I found this program topic really intriguing and timely. Helen Lewis generally does a good job presenting and conducting interviews, however I did feel this show lacked a certain depth I felt left wanting. Whether it’s due to the organization of topics, breakdowns in production or my own interpretation I’m not totally sure, but I felt the show was missing something that connected all the concepts of gurudom together that felt convincing.
The show opens with Steve Jobs’ connection to the autobiography of Yogananda and we’re taken through Steve’s history with eastern mysticism, which I guess is what dovetails into the tech world’s adoption of gurus as such and what has made them commonplace in digital spaces as well as the tech space today. This connection seemed tenuous to me, or at the very least not entirely fleshed out and connected entirely. I would have loved more explanation for why or how 1960’s countercultural interest in eastern mysticism found its way into the computer technology industry and, thereby, boot-loaded into the online world.
Throughout the course of the show I returned to the question of what a guru is and what makes them either beneficial or not. Lewis does mention India’s approach to choosing between good and bad gurus, but I felt the introduction could have been bolstered by a bit more context as to what gurus are and do for a culture traditionally before making the leap straight into how they’ve proliferated online for good and ill. But mostly ill.
The show explores many avenues of where online gurus have found fertile ground for exploitation new and old, and it is notable how many people have transitioned from traditional careers into that guru space… but (and maybe for my own desire) I would’ve appreciated a bit more time devoted to what actually constitutes a person’s being a guru as opposed to simply being a podcaster or personality.
Maybe part of my confusion was down to the sound design of the show, as we hear exemplary clips from all manner of podcasts and YouTube channels such as the Joe Rogan Experience, the Lex Fridman podcast, Making Sense with Sam Harris, Tim Ferris, Russell Brand, etc. Some of these comparisons make sense enough, but I found it more of a stretch to conflate Lex Fridman or even Joe Rogan with gurus and wondered if we were meant to understand most podcasting and long-form recorded conversation as guru-like behavior.
The show notes for the final epilogue-esque episode suggest that the characters of original interest for the show were Sam Harris, Joe Rogan and Russell Brand. This I think contributed to my confusion as these three personalities seem very different from one another, both in professional background as well as the focus of their content. Russell Brand’s association I understand out of hand. Even Sam Harris’ status as a guru seems somewhat ballpark, but it’s like saying a yoga instructor or university lecturer is your guru; not necessarily wrong but somewhat awkward (and in the context of the groundwork for this show, not very well established in my opinion up to this point.) However, I find likening Joe Rogan to a guru a bit of a stretch. The designation starts to sound broadly applicable. Does that make Helen Lewis my guru through this podcasting journey?
The epilogue episode also has a somewhat unexpected conclusion that I found surprising, given that until the end it’s only briefly hinted at… that underneath this guru phenomena lies toxic masculinity at the core. Or at least some form of male inadequacy. This alone could probably fill an entire podcast series, but offered as what seemed a bit of an ad-hoc post-mortem on online gurudom came as something of a let-down. It’s analyzed in the various ways Brazilian Jujitsu attracts the aforementioned podcasting personalities as well as how machismo and rape culture seem to be on the rise, but I found this a somewhat dissatisfying and slightly superficial conclusion to the series. This might’ve been helped by more focus on the human condition rather than just the male condition alone. What makes people seek out advice and consultation from people they don’t know personally or only feel they do from their content? And what is it about charisma that lends authority to that content? Does the loss of faith in institutions explain this deep need to seek meaning and purpose for people?
There might’ve been elements I’ve missed, and given the time I might take another run through this podcast series and see what a second listen reveals. Genuinely, this is a very interesting subject and I really enjoyed this look into how social influence pedaling is evolving online. I just felt a little muddy about the show’s definitions and with its conclusion which I think either merits another go through the program or even more productions covering the subject.
