The labor of relating regards the creation and management of ongoing relationships with fans, even if these relationships may not always be pleasant to the platform curator; for instance, in the ethnographic research of Dumont a male microcelebrity in professional rock-climbing has to communicate with followers in a way that he appears inspirational and engaged, while he does not particularly like or even feels uncomfortable with these followers (Dumont, 2017). More than that, relational labor is a key for deterring legitimacy crises or potential canceling (Ng, 2023),7 as micro-celebrities constantly have to appear as authentic, open, transparent, and accountable to their audiences. While the traditional celebrity would maintain distance and unreachability from fans, the micro-celebrity must be confessional, reciprocal, and engaged, that is “curate a persona that feels continuously authentic, interactive, and celebrity-like regardless of the size or state of one’s audience” (Abidin, 2018: 12). Navigating platform afordances, then, as a micro-celebrity (or often as an ordinary user) entails the cultivation of communicative skills that can be put to work for instilling trust to the followers (Lewis and Christin, 2022; Lewis, 2020; Raun, 2018).

Curating Mindsets, Micro-Celebrities, and Intimacies

135

The platformized life coach follows these micro-celebrity techniques to various extents in order to be elevated to the level of an expert, trustworthy, and guru-like figure in matters pertaining to spiritual guidance. I followed several coaches in their platform-based incarnations, listening to podcasts, tracking their social media accounts, subscribing to groups and mailing lists, and taking two coaching courses so that I become a certified coach myself. The virtual communities, forums, discussion groups, and seminars that these life coaches maintain help garnering additional publicity and magnifying their reputational scope. For instance, the self-described “social entrepreneur and active thinker” Kain Ramsay (Ramsay, 2022), whose course I attended, maintains a discussion group on Facebook titled “The Principles Into Practice” with nearly 70,000 members at the time of writing. The purpose of the group is to bring together “like-minded individuals from all around the world who are studying, or who have studied, Kain Ramsay or Achology associated on-demand training courses” and one of its stated goals is to give “details about NEW Kain Ramsay training products” (The “Principles Into Practice” Discussion Group, nd). Ramsey is thus the spiritually leading persona around whom the activity of the group revolves. For example, the group’s feed consists of inspirational quotes from his work, links to his writings and courses, lives streams with Ramsey ofering advice, interviews with Ramsey taken by other Achology members, and other people’s testimonies about how useful Ramsey’s coaching was. There are also regular links to the website of Achology (of which Ramsey is the founder and director) and to Ramsay’s own webpage. These websites serve as both permanent information hubs for Ramsay’s past and future work and commercial spaces selling courses, books, merch, and other material. In this sense, the platform is both an amplifier of the guru’s voice and a scafolding that facilitates transactions by directing to personal websites that sell the coach’s services. Apart from the aesthetic, Ramsey, or most probably his media managers, take care of the organizational part by coordinating the group, setting community guidelines, and administering the micro-debates and often disputes that occur between members. Groups, pages, and forums are sites for micro-curatorial labor within the larger space of the social media platform.

136

Cultures of Platform Capitalism

Likewise, the “professional speakers, trainers, and coaches” Joeel and Natalie Rivera, from the “Transformation Academy”, whose online course I also attended, maintain virtual communities that revolve around them. They maintain a networking page of around 56,000 followers and 58,000 likes on Facebook where they constantly post videos and quotes of themselves or praise their courses. This page claims the relatively popular mandate of personal and professional freedom within the coaching industry, as it aims to “empower INDIEpreneurs”, or what they call “self-employed freedom junkies”, to “create purpose-driven business” (Transformation Academy, nd). Joeel and Natalie Rivera demonstrate seniority and expertise in recruiting new industry talents as they regularly invite emerging coaches in their online videos and seminars, who specialize in various types of problem solving. Their self-representations in this group involve, similar to Ramsay’s, numerous stylized photos of themselves that communicate greatness and determined vision. These pictures show the coaches as unwavering visionaries and entrepreneurs, similar to what we saw in Chapter 4 with @demnagram, accompanied by motivational quotes from their work. Motivational pictures are an additional medium for coach self-curating as the fans encounter Enlightened mentors whose overarching words of wisdom give solutions to everyday problems.

Curating Mindsets, Micro-Celebrities, and Intimacies

137

The most important arenas of legitimacy for the micro-celebrity coach are however their courses, seminars, and lectures which eventually manifest their capacity to transfer knowledge and advice. These arenas are not merely important for the symbolic capital they can ofer to the coaches, as posting photos and reels for instance mostly does, but they are additionally an important source of income (sold in platforms either as on-demand sessions or live streams or a variation of both). Apart from revenue, the courses are also a guarantee that their community will reproduce itself and develop as new members join it. I enrolled in two life coaching on-demand courses in Udemy, the first titled “Life Coaching Certificate Course (Beginner to Intermediate)”, led by Ramsay, and the second titled “Transformation Life Coach Certification (Accredited)” led by the Joeel and Natalie Rivera. I completed both courses and for both I received a certificate via email, the former accredited by “Achology” and the latter by the “Transformation Academy”, which are both self-styled online academies founded by the instructors of the courses. Generally, online coaching courses would typically lead to some sort of certificate that is accredited by a school. The terms “certificate”, “accreditation”, and “school” are critical for luring clients as they make these courses look credible assuring a qualification that can be used as a proof of expertise among followers and fans. It is, for instance, not rare to see a younger, aspiring coach adding to their Instagram profile the titles of the courses they have completed appearing as accredited coaches by a school. Thus, for freelance coaches like Ramsey or Joeel and Natalie Rivera the establishment of a school (Achology and the Transformation Academy respectively), whatever a school in this case means, functions as a façade of credibility, as the students can think that their course is certified by a school, that is by an institution rather than just a person. Yet, if there were no online platforms these schools would simply not exist, at least in their current form, as they would not be able to physically attract students from all over the world. The numbers sound astronomical: indicatively, at the time of writing, Ramsay ofers 32 diferent pre-recorded coaching courses in Udemy and has been a teacher to 615,835 students with 152,635 reviews, while Joeel and Natalie Rivera ofer 96 courses and had 569,001 students with 184,720 reviews.8

These and other schools in the English-speaking coaching field and beyond include online and ofline courses that greatly vary in price, quality, duration, pricing models, and learning outcomes.9 Tellingly, the Institute for Professional Excellence in Coaching (IPEC) charges almost \$12,000 for two years of attendance, the course ofered by Brookes Castillo and the Life Coach School ranges between \$1,800 and \$3,000, while the ondemand Udemy courses cost around \$150 (most coaching courses after the COVID-19 pandemic adapted an online format). In turn, the International

138

Cultures of Platform Capitalism

Coaching Federation (ICF) is probably the most recognizable institutional body that certifies quality in the coaching industry, accrediting coaches and courses ofered by other schools or educators. In their website they thus boast being the gold standard of the industry: “Anyone can call themselves a coach. But ICF-credentialed coaches are professionals who have met stringent education and experience requirements and have demonstrated a thorough understanding of the coaching competencies that set the standard in the profession” (International Coaching Federation, 2023). Other coaching organizations can then apply for having their courses approved by ICF and use the “accredited by ICF” label as a badge of prestige (Ackerman, 2021).10 In turn, the coaching entrepreneurs, who for whatever reason are not collaborating or are competing with ICF, are profiting by the coaching industry’s deregulation. “At The Life Coach School”, Castillo and her team emphatically say, “we did not and will not apply for Certification through the International Coaching Federation (ICF)” (The Life Coach School, nd: 24–25). This field in-the-making then reflects the “rhizomatic dispersion” of expertise and authority in neoliberalism (Kaščák and Pupala, 2011: 148), according to which a semi-institutional actor can make a claim to authority and challenge the legitimacy of other actors. In coaching, there is no governmental body that holds undisputed authority over the field, it is the entrepreneurial enterprise and the market that decides which knowledge agendas are valid. In the context of these multi-platform interactions of schools and learning programs, expertise becomes efervescent as it can be seized by individual coaches or their schools via performative claiming. Such performative claiming provides to coaches like Castillo, Ramsay, and Joeel and Natalie Rivera the chance to prove their credentials via reviews, rankings, clips, interviews, and other platform material potentially leading to micro-celebritization. In the next two sections, we move from the coach’s curation in the platform economy to the strategies for self-curating that this multi-billion-dollar industry endorses and promotes. In Section 6.4, I focus on what I regard as the staple frames of self-curating, including discipline, mindset, confidence, and resilience, and in Section 6.5, I look at how these frames take shape in the heterosexual male coaching discourse around the areas of sex and intimacy.

6.4 Curating Lives of Discipline, Confidence, and Resilience

The purpose of describing the strategies of self-curating is to turn attention to the cultures, values, and meaning the curatorial imperative endorses. Similar to what was argued before, the next two sections argue that the curatorial imperative expands cultures of self-absorption, fulfillment, and inspiration. The main principle that coaching cultures endorse is that life and the self should be perceived and efectively curated as projects. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, the self in this endeavor should be both the project’s supervisor and the entity to be supervised. While this distinction is not usually made explicit by coaches themselves, let us, for the sake of analysis, call the “uncurated self” an entity with a damaging propensity toward disorganization, indulgence, conformity, and laziness, and the “curator self” as the potentially rational, organized, and prudent supervisor of this entity. It is a project then that has a particular aim to transform the uncurated self into an improved version of the self.

Curating Mindsets, Micro-Celebrities, and Intimacies

139