so here are some thoughts about "online discourse" / "free speech"something that continues to be chronically under-examined is that speech itself has been radically transformed through the displacement and fragmentation of traditional subjectivity, the fracturing / proliferation of discursive methods, and an almost total lack of clarity of what we mean by "public" in terms of where, exactly, speech acts occur. our increasing inter-connectedness and the rapid transmission of information mask a deeply dehumanizing estrangement. our notions of liberty and self-determination are increasingly unhelpful, and not merely because we've learned to be complicit in de-historicizing and mythologizing eighteenth-century ideology. it's also because the majority of our conversations — and in the case of some, the majority of lived experience — occur online, in commons which were long ago enclosed; the reasons for our existence there, and what we may have to say, are largely irrelevant to the people who facilitate our interactions. what it means to stick up for our "values" and fight for "liberty" is, in this sense, an increasingly fraught problem: every step forward entails further entrenchment in a dizzying entanglement of permissions and prohibitions, asymmetrical power relations, new and hidden modes of subjugation and coercion — all while we pretend that our online personas and statements merely refer back to a world which in fact longer exists.
it's worth remembering re: social media platforms that the user experience itself is designed to emphasize and reinforce precisely those aspects of our personality / humanity that devalue contemplation, empathy, even honesty. they replicate patterns of behavior that ensure continued engagement, then monitor those behaviors and sell the data to people who further manipulate us. this is the central power dynamic of almost all online discourse. meanwhile free speech, and the broader notion of liberalism, aren't just ideas; it's ideology and a continually reiterated (and updated) foundational myth with a history fraught with racism and violent subjugation that continue to inform and / or preclude, at a structural level, the very possibilities for speech and community.
the unifying aspect of liberal speech is hysteria, the continual need to reiterate the delusion that favored institutions and positions of leadership are not largely symbolic. the very notion of a culture war seeks to affirm this, to displace our energy into an arena where nothing has any real political consequence. even purportedly leftist notions of intersectionality and "centering" e.g. black or trans voices seem to fail to take into account a basic psycho-political geography, as if a recognition of problematic elements is sufficient for their removal and some sort of nebulous substitution of more humane models for radical liberation and solidarity. what's ignored is that we've been taught, and encouraged, to regard increased visibility as a concomitant component of social and political progress. the commodification and endless replication / dispersion of categories of identity reinforces the notion that the real battleground is the sphere of legislation, court rulings, and other mechanisms of power that only ever seem to replicate the same mechanisms of repression that we ought to seek to undermine, bypass, and ultimately overcome through collective political destabilization.
while recognizing the importance of language for projects of self-determination — for the affirmation of underrepresented categories and for a sincere fight to craft a world in which our differential existences can be lived in hospitable conditions — do we not wish to consider that the conversations which are most amplified are almost always re-framed as projects which, in some way, "complete" a mythical project of liberation that was flawed, incomplete, but for some reason still worth sticking up for ? why do we continue to fetishize outmoded conceptualizations of liberation while seemingly ignoring the fact that this sort of discourse is inherently a source of violence itself ? and finally, how do we re-claim political autonomy when our avenues of "self-expression" have been cynically marginalized and perverted in such a way that dissent only ever entails a new, novel category for marketing the same old bullshit ?
these thoughts are not complete or fully thought through — just wanted to raise some questions i haven't heard being asked elsewhere. i'm open to suggestions for further reading.
― budo jeru, Friday, 10 July 2020 23:34 (two days ago) bookmarkflaglink
― imago, Sunday, 12 July 2020 19:43 (three years ago) link