The Principle of Virulence

The Principle of Virulence Ryan E. Artrip Doctoral Candidate, ASPECT—Alliance for Social, Political, Ethical, and Cultural Thought Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University [email protected] Abstract: In this paper, I develop a theoretical outline for thinking about virulence as a guiding principle in the (re)production of information and social meaning. I argue that social meanings, in particular, are contingently shaped and reshaped by networking processes that semi-automate the everyday social practices of subjects using ‘real-time’ communicative technologies. These informational-production processes are intertwined with, or perhaps consequential of, the reproduction of a vast and complex global cybernetic order, which operationalizes subjectivity and reduces the subject to a functional, relational point in its circuitry. I argue that the variant processes of information proliferation involved in viral media phenomena (e.g., the meme, the viral video, the Tweet, the status update, etc.) generally echo/reflect/reify processes of globalization that violently eradicate, or in some cases, covertly integrate and absorb, alternative forms of cultural/social/political ‘singularity’ or exceptionality, which would otherwise hold potential value for opposing the global technological order. But a viral order (and its principle of virulence) is here opposed to the traditional image of a top-down, repressive, or ideological fascist order of the state; rather, it exerts control not by its own extension and strict enforcement, but by way of its own de-centering. What emerges in digital globalization is a new “techno- structure” that expands not by enforcing its own prescribed order, but by allowing all singularity to “freely and savagely expand” (Baudrillard, “The Violence of the Global”). Virulence is not something easily localizable or identifiable; it is to a large extent, I argue, the logical outcome of a history of representation. Because “viral media” have surfaced to form a primary technological modality of the contemporary production, consumption, and dissemination of information, I argue, we are presented with a unique opportunity to question it as a more perennial concept. This is a draft. Please to not cite or circulate without the author’s consent.1 1 This paper is a first draft of an incomplete first chapter in my Ph.D. dissertation—“A Virology of Media: The Politics and Culture of Digital Reproduction.” 1 The Principle of Virulence “The franchise and the virus work on the same principle: what thrives in one place will thrive in another. You just have to find a sufficiently virulent business plan, condense it into a three-ring binder — its DNA — xerox it, and embed it in the fertile lining of a well-traveled highway, preferably one with a left-turn lane. Then the growth will expand until it runs up against its property lines.” -Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash I. Introduction: An Inquiry into Viral Media In May of the year 2000, when the dust of the Y2K panic had barely settled, a viral event of unprecedented magnitude—perhaps the first event of its kind—penetrated economic, social, political, and cultural reality on a global scale. Within a window of only a few hours, the “ILOVEYOU” computer worm—a wolf in sheep’s clothing—had spread digital destruction across three continents, eventually managing to infect tens of millions of devices, or what has been estimated as 10% of all computers connected to the Internet at the time.2 Several major corporations and governmental bureaucracies—some of the loci of global power—halted the functioning of communication systems in order to protect from themselves from the contagion. The event introduced, or rather, inflicted a new kind of violence onto the global scene: not the kind of violence characterized by bodily harm or death (because no one died as result), nor even the violence of monetary damage (although it was quite destructive in that sense), but rather, a kind of symbolic violence that, in this particular case, brings attention to the precariousness and penetrability of global 2 Margaret Kane, “‘ILOVEYOU’ E-mail Worm Invades PCs,” (ZDNet News, May 4, 2000), http://web.archive.org/web/20081227123742/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22- 107318.html?legacy=zdnn. 2 connectivity, and also, perhaps most importantly, the global economic, social, and political configurations for which this connectivity is most significant. Yet somehow, against the thought of viruses as malicious virtual entities, today the predominant modality of our media is viral. At what point did the concern for viruses propagating through networks give way to networks and their media self-propagating as though they were themselves viral? Colloquially, we refer to this as ‘viral media’—a term which has become practically everyday. ‘Viral media’ articulates a particular modality of the social reproduction and proliferation of information; it expresses the capacity for various kinds of informational media to be spread like contagion. As a phenomenon, or perhaps a series of phenomena (e.g., viral videos, viral marketing, memes, etc.), its very emergence and possibility is, at least to a degree, dependent on the contemporary material configuration of global communication technologies: Masses of digital networks (and the everyday practices occurring within and between them) that form an impenetrably dense and virtually inexhaustible circuitry of contingent informational input-output relations, which concomitantly serve to reify economic, cultural, and political interdependence on a global scale. In this sense, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri are probably correct in considering the epoch of globalization to be an epoch of contagion.3 Perhaps this a result of close social (albeit virtual) proximity—information self- replicates and spreads exponentially on the basis of a radically pervasive global connectivity. When a piece of information or a particular virtual media object such as a video or image “goes viral,” it reproduces itself through mere contact, like a contagion. Without this over-proximity—which might also be referred to as hyper-connectivity—and also without the networks that cultivate it, the virus cannot proliferate. Just as proximity- 3 Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), 134-6. 3 contact along the Silk Road lent itself to the emergence of The Black Death, proximity- contact online lends itself to viral phenomena. On the one hand, it seems absurd to compare the devastation of a plague to any variety of banal memes circulating social networks such as Reddit or 4Chan, for example. But on the other hand, this absurdity is telling—somehow our descriptive language for virtual media came to adopt the language of the virus. Is this yet another cultural effect/vulnerability of what Jan van Dijk has referred to as “too much connectivity” in network society?4 Can any historical, cultural, or philosophical sense be made of this shift into a viral media epoch? Or was there ever a shift at all? Have we always been viral creatures? Or, put differently, can virulence be considered a perennial concern? In Neal Stephenson’s novel, Snow Crash, the virus is explored not so much as a singular or immanent object, nor as a phenomenon, but rather, the virus is thought of as a kind of perennial figure that is deeply and mysteriously rooted in the historico-theoretical domains of language, theology, mythology, and technology.5 As a deeply rooted figure, Stephenson writes about a virulence which is understood not purely as a biological referent, nor purely as a technological referent (in terms of the computer virus), nor as a metaphor or analogy: Instead, it seems these two dimensions of virulence—the biological and the virtual—are separate expressions of the same underlying figure. In fact, the terror of the novel comes at a point of total boundary dissolution between the physical/biological virus and the virtual/informational computer virus: a futuristic digital drug is proliferating throughout the virtual “metaverse” (a kind of virtual reality network interface) with devastating effects; mere visual exposure to its code not only crashes the computer 4 JanVan Dijk, The Network Society. 3rd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2012) 187. 5 Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash (New York: Bantam Books, 1993). 4 terminal, but also penetrates one’s own physical cognition, and in some cases, thoroughly destroys the psyche. The novel explores several dimensions of the figure of the virus without epistemologically privileging one usage over another: Everything from the spread of a computer virus to Herpes Simplex to ideology and religion are considered viral— without simile and metaphor. But even if we take this exploration seriously, and accept virulence as a force which underlies several domains without reference to any one domain in particular, what, if anything, can explain its surfacing in everyday language (and practice)? To what exactly do we owe the emergence of viral media? In the anarcho-capitalist dystopia of Snow Crash, we are given a world in which all things have been leveled against one another, each entity—and particularly, each business, franchise, institution—is equally reducible to the other, and most importantly, to information. Moreover, without central power (and more specifically, without repressive power) things, in the most general sense of the word, are allowed to expand without much resistance. Central power gives way to bureaucratic intensification and the virulent enforcement of a power with a legitimacy that has long disappeared. Everything is open to virulent proliferation; because everything is reduced to information, everything has the potential, if coded correctly, to behave as a self-replicating virus. Despite its post-state imaginary, this world is not altogether unlike our present social reality: a global(izing) information society constituted of networks and informational traffic flows through those networks. Virulence as a primary modality of culture and production is at least in part indebted to the informationalization of all things—a great “leveling” of all things into indifferent exchange, as I will argue in the following section.

Load more