I think I’m com­ing at this viral­i­ty theme from a very dif­fer­ent angle. There’s not a lot of meme war­ring going on in what I’m talk­ing about. There’s a lot more self-promotion, I guess. The war­rior fight is to get your­self into the pub­lic sphere as a self [inaudi­ble]. I’m sort of start­ing instead from the stand­point that’s prob­a­bly much more cyn­i­cal, that the pol­i­tics involved in spread­ing memes is always a pre­tense to spread your­self in net­works. So I’m sort of at a cyn­i­cal far end of this thing.

With social media, the com­pelling oppor­tu­ni­ties for self-expression out­strip the sup­ply of things we have to con­fi­dent­ly say about our­selves. The demand for self-expression over­whelms what we might dredge up from the inside, from our true selves. So the self that we’re express­ing in social media has to be posit­ed else­where. We start to bor­row from the net­work. We start to bor­row from imag­ined future selves that we can project. We start to bor­row from the media them­selves and from oth­er kinds of con­tent cir­cu­lat­ing there that we can now con­sti­tute our­selves with.

This kind of thing doesn’t guar­an­tee that we’re per­son­al­ly grow­ing by assim­i­lat­ing these things, how­ev­er. The more we express our­selves for self-definition, the more we lim­it the self to what we have the means to cir­cu­late. The sort of self we can imag­ine our­selves to be becomes con­tin­gent on the avail­able media, not on any kind of inner being. Social media offer a wealth of new resources, images, links, the sort of viral stuff we’ve already been talk­ing about, to con­tin­ue to bait us into becom­ing our­selves on social media. These things seem to let us express the self with­out the lim­its of lan­guage or the thick cen­tral­i­ty of the speak­ing sub­ject, the sorts of things that peo­ple held to be lim­it­ing, and con­strict­ing and so on and so forth. The self in social media seems to be very flu­id. You get to express your­self through a suite of social media accounts, and you sort of pour net­work space from all over the place. You spill over the edge of a uni­tary pro­file, and you have the free­dom to renege on any kind of pre-composed iden­ti­ty in favor of ongo­ing glimpses at your process of self-composition.

The push towards a self-concept of per­pet­u­al becom­ing would seem to thwart sub­jec­ti­va­tion as a kind of social con­trol. But the more we con­struct iden­ti­ty through these means of social media, the more we self-assimilate into the incen­tives built into them, which is to turn all expe­ri­ence into more and more strate­gic expres­sion.

So the ques­tion is how dam­ag­ing is this real­ly? Users gen­er­al­ly behave as though social media are safe spaces to reveal the self as imper­fect work in progress. But the media them­selves typ­i­cal­ly com­pile a per­ma­nent archive of our becom­ing, which negates that pro­vi­sion­al nature of the self that we’re con­struct­ing. As much as the self feels uncon­tain­able, it’s still con­tained by the archive. So we have a sort of con­flict, there’s a con­tra­dic­tion and ten­sion between the feed that we expe­ri­ence when we con­sume social media and the pro­file, which is sort of the residue or the remain­der that comes from that engage­ment.

So it becomes the user’s prob­lem to man­age the ten­sion between the sta­t­ic pro­file and the real-time expe­ri­ence of being a self in a dynam­ic social media feed envi­ron­ment. So how do users bal­ance the free-wheeling pur­suit of imme­di­a­cy, atten­tion, and salience with­in the net­work with the threat that it will all go on their per­ma­nent record? I think what hap­pens is that you have authen­tic­i­ty frac­tur­ing. The ten­sion between the archive and the feed puts pres­sure on this con­cept of authen­tic­i­ty, which is always in the process of being debunked and has a lot of obvi­ous prob­lems with it, but it lingers on as a kind of com­pass to the self and it seems to be a com­mon thing to judge your­self in terms of how authen­tic you are being to some con­cept of your­self. I think that social media puts pres­sure on that con­cept of an authen­tic self, and I think what hap­pens is we’re being split into two con­cur­rent things work­ing togeth­er.

Active social media use urges a de fac­to rejec­tion of the true self that users may not be ready to accept ide­o­log­i­cal­ly, but it still hap­pens. It calls for a self that’s recon­sti­tut­ed, for your­self and for oth­er peo­ple, the same way that our news­feeds are recon­sti­tut­ed in real time, or rec­om­men­da­tion pages are recon­sti­tut­ed. The self is very dynam­ic in the social media envi­ron­ment in that it’s pro­cess­ing the things you’ve done and pro­ject­ing a ver­sion of your­self to you. And yet you still have this inter­nal sense that we’re already coher­ent, we’re already extend­ing from with­in a coher­ent being.

I think that pres­sure frac­tures authen­tic­i­ty into these dif­fer­ent poles, the post-authentic viral self” (or maybe I should call it the spread­able self in hon­or of Henry Jenkins) and what I’m call­ing a neg­a­tive the­ol­o­gy of self,” which I’m going to talk about next.

[slide 37.39]The pos­si­bil­i­ty that every­thing we do on net­works is sur­veilled has gen­er­at­ed an urge to remove the true self from the chart­ed ter­ri­to­ry of social media. In an essay recent­ly about Google Glass the artist Molly Crabapple argued that the things we once called souls are not leg­i­ble to algo­rithms. […] The net­work alters you in ways that make you more leg­i­ble to the net­work. But maybe there are some things it still can’t get.” That seems almost like a faith-based state­ment, but I think that’s a feel­ing that emerges from using social media as a sense that there must be some­thing that is not going to become strate­gic expres­sion in social media.

As we make our­selves or are made more leg­i­ble to the net­work, we may become more aware of what isn’t trans­lat­able to its for­mats. That means that deep­er engage­ment with social net­works, with social media, could pro­vide a more thor­ough aware­ness of what our soul could be. In an essay called Returning the Dream, the psy­chol­o­gist Adam Phillips quotes anoth­er psy­chol­o­gist D.W. Winnicott, At the cen­ter of each per­son is an incom­mu­ni­ca­do ele­ment, and this is sacred and most wor­thy of preser­va­tion.” Phillips inter­prets this as a neg­a­tive the­ol­o­gy of the self” and argues that in Winnicott, the aim of inti­ma­cy is to spon­sor the soli­tary unknowa­bil­i­ty of the true self.” Now if that’s so, then social media would seem to destroy inti­ma­cy alto­geth­er, replac­ing it with shar­ing and copi­ous self-expression, not soli­tary unknowa­bil­i­ty.

But there’s no rea­son to equate what is shared in social media with what is authen­tic about the self. Social media can sup­port Winnicott’s neg­a­tive the­ol­o­gy of self by allow­ing us to express pre­cise­ly what is inessen­tial about our­selves, estab­lish­ing through that copi­ous con­fes­sion of inessen­tial triv­i­al­i­ties the neg­a­tive space where the inef­fa­ble self can reside. Sharing then becomes a process of shed­ding, a way to purge what we think we know about our­selves but which is inher­ent­ly wrong because it’s express­ible.

Our true self is then con­sti­tut­ed in the silences. The net­work in this sense actu­al­ly alters us to have a soul, prepar­ing the ground for it. And inti­ma­cy then is going over someone’s social media offer­ings and reas­sur­ing them that none of that actu­al­ly seems like them at all. The death of inti­ma­cy then, is when some­one looks at your Facebook and thinks, Oh, that’s you. You’ve real­ly got your­self pegged.”

So if our deep­est self is inex­press­ible by def­i­n­i­tion how­ev­er, it seems non-sensical to make express­ing the true self” into any kind of life goal. Personal or artis­tic expres­sion can­not be about sin­cer­i­ty or authen­tic­i­ty but few peo­ple I think would accept that as what they’re doing when they’re using social media, that they’re being pur­pose­ly inau­then­tic and false. So what is going on on social media if there’s this neg­a­tive the­ol­o­gy of self in oper­a­tion?

I think what we have is the viral self, what I called the post-authentic self” in the pre­sen­ta­tion I gave last year. I think the use­less­ly inex­press­ible true self dooms us to an unbridge­able iso­la­tion despite the way that social media con­nects every­body all togeth­er all the time. I think that this brings about this com­pli­men­ta­ry self of viral post-authentic self as a com­pan­ion. The post-authentic self is premised on the pos­si­bil­i­ty that one’s traces, the ephemera of every­day life that’s being eject­ed from the neg­a­tive the­ol­o­gy self, can all be processed into a makeshift pro­vi­sion­al iden­ti­ty on social media plat­forms through the feed­back of oth­ers and through algo­rith­mic pro­cess­ing. This iden­ti­ty can be shared and con­sumed not only by oth­ers but by one­self. You can enjoy your­self as a nov­el­ty item rather than con­front one­self as a prob­lem to solve, or as a self of inborn con­straints on true self that lim­its you.

I think the What Would I Say on Facebook” thing that hap­pened a few years ago is a good exam­ple of this. It goes through your Facebook feed, it pro­duces con­tent that you might have pro­duced based on all the things you pro­duced before, and then you get to read over and think Oh, haha look that’s so much like me.” Or, That’s so fun­ny. I would nev­er say that.” But you get to expe­ri­ence your­self as a prod­uct thanks to the way you’re being processed in the net­works.

So post-authenticity, and I think it has a lot to do with this thing, the idea of norm­core which is anoth­er way of express­ing the same sort of ideas, I think. It ratio­nal­izes the ter­ror of ubiq­ui­tous sur­veil­lance and makes the accel­er­at­ed con­sump­tion online benev­o­lent. It becomes what you’re doing to feed these algo­rithms to pro­duce a prod­uct of your­self that you can then enjoy. It helps you ease the bur­den of being a unique and true self. The bur­den of unique­ness becomes placed on the algo­rithms, not on us.

Being on social media deep­ens the aware­ness of what can’t be shared, at the same time pro­tect­ing that exclu­sion­ary puri­ty of the inex­press­ible self with­in us that’s now beyond pub­lic appro­pri­a­tion. In the mean­time the met­rics and the algo­rithms stand in as a quasi-populist proxy for the post-authentic self’s approv­ing oth­er in the cir­cuit of self-production. The algo­rithms get to con­firm— give us social recog­ni­tion in the broad­est sense rather than being depen­dent on oth­er indi­vid­u­als.

I think post-authenticity, it moves us from brand to meme. It rejects spe­cif­ic con­sumer sig­ni­fiers of the self—their increased cir­cu­la­tion in social media makes their mean­ing a bit unre­li­able anyway—in favor of engage­ment met­rics that track con­tent which form the new­ly reli­able basis for the self. With a self ground­ed in met­rics rather than in spe­cif­ic con­tent, one posi­tions one­self in the social media envi­ron­ment less as a per­son­al brand than as a meme. One adopts a viral self” anchored in con­tin­u­al demon­stra­tions of its reach based on inge­nious appro­pri­a­tion and aggre­ga­tion of exist­ing con­tent, not in per­son­al expres­sion or fideli­ty to some inner truth or some per­son­al taste that’s inter­nal. It’s defined by what it can cir­cu­late not by what it cir­cu­lates.

To make the self-as-meme reg­is­ter it’s imper­a­tive one­self with dynam­ic, emo­tion­al­ly res­o­nant, viral con­tent. This is a dif­fer­ent kind of con­tent than brands or those tra­di­tion­al sig­ni­fiers that con­sumerism stud­ies have talked about for a long time that seems sort of sta­t­ic as you adopt and then they sort of die when you adopt them. There’s a the­o­ry that you con­sume the object and then your fan­ta­sy is over because now you have the thing and that sort of kills what it sig­ni­fied for you. I think that viral con­tent is a sort of evo­lu­tion of that. It keeps the feel­ing alive in the way it cir­cu­lates rather than the fact that you pos­sess it. By shar­ing viral con­tent, the self is in play. We don’t cir­cu­late the memes so much as the memes cir­cu­late us. And that’s why Yakov Smirnoff is up there.

Virality serves an an equal­ly tau­to­log­i­cal token of authen­tic­i­ty, but unlike the old ver­sion of authen­tic­i­ty it’s a replace­ment for the old sense that being spon­ta­neous makes you authen­tic. Now instead, being viral makes you authen­tic with­in this con­struct, with­in this par­tic­u­lar kind of self­hood. Content recedes to mere ali­bi for engag­ing emo­tion­al­ly with the cir­cu­la­tion data, vic­ar­i­ous­ly iden­ti­fied not with the con­tent but with how infor­ma­tion trav­els. The par­tic­i­pa­tion is in the cir­cu­la­tion, not in what the thing being cir­cu­lat­ed seems to sig­ni­fy.

So we shift from con­sumerist plea­sures of fan­ta­siz­ing about how own­ing cer­tain brand­ed goods would make us into a cer­tain kind of per­son and secure us a cer­tain kind of affir­ma­tion to fan­ta­siz­ing about tri­umphant moments of social quan­tifi­ca­tion, about get­ting likes and retweets, and hav­ing lots of Tumblr activ­i­ty and so on. So viral­i­ty becomes the hori­zon beneath which occur­rences no longer fig­ure social­ly. If it doesn’t go viral to some extent, it no longer counts as being about your­self, it’s no longer real, it’s no longer authen­tic. And so if you have no activ­i­ty, you’re in a bit of a post-authentic dilem­ma. That’s from my own Tumblr; it’s very depress­ing.

So I think a look at the most noto­ri­ous sup­pli­er of viral con­tent, Upworthy, may shed some fur­ther light on how we can adopt viral­i­ty as a tech­nique of the self and engi­neer viral­i­ty as an end in itself.

One of the things that Upworthy shows is that no con­tent, or no self, is inher­ent­ly viral. And like­wise, no con­tent is inher­ent­ly nonviral. Optimization tech­niques can always be applied. Upworthy’s puta­tive goal is to get its pre­ferred con­tent past what­ev­er fil­ters peo­ple have set up and into mas­sive cir­cu­la­tion. But their tricks end up trump­ing the con­tent, so the tech­niques to cir­cu­late the mate­r­i­al are much more reveal­ing than the things that mat­ter” that Upworthy says it’s all about. The cir­cu­la­tion again is the con­tent.

The most noto­ri­ous of Upworthy’s tech­niques is the much-parodied curios­i­ty gap head­line. And I have a few exam­ples here I pulled off the page yes­ter­day. But that for­mat is much-parodied, it’s becom­ing stale as they said when they were pro­filed in New York mag­a­zine. They said these head­lines are start­ing to no longer be as viral­ly potent and they were try­ing to shift strate­gies. And the point of that is that the spe­cif­ic for­mu­la is not the key. That’s not what’s viral. What mat­ters is the for­mu­la itself, that their for­mu­las are being applied. And then they reveal through A/B test­ing of dif­fer­ent head­lines which one is the real ver­sion.” The one that gets the most hits is the real ver­sion.” And I think Upworthy’s suc­cess at that shows a sense of how you could con­ceive iden­ti­ty the same way, that the real ver­sion” of iden­ti­ty is not nec­es­sar­i­ly every­thing you post, but it’s what gets traf­fic, what ris­es above the hori­zon of viral­i­ty. Nothing else real­ly mat­ters, no one else will see that stuff.

Just as gen­uine­ness has proved irrel­e­vant to the content’s poten­tial viral­i­ty (sto­ries that go viral are often debunked), it’s also irrel­e­vant to the viral self whose authen­tic­i­ty is an after-effect of hav­ing mar­shaled an audi­ence. Realness is a mat­ter of atten­tion met­rics rather than the fideli­ty of the con­tent to some core truth. Typical Upworthy mate­r­i­al doesn’t priv­i­lege unique­ness or com­plex emo­tion­al respons­es, of course. Such sub­tleties belong to the negative-theology-of-self world of being so unique that you can’t express your­self com­pre­hen­si­bly. I think Upworthy empha­sizes the for­mu­las because they’re com­fort­ing and they uncool, they repel cyn­ics who are more invest­ed in exclu­sion than inclu­sion. Upworthy says they’re try­ing to reach peo­ple where they’re at. They say, You don’t want to be that guy in your Facebook feed say­ing, These ReTHUGlicans out there…’” You don’t want to be the per­son who’s being overt­ly polit­i­cal.

That might be good advice to go viral on Facebook, but I think more sig­nif­i­cant is the assump­tion built into that about who you are. You are a guy in the Facebook feed. Upworthy con­tent strives to let you become that guy in the Facebook feed and not get fil­tered out from that site of viral self­hood. Upworthy’s inten­sive use of for­mu­las illus­trates how viral­i­ty becomes a for­mal genre rec­og­niz­able inde­pen­dent of its cir­cu­la­tion data. This helps per­mit one to expe­ri­ence viral­i­ty as a feel­ing and iden­ti­fy with it in the face of inevitably dis­ap­point­ing actu­al met­rics. At a cer­tain point, viral­i­ty is no longer a hori­zon but just a feel­ing. It’s an impulse, it’s an instinct. Like Gawker’s for­mer viral con­tent guru Neetzan Zimmerman sort of oper­at­ed pure­ly by impulse, by instinct, because viral­i­ty had become a feel­ing about con­tent as opposed to an actu­al proven out by data, ahead of time…anyway.

By encod­ing audi­ence enthu­si­asm at the lev­el of form, viral con­tent per­mits vic­ar­i­ous par­tic­i­pa­tion not only in the viral sto­ry, whose appar­ent pop­u­lar­i­ty helps encour­age an indul­gent sus­pen­sion of dis­be­lief, but in the social itself, con­ceived as a flow of infor­ma­tion in social net­works. The func­tion of a sto­ry in social rela­tions is shift­ed. It’s not retold in time and depen­dent on co-presence, but is instead link­ing peo­ple in space and told, by being har­vest­ed in net­works and by being cir­cu­lat­ed.

If viral­i­ty is the mod­el, then social media par­tic­i­pa­tion ulti­mate­ly has no con­tent.” It is just a mat­ter of exchang­ing and tal­ly­ing ges­tures of shar­ing. As viral­i­ty sup­plants authen­tic­i­ty, the emo­tion that viral con­tent pro­vokes, a feel­ing of spread­ing con­nec­tion, threat­ens to become the root of all authen­tic feel­ing. Having oth­er sorts of feel­ings becomes point­less if you can’t be seen hav­ing them. What we want to feel is only what will spread. For instance, because I know my reac­tions read­ing things can be per­formed on Twitter, I’m sure to have a reac­tion, and then to method-act my response and see how it goes over, see if it becomes a real response by peo­ple retweet­ing it, so on and so forth. And that’s a sort of added incen­tive we get to be read­ing and doing things in social media rather than out­side of social media where you don’t have any con­fir­ma­tion.

The ubiq­ui­ty of viral­i­ty makes it seem as though one can fit in only by spread­ing one­self indis­crim­i­nate­ly. Social media sus­tain a mea­sure­ment sys­tem that makes more atten­tion seem always appro­pri­ate and any­thing less insuf­fi­cient. If your appro­pri­at­ed con­tent is not cir­cu­lat­ing then you are dis­ap­pear­ing, and this can feel like total exclu­sion. You’re adding noth­ing to the social bot­tom line, and unlike Upworthy you’re not inspir­ing any­body. But I also think it’s worth remem­ber­ing that it’s also a con­fir­ma­tion that this oth­er sort of authen­tic self that must dis­ap­pear to exist is prop­er­ly dis­ap­pear­ing, in a com­fort­ing way.

Further Reference

Rob posted a shorter, final(?) version of this at The New Inquiry as Me Meme.

And Social Media Is Not Self-Expression, also at The New Inquiry.


Help Support Open Transcripts

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