لم يكن أحد يتخيل أن تتحول الشهرة يوماً إلى سلعة زهيدة، تُباع وتُشترى بالمتابعات والإعجابات، وتُصنع في ثوانٍ لا تتجاوز طول مقطع مصوّر. لقد أفرزت منصات التواصل الاجتماعي طبقة جديدة من (النجوم) الذين يملأون الفضاء الرقمي صخباً وضجيجاً، دون أن يمتلكوا موهبة حقيقية أو إنجازاً راسخاً. هم أولئك الذين يمكن أن نطلق عليهم اسم مشاهير الفلس؛ أشخاصٌ سطعوا في عالم افتراضي، لكنهم ظلوا فارغين من الداخل، يقدّمون ما يشبه (الوجود المستعار) المبني على الاستعراض لا على القيمة.
هذه الظاهرة ليست مجرد (مرحلة ترفيهية) أو موجة عابرة، بل هي انعكاس لبنية ثقافية واجتماعية أعمق. نحن نعيش زمنا يقدّس الصورة على حساب الجوهر، ويكافئ من يجيد إثارة الانتباه أكثر مما يكافئ من ينتج معرفة أو فنّاً أو فكراً. وبذلك تحوّلت الشهرة من قيمة اجتماعية تُمنح للمتميزين، إلى «قشرة لامعة» يمكن لأي شخص أن يقتنيها متى ما عرف مفاتيح الخوارزميات.
كيف يُصنع (نجم الفلس)؟
من يتأمل في مسيرة هؤلاء المشاهير يكتشف أن الأمر لا يحتاج إلى أكثر من ثلاث وصفات؛ الاستعراض المبالغ فيه: سواء كان استعراضاً للرفاهية المصطنعة أو للمواقف الغريبة أو حتى للمشاكل العائلية الخاصة.
واللعب على عاطفة الجمهور: عبر الإثارة، الفضائح، أو المحتوى الساخر الذي يجذب المتابعين بشكل سريع، والتكرار حدّ الترسّخ: فالمحتوى مهما كان فارغاً إذا تكرر سيجد له مكاناً في الذاكرة الجمعية.
المنصات الرقمية، بدورها، لا تفرّق بين ما هو عميق وما هو تافه؛ بل تكافئ ما يثير (التفاعل اللحظي). لذلك يصبح الطريق إلى الشهرة مفتوحاً أمام كل من يجيد الاستعراض أكثر مما يجيد الإبداع.
لماذا نتابعهم؟
اللوم هنا لا يقع على المشاهير وحدهم، بل على الجمهور أيضاً. فالمتابع الذي يمنح وقته وإعجابه ومشاركته هو الذي يصنع هذه النجومية الهشّة. السؤال الذي يطرح نفسه: لماذا ينجذب الناس إلى هؤلاء؟
• لأنهم يقدّمون تسلية سهلة: لا تحتاج إلى جهد عقلي، بل تُستهلك بسرعة وتُنسى بسرعة.
• لأنهم يملأون فراغاً نفسياً واجتماعياً: فالمتابع يجد في متابعة حياتهم اليومية تعويضاً عن رتابة حياته الخاصة.
• لأننا نعيش في عصر المقارنة: حيث يقيس الأفراد أنفسهم بما يرونه على الشاشات، حتى لو كان وهمياً أو مصطنعاً.
وبذلك يصبح المشاهير أشبه بـ(مرايا معكوسة)، تعكس أحلام الناس الصغيرة وتضخمها، وتمنحهم وهماً بالانتماء إلى عالم باذخ لا يمتّ لواقعهم بصلة.
الآثار الاجتماعية والنفسية
انتشار هذه الظاهرة لا يمرّ من دون آثار. فهي تترك بصمات واضحة على المجتمع، خصوصاً الأجيال الجديدة التي تشكّل وعيها من خلال هذه المنصات؛ منها تشويه الذائقة العامة: إذ يصبح المعيار هو عدد المشاهدات لا نوعية المحتوى، وإضعاف الطموح الحقيقي: حين يرى الشباب أن الشهرة يمكن أن تتحقق بلا جهد، يفقدون الحافز للسعي وراء التميز العلمي أو الفني، ورفع شأن قيم استهلاكية سطحية: تُقدّم الرفاهية المصطنعة كقيمة عليا، بينما يتوارى العمل الجاد خلف الكواليس، وتحبط المبدعين الحقيقيين: إذ يجدون أنفسهم في منافسة غير عادلة مع من يملكون الجرأة على الاستعراض أكثر من الموهبة على الإنتاج.
ربما يقول البعض إن لهذه الظاهرة وجهاً مضيئاً؛ إذ منحت المنصات فرصة لأشخاص عاديين كي يعبّروا عن أنفسهم، وكسرت احتكار الإعلام التقليدي للأصوات. هذا صحيح من حيث الشكل، لكن الحقيقة أن معظم هذه الأصوات مشوشة، تكرّس السطحية أكثر مما تفتح أفقاً للحوار.
المعركة هنا ليست مع الأفراد. ليس الذنب ذنب الشاب الذي يقلّد موضة غريبة ليحصل على آلاف المشاهدات، ولا الفتاة التي تبالغ في استعراض حياتها اليومية طلباً للانتشار.
و ما نحتاجه هو: إعادة بناء الذائقة العامة عبر التعليم، والإعلام، والنقد الواعي، وتشجيع المحتوى الجاد الذي يجمع بين المتعة والمعرفة، وإحياء دور النقد الصحفي والثقافي الذي يميّز بين الظاهرة الصحية والظاهرة المريضة، وتعليم الأجيال الجديدة مهارات التلقي الواعي كي لا يصبحوا مجرد مستهلكين للصور، بل قادرون على التفريق بين ما يستحق المتابعة وما لا يستحق.
مشاهير «الْفَلَسْ».. صناعة الوهم في زمن المنصّات
19 سبتمبر 2025 - 01:17
|
آخر تحديث 19 سبتمبر 2025 - 01:17
معبّر النهاري
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
معبّر النهاري
No one could have imagined that fame would one day turn into a cheap commodity, bought and sold with follows and likes, and created in seconds that do not exceed the length of a video clip. Social media platforms have produced a new layer of (stars) who fill the digital space with noise and clamor, without possessing any real talent or established achievement. They are those we can call the celebrities of fluff; individuals who have shone in a virtual world but remain empty inside, presenting what resembles (borrowed existence) based on showmanship rather than value.
This phenomenon is not merely a (phase of entertainment) or a passing trend; it is a reflection of a deeper cultural and social structure. We live in a time that sanctifies image at the expense of substance, rewarding those who excel at grabbing attention more than those who produce knowledge, art, or thought. Thus, fame has transformed from a social value granted to the distinguished into a "shiny veneer" that anyone can acquire as long as they know the keys to the algorithms.
How is a (fluff star) made?
Those who reflect on the careers of these celebrities discover that it requires no more than three recipes: exaggerated showmanship: whether it is showcasing artificial luxury, strange behaviors, or even private family issues.
And playing on the audience's emotions: through excitement, scandals, or satirical content that quickly attracts followers, and repetition to the point of entrenchment: content, no matter how empty, will find a place in collective memory if repeated.
The digital platforms, for their part, do not differentiate between what is profound and what is trivial; they reward what provokes (instant interaction). Therefore, the path to fame becomes open to anyone who excels at showmanship more than creativity.
Why do we follow them?
The blame here does not fall solely on the celebrities but also on the audience. The follower who gives their time, admiration, and shares is the one who creates this fragile stardom. The question arises: why are people drawn to these individuals?
• Because they offer easy entertainment: requiring no mental effort, it is consumed quickly and forgotten just as fast.
• Because they fill a psychological and social void: the follower finds in following their daily lives a compensation for the monotony of their own life.
• Because we live in an age of comparison: where individuals measure themselves against what they see on screens, even if it is illusory or artificial.
Thus, celebrities become like (mirrored reflections), amplifying people's small dreams and giving them an illusion of belonging to a lavish world that has no connection to their reality.
Social and Psychological Effects
The spread of this phenomenon does not occur without consequences. It leaves clear marks on society, especially on the new generations who shape their consciousness through these platforms; among these are the distortion of public taste: where the criterion becomes the number of views rather than the quality of content, weakening true ambition: when young people see that fame can be achieved without effort, they lose the motivation to pursue academic or artistic excellence, and elevating superficial consumer values: presenting artificial luxury as a supreme value, while hard work retreats behind the scenes, and discouraging true creators: as they find themselves in an unfair competition with those who have the audacity to showcase more than the talent to produce.
Some may say that this phenomenon has a bright side; it has given platforms a chance for ordinary people to express themselves and broken the monopoly of traditional media over voices. This is true in form, but the reality is that most of these voices are muddled, reinforcing superficiality more than opening a horizon for dialogue.
The battle here is not with individuals. It is not the fault of the young person who imitates a strange trend to gain thousands of views, nor the girl who exaggerates in showcasing her daily life in search of popularity.
What we need is: to rebuild public taste through education, media, and conscious criticism, to encourage serious content that combines enjoyment and knowledge, to revive the role of journalistic and cultural criticism that distinguishes between healthy and unhealthy phenomena, and to teach new generations skills of conscious reception so that they do not become mere consumers of images but are capable of distinguishing between what is worth following and what is not.
This phenomenon is not merely a (phase of entertainment) or a passing trend; it is a reflection of a deeper cultural and social structure. We live in a time that sanctifies image at the expense of substance, rewarding those who excel at grabbing attention more than those who produce knowledge, art, or thought. Thus, fame has transformed from a social value granted to the distinguished into a "shiny veneer" that anyone can acquire as long as they know the keys to the algorithms.
How is a (fluff star) made?
Those who reflect on the careers of these celebrities discover that it requires no more than three recipes: exaggerated showmanship: whether it is showcasing artificial luxury, strange behaviors, or even private family issues.
And playing on the audience's emotions: through excitement, scandals, or satirical content that quickly attracts followers, and repetition to the point of entrenchment: content, no matter how empty, will find a place in collective memory if repeated.
The digital platforms, for their part, do not differentiate between what is profound and what is trivial; they reward what provokes (instant interaction). Therefore, the path to fame becomes open to anyone who excels at showmanship more than creativity.
Why do we follow them?
The blame here does not fall solely on the celebrities but also on the audience. The follower who gives their time, admiration, and shares is the one who creates this fragile stardom. The question arises: why are people drawn to these individuals?
• Because they offer easy entertainment: requiring no mental effort, it is consumed quickly and forgotten just as fast.
• Because they fill a psychological and social void: the follower finds in following their daily lives a compensation for the monotony of their own life.
• Because we live in an age of comparison: where individuals measure themselves against what they see on screens, even if it is illusory or artificial.
Thus, celebrities become like (mirrored reflections), amplifying people's small dreams and giving them an illusion of belonging to a lavish world that has no connection to their reality.
Social and Psychological Effects
The spread of this phenomenon does not occur without consequences. It leaves clear marks on society, especially on the new generations who shape their consciousness through these platforms; among these are the distortion of public taste: where the criterion becomes the number of views rather than the quality of content, weakening true ambition: when young people see that fame can be achieved without effort, they lose the motivation to pursue academic or artistic excellence, and elevating superficial consumer values: presenting artificial luxury as a supreme value, while hard work retreats behind the scenes, and discouraging true creators: as they find themselves in an unfair competition with those who have the audacity to showcase more than the talent to produce.
Some may say that this phenomenon has a bright side; it has given platforms a chance for ordinary people to express themselves and broken the monopoly of traditional media over voices. This is true in form, but the reality is that most of these voices are muddled, reinforcing superficiality more than opening a horizon for dialogue.
The battle here is not with individuals. It is not the fault of the young person who imitates a strange trend to gain thousands of views, nor the girl who exaggerates in showcasing her daily life in search of popularity.
What we need is: to rebuild public taste through education, media, and conscious criticism, to encourage serious content that combines enjoyment and knowledge, to revive the role of journalistic and cultural criticism that distinguishes between healthy and unhealthy phenomena, and to teach new generations skills of conscious reception so that they do not become mere consumers of images but are capable of distinguishing between what is worth following and what is not.