“Like wood, like son,” says the saying, referring to the idea that character and customs are transmitted from parents to children. The truth is that, in general, children resemble their parents: a reasonable similarity, the result of genetics and upbringing. However, in the 21st century, this logic goes off the rails in some places. Especially in richer societies, where offspring have sometimes become a product. A product to be modeled according to the aspirations of his parents and the environment: in increasingly narcissistic and competitive times, the son (with his academic and sporting achievements, his witticisms, his physical appearance…) is more than ever a reflection of parents.
“Procreation has long been seen, especially among the richest, as a form of temporal doubling,” says Naomi Klein in her latest book, Doppelganger (Paidós). The well-known Canadian journalist wrote this lucid essay as a result of her own experience: the confusion that existed between her and the journalist and writer Naomi Wolff, whose ideology has nothing to do with Klein’s. With this starting point, the author examines, in what is her most personal book, the phenomenon of doubles (doppelgangers) and how they have multiplied in the virtual world. She also emphasizes what she considers one of the “most widespread duplicities”: that which can occur between parents and children, very present on social networks.
The Internet, Klein maintains, is awash with doubles. Although with the uniqueness that in this virtual space the doppelgangers are not the result of chance, but have been created by the original itself. As the essayist points out, if in its beginnings the Internet promised us to become activists, the explosion of social networks has transformed us into builders of personal brands.
And in this construction, the children have an important space: they have become a very valuable material for the profiles. “In this age of personal brands and streamlined identities,” he writes in Doppelganger, “it is not necessary to have inherited wealth or titles. Simply put, you can treat your child as a derivative or extension of your brand, and you and your mini-me can dress up in matching clothes for Instagram or share endearing dances on TikTok.”
But what exactly is a personal brand? Guillem Recolons from Barcelona has worked as a publicist for twenty-five years and now specializes in “personal branding” or personal brand management. He is very clear that it is a key concept: “Because positioning your personal brand implies having control: if you don’t say who you are, others will say what you are not. You have to be the master of your story,” he says. Recolons likes to give a graphic definition of this idea: “Imagine three overlapping circles that would be: first, how I see myself; second, how others see me; and, finally, what the internet says about me, that is, my digital reputation. The elements that coincide between these three circles make up your personal brand.”
When Naomi Klein wrote No Logo—her popular essay on the rise of branding in the corporate world—in 1999, the idea that ordinary people could be a brand seemed “completely absurd,” the author said in an interview for Penguin Books. Because one thing was British royalty or Hollywood stars, who could afford to promote themselves, with image consultants or publicists; and another were the street people, workers.
However, everything changed with the emergence of smartphones and social networks, when the tools to create a brand became available to many. “Digital has opened many doors,” says Guillem Recolons. “If before 2008 you wanted to make yourself known, you had to pay by placing an advertisement or through contacts in communication agencies. Now this has been democratized: there are many ways to have a digital presence.”
For this branding expert, the search for a personal brand is booming: “Because there are 8 billion of us and we are forced to differentiate ourselves, whether we like it or not.” And this self-promotion is not to everyone’s taste. In the aforementioned interview, Naomi Klein maintains that offering “a kind of corporate version of ourselves” is closely linked to the fear of missing the boat in a capitalist society. “I know many people who are in networks not because they are hooked, but because they feel that it is their obligation and, also, they are afraid,” she says. Fear of being left behind for not having a “brand”, for not becoming an idealized version of oneself.
And, as Guillem Recolons reiterates: “Building a personal brand is key to managing one’s professional career, especially in critical moments, such as searching for the first job, getting fired, moving to a more senior position… ” In short, to stand out from the crowd: “It is the main reason why this concept has to be worked on. Because today, when it comes to selection, there are many elements at play, both professional and personality-wise. That is to say: whether or not you are a memorable person,” he summarizes.
And at this point, the most memorable, the children would enter. Those descendants, pure and innocent, who have always been an asset to the image. Monarchies know this well, as they have immortalized princes and princesses for centuries. Politicians of all kinds, including Nazi leaders, and, of course, celebrities have also used children. Consequently, in the 21st century, new celebrities—or those who aspire to become internet influencers—show their children without hesitation: that perfect offspring that is a source of pride and also generates likes and followers.
“Children humanize you, without a doubt,” says Guillem Recolons. “Even if you are not famous, using them in communication often makes people see that you are a person. They give you credibility: even in the real estate sector they put their children on the line.” The publicist refers to neuromarketing techniques: “In which ‘humanization’ is used as a brand extension”, although he advocates for “an intentional and moderate use” of the creatures: “Make sure that they are not a commercial extension , but rather that they reflect life values.”
This, however, is not happening. Although in countries like Spain there is legislation on the right to honor, personal and family privacy and the self-image of minors, thousands of images and information related to them are published on networks every day. From photographs and drawings to their school notes (always brilliant), through the description of their occurrences and the videos about their daily lives… Sometimes, the children are alone, other times, with their parents, who act as managers and filmmakers. . In a curious mix between parental narcissism and commercial positioning, children have become a valuable product on social networks.
A product that, in tune with a more demanding society, is tirelessly perfected. Children are modeled after their parents’ aspirations and their achievements are enhanced and publicized. This parenting model is known as hyperparenting or helicopter parenting, and it is a reality in our area. Children who are hyperstimulated, hypercontrolled and precociously loaded with activities of all kinds, to become those perfect, multidisciplinary and amply prepared creatures. Children with no time to play, with days always planned, whose lives, as the American psychologist Madeline Levine described, “seem like training camps,” directed by their parents. Children immersed in an Olympics of perfection who, without knowing it, carry the weight of their parents’ wishes, who want their mini-me to represent them with the greatest solvency. After all, their achievements are also yours.
Naomi Klein, mother of a neurodivergent child, asks in her book what children are: “Are they independent people, and our job, as parents, is to support and protect them as they find their way? Or are they appendages, extensions, derivatives, doubles of us that we shape to ultimately benefit from them?,” she poses. Common sense should make us opt for the first option: that is, loving and caring for our children for who they are, not for who we want them to be.
