[Audio for the first few min­utes was very rough; there may be some errors.]

It’s been now twen­ty years since 1994 [inaudi­ble] quite sur­pris­ing­ly. But twen­ty years ago the jour­nal­ist and media crit­ic Douglas Rushkoff released the book Media Virus!, which became one of the most influ­en­tial and most crit­i­cized ear­ly works of web the­o­ry. While the book went on to inspire a gen­er­a­tion of com­mer­cial mar­keters to craft pro­mo­tion­al mes­sages that spread and repli­cate across dig­i­tal net­works, Rushkoff’s focus was in fact the use of viral dis­sem­i­na­tion tech­niques for rad­i­cal and pro­gres­sive polit­i­cal activism. Five years lat­er, Kalle Lasn the founder of Adbusters mag­a­zine advanced a sim­i­lar mod­el of the new media activism in a book called Culture Jam, call­ing for his fol­low­ers to kick off the next pro­gres­sive rev­o­lu­tion by act­ing as meme war­riors.” Both of these books put forth a postmodernist-influenced the­o­riza­tion of polit­i­cal pow­er as the equiv­a­lent of net­worked com­mu­nica­tive pow­er in a ful­ly sat­u­rat­ed media world.

Now on the 15th and 20th anniver­saries of these sem­i­nal works respec­tive­ly, I want to re-examine their con­tro­ver­sial claims and con­sid­er how their the­o­ries of media con­ta­gion as polit­i­cal pow­er inform our con­tem­po­rary debates about slack­tivism and the val­ue of sym­bol­ic polit­i­cal expres­sion on the web. My argu­ment is that these pop­u­lar works of media crit­i­cism can be viewed in ret­ro­spect as form­ing the foun­da­tion for a per­sua­sion mod­el of polit­i­cal inter­net use that has since appeared in a hand­ful of schol­ar­ly works. I’m think­ing of peo­ple like Manuel Castells’ notion of com­mu­ni­ca­tion and pow­er work­ing in the net­work soci­ety, as well as Ethan Zuckerman, who was men­tioned before, his notion of dig­i­tal civics as sup­port­ing a cul­tur­al the­o­ry of change as opposed to a leg­isla­tive the­o­ry of change, sim­i­lar to what we were just hear­ing about.

This mod­el of change has yet to be real­ly sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly test­ed in terms of its effi­ca­cy if it real­ly could ever be test­ed, con­sid­er­ing the dif­fuse long term and indi­rect cul­tur­al effects that it sug­gests. Yet in con­trast to more-established aca­d­e­m­ic mod­els (and I’m think­ing of things like dig­i­tal delib­er­a­tive democ­ra­cy and a more ratio­nal­ist pub­lic sphere as well as civic cul­tures) I don’t have time to real­ly go into these mod­els. But this per­sua­sion mod­el that I’m talk­ing about advanced by Rushkoff and Lasn is par­tic­u­lar­ly use­ful I think for think­ing crit­i­cal­ly through a vari­ety of recent politically-oriented web phe­nom­e­na like pro­file pic­ture chang­ing cam­paigns, polit­i­cal viral videos, hash­tag activism and the like.

Both authors I think can be cred­it­ed with help­ing to pop­u­lar­ize the notion that in order to effec­tive­ly make a dif­fer­ence in a media-drenched soci­ety, cit­i­zens must focus much of their ener­gy on pro­mot­ing and mar­ket­ing their inter­ests via par­tic­i­pa­to­ry media plat­forms. In my forth­com­ing book project, I call this the citizen-marketer approach.” The citizen-marketer can be defined as a per­son who con­scious­ly uses her pro­mo­tion­al pow­er as a micro-level peer-to-peer agent in the broad­er infor­ma­tion econ­o­my to advance a polit­i­cal agen­da. They essen­tial­ly act as the polit­i­cal equiv­a­lent of com­mer­cial brand advo­cates or brand evan­ge­lists or viral mar­ket­ing agents, in a sim­i­lar way that I’m now pro­mot­ing David Lynch movies on my t‑shirt. And this is going on in a medi­at­ed mar­ket­place of ideas dis­sem­i­nat­ing per­sua­sive con­tent in a peer-to-peer fash­ion as a means of con­tribut­ing to the shap­ing of the pub­lic mind.

So Lasn’s Culture Jam, released in 1999, reads in hind­sight as a man­i­festo of sorts for this citizen-marketer approach that I’m iden­ti­fy­ing here. Lasn lays out a vision of con­tem­po­rary polit­i­cal strug­gle as tak­ing place entire­ly with­in the cir­cu­la­tion of per­sua­sive media mes­sages. This echoes the­o­rists of so-called post-modern pol­i­tics,” for instance Stephen Best and Douglass Kellner who argue that in an era in which social life is fil­tered through the media, pol­i­tics becomes a bat­tle of images.” So in a sim­i­lar sense, Lasn writes

The next rev­o­lu­tion, World War III, will be as Marshall McLuhan pre­dict­ed a gueril­la infor­ma­tion war fought not in the sky or on the streets but in news­pa­pers and mag­a­zines, on radio and TV, and in cyber­space.’ It will be a dirty no-holds-barred pro­pa­gan­da war of com­pet­ing world­views and alter­na­tive visions of the future.
Kalle Lasn, A Toolkit for Culture Jammers,” Adbusters, July-August 1999

Now else­where he writes:

Activists can stage sit-ins, orga­nize mas­sive protests and stage mighty bat­tles with riot police. But these events will at best flick­er briefly on the evening news and be gone with no demon­stra­ble change in the world. They are spec­ta­cles with radi­um half-lives. The real riots,
the impor­tant ones that shift alliances, shake gov­ern­ments, win (or lose) elec­tions and force cor­po­ra­tions and indus­tries to rethink their agen­das, now take place inside your head.
Kalle Lasn, Culture Jam

So sort of tak­ing pol­i­tics from the streets into the sort of per­sua­sion of the mind.

Now for those who crit­i­cize so-called slack­tivism or click­tivism as threat­en­ing to replace hard-fought pol­i­tics on the ground with more facile pol­i­tics on the screen, Lasn’s log­ic here might sound quite dan­ger­ous. In fact I would argue that much of the cur­rent slack­tivism debate hinges upon whether one buys into this post-modernist vision of a medi­a­tized pol­i­tics that Lasn cel­e­brates and pros­e­ly­tizes in Culture Jam, and Rushkoff does as well, which I’ll get to in a moment.

The fact that Lasn is the same per­son who’s real­ly respon­si­ble for launch­ing Occupy Wall Street in 2011 through his Adbusters out­fit may seem to con­tra­dict this empha­sis that he has here on meme war­fare over face-to-face protests in the streets. However, Lasn’s state­ments in Culture Jam back in 99 offer a way of inter­pret­ing the true strate­gic pur­pose and inten­tion of Occupy Wall Street, at least in its ini­tial con­cep­tion on his end. Of course oth­ers took it in oth­er direc­tions after­wards. But for Lasn I real­ly believe Occupy Wall Street was a meme, a media event, a skir­mish in this pro­pa­gan­da war that he is imag­in­ing, designed more to cre­ate a col­lec­tive mind-shift as he would call it rather than cre­ate direct mate­r­i­al change on the ground.

Extending this mil­i­tary methaphor of a pro­pa­gan­da or infor­ma­tion war, Lasn calls for a new gen­er­a­tion of polit­i­cal activists to serve as meme war­riors,” active par­tic­i­pants in the per­sua­sion game of a ful­ly medi­a­tized pol­i­tics, whose weapons con­sist of videos, graph­ics, image macros, adver­tis­ing slo­gans, for­ward­ed arti­cles and the like. Although this use of the term meme that he’s using is some­what dif­fer­ent from our con­tem­po­rary usage…I mean he’s real­ly refer­ring to Richard Dawkins’ orig­i­nal notion of infec­tious ideas that take hold through­out soci­eties as opposed to our more nar­row sense of socially-shared dig­i­tal con­tent. But I think that Lasn’s for­mu­la­tion here, meme war­rriors,” is rather prophet­ic. Recognizing pri­or to our social media age that the Internet is one of the most potent meme-replicating medi­ums ever invent­ed,” Lasn more or less pre­dicts the direc­tion that what I’m call­ing cit­i­zen mar­ket­ing, or real­ly activism in gen­er­al online, has tak­en in the era of Facebook and Twitter. His strong belief that com­mu­nica­tive pow­er is the pri­ma­ry locus of all con­tem­po­rary pow­er even leads him to pro­claim that meme war­riors will even­tu­al­ly emerge as the cen­tral actors on the stage of world pol­i­tics. So here’s anoth­er quote.

Potent memes can change minds, alter behav­ior, cat­alyze col­lec­tive mind­shifts and trans­form cul­tures. Which is why meme war­fare has become the geopo­lit­i­cal bat­tle of our infor­ma­tion age. Whoever has the memes has the pow­er.
Kalle Lasn, Culture Jam

While Lasn’s faith in the absolute polit­i­cal effi­ca­cy of meme war­fare may be rea­son­ably ques­tioned, and I think it should be, his vision has undoubt­ed­ly rever­ber­at­ed through­out the cul­ture and influ­enced the devel­op­ment of activism strate­gies to no small degree. Indeed polit­i­cal orga­ni­za­tions from across the spec­trum now increas­ing­ly func­tion as what Lasn dubbed in his book meme fac­to­ries,” churn­ing out short bits of per­sua­sive media con­tent (or pro­pa­gan­da, in his terms) and sum­mon­ing sup­port­ers to spread them across a swath of dig­i­tal net­works and through­out oth­er pub­lic venues. So I’m think­ing of exam­ples like the red equals sign image of the Human Rights Campaign that was on Facebook, the Kony 2012 video of the group Invisible Children, real­ly most of the stuff we saw in the pre­vi­ous Vietnam exam­ples I might include. Well, that was sort of infor­mal, but I’m talk­ing about orga­ni­za­tions who pro­duce these kind of memes as a tool of activism.

Whether or not these cam­paigns of course are suc­cess­ful in cre­at­ing any polit­i­cal change through this peer-to-peer meme war­fare is a whole oth­er ques­tion, but either way I think Lasn can be cred­it­ed or blamed with pop­u­lar­iz­ing this approach to activism.

But released five years before Culture Jam in 1994, Douglas Rushkoff’s book Media Virus! offers a quite sim­i­lar vision of how polit­i­cal activism must adapt to a ful­ly media-centric soci­ety. His ideas are pred­i­cat­ed upon a belief shared by Lasn, and the post-moderists more broad­ly, that pol­i­tics has become an entire­ly medi­a­tized phe­nom­e­non. So as he puts it

Power today has lit­tle to do with how much prop­er­ty a per­son owns or com­mands. It is instead deter­mined by how many min­utes of prime-time TV or pages of news media atten­tion she can access or occu­py. The ever-expanding media has become a true region…
Douglas Rushkoff, Media Virus!

The data­s­phere” he calls it, which he sit­u­ates as the pri­ma­ry ter­rain of con­tem­po­rary pol­i­tics. He goes on to describe a new gen­er­a­tion of media activists who inher­ent­ly under­stand this post-modern social real­i­ty and thus seek to hack the data net­work” as a means of reshap­ing the world. And now here’s anoth­er quote from Rushkoff.

People who lack tra­di­tion­al polit­i­cal pow­er but still seek to influ­ence the direc­tion of our cul­ture do so by infus­ing new ideas into this ever-expanding data­s­phere. These infor­ma­tion bombs spread through­out the entire infor­ma­tion net in a mat­ter of sec­onds.
Douglas Rushkoff, Media Virus!

He wrote this twen­ty years ago. Rushkoff does sug­gest a net­worked mod­el of influ­ence that tru­ly fore­shad­ows the viral mar­ket­ing mod­el of the Web 2.0 era in which mes­sages are spread in a peer-to-peer fash­ion with a goal of cap­tur­ing the atten­tion and ulti­mate­ly the hearts and minds of the pub­lic.

So indeed Media Virus! has played a sig­nif­i­cant role in pop­u­lar­iz­ing the con­cept of viral media more broad­ly since its release in the mid-1990s, influ­enc­ing both com­mer­cial mar­ket­ing strate­gies as well as polit­i­cal ones. However it is the lat­ter again that is Rushkoff’s pri­ma­ry focus as he claims that the growth of par­tic­i­pa­to­ry feed­back media like the Internet have per­mit­ted our cit­i­zen­ry to grad­u­ate from pas­sive, igno­rant spec­ta­tors to active, informed par­tic­i­pants” (We hear a lot about this.) and pro­vides the abil­i­ty to mount real grass­roots counter-cultural cam­paigns.”

So mir­ror­ing Lasn’s opti­mistic view of the per­sua­sive pow­er of meme war­fare, Rushkoff describes how mem­bers of these grass­roots cam­paigns depend on a world­view that accepts that a tiny virus launched cre­ative­ly and dis­trib­uted wide­ly can top­ple sys­tems of thought as estab­lished as orga­nized reli­gion, and insti­tu­tions as well-rooted as say the Republican par­ty or even the two-party sys­tem alto­geth­er.” In oth­er words the media virus is imag­ined to not only allow new par­tic­i­pants to enter this mar­ket­place of ideas, but also to pro­vide them with an oppor­tu­ni­ty to emerge as vic­to­ri­ous by win­ning over one cit­i­zen at a time.

The key assump­tion under­ly­ing these bio­log­i­cal metaphors, viral media, memes and so forth, is that we’re talk­ing about uncon­trol­lable forces of cul­tur­al con­ta­gion spread­ing from per­son to per­son through mere con­tact and ulti­mate­ly over­tak­ing the pub­lic mind as a kind of ide­o­log­i­cal pan­dem­ic. Understandably Media Virus! has been round­ly crit­i­cized for propos­ing such an over­ly mech­a­nis­tic mod­el of social influ­ence. For instance Henry Jenkins holds off this book by Rushkoff as a prime exam­ple of what he calls a flawed way to think about dis­trib­ut­ing con­tent through infor­ma­tion or ad hoc net­works.” So for Henry Jenkins reduc­ing peo­ple to invol­un­tary hosts of media virus­es under­mines the role of human agency in the peer-to-peer spread of media mes­sages, lead­ing him to sug­gest that the term viral media” be retired alto­geth­er in favor of his less-deterministic sound­ing spread­able media.” That’s the title of his most recent book.

However, as much as this viral metaphor of invol­un­tary con­ta­gion may be far from the real­i­ty, it is impor­tant to acknowl­edge how it has impact­ed the way in which polit­i­cal pow­er is con­ceived in an era in which going viral” has become a key cul­tur­al catch­phrase. While the notion of viral infec­tion paints a pic­ture of weak and vul­ner­a­ble audi­ences that are sus­cep­ti­ble to out­side con­trol, it also makes this con­trol appear equal­ly as acces­si­ble to any­one who wish­es to seize it for his or her own pur­pos­es. In oth­er words the viral media metaphor can be simul­ta­ne­ous­ly empow­er­ing and disempow­er­ing for indi­vid­ual cit­i­zens, depend­ing upon whether one sees him or her­self as an active agent of dis­sem­i­na­tion or as mere­ly a host. Or in Lasn’s terms maybe a meme war­rior” or a con­quered sub­ject.”

This double-edged sword of the viral mod­el of influ­ence places an impo­si­tion of sorts upon those who hope to see their polit­i­cal inter­ests suc­ceed in this sort of hyper-reality mar­ket­place of ideas. Either infect the media or the media will infect you. I think that sort of impo­si­tion is on a lot of us. Presented with this choice, it is under­stand­able that many cit­i­zens would try their hand at the media con­ta­gion game in the ser­vice of fur­ther­ing their own polit­i­cal agen­das.

Thus while we cer­tain­ly can uphold that the process of spread­ing media mes­sages across peer-to-peer net­works is rich with human agency at every stage— Of course peo­ple have to decide if they’re going to for­ward some­thing, retweet some­thing, share a link, like con­tent, etc. so there’s a lot of human agency here, it’s not con­ta­gion.” But we can also rec­og­nize how this viral notion of con­ta­gion may be act­ing as a dri­ving force in the pop­u­lar uptake of this kind of approach to activism. In oth­er words, imag­in­ing those around you as poten­tial tar­gets for your infec­tious mes­sage or meme pro­vides an encour­ag­ing sense that you might just be able to make an impact on them and thus con­tribute to this broad­er shap­ing of the pub­lic mind. Although the viral mod­el is far too sim­plis­tic and mechan­i­cal to actu­al­ly work as auto­mat­i­cal­ly as it sug­gests, it appears to serve as a use­ful fic­tion for many who wish to assert some small degree of con­trol or influ­ence over this fully-mediatized polit­i­cal world which is often com­ing down from above, top-down.

This is the point that I real­ly want to close with. While notions of memet­ics and viral con­ta­gion on the web are cer­tain­ly bor­rowed from bio­log­i­cal sci­ence, I believe they’re fun­da­men­tal­ly metaphor­i­cal as opposed to sci­en­tif­ic. But that does­n’t mean that they’re not with­out mean­ing or val­ue, rather they pro­vide seduc­tive ways of con­ceiv­ing of the web and its pow­er to influ­ence the polit­i­cal and social world. And these metaphors have impor­tant con­se­quences. I’m think­ing here of the work of George Lakoff, Metaphors We Live By. Metaphors have a lot of social con­se­quences. Depending upon one’s rel­a­tive opti­mism or pes­simism about the true abil­i­ty to effect change through par­tic­i­pa­to­ry mar­ket­ing or pro­pa­gan­da tac­tics, these metaphors and their prog­en­i­tors, Rushkoff and Lasn, may alter­nate­ly be seen as inspir­ing or enner­vat­ing.

Thank you.

Further Reference

Joel writes on sev­er­al of these top­ics at his site, Viral Politics

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.