Abidin, C. (2017) | References | Narcissus and the Child

What This Research Found

Crystal Abidin's influential study examines the emergence of family influencers—content creators who build their online presence and income around their family life, particularly their children. Drawing on ethnographic research with influencers in Singapore and interviews with family bloggers globally, the research reveals a new form of narcissistic supply generation enabled by digital platforms.

The Micro-Microcelebrity Phenomenon. Abidin introduces the concept of "micro-microcelebrity" to describe children who become famous not through their own achievements but as extensions of their parents' online personas. These children are known for being their parents' children—their fame derivative, their identity mediated through parental presentation. The parallel to narcissistic family dynamics is striking: children exist to reflect parental glory rather than as individuals with separate identities and needs. Unlike child actors who at least perform distinct characters, micro-microcelebrities are presented as "themselves"—yet that self is curated, staged, and monetised by parents who control the narrative.

Calibrated Amateurism and Manufactured Authenticity. The research reveals how family influencers employ "calibrated amateurism"—a deliberate strategy of making highly staged, commercially-driven content appear natural, spontaneous, and authentic. What viewers see as "real family moments" are often multiple takes, coached performances, and carefully constructed narratives. Parents spend hours perfecting the illusion of spontaneity. This mirrors the narcissistic parent's presentation of the "perfect family" to outside observers—a manufactured image that obscures the dysfunction within. Children learn early that reality and performance are interchangeable, that their genuine emotions matter less than the emotions that generate engagement.

Child Digital Labor and Exploitation. Abidin's research documents how children perform substantial labor in the family influencer economy—labor that current regulations fail to recognise or protect. Children are coached to display emotions, re-enact moments for better footage, and maintain "on" personas for cameras. Their developmental milestones, tantrums, illnesses, and vulnerable moments become content. Unlike child actors protected by labour laws, set hour limits, and mandatory educational provisions, family influencer children work in an unregulated space where their parents are simultaneously their employers, managers, and beneficiaries. The earnings belong to parents, the content belongs to parents, and children have no legal recourse.

The Family Influencer Economy. The research situates family content creation within the broader influencer economy, revealing the commercial pressures that intensify exploitation. Engagement metrics reward emotional content—tantrums, tears, and conflicts generate more views than contentment. This creates perverse incentives: a child's distress has monetary value. Sponsorship deals require consistent content output, meaning children cannot take breaks from being filmed. The audience develops parasocial relationships with children, creating entitled demands for access to their lives. Platform algorithms reward frequency and engagement, pushing families toward ever-more-invasive documentation.

How This Research Is Used in the Book

This research is cited in Chapter 13: The Great Accelerant to illustrate how digital platforms have amplified narcissistic exploitation of children:

"Children are increasingly treated as content in this marketplace. Family vloggers monetise their children's lives from birth, creating what Dr Crystal Abidin calls 'micro-microcelebrity'—children famous for being their parents' children. Consider the DaddyOFive scandal of 2017, where parents 'pranked' their children with psychological abuse for YouTube views, or the more recent exposés of family channels where children describe being forced to perform emotions on camera, crying real tears while parents adjust lighting. These children grow up under constant surveillance, developmental moments transformed into monetised content. They learn that their worth lies in how many views they generate, divorced from who they are. Such cases exemplify malignant narcissism: the combination of narcissistic grandiosity with antisocial behaviour and sadism, where pleasure is derived from others' suffering while maintaining a public image of devoted parenting."

The citation supports the book's argument that social media hasn't created new forms of narcissistic abuse but has intensified, amplified, and made visible patterns that have always existed in narcissistic families.

Why This Matters for Survivors

If you grew up in a narcissistic family, this research may resonate even if no cameras were involved.

You may recognise your childhood in these family vlogger dynamics. The pattern of children existing to enhance parental image is not new—digital platforms simply made it visible and monetised. If you were trained to perform happiness for extended family, to hide dysfunction from outsiders, to present as the perfect child reflecting a perfect parent, you experienced the analog version of what influencer children experience digitally. Your authentic needs were subordinated to your display value. The difference is documentation: influencer children have footage of their exploitation, while your memories may be dismissed as exaggeration.

Your worth was measured in performance, not in being. Children of narcissists learn that love and approval are conditional on providing narcissistic supply. For family influencer children, this is quantified—views, likes, comments, and ultimately income. But the dynamic is the same: you matter for what you provide, not for who you are. If you struggle to believe you deserve love simply for existing, to rest without producing, to have needs without justifying them—you may be recognising this conditioning. Your worth was always inherent; you were trained to believe it had to be earned.

Children of narcissists were 'content' before social media existed. The narcissistic parent has always used children as props for their self-image—displaying their accomplishments, curating their appearance, orchestrating their performance for observers. Holiday cards showcasing the perfect family, forced participation in parents' social performances, achievements claimed as parental triumphs—these were early forms of the "content creation" family influencers now do at scale. Your experience was real even without documentation.

Digital platforms have made narcissistic parenting visible. One profound effect of family vlogging is that it creates evidence. The children being exploited on camera will grow up with footage of their abuse. This represents something new: documentation that cannot be gaslit away. When former family vlogger children describe being forced to cry on camera, to pretend emotions, to sacrifice their childhoods for content—they are describing what survivors of narcissistic abuse have always described, but with proof. Their visibility may help validate experiences that, in your family, went unwitnessed and unbelieved.

Clinical Implications

For clinicians working with children of influencer families or adult survivors recognising these patterns, this research offers important guidance.

Assess for digital exploitation history. As the first generation raised as content reaches adulthood, clinicians should include digital exploitation in trauma assessments. Questions might include: Were you filmed frequently as a child? Did you appear in content your parents monetised? Did you have to perform emotions or re-enact moments for cameras? Do you have content featuring you as a child that you didn't consent to and cannot remove? The psychological impacts of being raised as content differ from traditional child abuse patterns and require specific understanding.

Address identity confusion and authenticity struggles. Children raised as content may present with profound confusion about their authentic self. When genuine emotions were routinely restaged, when cameras were omnipresent, when the line between private and public was never established—the capacity to know what one actually feels becomes impaired. Therapy may need to focus on developing internal reference points for authenticity, tolerating uncertainty about "real" feelings, and building an identity not contingent on external validation or visibility.

Recognise privacy as a developmental need. These clients may need explicit work on establishing and maintaining privacy. Having grown up with no expectation of privacy, they may over-share, struggle to set boundaries with social media, or feel anxious when not documented. Conversely, they may be hypervigilant about privacy, refusing any documentation. Both extremes reflect the absence of healthy privacy development. Therapeutic work may include establishing what privacy means to them and practicing graduated privacy boundaries.

Understand complex family dynamics. Children raised as content often have complicated relationships with parents who genuinely believe they did nothing wrong. Parents may point to financial provision, exposure opportunities, and community as evidence of good parenting. The exploitation was normalised by platform culture, audience approval, and financial success. Clients may struggle with anger toward parents who "meant well," guilt over benefiting financially, and grief over the childhood they didn't have. Family therapy, if undertaken, requires the therapist to resist the family's normalisation of exploitation.

Prepare for emerging legal and advocacy work. Some clients may choose to pursue content removal, legal action, or public advocacy. Clinicians should be prepared to support these decisions, provide documentation for legal proceedings if requested, and help clients navigate the complex emotions of going public about family exploitation. The therapeutic relationship may need to accommodate media attention and its impacts.

Broader Implications

Abidin's research extends beyond individual families to illuminate systemic issues at the intersection of technology, commerce, and childhood.

Child Labor and Exploitation in the Digital Age

The family influencer economy represents a massive gap in child labor protections. Traditional child entertainment work—film, television, theatre—is regulated: limited hours, mandatory education, Coogan law protections for earnings, adult supervision requirements. Family influencer children have none of these protections. They "work" in their homes, technically under parental supervision, for employers (their parents) who are exempt from labor regulations. The income they generate belongs entirely to parents. Some jurisdictions are beginning to address this gap—France passed legislation in 2020, and several U.S. states have proposed bills—but enforcement remains challenging when the "workplace" is the family home and the "employer" is Mom and Dad.

Consent and Children's Rights

A child cannot meaningfully consent to having their childhood documented and monetised. Yet family influencer content is built on the fiction of consent—children are "willing" participants, they "love" making videos. This fiction obscures the power dynamics: children depend entirely on the adults who are exploiting them. Even when children express reluctance, parents control whether that reluctance is respected. The content created becomes permanent—a digital record that follows children into adulthood, affecting their relationships, employment, and self-image. The right to privacy, to control one's image, to have a childhood not performed for strangers—these rights are sacrificed before children can understand what they're losing.

The Attention Economy and Families

Platform algorithms reward engagement above all else. For family content, this creates perverse incentives: a child's tantrum generates more views than their contentment. Conflict, tears, "real" emotional moments—these drive engagement. Parents become trained to see their children's distress as content opportunity. The family itself becomes subordinated to content production schedules, platform demands, and sponsor requirements. Holidays are staged for footage; illnesses are documented for sympathy engagement; private struggles become public narrative. The distinction between living and performing collapses entirely.

Legal and Regulatory Gaps

Current legal frameworks are woefully inadequate for protecting children in influencer families. Child labor laws exempt family businesses. Privacy laws lack enforcement mechanisms for parental violations. Platform terms of service are weakly enforced. The legal concept of "informed consent" doesn't meaningfully apply to children whose parents make decisions for them. Some promising developments include: France's 2020 law requiring permits for child influencer content and trusts for children's earnings; Illinois's 2024 law extending Coogan protections to social media; and the EU's Digital Services Act provisions on minors' data. But international enforcement remains nearly impossible for globally distributed content.

Psychological Impacts on Sharented Children

While research on long-term outcomes is still emerging—the oldest cohort of intensively-documented children is only now reaching adulthood—early findings are concerning. Documented impacts include: identity confusion and difficulty distinguishing authentic self from performed self; anxiety around privacy and documentation; complicated relationships with fame and visibility; anger at parents for exploitation framed as opportunity; difficulty with emotional authenticity after years of performing emotions; and lasting privacy violations as childhood content remains accessible. These outcomes parallel documented impacts on children of narcissistic parents more broadly.

Future Adults Who Were Monetized as Children

A reckoning is coming. The first generation of intensively-sharented children is reaching adulthood, and some are speaking out. Former family vlogger children have described being forced to film while sick, having breakdowns when cameras weren't rolling because they finally could, and learning that their childhood distress had made their parents wealthy. These accounts are beginning to shift public perception and may drive regulatory change. For clinicians, this generation will present with trauma patterns that combine elements of child exploitation, narcissistic family dynamics, and complex media effects—a new clinical population requiring new frameworks.

FAQs

Does this research mean all family content creation is harmful? No, but it identifies concerning patterns that require scrutiny. The research reveals a spectrum from occasional, boundaried sharing to intensive commercial exploitation. The harm depends on factors including volume of content, whether children can opt out, who controls earnings, privacy boundaries, whether distress is exploited for engagement, and whether children's developmental needs are prioritised over content production. Parents should honestly assess whether their sharing serves children's interests or parental needs.

What regulations currently exist for child influencers? Regulations are emerging but remain patchwork. France's 2020 law is most comprehensive—requiring permits for children under 16, limiting filming hours, mandating earnings trusts, and requiring content deletion rights. Illinois (2024) extended Coogan law protections to social media earnings. Several other U.S. states have proposed similar legislation. The EU's Digital Services Act addresses minors' data rights. However, enforcement across jurisdictions remains a major challenge, and most family influencer activity occurs in regulatory grey zones.

How can I support children who may be exploited in family channels? Consumer awareness matters. Unsubscribe from channels that appear exploitative. Report content that shows children in distress being used for entertainment. Support organisations advocating for child influencer protections. Avoid engaging with content that incentivises parental exploitation—every view, comment, and share sends an economic signal. If you know a child being exploited personally, consult child protective services, though outcomes vary significantly by jurisdiction.

What signs suggest a child is being coached or forced to perform? Look for: unnatural emotional responses that seem performed; editing cuts that suggest multiple takes for "genuine" moments; parent voices directing reactions off-camera; children's visible discomfort being played as comedy; content patterns requiring children to be filmed during vulnerable moments (illness, tantrums, punishments); volume of content suggesting filming dominates family time; and parents who respond to criticism about children's participation with deflection rather than reflection.

Is this different from traditional baby photos and home videos? Scale, commercial motivation, and public access differ significantly. Traditional family documentation was private, shared with limited known audiences, and had no commercial incentive. Family influencer content is public (potentially reaching millions), commercially motivated (creating incentives to film more, share more, exploit more), and permanent (remaining accessible indefinitely). The psychological difference between grandparents seeing your bath photos and millions of strangers seeing them is profound.

Limitations and Considerations

This research has important limitations that contextualise its findings.

Cultural context matters. Abidin's primary fieldwork was in Singapore, with supplementary interviews from Western contexts. Family, privacy, and children's roles differ across cultures, and findings may not generalise globally. Some communities have stronger traditions of children as family contributors, complicating Western frameworks around child labour and exploitation.

Platform evolution is rapid. The research was conducted during YouTube and Instagram's dominance. TikTok's emergence, platform policy changes, and shifting audience behaviours may alter the dynamics described. The economic models and exploitation patterns may evolve faster than research can track.

Selection and reporting effects. The families willing to participate in research may differ systematically from those who refuse. The most exploitative families are unlikely to invite academic scrutiny. Children's accounts are mediated through parental permission during childhood and retrospective interpretation in adulthood.

Distinguishing healthy from harmful is complex. The research identifies patterns associated with exploitation but cannot provide a bright-line rule for distinguishing acceptable from harmful family sharing. Reasonable people disagree about appropriate boundaries, and cultural variation is significant.

Historical Context

Abidin's 2017 publication arrived at a critical moment in the evolution of family content creation. YouTube's Partner Program had been monetising content since 2007, but family channels achieved massive scale in the mid-2010s. Channels like "Ryan's World" (previously Ryan ToysReview) demonstrated that child-focused content could generate hundreds of millions of views and corresponding advertising revenue.

The DaddyOFive scandal erupted the same year as Abidin's publication. The Maryland-based family had been posting "prank" videos that documented parents psychologically tormenting their children—screaming at them, falsely accusing them of misbehaviour, and filming their distress for views. Community outcry led to investigation, and two children were removed from the home. The parents pled guilty to neglect. This case demonstrated the extreme end of family influencer exploitation and prompted public discussion that Abidin's academic framework helped contextualise.

Since 2017, a growing number of former child influencers have spoken publicly about their experiences. Accounts of being forced to film while sick, having emotional breakdowns hidden from cameras, learning that childhood distress funded family lifestyles, and struggling with identity and privacy as adults have shifted public perception. Regulatory responses, while still inadequate, have accelerated.

Abidin's research provides the theoretical scaffolding for understanding these developments—concepts like micro-microcelebrity and calibrated amateurism now appear in policy discussions, legal analyses, and media criticism of family influencer culture.

\#familygoals: Family influencers, calibrated amateurism, and justifying young digital labor

APA Citation