阿底提·邁耶/文　馮懿/譯

These days， it’s hard to escape the clutches of influencer culture that in many ways defines our digital landscape. Over on TikTok， there are even now tutorials on how to become an influencer.

如今，人們很難擺脫網(wǎng)紅文化的控制。這種文化在諸多方面定義了我們的數(shù)字化景觀?，F(xiàn)在TikTok上甚至還有關(guān)于如何成為網(wǎng)紅的教程。

Recently though， there has been a tide shift， thanks to the rise of the new “de-influencing” trend. It’s a response to overconsumption propagated by influencers， and growing cynicism towards sponsored content （#sponcon） on social media.

最近，由于“反種草”新浪潮興起，潮流發(fā)生了轉(zhuǎn)變。這股浪潮回?fù)袅司W(wǎng)紅們宣揚(yáng)的過度消費(fèi)，也呼應(yīng)了針對社交媒體上的贊助內(nèi)容（#sponcon）日益高漲的質(zhì)疑聲。

Going through the de-influencing hashtag now， you’ll see two prominent camps of content： on one hand， the trend has evolved from discouraging consumption to recommending one product over another instead. And while encouraging people to buy less and buy better is a step in the right direction， the critique remains that this sort of content dampens the true goal of the de-influencing movement.

現(xiàn)在瀏覽“反種草”話題標(biāo)簽，你可以看到兩個明顯的內(nèi)容陣營：一方陣營認(rèn)為，這股浪潮已經(jīng)從勸退消費(fèi)演變?yōu)橥扑]購買某種產(chǎn)品而非另一種產(chǎn)品。雖然鼓勵人們買得少、買得好是朝正確方向邁出的一步，但仍有批評聲稱，這類內(nèi)容有礙“反種草”運(yùn)動實(shí)現(xiàn)真正的目標(biāo)。

Cue the second camp of content： individuals reflecting on the ways that social media has skewed our view of what normal consumption habits look like—a refreshing reminder on a platform where copious consumption often reigns supreme.

另一方陣營的個體則在反思社交媒體如何扭曲了大眾對什么是正常消費(fèi)習(xí)慣的理解——在過量消費(fèi)時常占主導(dǎo)地位的TikTok上，這真是個讓人眼前一亮的提醒。

As a 26-year-old—on the cusp1 between being a millennial and Gen Z—my relationship with the internet began at a time that predates today’s prolific creator economy. I came of age2 online in many ways， watching the evolution of social media platforms from being a space where you share your life with your IRL3 friends to becoming a hugely commodified platform that’s laced with ad space.

我生于千禧一代向Z世代過渡的時期，今年已26歲。我與互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的淵源始于如今這種多產(chǎn)的創(chuàng)作者經(jīng)濟(jì)出現(xiàn)之前。從很多方面來說，我是在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上長大的，從小目睹社交媒體平臺的演變，眼看著它從與現(xiàn)實(shí)中的朋友分享日常生活的地方，變成充斥著廣告位的大型商品化平臺。

The overconsumption of fashion on the internet—which has normalised buying clothes just for an Instagram post—prompted my own journey as a sustainable fashion blogger. I wanted to subvert the idea of the fashion influencer by focusing on wider issues covering social and environmental justice in fashion. Since then， an entire wave of sustainability content creators has emerged， challenging the traditional idea of the influencer， who has often fed an aspirational image rooted in unsustainability. From this perspective， the practice of de-influencing is far from new. However， the popularity of the current hashtag means it has now transcended sustainability circles， permeating internet discourse at large.

互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上過度的時裝消費(fèi)，讓僅為在Instagram上發(fā)帖而購買衣服成為常態(tài)，也促使我踏上成為可持續(xù)時尚博主之路。我想關(guān)注涉及面更廣的議題，包括時尚界的社會公正和環(huán)境正義，以此來顛覆人們對時尚界網(wǎng)紅的印象。后來，一大批可持續(xù)內(nèi)容創(chuàng)作者涌現(xiàn)出來，向傳統(tǒng)的網(wǎng)紅形象發(fā)起挑戰(zhàn)，后者展示的積極形象常常建立在社會不可持續(xù)的發(fā)展上。從這個角度看，“反種草”的做法絕不新鮮。然而，“反種草”話題標(biāo)簽的熱度之高，意味著這股浪潮現(xiàn)在已經(jīng)超出可持續(xù)發(fā)展的圈子，普遍滲透到了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)話語中。

For the last decade， Jordan Santos has worked both behind the scenes in influencer marketing and as an influencer herself. She believes the rise of de-influencing is tied to the growing awareness of—and cynicism around—how the business of influencing works.

過去十年，喬丹·桑托斯一直在做網(wǎng)紅營銷的幕后工作，而她本身也是一名網(wǎng)紅。她認(rèn)為，“反種草”浪潮的興起，與人們越來越清楚網(wǎng)紅營銷行業(yè)的運(yùn)作方式并對這種方式產(chǎn)生質(zhì)疑息息相關(guān)。

“Ten years ago， when influencer marketing first began， it was a small number of influencers doing ads， sharing products， and encouraging spending，” she says. “Today， we see that pretty much anyone who has Instagram or TikTok can be an influencer， as it relates to pushing and selling products. Customers are feeling influencer fatigue and they’re becoming more savvy and aware that many of the items they see on an influencer’s page are gifted or sponsored. For the influencers who post paid partnership after paid partnership， their followers are beginning to understand that there’s no way they can genuinely love all the brands and products they push.”

她說：“十年前，網(wǎng)紅營銷剛剛起步，只有少數(shù)網(wǎng)紅在做廣告、分享產(chǎn)品、鼓勵消費(fèi)。如今，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)幾乎所有擁有Instagram或TikTok賬號的人都能成為推廣和銷售產(chǎn)品的網(wǎng)紅。消費(fèi)者看膩了網(wǎng)紅，而且越來越精明，他們意識到自己在網(wǎng)紅主頁上看到的許多商品都是品牌贈送或贊助的。再說發(fā)布一個又一個付費(fèi)合作廣告的網(wǎng)紅，他們的粉絲也漸漸明白，這些網(wǎng)紅不可能真心喜歡自己推廣的所有品牌和產(chǎn)品。”

Santos believes while influencer ads may now be less effective， the rise of de-influencing doesn’t mark the end of influencer marketing， but rather a potential reimagination of it—one where brands， media platforms， influencers， and consumers alike all question their approach to sharing and consuming products. She believes all parties need to “[take] a step back and ask themselves what they want to get from social media： is it just product recommendations they want？ Or something more？”

桑托斯認(rèn)為，雖然網(wǎng)紅廣告可能不如以前有效，但“反種草”浪潮的興起并不標(biāo)志著網(wǎng)紅營銷的終結(jié)，反而可能是對其進(jìn)行重塑——品牌、媒體平臺、網(wǎng)紅和消費(fèi)者在這個過程中都會質(zhì)疑自己分享和消費(fèi)產(chǎn)品的方式。她還認(rèn)為，各方都需要“退一步捫心自問，自己究竟想從社交媒體上得到什么。他們想要的僅僅是產(chǎn)品推薦嗎？還是別的東西？”

Shilpa Shah， co-founder of fashion label Cuyana， also believes influencer marketing isn’t going anywhere， but says the appetite is definitely shifting. “We’ve seen consumers seek out more authentic content over the last few years，” she says. “As a result of the oversaturation of influencer marketing， the biggest shift we are seeing is that consumers trust content less than they used to. [Brands] have to be more intentional about partnerships.”

時尚品牌Cuyana的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人希爾帕·沙阿也認(rèn)為網(wǎng)紅營銷不會消失，但她表示消費(fèi)者的喜好肯定在改變?！斑^去幾年里，我們看到消費(fèi)者在尋求更真實(shí)的內(nèi)容?！彼f，“由于網(wǎng)紅營銷過度飽和，我們看到的最大變化是消費(fèi)者對內(nèi)容的信任不如從前了。（品牌）必須對合作關(guān)系更加用心。”

Arguably， this means there is increasing space for those who genuinely can change the status quo， whether it’s influencers who can help educate others in consuming less and extending the life of the things we own， or those promoting larger conversations around climate activism and the way people can take collective action.

可以說，這意味著真正能夠改變現(xiàn)狀的人有了越來越大的發(fā)揮空間，無論他們是能夠幫忙勸導(dǎo)別人減少消費(fèi)、延長已有物品使用壽命的網(wǎng)紅，還是推動人們就氣候行動主義和集體行動方式展開更廣泛對話的人。

Still， Isaias Hernandez， an environmental educator， is sceptical of how much of a difference the de-influencing trend will actually make. “De-influencing is a really great conversation starter to try to talk about the belly of the beast4 which is over-consumerism，” he says. “However， de-influencing， in my opinion， doesn’t really serve a larger purpose in addressing systemic issues.”

不過，環(huán)境教育家伊薩亞斯·埃爾南德斯對“反種草”浪潮究竟會產(chǎn)生多大影響持懷疑態(tài)度。他說：“要想就過度消費(fèi)主義的陷阱展開討論，‘反種草’是個非常好的開場白。然而，在我看來，‘反種草’其實(shí)對解決系統(tǒng)性問題作用不大?！?/p>

Noting the ways de-influencing has largely evolved to become recommending alternative products， rather than no products at all， Hernandez continues： “I think it goes back to the fact that a lot of the mainstream influencers aren’t challenging the dominant models of culture that exist out there. I’d hope that people understand that de-influencing isn’t just about raising [awareness of] how to be a better consumer.”

埃爾南德斯指出，“反種草”在很大程度上已經(jīng)演變成推薦替代品，而不是完全不推銷產(chǎn)品。他繼續(xù)說道：“我認(rèn)為這又回歸到了一個事實(shí)，即很多主流網(wǎng)紅并沒有挑戰(zhàn)現(xiàn)有的文化主導(dǎo)模式。我希望人們能明白，‘反種草’指的不僅僅是提高大家對如何成為更理智消費(fèi)者（的認(rèn)識）?！?/p>

Rachel Nguyen， who has been a content creator since 2008， agrees that de-influencing， like the wider sustainability movement， requires a wider shift to take place， in order to create real change. Perhaps， it even means changing the way we consume social media al-together. “The internet has entrapped our thinking， so a big part of de-influencing is actually [breaking free from] the influence of [others]，” she says.

雷切爾·阮自 2008 年以來一直從事內(nèi)容創(chuàng)作，她也認(rèn)為“反種草”與更廣泛的可持續(xù)發(fā)展運(yùn)動一樣，需要范圍更廣的轉(zhuǎn)變，才能產(chǎn)生真正的變化?；蛟S，這甚至意味著我們要徹底改變自己使用社交媒體的方式。阮說：“互聯(lián)網(wǎng)已經(jīng)束縛了我們的思維，所以‘反種草’的重點(diǎn)之一是真正（擺脫他人）的影響?！?/p>

While de-influencing might be seen as another form of influencing， it’s clear that the conversation triggered by the movement has marked a key shift in the cultural zeitgeist5. Let’s hope it isn’t just another social media trend.

雖然“反種草”可能被看作另一種形式的“種草”，但顯而易見的是，“反種草”運(yùn)動引發(fā)的討論標(biāo)志著這個時代的文化潮流發(fā)生了關(guān)鍵性轉(zhuǎn)變。但愿這不僅僅是又一股社交媒體浪潮。

（譯者為“《英語世界》杯”翻譯大賽獲獎?wù)?；單位：華南理工大學(xué)）

1 on the cusp在即將轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)榱硪环N狀態(tài)的時刻。? 2 come of age成熟或者完全發(fā)展；達(dá)到法定成年年齡。? 3 = in real life在現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中。

4 the belly of the beast危險，困境，不利的地方或情況。? 5 zeitgeist時代思潮；時代精神。