The potential for thinking through new reâ€“combinations, new ways to draw up code and language into a new media politics are suggestive. But I want finally to return to the question this article began with: more or less? This text has been framed by a belief that social media monopolies ought to be disrupted â€” and in the name of at least two of the things they are axiomatically understood to promote (social justice, solidarity as a form of community) and do not. It has been argued that this disruption might be attempted through a toolset â€” silence, disruption of language, and the exploitation of language's capacity for polysemy (the metaphor and the lie) â€” that is not often considered as apt for such a task. My conclusion, and here I return to salute Ivan Illich, is that these tools can be deployed to produce other kinds of more convivial engagements â€” a better commons â€” than our apparently â€˜social' media enable. Above all, I have wished to take seriously the idea that communication density, and increasing communicational volume, does not â€” in and of itself â€” indicate more understanding, freedom, openness, or â€˜good'. To make this case demands also taking seriously the idea of a media politics that begins with silence.
Bassett, C. (2013). Science, delirium, lies?. First Monday [Online]. 18(3).
comments powered by Disqus