Our World Is a Diasimocracy*

We're past those other -ocracies and in a new era

(Source: YayImages)

* NOTE: A reader on Medium learned in Greek grammar alerted me that I had formed the word from the incorrect case of διάσημος. The neologism should be “diasimocracy” not “Diasimosocracy” as I originally had it. I apologize for the error.

---

Oh, hello. Good to see you here. I am grateful for the minor miracle that brought you here.

I’m always surprised and pleased that anyone sees what I write. That’s because I’m a nobody. Oh, I don’t think that about myself; I’m not lacking self-esteem. But I am lacking that amorphous yet brutally tangible attribute of celebrity. And celebrity is what matters these days. Celebrity dominates. Thus, in the eyes of society, in this diasimocracy, I am nobody.

What Is Diasimocracy?

Diasimocracy (dē-as-ee-moʊ-krə-sē). It’s a neologism that I am guilty of creating. It is formed from the ancient Greek word for “celebrity” διάσημος (diásimos) and by “diasimocracy” I mean “rule by celebrities.” I think it is a fitting term for describing our current time. I’ll explain.

We live in the information age—a time of ever increasing information. More human-made words and images exist than ever before. The widespread availability of mass media and online interconnectivity spread that information far and wide. In theory, we currently have access to more information than anyone in human history.

In practice, our access to information is heavily mediated. Capitalism and corporate dominance of information, and especially media, significantly structure and hinder what access people have to information. Much has been written on those economic and political structures and their effects on our lives, so I won’t, for now, expand on that.

The economic and political structures that mediate information are themselves mediated by the social gravity of celebrity. People are drawn to those who are famous and people assume that if one is famous, that makes one interesting, even fascinating.

That something is popular doesn’t make it good. That many people believe something doesn’t make it true. This should be obvious, and yet, argumentum ad populum, the “argument to the people,” or argument from popularity, is a very common logical fallacy, and it is at work in the fascination with celebrity. The fallacy is also called the “bandwagon fallacy” because of the human vulnerability to be drawn in by spectacle and the crowd.

There is a related fallacy of celebrity that influences how information is distributed and consumed, and this feeds the diasimocracy. If given the choice between reading something written by a celebrity or something written by a noncelebrity, the vast majority of people will read the celebrity’s writing. Not because it is good or contains truths, but because people are drawn in by spectacle and celebrity status. In fact, I suspect that most people will prefer a poorly written article from a celebrity even if they are told there’s a better one written by a nobody.

Media corporations know this. They give screen time and column space to celebrities. They create algorithms to drive information consumers to celebrities. The media space is dominated by those already famous, which makes them even more famous, and this recursive process of escalating nepotism rules society and perpetuates the diasimocracy. Decisions made by both providers and consumers of information are ruled by this bias in favor of celebrity. Fame—that amorphous yet brutally tangible attribute—is prized for its own sake and is power in itself. Functionally, our society is a diasimocracy—rule by celebrity.

The unfortunate side effects of the diasimocracy are that quality and diversity of content are lost. The bias toward celebrity crowds out other considerations and thus other ideas and other people, creating the lowest common denominator and the race toward the bottom.

The shallowness of diasimocracy (Source: iStock)

The Tyranny of Diasimocracy

The diasimocracy is a form of government, both implicitly and explicitly. Aristotle identified three forms of government—rule by one, few, or many—and further identified the positive and negative manifestations of those forms depending on who benefits from the rule. If a form of government benefits the rulers, it is negative, and if it benefits the common interest, it is positive.

Source: this article which gives a good explanation of Aristotle’s thinking

Aristotle made a valuable distinction. When considering actions, whom the powers that be recognize and include as valuable people go a long way toward a healthy and just society. In theory, at least, rule by one person can be positive if the rule benefits the common interest, rather than just the person ruling.

I add to Aristotle’s forms of government a social dimension that he couldn't have anticipated—the presence of the information economy and mass media. In Aristotle’s time, and for many centuries later, one learned by going to a distinct place of learning—a school, library, or monastery where the information existed. Knowledge is power, as Francis Bacon observed, and those who had gained knowledge were respected as learned people. Information distribution was ruled by a meritocracy—not perfectly, of course, economic and nepotistic forces interfered as they always have and still do. Nevertheless, the ideal of going to the experts to learn information has been the historical norm.

That has changed in the information age and the prevalence of mass media. Thus, to Aristotle’s rule by the one, few, or many, I add the column of rule by the media—print, radio, television, movies, and digital. Rule by the media can be positive or negative depending on whose interests it includes and benefits.

Meritocracy is the positive form in which what information is distributed is based on the skill of the creators and the high quality of content; experts are prized. Diasimocracy is the negative form in which what information is distributed is based on the fame of the creator, regardless of the quality or value of the content; experts are ignored.

Evidence that we live in a diasimocracy is easily found in mass media, especially social media. The number of views and likes of any social media content reflects not the quality of the content but the popularity of the creator. In social media, the recursive process of escalating nepotism rules, as the platforms promote celebrities, consumers gravitate toward celebrities, and the loop continues. When a celebrity shows up on a media platform, they will instantly attract many followers. If a new creator gets lucky and gains a following, often by aping other celebrities, they become a celebrity and the loop continues. The celebrities know that they don’t need to care about producing high-quality content, so they don’t.

Under the power of the corporate media, diasimocracy is a means of dominance and control that restricts information and who has access to it. The corporate media exploits the human vulnerability to be fooled by the bandwagon fallacy, and the rule by the media benefits not the common interest but the interests of the celebrities and the corporate gatekeepers.

The mass media is an information space ruled by celebrity. Those who try to get noticed in the mass media through merit are all but shut out. You can say that media corporations are motivated by money, as is the nature of corporate capitalism, but ask yourself what is driving the revenue that media corporations want to grab. That would be the rule by celebrities. The information space is a celebrity economy, and the corporations are simply exploiting that.

This is the diasimocracy in which we live. It is a tyranny that benefits a few but not the common interest. Fame has always had its advantages. By definition, the more well known you are the more people are aware of you and what you say and do. Fame is a good for the person receiving fame, but that does not necessarily translate to a good for the greater society.

Worse, many people crave being a celebrity. The need for recognition and the desire for fame and fortune can become an obsession. People will lie, cheat, and steal for a bit of fame without regard to truth, integrity, or who they harm. The diasimocracy feeds those cravings and the negative attitudes and actions that follow.

We are ruled by celebrities. Admit it, you are far more likely to click on a post with 1,000 likes than one with 10 likes. It’s human nature. Is a diasimocracy inevitable and intractable? Can we go back to a meritocracy—if we ever truly had one—or create a society that prizes merit over celebrity?

Coincidentally, as I wrote that last paragraph, my university e-mail pinged that I had a new message—the kind of conference invitation I get as a philosophy professor. It was a broadcast e-mail inviting people to a “festival of ideas” organized by an “institute of ideas.” This institute does some good work, so I looked at the list of twelve headliners anticipated at the event. I knew eleven of the names, familiar with who they were and what they’ve written. Four politicians (two formerly so), six mass-market writers, one physician, and (the one I didn’t know) a physicist. Were they selected for this “festival of ideas” because of their ideas or because they are celebrities? Sorry to say, being familiar with these people, I suspect the latter. Even intellectual institutes are ruled by celebrities.

But what do I know? I’m a nobody. If I was famous, I could say any old nonsense and receive many, many cheers for it, even get elected president. But I’m interested in truth more than in celebrity. Sadly, integrity is incompatible with our diasimocracy, as, apparently, am I.