The (Social) Media is the Medium is the Message
Public Philosophy, Social Media, and the Culture Industry
It’s been two years since my public piece on democracy for the online magazine Aeon. The essay argued that democratic deliberation is not merely a matter of changing how people think or what they believe, but changing how they feel. I remember how worried I was about others’ responses to the piece, and let me tell you people HATED it (on that end my article inadvertently manifested its own thesis: getting people to feel stuff). For example, everyone (almost exclusively dudes) on Facebook trashed it, they claimed my thesis supported dictators and “Trumpers”… that a politics aimed at making people feel differently is the same as propaganda. They’re not wrong; my commitment to anti-authoritarianism entails that I reject the concepts of ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ or even ‘facts’ as playing a significant role in justification, explanation, or argumentation. For example, it would be authoritarian to assert that one should respect women because it is true that women are equal to men. What makes it true, however? If the sorts of claims that can be true are observations, then they are, at least in principle, empirically verifiable; it isn’t clear to me what, if anything, would verify the truth of a metaphysical claim such as that.
If we treat ‘truth’ as an explanatory concept then we risk regressing into a form of authoritarianism - there is no wiggle room to argue with reality - you either accept it or deny it, and to deny is to “deny reality.” Only the mad or the dogmatic deny reality. I’ve heard many progressives assert that the right denies reality, and even Obama argued that contemporary political discourse needs to reclaim the truth. The tldr version of my thesis is that the best way to combat harmful propaganda is not censorship, it is also not a “doubling-down” on the truth, but instead producing more and better propaganda: flooding public discourse with progressive propaganda, and helping people (especially people in socially-influential positions, like Elon Musk) give a fuck about e.g., issues such as race-based discrimination.
A funny thing that happens when you publish public philosophy is that people largely take for granted the inherent risk involved in making one’s beliefs, thoughts, or experiences available for public consumption. There are those that offer an uncharitable reading, who go on Facebook or the comment section and trash what you say without offering their own take on the matter. The only option is to wade through the muck and the mire in an attempt to persuade them they are mistaken, and let me tell you, that only enlarges the problem. There are others that send you dismissive or insulting emails. Notably, the few positive emails I received all had the same feature: the person felt entitled to share their work (one guy literally sent me a book manuscript) which was not something that went through any sort of peer review or referee process. I wanted to respond, “respectfully, who gives a fuck??” Just because you read my piece doesn’t mean I owe you anything - my time has already gone into the writing and editing process required to publish this shit! To have your work solicited for a public venue like Aeon requires multiple stages of editing, you receive feedback from other professionals, and in my case, an editor with much more experience writing public pieces than I will likely ever have. The fact that people thought they were entitled to share their unedited or unpublished work supports my earlier point that the general public does not recognize the risk that goes into publishing a piece online, or their responsibilities in consuming it, and this issue raises questions about the function of public philosophy altogether. I understand this is ironic because Substack is exactly the sort of venue where you can publish whatever you want without editorial input. At best, it’s something like an online “free market” of ideas, where the best ideas (ought to) win out because people read, comment, like, and share stuff they find persuasive - a sort of grassroots form of influence, rather than the “built-in” publicity you get when you publish in established journals or outlets (or to your many followers).
I’ve been working on a chapter for an edited collection on The Philosophy of Fame and Celebrity where I argue that ignorance about pop culture is not a virtue, and philosophers ought to take pop culture seriously in order to discern and combat its pernicious effects. During my research I came across the work of Neil Postman, who in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business argues that “form excludes the content” or the idea that the form of discourse determines or fixes its content. This is a modification of Marshall McLuhan’s famous dictum that “the medium is the message.” For Postman, cognitively-significant explanations or justifications are necessarily linguistic - there is a fundamental difference between describing a state of affairs in a newspaper article, and reporting on an event in a televised news broadcast. What explains this difference? The role of advertising. Although newspapers also depend on advertisement, they are not “cut up” in the way that televised news broadcasts are, which require sensationalized headlines and are segmented by commercial breaks. The different news stories are not connected by temporal or material relations, but rather simply because that’s how they have been put together: “and now for something completely different.”
Or how about televised political debates: the ostensible function of a political debate is to communicate the politician’s values and commitments, but given the medium it ends up being a venue where what matters is how one looks or appears - the goal is to “win” not to offer a sober and genuine expression of one’s plan or commitments. Just consider how many “promises” candidates make on the campaign trail come to fruition - according to Postman et al, this is because the visual medium inhibits promises altogether, genuine promises just aren’t the sort of things that are communicated on a televised stage. As an expressivist, I am sympathetic to the idea that the medium is the message because I endorse the thesis that language serves multiple legitimate functions in addition to describing or representing reality. Following Ludwig Wittgenstein and Amie Thomasson, I do not assume that language performs an essentially declarative or descriptive function or that description is/ought to be the “primary” form of communication, either. For example, children first use language to express their needs and desires and only later develop the ability to describe their experiences.
Both McLuhan and Postman, as well as critical theorists such as Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer, are heavily critical of visual media, such as television and film, to offer genuinely informative content or testimonial discourse. I mean these guys were worked up about television and film, imagine how much they would’ve hated social media! Consider Twitter, Instagram, or TikTok - each of these applications can be understood as mediums and as such they each have their own form, and this form determines and fixes the type of content that can be expressed and communicated. Thi Nguyen has a relevant piece on how Twitter “gamifies” communication, which I think serves as a useful explication of the thesis that form excludes the content. According to Nguyen, the properties of Twitter determine the sorts of expressions that can succeed: character limits, the function of likes, retweets, and replies. These features make it so that the sorts of messages or declarations that flourish are those that “fit” within Twitter’s constraints. Consequently, people are incentivized to publish short, antagonistic declarations: its much easier to Tweet “academic philosophy is the outhouse of culture” than it is to outline or describe the ways that academic philosophy contributes to cultural decline. Further, offering reasons and evidence (a proverbial thread) just provides fodder for people to pick apart or dismiss the conclusion (remember, this is a place for shitposting, not democratic deliberation). When we post a short declaration or claim, the audience must do the work to “unpack” what it means, more often than not reading their own assumptions and background into the punchline (I use punchline because Nguyen himself compares this to Ted Cohen’s theory of jokes, which are necessarily interactive and conditional, they require the audience to have certain background beliefs and experiences in order to work). People either “get it” or don’t, when given the medium, there might not be anything to get, at all (to be fair I just made the whole outhouse thing up).
Although Nguyen restricts his analysis to Twitter, I think we can easily extend his framework to TikTok and Instagram: Instagram is an image-dominant medium and so does not lend itself to nuanced discussion or debate. TikTok encourages something akin to deliberation through its short videos and ability for “duets” but in order to be successful users need to produce videos that will make it to the “For You Page” - they must attempt to game the algorithm. For example, the algorithm will “ding” your videos if people leave the app after watching them. In the end I think TikTok suffers from the same problem as Twitter: privileging so-called outrage or clickbait topics that encourage doom-scrolling which keeps people on the app. I need followers and likes to have any sort of influence at all, even if for progressive or emancipatory purposes, yet it would be unwise for me to post a video encouraging people to pick up a book or do anything that takes them away from the app.
For Adorno, the “culture industry” is the system that produces mass culture: cultural objects or commodities that are made to appeal to as many people as possible because the purpose of the system is the capitalist desire for profit. The point of the app is to make money, and that means the goal is to keep people on it, if your video goes viral thats because it serves the interests of the culture industry, not because it is true or sincere (if so that is only accidental). Back when I was on philosophy Twitter (rip) I always found it funny how tenured philosophers and journalists treated Twitter as a place for serious disagreement or deliberation - they would have their credentials on their bio, try to have meaningful conversations about politics, when it’s clearly an avenue for shit-posting - sincerity is only going to feed the trolls (which is why it makes total sense to me that Musk would take over).
The express purpose or point of these social media applications, or maybe every single application on our phones period, is to keep us using them. On that end, they are the perfect tools for the culture industry - collapsing any purported distinction between high and low culture, or between entertainment and deliberation. This is perhaps why most of these apps are well-suited for shitposting. FWIW I do think “Zoomers” are better at discerning the non-discursive function of various social media sites - they are more likely to post satirical videos and/or comments that imitate sincerity but actually reveal how these apps merely pretend to be platforms for “serious” discussion or sincerity. For example, there is the genre of “day in the life” videos where people offer what might be sincere representation of their day, or are covert forms of advertisement or recruitment, or satire. What makes it to the FYP just is whatever will serve the culture industry, even if or when that content offers “critical” or negative of capitalism itself. I don’t have TikTok but I am curious if there are or have been top videos that are critical of TikTok itself. Maybe I should make one for the purpose, since in today’s culture industry a girl’s gotta get those likes if she wants to be someone rather than no one.
Okay, before I go I want to turn my thesis toward this very medium, Substack - what is the purpose of Substack? How does its form determine its content and what does it exclude? Does the lack of editorial oversight undermine its legitimacy? What about limiting discourse to paid subscriptions or the ability to add tags? Is it better to have your real name and feign a sense of accountability? Perhaps Substack is just a lesser evil, after all it’s not like the editors of even the most prestigious philosophy journals are editors because they are somehow closer to reality or the truth. Let me know your thoughts in the comments! And don’t forget to like and subscribe! ;-)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I was just drinking a coffee this morning, and it came to me that I posted something about 'definitely not' .. at the end of a post here last night. I thought that was a bit of an odd ending. Just to clarify I was comparing people I had arrived at, found, through having a sense of someone's record, record on previous wars etc (I'm talking here more about geopolitical type stuff), or someone that I give a weight to their views, I listen to, read, because one of these people I already know has recommended, shared their work.. I would then start to read, judge it, and see what they are saying (This type of thing, at some times in my life I would avoid, as I suppose it takes time, it isn't 'easy', .. at some times though I enjoy to a degree, attempting to understand different sides, what is going on, compared to what is being served up to the masses), comparing this to say what is in a national newspaper, with an editor etc ..
I understand why the majority of people would sit down at 6pm and have their 'news' packaged, given to them (I suppose now there is more 'rolling news cycles' which changes things.. how they have to report, the money, advertising, etc .. sorry I don't want to type another long message.. haha.. I just wanted to clarify how I finished the last reply there). I could give examples, over the years, wars.. the same people who lie about every war, keep on in the next war, (I was about to get onto something else..).
Just this point though, the 'legitimacy' — I don't see as something that is given to someone if they appear in a certain newspaper, compared to an investigative journalist who's stories newspapers these days wouldn't print. How the wider population judge it though, that's .. well I suppose what you are touching on in your essays, article there. These days it's easier to find independent journalists than it was years ago, but the 'mainstream' has adjusted, more 'propaganda'. .
Anyway, it's a topic that a lot could be said/wrote about, I was just coming here to briefly clarify that last remark (I am slightly hungover, and had only had first sip or two of first coffee, hopefully the gist of what I mean is there).
__
Edit.. just to add (I had one cup of coffee, in the midst of painting some kind of scene..)
.. I am glad to type this out here as I feel like it's more likely if someone did come across this and read this, they are more likely to have a sense of what I am trying to say. They may be more inclined to read a few lines, rather that see one aspect, and label the person in simplified way. You mentioned it in your essay on here, the attacks when you posted a link to the article on facebook .. In a way I suppose there is a 'mainstream' of social media. I only briefly went on facebook over a decade ago, so I don't know what goes on there, but I hear certain geopolitical views blocked, supressed .. all the time under the guise of 'protecting' people from 'misinformation' 'disinformation' .. I know this is another subject, without going into that ... the point that I think you made regarding twitter, is why I tend to not post any of my views of this type of thing on there (well it's partly because this account I have here, this name, I moved over from Bob Dylan forums of various guises, initially more with feet in a kind of early days 'weird twitter', posts of verse, art, photography, with the odd Bob Dylan post .. I saw 'twitter' as just a little place that I can place stuff here and there, maybe some people will find it .. )
I don't 'use' twitter as they likely want people to, I never go on the 'feed' and see what it is showing me, there a few accounts on there (I'm talking more about if I go on there to look for something in relation to an event in the world, political, or whatever), these accounts will likely have links to websites, there articles, substack posts, youtube interviews (if they haven't removed their video).. my point is that I'm using it as another tool .. this is different to me logging in, and posting for example
"I think the US, UK are throwing fuel on the fire, by sending billions of pounds, a billions of pounds worth of weapons to Ukraine .. these people in charge don't actually care about Ukrainians, they are 'fighting to the last Ukrainian' as a way to try and bring Russia down"
..(I would have to cut it short, not explain what led to the view, the background, context, what led to the invasion, the 'other side of the story, other aspects), that would lead to followers or people seeing it replying, 'Russian misinformation', 'Putin talking point' , and the short little clips of text leads to all this back and forth arguments, attacks, labels, - I think you were referring to this. For example maybe a right wing politician has said something similar to the point that you make, people might see this and label a person as 'right wing fascist' ..' etc. this is kind of exchange the likes of twitter and modern day 'culture' I suppose encourages in different ways. My point is that these places can be used in different ways, and also new places and ways of people finding out more, weighing up all the aspects, not having some kind of 'guardian of the truth' that doesn't allow certain views in public that stray from the 'accepted narrative' (often linked to government, big corporations, corporate media), because if people are only 'allowed' to see one side of the story.. then it isn't really a 'democracy' that they are in. Anyway, thank you for posting your post here, and a place here for such a rambling reply to be posted.
__
nm.