Read moreAcross the world, since the 2000s, the notion of “influence” (and “influencer”) has emerged with the explosion of social media. Widely used in marketing and gradually gaining ground in multiple spheres, influence, which consists of "rallying an audience to one's views", tends "to modify the dispositions of the influenced person with regard to a present situation, or to future events in which he or she is likely to participate" (Bremond, 1970, p. 60), is not a new activity. With the emergence of blogs, the activity of influence has become popular and then professionalized under the effect of an expansion of audiences and thanks to the support of advertising agencies ("Digital influencer", Wikipedia, 2022). It was then with the rise of digital social networks and smartphones that the term "influencer" became widespread in the 2010s (id.). The areas of influence are numerous, ranging from the most prosaic themes (beauty, sport, fashion, travel, etc.) to the most committed (feminist, intersectional, "body positivist", anti-speciesist, vegan movements, etc.). Depending on the field, influential people are more represented according to their gender, class, age or “race” and more or less legitimized in light of these categories. From a socio-economic point of view, the question of valorization becomes all the more pressing as influential people seek to remunerate their activity (or have the need to) - even if the latter is initially constituted as a project with essentially symbolic value - and others strictly professionalize it. However, if the notion of influence and its derivatives emerged under the influence of marketing, a certain number of professionals or social actors deploy an activity of "influence" with the intention of raising awareness or rallying to a cause according to a more or less affirmed perspective of social change. The very notion of “influence” is unstable and deserves to be questioned and discussed. It is indeed grappling with power relations and hierarchical phenomena: the influence would be on the side of marketing and carrying neoliberal values ​​(Brown, 2018), when those of journalism or activism would be associated with more humanist and intellectualist values ​​of commitment. Thus, some areas or “causes” of influence would be more noble than others. Everything suggests that power relations are played out and replayed at all levels: in the way in which people position themselves, for example between those presenting themselves as influencers with an assumed commercial perspective (promoting a product, a brand, etc.), and those claiming to be more journalists, militants or activists and thus rejecting such a designation in order to distance themselves from any economic dimension. This would be found in positioning strategies, more or less exposed to various normative injunctions, and thus in the way in which these people perform their self and the activity they deploy, but also in the way in which they master (and appropriate) sociotechnical devices and their socioeconomic logic. From a transnational, socioeconomic and intersectional perspective (Quemener, 2020), the challenge of this issue is to question the relationships of minimization that are played out in the world of "influence" with regard to constraints that govern valorization strategies and algorithmic logic. Taking note of the economic strategies that are found, and sometimes even hidden behind the activity of influence and the constraints specific to the issues of valorization, the question is twofold: on the one hand, it is a question of questioning the way in which the relations of minimization, that is to say the social relations of gender, race, class or age… contribute to “structuring” the contents; on the other hand, it is a question of questioning the role that influencers exercise both in the renewal and in the deconstruction of the dominant norms and categories (gendered, racial or generational…) by taking into account the digital industries, the specificity of the platforms and the algorithmic logics, perceived as so many actors in the shaking or the renewal of these norms (Garlick, 2020). We can therefore ask ourselves the question of the socio-demographic or socio-cultural characteristics associated with influencers, although this “role” is today no longer reserved for humans (see p. ex. Lil Miquela: https://www.instagram.com/lilmiquela/). To what extent do these characteristics contribute to disrupting or not certain hegemonic norms, in terms of gender, age, class or race…? Depending on sui generis socio-cultural and economic contexts, do genders, classes, “races”, ages, “handicaps” or ethnic origins favour, or even establish, the position of influential person in a particular field and vice versa? To what extent can certain socio-demographic affiliations play a role in certain areas of influence? Is there a correlation between the socio-demographic characteristics of influencers and their sphere of influence? What place do minorities occupy there and in what spheres of influence? Can belonging to a minority constitute an epistemic privilege or, on the contrary, a source of epistemic injustice and ipso facto harm influence strategies? To what extent could a deficiency, a handicap or a stigma not be “used” to create a “trademark” and establish notoriety (Bourdeloie, 2021)? Conversely, would minorities be de facto excluded from certain spheres because they are stigmatized because of their gender, body, class, ethnicity or age... dominated? To what extent is the promotion of certain spheres conditioned by affiliations of gender, sex, class, race, age or sexual orientation? To what extent are certain “spheres” imbued with gender stereotypes…? To what extent do we observe a gender, racial, social distribution based on the subjects and types of content or creations carried by the accounts? How, in these spaces, are social norms replayed and (re)performed or subverted? To what extent can pay gaps occur based on criteria such as sex/gender, race or age, etc.? ? What socio-economic strategies are emerging behind the issues of symbolic recognition, social mobilization or activism? With many socio-economic actors being caught up and interacting in the production/distribution/consumption chain (Bullich and Schmitt, 2019) of online videos (creators, platforms, brands, advertisers, intermediaries for the purchase of followers or subscribers, and today even "influencer schools"1), we can also ask ourselves how influencers position themselves in this chain of cooperation of actors, and the constraints they face in the logic of valorizing their productions, depending on their category(ies) of belonging, claimed or not. Constraints can in this sense be seen as the difficulty - or on the contrary the greater ease - of being visible according to the social and discursive position taken from the yardstick of a represented and valued sociocultural field. We invite you to approach these questions through three axes: Axis 1. Representation of minorities and performance In France and internationally (Mullen, 2020), the world of influence on social media is said to be predominantly female (75% of influencers) and young (29 years old on average) - although the age varies depending on the platform (Reech, 2020): on Instagram, 84% of influencers are women (Buxton, 2017; Statista, 2019), but they are said to be underrepresented in social media such as YouTube (Wotanis and McMillan, 2014). This difference could be explained in particular by the way of presenting themselves, with men presenting themselves as creators rather than as influencers (Grey Ellis, 2019). In the world of influence, women suffer from unequal treatment in terms of income (Klear, 2019), although here again, this observation should be qualified depending on the platforms (Buxton, 2017). In fact, female influencers would earn on average 31% less than men for a partnership (Aubert, 2019) while the salary gap is, according to INSEE, 18,5%. Studies even show that sectors tend to favor influencers based on their gender (ibid.). Furthermore, it appears that the comments generated by the videos produced would be more negative when the videos come from women, particularly on YouTube (Wotanis and McMillian, 2014, p. 924), although this observation also needs to be qualified according to the activities of influence: the comments would be negative when women highlight their sexuality but not when they conform to the gender norms assigned to them (Döring and Rohangis, 2017). In any case, these inequalities would reflect deeper systems of power and entrenched structural hierarchies (Gill, 2014; Brooke and Hund, 2019). We can therefore question here the claimed and assigned “identity” of influencers in an intersectional relationship. Who are they? To what extent are influencing or creative activities assigned to a gender, race or age…? What about non-binary people or personalities? To what extent are minority people (trans, disabled, etc.) represented? And in what areas of influence? To what extent do their performances help normalize what society sees as “stigma”? How is commitment to a cause conditioned or not by demographic and socio-cultural affiliations? Axis 2. Renewal and deconstruction of dominant norms and categories Digital platforms are places where hegemonic gender norms are produced and reproduced, but also constitute grounds for resistance (Quemener, 2020) and deconstruction. They are both invested in gender performances that confirm certain stereotypes (Allard, 2019; Balleys, 2016), and in logics that aim to subvert these hegemonic gender norms (Quemener, 2015). Minorized, some influencers are supported by brands that see in bodies that disrupt gender - even though they meet aesthetic standards - commercial opportunities, like the black Saudi model Ziad al-Mesfer2 or Fabian3, a makeup influencer on social networks. With the emergence of social media, activist accounts linked to feminisms and related issues (misogynoir, intersectionality, race, domesticity, body, etc.) have multiplied. Conducive to activism (Blandin, 2017), the internet has given rise to new feminist demands (Frau-Meigs, 2018) driven by the technical logics of these platforms (Jouët, 2022, p. 161). We could thus question the meanings and effects of these activisms which, by relying on individual creation, expressive talent and socio-digital devices, produce performances (Jouët, 2022) which promote self-cult and feed the neoliberal ideology (Ehrenberg, 1991; Jouët, 2022, p. 173). Finally, we could ask ourselves to what extent the subversions or renewals of dominant norms do not conceal issues of monetization, but also to what extent these performances contribute to “remaking” the genre. Axis 3. In search of visibility: influencers and algorithmic logic The so-called “platforms” on which influencers deploy their activities are both socio-technical devices and digital intermediation agents. The latter capture a share of the value generated by this connection, while defining the terms of these exchanges and commitments. Platforms therefore carry certain “constraints” (Agamben, 2014; Bullich, 2021; Mattelart, 2020) which guide the visibility strategies (Bouquillion, 2020) of their user-contributors. In doing so, we could ask ourselves to what extent these devices do not participate in the reproduction of dominant social norms, by influencing the way in which influencers adjust their creations according to the knowledge they have of these dynamics. The algorithms operating on platforms have long been at the center of this type of thinking dealing with “algorithmic bias.” Nick Seaver pointed them out in relation to race around the infamous example of “Jacky Alcine” (2018), or even Etlyn J. Kenny and Rory Donnelly (2020) and Susan Leavy (2018) in relation to gender. We could question the way in which influencers construct, potentially collectively, knowledge on these algorithmic logics to integrate them into their visibility strategy on the platforms. The methodological approach developed by Sophie Bishop based on what she calls "algorithmic gossip" (2019) seems to us to be heuristic in this sense in that it seeks to grasp the strategic management of algorithmic visibility as a source of knowledge about algorithms. This approach thus makes it possible to understand “the strategies used by content creators to negotiate and maintain their visibility on YouTube”, and thus reveal “how the perceptions of algorithms inform [in return] the production of content” (id.)4. Given the opaque and changing nature of algorithms that makes it impossible to know with certainty why content is or is not promoted and gains visibility, could we not consider what Sophie Bishop calls “gossip” (as “common and socially informed knowledge about algorithms and algorithmic visibility”) as a relevant tool for analysing more broadly “how risk management influences the rationalisation of cultural production” (ibid.)? Beyond a "fetishization" of algorithms, this type of investigation method invites us to consider the way in which this knowledge, the fruit of specific interactions and socializations, influences production standards as well as the dynamics of reproduction of social standards. Submitting an Article Proposal Article proposals should be between 1 and 200 words (excluding bibliography). They will present the title, the problem, the methodology, including the empirical basis used, and the main results. The proposal must be anonymous. The author will indicate his name, institution of affiliation and contact details directly in the email. Please send your proposals by email to the two coordinators: Hélène BOURDELOİE: Helene.Bourdeloie@univ-Paris13.fr Alix BÉNISTANT: alix.benistant@univ-paris13.fr before June 14, 2023. Receipt of each proposal will result in an acknowledgement of receipt by email. Calendar March 20, 2023 Call for contributions June 14, 2023 Deadline for sending article proposals. The proposals will be evaluated by the scientific committee with regard to their relevance to the thematic file and their scientific quality. June 28, 2023 Notification of acceptance or rejection of proposals November 1, 2023 Accepted authors send their complete articles directly to the journal Communication: revue.communication@com.ulaval.ca. The length of the final article, if the proposal is accepted, will be 40,000 to 60,000 characters, not including spaces (this includes notes but excludes the bibliography). Please follow the editorial guidelines of the journal http://journals.openedition.org/communication/6159. Each article will be double-blind peer-reviewed by an independent reading committee. The coordinating committee, in consultation with the editorial team of the Communication journal, will decide, in light of the evaluations, whether to accept as is, request modifications or reject. January 24, 2024 Return to authors on the article March 27, 2024 Submission of the new version of the article directly to the Communication journal: revue.communication@com.ulaval.ca. The coordinating committee will verify whether the changes made meet the recommendations of the independent reading committee. April 17, 2024 Back to authors on the new version. May to July 2024 Linguistic revision and return to authors for validation and authorization to publish Summer 2024 Publication Scientific Committee Camille ALLOING (UQAM), Sébastien APPIOTTI (Celsa – Sorbonne University), Romain BADOUARD (Paris Panthéon-Assas University), Claire BLANDIN (Sorbonne Paris Nord University), Hélène BREDA (Sorbonne Paris Nord University), Lucile COQUELIN (Paris 8 Vincennes University in Saint-Denis), Alexandre COUTANT (UQAM), Lucie DELIAS (Paul Valéry University – Montpellier 3), Sophie JEHEL (Paris 8 Vincennes University in Saint-Denis), Tristan MATTELART (Paris Panthéon – Assas University), Julien MESENGEAU (University of Lille), Céline MORIN (Paris Nanterre University), Nelly QUEMENER (Celsa – Sorbonne University), Louis WIART (Free University of Brussels). Bibliography AGAMBEN Giorgio (2014), What is a device?, Paris, Rivages, Pocket. ALLARD Laurence (2019), “Subaltern youth and loops of recognition in the age of expressivist streaming (micro-video, tag, fanbase)”, in Abdelfettah BENCHENNA, Hélène BOURDELOIE and Zineb MAJDOULI (eds.), Cultures and young adults in the Mediterranean region. Circulations, practices and soft power, Paris, L'Harmattan. AUBERT Patrick (2019). “Gender equality: not yet among influencers!”, ZDNet, June 11. Online: https://www.zdnet.fr/blogs/watch-it/galite-femme-homme-pas-encore-ca-chez-les-influenceurs-39885837.htm BALLEYS Claire (2016), ““We the guys”. "The staging of male intimacy on YouTube," in Martin OLIVIER (ed.), The Ordinary of the Internet. The web in our practices and social relations, Malakoff, Paris, Armand Colin, p. 182-202. Online: https://www.cairn.info/l-ordinaire-d-internet–9782200613112-page-182.htm. BISHOP Sophie (2019), “Managing Visibility on YouTube Through Algorithmic Gossip”, New Media & Society, 1(18). Online: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444819854731. BLANDIN Claire (2017), “Presentation. The web: new activist practices in the history of feminism? ", Networks, 201, p. 9-17, https://doi.org/10.3917/res.201.0009. BOUQUILLION Philippe (2020), “Visibility strategies, the role of platforms”, Digital Issues, 10, Annals of Mines, p. 21-26. BOURDELOIE Hélène (2021), “Genders and digital”, Publictionnaire. Encyclopedic and critical dictionary of audiences, http://publictionnaire.huma-num.fr/notice/genre-s-et-numerique, page consulted on March 17, 2023. BREMOND Claude (1970), “The role of influencer”, Communications, 16, p. 60-69, https://www.persee.fr/doc/comm_0588-8018_1970_num_16_1_1229, accessed on March 17, 2023. BROOKE Erin Duffy and Emily HUND (2019), “Gendered Visibility on Social Media: Navigating Instagram's Authenticity Bind”, International Journal of Communication, 13, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/11729, page consulted on March 17, 2023. BROWN Wendy (2018), Undoing the demos. Neoliberalism, a stealthy revolution, Paris, Amsterdam. BULLICH Vincent and Laurie SCHMITT (2019), “Cultural industries conquering platforms? », tic&société, 13(1-2), http://journals.openedition.org/ticetsociete/3032, page consulted on 22 March 2023. BULLICH Vincent (2021), “Platform, platformize, platformization: the peril of words that obscure what they name”, Questions de communication, 40, p. 47-70. BUXTON Madeline (2017), “Women have long ruled Instagram — But the boys are catching up”, Refinery29, May 4, https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2017/05/152932/instagram-influencer- gender-salary-difference?utm_source=feed&utm_medium=rss, page consulted on March 23, 2023. DÖRING Nicola and Mohseni ROHANGIS (2017), “Male dominance and sexism on YouTube: results of three content analyses”, Feminist Media Studies, 19(4), p. 512-524, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1467945, page consulted on March 17, 2023. EHRENBERG Alain (1991), The Cult of Performance, Paris, Calmann-Lévy. FRAU-MEIGS Divina (2018), “The digital weapons of the new feminist wave”, The Conversation France, February 12, https://theconversation.com/les-armes-numeriques-de-la-nouvelle- vague-feministe-91512, page consulted on March 13, 2023. GARLICK Hattie (2020), “Why gender stereotypes are perpetuated on Instagram”, Financial Times, March 13, https://www.ft.com/content/2cc5ca3a-6337-11ea-a6cd-df28cc3c6a68, page accessed March 13, 2023 . GILL Rosalind (2014), “Unspeakable inequalities: Post feminism, entrepreneurial subjectivity, and the repudiation of sexism among cultural workers”, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 21(4), p. 509-528. "Digital influencer", Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Influenceur_num%C3%A9rique&oldid=192072448, page consulted on March 17, 2023. GRAY ELLIS Emma (2019), “Why women are called “influencers” and men “creators””, Wired, May 29, https://www.wired.com/story/influencers-creators-gender-divide/, page consulted on March 13, 2023. JOUËT Josiane (2022), Digital, feminism and society, Paris, Presses des mines. KENNY Etlyn J. and Rory DONNELLY (2020), “Navigating the gender structure in information technology: How does this affect the experiences and behaviors of women? », Human relations, 73(3), p. 326-350. KLEAR (2019), The Complete Klear 2019 Pricing Report, https://www.zdnet.fr/blogs/watch-it/galite-femme-homme-pas-encore-ca-chezlesinfluenceurs-39885837.htm, page consulted on 13 March 2023. LEAVY Susan (2018), “Gender bias in artificial intelligence: The need for diversity and gender theory in machine learning”, ACM/IEEE, First International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering, https://ame-association.fr/wp -content/uploads/2018/11/17.188_gender_bias_in_artifical_intelligence_the_need_for_diversity_and_gender_theory_in_machine_learning.pdf, page consulted on March 13, 2023. MATTELART Tristan (2020), “Understanding Facebook’s strategy towards news media”, On journalism, About journalism, Sobre jornalismo, 9(1), https://revue.surlejournalisme.com/slj, page consulted on March 17, 2023. MULLEN Caitlin (2020), “Gender pay gap among influencers grows as audience size does,” Bizwomen, January 16, https://www.bizjournals.com/bizwomen/news/latest-news/2020/01/gender-pay-gap-among-influencers-grows-as-audience.html?page=all, page consulted on March 17, 2023. QUEMENER Nelly (2020), “Beyond Binarisms”, Les Cahiers de la SFSIC, Collection 9-Varia, http://cahiers.sfsic.org/sfsic/index.php?id=707, page consulted on March 23, 2023. QUEMENER Nelly (2015), ““Relookez-vous!” Digital platforms supporting the viewer who is an expert in their own look”, Communication Studies. Languages, information, mediations, 44, p. 29-46, http://journals.openedition.org/edc/6153, page consulted on March 10, 2023. REECH (2020), “Influencers and brands. Annual study 2020 – 4th edition”, https://www.reech.com/fr/influence-etude-reech-2020, page consulted on March 10, 2023. SEAVER Nick (2018), “What Should an Anthropology of Algorithms Do? », Cultural Anthropology, 33(3), p. 375-385. STATISTA (2019). “Distribution of influencers creating sponsored posts on Instagram worldwide in 2019, by gender”, https://www.statista.com/statistics/893749/share-influencers-creating-sponsored-posts-by-gender/, page consulted on 10 January 2023. WOTANIS Lindsey and Laurie MCMILLAN (2014), “Performing Gender on YouTube”, Feminist Media Studies, 14(6), p. 912-928, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2014.882373, page consulted on February 11, 2023. Top of page Notes 1 In June 2022, Ambaza was launched, a “school” presenting itself as offering “initial training to become an influencer”: https://ambaza.com/. 2 AFP (2022), “In Saudi Arabia, the male model who is shaking up the genres”, TVA Nouvelles, April 17, https://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2022/04/17/en-arabie-saoudite-lhomme-mannequin-qui-bouscule-les-genres. 3 Simone Media, “Fabian, make-up influencer, fights against gender stereotypes”, simone story, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e8iPKgu2Bs, page consulted on March 17, 2023. 4 Quotes translated from English by us.

"This post is a summary of information from our information monitoring"