The Political Economy of the Gifts on Tiktok

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Cristina-Oana Cristea

Abstract

TikTok is a social platform that has become a significant social phenomenon characterized by its complexity. It is a multifaceted object of study, allowing research on various topics such as security and surveillance, algorithms and addiction, and communication and online interactions. However, the practice of giving on TikTok remains under-researched by social sciences. Therefore, the main objective of this article is to understand the practice of giving to discover how it structures the economy of attention. The data obtained were generated through digital ethnography, which involved several qualitative research methods and techniques: participatory and non-participatory observation and conducting semi-structured interviews. Data analysis revealed that virtual gifts must be understood in their dual manifestation: they are the means by which the virtual self is both subjectified and objectified by the platform. First, they contribute to the construction of the influencers' self because they reflect the appreciation and attention received from users, thus enhancing their social reputation. Secondly, the platform monitors and calculates the gifts obtained by influencers to remunerate them, acting like a real bureaucracy that classifies and ranks users according to their actions. The research results suggest that the virtual gifts should be understood as a manifestation of the economy of attention, through which the work of influencers is rewarded based on the attention and dedication they gain from others. The work of the influencer is based on the monetization of the self, and its transformation into an object of free consumption within an economic system centered on the attention of others, a perishable resource that must be constantly attracted.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Author Biography

Cristina-Oana Cristea, University of Bucharest

Doctoral School of Sociology, Faculty of Sociology and Social Work
Address: 9 Schitu Măgureanu Street, District 1, 010181, Bucharest, Romania.
Email: cristeacristina180@yahoo.com

How to Cite
Cristea, C.-O. (2025). The Political Economy of the Gifts on Tiktok. Sociologie Românească, 22(2), 29-50. https://doi.org/10.33788/sr.22.2.2

References

Bhandari, A., & Bimo, S. (2022). Why’s everyone on TikTok now? The algorithmized self and the future of self-making on social media. Social media+ society, 8(1), 20563051221086241.
Bourdieu, P. (1999). Raţiuni practice. O teorie a acţiunii, București: Meridiane.
Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook, New media & society, 14(7), 1164-1180.
Bucher, T. (2013). The friendship assemblage: Investigating programmed sociality on Facebook, Television & New Media, 14(6), 479-493.
Cleland, J., & MacLeod, A. (2022). Disruption in the space–time continuum: Why digital ethnography matters, Advances in Health Sciences Education, 27(3), 877-892.
Collie, N., & Wilson-Barnao, C. (2020). Playing with TikTok: Algorithmic culture and the future of creative work, in The future of creative work, United Kingdom Edward Elgar Publishing, 172-188.
De Ridder, S. (2021). The banality of digital reputation: A visual ethnography of young people, reputation, and social media, Media and Communication, 9(3), 218-227.
Debord, G. (2011). Societatea spectacolului, (traducerea C. Săvoiu), București: Rao.
Duffy, B. E., & Wissinger, E. (2017). Mythologies of creative work in the social media age: Fun, free, and “just being me”, International Journal of Communication, 11, 20.
Ekvall, M., & Mellberg, E. (2023). This is crap’Consumers’ experience of de-influencing on TikTok, Interaction, 12(68).
Feldkamp, J. (2021). The rise of TikTok: The evolution of a social media platform during COVID-19, Digital responses to Covid-19: Digital innovation, transformation, and entrepreneurship during pandemic outbreaks, 73-85.
Flisfeder, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial subject and the objectivization of the self in social media, South Atlantic Quarterly, 114(3), 553-570.
Franck, G. (2019). The economy of attention, Journal of sociology, 55(1), 8-19.
Graeber, D. (2001). Marcel Mauss Revisited, in Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, 151-228.
Graeber, D. (2014). On the moral grounds of economic relations: A Maussian approach, Journal of Classical Sociology, 14(1), 65-77.
Gray, J. E. (2021). The geopolitics of "platforms": The TikTok challenge, Internet policy review, 10(2), 1-26.
Green, D., Polk, X. L., Arnold, J., Chester, C., & Matthews, J. (2022). The rise of TikTok: A case study of the new social media giant, Manag Econ Res J, 8(1).
Hearn, A., & Schoenhoff, S. (2015). From celebrity to influencer: Tracing the diffusion of celebrity value across the data stream, A companion to celebrity, 194-212.
Hogan, B. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 377-386.
Iqbal, M. (2021). TikTok revenue and usage statistics, Business of apps, 1(1).
Larbi, B., Elouali, N., & Mahammed, N. (2023). Towards Identifying Concepts in Persuasive Social Networks: Case Study TikTok, in VISIGRAPP (2: HUCAPP), 236-242.
Lofland, J., David, A,. Snow, L. A., & Lyn, H. L. (2006). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis, Australia: Thomson Wadsworth.
Maris, E., Caplan, R., & Thach, H. (2024) Taking back and giving back on TikTok: Algorithmic mutual aid in the platform economy, New Media & Society, 14614448241238396.
Mauss, M. (1997). Eseu despre dar [Essai sur le don]. Iaşi: Polirom.
Miao, W., Huang, D., & Huang, Y. (2023). More than business: The de-politicisation and re-politicisation of TikTok in the media discourses of China, America and India (2017-2020), Media International Australia, 186(1), 97-114.
Miller, D. (2018). Digital anthropology, Cambridge encyclopedia of anthropology.
Obreja, D. M. (2024). When Stories Turn Institutional: How TikTok Users Legitimate the Algorithmic Sensemaking. Social Media + Society, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231224114.
Sahlins, M. (2013). Stone age economics, London and New York: Routledge.
Siles, I., Segura-Castillo, A., Solís, R., & Sancho, M. (2020). Folk theories of algorithmic recommendations on Spotify: Enacting data assemblages in the global South, Big Data & Society, 7(1), 2053951720923377.
Simmel, G. (2017). Filosofia banilor, Traducere de B. M. Dascălu, Bucureşti: Ideea Europeană.
Striphas, T. (2015). Algorithmic culture, European journal of cultural studies, 18(4-5), 395-412.
Turner, G. (2006). The mass production of celebrity: ‘Celetoids’, reality TV and the ‘demotic turn’, International journal of cultural studies, 9(2), 153-165.
Varis, P. (2015). Digital ethnography, in The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication, London and New York: Routledge, 55-68.
Whitmer, J. M. (2019). You are your brand: Self‐branding and the marketization of self, Sociology Compass, 13(3), e12662.
Xu, L., Yan, X., & Zhang, Z. (2019). Research on the causes of the “TikTok” app becoming popular and the existing problems, Journal of advanced management science, 7(2).
Zhao, Z. (2021). Analysis on the “Douyin (Tiktok) Mania” phenomenon based on recommendation algorithms, in E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 235, p. 03029), Les Ulis: EDP Sciences.