Kolman, Morris 2018 Political Science Thesis Title: I Have No Mouth and I
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Kolman, Morris 2018 Political Science Thesis Title: I Have No Mouth and I Must Meme: Internet Memes, Networked Neoliberalism, and the Image of the Economic Advisor: Mark Reinhardt Advisor is Co-author: No Second Advisor: Released Beyond Williams: release now Contains Copyrighted Material: No I Have No Mouth and I Must Meme: Internet Memes, Networked Neoliberalism, and the Image of the Economic by Morris Kolman Mark Reinhardt, Advisor A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Political Science WILLIAMS COLLEGE Williamstown, Massachusetts May 5th, 2018 1 Acknowledgements: This thesis would not have been possible without the exceptional insight and encouragement given to me by my advisor, Professor Mark Reinhardt. Appropriately a scholar of the visual, he has seen potential in my writing and ideas that I could never have known was there without him. He pushed me through undeveloped ideas, led me to new areas of inquiry, and somehow kept himself reading my work despite finding in each new chapter what seemed to be a bottomless well of comma splices. I am extremely grateful to have had classes with him for the majority of my Williams experience, and I consider writing this thesis under him to be the greatest privilege of my time here at the college. The Science and Technology Studies program at this school is criminally underexposed, so I was lucky to have stumbled into Professor Grant Shoffstall’s course on Cold War Technocultures in the spring of my freshman year. In that class and since then he has unflinchingly encouraged my engagement with this field, always putting aside whatever work he was doing to talk for over an hour whenever I showed up at his office unannounced. I thank him for his support and friendship, as well as his constant fight for a field that grows more important by the day. I deeply appreciate the guidance and criticisms given to me by my readers, Professors Laura Ephraim and Christian Thorne. Each brought new perspectives and incisive commentary to the thesis, which spurred me to restructure it in its entirety over the last month. Thanks to them, I truly feel like I have made a new contribution to the academic literature on my topic. There are a number of other faculty and staff who I need to thank. Professor Michael MacDonald for his early input into my thesis and for his organization of the thesis seminar. Professor Sam Crane for being my first advisor on an independent study, as well as a welcome pub buddy in this long and taxing semester. And Krista Birch and Professor Jana Sawicki - as well as all the fellows of the Oakley Center - for giving me a welcoming, quiet, and stimulating place where I could feel the academy around me. I would not made it through Williams were it not for the indispensable love and support from my friends: Jordan Jace, Lauren Steele, Sophie Wunderlich, Caroline McArdle, Alon Handler, Reilly Hartigan, and one who for some reason wishes to remain anonymous. Both at Williams and away these people have sent me memes, listened to me rant, provided camaraderie, talked about nothing, and in general rose us all above the social chains of networked neoliberalism. In the thesis now, they’re stuck with me. Lastly I need to thank my family. To my brother Izzy, you are one of the most genuine and self- starting people I know, may we all have your level of dedication to what we believe in. Mom and Dad, I could not ask for more supportive and loving parents – especially when your son is off spending his time at some hoity-toity liberal arts school studying memes. The encouragement and interest you show in my life and my studies, as well as the constant optimism you espouse, grounds me and keeps me going. I thank the stars that I come from a family of writers, comedians, and lovers of pulling back the curtain. Every day I find in myself more qualities that I can only attribute to you, and every day I am eternally grateful. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS: Introduction: The Online Politics of Online Politics 4 Memetic Warfare 10 Status Box: What’s on your mind, [USER]? 16 Chapter 1: The Framework of Social Media Criticism - Tracing the rise of Networked Neoliberalism 19 Networked Neoliberalism 27 Memes, the missing piece 38 Chapter 2: They Live! - Biological Metaphor, Visual Theory, and Meme Culture 48 Technical Images: The turning point of the biocybernetic paradigm 57 A Return to the Text: The Biocybernetic Origin of Memes 66 ShitpostBot 5000: A Close Reading 79 Chapter 3: Like and Share If You Agree - Ideological Resistance and Totalitarian Laughter 86 Memes: Revolutionary Humor of the Masses 87 Internet Activism Past and Present: IGC, EZLN, and Kony 2012 92 Social Capital: Social Media and the Commodity Fetishism of the Self 100 Totalitarian Laughter: Memes, Irony, and the 2016 Election 107 Coda: The Left Can't Meme 119 FIGURES: 126 ENDNOTES 128 3 Introduction: The Online Politics of Online Politics In an account of French electoral campaigns in 1957, Roland Barthes highlights the curiosity of campaign posters. Their ubiquity makes sense: posters are easy to spread and carry a message well, but why have a politician's face take up such a large portion of the image? These are real decisions with real issues at stake, and rather than explicating a policy platform, campaigns opt to place a large face shot of their nominee instead of an articulated vision for the country. This observation, Barthes says, is misleadingly premised. Posters don't use their limited space to present a detailed vision; they use it to present a symbolic one.1 The prevalence of portraits over programs in campaign propaganda is a bet, universally taken, that photographs and a pictorial representation of politics have "a power to convert" unreachable by non-visual media.2 This is not a new idea. American politics is littered with visual metaphor and often decided on the battleground of symbolism: Paul Revere's engraving of the Boston Massacre; the photojournalism of the Civil Rights Movement; Nixon/Kennedy on radio and TV. Indeed, the primary function of our representatives is to represent us. No matter the national climate, seeing the political landscape has always played a role in participating in it. For Barthes, this is "above all the acknowledgement of something deep and irrational co- extensive with politics."3 That is, though a picture may be worth a thousand words, its equivalent text does not come to us in any directly comprehensible order. These posters grab our attention not to ask us to read passively, but rather to engage actively. The connection created by the image goes beyond tax plans and foreign policy directly because of the medium's categorical difference from political writing. A full-face, photographic portrait conveys transparency and 4 frankness; an upward-looking view brings forth notions of the future and hope.4 The clothing, lighting, and context of an electoral photograph are all decisions with entire teams of campaign staff behind them, meticulously curating the exact referents they want the image to invoke. At the same time, aren't posters now ephemera? Older readers of this thesis will note a distinct lack of large portraiture in recent election cycles. Campaign materials still exist—posters haven't gone away—but the house of meaning in which candidates reside has moved. Whereas it was once static, linear, from aspirant to supporter, it is now a much more jumbled map. Political symbolism has become participatory. The candidate is no longer in profile, with their face wallpapering scaffolding or handed out on pamphlets. These still exist, but draw much less attention. Rather, the candidate is on profiles, those of the social media electorate. When they are on Facebook, Twitter, or any number of other sites, however, they are figured as a piece of content incorporated into the very media people use to constitute their virtual selves. This shift in the locus of political imagery's source is not without consequence, and merits a rigorous investigation. It is worth belaboring that social media mediate the social; they are the material through which an increasing share of social interactions happens. With this in mind, we should not pretend that political images remain unchanged. With the responsibility of their production and diffusion given to the masses, their content has seen a curious parallel growth in complexity and access. The visuals of candidates we see online are now more than a face on a poster, and their increasing symbolic density coincides with an explosion of popular engagement. To see this trend in action, we need not look further than the past few years. Let's start a decade ago, with the 2008 election. Barack Obama - the first black nominee from a major party in the US, and a relative political novice compared to his opponent - wins, aided by marshaling the theretofore untapped powers of social media. By focusing on digital 5 outreach, the Obama team was able to “personalize the candidate and the campaign, to embrace individual supporters using the same technologies, and to make them feel a part of the campaign,” ultimately producing 3.1 million small donors and 5 million volunteers from their web-based approach.5 The visual anchor of it all: the Hope poster. The stylized stencil portrait represents something of a turning point in our story: it is the twilight of the presidential poster (arguably it is the last one, as one finds it hard to think of another one since).