Digital Genealogy: Aura, Liquidity, and Burnout in Online Identity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents an interesting theoretical reflection that stems from a contradiction well identified by the authors and framed within the proposal of genealogies. The content and the theoretical proposal offered by the authors are also appreciated, as they represent a reflection of utmost relevance today.

Here some suggestions: 

In the section on Benjamin, where the concept of aura is well developed, it would be advisable to introduce either more of his own works or other authors who contribute to the construction of this concept of aura, from a slightly more contemporary perspective, and who are likely aligned with the direction proposed by the authors.

In the section on Performative Presence and Digital Identity, it would also be advisable to introduce further dialogue with texts by the same authors cited, such as Turkle and Benjamin, or with related discourses that lend contemporaneity to the theoretical proposal —especially when addressing current practices such as selfies, for example. Turkle, in fact, has more recent studies that could provide further robustness to the proposal formulated.

In the case of Bauman’s proposal, by including dialogues with some more recent texts referring to GAI, the article gains solidity. This line should be followed in the previous sections as well, with the intention of updating the theories, mainly Benjamin’s, through current readings adapted to contemporary digital usage.

In the dialogue with Han, where Foucault’s theories are also introduced, it would be advisable to connect it with Michel Foucault’s notion of the invisibility of power as the ultimate expression of the sophistication of power in controlling identity construction (both individual and social). This is fully connected with the "internalization of coercion".

When addressing precarity and self-exploitation, it would be useful to introduce some authors linked to this narrative, such as Herbert Marcuse, Christian Fuchs, or Yanis Varoufakis, who respond to this condition of a networked society from a more post-capitalist perspective. Likewise, when pointing to the concept of the attention economy, the analysis could be complemented with support from other works such as those by Claudio Celis or Cristina Fernández Rovira, rooted in a critique of this form of production.

This contradiction—“the subject accepts performative exhaustion as the price of visibility and belonging”—perhaps deserves greater treatment in the construction of the conclusions, as it is a constant theme in studies on young people’s use of social media, often seen as an uncritical acceptance of post-capitalist/slavish ideology, without any kind of subject-led "revolution" (Foucault).

Section 6, “The Genealogical Paradox: Between Roots and Ephemeral Traces”, in which the proposal of genealogy is developed and explained in its application to the context of social media, is very well elaborated, although, as always, it could benefit from incorporating more voices aligned with the same idea. This, I reiterate, would give stronger theoretical grounding to a proposal that is absolutely appropriate and necessary.

Finally, it would be generally relevant to include more voices that bring in the perspectives of Benjamin, Han, Bauman, and Van Dijk, as well as additional texts by these main authors themselves, in order to give greater robustness to the theoretical proposal—which is, without doubt, interesting, relevant, and timely.

Author Response

I am sincerely grateful for your generous evaluation of our article and for the thoughtful and detailed suggestions you provided. Your comments have been of immense value, and we are pleased to confirm that we carefully addressed each of your points. Thanks to your feedback, the article has become substantially stronger, clearer, and more robust. Below we outline how your observations were incorporated:

On Benjamin and the concept of aura
We expanded the section by integrating Benjamin’s Pequena história da fotografia (2008 [1931]), including the passage on Kafka’s childhood photograph, which illustrates the historical transformation of aura in early photography. We complemented this with contemporary reinterpretations: Miriam Bratu Hansen’s (2008) thesis on the migration of aura into new perceptual constellations; Krzysztof Ziarek’s (2005) analysis of electronic mutability; Robert Kaufman’s (2006) reassessment of the Benjamin–Adorno debate; Boris Groys’s (2016) argument that digital data files displace the visible “original”; Nicholas Mirzoeff’s (2015) reflection on computational images as “media commons”; and William Merrin’s (2021) extension of aura into the selfie condition. Together, these insertions show that aura does not vanish but is reconfigured, and they ground our extension of Benjamin into contemporary practices of digital self-representation.

On performative presence and digital identity
We deepened the dialogue with Sherry Turkle by adding Reclaiming Conversation (2015) to complement Alone Together (2011), thereby capturing the trajectory from “connection without conversation” to the “flight from conversation.” To anchor this in contemporary practices, we included empirical analyses of selfies (Lazard & Capdevila 2020) and ephemeral stories on Snapchat and Instagram (Kühn & Riesmeyer 2025), highlighting how these are less spontaneous expressions than deliberate acts of identity management. José van Dijck’s (2007, 2008) work on mediated memory and identity construction was also integrated, showing that digital memory operates less as passive archiving and more as active curation. These additions reinforced both the theoretical and empirical contemporaneity of our proposal.

On Bauman and generative AI
To radicalize Bauman’s concept of liquidity, we incorporated Andrew Hoskins’s (2025) notion of “sharding” to demonstrate how generative AI fragments and recombines identity. We also introduced real-world examples such as Personal.AI (2023), which illustrate how AI-driven memory systems complicate the stability–ephemerality paradox. This ensures that Bauman’s diagnosis is not treated historically but is extended into algorithmic environments that intensify liquidity at a technical level.

On Han and Foucault’s notion of invisibility of power
We explicitly connected Han’s account of self-exploitation with Foucault’s (1977) notion of the invisibility of power. The section now demonstrates how algorithmic metrics—likes, rankings, shares—function as imperatives that are internalized as autonomy, an instance of what we term “algorithmic invisibility.” This integration shows continuity between Foucault’s disciplinary power and Han’s burnout society, highlighting how power today achieves maximum efficacy by disappearing from view and being enacted by subjects upon themselves.

On precarity and self-exploitation
Following your advice, we broadened this analysis by incorporating Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man (1964), Christian Fuchs’s (2014, 2017) critique of digital labour, Yanis Varoufakis’s (2023) concept of technofeudalism, and Cristina Fernández-Rovira’s (2020) work on the attention economy. These voices situate precarity and exhaustion not only as subjective or psychological conditions but as structural features of digital capitalism, thus embedding our argument in political economy and post-capitalist critique.

On the attention economy
We substantially expanded this dimension. Foundational works (Simon 1971; Shapiro & Varian 1999; Davenport & Beck 2002) were added to establish the origins of the concept. Critical perspectives (Pasquinelli 2009; Pariser 2011) were included to show how attention becomes commodified and monopolized. More recent contributions (Celis 2020; Giraldo-Luque & Fernández-Rovira 2020) demonstrate how temporal scripts and oligopolistic platform structures enforce rhythms of participation and standardize cultural production. This allows us to frame attention not simply as scarcity but as a regime of capture central to digital genealogy.

On the contradiction of “performative exhaustion”
We emphasized this theme in both the discussion and conclusion. Drawing on empirical studies (Marwick 2013; Davis 2012; Turkle 2011, 2015; Kühn & Riesmeyer 2025), we showed how young people normalize exhaustion and fragmented identity as conditions of belonging. We highlight that this is not perceived as domination but as voluntary participation, reinforcing Foucault’s insight into the internalization of coercion. This gives the contradiction greater analytical and empirical weight, as you suggested.

On Section 6 (the genealogical paradox)
This section was reinforced with additional voices (Pariser 2011; Pasquinelli 2009; Giraldo-Luque & Fernández-Rovira 2020) that foreground how personalization masks standardization, and how ephemeral practices coexist with archival permanence. These insertions provide stronger grounding for our conceptualization of digital genealogy as a critical framework.

Once again, I warmly thank you for your generous and constructive review. Your suggestions significantly improved the theoretical density, the empirical resonance, and the overall clarity of the article.

With gratitude,
The author

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article under review develops the concept of “digital genealogy,” which makes it clearly suitable for the subject matter of the journal Genealogy. The title reflects the main theoretical strands well, and the chosen keywords are appropriate.

The methodological choice of conceptual analysis is justified, although even in conceptual work the formulation of research questions can provide additional focus and clarity. The discussion engages with a set of influential thinkers, above all Benjamin, Bauman, Han, and van Dijck, and at points also draws on authors such as Turkle (who is not mentioned in the abstract). This selection ensures theoretical depth, but the precise motivation for privileging these figures remains insufficiently developed. While the paper explicitly stresses that the selection was deliberate (p. 3; one would hope so), the criteria for doing so remain vague. It would strengthen the argument to clarify why these thinkers in particular are most appropriate for the topic, e.g., by positioning the work in relation to other relevant approaches that have already employed similar concepts in neighboring fields.

The analysis of Benjamin’s work paradigmatically highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of this approach. The digital age may appear to be an ideal setting to revisit Benjamin’s notion of technical reproducibility, but his key examples of photography and cinema (both established art forms for a long time) illustrate that aura does not simply disappear, but rather transforms—a point that the author also acknowledges. Yet it remains unclear what added analytical value is gained by applying the notion of aura to digital self-representation. Authenticity or uniqueness? Further elaboration would be needed to make the argument convincing. Similarly, the introduction of newer approaches to artificial intelligence appears promising, but their treatment is abrupt, appearing only in section 4, and thus feels under-integrated into the broader argument. A more consistent and gradual engagement would make this dimension of the article more coherent.

More generally, the paper would benefit from a stronger focus and clearer stringency. At present, the discussion moves between several frameworks, with results that remain episodic and at times superficial. The article might gain from concentrating either on one of the main theoretical traditions (Bauman or Han may be particularly appropriate for the themes of the paper) or from sustaining a systematic analysis of AI phenomena.

A further shortcoming is the lack of a section on related literature. Even conceptual articles should situate themselves in relation to the state of research, and this is missing here.

The conclusion is successful, as it seeks to bring together the preceding analyses and to draft a conceptual framework for digital genealogies. The emphasis on ephemerality as a defining characteristic is interesting, although counterexamples—such as the common dictum that “the internet never forgets”—should be addressed to test and refine the argument. The gestures toward possible avenues for empirical research are also welcome and provide added value for a conceptual contribution.

The article’s bibliography raises several issues. There appears to be at least one earlier work with the identical title “Digital Genealogies” (Ohashi et al., 2017), which should be mentioned (even if it follows a different approach and goal). The references are in general somewhat dated, with only limited engagement with more recent debates in digital media and internet studies. Updating the bibliography to reflect scholarship from the past years would make the article considerably stronger. Finally, some bibliographic entries, such as Merrin (2021), could not be retrieved or verified and should be checked carefully.

In sum, the article offers an intriguing and potentially valuable contribution to the conceptualization of “digital genealogy.” It is clearly relevant to the scope of the journal and succeeds in raising timely and important questions. However, it requires significant revision in order to realize its full potential. Greater focus, a clearer justification for the choice of concepts, stronger engagement with related literature, and an updated bibliography would all strengthen the contribution and improve its clarity and scholarly rigor.

 

Bibliography:

Ohashi, K., Kato, F., & Hjorth, L. (2017). Digital Genealogies: Understanding Social Mobile Media LINE in the Role of Japanese Families. Social Media + Society, 3(2), 2056305117703815. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117703815

Author Response

We are sincerely grateful for your thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the clarity and coherence of our article. Below we provide a point-by-point account of how your comments have been addressed:

1. Motivation for theoretical selection.
We clarified in the introduction why Benjamin, Bauman, Han, and van Dijck were selected as the central theoretical interlocutors. These thinkers were chosen not simply for their canonical status but because their respective concepts—aura, liquidity, burnout society, and mediated memory—form a cumulative trajectory that illuminates the contradictions of digital subjectivity. We also positioned our framework in relation to neighboring approaches in media and internet studies to justify the choice of these authors over others.

2. Benjamin and the question of aura.
Following your observation, we refined the discussion of Benjamin to emphasize that aura does not simply vanish but transforms. We integrated passages from A Short History of Photography (2008 [1931]) alongside The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technical Reproducibility (2008 [1936]) to illustrate this transformation. We also clarified the analytical value of extending aura to digital self-representation: it captures how singularity, once tied to the artwork, is reconfigured in practices of online visibility and identity performance.

3. Integration of AI.
We revised the treatment of generative AI and AI companions so that they are no longer abrupt additions in Section 4 but integrated more gradually into the genealogical trajectory. AI now appears as the latest intensification of the dynamics traced through Benjamin, Bauman, and Han, rather than as a separate topic. This provides a more coherent engagement with the theme of automation and algorithmic memory.

4. Focus and stringency.
Following your recommendation, we undertook a thorough revision of the structure and transitions to enhance coherence. Instead of presenting Benjamin, Bauman, Han, and van Dijck as isolated frameworks, we now explicitly articulate them as a cumulative sequence:

• Benjamin’s aura establishes the initial problem of reproducibility and authenticity.

• Bauman’s liquidity translates this instability into fragile identities and unstable ties.

• Han’s burnout society radicalizes this diagnosis, showing how instability becomes internalized as self-exploitation and exhaustion.

• Van Dijck’s mediated memory and current debates on AI reveal how these genealogical threads converge in algorithmic processes that fragment, archive, and reassemble identity.

We added bridging sentences at the end of each section to make this progression explicit. Furthermore, we reorganized discussions on attention economy and performative practices (selfies, stories) so that they illustrate and reinforce the main trajectory, rather than appearing as side digressions. This has resulted in a more focused, systematic, and stringent conceptual narrative.

5. Related literature.
We added a dedicated review of adjacent debates in internet and media studies, including research on platform capitalism (Ritzer & Jurgenson 2010; Fuchs 2014, 2017; Varoufakis 2023), the attention economy (Simon 1971; Davenport & Beck 2002; Celis 2020; Fernández Rovira 2019/2020), and digital identity practices (Turkle 2011, 2015; Lazard & Capdevila 2020; Kühn & Riesmeyer 2025). This situates our conceptual proposal more firmly within the state of research and demonstrates its added value.

6. Conclusion and paradox of memory.
We expanded the conclusion to explicitly address the counterpoint that “the internet never forgets.” Drawing on Hoskins (2025) and Pilkington (2024), we framed this as a paradox of ephemerality and permanence: while digital self-representations appear fleeting, platforms conserve exhaustive archives at the infrastructural level. This strengthens the conceptualization of digital genealogy by showing that identity is suspended between instability and capture.

7. Bibliography.
We revised and expanded the bibliography, incorporating more recent scholarship and ensuring accuracy of all entries. We explicitly cited Digital Genealogies (Ohashi et al. 2017) and updated entries that were incomplete or difficult to retrieve. This update not only increases robustness but also situates our proposal in dialogue with recent developments in digital media studies.

Once again, we thank you warmly for your feedback. Your comments have been invaluable in sharpening the argument, clarifying the structure, and strengthening the overall scholarly contribution of the article.

With appreciation and collegial regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' response to my feedback and their sincere efforts to improve their article. I agree with all seven points and would also say that the article has improved, for example by clarifying the central arguments.

I agree that the article should be published (with some minor revisions), although I don't fully agree with some of the assertions made. My reasoning is as follows: The authors are making a conceptual argument which must be clear and distinct to be taken up again later by critics or empirical research as a hypothesis. It does not need to involve a complete review of conceptual or empirical research on the subject. This research is published in the field of genealogy, not new media (my field), so the same requirements do not apply to the research discourse. I believe the field of genealogy could benefit greatly from the work of the authors.

Nevertheless, I would like to share some remarks with the authors before publication.

- There are some works referenced from more or less recent new media research (e.g. from the journals New Media & Society and Social Media & Society). I assume there are more related works from these journals or other publications such as Koopman (2022). Zuboff (2019) might also be relevant for the argument made on p. 14, l. 551–558. Although I personally find her work to be somewhat superficial at times, it is quite canonical in this field.

• The selection of some authors appears to be ideological rather than research-oriented (e.g. Fuchs, 2017; Varoufakis, 2023). However, as I said above, why not make a clear and distinct point in a conceptual article that can then be critiqued later?
• ‘Unlike industrial workers - whose wages accounted for most of their employers’ income - these digital laborers collect virtually nothing from the immense wealth they produce, since less than one percent of platform revenues goes to paid employees.’ (p. 15). I think this hides the fact that, in addition to employee wages, payments are made to content producers (they may be small, but they enable many to make a living). Similarly, on p. 16, it is said that reputation management is 'unpaid'. This should be mentioned at least, as it is not the case for professional content producers.
• There are repetitions (e.g. Varoufakis is discussed on pp. 14–15 twice).
• Who is Stiegler? (p. 18).
• Check if the singular and plural forms of 'genealogy' are differentiated throughout the text (I could not tell what the difference is, but it suggests there should be one).
• I would suggest only indicating the English translations of the main references (Benjamin, Han).

Fuchs, C. (2017). Social media: A critical introduction (2nd edition). SAGE Publications.
(there is an updated 4th edition of this book!)

Koopman, C. (2022). How We Became Our Data: A Genealogy of the Informational Person. https://www.amazon.de/How-Became-Our-Data-Informational-ebook/dp/B07T9RGQL5/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Varoufakis, Y. (2023). Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism. Random House.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Profile books.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to express our deepest gratitude for your careful, thoughtful, and generous review of our article. Your comments were not only extremely competent and precise but also genuinely constructive, helping us to strengthen and clarify our conceptual contribution. We truly appreciate the time and care you have devoted to improving our work.

In our revised manuscript, we have carefully addressed each of your recommendations:

• On references to recent media research: We have incorporated additional works from New Media & Society and Social Media & Society, and we have now included both Koopman (2022) and Zuboff (2019). Zuboff’s work is also explicitly connected to our central argument in the section you indicated (p. 14, l. 551–558), which enriched our framing of surveillance capitalism and its relation to burnout.

• On the selection of authors (Fuchs and Varoufakis): We have clarified that these are mobilized not as exhaustive explanations, but as part of a wider analytical spectrum. Their structural critiques are now balanced with empirical research (e.g., Marwick, Davis, Turkle, van Dijck), ensuring that the framework is not read as unilateral or ideological.

• On “unpaid labour” and reputation management: We have added important qualifications to acknowledge that platforms such as YouTube or TikTok do provide monetization opportunities for some professional creators, while emphasizing that the vast majority of user activity remains unpaid. Similarly, we have differentiated reputation management as a monetized practice for a small number of professional creators versus an unpaid form of affective and identity work for most users. This nuance improved the accuracy and balance of our argument.

• On repetitions of Varoufakis: Redundancies have been removed, and his contribution is now presented only where it most strongly supports the discussion of technofeudalism.

• On Stiegler: We now briefly explain who Stiegler is, presenting him as a French philosopher of technology and attention, to ensure clarity for readers less familiar with his work.

• On the singular and plural of “genealogy”: We have standardized our usage, employing digital genealogy in the singular for our conceptual framework, while reserving the plural genealogies only when referring to the diverse approaches used by other scholars.

• On translations of main references: Following your suggestion, we now cite Benjamin and Han in English translations (Harvard University Press, Stanford University Press). This aligns the references with the international scholarly conversation.

• On Fuchs: We have updated the reference to the 4th edition of Social Media: A Critical Introduction (2021).

Overall, your insights not only helped us correct inconsistencies but also pushed us to articulate our conceptual contribution more clearly. The article is now stronger, more balanced, and better integrated with both critical theory and empirical media research.

We are immensely grateful for the generosity and competence of your feedback. It has been a privilege to learn from your observations, which we believe have significantly improved the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

With sincere appreciation,