No One Can Say: Context/Contest (OAG #3)

In a piece click-baitingly entitled “Trump Doesn’t Just Benefit From ‘Fake News’ Sites; He Is One,” Max Read, whose name must be either a nom de pixel or a serendipity, makes a general observation about social media:

[S]ocial media as an activity isn’t only about distributing information to one’s peers. It often isn’t about that at all. Generally, we post on social media as a way of establishing an identity in a crowded online environment, and in the hopes of receiving some degree of validation in the form of “engagement” — likes, comments, shares. So not only does “consuming information” (or, you know, “reading”) become less and less often distinguishable from “distributing information,” those two activities become wrapped up in the public shaping of individual identity. The news-media economy, in which a small number of publishers competed to deliver new information to a large number of readers, is in the process of being swallowed into a much larger media economy, in which hundreds of millions of functionally identical publishers compete with each other for attention from each other in an environment whose chief function isn’t the dissemination of information, but socially performed identity formation.

In the next paragraph, the concluding one of the post, Read proceeds from getting the matter rather right to, in my view, getting it entirely wrong:

This is, uhh, extremely weird, at best. Traditional news organizations, to state the obvious, are not built to survive an economy like that. You know who is, though? Politicians.

The entire wrongness is in the claim that there is something “weird” about so-called “social media” functioning chiefly as “socially performed identity formation” rather than for the purpose of “dissemination of information.”

Everyone’s identity formation is literally information, while a meaningful difference between one’s “performance” of it and its actuality or supposed actuality may be difficult or impossible to demonstrate – not that it is impossible to dissemble, but the moment I begin to dissemble I take on as part of my “identity formation” the character of a dissembler: We are at least also who we turn out to be, not or not just whoever we may imagine or have imagined ourselves to be.

More to Read’s main argument, however, this duality of intention in social media, the intention to in-form as well as to per-form, is inherent in every act of communication. There is nothing wrong or “weird,” much less “extremely weird,” about “socially performed identify formation” as the or a chief or primary and initial function of “social media” or of any other media. Indeed, the term “social media” is equally redundancy and misnomer: All media are social media, or all media like all modes of communication either are “social” or not mediated or communicated at all. We are always participating, whether speaking or listening, in the re-definition and realization, or “performance,” of identity in a simultaneously defined and realized society-in-fact, or “social” context/contest. At the same time, what we call “social media” are, as Read’s own analysis suggests, the least authentically “social,” least graspably “socialized,” flagrantly anti-social and objectively de-socializing media of all media.

The problem, the problem of our “post-truth” or Trumpian epoch, the moment of President Troll, what causes our intellectual life to feel “extremely weird” to us, is the impairment both of information dissemination as well as of identity performance, since they are different but interdependent.

One shouts fire in the actually burning building to warn one’s fellows of the danger, but also to be, in their eyes and in one’s own, the one who warned or one who did not fail to warn. Our current moment leaves each of us to “perform” whatever self we might hope to discover in a dark and vacant theater, the show having closed long ago. We wonder if we only imagined it was ever open. We or more of us than we suspected – a muster that will in time include many for now wrapped up in shock, and grief, and fear, and rage, and despair, seeing at best only the glimmers of new or renewed possibility – have welcomed or will welcome, will someday come to love the fire for revealing who if anyone is in fact out there.

Posts in this series


WordPresser
Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution. 

Posted in Internet, Operation American Greatness, Politics, Twitter Tagged with:

4 comments on “No One Can Say: Context/Contest (OAG #3)

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

  1. Yeah, after reading this both maximally and minimally, I want to yell into a bullhorn “Step away from the theorizing!”

    It’s kinda like the perennial theorizing that we live in a computer simulation. Confusion and infinite regress combine to form a poor foundation for insight.

    btw when I clicked on the “No One Can Say,,” title of my email version of the post, I was sent to a page on your site saying the page could not be found.

    • I’d need you to forward me the email you received in order to suss out the problem, but I suspect it may have had something to do with correcting the date of the post.

      As for the suggestion on theorizing, I think I’ll have to thank you for reading, but reject both the comparison to computer simulation theorizing and the invitation to step away from what I’m starting with this post, which is only the first of a 3-part sub-series within a new longer series. If you’re not inclined to bear with me on it, that’s up to you!

  2. sorry, my “this” in “after reading this” was disantecedent. The “this” I meant was Mr Read’s piece, not yours, which I agree with and look forward to its postcedents.

Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Noted & Quoted

(0)

And this programmer suggested a way to avoid user input all together:

Eventually, programmers on Reddit started making fully-functioning, interactive versions of the awful forms, like this and this and this. Someone even created one out of the classic game Snake. The meme hasn’t stopped for weeks now, and iterations of it seem to be growing more detailed and elaborate.

Comment →
(0)

Trump actually congratulated Erdogan on the outcome. Trump apparently thought it was a good thing that, despite all the flaws in the process, a bare majority of Turkey’s citizens voted to strengthen their populist leader. I don’t think any other post-Cold War president would have congratulated a democratic ally that held a flawed referendum leading to a less democratic outcome. This is not that far off from Trump congratulating Putin on a successful referendum result in Crimea if that event had been held in 2017 rather than 2014.

Public disquiet and behind-the-scenes pressure on key illiberal allies is an imperfect policy position. It is still a heck of a lot more consistent with America’s core interests than congratulating allies on moving in an illiberal direction. In congratulating Erdogan, Trump did the latter.

For all the talk about Trump’s moderation, for all the talk about an Axis of Adults, it’s time that American foreign policy-watchers craving normality acknowledge three brute facts:

  1. Donald Trump is the president of the United States;
  2. Trump has little comprehension of how foreign policy actually works;
  3. The few instincts that Trump applies to foreign policy are antithetical to American values.
Comment →
(0)

He sensed that the public wanted relief from the burdens of global leadership without losing the thrill of nationalist self-assertion. America could cut back its investment in world order with no whiff of retreat. It would still boss others around, even bend them to its will...

There was, to be sure, one other candidate in the 2016 field who also tried to have it both ways—more activism and more retrenchment at the same time. This was, oddly enough, Hillary Clinton... Yet merely to recall Clinton’s hybrid foreign-policy platform is to see how pallid it was next to Trump’s. While she quibbled about the TPP (which few seemed to believe she was really against), her opponent ferociously denounced all trade agreements—those still being negotiated, like the TPP, and those, like NAFTA and China’s WTO membership, that had long been on the books. “Disasters” one and all, he said. For anyone genuinely angry about globalization, it was hard to see Clinton as a stronger champion than Trump. She was at a similar disadvantage trying to compete with Trump on toughness. His anti-terrorism policy—keep Muslims out of the country and bomb isis back to the Stone Age—was wild talk, barely thought through. But for anyone who really cared about hurting America’s enemies, it gave Trump more credibility than Clinton’s vague, muddled talk of “safe zones” ever gave her.

Comment →

State of the Discussion

bob
Ignored
Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Wade, your last paragraph is crucial to your argument. Certainly it expresses economically the source of the weight of a country's foreign policy, and [. . .]
Jeffrey Goldberg: The Obama Doctrine, R.I.P. – The Atlantic
CK MacLeod
Ignored
Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ Not sure where you got the idea that I ever wrote “[President Trump] doesn’t know what he’s doing!!!!!!" - bob's idea for a possible rallying [. . .]
Jeffrey Goldberg: The Obama Doctrine, R.I.P. – The Atlantic
Wade McKenzie
Ignored
Comments this threadCommenter Archive
+ The conversation that you and Bob were having at the time that I wrote my comment had everything to do with the recent missile strike [. . .]
Jeffrey Goldberg: The Obama Doctrine, R.I.P. – The Atlantic

Categories

Related