Hostile Remixes on Youtube: a New Constraint on Pro-FARC Counterpublics in Colombia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UC San Diego UC San Diego Previously Published Works Title Hostile remixes on YouTube: A new constraint on pro-FARC counterpublics in Colombia Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/61p1m9s2 Journal American Ethnologist, 41(2) ISSN 0094-0496 Author Fattal, Alexander L Publication Date 2014-05-01 DOI 10.1111/amet.12078 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California ALEX FATTAL Harvard University Hostile remixes on YouTube: A new constraint on pro-FARC counterpublics in Colombia ABSTRACT Online video streaming marks a participatory turn in Colombia’s propaganda war. To understand this shift, Scene One: On April 11, 2002, members of the Revolutionary Armed I analyze a video the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Forces of Colombia (FARC) enter a government building in down- Colombia (FARC) produced of its kidnapping of 12 town Cali disguised as military officers and warn of a bomb attack. provincial parliamentarians in 2002, tracing They kidnap 12 provincial parliamentarians. Five years later, 11 of fragments of that video as they “recombine” online the hostages are killed in an accidental massacre. The only survivor, in two other videos that antagonistically resignify Sigifredo Lopez,´ is released on February 5, 2009. the original. I conduct the same exercise with Scene Two: On July 2, 2008, Colombian military officers impersonating footage of the Colombian military’s rescue of Ingrid´ humanitarian aid workers, journalists, and FARC rebels execute “Op- Betancourt and 14 other hostages in 2008 and eration Check” (as in checkmate), rescuing ´Ingrid Betancourt and 14 contrast its celebratory recombinations with those other hostages of the FARC who have been languishing in the jungle of the FARC video. Building on Michael Warner’s for years. theory of publics and counterpublics and Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of “re-accentuation,” I argue that he FARC and the Colombian military both released videos of their “recombinatory circulation” reproduces the biases of respective duplicitous operations in an effort to put their stamp Colombia’s mass media, constraining pro-FARC on the events. In this article, I analyze those two videos, trac- counterpublics. I contextualize the circulation ing their circulation and examining the events and structures in analysis with ethnography focused on former which they are embedded. Central to the analysis is what I call T“recombinatory circulation,” a form of circulation marked by reconfigura- hostages, demobilized rebels, and military intelligence officials. Beyond Colombia, I argue for tions of an earlier text. Akin to the remix as a form of audio bricolage (Maira converting interactive circulation into an empirical 1999), recombination involves the reappearance of audiovisual fragments and analytical prism to illuminate the politics of in new, derivative videos that stream online (Shifman 2011). More broadly, online publics. [media politics, Colombia violence, the term recombination highlights the centrality of interactivity in the cir- video streaming, online circulation, media events, culation of digital and digitized media as a means of advancing or con- FARC kidnapping, Michael Warner, Mikhail Bakhtin] straining publics. In this article, I make two interconnected interventions. First, I argue that recombinatory circulation reproduces the FARC’s long-standing me- dia marginalization, highlighting the limits of YouTube as an open and level media space in Colombia.1 The online propaganda battle, then, mir- rors the country’s asymmetrical military struggle, in which 445,000 gov- ernment troops overwhelm the FARC’s 10,000 (Centro Nacional de Memo- ria Historica´ 2013:179).2 Online, the Colombian conflict plays out through likes, favorites, shares, comments, and reedited videos (I focus on the lat- ter), and here too the government outmatches the rebels. The patterns of recombinatory circulation of the two videos I trace reinscribe online the AMERICAN ETHNOLOGIST, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 320–335, ISSN 0094-0496, online ISSN 1548-1425. C 2014 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/amet.12078 Hostile remixes on YouTube American Ethnologist anti-FARC biases of corporate television and radio in Operation Check, including the footage the military re- Colombia. In short, online publics recombine the FARC’s leased immediately afterward and the recombinations of video into new videos that are thinly veiled calls for that footage. Part 4 contrasts the two patterns of recombina- vengeance, and they recombine the government’s video tory circulation and reflects on the implications of their di- into derivative, celebratory videos. This contrast illuminates vergence for the prospect of a negotiated solution to Colom- the limits of “digital democracy” in the Colombian context. bia’s armed conflict. YouTube, rather than eroding the FARC’s long-standing me- dia marginalization, re-creates severe media constraints on Setting the stage: Interactivity and a stymied the FARC. counterpublic At the heart of that argument lies the partial displace- ment of censorship by drowning out pro-FARC voices and In his seminal book Publics and Counterpublics, Michael amplifying calls for violence against the rebels.3 My sec- Warner defines publics as infinite, expanding, interrelated ond intervention urges greater anthropological scrutiny of text-based communities that engage in struggles within how such silencing works through the interactive circula- and among themselves through the process of circulation. tion of online media. Rehashing, remixing, and refashion- He writes, “Publics are essentially intertextual, frameworks ing are commonly cited practices in the distribution of on- for understanding texts against an organized background line content (Burgess and Green 2009; Jenkins 2006; Kara- of the circulation of other texts, all interwoven” (Warner ganis 2007; Uricchio 2009; van Dijck 2009). But how are we 2002:16). When a public is radically opposed to a domi- to understand the political significance of such interactive nant ideology and defined by others through that opposi- circulation within a given context? The anthropology of on- tion, Warner characterizes that public as a “counterpublic” line media, a still-nascent subfield, has yet to address this (2002:56; see also Hirschkind 2001). By vying for popular at- question, even as kindred issues, such as piracy, receive tention, counterpublics function similarly to publics in all rich ethnographic treatment (e.g., Thomas 2012; Larkin but their hostile reception (Warner 2002:119). For Warner, 2008). Like piracy, participatory modes of circulation online publics and counterpublics are produced and reproduced have an often-obscured political charge that an ethnogra- “only in relation to texts and their circulation” (2002:66). phy combining online and offline sociopolitical worlds can Interactivity has been a source of critique for Warner’s elucidate. theorization of publics. Guobin Yang and Craig Calhoun The mere fact that 100 hours of video are uploaded to (2007) argue, contra Warner, that interactivity can consti- YouTube every minute (YouTube 2013b) is compelling rea- tute a public. In online streaming communities, it becomes son to focus anthropological attention on the politics of a facet of circulation itself, as videos mash up audiovi- the intertextual world of online video. Of that 100 hours sual fragments, while comments, likes, dislikes, favorites, of footage, very few videos will “go viral” (Burgess 2008), and flags invite audience participation. I shift the discus- while many will become “memetic,” generative of deriva- sion of publics and counterpublics toward the linkages tives (Shifman 2011). When CNN integrates footage into its between interactivity and circulation online while embrac- newscasts that Syrian activists have risked their lives to up- ing the underlying dynamics of counterpublics as articu- load (Khamis et al. 2012) or when pro-Palestine activists lated by Warner. As the media scholar Henry Jenkins (2006) and the Israeli state visually argue their cases on YouTube in has observed, media production, circulation, and reception the wake of the Gaza flotilla tragedy (Stein 2012) by recom- have been radically compressed online, and interactivity bining the same footage differently, to cite two glaring ex- is both a cause and consequence. Certain forms of inter- amples, recombinatory circulation is politically charged. In activity, such as video recombination, render the paths of examining the role of recombinatory circulation in Colom- circulation less predictable and more contingent. Warner’s bia’s propaganda war, my larger goal is to provide a frame- conception of interactivity as subordinate to circulation work for ethnographically advancing renewed anthropolog- (2002:67–74), however, limits the applicability of his the- ical interest in “cultures of circulation” (Lee and LiPuma ory to online publics. Yet when YouTube users recombine 2002) and the “circulatory matrix” (Gaonkar and Povinelli existing videos and recirculate them, interactivity and cir- 2003) by foregrounding interactive circulation in the politi- culation are tightly interwoven. In line with Yang and Cal- cal analysis of online publics. houn’s (2007) critique, I argue that watching, downloading, I develop my central argument about recombinatory and editing a video and then posting a recombined version circulation on YouTube as a new constraint on pro-FARC constitutes not only a public but also, often, a locus of