BAZE PODATAKA

Članci IN MEDIAS RES br. 20

• 
• 

 

 

---

11(20)#1 2022

This journal is open access and this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

DOI 10.46640/imr.11.20.1 UDK 001.9:070.16*Covid-19 Izvorni članak Original scientific paper Primljeno: 22.1.2022.

 

 

Zdenko Zeman, Marija Geiger Zeman and Martina Topić

Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences
Marulićev trg 19, Zagreb, Croatia
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences
Marulićev trg 19, Zagreb, Croatia
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

Leeds Beckett University
Leeds LS1 3HE, United Kingdom
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

Digital Media Environments and their Implications: Instagram

Puni tekst: pdf (708 KB), English, Str. 3243 - 3267

 

Abstract

 

The complex intertwining of mainstream and social media has resulted in the creation of a “new hybrid ecosystem” in which consumers are primarily engaged with ideas and news posted on social media, that are then transmitted as news in mainstream media (Wheeler 2018). In this new “hyper-connected environment” (Pepper 2018), “fake news” occupies a specific position. The concept of “fake news” is very complex, contradictory and ambivalent because it appears as an umbrella term covering various phenomena and different practices of which some are already known, while others are fairly new (Molina et al. 2021). The new communication environment and the role of fake news as part of it, may also be analysed through the celebrity phenomenon. This paper uses the method of discourse analysis to examine texts on various statements by celebrities about COVID-19, published on two web portals in Croatia (index.hr, 24sata.hr). It becomes clear that celebrities function as very potent sharers of fake news, since consumers of online content give great weight to their actions and statements. On the other hand, mainstream media often act as a corrective to social media, in their efforts to convincingly deny fake news and the celebrities that share them on social media.

 

Key words: new hybrid ecosystem, fake news, celebrities, COVID-19, discourse analysis, index.hr, 24sata.hr.

 

 

Introduction

On 12 March 2020, Tom Hanks, the famous Hollywood actor, shared on his Instagram account that he is in Australia with his wife Rita Wilson, that they have both tested positive for the coronavirus, and are following all public health and safety protocols (testing-observation-isolation). The post became viral almost immediately and was shared as a news item by all media corporations – CNN (12 March, Gonzalez 2020)^[1], Washington Post (12 March, Rao, Butler and du Lac 2020)^[2], BBC (12 March 2020.)^[3], The New York Times (17 March, Sperling 2020)^[4]. This is just one among many examples of the phenomenon Mark Wheeler^[5] calls the “new hybrid ecosystem”, created through a complex exchange between traditional/mainstream media and social media. Wheeler^[6] explains how this “hybridisation of social and mainstream media” relates to three phenomena:

1. The overall change in the way in which information is consumed – readers engage with ideas they first encounter on social networks (Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp)^[7] and only subsequently with information published in mainstream media. Recent studies have shown that Facebook is “one of the preferred sources” for news, chosen in particular by the younger generation;^[8]
2. Some articles in mainstream media (newspapers, tv, web portals) are based on stories/posts/tweets that have become viral, Wheeler notes^[9] i.e., due to their viral characteristics and reactions by the public, they are construed into a news item after first being published on social networks;
3. A “vicious circle” of news reporting is created, “raising the profile of specific ideas” but at the same time helping to “construct those ideas” regardless of whether they are true or not, and whether they are reported “in context or out of context”, Wheeler concludes.^[10]

Wheeler’s concept of a “new hybrid system” is important in terms of this paper for two reasons: 1) it points to the phenomenon of transferring ideas from the digital universe of social media into the digital and print universe of mainstream media, where posts by celebrities made visible for specific reasons (such as their provocativeness, controversy, relevance, sensationalism etc.) become viral and are shared as fake news in mainstream media; 2) Some of the ideas circulating in this new “hyper-connected environment” as Pepper^[11] calls it, are not based on reality/facts, cannot be checked and have been identified and classified as fake news.

Citing numerous instances of research, De Coninck et al. note that the “digital media ecosystem – with its socially networked architecture, trolls, and automated bots” is a hotbed for fake news, “mis- and disinformation, such as conspiracy theories”.^[12]

The following part of the paper analyses fake news in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and then presents research results on the news coverage of the pandemic and the involvement of celebrities.

 

Fake news: a short history of the phenomenon

The concept of “fake news” or “fabricated information”^[13] is extremely complex because it is used as an umbrella term covering different phenomena of which some have already been known while others are more recent.^[14] False information, misinformation and rumours are old social and cultural phenomena well documented throughout history.^[15] However, only in the 20th century have these phenomena caught the attention of the scientific community. Galit Hasan-Rokem^[16] notes that “initially they were examined in the context of modernity”, or more precisely, mass media (newspaper, radio, television), and then increasingly the Internet, which has become a platform for the construction, distribution, popularization and consumption of all kinds of misinformation. 

Before the advent of mass media and the Internet, rumours and invented narratives were construed and disseminated, seeping into the political, religious, legal and everyday life, with “real social consequences”.^[17] Burkhardt^[18] for example, mentions the case of a Byzantine historian Procopius of Caesarea [500. – ca. 554. AD] who after the death of Emperor Justinian discredited him through fake news, unverifiable and baseless stories [since he did not fear retaliation, questioning, or investigation] despite being his supporter during the emperor’s lifetime. Campion-Vincent^[19] cites Bercé’s description of accusations from the times of the plague epidemic in Pre-Revolutionary France and cholera in the 19th century, of “voluntary spreaders of the illness, poisoners of fountains, greasers of door knobs, perverse doctors, nurses or grave diggers, [and] killing vaccine”). In their research The Psychology of Rumor (1947) Allport and Postman “adopt the disease metaphor” characteristic of “spreading a rumour as viral”^[20] where research points to “powerful and potentially catastrophic results that rumours may have for individuals as well as groups”^[21]. Jody Enders^[22] notes that the medieval public had the possibility of “consuming fictional and non-fictional information in countless ways” – through religious sermons, royal announcements shouted by messengers on the streets, discussions by prosecutors and advocates on public trials and through medieval theatrical performances.^[23] The invention of the press and the democratization of literacy enabled different types of information to spread more quickly which finally led to the economical possibility and feasibility of writing and of selling information.^[24] In this analysis it is important to keep in mind the issue of power – the control of the production and dissemination of information is fundamental for maintaining the current order and the political, economic, social and cultural reality.^[25] The development of mass media (radio, television) in the 20th century enabled new ways of creating and disseminating news (both true and false), as well as the establishment of a new journalism ethics and professional code which required multiple verification of information before being published.^[26] The internet era and the development of digital technology have introduced us to completely new tools and ways to construct and disseminate false news and fabricated information.^[27] Li and Su note that in US media, fake news has related to “muckraking” and sensationalism since the late 19th century, but in the last two decades, the term has been used for “genres that mimic the style of traditional news” with the added use of “irony and humour”  for the purposes of “implicit critique of politics and social subjects” (e.g. news satire and news parody).^[28] Fake and satirical “hoax websites” were first listed within the fun, parody or satire categories, and only later due to their content and motive became part of misinformation and misdirection.^[29] The popularity of the term “fake news” is related to the 2016 presidential election in the US, when Hillary Clinton started mentioning the concept of fake news in her campaign, while Trump increasingly used it in his tweets^[30] when he attacked and accused mainstream media of hostility and sharing false information.^[31] One of the basic characteristics of the current information and media environment is the primacy of social media in disseminating information and the loss of monopoly held by traditional gatekeepers.^[32]

One of the fundamental and important issues in analysing and researching fake news is the matter of precisely defining and classifying fake news. After selecting and analysing 52 research articles (among a total group of 419 articles), Baptista and Gradim^[33] developed a systematic and clear examination of the fake news phenomenon, that is, of its structure and virality, as well as the profile of consumers. The authors emphasize “epistemic problems” and the lack of a “univocal definition” as well as the different meanings of the concept of fake news.^[34] Baptista and Gradim for example refer to Habgood-Coote^[35], who claims that the concept of fake news has no “stable meaning and changes depending on different contexts”, while Molina et al. cite Lazer et al. in their emphasis on the “importance of the process and intention” when conceptualizing fake news. They also quote Jack who compares fake news to  other types of  “problematic information” (ranging from disinformation to propaganda).^[36] In the context of clarifying the terminology of fake news, Molina et al. challenge the concept of fake news since the term “has become highly political”.^[37] It is also important to note that the European Commission report uses the term “disinformation”, and “covers a broader spectrum” of false information in various formats (memes, text manipulation) which deliberately aim to deceive.^[38] In recent years, an increasing number of authors have emphasized that “fake news” is a complex and ambivalent phenomenon which cannot be simplified and reduced to “false information.^[39] David De Coninck et al. (2021)^[40] consider fake news to be:

1. misinformation i.e., “publishing wrong information without meaning to be wrong or having a political purpose in communicating false information”;
2. “disinformation (or conspiracy theories)” as defined by Benkler et al, deals with “manipulating and misleading people intentionally to achieve political ends”^[41], or more specifically, according to Douglas et al, the goals of “disinformation and conspiracy theories” are to “explain the ultimate causes of significant social and political events and circumstances with claims of secret plots by two or more powerful actors”.^[42]

Li and Scott refer to Jaster and Lanius who define fake news as “news that does mischief with the truth in that it exhibits both (a) a lack of truth and (b) a lack of truthfulness”,^[43] while Wardle and Derakhshan note that fake news consists of 3 categories: misinformation – “information that is false, but it is believed to be true by individuals disseminating the news”, disinformation – “the intentional dissemination of information known to be false”, and mal-information – “the intentional use of true information to cause harm on a person, organization, or country”.^[44] For some authors rather, fake news is reduced to “an article that mimics the format of a news story or report, with fake content that was created with the intent to deceive”.^[45] Research shows that modern fake news most often spreads through social networks with the final goal of becoming viral – some authors note that fake news does not have to be entirely false.^[46] Based on analysed texts about fake news, Baptista and Gradim^[47] suggest the following definition of fake news:

“a type of online disinformation, with totally or partially false content, created intentionally to deceive and/or manipulate a specific audience, through a format that imitates a news or report (…) through false information that may or may not be associated with real events, with an opportunistic structure (title, image, content) to attract the readers’ attention and to persuade them to believe in falsehood, in order to obtain more clicks and shares, therefore, higher advertising revenue and/or ideological gain”.

Considering the motivation of consumers and those who share texts with false information and disinformation, this happens for a variety of reasons: attention seeking, social approval, party and ideological beliefs, the wish to inform friends, have fun, create chaos etc.^[48] The issue of finding “who consumes fake news” has obviously been intriguing the scientific community in recent months and years. Research findings provide different types of answers. Some researchers^{[49] [50]} note that the public that consumes fake news is “smaller than the real news audience”^[51], but also that “the audience that consumes fake news is not only limited to filter bubbles and echo chambers”.^[52] Research shows that fake news is more often consumed (and shared) by the older population, those with a lower level of education, those with high levels of neuroticism and extroversion, those who no longer believe mainstream media, and supporters of extremist ideologies (both left- and right- wing).^{[53] [54] [55]} Campion-Vincent refers to Gladwell who states that “increased suspicion” of “legitimate sources of information”^[56] and distrust of traditional news media leads to a selective exposure to news^[57] and increases the use of alternative sources, such as digital media that distribute disinformation.^{[58] [59]}

The research by Vosoughi, Roy and Aral^{[60] [61]} on the spread of false and true news through Twitter in the period from 2006 to 2017 is important in this context. The classification of falsity or truth was based on using information from six fact-checking organizations (snopes.com, politifact.com, factcheck.org, truthorfiction.com, hoax-slayer.com, and urbanlegends.about.com).^[62] The research concluded the following: 1) fake news are shared “much further, faster, deeper and to a wider scope” than true news; 2) There is a 70% greater chance that fake news will be shared (retweeted); 3) fake news is perceived as more recent (which means that its truthfulness is not the most important); 4) people are the key factor in the spread of fake news – “robots accelerated the spread of true and false news at the same rate”.^[63]

 

Fake news, conspiracy theories and COVID-19

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists, politicians, the media, and other socially relevant actors have been warning about the spread and increased visibility of “other viral phenomena like misinformation, conspiracy theories, and general mass suspicions about what is really going on” regarding the pandemic.^[64]

The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized the emerging “infodemic” caused by the inflation of information (“including false or misleading information”)^[65] which circulate during the pandemic period throughout the digital and physical space, causing: 1) “confusion and risk-taking behaviours” that have or might have negative health consequences^[66]; 2) doubt towards and mistrust of health experts; 3) the undermining of healthcare measures and efforts to suppress the spread of COVID-19.^[67] Some dominant narratives shared by many fake news and conspiracy theories claim that the coronavirus has been caused by 5G technology or that Bill Gates is manipulating the coronavirus in order to gain control over humanity through global vaccinations and surveillance using microchips.^[68] Even though these narratives have been publicly exposed as untrue and as misinformation, fake news and narratives based on conspiracy theories continue to circulate the public arena and may have serious consequences.^[69] In the UK for example, technicians and British Telecom engineers were attacked by supporters of ideas generally equated to conspiracy theories^[70]. Vincent notes that most incidents may be “classified as harassment” (e.g., name-calling, death threats etc.), but there were even more violent attacks that endangered the physical integrity of the employees.^[71] According to data by Mobile UK, in 2020 from the end of March to the beginning of June “there were more than 200 incidents of abuse against telecoms engineers and more than 90 arson attacks” planted on mobile infrastructure.^[72]

In addition to violent incidents and destruction of mobile infrastructure, fake news, misinformation and conspiracy theories related to COVID-19 have a range of other sociological and health-related consequences: stigmatization and discrimination; suspicion and/or reduced trust in government institutions and health authorities; not following prescribed preventive measures (e.g. the refusal to wear a mask in a public space, not keeping the physical/social distance etc.); consuming medically unapproved concoctions marketed and promoted through social networks as preventive measures against the coronavirus and/or medicine in case of disease (e.g. many people consumed highly concentrated alcohol [methanol] in the belief this would disinfect their bodies and kill the virus, which resulted in deaths, hospitalizations and complete blindness).^[73] Recent cases related to COVID-19 as well as misinformation created and disseminated in the pre-pandemic period, reveal that fake news, misinformation and conspiracy theories are not merely virtual phenomena, but can also have  very concrete individual and collective consequences, which is why they need to be researched and analysed in the socio-cultural, historical, economic and political context.^[74]

In their study “Types, Sources, and Claims of COVID-19 Misinformation”, Brennen et al.^[75] formed “an inductive typology of statements shared as part of COVID-19 misinformation” (partially cited in the original format):

 

Table 1: “Inductive typology of claims made within pieces of COVID-19-related misinformation” (Brennen et al. 2020, p. 11)

Type	Description
Public authority action/policy	Claims about state policy/action/communication, claims about WHO guidelines and recommendations, etc.
Community spread	Claims about: the international/national/local spread of the virus people/groups/individuals involved/infected
General medical advice and virus characteristics	Health remedies, self-diagnostics, effects and signs of the disease, etc.
Prominent actors	Claims about: pharmacy companies or drugs manufacturers, companies supplying the health care sector or other supplying companies, famous people, celebrities that were infected, the statements and actions of politicians (but not if the misinformation is coming from politicians or other famous people).
Conspiracies	Claims about: the virus being a biological weapon, the person supposedly behind the pandemic the pandemic being predicted
Virus transmission	Claims about: how the virus is transmitted and how to stop the transmission, including protection measures (e.g., cleaning, protective gear etc.)
Explanation of virus origins	Claims about: where and how the virus originated (e.g., in animals), properties of the virus
Public preparedness	(Normative) claims about: hoarding, buying supplies, social distancing, (non-)adherence to measures, etc.
Vaccine development and availability	Claims about: the vaccine, its development and availability

 

The pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus intensified processes already observed in previous decades. In a text published in 2005, Jean-Bruno Renard^[76] wrote on rumours (“unverified news”) and made the distinction between “assertive rumours” that “support the reality of invented facts” and “negatory rumours” which “negate the reality of recognized facts”.^[77] He then presented the “typical characteristics of negatory rumours”:^[78] 1) “hypercritical thought” (real events are seen as rumours); 2) “revealing another reality”, that is, the denied reality is supplanted by a new reality (e.g. the Earth is not round, the Earth is flat)^[79]; 3) revealing the conspiracy and believing in another reality hidden from the entire world, which includes a specific secret plan of an organized “evil” group that holds power over the media (e.g. the CIA, the Masons, the Jews), which is why conspiracists “frequently use the expression ‘official truth’”, which to them is a synonym for a lie, opposed to the truth they are uncovering.^[80] Renard concludes that negatory rumours as well as conspiracy ideas will gain increased visibility and space on the information market in the future, due to the following:

1. acceptance of “cognitive relativism” (analysed by Boudon) and the idea that knowledge is “neither objective nor definitive”, which encourages support for “alternatives to generally accepted knowledge”;^[81]
2. exposure of government scandals and news coverage on suspicious facts, which increases public distrust of official media and news;^[82]
3. increased number of groups in which negatory rumours are created and shared (e.g., more than 50% Americans believe in at least one conspiracy^[83]);
4. complete immersion in “a world where reality and its simulacrum, truth and lies, become increasingly confusing”, a world that combines “real and synthetic imaginaries”^[84], and the line between fiction and truth, true information and fake news, or between public and private and between man and machine, become more fluid and porous.^[85] 

 

Celebrities and fake news in the new communication environment

The new communication environment and the role and significance of fake news may be analysed through the phenomenon of celebrities. This is in line with the statement by Fred Inglis in his book A Short History of Celebrity, that celebrities are “a product of culture and technology”.^[86] Rojek’s influential study Celebrity (2001)^[87] also shows that “mass media representation (…) is the key principle in the formation of celebrity culture”, and celebrities as a socio-cultural phenomenon represent famous individuals, extremely popular in the field of their work (such as film, music, sports, politics, modelling etc.).^[88] The celebrity embodies and represents a complex combination of “intensive familiarity”, “recognizability”, “holiness”, “distance” and “remoteness”.^[89] Redmond sees fame as an “ambivalent and dominant cultural phenomenon, a meta-discourse” which in various ways shapes the “social and everyday life of many”^[90], with fame culture offering a specific experience of intimacy. In recent decades, celebrities have appeared as a specific “type of social authority for different social groups”, and “their words, actions and messages are effective”.^[91] Precisely because of their familiarity, reputation, authority and influence on others, celebrities have a “significant role (positive, negative, ambivalent) in different crises”.^[92] Of course, this type of engagement has also been analysed from a critical perspective in research literature, noting the problems and short-term effects inherent in this type of engagement.^[93]

Kamiński, Szymańska and Nowak researched whose tweets about COVID-19 attracted the most attention^[94], and discovered that “celebrities and politicians posted positive messages”, while “scientific and health authorities often employed a negative vocabulary” – “the posts with positive sentiment gained more likes and relative likes than nonpositive ones”.^[95] Based on this data, Kamiński, Szymańska and Nowak conclude that “during the pandemic, the tweets of celebrities and politicians related to COVID-19 outperform those coming from health and scientific institutions”.^[96]

Commenting on the “obsession with fame” in the pandemic context for The Guardian, Rojek notes that in the modern world, “celebrities are rated more than politicians” because people consider them to be more “real”.^[97] Social networks (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) have enabled a greater degree of intimacy with celebrities than ever before, who every day share “stories about their lives” with a numerous audience, thus creating profitable relationships.^[98]

Analysing the problem of celebrities in the context of fake news (and conspiracy theories), what becomes evident is their contradictory, flexible and dynamic position – on the one hand, a celebrity can be a subject around whom fake news and rumours are (re)constructed, while on the other the celebrity may figure as a “superspreader” of fake news and misinformation. A case in point is Madonna, the globally celebrated musician, whose career has from the beginning been marked by a series of controversies, contradictory messages and polarized reactions.^{[99] [100]} The journalist Rachel Kiley^[101] writes about interpretations by online commenters who quoted familiar motifs and narratives of globally popular conspiracy theories to claim that Madonna “predicted” the pandemic scenario during her performance at Eurosong 2019 in Tel Aviv. This is explained by the fact that her dancers wore masks, while the crown she wore was reminiscent of the coronavirus symbol. The performance itself was proclaimed to be a satanic ritual with Madonna being accused of witchcraft (e.g., “Madonna is a high-level illuminati member. She performs a satanic ritual […] She already knew about the coronavirus in 2019. Don’t you see it is obvious this virus pandemic is known to these people at that time because it is artificial not natural” etc.). In July 2020 she sparked controversy with an Instagram post perpetuating fake news and conspiracy ideas that the cure for coronavirus already exists (in the form of hydroxychloroquine), but the elites are hiding it in order to control people through fear.^[102] She also promoted Stella Immanuel, a doctor and Christian pastor, one of the main promoters of hydroxychloroquine,^[103] a drug whose efficacy in treating COVID-19 has not been proven.^[104]

Although Madonna’s video was erased by Instagram administrators after being online for one hour and thirty minutes, with the explanation that fact-checkers identified the video as false information, the Instagram post became news in mainstream media. A year earlier, Madonna was accused of being a member of an elite group that had all the information on the emergence of a global pandemic, while owing to an Instagram post about a drug kept secret by the elites as they implement population control, she was then labelled in the public arena as a spreader of fake news. Her post also drew criticism from some of her followers (especially after she reposted it), accusing her of “spreading lies and quackery” (“MADONNA!!! Again?! This is wrong! You have influence and a voice and you’re spreading falsehood and quackery. Inform yourself! Or, as you say, WAKE UP!!!“).^[105] This wasn’t the only controversial post by Madonna during the pandemic period. In March 2020 CNN shared the news (also originating from Madonna’s Instagram profile) in which the star said: “That’s the thing about Covid-19 (…) It doesn’t care about how rich you are, how famous you are, how funny you are, how smart you are, where you live, how old you are, what amazing stories you can tell (…) It’s the great equalizer and what’s terrible about it is what’s great about it.”^[106] This statement also caused negative comments by her followers who stressed the importance of class and social differences which became even more pronounced in the context of the pandemic: “Sorry my queen, love u so much, but we’re not equal. We can die from the same diseases, but the poor will suffer the most. Do not romanticise nothing of this tragedy.”^[107] Rojek notes that false familiarity and para-intimacy were brought into question during lockdown when celebrities (like Madonna) created and sent messages about the pandemic while they resided at luxurious estates and glamorous places, which emphasized the fact they were “untouchable” and privileged, as well as the insurmountable differences of status and class.^[108]

Li and Scott analyse the spread of fake news using the example of footballer Wu Lei to show how a celebrity “becomes a subject” of misinformation disseminated in the media.^[109] On 20 March 2020 the Spanish La Liga club RCD Espanyol confirmed that six players tested positive for COVID-19, Wu Lei among them. This soon became big news on Weibo, the Chinese version of Twitter. Four days later, on 24 March 2020, the Chinese digital news application Red Star News shared the news that Wu had recovered from COVID-19 and his test result was now negative. Wu’s team soon spoke up and denied a series of news in the Spanish media on Wu Lei’s diagnosis, state, recovery etc. After two days the confusion increased after Wu Lei stated he had not recovered and could not be tested again due to a shortage of tests.^[110] This is just one of the many examples of how Chinese (but also other global and national) media and social networks generate a great number of stories, news and rumours based on un/reliable sources.

Although celebrities have a significant role in spreading fake news, misinformation and conspiracy theories, there has not been much research on the “influence of celebrities on the behaviour of ordinary people during the COVID-19 crisis.^[111] In addition to Madonna who keeps confusing the public and attracting attention through the already identified mechanism of combining contradictory messages, some celebrities disseminate posts with fake news and misinformation, which are then shared by mainstream media as news, while other celebrities, in cooperation with famous organizations or of their own accord, share official information approved by public health authorities and support official government/public health campaigns related to COVID-19. Research by Bruns, Harrington and Hurcombe has shown that celebrities are “super-spreaders” of conspiracy theories and fake news because they have the power to make certain information go viral very quickly.^[112]

 

Methodology

The focus of this qualitative discourse analysis are texts published on two web portals active in Croatia (24 sata.hr, index.hr), about celebrities that publicly shared (mainly on social media) controversial posts about COVID-19 or reacted to the spread of false information on the pandemic and appealed for responsibility. This 1) points to the power and visibility of celebrities and 2) illustrates the circulation of information and misinformation in the context of the new hybrid media and communication system.

Topić and Gilmer note that qualitative discourse analysis is the “type of analysis that can expose media bias and basic assumptions in media texts”, and highlight Smith’s conclusion that “knowledge of contemporary society is to a large extent mediated (…) through text”.^[113] Chigona et al. emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary understanding of media discourse as it “contributes to shaping social reality”.^[114] That is, “the media does not only influence the content and what their readers are reading”, but also the readers’ perception, opinions, ideologies etc.^[115]

The following analysis is based on texts published on portals in Croatia, 24 sata.hr and index.hr. Texts published in the period between 1 February 2020 and 24 June 2021 were searched for these key words:

A)    First round of research:

ü  famous, conspiracy theories, coronavirus

ü  famous, conspiracy theories, Covid-19

ü  celebrities, conspiracy theories, coronavirus

ü  celebrities, conspiracy theories, Covid-19

ü  famous, misinformation, coronavirus

ü  famous, misinformation, Covid-19

ü  celebrities, misinformation, coronavirus

ü  celebrities, misinformation, Covid-19

ü  famous, fake news, coronavirus 

ü  famous, fake news, Covid-19 

ü  celebrities, fake news, coronavirus 

ü  celebrities, fake news, Covid-19 

 

B)    Second round of research:

ü  fake news, coronavirus

ü  fake news, coronavirus

ü  COVID-19, misinformation

ü  Coronavirus, misinformation

ü  COVID-19, conspiracy theories

ü  COVID-19, conspiracy theories

ü  Coronavirus, conspiracy theories

 

Based on these keywords used to search the archive of portals index.hr and 24 sata.hr, a total of 33 articles were found – seven articles in the first search round (1 article on index.hr and 6 articles on 24 sata.hr), while the second search round yielded 26 articles (7 articles on 24 sata,hr; 19 articles on index.hr).

Celebrities discussed in news articles on conspiracy theories and fake news come from the field of sports, the music and film industry, politics, business and social networks (influencers on social networks/micro-influencers). Some texts were taken from multiple sources in foreign media and published on both portals, and some information was published multiple times.

The texts were copied into a Word document, and all authors of the paper participated in the reading, analysis, analysis comparison and discussion.     

Critical discourse analysis was the method used in analysing the texts. This method is used when researchers aim to identify the main discourses repeated in the written text. The main discourses are in this sense, key arguments that can be inferred from the text, i.e. the discursive topoi, and written language is seen as an agent of social change.^{[116] [117] [118]} In terms of the main argument (topos/topoi) to be inferred from the text, Grue refers to Wodak and Meyer who state that topical analysis enables us to discover hidden meanings of an argument, through which topoi become part of the argumentation belonging to obligatory, explicit or implicit meaning.^[119] Topos “justifies the line of argument but requires less justification” because it is rooted in “general views”, while topoi relates less to words and more to concepts.^[120]

Discourse analysis is appropriate for this paper because it also enables a text analysis within social circumstances, both locally and globally. This approach is also known as a discourse historical approach, which Reisigl and Wodak define as part of a critical discourse analysis in which the analysis is based on examining persons, processes and actions as well as characteristics and attributes given to social actors, objects and processes.^[121] Moreover, this type of analysis is based on researching arguments used in every identified discourse. Finally, the analysis is based on researching the perspective from which the attributions and arguments that make up the discourse have come from.     

This approach is also useful for researching media discourse, under analysis in this text, as it enables understanding media discourse in the wider social ecosystem and a clear identification of arguments and their meanings.

 

Research results

Analysis of newspaper articles identified two dominant discourses, the conspiracy theory discourse and practices of resistance on the one hand, and a positive discourse confirming and approving trust in science and social responsibility on the other. In each analysed article these two discourses were opposed or confirmed by sub-discourses: the negative discourse with the following sub-discourses: conspiracy theories, resistance, danger, irresponsibility and sanctioning, and the positive discourse by these sub-discourses: science, responsibility, use of visibility for the common good, supporting prevention and active fight against conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

 

Conspiracy theories and practices of resistance

Conspiracy theories disseminated publicly by celebrities relate to a range of scientifically unfounded and contradictory beliefs, ranging from negating and expressing doubts about the existence of the pandemic to playing down the dangers of COVID-19, and statements that: 1) coronavirus is related to the 5G network, which has a negative impact on human health (e.g. “Covid-19 is caused by 5G network radiation”, “5G network increases coronavirus symptoms”, symptoms of 5G exposure are “the same as the symptoms of the coronavirus”, “5G was launched in China in November 2019”, and “what we are witnessing now is the effect of radiation”, 5G is “very, very harmful for human health”); 2) the pandemic or “plandemic” is an artificially created crisis manipulated by powerful people (“rulers of the world” or a “shadow government” – the general public does not know who they are because they rank higher than Rothschild and Rockefeller) with the aim of controlling the global population through mandatory public healthcare measures such as lockdowns or vaccinations (e.g. the coronavirus is just an overture to implementing the plan of those in power who wish to control people through the use of microchips).

Vaccination is labelled by some celebrities as microchipping with the aim of population control, implemented by powerful world players, with special emphasis given to the role and involvement of Bill Gates. Besides global control, some celebrities disseminated conspiracy ideas on the “real” political causes of pandemics – destabilizing USA and overthrowing the (now already former) US president Donald Trump, or the global geopolitical power of China.

In the context of advocating conspiracy theories, famous “conspiracy theorists” like David Icke are praised, and conspiracy theories on COVID-19 are linked to other world-famous conspiracy theories disseminated on social media (e.g. Bill Gates as a eugenicist, or Pizzagate).

All posts have a generally critical view of the system, politicians, elites, the pharmaceutical industry, truth-checkers, and the mainstream which, as celebrities claim, silence, manipulate and censor opposing views (e.g., the media pays celebrities to lie that they have covid). As a resistance tactic, celebrities send public appeals for signing petitions against implementing the 5G network, for rejecting preventive measures (wearing masks, quarantine, vaccination, PCR tests) and guidelines prescribed by governments and public health authorities.

In addition to expressing a negative attitude towards people who accept information disseminated through the mainstream media (with the often use of the label “sheep”), the focus is on “thinking for yourself” regardless of not being in line with the content and attitudes of mainstream messages. The focus in general is on individual, not group responsibility.

Contrary to scientific recommendations of prevention, alternative medicine is promoted, as well as practices/beliefs developed in alternative/New Age spirituality (e.g., being in a good mood, blessings, meditation, prayer as the best prevention against the virus), consuming “magic medicine” (such as lemon, baking soda, tepid water) or scientifically disproved medicine like hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. It should be noted that some celebrities express selective trust in science and scientists, that is, scientists whose opinion on COVID-19 is not in line with views of the scientific establishment are supported (e.g., Didier Raoult – “the virus can be treated with hydroxychloroquine and the antibiotic azithromycin, also known as Sumamed. Why did they give up on this? Because hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin are very cheap”).

Texts on the analysed portals identify the Internet and social media as spaces for creating and disseminating conspiracy theories, with celebrities most often using Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook for these types of messages. Each article sharing the news on the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories related to the current pandemic, has a specific structure pointing to a correlation between negative and positive discourse: after stating something considered to be a misinformation, completely opposite to epidemiological measures, it is presented critically and denied by quoting scientific authorities (the views of prominent scientists, scientific studies [Oxford University] or sharing official statistics (Our World in data, Eurostat, Croatian Bureau of Statistics). Journalists of index.hr here use disqualifying expressions for: 1) conspiracy and negatory statements, such as: idiocy, stupidity, nonsense, bizarre, stupid, dangerous ignorance etc.; 2) their promoters are labelled as uninformed and malevolent individuals; 3) consumers of misinformation are qualified as “ignorant people” who uncritically adopt unfounded ideas and statements.

Analysis shows that “dangerous” is the most commonly used attribute for disqualifying and warning against negative consequences of a particular conspiracy or antivaxxer idea (dangerous video, dangerous conspiracy theory, dangerous trend, dangerous lies, dangerous ignorance etc.). Texts published on the portal index.hr are characterized by comparing the scientific and non-scientific discourse, alongside constructing the distinction between “real” science and “bad” science i.e., pseudoscience and pseudoscientists, whose careers in science and scientific works are analysed and subjected to devaluating critique.

Celebrities who take the position of “non-licensed experts” in this pandemic context are also criticised, with emphasis given to their significant influence due to their popularity, visibility and scope of influence. Since they have millions of followers on social networks, celebrities have a “huge reach” so their public responsibility is highlighted in particular if they choose to create or spread misinformation. In order to emphasize the important role that celebrities have in disseminating misinformation and rumours, one research by Oxford University is emphasized, which shows that “celebrities are responsible for approximately one fifth of all misinformation on the coronavirus”, while research by Cornell University points to Donald Trump as the greatest instigator of lies on the coronavirus.^[122]

For celebrities, sharing theories and misinformation is in most cases related to negative consequences and non-formal and/or formal sanctions that have a more or less significant impact on their public image and career. For example, it has been emphasized that a celebrity promoting conspiracy theories provokes controversy for the general public and even for some followers of this celebrity, with a flood/avalanche of comments, vehement condemnation by the media, criticism, negative media representation and closing down of user accounts. YouTube closed down David Icke’s account, Facebook removed a video on the coronavirus posted by Donald Trump in which he claims that children are “practically immune to Covid-19”, with the explanation that “it violates company rules against the spread of misinformation on the coronavirus” and Instagram censored Madonna for spreading false information on the alleged medicine for the coronavirus etc. Due to negative reactions and bad publicity, some celebrities erased tweets they had shared on the coronavirus, following a direct order by their publishing house or label, while others had their professional collaborations cancelled and contracts terminated. For example, the publishing house Fraktura publicly cancelled their partnership with the blogger Alison Marić because of her Facebook posts on the coronavirus and refusal to wear a mask in a public space, while the famous Australian chef Pete Evans was kicked out of the new season of a popular culinary show.

 

Trust in science and the responsibility of celebrities

Diametrically opposed to the conspiracy theory discourse and irresponsibility of celebrities, is the positive discourse of affirming trust in science and social responsibility. This discourse primarily functions through denying the negative discourse and pointing to its falseness and destructive consequences of its spread:

“Although numerous scientists have confirmed that the 5G network is completely unrelated to the spread of the coronavirus, conspiracy theorists beg to differ.”^[123]

“Exactly how Hawkins discovered mood vibrations and the virus mentioned by Marić, cannot be inferred from the texts published on the Veritas Publishing webpage. It should be noted that nowhere in scientific literature can it be found that people vibrate, nor is it explained what this should mean in the context of health and health policy. One thing is certain, Hawkins couldn’t have written anything on the vibration of the SARS-CoV-2 virus because he died in 2012. It should also be noted that during his life he never published a scientific work in which he explained the mechanism of destroying the virus through vibrations, or the moods apparently created through them.”^[124]

The context of positive discourse affirms individuals disqualified in the conspiracy theory context, such as Bill Gates who is presented as one of the “leading world humanitarians”, or Tom Hanks, who, after posting on the importance of wearing masks and following prevention measures, was accused of paedophilia by members of the anonymous online audience, owing to his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

The authority of science and scientists as key actors in the efficient prevention of the spread of the coronavirus is also built up, despite current limitations of science due to incomplete knowledge and partial evidence on the mechanisms of how the virus spreads. This is why we are in a state of an “infodemic”, which carries with it a sense of coercion – we are forced to “swim in a sea of misinformation”. The pandemic is labelled as a “serious healthcare matter” which is why scientific expertise and recommendations are emphasized – only experts can have real knowledge on the current pandemic, and “all we can do is follow the advice of experts who claim there is no cure”.

As it has already been said, ideas coming from the conspiracy theory catalogue, the misinformation and the fake news, are critically examined and deconstructed by questioning their sources, quoting scientific research and established scientific authorities, pointing to mistakes in building the argument and wrong interpretations of scientific facts, insisting on a scientific way of thinking (for individuals who are not scientists by profession), with a clear distinction being made between “real” scientists and “bad”/”problematic” scientists (especially regarding vaccination). In this context, texts published on index.hr transfer scientific discourse into the public and news item domain and there is an insistence on the scientific way of thinking for everyone – including people who do not work in science):

“We insisted this wasn’t a scientific way of thinking because benefits from wearing a mask cannot be based on the type of evidence known in science as anecdotal, practically with no real value. The fact that a grandma of your acquaintance lived to be a hundred even though she smoked, does not mean that smoking is healthy!”^[125]

The responsibility sub-discourse focuses on social responsibility of celebrities, which comes primarily from their visibility and general familiarity. In the context of insisting on following epidemiological measures, ranging from wearing masks to the insistence on having faith in the vaccine, positive examples include celebrities who use the public arena to appeal for following epidemiological measures, those who follow preventive measures, publicly share narratives on personal experience with the disease and actively participate in the fight against misinformation. Angelina Jolie for instance produced a programme on the coronavirus for teenagers in collaboration with the BBC, shared through the BBC YouTube channel, with advice on recognizing misinformation, on online schooling and youth experience during the pandemic crisis.

Alongside emphasizing positive examples of celebrities who actively take part in the fight against conspiracy theories and misinformation, and affirm officially prescribed prevention measures, alternative medicine is explicitly criticised, its consumerist, commodifying and profit-oriented aspects as well as the wellness industry. More precisely, unverified tests and ads for preparations such as essential oil, colloid silver, vitamins marketed as cures for the coronavirus or immunity boosters are all criticized. While supporters of the negative discourse accuse large pharmaceutical companies promoted by the media for “profiting from diseases”, supporters of the positive discourse accuse companies in the wellness industry for profiting from “fear and panic”, noting that the pandemic has opened up a new market niche “for all kinds of scammers”.

 

In conclusion

Due to their visibility and familiarity, celebrities as a socio-cultural phenomenon figure as social authorities with an enormous influence on different audiences and therefore have a significant role during the COVID-19 crisis. They take different positions in this “new hybrid ecosystem” (Wheeler), either promoting the discourse of conspiracy theories and fake news or supporting the mainstream discourse based on science and social responsibility. The new hybrid ecosystem functions as a network in which different actors participate, and information disseminated in the virtual media world may have, and often do have, real consequences, for the disseminators as well as the consumers of different information.

Findings of this research reveal that the media try to appear as fighters for true information and science, especially visible in the labels given to those who deny scientific research and opinions by scientists. This shows that traditional media react to fake news posted on social networks i.e., it seems that the new hybrid ecosystem functions in such a way that traditional and mainstream media are engaged in refuting fake news on social media. Not only is the public engaged in consuming news through social and traditional/mainstream media, but traditional media are also powerfully engaged, as noted by Wheeler, but they also add a clear estimation of the situation and try to refute false information.^[126] However, equally important is the fact that this research can also support the thesis that traditional media in a way help disseminate false information because they report on the posts and tweets of celebrities, who often share or encourage the use of false information.^[127]

 

Note on the text:

This paper is based on a lecture presented under the same title at the international interdisciplinary symposium Filozofijska misao u vremenu fake newsa, govora mržnje, infodemije, manipuliranja i neslobode medija (Philosophical thought in the era of fake news, hate speech, infodemic, manipulation and lack of freedom for the media) (2021), and has been developed as part of a project implemented by the Ivo Pilar Social Sciences Institute in Zagreb,  “Tijelo, zdravlje, prevencija: Medijski konstruirani diskursi i življene kulture u doba novih ‘bio-realiteta’” (Body, health, prevention: Media-constructed discourses and living cultures in times of new ‘bio-realities’).

 

---

 

Izazovi “novog hibridnog ekosistema”: slavne osobe, lažne vijesti i Covid-19

 

Sažetak

 

Kompleksna isprepletenost mainstream medija i društvenih medija rezultirala je stvaranjem “novog hibridnog ekosistema” u kojem se konzumenti/ce primarno angažiraju oko ideja i vijesti objavljenih na društvenim mrežama koje naknadno mainstream mediji prenose kao vijesti (Wheeler 2018). U tom novom “hiper-povezanom okolišu” (Pepper 2018) “lažne vijesti” zauzimaju specifično mjesto. Koncept “lažnih vijesti” je vrlo kompleksan, kontradiktoran i ambivalentan jer figurira kao krovni pojam kojim se pokrivaju različiti fenomeni i raznolike prakse od kojih su neke ranije poznate dok su druge novijeg datuma (Molina i sur. 2021). Novi komunikacijski okoliš i ulogu lažnih vijesti u njemu moguće je analizirati i kroz optiku fenomena slavnih osoba. Rad metodom analize diskursa raščlanjuje tekstove o različitim izjavama slavnih osoba o Covid-19 na dva hrvatska web portala (index.hr, 24sata.hr). Pokazuje se da zbog težine koju njihovom djelovanju i izjavama pridaju konzumenti sadržaja web portala, slavne osobe funkcioniraju kao vrlo potentni prenositelji lažnih vijesti. S druge strane, mainstream mediji često djeluju kao korektiv društvenih medija, nastojeći što uvjerljivije demantirati lažne vijesti i njihove slavne prenositelje na društvenim mrežama.

 

Ključne riječi: novi hibridni ekosistem, lažne vijesti, slavne osobe, Covid-19, analiza diskursa, index.hr, 24 sata.hr..

 

 

---

11(20)#2 2022

This journal is open access and this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

DOI 10.46640/imr.11.20.2 UDK 001:366*generacija Y Pregledni članak Review article Primljeno: 10.2.2022.

 

 

Branimir Felger

Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Philosophy
Zagreb, Croatia
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

Generation Y – Between Challenges of the Knowledge Society and
Demands of a Prosperous Market

Puni tekst: pdf (338 KB), English, Str. 3269 - 3284

 

Abstract

 

This paper deals with elements from which modern society has created a particular gap into which it has pushed young generations, named by scientists, the media and the public, Generation Y. This gap appears between the society of knowledge, in all its conceptual poverty and absurdity on the one hand, and demands of prosperous markets, on the other. The first part of this paper will present the definition and main characteristics of millennials, as well as the socio-historical context of their development. This is followed by an analysis of the media that reproduce and, to a large extent, determine the conditions and environment in which these generations exist. They are subject to technological socialization, which means they do not come into contact with each other but with machines. In this way they achieve only contact, instead of actual human relationships as experienced by previous generations. This paper also deals with technologies commonly known as “new”, although, as we write these lines, some of them have probably already become outdated and are being replaced by newer ones. This is how fast the world changes.

 

Key words: generation Y, society of knowledge, consumerism, media.

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

Recently a friend of mine, who works as an IT teacher, explained her teaching process and how she usually tests her pupils’ knowledge. They belong to the generation born in 2005. There is no place for traditional exams, papers and grades in her professional or personal curriculum. She uses Kahoot to test their knowledge. For me the concept of Kahoot was completely unknown as I belong to the generation that encountered computers and the beginnings of internet only after finishing higher level education. Not to mention apps, those products of a modern fast-growing technology I came into contact with only after spending some time on the job market.

Kahoot is an application for testing knowledge. It is a game in which the teacher constructs questions based on the school curriculum (which is certainly out of date), in a “modern” way, adapted to children, she explains, with a list of possible answers and a time limit for choosing one answer. It is actually an app created for leisure and aimed at the masses, the users of new technologies, primarily those from the younger generation, but its creator probably couldn’t imagine it would be used in the so-called ‘flipped classroom’, to use Liessmann’s term.

The Kahoot game made me think of Liessmann’s “Theory of Miseducation” because in it he exposes the idea of a society of knowledge in the postmodern era in all its existing and non-existent fragments by using the example of the television show “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”. For the 2005 generation this show already belongs to an antiquated style. Kahoot is in.  Although, by the time this paper is finished, maybe even Kahoot won’t be that interesting. Science, knowledge, education and the society of knowledge also feature in this paper. Knowledge in the sense of the modern “manufacture” of educated people for the purposes of the job market. This might be called commercial knowledge, which correlates to information knowledge i.e., the practice of so-called consumerist education.

 

2. BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF GENERATION Y

Millennials, or members of the so-called Generation Y, were born in a technological world in which almost everything has been digitised (Car, 2010). Born between 1980 and 2000 (Meier and Crocker, 2010), they’ve been called millennials and echo boomers owing to similarities with baby boomers (Kapoor and Solomon, 2011). For them a world without hundreds of television programs is unimaginable, the internet is their main source of information and fun, and they would be completely lost without a cell phone (Car, 2010).

This generation, just as any other preceding it, grew up influenced by particular political, economic, cultural and historical events (Guillot-Soulez and Soulez, 2014).

Those among them who are older, grew up in an environment of economic prosperity and peace, but only in some parts of the world. War in the Middle East and terrorist attacks have increasingly signalled them to be cautious. The economic crisis reached them at the moment when they were supposed to enter the job market, and recession faced them with the risk of unemployment and poverty. Since their earliest age, members of Generation Y have owned a computer and had internet access (Guillot-Soulez and Soulez, 2014). Their most commonly used social networks are Facebook and Twitter, while for job searches they also use LinkedIn (Anantatmula and Shrivastav, 2012).

Before 2014, 29% of millennials were on the job market, and it is assumed that by 2020 this percentage will reach 50% in the total working force (Krasulja et.al., 2015). They use internet as a social and psychological platform for self-actualization, assertion and finding their own identity. This generation uses the internet to socialize, compete for social status and take risks in order to test the limits of the social world (Peck, 2008), or to experiment with identities in search of acceptance. It is characterized by a high level of self-esteem and confidence, as well as adaptability, openness and tolerance (Anantatmula and Shrivastav, 2012).

They enter the job market with skills in which they are superior to their antecedents, owing to their knowledge of technology and the way they use it, which includes the skill of doing several tasks at the same time. They can simultaneously exchange messages with friends, listen to music and do some writing on the side (Paine Schofield and Honore, 2009).

This generation wants everything right here, right now (Bolton et al., 2013). And since they enter into interpersonal relationships through social networks, we can wonder to what extent these serve as platforms for prosocial activities, and how much they actually isolate them from the outer world and impact the deficit of altruism, confidence and social competences.

Almost 78% of adolescents believe they can be more honest online than they are in personal interaction (Lenhart et. al., 2007). If they use the computer as a tool for fun and superficial information, when and how do they use it for educational, cultural and generally social approaches to education goals? Or, as Habermas puts it, does the quantitative increase of information translate into qualitative changes in the social system? Information overload can negatively impact the development of the public sphere because “more” does not necessarily mean “better” (Habermas, 1989). This will be further discussed later in this paper.

 

3. THE MEDIA SOCIETY – A VICTORY OF THE BANAL AND THE TRIVIAL

Bognar notes that we live in line with the philosophy of “constant growth” which has introduced new challenges for the western civilization. He sees the postmodern period as a period of crises and changes, an unstable era of uncertainty viewed by many people as a life without defined truths, standards or ideals, and of increasing religious fundamentalism which attracts supporters because people fear the meaningless world. In such circumstances we can no longer find solutions in the old ways of thinking (Bognar, 2007). Media content is increasingly a product of such pressures.

The fact that at the beginning of the 20th century it took several months for news to reach distant parts of the world, while today an event can be followed directly on the screen of a television, cell phone or computer, illustrates the availability, speed and interactivity resulting from the increased speed of communication. The effect of television, as the most powerful and spectacular electronic extension of human senses, is based on the direct reporting of events. The so-called television spectacle transmits events as they happen in real time to millions of viewers (Radojković, Đorđević, 2001).

At the turn of the 21st century, communication technology kept expanding, progressing faster than politics had time to respond to terrorist attacks. The media follows events through satellites on TV and social networks, so it is not geographically or temporally limited. The events are reported live, here and now, while audiences can sit at home and follow terrorist attacks, police actions, searches and arrests of perpetrators. Media reports therefore can influence the policies and decisions of governments. (Felger, Lesinger, 2017).

Semati calls this phenomenon “the CNN effect” which personalizes international relations through “pure televisualization” (Semati, 2002: 214). The effect of reporting events live is that it speeds up decisions by putting pressure on diplomatic representatives and politicians (Lorimer, 1998: 293). It also influences decisions of the general public that consumes the content and finds in it a confirmation of its equally stressful, cacophonic, consumerist, hectic lifestyle.

Livingston identifies three different aspects of this genre as an American phenomenon, in the sense that the media function simultaneously or alternately as agents of setting an agenda, obstacles to achieving goals, but can also influence faster decision-making (Livingston, 1997: 2). Imperatives of American society for example are analysed in Grupp’s theory of “destroyed humans”.

He explains how Americans are under the illusion they have the freedom to make their own choices owing to critical thinking and control over their lives, but this freedom is actually a product of consuming television and social media content which indirectly influences their decisions and actions (Grupp, 2011: 156).

This can be confirmed by the primary “myth of happiness” which Gilbert explains by the fact that experiencing means to participate in an event, while awareness means observation from the outside. When we identify ourselves with awareness, we describe it as our own experienced events (Gilbert, 2009: 81) with a low or non-existent level of criticism or evaluation of the content we consume. Evaluation of media messages should be an essential skill in terms of critical thinking and verification of media content (Silverblatt et al., 2014: 507).

In the context of challenges of the postmodern era and consequences created by the mass media society i.e., created by mass media in the society, the individual has become a commodity. Media consumers are pandered to in line with market orientation, tabloidization, superficiality of content and often the sharing of unverified information due to ignorance, haste or even intentionally (Philips, 2013: 222-270).

Kapuscinski notes that ever since its transformation into a commodity, information is no longer submitted to traditional criteria of authenticity control. It is instead governed by laws of the market (Kapuscinski, 2012). And the market in the 21st century is getting bigger, owing to multiplication of the media. Kapuscinski writes that modern technologies have encouraged the multiplication of the media, and wonders about the possible consequences. The most important consequence is the revelation that information is a commodity whose sale and sharing can bring significant profit. The price of information depends on the demand i.e., the interest it evokes. Sale comes first. Information will be considered worthless if it cannot stir interest in the wider public (Kapuscinski, 2012). We live in a world of not only infotainment (combining information and entertainment), but also of the infomercial, which brings the commercial aspect to information.

The media today create and share information in accordance with commercial interest. Street also comments that the media sells products and services. Newspapers and TV shows are commercially manufactured goods, while the news item itself is a product on the market with its particular market value. For a commercial organization manufacturing news, the key measure of success is profit, just like it is for manufacturers of diapers or cars (Street, 2003: 107).

There are strong symbolic ties between the symptoms of increasing commercialization in media content and in the modalities of their production and presentation. Another aspect of this is the phenomenon called by Van Zoonen Ken and Barbie journalism.

This relates to female and male presenters whose physical attractiveness and beauty are more important than their professional qualities as journalists (Van Zoonen, 1998). Hromadžić notes they only provide a loose framework for the hidden purpose of marketing.

This comes as a result of dominant attempts in the media and media policies to make content less important than form, while form itself is subject to advertising models and policies of the market (Hromadžić, 2010). This changes the relationship between the media (television in particular) and the messages shared. Baudrillard notes that the television “message” does not consist of the images it shows, but relates to new forms of relationships and perception it imposes, as well as changes in the traditional structures of families and groups (Baudrillard, 2012).

In explaining her theory of the “spiral of silence”, Noelle-Neumann insists that humanity cannot progress if it does not adopt a completely different definition of public opinion (Noelle-Neumann, 1991: 257). This is also in line with the idea on the meaningless identification of public opinion as a personal, shared or global phenomenon, because, as Key explains, there is no point in public opinion if everyone is under control (Key, 1967: 543).

Debord also recognizes the creation of commodities in such a spectacularization of mass media and its products and narratives. He calls this process the “old enemy” (Debord, 1999: 35). Trivial sensationalism, banalization of content and advertising engineering emphasizes profit at all costs, negates the culture of dialogue and the educational-democratic role of media. It is not necessary for all TV programmes to be intellectual, enriching or educational, nor was this ever the case, but the biggest problem is that the media are financially dependent on advertising agencies which to some extent control their fate. (Radojković, Đorđević, 2001).

Through this dependence and their agenda and selection of information, the media establish rules of public and political communication, impacting the formation or change in public attitudes. Generation Y grew up and entered the job market in such a world. And when people lose the ability to interpret something for themselves, they rely on experts to teach them what they should see (Delić, 2009: 34). In the society of the spectacle, “everyone is completely at the mercy of experts, their calculations and their assessments, which always depend on these calculations” (Debord, 1999: 183).

According to Livazović (2009), the media are an important agent of socialization. Despite being transient and difficult to describe, through long-term exposure their influence may result in the accumulation of new ideas, beliefs and attitudes which have the power to modify individual behaviour, depending on, primarily, the family environment (Livazović, 2009).

Livazović (2009: 108-115) differentiates between long-term and short-term impacts of media on the behaviour of children and young people, and adds that short-term impacts appear shortly after exposure to media and may last up to several weeks. Long-term effects are cumulative and therefore more dangerous, although they are actually a direct consequence of short-term impacts.

However, they threaten to create a permanent system of beliefs, attitudes and habits active in the everyday pattern of life and behaviours in social interactions. The modern media and information society develops new levels of reality and opens up new approaches. Human agency in perception and consumption of media in the qualitative and quantitative sense is extremely important. The media are part of everyday life, throughout our lives, and some authors note the important role the media have in the formation of character from an early age.

It is therefore extremely important to act proactively. But is it too late? Especially if we take into account the intention of the 21st century to commercialize all tangible and non-tangible forms of human activity. Through this we have already destroyed the time for thinking and analysing essential values. Instead of the authority of knowledge, we passively let our individual intellectual autonomy be taken over by a media shaped reality.

 

4. THE PARENTAL ROLE IN OVERCOMING THE DEGRADATION OF VALUES

We have removed young people from the immediate world and equipped them with new forms of interaction, thus also pushing them into a gap between the virtual world and the real social world. Through this we have (almost) irreparably destroyed the significance of parenting in the sense of preparing young people for the outside world. The information society, the society of knowledge, as well as the mass media society, allow young people to choose their own social preferences. It is therefore no wonder that the level of their awareness is based on strict limitations within narrow walls of the supposedly wide and endless possibilities of the modern digital world. They have everything, and they have nothing.

Livazović (2009) for example notes that the functional educational aspect which is most present precisely in leisure activities, reveals to parents and educators the necessity of dealing professionally with the problem of media content to which young people are exposed. Mass consumption today is done individually, that is, every consumer is an unpaid worker who alone produces a mass man (Anders, 1996: 21).

The degraded quality of interactions within the family and generally decreasing values of traditional upbringing as a consequence of intense social change, point to the need to follow and scientifically determine the quality of time spent using media, since, by definition, every human activity entails social control (Berger and Luckmann, 1969: 59).

The focused prevention of externally caused behavioural disorders would strengthen primary educational factors (school and family), which need to justify and renew the lost trust of society in the power of educational efforts (Livazović, 2009).

I would agree on this point and add that modern times, in which television, and radio especially, have become dying forms of public consumerism, losing in the marketing competition when compared to platforms such as the internet in general and social networks and video channels in particular, also require an adequate and immediate response by the society, ranging from lawmakers to the education system and parental participation. Society has yet to address the full extent of changes introduced by radio and television, while new forms of an increasingly aggressive technology are coming at their heels.

Burić notes that the media can influence child and youth development. Information needs to have socially constructed meaning. Like gene technology, new media has the power to change the social world. The discussion on media and ethics today relates less to media culture of humanity and more to dealing with modern media. The relevance of this question is undeniable (Burić, 2010). Enabling young people to develop social relationships today presents a greater challenge for parents and schools than ever before, if we want to teach them adequate social skills and family values (Car, 2010). 

In giving them digital development, we also exposed them to some risks. We have also dramatically reduced the amount of time we devote to children and young people, in families, schools, and institutions of higher education. It is therefore no wonder that hierarchy and relationship to authorities is in a dramatic state of collapse. The key values of today, such as, superficial education, combined with the great expansion and hyperproduction of information, interspersed with consumerism, are aggressively interwoven in the social development style of the young generations today. By dumbing down ourselves, we dumb them down as well, which has inconceivable consequences we justify by the freedom of choice in a competitive environment.

 

5. CONSUMERISM – PSEUDO-NEEDS AND THE FUTILE SEARCH FOR HAPPINESS

As we bear witness to the unstable political context, nepotism and corruption, the collateral victim is human freedom, as free thinking and choice are disappearing. At the same time, this is reflected in the failed attempt to achieve happiness through material possession. De Botton notes that today people consider themselves happy only if they have the same amount or possibly a bit more than those in their reference group, people with whom they grow, socialize and identify with in the public sphere (De Botton, 2005).

Consumption has become the main focus of social life (Čolić, 2008). To own the tangible and lack the spiritual, appears to be the pattern for achieving happiness. There is no deeper analysis of ways to realize human needs and interests. Čolić exposes the motives for accumulating goods from a psychological perspective when he says these are not needs but wishes, which in their essence are limitless and insatiable (Čolić, 2008).

Hromadžić sees a parallel between processes of socially constructed pseudo-needs and Debord’s concept of the society of spectacle. The construction of pseudo-needs is managed by mass media and advertising agencies which produce endless series of seductive advertising images for mass consumption (Hromadžić, 2012). We thus subject future generations and are ourselves subjected to, the intolerant microcosm of our own ambitions which are based on evaluating success from a purely economic point of view. At the same time, we fail to understand the paradox we have found ourselves in.

Anders imaginatively explains this by describing the concept of a homeworker. While the traditional homeworker manufactured products in order to gain a minimum of consumer goods and leisure, the modern homeworker consumes a maximum of leisure products in order to help produce the mass man. Anders further explains how this process becomes paradoxical, as the worker, instead of being paid for his cooperation, needs to pay for it himself i.e., buy the means of production by the use of which he has agreed to be transformed into mass man. He therefore pays for selling himself, even his lack of freedom. He has to purchase the very unfreedom he himself helped produce, as it has also become a commodity (Anders, 1996: 21).

A critical discussion might be launched into these exchanges of one type of values for another, but the roots and sources of changes in the human mind when choosing one’s own needs, are to be found in man. Man created the civilization foundations for this new way of expressing and understanding value. Man gave precedence to the wish to “have” instead of “to be”, failing to understand the pressure of the inescapable illusion he produced. The shopping centre has become the centre of his self-realization. Bruckner calls it a “cathedral of superfluity”.

In these cathedrals of superfluity, our guilt is not in the fact we want too much, but that we want too little. Our only pleasure is in wanting what we do not need. (Bruckner, 1997).

Chomsky also believes that the starting point of such a reality is in propaganda, when he says that a society does not perceive propaganda as the dimension of media which has the greatest influence on that society (Chomsky, 2002). However, modern hyper-productivity compels Anders’s homeworker to consume. Bruckner notes that in response, the goods need to be transitory, their decomposing planned, their obsoleteness programmed (we probably all had our washing machine stop working precisely a day after its warranty expired). While possession represents permanence, our objects are seductive only as part of a short-term, limited series (e.g., a uniquely packaged perfume on special offer only for one month). They quickly fall out of fashion, momentarily replaced by new ones which shine for a little while before being replaced themselves (Bruckner, 1997).

The author sees consumption as a vicious religion, because we believe in the endless resurrection of things, with the supermarket acting as church, and advertising its gospel. He notes that the ability of things to last would actually make us miserable, rob us of a foolish pleasure and of a world which keeps changing so that we ourselves wouldn’t have to. (Bruckner, 1997).

Alić calls this kind of “evangelical” advertising, “the final totalitarian ideology” (Alić, 2009: 117). Such advertising does not only include the traditional persuasion to consume particular products, it also means total manipulation through the overall manner and attitude towards social structures, resulting finally in the transformation of reality into a total lie.

It is clear that in their “escape from freedom”, manipulated individuals also feel a certain pleasure when they are “managed from the outside”. This means not taking responsibility, existing inside the safe space of the group, enjoying the illusion of freedom. (Breton, 2000: 141). These are the circumstances in which Generation Y develops, in giving up the freedom of choice to simplified preferences of individual limitations. Education plays a part in this process as well.

 

6. EDUCATION AS A PROSPEROUS MARKET

The role of “adults” is therefore extremely important, in the educational, advisory and legal sense. Kink notes that media images often feature young users of new technologies as some digital technology-dependant natives who are endlessly agile in using a multitude of information sources thus gaining a natural capacity for survival. As they were born in the era of new technologies, the students have in many ways surpassed their teachers. This however does not mean that we do not need adults in the role of educators and teachers (Kink, 2009).

Ilišin (2003) notes that, even though teachers and schools are often named as the supposed main moderators for media capabilities of children, parents are still the main media socializers. Research points to a significant problem, as only 10% to 15% of children talk with their parents about what they have seen, heard or read, which is less than they share with their peers (Ilišin, 2003, in: Košir et al., 1999).

Habermas notes that in the reconstructed modern system of information and communications, young generations are overloaded with information, and information overload can negatively impact the development of the “public sphere” and democracy itself since inadequate information prevents citizens to participate, instead encouraging them to be passive (Habermas, 1989).

Does greater exposure to information make people more informed? Only in a superficial sense. I wonder however about the power of concentration in these times of mass production and consumption of too much information. I believe it eludes us. There is no interest for something that needs to be analysed for a longer period of time, because there is no time or will. This is the characteristic of millennials that I already mentioned: to consume something right here, right now, at the superficial level of perception, and then erase it from memory instantaneously to make room for new information.

An artificial impression is induced in people that they are led by their own feelings and instincts. They supress awareness of something they would otherwise be aware of because they are afraid, their main emotion is fear (Fromm, 1980: 110). In this case they fear rejection and failure which would lead to isolation from a society in which only universal patterns of behaviour are accepted, never individual ones.

Bognar for example demands deep changes in the education system, particularly at the didactic level. He believes we should teach new generations about the efforts made by previous generations in overcoming their own misconceptions (Bognar, 2007). Today, school has become a pastime, a superficial presentation of information. Bauman (1988) agrees that the market has transformed the consumption of information into a pleasurable amusement, and education has become just one of the many ways to have fun. This is evidenced by the way in which generations of today “learn”. They learn things online, from their “invisible” friends and not from teachers, they use only content that brings them pleasure or that helps them make their own conclusions on the necessity to consume. They are not interested in sources, only form, without content. For Generation Y there is a difference between knowledge and information.

They are known as the most educated generation, although in fact they merely own information. This knowledge then does not exist for the sake of knowledge, but for the sake of being used for profit and to satisfy the needs of the prosperous market, as Liessmann calls it.

They have a whole range of tools at their disposal, which previous generations could not even imagine. There are online search providers such as Google, discussion platforms in the form of blogs and forums, new distribution channels like Wikipedia. They use all of these merely as consumers of an instant supply and demand, not in order to think about the world around them, let alone for a deeper understanding of social processes.

What are the benefits of this type of consumption? It produces reduced understanding of the world with the purpose of greater consumption. This includes goods of all kinds, aspiration to materialism, quick earnings, instant pleasure, a consumerist lifestyle in general. And despite the great availability of information, friends and acquaintances on social networks, research shows that social engagement, interest for the social-political arena as well as culture and history, remain total mysteries for young generations.

Market fundamentalism and the society of knowledge, aided by an institutionalized marketing philosophy, together work on building the dubious structure of the global society of knowledge (Delić, 2009: 32). In the name of educating the global society of knowledge, only one dimension of globalization, the economic one, comes to the fore as universal, lifesaving, good-intentioned, self-evident, coherent, unproblematic, scientifically legitimate and justified (Delić, 2009: 32).

There is no room for thinking in modern schools, Liessmann (2008) explains, taking Nietzsche’s ideas as his starting point. Education is dominated by projects and practice, experiences and networking, excursions and short trips. The secret programme of modern education appears to be the insistence on not thinking for oneself, of ensuring that the community establishes modalities of production for individuals capable of understanding, linking and maximally adjusting their functioning within the current postmodern narrative.

For Liessmann the society of knowledge has no connection to what has been the European tradition since ancient times, in the sense of virtues, discernment, practical knowledge, and finally wisdom. In this society nobody learns something for the sake of knowledge but for the sake of learning. In political discourse, the society of knowledge is supposed to be the same as information society. In dominant discourses on globalisation, information society is relatively carelessly and hastily equated with the society of knowledge (Delić, 2009: 35).

The popular idea that we live in an information society and therefore a society of knowledge, can justly be contrasted with the idea that we live in a “misinformation society” (Liessmann, 2008: 24-27). Knowledge is more than just information. Knowledge is a way of perceiving the world: realizing, understanding, conceiving. Knowledge is not unambiguously focused on achieving a purpose. Information is interpretation of data, while knowledge may be described as interpretation of data in regards to their causal correlation and inner consistency (Liessmann, 2008: 24).

This is rarely the case today. Modern generations have the possibility to simply shut down communication and ignore information if they consider it a burden or a negative topic. The orientation of the modern distribution of knowledge exclusively on new technologies, has actually limited it with its multimediality. Liessmann (2008) states that historical data which are not linked according to the logic of historical sciences and their context but are grouped in accordance with political and emotional circumstances, do not result in knowledge but in ideology. This answers the ubiquitous research today on the growing introversion and decreased social sensitivity of new generations.

Bognar (2007) calls for a modern recognition of Pestalozzi’s triad of head, heart and hands, as well as a critical analysis of the future problems and challenges faced by “wise young heads”. How will that be possible if we ourselves imposed on them the communicative maxim that information is enough?

Adding to this superficial modern interpretation of the society of knowledge I must go back to the beginning of this paper and the Kahoot app as a mirror to current goals of learning. We ourselves have failed in the face of demands by new generations, as we have enabled them to be free from the pressures of a traditional type of education. Is Kahoot enough? Liessmann makes the parallel with “Who wants to be a Millionaire”.

Ever since this show gained recognition, modern teachers no longer relied on boring exams to find out whether their students really understood the lesson, but rather on guessing games modelled after this quiz, Liessmann reported more than ten years ago. Kahoot is the modern version of the “Millionaire” game. These formats indicate that modern education is at the level of mass media entertainment, which Liessmann sees as a distinct form of ignorance, while the knowledge shown, contrary to its intentions, remains non-binding and unrelated, as it has become completely external (Liessmann, 2008: 12).

Knowledge and education are no longer the goal, however strange this might sound. Rather, they have become a means which does not require any further analysis as long as it can be justified as a means for prosperous markets, qualification for a job position, mobility of services, economic growth.

In the society of knowledge, educated people can never be seen as the final goals of the required permanent process of gaining knowledge. These ideals are of course neither wise men nor traditional scientists, instead there is only the brain which recognizes industrial possibilities of implementing complex research quicker than its competing equivalent in Shanghai (Liessmann, 2008: 70).

 

7. IN CONCLUSION

Is Kahoot really enough? Modern science has not managed to achieve a minimum of consensus on the definition of the postmodern, let alone find a solution for its essential products. We are however witnessing a new mental order of a primarily capitalist character. While many authors analyse this particular phenomenon of postmodern society and examine its causes, the consequences and solutions of constructing a virtual world entangled in interests of neoliberal capitalism, are only touched upon. There are no solutions. If Kahoot or “Millionaire” are considered solutions, so be it. But this might mean we are creating isolated individuals unprepared for a deeper examination of society and social processes. Are we not thus creating digital addicts, unaware of manipulations of the media-marketing concept of the modern world? It is also absurd and ironic that civilization has let the products of its hard-won and permanent progress to a dissolution of the essence. Dissolution of the essence for the benefit of consumer nonsense, based on a deficient education system – this is the world we leave to future generations, with the assumption they have gained a great starting point for making the future world regress even further as they strive for prosperity. Kahoot unfortunately, is quite enough for a world like that.

 

References:

Alić, S. (2009). Mediji, od zavođenja do manipuliranja. Zagreb: AGM.

Anantatmula, V. S., Shrivastav, B. (2012). “Evolution of Project Teams for Generation Y Workforce”. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 9-26.

Anders, G. (1996). Svet kao fantom i matrica, Filozofska razmatranja o radiju i televiziji. Novi Sad: Prometej.

Baudrillard, J. (2012). “Iznad istinitoga i neistinitoga”, in: Katunarić, D. (ed.) Carstvo medija. Zagreb: Litteris.

Bauman, Z. (1988). “Postoji li postmodernistička sociologija”. Revija za sociologiju, Filozofski fakultet, Zagreb, Vol. 19, Issue 3, pp. 309-323.

Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (1969) Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Frankfurt am main: Fischer.

Bognar, L. (2007). “Pedagogija u razdoblju postmoderne”, in: Previšić, V. et al. (eds.) Zbornik radova I. kongresa pedagoga Hrvatske “Pedagogija prema cjeloživotnom obrazovanju i društvu znanja”.Zagreb: Hrvatsko pedagogijsko društvo, pp. 28-40.

Bolton, R. et al. (2013). “Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research agenda”. Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24, Issue 3, pp. 245-267.

Breton, P. (2000). Izmanipulisana reč. Beograd: Clio.

Bruckner, P. (1997). Napast nedužnosti, Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Matice Hrvatske.

Burić, J. (2010). “Djeca i mladi kao konzumenti masovnih medija: Etika i tržišne manipulacije potrebama mladih”, Filozofska istraživanja, Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo, Zagreb, Vol. 30, Issue 4, pp. 629-634.

Car, S. (2010). “Online komunikacija i socijalni odnosi učenika”, Pedagogijska istraživanja, Vol. 7, Issue 2, pp. 281-290.

Chomsky, N. (2002). Mediji, propaganda i sistem. Zagreb: Što čitaš?.

Čolić, S. (2008). “Sociokulturni aspekti potrošnje, potrošačke kulture i društva”, Društvena istraživanja, Vol. 17, Issue 6, pp. 953-973.

De Botton, A. (2005). Statusna tjeskoba, Zagreb: SysPrint.

Debord, G. (1999). Društvo spektakla, Zagreb: Arkzin.

Delić, Z. (2009). “Globalizacija, moć i politika znanja: jedanaest antiteza o globalizaciji”, Filozofska istraživanja, Vol. 29, Issue 1, pp. 31- 50.

Felger, B. & Lesinger, G. (2017). “Media Responsibility During the Coverage of Terrorist Attacks – a Case Study of the Abduction and Execution of the Croatian Citizen Tomislav Salopek”, Communication Today, Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp. 4-17.

Fromm, E. (1980). S onu stranu okova iluzije. Zagreb: Naprijed.

Gilbert, D. (2009). Mit o sreći. Zagreb: Algoritam.

Grupp, J. (2011). Korporatizam, Tajna vlada Novog svjetskog poretka. Zagreb: TelEdisk.

Guillot-Soulez, C.& Soulez, S. (2014). “On the heterogeneity of Generation Y job preferences”, Employee Relations, Vol. 36, Issue 4, pp. 319-332.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hromadžić, H. (2010). “Mediji i spektakularizacija društvenog svijeta-Masmedijska produkcija kulture slavnih”, Filozofska istraživanja, Hrvatsko filozofsko društvo, Zagreb, Vol. 30, Issue 4, pp. 617-627.

Hromadžić, H. (2012). “Konzumeristički kapitalizam: epoha produkcije imaginarija potrošačke želje”, Sociologija i prostor, Institut za društvena istraživanja, Zagreb, Vol. 50, Issue 1, pp. 45-60.

Ilišin, V. (2003). “Mediji u slobodnom vremenu djece i komunikacija o medijskim sadržajima”, Medijska istraživanja, Naklada Medijska istraživanja, Zagreb, Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 9-34.

Kapoor, C.& Solomon, N. (2011). “Understanding and managing generational differences in the workplace”, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, Vol. 3, Issue 4, pp. 308-318.

Kapuscinski, R. (2012). “Odražavaju li mediji stvarnost svijeta?”, in: Katunarić, D. (ed.) Carstvo medija. Zagreb: Litteris.

Key, V. O. (1967). Public opinion and American democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Kink, S. (2009). Medijsko opismenjavanje odraslih, Informatologia, Hrvatsko komunikološko društvo, Zagreb, Vol. 42, Issue 3, pp. 222-227.

Krasulja, N. et al. (2015). “Multigeneracijska radna snaga-prednost ili nedostatak za suvremene organizacije”, Praktični menadžment, stručni časopis za teoriju i praksu menadžmenta, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 59-68.

Lenhart, A. et al. (2007). Teens and Social Media: The Use of Social Media Gains a Greater Foothold in Teen Life as They Embrace the Conversational Nature of Interactive Online Media. Washington D.C.: Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Liessmann, K. P. (2008). Teorija neobrazovanosti: Zablude društva znanja. Zagreb. Naklada Jesenski i Turk.

Livazović, G.(2009). Teorijsko-metodološke značajke utjecaja medija na adolescente, Život i škola, Fakultet za odgojne i obrazovne znanosti, Sveučilište Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u Osijeku, Vol. 57, Issue 21, pp. 108-115.

Livingston, S. (1997). Clarifying the CNN effect: An Examination of Media Effects According to Type of Military Intervention. Harvard University: The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public policy.

Lorimer, R. (1998). Masovne komunikacije. Beograd: Clio.

Meier, J. & Crocker, S. F. (2010). Generation Y in the Workforce: Managerial Challenges, Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, Vol. 6., br. 1., str. 68-78.

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1991). “The theory of public opinion: The concept of spiral of silence”. u: Anderson, J. A. (ed.) Communication Yearbook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Vol. 14, pp. 257-287.

Paine Schofield, C. B., Honore, S. (2009). Generation Y and Learning, 360 The Ashridge Journal, Winter, pp. 26-32.

Peck, D. S. (2008). Hanging Out and Growing Up with Social Media, Media Psychology review,Vol 1, Issue 1, <available at: Hanging Out and Growing up with Social Media – Media Psychology Review (mprcenter.org),> (17 November 2019).

Radojković, M., Đorđević, T. (2001). Osnove komunikologije, Beograd: Fakultet političkih nauka.

Semati, M. (2002). Imagine the Terror, Television & New Media, Sage Publications, Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 213-218.

Silverblatt , A. et al. (2014). Media Literacy: Keys to Interpreting Media Messages. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.

Street, J. (2003). Masovni mediji, politika i demokracija, Zagreb: Politička misao.

Van Zoonen, L. (1998). “One of the Girls?: The Changing Gender of Journalism”, in: Carter, C. et al. (eds.): News, Gender And Power, London And New York: Routledge, pp. 26-32.

 

Generacija Y u rascjepu između izazova društva znanja i zahtjeva prosperitetnog tržišta

 

Sažetak

 

Rad se bavi česticama od kojih je današnje društvo satkalo rascjep u koji je dovelo mlade generacije, a znanstvenici, mediji i javnost nazivaju ih genaracijom Y, rascjep između društva znanja, u svoj svojoj pojmovnoj siromašnosti i apsurdnosti te društva medija s jedne strane i zahtjeva prosperitetnog tržišta, s druge strane. U prvom dijelu rada bit će predstavljeni pojmovi i glavne markacije generacije Y, društveno-povijesni kontekst njihova odrastanja. Potom će biti govora i o medijskom koloritu koji reproducira, ali i u velikom dijelu i fabricira uvjete i okolinu u kojoj ove generacije egzistiraju, u kojoj su podvrgnute tehnološkoj socijalizaciji, dakle, socijalizaciji ne jedni s drugima, već s tehnološkim dostignućima preko kojih međusobno ostvaruju tek kontakt, a ne ljudski odnos, kakav su poznavale ranije generacije. Nadalje, dotaknut će se i tehnologija, koje je uvriježeno zvati „novima“, iako, dok pišem ove retke, neke od njih su već zastarjele i zamijenjene novijima. Toliko brzo se svijet mijenja.

 

Ključne riječi: generacija Y, društvo znanja, konzumerizam, mediji.

 

 

---

11(20)#3 2022

This journal is open access and this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

DOI 10.46640/imr.11.20.3 UDK 1:316.774 Pregledni članak Review article Primljeno: 12.1.2022.

 

 

Divna Vuksanović

Faculty of Dramatic Arts in Belgrade
Belgrade, Serbia
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

Philosophy in the Time of Media and
Technological-information Madness

Puni tekst: pdf (577 KB), English, Str. 3285 - 3300

 

Abstract

 

From the point of view of the philosophy of the media, the text problematises the possibility and practice of thinking (self-awareness) in the time of media domination and the rule of technological-information ‘madness’. Also, in the background of the presentation plan, the article touches on the critique of the so-called media-based capitalism; it confronts the concept of ‘madness’ that we encounter under the veil of activity of the rational (instrumental) mind and modern media on the one hand and the thinking subject, his theoretical and practical possibilities, on the other. All this is demonstrated on the example of the (mis)use of artificial intelligence in modern media, which most often acts on social networks through two phenomena: the ‘epistemic bubble’ and the ‘echo chamber’. Based on the performed analyses, it is shown that the philosophy of the media, as an interdisciplinary oriented, theoretical critique of the media and mediated reality, has the opportunity and obligation to position itself towards technical inventions such as artificial intelligence used in the media, thus contributing to self-awareness and practice, both of the own discipline and of the social community in which the philosophy of the media critically participates.

 

Key words: philosophy of the media, artificial intelligence, social media, madness, capitalism.

 

 

‘Anyway, so nobody wanted to read about capitalism.’
Shoshana Zuboff

Each period, directly or indirectly, re-examines its own ‘philosophy’, and it would be desirable for its philosophy to reciprocate, provide a problem and critical review of the relevant topics of the contemporary period. The philosophy of the media, as a discipline which in essence examines the relation between philosophy and the media, is increasingly moving towards the focus of attention because of the fact that our period is to a great extent intermediated by technology, that is, mediated. As a result, some philosophers dare to claim that we live in a media-supported capitalism, or even more radically, in a media-based capitalism.^[128] Regardless of whether we interpret philosophy through the prism of dialogue and dialectics, monadology and geometrics or as a mirrored and reversed world, it becomes clear to most interpreters that philosophy today navigates the meanders of media culture, which, as it seems, significantly influences the direction of its further development. Even if philosophy as such does not know anything or worries too little about it, there is the philosophy of the media to open the door wide to possible discussions in the domain of this issue. In addition, as the philosophy of the media, as everything else, cannot develop abstractly, in a vacuum, it needs to follow the developmental flows of science and technology, which, given that they are the core of contemporary mediatisation, have a significant impact on huge social transformations that we witness today. In other words, philosophy of the media is the area of thought that needs to communicate to us the so-called ‘news from the unconscious’ as is usually colloquially put in these parts. In case of the media, it needs to be the self-awareness of the philosophy, the road sign that reveals the direction of the development of philosophy in the today’s time; in this task it is surely not the only one, but it is important for the survival and relevance of philosophy in our time.

What is the environment of today’s philosophy? It is, namely, claimed that we live in the era of the so-called post-truth, both in the media and in social communities^[129], which have, as it seems, sprung from ‘grand narrations’ (Lyotard), to which we also count the truth. We need not be especially reminded of the fact that philosophy was, so to speak, always connected to the subject of truth, however it might be interpreted. Nevertheless, since the appearance of post-modern thinkers to date, the truth in philosophy has become a different matter; not only has it been dethroned and then relativised, but it has been pushed far to the background by other interests, connected predominantly to language and its derivatives. In this sense, we may ask how language is possible without truth and answer right away – it is already there, present, both in the media and in the domain of initial reality, that is, in the era of the rule of post-truth, of hi-techcapitalism and artificial intelligence (AI). In the contemporary era, influenced by capitalism and new technologies, human beings are modified, social communities are modified, so why would not the truth be modified: human beings use genetically modified vital organs from animals^[130] or are even kiborgized, social communities have been sinking into despair, virtualisation and endless simulation chains, while the media promote manipulation as the ruling mode of communication, fake news, trolling, IT and cultural wars, echo chambers, etc. If the truth has thus far been an important stronghold for re-examining and establishing the relation to reality (media, social, ontological, etc.) its suspension removes the criterion for establishing what is real and what is an illusion (‘aesthetic illusion’), which, in addition to other difficulties, leads to the problem of non-differentiation of the important from the unimportant, of the real from the illusory, the truth from a lie, etc. Such non-differentiations are very much like the delusions of a psychotic, since they have to do with beliefs that, in principle, do not generate facts, that is, the truth. This goes both for the so-called global media space as for individual social communities, as well as the citizens that participate in them.

Under these circumstances, the question is what happens to consciousness in the era that negates truthfulness as the relevant element of judgement. The answer needs, as it seems, to be sought in the old attempts of the IBM (short for: International Business Machines) to replace the consciousness of human origin with the collective consciousness of computer technologies. The evidence for this is to be found, for example, in the participation of this company in the World’s Fair in New York in 1964. It was then that the Fair was opened to the public, its exhibition halls counting millions of visitors from around the globe in the next two years. In the words of Richard Barbrook: ‘Every section of the American elite was represented at the exposition: the federal government, US state governments, large corporations, financial institutions, industry lobbies and religious groups.’^[131] In a sentence, the exhibition was visited by almost all significant representatives of the social elite that shapes the (class) consciousness from above, that is, from the position of power, parallelly with manufacturing relations.

At this important event, in global terms, the IBM presented itself with a special construction supervised by the Finnish architect Eero Saarinen.^[132] The strategy for the exhibition and at the same time IBM’s business strategy had already then concentrated not so much on the sale of hardware but on anticipating the future of artificial intelligence: ‘Rather than aiming to produce ever greater numbers of more efficient machines at cheaper prices, the corporation was focused on steadily increasing the capabilities of its computers to preserve its near-monopoly over the military and corporate market. Instead of room-sized machines shrinking down into desktops, laptops and, eventually, mobile phones, IBM was convinced that computers would always be large and bulky mainframes. The corporation fervently believed that – if this path of technological progress was extrapolated – artificial intelligence must surely result.’^[133] In addition, at the exhibition in question, the IBM promoted something else, which, as the ideology of the future, ran through the filters of lack of understanding – the unification of (class) consciousness, its synthetisation into one, in the domain of artificial intelligence.

On this Barbrook said the following: ‘At the 1964 World’s Fair, the corporation’s pavilion emphasised the utopian possibilities of computing. Yet, despite its best efforts, IBM couldn’t entirely avoid the ambiguity inherent within the imaginary future of artificial intelligence. This fetishised ideology could only appeal to all sections of American society if computers fulfilled the deepest desires of both sides within the workplace. Therefore, in the exhibits at its pavilion, IBM promoted a single vision of the imaginary future, which combined two incompatible interpretations of artificial intelligence. On the one hand, workers were told that all their needs would be satisfied by sentient robots: servants who never tired, complained or questioned orders. On the other hand, capitalists were promised that their factories and offices would be run by thinking machines: producers who never slacked off, expressed opinions or went on strike’.^[134] So exploitation would be preserved in the foundations of ‘material’ production, while class consciousness would be (Hegel-like) dissolved in one – the area of artificial intelligence. Barbrook’s point was rendered in the same tone: ‘If only at the level of ideology, IBM had reconciled the social divisions of 1960s America. In the imaginary future, workers would no longer need to work, and employers would no longer need employees. The sci-fi fantasy of artificial intelligence had successfully distracted people from questioning the impact of computing within the workplace. After visiting IBM’s pavilion at the 1964 World’s Fair, it was all too easy to believe that everyone would win when the machines acquired consciousness ...’^[135]

So what kind of consciousness are we talking about here? Can machines – in our case the media – be aware? First, let us be reminded of the fact that the notion of consciousness was until not so long ago reserved for human beings and their characteristics/potentials/powers, as well as for God, history, nature … In recent times, that some theorists define by using the term ‘posthumanism’  or ‘transhumanism’ the notion of consciousness/intellect/ratio, and even sentiment is increasingly more often, as earlier said, associated with machines. However, judging by the origin of this so-called consciousness it may be concluded that it is, ultimately, the sprout of human ratio that strives to fight for status and autonomy from other iterations of consciousness we mentioned. The question ‘floating’ above consciousness defined in this way, which is in fact, humanoid in its origin, that is, secondary and derived, although has elements that qualify it as candidate among other types of consciousness, is a Kant’s question in its essence. This means that it is practically impossible to designate something as consciousness unless it is not based on self-awareness, which must be able to follow each action (that consciousness performs). Does in this sense, the ‘consciousness’ of machines, that is, the media, have control over its action or is it in the hands of man, that is, of the capital? At best, the consciousness of machines (the media) is talked about in the sense of their recognition of internal and external environment, and if it is the case that computers, machines and the media are able to differentiate their environment, such consciousness is identified as ‘being aware’. Although it is not a consciousness whose origin is biological, but artificial, under certain conditions, some researchers think, such machine behaviour may be characterised as (self)awareness.

Still, the issue of recognisability of (self)awareness of machines, that is of a ‘sign’ (Kristof Koch)^[136] continues to be raised, that shows that systems at hand are not only intelligent but aware, that is, self-aware. In the context of such quest for solutions, contemporary IT experts are trying to establish criteria for testing machines that could bear the name ‘conscious machines’. This gave rise to the idea of developing a ‘system of procedures’ to examine the characteristics of machines, primarily in order to examine their consciousness. It is interesting, however, that these procedures, as measures for assessment have taken into consideration also the ‘body’, that is, the anatomy of machines, as well as their communicability and self-recognition in the mirror, empathy, ability to lie.^[137] This, in practice, means that they have recognised not only the body as the moment of consciousness and vice-versa but what is more important – the relationship and interconnectedness between the consciousness and the body. This would, in an unusual way, at least when it comes to the media, mean that McLuhan’s premonition that the medium (i.e. media structure/technology/configuration) is the message, has been realised. Moreover, now the consciousness or self-consciousness would be deprived of the body, in the organic sense of the word, and the ‘relationship’ between the body and the consciousness would resemble more a disconnection than to a connection. As a result, we would say that the case here is not of some autonomous consciousness of machines that think autonomously, learn and create content but of some non-physical and special, artificial creation that operates in the service of technological (media-based) capitalism. Seemingly autonomous, this consciousness is only an instrument of operation of other consciousnesses but without self-awareness, simply put – pure fiction or algorithm.

On the other hand, while IT experts and non-critically oriented post- and transhumanists favour evidence of the consciousness and self-awareness of machines, all human actions on the internet and other networks come down to facts (data). The entire media space became a place for the production, exchange and consumption of facts for the purpose of capital accumulation and profit making.^[138] Simply put, humans are recognised by the consciousness of artificial intelligence, that operates in the media, only as data, and that act of recognition is interpreted precisely as evidence of intelligent behaviour towards one’s surroundings – a symbol of machines. In other words, the algorithms of artificial intelligence are abruptly becoming self-aware, while the intelligent behaviour of people on different networks is interpreted as pure fact and not consciousness or self-consciousness; which is monitored and at the same time sold on the market for data.

This monitoring includes being monitored by machines in the literal sense of the word, by using advanced, so-called eye-tracking technologies that tracks the direction in which a person is looking, as well as the time during which a person’s eyes are fixed at each segment of a computer monitor, which enables interest mapping; this is later used for forecasting, sale and exploitation of collected information. Last year, artificial intelligence was used for the first time to differentiate among emotional expressions on the faces of media consumers, which was predominantly applied in the educational system, i.e. during the so-called online classes.^[139] Furthermore, it has been claimed that these technologies, synthetised into one are also increasingly used in following activities: ‘The importance of this technology should not surprise us because the movement of a person’s eye can divulge exactly where their attention is directed, as well as how they feel. Many science and business disciplines use this technology today, from cognitive research and sociology to the automotive industry.’^[140] This means that like in many activities controlled by the media, in Hegel’s terms, a slave – master relationship has been activated here, with people, increasingly becoming slaves to machines (which is currently the highest range of their consciousness), by being exploited  as optical, emotional or any other data.

In the segment of the media, the time of Covid-19, has, for instance, shown that a large number of former truth-seekers in the media, that is, journalists, is replaceable, and that their activities, can allegedly, partly be carried out by artificial intelligence. This goes primarily for collecting and selecting data relevant for daily news or analysis. Software activities, that should substitute the work of journalists in mainstream media (MSM) and on interne portals, or upgrade it by providing fast translation services, photo authenticity verification, etc., have been used by the individual media, as for instance the Canadian Press, to strengthen their business policy during the pandemic and aid timely provision of information. Although it has been claimed, despite the fact that during the pandemic Microsoft alone has laid off a large number of journalists, that the role of artificial intelligence in the contemporary media is not to push out humanoid journalism^[141], we are witnesses of the transformation of this profession into something else – instead of the quest for truth, journalism, is increasingly transforming into PR arrangements, fact checking, etc., which opens up room for a widespread implementation of artificial intelligence at the service of implementing new business policies of media companies. The case here is that events are reduced to so-called facts, with the concept of truth being neglected in the interest of successful operation. So, when the future of journalism is at stake, Francesco Marconi thinks that it is turning into some kind of information science, and is, in this sense, closer to mathematical truth than knowledge belonging to area of social and humanistic sciences.^[142]

From a common-sense point of view, the claim that the philosophy of the media, in addition to new communication technology also has to deal with madness sounds as nonsense. However, if the media as intelligent machines borrow our bodies and at the same time watch us, analyse us, communicate us, meet our wishes and needs, it is worth asking if the world of machines has gone mad or we have. In fact, many media platforms, especially in the era of the pandemic, became self-centred, that is focused on medical data on their users (data-centric platforms), which has been justified by saying that smart technologies take care of our health, both public and individual. In other words, these platforms are presented in the public as instances that create our future values, taking care of the health ecosystem, which, although non-physical, in the organic sense of the word, qualifies them as intelligent and (self)aware. However, precisely these platforms are recognised by IT experts as physical in their origin (‘human body is the biggest data platform’),^[143] in the sense of human data that constitute them and constantly maintain them. And despite, allegedly, good intentions, Shoshana Zuboff, when speaking of the context of events, feels that, on the whole, this is a case of the unhealthy side of capitalism.^[144] Not to mention that, in our opinion, capitalism, which promotes social inequality and injustice is a disease as such and that there are no reforms that could heal it in its essence, except deep-rooted and systemic, global changes, all of the above-said can be a reason to examine the technologically-supported madness of capitalism, which, among other things is reflected in monitoring and exploiting users, which in the case of social media, fall into one.

Here we will thus examine this media component (the moment of ‘madness’) linking it no less than to the influence of artificial intelligence on the area of media activity. Although, prima facie, it seems that thematising the penetration of artificial intelligence into the area of media interactions and social relationships is a dystopian discourse with no special link to philosophy, this should, nevertheless, be the topic of the philosophy of the media because it tackles those areas of examination that pose a real challenge in today’s time. When it comes to madness, the question raised is what exactly it refers to, viewed in the context of the current relations between philosophy on one side and the media on the other. Traditionally speaking, technics and technology have been treated as neutral in value relative to their use in the context of social relations. How then could it happen that artificial intelligence in the media may be treated as a form of technically generated madness that has become characteristic for contemporary times?

May be it is, really, too early to say that artificial intelligence used in the media is to blame for certain types of depersonalisation and derealisation of social media users, which may be characterised as losing the ground beneath one’s feet or to a certain degree, instrumentalisation and loss of one’s mind. In the history of the media, as consumers have been falling more and more under their influence, it has been noticed that the so-called cognitive dissonance has arisen, i.e. an irreconcilable difference between reality itself and its perception through intermediation of the media. This speaks once again in favour of the fact that technology itself, unless misused is not to be held responsible for the existing ‘media madness’, but that this is rather an issue of a broader system in which the most different possible forms of madness are harnessed into capitalist manufacturing and social relations.

First of all, it should be stressed that artificial intelligence as applied in the media, operating on the basis of the law of likelihood, represents, generally speaking, an occurrence intended to partially or fully replace human intelligence in the media, from the aspect of opinion, action and decision-making. The wide spectrum of its possible uses, ranging from creating agency news, announcing different TV shows, assisting in the selection and placement of appropriate media content, etc., all the way to abuse for the purpose of oversight (spying), blackmail and other forms of manipulation that are especially characteristic for the operating domain of the so-called social networks and the media, indicates that the activities of artificial intelligence have become widespread in the field of the contemporary media.

With regard to this, a simple question arises – how does artificial intelligence operate in the contemporary media? Up until recently, that is until the beginning of its more frequent use in the media, there was a belief that media content was created by journalists, artists and creative individuals and that decisions on its placement (broadcasting) was left to editors and that consumers noticed and experienced such content as a special type of answer to reality. The use of artificial intelligence in the segment of the so-called social media has changed things significantly – because, as users watch the media, now the media are able to watch, analyse, create content and learn from the users. The media perform such activities through intermediation of the so-called intelligent agents.^[145] In reality, without our knowledge and consent, intelligent agents supervise and ‘steal’ our activities, cheating us into thinking that such ‘scanning’ is the so-called new normality to which we should get used to.

In addition to observing us and learning from our experiences, the new ‘generation’ media agents are programmed to be able to produce adequate media content and, as already mentioned, make autonomous decisions. In this way, artificial intelligence, with the help of agents, becomes not only the data ‘miner’ (collector) and selector, but also their creator, as an autonomous decision-maker. The latter certainly does not only have to do with technical decisions, it also implies the activity of decision-making in the ethical domain – be it an issue having to do with everyday life or with placed media content. In this way, among other things, human beings treated as facts, become a resource for exploitation, as is potentially, also the self-awareness of machines.

In our view, those are systemic changes in contemporary media that are not only technical in character, but these are main tendencies moving toward substituting all human behaviour with artificial behaviour. Of course, the media are not an exception, and the possibility of reaching moral decisions by artificial intelligence not only an issue of concessions in judgment but also in generating profit. For example, a database connected with ethical ‘training’, paves up the road to systems of artificial intelligence being trained for managing human values. So, for instance, the text under the name Ethical AI Matches Human Judgements in 90 per cent of Moral Dilemmas, stresses the importance of such challenges for machines, especially computer programmes, because in the future not only can they help people reach the appropriate decisions, but for some individuals this can become ‘a life or death issue’.^[146] In short, rational agents, which at the same time may become agents for the majority of moral issues related to human existence, in certain situations may autonomously decide on key moral issues for human lives with potential margin of error of some 10 percent. It has also been envisaged that such programmes be put into mass use and be used for commercial purposes.

So, if artificial intelligence or its agents may be characterised as those artificially generated entities (in the media) that produce content or reach autonomous decisions in relation to received goals, it is clear that the future of the so-called new media may, to a great extent, be determined by their systemic use. Further, as for the issue of madness, we may sense that supervising media intelligence, with its sensors, likelihoods and assessment not only may cause uneasiness resembling paranoia, but that one is right to ask what is real and what artificially manufactured and what kind of rationality gathers our data, creates certain content for us and values, and finally, forms our behaviour both in the media and outside the media. In addition to the fact that ‘spending’ excessive time in the world of the media, as it is claimed, potentially leads to addiction and/or increases depression, delegating the functions of our thinking, creation, judgement to artificial entities in the media we risk ‘succumbing’ not only to the so-called digital dementia^[147], attention disorders or amnesia (which are here not diagnoses in the strict sense of the word, but allusions to the danger of the transformation of the human brain and neuron connections under the influence of the overall digitalisation from the 1980’s onward, especially when so-called digital natives are concerned (Prensky, digital Natives)), which are widely discussed among contemporary neuroscientists, psychiatrists and media psychologist, when the use of digital technologies is concerned such as smartphones, tablets, video games etc., but also to the relative or full alienation from reality and to inability to recognise the difference between the media and reality, which is enabled by the VR (virtual reality) technology (the example is the new network Meta, developed from Facebook) or artificial intelligence used in the media.

Madness, as already known, is not a static but a dynamic category. Disease too is not only a matter of individual existence but of the collective as well, but also of historical contextualisation. A sick society whatever we might consider under this syntagm, and the roadmap are Fromm’s teachings on a sane society^[148], by definition also determines sick individuals. However, madness and mental disorders of today are not only the thing of social norms but also of the influence of the media and artificial intelligence on the sphere of social life and individual lives of today’s people. In the context of deliberating the so-called media existences of which we wrote earlier, supplemented by the operations of artificial intelligence in the media, we can today speak of the deterritorialization of madness, which no longer ‘attacks’ either the individual or a particular society, or individual media, but all layers of human reality together, and analogous to the deterritorialization of the reality itself, that is, of its transfer, partially or in full, to the media reality.

In this reality, as already known, not only are there ‘ordinary’ media wars, but these deterritorialized wars also include artificial intelligence. The competition created in relation to the use of new information technologies in the media, such as AI but for commercial purposes (market wars) has gradually been transferred to media wars of greater intensity, which is primarily enabled by artificial intelligence. Some interpretations put AI in the centre of global wars in the media^[149], since some states continuously strive to incorporate best quality AI technology in the media for the purpose of generating added value and not just that. The financing of the development and the use of artificial intelligence in the media is also connected with military research and development of new communication technologies^[150] that media follow, as consciousness of their own environment.

Further, as the feature of artificial intelligence used in the media or in general is, increasingly, its emancipation from people and independent decision-making and content creation, the question has arisen who and in what way directs its operation, and can it be directed at all, and of course, manipulated, which seems to be the dictum of the near future. In other words, this question requires researchers to seriously and thoroughly deal with the prevention of information wars that would be waged among artificial intelligences.

To understand what is happening in our environment, i.e. to take the necessary view, it is necessary to previously understand the basics of artificial intelligence in the media. In this sense, one of the tasks of philosophy of the media is to monitor the development of the contemporary media ambiance and detect the exceptionally fast changes in it and then react to them in a problem-solving and critical manner. With this in mind, we will here explain two standard examples of how artificial intelligence operates in the social media, which show that some technical knowledge is required to recognise, and then possibly, put into question its, thus far, insufficiently examined and legally unregulated operation.

The examples that are, let us say, listed in the latest theoretic works on the use of artificial intelligence in digital media and primarily on social networks such as Facebook, have to do with the new epistemic climate in which two phenomena arise: the epistemic bubble and the echo chamber.^[151]  This newly created ambient for digital interactions is interpreted through the prism of one completely conflict epistemology, which is a result not only of the failure of truth in the media but also of its replacement with the cacophony of different interpretations of reality in which science, politics, technology and citizens, that is, social media users participate equally, in global terms. This latest crisis of epistemology is characterised by new terminology that describes them. Disinformation dissemination in the media is mostly blamed on fake news, scepticism towards the scientific episteme became the main tool of ‘post-truth politics’, while the widening of political divisions is, allegedly, a consequence of unruly echo chambers, and all this arose in the context of the spread of the so-called infodemic.

An epistemic bubble is a media and social structure in which other relevant information have been left out from communication because of the operation of artificial intelligence, mostly accidentally. Such information sequencing by AI, viewed in the context of contemporary media, is a result of the use of artificial intelligence to individualise search results based on social groups to which the consumer of the media content belongs. Such selectivity increases the degree of likelihood that the relevant information will be extracted from search result, unless it is already known within the group. Therefore, the epistemic bubble, it is claimed, is an unstable structure that can easily burst when new information become available to users. Although the relevance of media content in practice does not coincide with what it is true, epistemic bubbles demonstrate the lack of what is important for communication exchange within a certain group, and this means that they remove us further from the truth that, actually, constitutes each episteme.

Echo-chamber is also a cognitive structure related to the activity of artificial intelligence within one social group gathered in a digital media space. In contrast to the epistemic bubble, in this social structure relevant information is actively excluded and discredited. Namely, members communicating in an echo-chamber most often share an extreme distrust of outside sources of information, while at the same time, mostly do not doubt the information coming from the group. In comparison with the epistemic bubble, here it is oftentimes the case that the very confrontation of participants in the group with facts and evidence is not sufficient to remove prejudice and disinformation and to dismantle the entire structure, in contrast it may lead to the opposite result  – greater group homogeneity or cohesion.

Further, artificial intelligence used for the purpose of media content manufacturers in many ways simplifies the realisation of the communication strategy in an echo-chamber. In reality, the membership of an echo-chamber is often filled with AI agents (bot) trained to mimic human group members, thus increasing the apparent number of like-minded persons, which enables the strengthening of mutual trust of the members of the echo-chamber. The task of AI bots is to copy social media posts, provide support through Like/Dislike/Subscribe mechanisms and simplify and vulgarise group conversation, with an aim to avoid active debate. In relation to human agents in the same role, artificial bots do not have constraints (customary, legal, ethic, religious). In addition, the number of available AI agents is potentially limitless. However, if there is something good that can arise from this, it is the revision of the episteme as static, and a return to the dialectic and truth that is not of a mathematic or scientific, but in the strict sense of the word, philosophic nature.

Having all this in mind, as well as the general trends in the development of capitalism, and thus connected – science and (media) technology, one of the more important tasks of the philosophy of the media would be to monitor the development and mixing (intermediation) of these tendencies; to understand them and set up a problem-solving and critical relationship with them. This, in reality, means that philosophy of the media should become – as in old times^[152] – some sort of previous reflection or problem introduction^[153] of the contemporary science, which, obviously, has no interest, potential or knowledge for comprehensive revision and self-reflection. This also means that today’s science, mostly in cahoots with big money, non-critically following post- and transhumanism, as well as similar theoretic methods, in principle gives up self-reflection, carries out, mostly uncritically, tasks for political elites, the military and pharmaceutical industry, i.e. highly-profitable activities. Therefore, it seems that contemporary science in association with technology manifests madness, lack of restraint and insatiability of the appetite of the capital agenda, which it serves unconditionally, with partial or full lack of self-awareness.      

Similarly, although not openly, at is the case with natural sciences, the same is true for most theoretic discourses in the field of social and humanistic sciences, and partly in narrower fields of, let us say communicology and different media theories. This, however, does not mean that the philosophy of the media takes the view of anti-science, advocating the return to mythical opinions, which has, also, become one of the leading trends of our time. To the contrary, by reflecting is subject, the world of the media, its history, status and role, activity and the relationship to itself and to reality and the public, consumers, users, owners, manufacturing structure, technology and finally, artificial intelligence as it is used in the contemporary media, the philosophy of the media speaks about itself, its dilemmas, problems and inadequacies it strives to overcome, worrying as much about its subject as about its own self-awareness, which makes it, we would say, considerably different from contemporary science, thus confirming its philosophical fundament. 

In addition to its principal problem and critical orientation, the philosophy of the media is also a philosophical subdiscipline that has been opening up towards interdisciplinarity in order to include into its subjects of research reflection from those areas of knowledge that are not, at the first glance, related to it. This does not mean that the philosophy of the media is not critical in advocating media/or IT literacy or taking over finished, already prepared subjects of research that are then only scientifically ‘processed’ as pure scholastics, as is usually done in scientific institutes or institutions of high education, but it turns to skills and knowledge of robotics, virtual and extended reality, as well as artificial intelligence in order to better get to know the domain of its criticism. Although it is not necessary for the philosophy of the media to integrate knowledge from the realm of contemporary science (AI) and communication technologies, nor desirable for it to promote the values of profit and the ruling capitalistic paradigm, in order to be able to imminently criticise, the philosophy of the media needs to be interested in the media world around itself, that is, the media practice that arises in the real environment. And since the context of its research is also made up of the social-economic reality intermediated by technology, the philosophy of the media, immersing itself analytically in this context, abstracts from it, one, however possibly incoherent, but whole realisation, not only about what it realises but also about itself, thus opening up the path to both its own and comprehensive emancipation.

 

---

 

References:

What is the Post-truth Society? at: https://connectedlearning.edu.mt/challenges-of-the-post-truth-society/

‘Digitale Demenz’ im Zeitalter neuer Medien, Louisenlund, 29 November 2014, at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5EKy0x55L4.

Ethical AI Matches Human Judgements in 90 per cent of Moral Dilemmas, at: https://www.discovermagazine.com/technology/ethical-ai-matches-human-judgements-in-90-per-cent-of-moral-dilemmas.

In a First, Man Receives a Heart From a Genetically Altered Pig, in: The New York Times, 10 January 2022, at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/health/heart-transplant-pig-bennett.html?smtyp=cur&smid=fb-nytimes&fbclid=IwAR0WEJ8pZg6KF3K-1XePJdrg75oSX86FB6XzehMRM4Z7pK2Maee47KYiA9M.

Interview by Kavenna, Joanna and Zuboff, Shoshana: Surveillance capitalism is an assault on human autonomy, The Guardian, Friday, 4 October 2019, at: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/oct/04/shoshana-zuboff-surveillance-capitalism-assault-human-automomy-digital-privacy.

Šta je agent, a šta inteligentni agent? [What is an agent and what an intelligent agent?]at: https://razno.sveznadar.info/4_AI/Agenti/01-agenti.htm.

Tehnologija praćenja očiju koja pomaže navigaciji i drugim aplikacijama [Eye-tracking technology that assists navigation and other apps], at: https://hrv.sciences-world.com/eye-tracking-technology-assist-navigation-42190.

Barbrook, Richard: New York Prophecies: The Imaginary Future of Artificial Intelligence, pdf.

Chawla, Vishal: How The Mainstream Media Covers Artificial Intelligence (AI), 3 April 2020, at: https://analyticsindiamag.com/how-the-mainstream-media-covers-artificial-intelligence/

Fromm, Erich: Zdravo društvo [The Sane Society], Naprijed, Nolit, Zagreb, Beograd, 1986.

Marconi, Francesco: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Journalism, Columbia University Press, New York, 2020.

Marconi, Francesco: How to interview algorithms without code?, 22 September 2021, at:   https://fpmarconi.medium.com/.

Möllers, Norma, Murakami Wood, David and Lyon, David: Surveillance Capitalism: An Interview with Shoshana Zuboff, March 2019, pdf.

Murgia, Madhumita: Emotion recognition: Can AI detect human feelings from a face?, Financial Times, 12 May 2021, at: https://www.ft.com/content/c0b03d1d-f72f-48a8-b342-b4a926109452.

Musser, George: Consciousness creep, AEON, 25 February 2016, at: https://aeon.co/essays/could-machines-have-become-self-aware-without-our-knowing-it.

Nguyen, Christopher Ba Thi: Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles, Episteme, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17, no. 2, June 2020.

Reichenbach, Hans: Rađanje naučne filozofije [The Rise of Scientific Philosophy], Nolit, Beograd, 1964.

Spence, Pamela: When the human body is the biggest data platform, who will capture value?, 6 August 2020, at: https://www.ey.com/en_gl/digital/when-the-human-body-is-the-biggest-data-platform-who-will-capture value.          

Uzelac, Milan: Istorija filozofije II: Istorija filozofije od Dekarta do Eugena Finka [The history of philosophy II: The history of philosophy from Descartes to Eugen Fink], Vršac, 2003.

Vuksanović, Divna: Medijske egzstencije: Postindividualizam i imaginacija [Media egsistencies: Postindividualism and imagination], in: Zbornik radova Fakulteta dramskih umetnosti br. 8, 9 [Collection of works by the Faculty of Dramatic Arts, No. 8 and 9], Institut za pozorište, film, radio i televiziju Fakulteta dramskih umetnosti u Beogradu [Institute for theatre, film, radio and television of the Faculty of Dramatic Arts in Belgrade], Beograd, 2005.

 

Filozofija u vremenu medija i tehnološko-informatičkog ludila

 

Sažetak

 

Saopštenje iz ugla filozofije medija problematizuje mogućnost i praksu mišljenja (samosvest) u vremenu dominacije medija i vladavine tehničko-informatičkog “ludila”. Takođe, u pozadinskom planu izlaganja, saopštenje se dotiče kritike tzv. medijski zasnovanog kapitalizma; suočeljavaju se koncept “ludila” koji susrećemo pod maskom aktivnosti racionalnog (instrumentalnog) uma i savremenih medija na jednoj strani, i poimanje mislećeg subjekta, njegove teorijsko-praktičke mogućnosti, na drugoj strani. Sve ovo demonstrira se na primeru (zlo)upotrebe veštačke inteligencje u savremenim medijima, koja na društvenim mrežama najčešće deluje posredstvom dva fenomena: “epistemičkog mehura” i “eho komore”. Na osnovu izvedenih analiza, pokazuje se da filozofija medija, zasnovana kao interdisciplinarno orjentisana teorijska kritika medija i medijatizovane stvarnosti, ima priliku i obavezu da se problemski odredi prema tehničkim izumima kao što je veštačka inteligencija upotrebljena u medijma, čime doprinosi samovesti i praksi, kako vlastite discipline, tako i društvene zajednice u kojoj kritički participira.

 

Ključne riječi: filozofija medija, veštačka inteligencija, društveni mediji, ludilo, kapitalizam.

 

 

---

11(20)#4 2022

Časopis je otvorenog pristupa, a ovo djelo je dano na korištenje pod licencom Creative Commons Imenovanje-Nekomercijalno 4.0 međunarodna.

DOI 10.46640/imr.11.20.4 UDK 366:17 Pregledni članak Review article Primljeno: 20.2.2022.

 

 

Vjekoslav Đaić

Sveučilište Sjever Varaždin, Hrvatska
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

Luksuz – metastaza koncepta konzumerizma

Puni tekst: pdf (279 KB), Hrvatski, Str. 3301 - 3309

 

Sažetak

 

Osim što u osnovnim crtama dekonstruira koncept luksuza, ovaj se rad dominantno bavi tim konceptom u kontekstu konzumerizma. Dajući argumente za i protiv u radu se razlažu i neke etičke norme koje u potrazi za srećom potvrđuju luksuz kao filozofiju čija je primarna zadaća socijalna distanca. Zato o luksuzu ne treba govoriti iz čiste ekonomsko – potrošačke perspektive. On je prvenstveno i sociološko pitanje kroz koje čitamo aspekte identiteta, kulta ljepote i društvenog statusa. Uspoređujući konzumerizam i potragu za srećom, u radu se iznose i primjeri etički diskutabilnih poslovnih poteza kojima je cilj sačuvati reputaciju marke i braniti je pred uskim krugom potrošača, dok istovremeno time pojačavaju žudnju, sanjarenje i želju među onima koji to nisu. Autor se u radu bavi i temom održivosti te sliku koju luksuzne marke žele stvoriti o sebi kao o lideru u tom području potkrepljuje primjerima. Istovremeno se raspravlja i o tome koliko je nova ekološka perspektiva više kontekst odnosa s javnošću nego ono što bi joj trebala biti primarna svrha.

 

Ključne riječi: luksuz, konzumerizam, sreća, etika, potrošač.

 

 

SFRAGIDA UMJESTO UVODA

Sfragida bi po svom habitusu više odgovarala zaključku ovog rada, ipak, fundamentalna je za eksplanaciju teme luksuzne industrije i osobni doticaj s istom. Ta sfragida počinje u Parizu tijekom studija na prestižnoj privatnoj školi za menadžment INSEEC, Grande école de commerce. U ponudi izbornih kolegija posebno se isticao kolegij Brandiranje luksuza. Činio se plauzibilnim, a na kraju se pokazao najmanje imprudentnim izborom jer mi je otvorio vrata u marketinšku disciplinu za proizvode koje mnogi konzumenti deificiraju. Didaskaličan pristup devalorizirao je taj nedostižni svijet čije ću parametre pokušati dekonstruirati u ovom radu.

Već o samom konzumerizmu kao konceptu u kojem sreća i blagostanje individue ovisi o potrošnji a koji je postao načelo moderne ekonomije, epitetski je nemoguće govoriti. Luksuzna je industrija tek jedan krak tog konzumerizma i to onaj koji sreću i blagostanje promatra kroz posjedovanje baš točno određenih proizvoda, ali ih prodaje suprotno uvriježenim ekonomskim i marketinškim zakonima.

Ono što posvemašnje karakterizira ekonomiju našeg antropozoika jest težnja gotovo svih aspekata da budu luksuzni. Danas gotovo da je nemoguće izbjeći taj pridjev bilo da se radi o tek običnoj čokoladi, putovanju ili odjeći.

Ta ekonomija o sebi ima egolatrijsku percepciju, a istovremeno je vrlo lukrativna. U vremenima najvećih kriza ona je jedina industrija koja raste i rijetko će za sebe reći da je industrija.

Luksuz, osim što u konzumerističkom konceptu zauzima posebno mjesto, često pribjegava posve neetičnim postupcima, gotovo ironičnim, istovremeno i teško razumljivim običnom homo sapiensu. Njezina bitna odrednica jest socijalna distanca, što pak podupire postmodernističku tezu o individualizmu, naspram kolektivizma.

Afektacijski elementi luksuzne industrije, njezini deontološki defekti te halmatogeneza prožeta postmodernizmom, pokušat će dodatno razjasniti tezu iz naslova o luksuznoj industriji kao metastazi konzumerističkog koncepta.

 

KONZUMERIZAM: PUT KA SREĆI?!

Poznati autor Goran Bare, i sam zapao u kušnjama postmoderne, u stihovima skladbe Put ka sreći vjerojatno najbolje postavlja pitanja o postmodernosti i njezinim izazovima za ljudsko biće. Premda bi se moglo reći kako su to generalna pitanja u okviru generalne širokorasponske definicije pojma postmodernosti i postmodernizma, autor se osvrće na pitanje istine i laži koje diferencira izvrnutim vrijednostima kao nevidljivim zidom s čije jedne strane postoji strah a s druge neostvareni snovi. Kontekstulizira li se ovo u smislu postmodernizma kao temporalne, i konzumerizma kao sadržajne definicije postmodernosti, odgovore na Baretove filozofske dvojbe možemo potražiti u trgovačkom centru.

Ti četvorni metri prepuni potrošačke sedukcije često su puta neostvareni snovi za mnoge konzumente koji ondje traže oblik socijalnog prihvaćanja. Iako izvorno stižu iz Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, svaki se modificirao zahtjevima lokalnog tržišta no, u osnovi, prema Staniću (2013:135) prisutne su dvije osnovne funkcije. „U prvom redu to su komercijalni prostori sa zadaćom generiranja profita i drugo, svoju primarnu svrhu ostvaruju potenciranjem socijalnih i kulturnih kapaciteta potrošnje“ (Stanić, 2013:135). Potrošnja je veća što je bolja i ugodnija atmosfera, koja, prema Staniću (2013:136), cilja na osjetila potrošača korištenjem boja, zvukova i mirisa. Svi ti olfaktivni elementi transformirali su trgovačke centre i u socijalne interakcije. Oni više nisu samo mjesta seduktivno – konzumerističke nakane konzumenta, već i mjesta na kojima se rado družimo s prijateljima, ostavljamo djecu u igraonicama ili pak odlazimo u kina. Prema Staniću (2013:147), potrošački centri istovremeno su sjecišta u kojima se sastaju dvije bitne odrednice kapitalizma, a čine ih potrošnja i rad. Potrošnja i rad, što je odnosno jaz između potrošača i radnika koji su i sami potrošači i generatori kapitala. Jedna medalja s dva lica. Terry Eagleton (2017:41) govori o tom postmodernističkom jazu s aspekta kulture. „Sa stajališta kulture, svi trebamo dobiti jednako poštovanje, dok se u ekonomskome smislu jaz između posjetitelja pučkih kuhinja i klijenata trgovačkih banaka sve više povećava. Kult inkluzivnosti pomaže nam da prikrijemo te materijalne razlike. Pravo na odijevanje, štovanje ili ljubav prema željama pojedinca silno se poštuje, dok se pravo na pristojnu plaću uskraćuje“ (Eagleton, 2017:41).

Sam pojam konzumerizma autori diferentno sažimlju. Od konzumerizma kao koncepta pa do ideološkog definiranja pojma, ovisno iz koje ga se domene promatra. Prema Hromadžiću (2013:76) „u ekonomskim terminima definirano, konzumerizam je društveno-kulturna refleksija ideologije poslovnog svijeta bazirana na načelima tržišne kompetitivnosti i na ideji stalnog rasta.“ Ideologija je poput skupa ideja i formi kroz koje doživljavamo sliku svijeta. Ona jednako tako gradi našu sliku svijeta, identitet koji nas određuje, motivaciju za djelovanje. Konzumerizam u tom smislu možemo definirati kao subordiniranu vrstu ideologije koju živimo svakodnevno, baš kao i političku ideologiju koja u bitnome određuje našu sliku svijeta i sustav vrijednosti. Kompariraju li se ideologije, one političke i konzumeristička, zajednička im je potrošačka kultura i konzumerizam kao ideologija, jer i ideološki ljevičar i ideološki desničar u konačnici su konzumenti. Sve se može kupiti, pa čak i ideologija ljevice ili desnice, i sve to jest roba. „Temeljno sociološko pitanje nije samo ‘koje to potrebe ili svrhe roba zadovoljava’, već ‘koje je značenje te robe za njezine konzumente?’“ (Lojkić, 2013:52). No, osim te političke, ovdje se pod ideologijom promatra ona potrošačka i to kroz aspekt konstruirane stvarnosti.

 

ZARA EFEKT

Uz socijalnu dimenziju trgovačkih centara, njezina primarna i dominantna funkcija jest kupiti i potrošiti novac. Za proizvođače i vlasnike trgovina nije bitno na što. Premda ponuda obiluje i gotovo se svakodnevno širi novim robnim markama prosječni potrošač teško se može otkloniti tomu da svi izgledaju jednako. Svi trgovački centri imaju iste robne marke. Ponuda u njima se ne razlikuje. Ta brza moda koja u rekordnim rokovima odgovara na najnovije modne trendove potrošačima prosječnog džepa nudi privid u praćenje nametnutih trendova. I to je za dionike potrošačkog društva jedan od puteva ka sreći. „Još jedno razočaranje očekuje modernog čovjeka: vjeruje da je jedinstven, a otkriva da je bilo tko.“ (Bruckner, 1997:34)), ili da je klon odjeven u traperice iz Zare ili H&M-a, baš poput milijuna vršnjaka diljem svijeta. „Rasplet te pustolovine leži u tome što od sad ljudi jedni drugima nalikuju u načinu na koji se žele isticati. Ta želja za distanciranjem je upravo to što ih zbližava, njihova se sličnost potvrđuje upravo u tom razlikovanju“ (Bruckner, 1997:34). Konzumeristička era učinila nas je upravo takvima. U želji za razlikovanjem, izgledamo isto. U želji za razlikovanjem, jedemo isto. I nije to ništa nego preslikavanje obrazaca drugih kultura, jezgri i individua. Gradimo svoju jedinstvenu kulturu i individuu, ali koja je pak preslika globalnog svijeta. U svemu tome, kult ljepote i mladosti do smrti gotovo opsesivno navodi na konzumaciju i potrošnju onoga bez čega se može. „Biti lijep znači biti prihvaćen i uspješan pa se investiranje u uljepšavanje i vlastito izgrađivanje posebno nagrađuje društvenim statusom, ali i plaća odgovarajućom tržišnom cijenom“ (Lojkić, 2013:61-62). I u svemu tome modernog je potrošača važno zadovoljiti markom, više nego proizvodom. Marka mu jamči apstraktnu vezu, simbol i emocionalnu povezanost proizašlu iz kuhinje marketinga. „Može se reći da su danas marke zaposjele modernu trgovinu, a simboli kao njihova osnovna bit postali su uspješni manipulatori“ (Lojkić, 2013:63). Ipak, neke marke nisu svima dostupne ali su predmet žudnje, i to je ono što čini ključnu razliku koja se održava kroz kupovnu moć dionika potrošačkog društva. I među istima postoje različiti.

 

LUKSUZNA INDUSTRIJA: NEOSTVARENI SNOVI

Isti u smislu konzumenata, različiti u onome što kupuju. Tek jedan pogled u rječnik sjajno definira što to luksuz jest. „Sve što ne služi životnim potrebama, što nije neophodno potrebno za život“ (Klaić, 1986:882). Tome korelira i Sombartova (2011:76) deskripcija ovog pojma. „Luksuz je svaki izdatak koji nadilazi ono što je neophodno. Taj pojam je očito relativan: dobiva opipljiv sadržaj tek kada se zna što je neophodno“ (Sombart, 2011:76). Suvremeni marketinški stručnjaci i teoretičari robnih marki – nisu baš u potpunosti složni s definicijom luksuzne marke i luksuzne robe. Slažu se tek da luksuz postoji koliko i čovjek, jer uvijek je jednima bilo nedostupno, ono što je drugima bilo dostupno. „DNA luksuza je simbolična želja za pripadanjem vrhunskoj klasi, koja je za mnoge san, a luksuzom može postati sve što ima ulogu socijalne distinkcije. Istovremeno, sve što tu ulogu izgubi, nema ni luksuzni status“ (Kapferer, Bastien, 2009:19). 

Sombartovo (2011:77) tumačenje bliže je potrebi i nužnosti pa eksplicira luksuz na kvalitativni i kvantitativni traktat. „Luksuz u kvantitativnom smislu ima isto značenje kao i rasipanje dobara: ako čovjek drži stotinu sluga gdje je dovoljan jedan, ili kad zapali tri šibice odjednom kako bi zapalio cigaru. Luksuz u kvalitativnom smislu znači korištenje boljih dobara“ (Sombart, 2011:77).

Sve ono što će nas učiniti da se razlikujemo od drugih ima tendenciju biti luksuzom. U konzumerističkoj dimenziji i luksuzne i ostale marke su tu da se prodaju i donesu profit, i tu je konzumerističko – potrošačka ideja jednaka. Razlika je u tome što luksuznu marku može kupiti manji broj ljudi pa je zato u tom kružoku onih koji izgledaju isto – manje. No, teoretičari luksuza neće se složiti s gore navedenom tezom. Oni tvrde da je razlika između potrošačkog društva i luksuza golema, te da je luksuzna industrija koncept a ne objekt kako je to slučaj u potrošačkoj ideologiji. Toj bi se definiciji pojma koju bi Veblen (2008) nazvao razmetljiva potrošnja, mogle priključiti i ostale. Okonkwo (2009:302) napominje da „luksuz nije proizvod ni predmet, usluga, niti je koncept ili stil života. To je identitet, filozofija i kultura.“ Bourdieu (2011:346) tvrdi da „Ludilo jednih prijeka je potreba drugih.“ Kapferer i Bastien (2009:30) ističu sljedeće: „Novac je jezik društva, a luksuz njegova gramatika.“

Ipak, ta lingvistika i u danima najveće ekonomske krize ne doživljava stagnaciju nego rast, a na godišnjoj razini bilježi ogromne dobiti. „Prema istraživanju The Boston Consulting Group-Fondazione Altagamma (2017.), godine 2016. globalno luksuzno tržište vrijedilo je 860 milijardi eura“ (Amatulli et all., 2018:72).  Kapferer i Bastien (2009:177) diferenciraju skupoću i luksuz: „Luksuzni brend mora uzrokovati kontinuirani rast prosječne cijene: njezina dinamika nije povećanje broja klijenata kroz spuštanje cijene i zanemarivanje brenda, već povećanje broja klijenata koji su spremni platiti za pristup brendu“ (Kapferer, Bastien, 2009:180). Luksuzne marke povećavaju cijene kako bi povećale socijalnu distancu, svoj svijet zatvorile za vrlo uzak krug ljudi, a svoju marku istovremeno stvorile predmetom želje. „Bogati su ljudi brzo stigli do točke u kojoj ništa više ne osjećaju“ (Sombart, 2011:80). Rousseau (2017:127) se zalaže za poseban porez koji bi bogati plaćali za svoju dokolicu. „Trebalo bi postaviti visoke poreze na livreje, pratnju, ogledala, lustere, skupocjeni namještaj, tkanine i pozlate, na dvorišta i vrtove velikih zdanja, na spektakle svih vrsta, na jalova zanimanja poput lakrdijaša, pjevača i glumaca, rječju na sve to mnoštvo luksuznih predmeta zabave i dokolice koji su upadljivi za sve oči i koji se tim manje mogu sakriti što je njihova jedina svrha da se pokazuju, jer bi bili potpuno beskorisni da nisu viđeni.“ (Rousseau, 2017:126-127). Premda Sombart (2011:138) drži luksuz ključnim za razvoj kapitalizma te tržišta uopće, sam marketing luksuznih marki, prema Kapfereru i Bastienu (2009.) dijametralno je suprotan postavkama klasičnog tržišta. „Luksuzni brand je nešto što se mora zaraditi. Što je veća nedostupnost, stvarna ili virtualna, veća je želja. Kao što svi znaju, luksuz se gradi i vremenskim faktorom: to je vrijeme traženja, čekanja, čežnje… toliko daleko od tradicionalnog marketinga koji radi na tome kako bi olakšao brz pristup proizvodu, masovnu distribuciju, samoposlužne sustave, internet, pozivne centre i ponude.“ (Kapferer, Bastien, 2009:67). Nije ultimativno imati novac za konzumaciju luksuza. On je više od same kupnje. Primjerice, ako je konzument iz zemlje u kojoj luksuzna marka nije dostupna i sam proces planiranja kupnje već kreira određene žudnje i luksuz čini predmetom želje. Onaj tko si može priuštiti luksuz, može si priuštiti i otići sam po njega na drugi kraj svijeta. Raritet luksuzne marke daje predmetu pravo ustrojavanja sebi svojstvene regulative za komunikacije. Kako novac nije bitan i tek je mjerilo konzumerističke moći, luksuz se ne oglašava, on komunicira (Kapferer, Bastien, 2009:212). Ipak, itekako koristi sve alate odnosa s javnošću uključujući sponzorstva raznih događaja, pazeći pri tome da ne odstupa od genetskog koda same marke. „Morate sponzorirati događaj, budući da tada možete kontrolirati sve njegove parametre, ali ne i natjecatelje (Louis Vuitton sponzorira LV kup, a ne brod; Hermès sponzorira Grand Prix de Diane, a ne konja); morate odabrati događaj koji je koherentan s jezgrom marke, njezinim korijenima (Hermès i konji; Louis Vuitton i putovanja, dakle čamci), i da se usredotočite na najprestižnija događanja“ (Kapferer, Bastien, 2009:214). Luksuzna marka mora biti prisutna u zajednici, o njoj se treba govoriti, ona mora komunicirati kako bi bila predmet želje onima kojima nikada neće biti dostupna. Sve luksuzne marke koje imaju proizvode poput parfema ili relativno dostupnih kozmetičkih proizvoda na piramidi luksuza gube i slabe svoj luksuzni status. Ljudi koji si mogu kupiti luksuz ne žele ga dijeliti s drugima. Ne žele imati ono što može kupiti svaka srednjoškolka u drogeriji. U piramidi luksuza samo najnedostižnije stvari su na samom vrhu.

 

SRCA TVRDA K’O KAMENJE

Ovaj ekonomski potentni sektor stoga dobro pazi tko je vlasnik njegovih stvari, i premda bi trebao biti etičan i poslovati u skladu s društveno odgovornim normama suvremenog potrošačko - gospodarskog okruženja to i nije uvijek tako.

Zadnji događaj iz ljeta 2018. godine govori o nemoralu britanskog modnog diva Burberry (Novi list, 2018). Nakon što nisu prodali odjeću, kapute, torbe i ostalo, sav višak je spaljen. Procjene govore da se radilo o odjeći vrijednoj gotovo 30 milijuna funti. „Ukupna vrijednost uništenih proizvoda Burberrya u proteklih pet godina tako se popela na više od 90 milijuna funti“ (Novi list, 2018). Opravdanje su našli u zaštiti od krivotvorenja svog brenda i zaštiti autorskih prava. Sasvim je izgledno da u Burberryju nisu vodili računa o tome kakvu će sliku o sebi stvoriti u svjetskoj javnosti jer javnost zapravo nije njihov potrošač. Ta, nazovimo je široka masa, služi im tek kako bi dodatno ojačali svoje ime u svijetu onih koji mogu kupiti njihove proizvode. Ovakva pojava nije ništa novo već potpuno uobičajena poslovna praksa. Kad bi se netko tko ga treba domogao kaputa ove marke, to bi značilo da bi sama marka uprljala svoj ugled. Etički nedopustivo.

Nedopustiva je i tužba protiv danske umjetnice koju je pokrenula pariška kuća Louis Vuitton. Bijele majice s otisnutom karikaturom koja podsjeća na Paris Hilton s torbom poznate kuće našla se u internetskoj prodaji, a novac je išao za pomoć djeci u Africi. Vidjevši da im je autorica uzela poznatu torbu s logom, tužili su ju zbog zaštite autorskih prava, te cilj i svrha, iako humanitarnog karaktera, nisu bili dovoljan razlog da se odustane od tužbe. Louis Vuitton je tada imao vlastitu kampanju za pomoć djeci Afrike, ipak reputacija im nije poljuljana, a taj brend je ostao i dalje san mnogih potrošača.

Među malobrojne svijetle primjere društveno odgovornog poslovanja mogao bi se svrstati primjer čovjeka koji ima ambiciju postati najbogatiji Francuz na svijetu, Bernarda Arnaulta. Arnault je vlasnik najveće i najprofitabilnije grupacije luksuznih marki na svijetu, LVMH grupe. Tijekom konferencije o klimatskim promjenama u Parizu 2016. godine, Arnaultova LVMH grupa predstavila je svjetskim liderima svoj korporativni porez, a što je dio novca koji svaka marka unutar grupe odvaja za projekte održivog razvoja. Poruka je bila: ako ne znate kako, slijedite nas jer mi znamo. Grupa o doprinosu održivom razvoju izvještava u svojim anualnim izvješćima (LVMH statistics, 2017).

Ipak, društveno odgovorno poslovanje i održivi razvoj ne bi trebali biti dio ureda za odnose s javnošću, jer time se ponovno jača imidž marke, raste joj ugled u zajednici što je očito i primarna svrha, a ne pomoć okruženju i naturalnom oporavku iz koje se crpe resursi pa i za luksuznu industriju.

Idu li na kraju luksuzna industrija i održivi razvoj zajedno? Može li nešto biti zlatno i zeleno? (Kapferer, Bastien, 2009:298).

 

ZAKLJUČAK

Sam koncept konzumerizma promatran s platforme potrošačke ideologije u socioekonomskom konceptu današnjice potpuno je dominantan. Dokolica u trgovačkim centrima, želja za kupnjom i potrošnjom dio su seduktivnih tehnika gospodarskih subjekata. Korak dalje je buditi želju za nečim što se ne može posjedovati, što pripada uskom krugu potrošača, a kroz konstrukte luksuznih marki prezentira se kao nešto uzvišeno i nedostupno. Sedukcija kroz moć marke, sedukcija kroz pričanje priče o marki i njezinim komparativnim posebnostima luksuznu industriju predstavlja kao nešto izuzetno moćno. Moć upravo takve industrije odražava se tijekom svake veće gospodarske depresije jer to tržište doista raste, a cilj mu je socijalno diferencirati - upravo suprotno klon efektu, prema kojem svi izgledaju isto i imaju potpuno iste potrošačke navike uvjetovane trendovskim konstruktima. Socijalna diferencija koja se odražava kroz načela luksuznih marki često krši načela dobre poslovne prakse, a sa socioetičkog aspekta je potpuno neprihvatljiva. Uz takva načela ona u potpunosti ne poštuje niti načela uobičajene ekonomije, ruši marketinški ustaljen hodogram diktirajući posve nov komunikacijski aspekt potrošačkog društva. Njezina dobra karakteristika je to što izdašnije puni proračun kroz poreze, a djelomično joj se može priznati i pokušaj konstrukcije specifičnog održivog razvoja koji ipak dominantno ostaje posao ureda za odnose s javnošću velikih kompanija, a ne iskren doprinos prirodi i zajednici s kojom (kao i svi) kohabitira, i tu možda metodom sanjarenja – ostaje nedostižna i drugima.

 

Literatura:

Amatulli, Cesare A. et all., The Importance of Dream in Advertising: Luxury Versus Mass Market, International Journal of Marketing Studies, 10 (4/2018), str. 71-81

Bourdieu, Pierre, Distinkcija: društvena kritika suđenja, Antibarbarus, Zagreb 2011.

Bruckner, Pascal, Napast nedužnosti, Nakladni Zavod Matice Hrvatske, Zagreb 1997.

Eagleton, Terry, Kultura, Naklada Ljevak, Zagreb 2017.

Hromadžić, Hajrudin, Konzumerizam: pogonska snaga ideologije kasnog kapitalizma, u: Čolić, S. (ur.), Potrošačka kultura i konzumerizam, Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar, Zagreb 2013

Kapferer, Jean-Noel i Bastien, Vincent, The luxury strategy, Break the rules of marketing to build luxury brands, Kogan Page Limited, London 2009.

Lojkić, Martin, Društveno značenje, funkcija i svrha robe, u: Čolić, Snježana. (ur.), Potrošačka kultura i konzumerizam, Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar, Zagreb 2013.

Okonkwo, Uche, Sustaining the luxury brand on the Internet, Brand Management, 16 (5- 6/ 2013) 02-310

Stanić, Sanja, Trgovački centar kao reprezent potrošačkog društva, u: Čolić, Snježana. (ur.), Potrošačka kultura i konzumerizam, Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar, Zagreb 2013.

Veblen, Torsten, Teorija dokoličarske klase, Mediterran publishing, Novi Sad 2008.

Volter i Ruso, Žan Žak, Debata o luksuzu, Akademska knjiga, Novi Sad 2017.

Zombart, Verner, Luksuz i kapitalizam, Mediteran i Kulturni centar Novog Sada, Novi Sad 2011.

URL = http://www.novilist.hr/Scena/Moda/LUKSUZ-U-PLAMENU-Burberry-spalio-neprodane-torbe-odjecu-i-parfeme-vrijedne-milijune (pristupano: 10.10.2018.)

URL = https://r.lvmh-static.com/uploads/2014/11/lvmh_environment_2017en.pdf(pristupano: 11.10.2018.)

 

Luxury – a Metastasis of the Concept of Consumerism

 

Abstract

 

Apart from deconstructing the concept of luxury in it’s basic lines, this work dominantly deals with this concept in the context of cosumerism. The paper gives some ethical norms that in search of happiness confirm luxury as a philosophy whose primary task is social distance. Therefore, luxury should not be discussed from a purely economic-consumer perspective. It is primarily a sociological issue through which we read aspects of identity, cult of beauty and social status. Comparing consumerism and the search for happiness, the paper presents examples of ethically disgusting business moves aimed to preserve brand’s reputation and defending it in front of a narrow circle of consumers, while at the same time increasing lust, dreaming and desire among those who are not. The author also deals with the topic of sustainability which supports the image that luxury brands want to create about themselves as a leaders in this field. At the same time, it is debated whether the new ecological perspective is more a context of public relations than what should be its primary purpose.

 

Key words: luxury, consumerism, happiness, ethics, consumer.

 

 

---

11(20)#5 2022

This journal is open access and this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

DOI 10.46640/imr.11.20.5 UDK 2-526.6:316.77 Pregledni članak Review article Primljeno: 5.3.2022.

 

 

Krešimir Katušić

Slobodni umjetnik

A Phylosophical view of the Problem of Symbolic Form

Puni tekst: pdf (483 KB), English, Str. 3311 - 3329

 

Abstract

 

Even if it is a tangible, symbol belongs to the domain of the image because we experience it with sight. It is precisely this original domain that is the link that completes communication, because after all, before language there was an image provided to us by the organ of sight, the eye. We first saw, and only later adopted the language which proves the analogy of the connection of these two forms of communication. What we cannot say with language, we try to convey with a picture. Every culture complemented this communication problem with a symbol that sought to touch the sacred, the unspeakable. At first glance sometimes by a different form, but with a common essence.

      

The course of the development of the symbolic form, what it represented and how man used it in the past and how it is used now, seeks to show within the opinions and research of individual authors who have dealt with the problem of symbolic form.

      

This is also the introductory part of the doctoral thesis “Sculpture as a symbolic form in the artistic-ritual act - Nexus” which sought to prove the universality of the individual creative process as a form that allows man to self-knowledge.

 

Key words: symbol, symbolic form, communication, forms of communication, form, phylosophical view.

 

 

1. Symbolic form as a consequence of the theogonical process: Friedrich Wilhem Joseph Schelling

The first part of the dissertation presents my reflections on symbolic forms as ideas used by consciousness on its cyclical journey, which Wilhem Joseph Schelling incorporated in his two-volume work The Philosophy of Mythology. Due to the topic, universal symbols, the focus will be on the simple and unifying perceptions of consciousness, which Schelling believes to have existed in humankind before the completion of the ancient Greek mythology. Aided by the rational mind, consciousness perceives more details, thus moving away from the source. The aim is to tackle the first part of the Schelling’s analysis, where consciousness is at the very beginning of creating mythology, that is, closer to the source, the origin. Consciousness that is closer to the origin senses the entirety, the unity.

Schelling argues that it is a fallacy to separate, forcibly and ignorantly, monotheism from polytheism, as god is in existence, and what exist is the essence of that god, which need not be himself, which means that god is like a spirit that may or may not be in essence. The laws of nature that are manifest and active in essence are, like in ancient Greek times, personalised gods that man interacts with while existing in essence. The aim of the man’s journey is therefore to surpass essence and reach god himself, the oneness. It is precisely the function of mythology to bring awareness to what exists, established relationships and possibilities for action within essence. These possibilities are potencies that Schelling terms the universe, meaning a ‘reversal of unity’,^[154] which is not the material world, but still the world of ‘pure potencies’, a purely spiritual world. Schelling notes that the theogonical process in consciousness has an objective meaning, but then this term also has to have a meaning irrespective of human conscience. God exists in all potencies, a double will that creates tension without entering it, seeking only unity, which is his aim. Schelling emphasises that in the Greek use of language mythology and theogony have the same meaning.

In the first volume of The Philosophy of Mythology, Schelling assigns mythology the value of objective truth. This objectivity is of a completely different kind from any scientific or religious system.^[155] It abides by the cosmic law, has a general content and truly objective character. In the theogonical process of developing mythology, the first assumption is potential monotheism, coupled with the essence of man, which lays the foundation for the theogonical movement of consciousness. Monotheism is justified by using the term the highest cause and by considering that god is one and that there are no other gods besides him. However, Schelling remarks that there is a creative force and a disintegrative force, so that God seems to have a twofold character, embracing the one who creates and keeps order and the one who disintegrates and returns everything to the potential state, the state of chaos. He goes on to emphasise that polytheism does not actually exist, because pagan gods acquired meaning inadvertently and are not real gods, but personified natural forces. He defines god as essence, the very existence, while also stating the need for philosophy to extract this god from essence that is identical to substance and introduce him to essence that is different from substance. This essence still returns to substance, which is its vital, but not real essence. Therefore, the very essence, which is claimed to be god, is not what it already is or can be. ‘God is, in this sense, outside or beyond essence, but he is not only by himself free from essence, pure substance, he is also free with regard to essence, that is, he is a pure freedom to be or not to be, to accept or not to accept essence, as expressed by the phrase ‘I will be present as the one who will be there’.^[156] Accordingly, the whole essence is just the essence of god, which is, Schelling argues, usually termed pantheism. True pantheism means nothing else but to overcome it and reach god, the unity. Schelling, accordingly, concludes that the principle of pantheism is only an element of monotheism.

If god really exists, he can only exits as all-one, argues Schelling.

Schelling wonders whether monotheism is in any original way related to human consciousness. In the theogonical process, which is the divine universe, the absolute spirit is materialised through lively concatenation. This spirit does not need such materialisation for itself and such movement is useless for it. Something outside itself has to be willing to undertake the process, so that it is also the process of creation, where potencies are considered as ‘the causes of the potential genesis of previously non-existent things’.

Schelling explains that the process begins with the divine will that places that which need not be, as a means. This means, which is the first to enter essence influences pure existence by excluding it and placing it as that which needs to be; returning to non-essence the means leaves a void, which must be filled by the third. According to the Pythagoreans, 1 – causa materialis (that out of which a thing comes to be) is in the process altered, transformed into non-essence, pure possibility. This happens in 2 – causa efficiens (that which brings about the effect), and in 3 – causa finalis becomes, ends or comes to standing. In order to function harmoniously, these three causes are determined by causa causarum, the cause of the causes.^[157] Shelling affirms that the deity and that which makes up these three potencies are one and the same. He calls these potencies causes or principles, as the possibilities of a future essence different from god and, in the process after putting into operation, essence equal to god, which needs yet to be produced. Schelling demonstrates by this process that the theogonical process is essentially a creative process, concluding that true monotheism evidently comprises free creation. This process determines human consciousness as the aim and purpose of the whole natural process, where it reaches the moment when potencies have again achieved unity. This unity will be achieved as a consequence of the process in which the means that abolishes god has again been transformed into god. Schelling emphasises that what is important in man is consciousness that returns to god through the process. This constant movement of human consciousness is not accidental, as it is conditioned on some power of force, with the original state of consciousness being the source of explanation for mythology. Furthermore, Schelling explains mythology as ‘the outcome of a process that man’s consciousness becomes entangled with in the first transfer to reality, a process that is only the repetition of the general theogonical movement.’^[158] The process takes place only in human consciousness and manifests itself through its changes that are considers as ideas, while it is real and objective towards its causes. A complete understanding of mythology depends on a higher stage of development of human consciousness. Blessedness is not given to humans, but the divinity intentionally puts a human being into duality to achieve that blessedness or to lose it. This view can also be found in the prehistory of the Old Testament and in the legends of ancient civilisations. It is necessary to use the will to come out of the ostensible possibility and enter the possibility of being.

Schelling emphasises that the Greek mythology is the end of the mythology origination process. Mythological concepts emerge from inner consciousness, having been derived from the same source as the revelation of biblical truths, therefore from the source of the thing itself. He quotes the example of the myth of Persephone, which hides the keys to the mythology and its origins in the deepest meaning of human survival and consciousness.^[159] This is the potential of pre-consciousness, innocence that does not recognise sexual duality. This assigns meaning to Greek mysteries as the science of gods, albeit the esoteric, secret science of mythology itself, communicated only to the initiated, which is disclosed at the end of the consciousness development process. At the end of the process, consciousness is returned to potency, its latency, spirituality.

Astral religion, as the first phase of the mythological process and the first polytheism, was the oldest religion based on realistic foundations, rather than on subjective notions, concludes Schelling. Gods were believed to be stars. Man worshipped celestial bodies, especially the sun and the moon, because he was aware that he depended on them. Rather than the outer body of a star, its internal principle was worshipped, its true self, purely astral, the true star. It was not nature that was worshipped in them, but that which was beyond nature. Therefore, the gods that emerged to enable consciousness to visualise its speculations actually constituted one god divided into multitude. This means that the worship comprised a single true essence, rather than the one manifest in multitude. What matters here is the relation of consciousness to the principle. Astral religion, which Schelling designates as Zabism, was the religion of the part of humanity that at the time did not yet transition to the historical life and the oldest system of the yet undivided humankind. Being with consciousness focused on pure essence, the one, left no room for divisions within humanity.

The further development of mythology involved presenting the powers of certain natural phenomena as personal. The personification started from the most familiar phenomena and forces, primarily the sky.^[160] Schelling emphasises that the first religion of humanity, the worship of the sky, reflected religious conscientiousness as a whole. In addition to the worship of celestial bodies, serving the elements also had a spiritual meaning and they were not personified, just like the stars.^[161] The Persians later tried to reach the god and the unity through Mithra, but that was no longer an astral religion, and, especially after the dualist concept of good and evil, the wholeness was left too far behind and breeding ground created for the further development of mythology. Consciousness continued to create the whole constellations of deities, which one notices by comparing the theological symbolism of ancient civilisations. The same principles were given different names, the most illustrative example being the relation between the Greek and the Roman mythology: Zeus – Jupiter, Hermes – Mercury, Athens – Minerva, Afrodite – Venus. This leads to the conclusion that the whole civilisations based their cultures on elaborate symbolic and theological systems (Egyptians, Persians, Chinese, Indians, Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Mayas, Incas ...). Schelling notes that the theogonical movement was brought from its origin, astral religion, to the peak of mythology: the Hellenic mythology and its esoteric birth of gods. He considers the Hellenic polytheism to be the necessary transition to a higher, purer cognition.

The continuation of this process can be observed in science, where the rational mind had to continue its journey after the experiment of Christianity as a religion that tried to bring back man closer to god, the origin, through faith. It seems that, setting aside individual journeys, the collective journey of humankind has last until awareness is raised of the consequences, the final boundaries of the purely rational comprehension and attempt to establish control over man and his world. It remains to be seen whether this civilizational journey will end by harmonising with the big organism of universe or the wish for power that is in disbalance with consciousness will lead us to the end owing to an error with major consequences. This collective journey is currently materialised in the need to produce the technology that uses and analyses principles – laws in order to create an alternative virtual world supervised by artificial intelligence. Therefore, we are still on the same path of the rational mind leading our conscientiousness into the individual. On the other hand, the control of the positions of power happens by means of the technological apparatus, which provides for a virtual community that continues to have a magical impact on consciousness as it is of the archetypal origin. Subversive action is also possible in the virtual community if control is avoided. However, without an intuitive insight in the unity of the world, which would connect all knowledge and amalgamate it in action in accordance with that knowledge, a qualitative step forward for humankind cannot be made.

 

2. Philosophy of the symbolic and mythical: Ernst Cassirer

The world of symbols and symbolic forms was also explored by another philosopher, Ernst Cassirer. In his work The Phylosophy of Symbolic Forms, he explores the possibilities and role of language as well as its powerlessness as regards experience. In the second volume of his work, entitled Mythical Thinking, Cassirer seeks to demonstrate the role of symbolic language in human cognition.

In the first volume of The Phylosophy of Symbolic Forms, Cassirer alleges that Plato’s theory of ideas is the first explicit form of expressing the fundamental spiritual assumption of the overall philosophical understanding and explanation of the world. Plato was the first to interpret the notion of ideas and the meaning of it, although explanations to this effect were  sought from the Eleatics, Pythagoreans and Democritus. In contrast with the mythical pre-Socratic understanding, Plato offers a dialectical conception of existence. From that point on, each new movement and observation in the historical development of idealism generates a new moment, new intellectual symbols are created as the fundamental terms of each science that asks new questions and formulates new solutions. In addition to intellectual synthesis through a system of scientific notions, the entirety of spiritual life comprises other methods of formation. Their aim is not logically determined and they are not subject to the laws of logic. Symbolic creations as the own perception of reality create art, science, myth and religion (Cassirer). Spirit achieves self-awareness in various ways. It is expressed through language, science, myth and art components of the culture, with the result that the passive world of beliefs becomes spirit expressed in the world.

Language that enables reflection gives rise to philosophical reasoning. The meaning of words is not a consequence of the free activity of spirit. The word is not a spiritual symbol of essence, but its real part. In the mythical perception of language, the name of a thing is also its essence, so that the word has magical characteristics. The one who knows the name owns the thing.

The Greek philosophy aims to explain rationally the knowledge of the mythical world: the term ‘logos’ is akin to the mythical concept of the ‘dignity and omnipotence of the celestial word’^[162]. The word limits the object it denotes and defines it unilaterally. In order to achieve better understanding, the term comprised by the word needs to be juxtaposed with the opposite term. One recognises here the Heraclitus’ interpretation of the harmony of the cosmos as the unity of opposites: ‘God is day-night, winter-summer, war-peace, plenty and hunger: but he changes like fire, which, when mixed with incense smoke, can be called whatever one pleases, one way or another.’^[163]

Cassirer perceives the Heraclitus’ metaphysics as the unity that taught about the identity and contrast between the word and essence. ‘The identity that, according to Heraclitus, exists between the wholeness of the language and the wholeness of the mind, Plato applies to the relationship of a single word to its intellectual content.’^[164]

The arbitrariness typical of the use of words calls into question the objective exactness and necessity of reasoning and its content. This is very convenient for sophism, which relativizes all knowledge. The Socratic induction referred to the constant identical conceptual form as the original form hiding behind the indefinite form of the word – eidos, which established the possibility of verbal communication as thought. Cassirer points out that in the Seventh Letter Plato acknowledges the cognitive value of language in the methodological sense and its value as the starting point of cognition, but nothing more than that. He believes that language has a more changeable character and encompasses less of the actual content of the idea than sensory perceptions. Plato understands language as the ‘representation’, the rendition of a specific meaning by a sensuous sign. Philosophy cannot find an analogy for the relationship between the ‘word’ and the ‘sense’, for the relationship between the ‘sign’ and the ‘meaning’ it denotes. The central idea of the Plato’s theory of ideas is the one of ‘participation’. In ‘participation’ the content is, in fact, both the moment of identity and the moment without identity, it comprises the necessary connection and unity of elements, but also their sharp principled separation and differentiation. The ideal meaning, which Plato considers to have the physical-sensory form of the word, cannot exist within the boundaries of language.

Cassirer also emphasises that his process of the education of language shows how we clarify and organise the chaos of immediate impressions by ‘naming’ it and thus imbuing it with the function of linguistic expression and linguistic reasoning. In the world of linguistic laws, the world of impressions acquires a new content because it obtains a new spiritual articulation. Because of their contemplative quality, they are placed above the sensory. In this way language becomes a fundamental spiritual means, facilitating progress from the mere world of emotions to the world of perceptions and representation.

However, if we believe that the real and important task of language is to express reality in individual feelings and perceptions in the medium of verbal communication, we will realise that every speech is incapable of performing this task. When language attempts to compete with emotions and perceptions in this sense, it is immediately proven powerless.

Cassirer maintains that that language develops through three stages: the mimetic, analogical and purely symbolic. The beginnings of verbal communication are related to the sphere of mimetic representation and denotation, like the roots of the language of expressive movements. The voice is, logically, in the vicinity of a sensory perception, so that language is not satisfied with a general denotation, but each nuance of the phenomenon is accompanied by a specific vocal nuance. The assumption that the denoted perception is related to the oldest words is vital for the explanation of the genesis of language, states Cassirer. The analogy of forms achieved in the interaction of sounds and the denoted content enables the coordination of sequences whose content significantly varies. Irrespective of whether language starts from the mimetic or analogical expression, it constantly strives to broaden the boundaries of the particular expression and achieve a universal meaning. In this way, it gets rid of the mimetic and analogical expression and transitions to the symbolic sphere as the bearer of a new and deeper spiritual content.

As regards culture, Cassirer asserts that in the process of formation and education it increasingly removes us from primeval life. The words of language, the images of myth, art in the intellectual symbols of cognition as the products of spirit also confine it. Cassirer proposes distancing from mere designation and recording and returning to the original sphere of intuitive viewing. He assigns the philosophy of culture with the task of proving the unity of spirit as opposed to its multiple manifestations. This is another reference to the Heraclitus’ metaphysics and the assumption of the harmony of the cosmos as the ‘unity of opposites’.

In Volume 2 of The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, titled Mythical Thinking, Cassirer inseparably associates the issue of the origin of myth with the issue of the origin of language, positioning them together and interrelated in the unity of mythical consciousness. He explains the magical worldview as ‘the translation and transposition of the realm of subjective emotions and instincts to sensory-objective existence’.^[165] The soul, rather than being a substance separate from the body, is life equal to the body and inseparably linked with it. The phenomenon of death does not break the link between the body and the soul, having all authority over the physical existence it is involved in its destiny. The boundary between life and death remains fluid for mythical thinking. Death is in terms of myth only a transition to another form of existence. This existence is the prolonged existence on the sensory-earthly plane. The soul, with all its characteristics, remains linked to the material world.

Cassirer notices the precise systematic differentiation of individual souls and their functions in the Egyptian religion. ‘In addition to the elements constituting the body – the flesh, bones, blood and muscles – there are other, finer elements, also still imagined as material, which constitute various souls of a man. In addition to ka, which is the spiritual double that resides in a man’s living body and remains with his corpse as a kind of guardian spirit after his death, there is another ‘soul’, ba, which has a different meaning and form of existence, and flies from the body at the moment of death shaped as a bird, wandering freely and only occassionally visiting ka and the corpse in the grave. The literature also mentions the third ‘soul’, akh, which is depicted as indestructible and immortal, the closest in meaning to our idea of ‘spirit’^[166].

As regards the birth of the soul through initiation, an interesting example is the initiation of boys into manhood practised by a tribe in the hinterland of Liberia. There is a belief that boys are killed by the forest spirit as soon as they enter the holy grove in which the initiation takes place. By this act, they are awoken to their new life and reborn in spirit. These initiations are believed to be mythical events and are separated from life by magical customs. These events are not part of the evolutionary development, but mark the obtaining of a new ‘soul’. The Egyptian texts contain the oldest historical evidence of such initiations as transitions to a new ethical form of the self. The Egyptian belief in the soul assumes the continued existence of its material part. The care for the soul of a dead man is manifested in caring for the mummy. As there are three souls, the Egyptians express this moment in the form of its cult. The religious idea rises from the material concrete corporeality, with which the cut was originally connected, to the pure form of the image. Besides the mummy, which guarantees preservation, the sculpture also proved to be a successful instrument to achieve immortality. The Egyptian visual art arose from this religious perception.

As regards the mythic time, Cassirer believes it to be defined by ‘sacred days’, feasts that deliver the ‘self’ to the present, past and future through co-belonging and interdependence. In the mythical consciousness there is no limit between the image and the thing, the demonstrated and the real, the sphere of death and the sphere of life, essence and non-essence, everything is fused in one common essence. Nature and truth are merged.

The man’s ascension from the sphere of magic to the sphere of religion, from fear of demons to faith in gods enables him to understand both his external and his internal world in a new spiritual form. The Greeks invested strong efforts into the rationalisation of the ancient mythical knowledge. Plato in Phaedo views the soul as the harmony of the body. The soul begins to be viewed in the idea of measure, logical and ethical order. The number thus becomes the master of cosmic existence and, consequently, of the divine and the demonic. This was an attempt at overcoming the mythical-demonic through the law expressed in the number. In the Greek philosophy, ethics supplements this theoretical overcoming of the mythical. ‘Starting with the Heraclitus’ attitude that the man’s demon is his character, this development continued to the times of Democritus and Socrates. This relation may be the one that completely illustrates a special meaning and sound characteristic of Socrates’ daeimonium and his term eudaimonia’.^[167] Eudaimonia is based on a new form of knowledge discovered by Socrates. ‘It is attained once the soul is no longer only a natural potency, when it is understood as a moral subject’.^[168] Man is released of his fear of demons, of the unknown; he is no longer ruled by the dark force, but capable of shaping his existence based on a clear insight, by knowledge and volition. Through the idea of self-responsibility, man acquires his true self. ‘The self feels and knows itself only if it sees itself as a member of a community, connected with others in the unity of one group, one tribe. It is only in this unity and by means of it that the self owns itself; its own existence and life in all its manifestations is connected, as if with some invisible magical ties, with the life of the collectivity encompassing it’.^[169]

Upon reading Cassirer’s three-volume Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, one finds it easy to distinguish the contemporary ‘ideological mythologisation’ from the prehistoric times of the mythical consciousness. The first thing we notice is that the mythical conscience requires a community that a subject feels connected as one with, breathing along the rhythms of the universe. The contemporary society is divided into various vested interest groups. Certain ideas are lived as lifestyles, changing with the change of worldviews or fashion. Subcultures emerge in response to the shallowness of culture, which is fragmented in its essential components (philosophy, religion, science and art). Art is becoming elitist and turning into a technical-estheticized support to science. By limitless denotation, science is trying to control nature, but fails to reach the original causes and seeks the formula for eternal life through the ‘cyborgisation’ of human body. The fear of death has been increasing. The subversive thought of philosophers, writers and social theorists, having exhausted political ideologies, is re-examining the issue of human soul and, in terms of ideas, often seeks them in a period much earlier than that pre-Socrates era. Since the development of the civil society and the emergence of sophists, the subject has been less and less perceived as part of the cosmos; while affirming its ideas and striving to individual power, the subject abuses language, manipulating the masses. There is neither collective consciousness nor will for original life, which calls for focus on individual intuitive cognition. This intuitive cognition would presume the linguistic and corporal speech as the openness of the subject, ‘testifying’. The ‘testifying’ could be perceived as ‘the memory of the soul’, as discussed by Plato, the striving of the soul to return to the origin. This idea creates a possibility for intuitive cognition to open a new chapter for perception, which would renew the language and therefore also the ‘cosmic event’ in the human key.

 

3. Work of art as a symbol and the opening of the being as truth: Martin Heidegger

Martin Heidegger’s collection of papers Forest Paths, published in 1949, contains an essay on the origin of the work of art. Heidegger concludes at the very beginning of the essay that art no longer has any connection with reality.^[170] He goes on to state that the essence of art shows what the work of art is. In addition to being an objectified thing, the work of art is an allegory, a symbol. It is a thing with its core of collected features. It has the characteristics of ‘presence’^[171], the essence of the being. He explains and elaborates that the thing consists of the substance necessary for artistic formation. He seeks the material presence of the thing whose essence must be unconcealed.^[172] The work of art must allow for the opening of the essence in its truth ‘into what and how it is’, which leads to the conclusion that the essence of art is : ‘the self-positioning of the truth of the being into the work of art’.^[173] He considers such art to be beautiful because it creates beauty while not being beautiful itself, explaining his thesis by the conclusion that beauty is related to esthetics and truth to logic. Placing the truth of the being into the work of art signifies the emergence of reality through art. The work of art discloses the truth of the being, opens the essence of the being.

Heidegger concludes that artworks exhibited in museums have been removed from their real space and time in which they were created. Heidegger terms the time-space in which the truth of the being was being uncovered through the work of art the work’s essence. The artistic drive does not reach the work’s essence, but only the object’s essence. The positioning of the work as a sculpture or a piece of architecture in its place differs from the positioning as consecration. Consecration is an act of making something sacred, disclosing the sacred and inviting the presence of god. This is the event of the opening of the world in which the work’s essence is precisely the establishment of a world. This world cannot be seen as an object, but rather represents putting everything created into a living relationship, an arrangement.^[174] In establishing one world and producing the ground, Heidegger sees two important features in the work’ essence. This happening is the unconcealedness of the being, the play of the being where truth must be obtained as a whole, that is, pass from its concealedness to unconcealedness. The existence of truth as unconcealedness is a way of the manifestation of beauty.^[175] Heidegger reflects on the nature of truth and its potential or even necessary manifestation through art. Creation is production. It is important for the work of art to express the unconcealedness of the being and not that the artist is a great master. The circumstances, the artist and the course of creation must remain unknown, what matters is the impact of unconcealedness, truth being discovered. The more of essence is dislosed in the work of art, the more amazing and lonesome it is. Therefore, in order for it to reach the openness, a creator is required. The creator also protects the work, because it must live in the openness through which the essential is manifested. Such life is volition, resulting from the experience of reasoning in essence and time, alleges Heidegger. This volition resulting from experience places man in abandoning immersion in the purity of essence. This means the overcoming of the own self, by putting in the position of openness of the being by the work that is thus brought into law. This knowledge gained by experience of a man is thus manifested in the truth of the work. Therefore, the definition of art is placing truth in the work, which is why it is the source and man the creator of the work, artist. Furthermore, the work of art and the artist are together in the essence of art, which is then ‘the self-putting of truth in the work.’^[176]

Therefore, based on the Heidegger’s elaboration, one could conclude that the work of art is a symbol of a condition. This condition is the openness of the being in essence, of the man who testifies to the truth of that condition as a consequence of life in openness. The consciousness of man records the perception of that which emerges as truth by image or script, or, in a simpler geometrical form, as a symbol.

 

4. Art and cult: Alois Halder

At one point in his search for the meaning of art, Alois Halder concludes: ‘Art is a successful revelation of that which is presence, where this revelation is neither reality itself, nor essence itself. Presence is an essential reality or real essence. Art is a successful fight for real essence or essential reality.’^[177] The subject aims to disclose that perception, but the subject is always part of a community. This community has its beliefs, religion and cult. The artist’s perception is therefore realised within the community and its cult plays, feasts and celebrations. According to Halder, if historical sciences claim that art in early communities was almost identical with religion and its cult component, there has to be a link between modern art and religious cult.^[178]

In the the early history art, myth was not a pattern, but ‘a perceptive performance, the action of the mythical word’, mythical event, sacred play, that is, the real condition of what historically is the condition of the world. In the beginning, art was cult, the celebration of transforming the profane reality into mythical reality, states Halder. Dance, drama, music and visual arts are part of the mythical cult that tries to imitate the cosmic order, its play. Halder asks the following question: ‘What does art as a product of perception produce at present time’?^[179]

Art is the product of perception, but the work of art depends on what perception and its essence are. ‘Perception is presence.’^[180] The essence of perception in the art of the ancient peoples is myth. The mythical reality is the sacred reality, the true reality, truth beyond the profane reality. Myth is the ‘law of reality’, the sacred reality in the sacred word. Art performs myth in the celebration of pre-occurrence as the law of that reality, states Halder. The word is not a ‘pure acoustic signal’, but the presence of pre-occurrence in its truth. Halder wonders whether myth is the original poetry and poetic language the earliest art.

Myth and cult are closely connected, inseparable. Myth is, therefore, as pre-occurrence, fulfilled in the man’s cult activity. The human activity is the event of pre-exemplary cosmic occurrence. This is a symbolic action of the penetration of truth into reality, the meeting of the sacred and the profane. The symbol enables the transfer of the sacred, the truth. The cult places then enable the symbolic transformation of time and space into the eternal present, cosmic event. This world needs to be replicated and is repeatedly invoked in the cult event of the community. The mythical event that is embodied by the cult is called memory. Finally, the cult assigns meaning to the profane reality.

Ethnology and the science of religion, as modern scientific disciplines, are aware both of the analogy and the difference between art and religion. In the beginning, there was a unity of art and cult.

The philosophy of art claims that art is historical because it constantly manifests ‘perception in its essence’, creating a world based on this perception.^[181] Examples to this effect can be found in the whole history of civilisations: Persia, Egypt, Greece, and Central America. The early art is therefore the manifestation of the mythical reality, cult. However, Halder notes that the essence of art depends on the type of myth. Myth is every time a different ‘reality’. And this reality influences ‘perception’. If art is originally a mythical cult of the emergence of truth through ‘feast and celebration’^[182], as a sacred play, what is its today’s relation to its source, wonders Halder.

Today art is ‘profaned’; for Halder, important questions are whether it has the characteristics of cult and what its community is like. What is art and what does it represent if the presence as essential reality is demystified? This remains to be seen.

 

5. Myth as a communication system in the contemporary world: Roland Barthes

Mythical structures can enter everyday phenomena and objects through the act of naturalisation, where the historical turns into the natural, alleges Barthes in his work Mythologies. Conformist politics and mass culture media are tools that create myth in the contemporary world. If we are not familiar with the essence of things, we are always subject to manipulation by way of mystification. In order to gain a real insight, one needs to penetrate below superficial acceptance and undertake research by comparing everyday phenomena and their consequences. The result will always be some kind of manipulation by statement, which is an interest-based message.

The specificity of conditions has a role in turning a statement into myth. It is a message, communication system, labelling method, shape, and most certainly not an object, term or idea, concludes Barthes. Naturally, everything can be myth because the world itself is suggestive. When an object starts to be discussed, the message may be appropriated. It is important who speaks, but also who listens and in which context the object is mentioned, because the result may be either its superficial reading as a communication sign or a symbol connoting a wider essence. He also emphasises that the image and the letter do not address the same type of consciousness. The image imposes the meaning at once, without dispersing it, but as soon as it acquires meaning, it becomes the letter. For Barthes, mythology is part of the science of signs, semiology, established by Saussure in the first part of the 20th century. From him onwards, all contemporary research emphasises the issue of meaning.

The role of the signifier is ambiguous, because it is at the same time the form and the meaning. ‘As meaning, the signifier already postulates a reading, I grasp it through my eyes, it has a sensory reality (unlike the linguistic signifier, which is purely mental). As a total of linguistic signs, the meaning of the myth has its own value, it belongs to history. The meaning is already complete, it postulates a kind of knowledge, a past, a memory, a comparative order of facts, ideas decisions. When it becomes form, the meaning leaves its contingency behind; it empties itself, history evaporates, only the letter remains.’^[183]

Mythical terms are in constant flux, they arise, decompose, change, and disappear. Precisely because they are historical, they are subject to annulment. Myths can be deciphered only by naming concepts. Goodness, mercy, health, humaneness, these are terms from a dictionary, but precisely because of that they are not historical. Myth is a statement chosen by history.^[184]

Myth transforms meaning into form, thus committing a language-robbery, claims Barthes. Myth never imposes the whole meaning due to the abstractness of its concept.^[185] Myth always opens various meanings. Poetry and the mathematical language put up resistance and are therefore an easy prey for myth. Each myth can include its history and geography, and it matures by spreading.

Myth bases its historical intention in nature, a process that Barthes equates with a process of bourgeois ideology.’^[186] He points out that the world supplies to myth a historical reality and myth gives in return a natural image of this reality. Myth constituted by the loss of the memory of the origin of things, the loss of the historical character of things. In a dialectical relation between human activities, the world enters language and ‘comes out of myth as a harmonious display of essences.’^[187]

Barthes determines the function of myth is to turn reality inside out, to create sensory absence. It is emptied of history and filled it with nature, which removes from things their human meaning making them signify a human insignificance. Myth makes things innocent, basing them on nature and eternity, without any contradictions. Myth is therefore depoliticized speech, where political is understood as ‘the whole of human relations in their whole, social structure, in their power of making the world.^[188]

Men depoliticise myth according to their needs, treating it with regard to habit, rather than truth.

Barthes, therefore, concludes that reality is impenetrable and irreducible, and therefore poeticised, while the reality is penetrable for consciousness and therefore ideologised, He does not see a synthesis between ideology and poetry, while he understands poetry as the search for the inalienable meaning of things. .

However, Barthes sees present human alienation as the result of failure to achieve more than an unstable grasp of reality. He emphasises the powerlessness to render the wholeness of the object, because it is both liberated and destroyed when we penetrate it. On the other hand, if we acknowledge its full weight, we mystify it. He considers it necessary to reconcile reality and men, description and explanation, objects and knowledge.

Barthes designates myth as a form of naturalised communication in the contemporary world. In contrast with Schelling and Cassirer, who associate symbol with myth and mythical, Barthes understands myth as a manipulation of signs. Unlike symbols, which are the ideas of human consciousness on its path towards recognising the laws of essence until its return to the origin, signs are used for communication in a technologically objectified world of complicated human relationships. This is a major difference in the function between symbol and sign, and, in turn, in the function of myth for the mythical psyche and contemporary psyche. The power of myth is strong in both senses, because it speaks about the archetypal, about what man finds important in relation to the origin or, in the case of contemporary myth, it represents, or assigns the sign the power of a symbol and the archetypal role in the contemporary consumer society. To a man, object or ideology … so that the sign (with the power of a symbol) as an instrument of myth, provides an aura. Due to the auraticity, the power that an object gains over us, we become worshippers of contemporary myths and enter into a mystifying relationship with people, things and phenomena. The problem lies with the corruption of essence into which we have been drawn, … the civilizational position in meeting the requirement for the development of the technosphere^[189], where free human creativity in the creation of thought and things disappears. It is possible to get elevated, but consciousness must be focused on the essential, common, binding, in order to overcome various manifestations of the individual. This will lead to the reconciliation of reality and men, description and explanation, objects and knowledge, everything that Barthes emphasises as important. There will no longer be any need for the creation of myths, because a proper relation of human essence will be achieved and intuitive life will return.

 

6. Symbolic form in art as a cultural project: Hans Belting

The way in which cultures incorporate the world into the picture defines their way of thinking. The revolution in the history of viewing was brought about by the discovery of the picture that simulated the view of the spectator, a view in perspective. The painter suggested a worldview, by means of the technique, and this worldview was in fact a scientific conclusion. The real view was considered to be analogous with the picture depicted in perspective. The picture thus started to copy perception.^[190] That picture was a cultural technique, with a decisive impact, argues Belting. The view was put into the picture, although this is actually impossible.^[191] We cannot get rid of that Western invention, notwithstanding the criticism. The perspective picture is thus a symbolic form through which the contemporary culture is presented. It is precisely based on Cassirer and its concept of symbolic form as myth and language that Erwin Panofsky establishes the same term in art, with the result that the contemporary art became a symbolic form through perspective. Belting wonders why Panofsky focused on the space, rather than on the view, which had already been discussed in debates on perspective. He claims that the answer again lies with Cassirer, who starts each chapter of The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms with an analysis of space and time, following the example of Kant. Cassirer discusses space as the ‘world of pure perception’ and the necessity for it to be created all over again. However, Panofsky admits, states Belting, that perspective geometry neglects the impact of consciousness on our visual image, in contrast with ‘pure image on the retina’. Accordingly, geometrical perspective is the symbol of the view, rather than a means of perception. The culture of Renaissance emphasises the importance of the view of an individual, whose view is placed in the picture like his portrait on the other side, which is also a symbolic form. 

The Western man of the New World wanted a new image of himself and his world, which he started to look for, like in reality, in the picture. This is the man who abandons the ‘collective condition’ of the Middle Ages and seeks new directions.

The narcissistic perspective was also justified by the change of the myth of Narcissus, to whom Belting refers too. The forms and contents from the antiquity were used to as the drivers of the engine to create something new in the Renaissance. Where the form from the antiquity was used, it changed content, and vice versa. The same happened with the myth of Narcissus, which Alberti used for the theory of perspective. By means of the technique of perspective, the new painting establishes our view to the painting, the view of the new Narcissus. From the Renaissance onwards, we analyse our mask, our unconscious, letting it into the world and back to us in the painting that we have painted or through the consequences of the world we have created. The new view of the world and ourselves, as well as of ourselves within the world, leads to the new Narcissus. This new Narcissus likes his reflection in the mirror.^[192]

Belting also notices the opposed use of the term window in the Western and Islamic culture. While the view within the painting is in the West suggested as realistic and yet very personal, the Islamic culture sets up a grid that is impermeable to the view, but permeable to light. Ligth penetrates the geometrical pattern of mashrabiya and createsa play of light and shade. This arabesque made of light and shade has a symbolic character because light shapes it into simple geometrical forms. Light acquires the formation of a geometrical form that stimulates imagination, but towards cleaner, more abstract ideas. In the West, the perspective view of the painting places man in a historical context by the visualisation of a fashion detail, architecture, a form of social relationship. The perspective picture thus allows man’s consciousness to move within particularities in a given historical moment, thereby encouraging a rational view of things. In the Islamic culture, on the other hand, the symbolism and function of the Islamic mashrabiya creates a potential for imagination to move in more abstract spheres. Geometrical light forms in the negative of a tree facilitate the passage of light, thus shaping it into a geometrical, symmetrically harmonised mosaic.^[193] In addition to the awakening of imagination, there is also the function of letting in air, which can also be symbolically understood in terms of the airiness of space, facilitating rhythmical breathing that is essential for meditation, which may be stimulated by such ambient. Such a meditative moment in the Islamic culture can be achieved in a private home, whereas in the Western culture this may be possible in Christian cathedrals, churches and chapels, as an effect of monumental architecture and stained-glass windows. Stained-glass windows in cathedrals and churches also enter into a dialogue with light, but in terms of illumination, reviving the colours and contours in the picture of a stained-glass window. It is only when light reaches the walls or the floor that one can see the opaque marks of pictures on stained-glass windows, which then release imagination and lead to a meditative state by reducing the possibility of rational understanding.

The different pictures of the world, of various cultures, create symbolic forms, each of which in its own way places man in an active position. In the Western context, according to Belting, this can be ‘curiosity looking for pictures in the world’, while in the Islamic world, mashrabiya purifies the view from the outside pictures by the geometry of light forms.

Belting concludes that it is only with a historical distance that we see the function, the project of the symbolic form of a culture. The meaning of the picture is to speak to the view, but not4 necessarily to depict views. If the view was depicted, the spectator would have a mirror effect. The symbolic places in the form of mirrors and windows were worldviews. These symbolic forms are culturally codified and gave the West ‘an incentive to control the world by its own view’.^[194]

Consciousness creates an image of the world by perceptions, but there is a difference between the one that the subject intimately presents to itself and the one it represents to the outside world in the form of a public picture. Public pictures can also become our own, they can be and very often are a means of manipulation of various interests. The world is today created by the pictures of various personal interests. Depending on what consciousness notices, an idea is formed about that, and depending on the position of power and interest, this idea may be manipulated and, in the form of the picture, fill our own world, the world of someone else or the common world.

The Western perspective is a symbolic form of the view, but not the space, which, according to Cassirer and Belting, needs to be created every time all over again. Creating from scratch and constant activity in terms of poiesis put man in an active relation with the world. Through a full experience of the world, using the body and all other perceptory tools in a constant dialogue with this world, consciousness is brought to the state of awakeness. In the state of awakeness, consciousness will create symbolic forms as ideas of the being in an active relation with the world, the universe.

 

---

 

Filozofijski pogled na problem simboličke forme

 

Sažetak

 

Čak i ako je opipljiv simbol spada u domenu slike jer ga doživljavamo vidom. Upravo je ta prvotna domena karika koja upotpunjuje komunikaciju jer, ipak, prije jezika postojala je slika koju nam je omogućio organ vida, oko. Prvo smo gledali, a tek kasnije usvojili jezik što dokazuje analogiju povezanosti tih dviju komunikacijskih formi. Ono što jezikom ne možemo izreći, slikom nastojimo dočarati. Taj komunikacijski problem svaka je kultura nadopunjavala simbolom koji je nastojao dotaknuti sveto, neizrecivo. Na prvi pogled ponekad različitom formom, ali zajedničkom biti.

      

Tijek razvoja simboličke forme, što je ona predstavljala te kako se čovjek njome služio nekada i kako se služi sada, nastoji se prikazati kroz mišljenja i istraživanja pojedinih autora koji su se bavili problemom simboličke forme.

      

To je ujedno i uvodni dio doktorskog rada „Skulptura kao simbolička forma u umjetničko-ritualnom činu - Spona“ koji je nastojao dokazati univerzalnost individualnog kreativnog procesa kao forme koja čovjeku omogućuje samospoznaju.

 

Ključne riječi: simbol, simbolička forma, komunikacija, komunikacijska forma, forma, filozofijski pogled.

 

 

---

11(20)#6 2022

Časopis je otvorenog pristupa, a ovo djelo je dano na korištenje pod licencom Creative Commons Imenovanje-Nekomercijalno 4.0 međunarodna.

DOI 10.46640/imr.11.20.6 UDK 005.582:808 Pregledni članak Review article Primljeno: 12.2.2022.

 

 

Dario Terzić

Visoka škola za turizam i menadžment, Konjic, Bosna i Hercegovina
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

Zamaskirani jezik mržnje - provokativni i zapaljivi naslovi

Puni tekst: pdf (504 KB), Hrvatski, Str. 3331 - 3342

 

Sažetak

 

Jezik sam po sebi nije savršeno sredstvo komunikacije, pa često značenje koje riječima pridaje onaj tko ih je izgovorio ili napisao nije istovjetno s mnoštvom značenja koja riječima daju oni koji ih slušaju ili čitaju. Riječima nije teško manipulirati.

      

Govor mržnje obuhvaća izjave koje zastrašuju, uznemiravaju pojedince i grupe ali i izjave koje pozivaju na nasilje, mržnju te na diskriminaciju pojedinca ili grupa.

      

Razlozi za mržnju i diskriminaciju su uglavnom: rasa, vjera, spol ili seksualna orijentacija.

      

Govor mržnje postaje još kompleksniji ako se zna da on uopće i ne mora počivati na lažima i uvredama. Na pomolu je estetizacija mržnje, maskiranje jezika mržnje kroz provokativne, intrigantne pa nerijetko i zapaljive sadržaje. Kako bi privukli pažnju, novinari upotrebljavaju i naslove koji danas, u eri online medija mogu izazvati vrlo zlonamjerne komentare na forumima, pa tako stvoriti negativno i neprijateljsko ozračje.

 

Ključne riječi: jezik mržnje, estetizacija mržnje, novinski naslovi, huškačka retorika, manipulacija.

 

 

Uvod

O jeziku mržnje se intenzivnije počelo razgovarati i raspravljati posljednjih desetak godina, pogotovo otkako je u ekspanziji komuniciranje na društvenim mrežama. Jezik mržnje se nekima doima univerzalnim, ali možemo ustvrditi da se pojedina „pravila igre“ mijenjaju u ovisnosti o državnim, kulturnim, sociološkim i inim faktorima. U tim novonastalim okolnostima univerzalni jezik mržnje, možemo reći, dobiva svoje dijalekte. Kako bi se izbjeglo sve ono manifestno i na prvu loptu uvredljivo, jezik mržnje biva našminkan, zamaskiran. Kakav je to zamaskirani jezik mržnje a što je jezik mržnje uopće? Na koji način se putem tradicionalnih a posebno putem suvremenih medija prenose poruke koje šire mržnju, netrpeljivost? Koliko je pitanje govora mržnje sociološko odnosno filozofsko a koliko je ono uistinu pitanje legislative? Možemo li samo vjerovati u hermeneutičke principe ili je neophodno razviti mehanizme kojima se jezik mržnje može sankcionirati a da istovremeno ne povrijedimo slobodu izražavanja? Suvremeni liberalni pristupi obuhvaćaju dva idealno-tipična modela: SAD dozvoljavaju govor mržnje skoro apsolutno, europsko i međunarodno pravo ga u brojnim slučajevima zabranjuju i kažnjavaju (Beham, 2004:155). Neki kritičari ističu da se izraz govor mržnje koristi kako bi se ušutkali kritičari socijalnih politika koje su loše provedene.

U današnjem instant svijetu sve je postalo too fast, prebrzo se izmjenjuju informacije. Ljudi nemaju vremena ili jednostavno ne žele pročitati duži tekst ili informaciju koju je potrebno pažljivo pregledati. Sve se želi takoreći na prvu, pa i današnje novinarstvo „hvata žrtve“ na prvi pogled, odnosno kroz naslove. I prije su naslovi bili presudni, imali funkciju da skrenu pažnju, ali su morali biti korektni, odgovarati sadržaju teksta i poštovati neke najosnovnije profesionalne i etičke standarde. Danas ti naslovi često nemaju velike veze s tekstom, s onim što u tekstu piše. Bitno je privući pozornost, isprovocirati. Izazvati reakciju na forumima. Jer, kako tvrde pojedini urednici portala, o broju lajkova i broju komentara im ovisi i to hoće li netko otkupiti njihov reklamni prostor. Provokacija često ide dalje od onoga što bi trebao biti dobar ukus - izvan granica objektivnog informiranja. Bitna su opća mjesta, ono prepoznatljivo, što nas na neki način tangira, pa se zbog toga često pribjegava upotrebi stereotipa. Od stereotipa do predrasude tek je jedan korak.

Nerijetko u naslovu nekog teksta ne nalazimo imena pojedinaca, njihove funkcije ili titule nego prije svega njihovu nacionalnost i to u negativnom kontekstu. Neki od tih naslova na koje samo naišli u ovom istraživanju su:

„Bosanci krali milodare iz najpoznatijih rimskih crkvi“^[195], „Austrija: Bosanci krali traktore i prodavali ih na internetu”^[196], „Bosanci krali po Širokom Brijegu” ^[197], „Bosanci pali u Herceg Novom: Krali bicikla, televizore ,motore”^[198], „Bosanci krali grudnjake po Njemačkoj”^[199].

Razvojem internet komunikacije i slobodnim pristupom rasističkim sajtovima debata u vezi govora mržnje dobiva nove dimenzije. Anglosaksonski pristup slobodi govora je prema nekim istraživanjima omogućio i činjenicu da u SAD postoji više od hiljadu tzv. “patriotskih” grupa ekstremne desnice koje posjeduju radio stanice i otvoreno šire mržnju prema svemu što po njihovom mišljenju ugrožava zdrav svijet bijelaca, a to su: crnci, Židovi, homoseksualci itd. Posredna stigmatizacija stranaca kada se u novinskim (ili policijskim) izvještajima o krivičnim prestupima navodi nacionalno porijeklo vinovnika prihvatljiva je. Takvi i slični postupci jasno su usmjereni protiv manjina i mogu intenzivirati postojeće negativne stereotipe o njima.

U liberalnim demokracijama sloboda govora i izražavanja mišljenja su ustavno utvrđeni kao osnovno pravo koje po članu 19. predviđa i Deklaracija o ljudskim pravima Ujedinjenih nacija iz 1948. godine. Većina demokratskih zemalja, međutim, to osnovno pravo ograničava propisima krivičnog zakona o (rasnoj, vjerskoj, nacionalnoj, spolnoj) diskriminaciji^[200], uvredi i kleveti i obavezama koje proističu iz međunarodnog prava, kao npr. iz Europske konvencije o zaštiti ljudskih prava iz 1950. godine koja u istom članu 10 definira slobodu izražavanja mišljenja, ali i njena ograničenja, jer “upražnjavanje tih sloboda donosi sa sobom obaveze i odgovornost”.

U američkom pravnom sistemu govor mržnje je sastavni dio slobode izražavanja te se govoru koji vrijeđa treba odgovoriti protiv-govorom, a ne državnim regulacijama. Nasuprot tome neke druge zemlje kao npr. Kanada i članice Vijeća Europe, u govoru mržnje vide više mržnju nego govor te slobodi govora ne daju prioritet u odnosu na druge vrijednosti kao što su: dostojanstvo, čast, jednakost, civilnost, javni mir.

 

Jezik mržnje-od tradicionalnih medija do novih tehnologija

Jezik sam po sebi nije savršeno sredstvo komunikacije, tako da se, gotovo po pravilu, dešava da značenje koje riječima pridaje onaj tko ih je izgovorio ili napisao nije istovjetno s mnoštvom značenja koja riječima daju oni koji ih slušaju ili čitaju. Riječima nije teško manipulirati (Živković, 2004:32).

Ljudi namjerno izjavljuju riječi koje nekom drugom mogu škoditi. I takve izjave su obuhvaćene slobodom izražavanja mišljenja. Međutim, kao i svaka druga sloboda, i sloboda izražavanja mišljenja je ograničena pravima i slobodama drugih, kao i određenim interesima zajednice.

Gdje je nestala odgovornost za javnu riječ, odgovornost uopće? 

Mnoge diskusije u vezi odgovornošću počinju upravo od pojma slobode.

Sloboda izražavanja mišljena jedan je od suštinskih temelja liberalizma i suvremene pravne države. Pojam „govor mržnje“ (Beham, 2004:153) podrazumijeva oblik govora, a u liberalnim državama govor je generalno zaštićen. Otud je i pravni i društveni tretman agresivnog govora predmet znanstvenih pravnih i političkih sporova u kojima se sukobljavaju principi slobode i tolerancije s jedne i suzbijanje mržnje između grupa i pojedinaca s druge strane.

Sam pojam „govor mržnje“ preuzet je iz engleskog jezika-hate speach. U Websterovom rječniku ova je sintagma vezana uz pojam Hate-monger, čovjek koji rasplamsava mržnju, neprijateljstvo ili predrasude o drugima.

Govor mržnje obuhvaća izjave koje zastrašuju, uznemiravaju pojedince ili grupe ili izjave koje pozivaju na nasilje, mržnju, ili diskriminaciju pojedinca ili grupa.

Razlozi za mržnju i diskriminaciju su uglavnom: rasa, vjera, spol ili seksualna orijentacija. Fenomenološki, pak, govor mržnje se sastoji od predrasuda i stereotipa.

Na Balkanu je također stvorena atmosfera u kojoj su “drugi” krivi za našu nesreću, a odnos prema njima se definirao historijski, ekonomski, vjerski i nacionalno (Beham, 2004:157). Pod takvim pretpostavkama mogao je npr. i običan nacionalni historijski osvrt objavljen u novinama, ili samo isticanje nacionalne pripadnosti, biti interpretirano kao uvredljivo, čak kao govor mržnje.

Određene smjernice za definiranje govora mržnje mogu se naći u Preporuci Vijeća Evrope R (97) 20 o „govoru mržnje”, u kojoj se navodi da je to izraz: „ koji pokriva sve oblike izražavanja koji šire, podstiču, promoviraju ili opravdavaju rasnu mržnju, ksenofobiju, antisemitizam ili druge oblike mržnje zasnovane na netoleranciji, uključujući netoleranciju iskazanu kroz agresivni nacionalizam i etnocentrizam, diskriminaciju i netrpeljivost protiv manjina, migranata i osoba imigrantskog porijekla“.^[201]

Iako zdrav razum kaže da je neprihvatljivo širiti mržnju koja dovodi do nasilja, ne postoje kriteriji kojima se može točno odrediti moment kada govor postaje akcija, jer to zavisi od mnogobrojnih društvenih, kulturnih, političkih, ideoloških, psiholoških i socioloških faktora (osim u slučaju, koji je kažnjiv i u Americi pod terminom fighting words, kada neko javno poziva na nasilje i to nasilje se izvršava već u sljedećem trenutku). Demokracija nije stanje nego proces, proces u kome se stanje mijenja kroz stalni javni društveni diskurs i razmjenu mišljenja. Ta sloboda razlikuje demokraciju od totalitarnih sistema i u njenoj obrani neophodno je neumorno postavljati kritička pitanja kako bi se sačuvale osnovne demokratske vrijednosti i prava. Negdje između tih koordinata nalazi se i pitanje govora mržnje (Beham, 2005:166).

Govor mržnje postaje još kompleksniji ako se zna da on uopće i ne mora počivati na lažima. Dapače, on se može temeljiti na činjenicama, ali mediji te činjenice prezentiraju, elaboriraju i kontekstualiziraju tako da one proizvode ideološke matrice pomoću kojih se širi mržnja kao sistem vrijednosti, kao moralni surogat za proces koji upravo eliminira - moralne dileme i pitanja. Naime, kako je upozorila Nadežda Čačinović (Obradović, 2001:3) jedna od osnova na kojima počiva i funkcionira govor mržnje jeste estetizacija mržnje. Dakle, stvaranje situacije, pripremanje atmosfere u kojoj nasilje, mržnja, pa i sam zločin mogu funkcionirati kao „normalna stvar“. Estetizacija mržnje ruši ona moralna pitanja, kriterije i dileme koji bi inače bili blokada za nasilje. Procesom estetizacije „uvježbava“ se odgovarajući (reduciran) moralni senzibilitet, odnosno suspendira se moralna dimenzija.

Govor mržnje je upravo često „zamaskiran“. Teže ga je prepoznati - mijenja boju (formu, retoriku, sadržaje, naglaske, ciljeve), ali i dalje djeluje. Pri tome nisu uvijek bitni i najopasniji ekstremisti, jer najekstremniji mediji u pravilu i nemaju utjecaja na širu publiku, već su ograničeni na uske krugove istomišljenika (žalosno je jedino što je i publika kvalitetnih i kritičnih medija jednako malena). Novogovor mržnje, novo ozračje netrpeljivosti u kojem se supstituiraju i reduciraju moralni kriteriji širi se stalnim obnavljanjem mržnje kroz humoristički govor, npr. u emisijama čijim recipijentima je snižen prag kritičnosti; dakle ne kroz političke emisije, već kroz zabavne, sportske i slične sadržaje.

Ukoliko analiziramo širenje poruka kroz teoriju dvostupanjskog komuniciranja to se često reflektira kroz poruke političara, pogotovo ako oni pokušavaju biti duhoviti. Tako će hrvatski predsjednik Milanović reći za Bosnu i Hercegovinu da je šit^[202], da prvo ide sapun pa onda parfem. Ne smijemo zaboraviti ni puno ozbiljnije komentare kao što su oni o genocidu u Srebrenici i slično. Izjave ovakvog tipa se često pojave u naslovu nekog novinskog teksta. Mnogima su ovakve izjave političara tek obične šale dok će drugi ustvrditi da je riječ o (ne)klasičnom govoru mržnje.

Za ovako nešto pravo plodno tlo su upravo portali koji zloupotrebljavaju sve prednosti interneta kao meta medija, te ne slijedeći logiku već uređenih dnevnih listova postaju mjesta gdje informacije bivaju umetnute bez ikakvog reda, kriterija; oslobađajući prostor upravo informacijama sa sniženim pragom kritičnosti.

Poseban i nov problem za (krivično) gonjenje govora mržnje i borbu protiv diskriminacije predstavlja upravo internet koji je komunikacione procese ubrzao, umnožio i globalizirao.

Vijeće Evrope je 2001. ratificiralo i amandman na Konvenciju o cyber-kriminalu koji stavlja govor mržnje na internetu pod specijalnu kaznu. Amandman na konvenciju je izrađen po uzoru nacionalnih i međunarodnih zakona o govoru mržnje, prosto rečeno – što je zabranjeno offline, zabranjeno je i online. Portali su ti koji nerijetko pogoršavaju konfliktnu komunikaciju u podijeljenim zajednicama kao što je npr. Mostar. U cilju veće čitanosti najčešće se biraju domaće političke teme ili zanimljivosti iz Svijeta koje se na bilo koji način mogu dovesti u vezu s mostarskom (podijeljenom) stvarnošću. Islam je predstavljen uglavnom u negativnom svijetlu, piše se o atentatima na katoličke bogomolje, ali „sasvim slučajno“ izostaju napisi o napadima na džamije. Obilježava se datum pogibije sasvim nepoznatoga hrvatskog bojnika (11.studeni), a taj isti dan ni jednom jedinom rečenicom se ne spominje godišnjica rušenja Staroga Mosta. I uopće, kada je riječ o godišnjicama, piše se o onima koji evociraju recentniju povijest hrvatskoga naroda (stradanja Hrvata u Grabovici, Srednjoj Bosni itd.) ili o ličnostima čija historija izaziva kontroverzne reakcije i provokacije (640 godina smrti Stevana Kotromanića, npr.)

Istovremeno bošnjački mediji, iako nisu ekspresivni niti maligni u korištenju jezika mržnje spram drugih zajednica, često ignoriraju aktivnosti tih zajednica ili jednostavno koriste neke činjenice, pravosudne presude i termine kao što su haški osuđenik, udruženi zločinački poduhvat i slično, koji druga (hrvatska) strana smatra jezikom mržnje.

Političke teme su najpogodniji materijal za „osebujne i maštovite“ komentare. U današnje vrijeme svaki novinar ali i svaki građanin može biti autor i vlasnik lista. Nove tehnologije su omogućile jednu drugačiju novinu: multimedijalnu, hipertekstualnu, interaktivnu, personaliziranu, globalnu, ažuriranu na vrijeme, pokretnu i bez ograničenja (Carlini, 2001:74).

Često su forumi na portalima prepuni huškačke retorike. Glavno oružje u ovakvom prostoru postaje jezik mržnje.

„Retorički mehanizmi etičkih kodeksa i kreda tako su nebulozni, zbrkani ,dvosmisleni, kontradiktorni ili pristrasni da je ono malo novinara što ih čita zbunjeno, zapanjeno, bijesno i uplašeno“- mišljenja su Merill i Odell (1983:173).

 

Manipulacija informacijama kroz provokativne naslove

Portali u Mostaru uglavnom podsjećaju čitaoce na zločine koji su počinjeni nad jednim narodom, a sasvim “slučajno” zaborave spomenuti zločine koje je “naš narod”, počinio nad  drugima.

Mostarski portali često slijede strategiju takozvane žute štampe, te nalazimo naslove koji su ili provokativni ili često nemaju velike veze sa onim što je napisano u tekstu, nego im je cilj privući pažnju. Neki od naslova sa samog početka ovog istraživanja, znači prije više od deset godina, primjeri su kako se isticanjem nečije nacionalne pripadnosti u kontekst problematičan za cijelu jednu naciju, državu, u javnosti može stvoriti negativno mišljenje; pogotovo ako su takvi tekstovi otvoreni za komentare koje administrator kasnije ne cenzurira, te se na forumu pojavljuje sijaset uvreda i psovki na račun određene etničke zajednice.

Evo samo nekih o naslova:

“Bosanac uhapšen zbog svirepog ubistva u Herceg Novom” ^[203], “Trojica Mladića iz Bih izboli zaštitare u Makarskoj”^[204], „Bosanci krali po Međugorju”^[205].

“Dok je slijetao helikopter sa Dodikom i Radmanovićem Saudijci snimali stablo višnje”^[206]. Ovaj naslov izgleda bezazlen, ali od jedne banalne situacije ponovno do konflikta. Na forumima se odmah javljaju maštovite ideje - to su ili predstavnici Al Qaede ili tamo neki mudžahedini. Vrlo brzo, u priču se „uvlače“ (uvijek u negativnom kontekstu) muslimani i islam, terorizam, pojmovi kao što su džamahirija itd.

Nakon što je federalna ministrica kulture poslala pismo napisano u dvije verzije latinicom i ćirilicom, s tim što latinična verzija više odgovara bosanskom nego hrvatskom standardu, pojavljuje se naslov: „Ministrica Alić izbacila hrvatski jezik iz upotrebe“. Ovi novinski redovi kao da odmah provociraju, pozivaju na reakciju i sljedeće komentare:^[207]

Maradar, jedan od čestih posjetilaca ovog foruma na Bljesku piše: „Ko će pitati nju, efendiju Cerića i onog malog pizdeka Nermina Dizdara i one sivonje.“

„To je bruka i sramota šta se radi hrvatskom narodu u ovoj prisilnoj tvorevini Federaciji BiH“-napisao je Tiki’s bar. Zanzibar dodaje: „Pričat ćemo srpski, ali Bosanski izričaj NIKADA nećemo prihvatiti amen“. Čitatelj Bljeska sa pseudonimom Stranac razmišlja ovako: -„Izmišljene jezike i nacije ne prihvaćamo“. Njemu se pridružuje Banaanajee.“Slažem se stranac kakav bola bosanski jezik i kakav bosanski j.e.be.ni narod.“ Sa uvredama nastavlja Kondor: -„Kako se kaže „KRME“ na bosanskom mislim tom novom jeziku kako ga nazivaju „bosanski“-ZZZZZZZZZZ dodaje: „Hrvatski jezik postoji, bosanski izmišljen tek nedavno.“

Ovo su komentari s  portala Bljesak, prikupljeni na samom početku istraživanja. Nešto kasnije će isti portal zbog pritisaka javnosti zabraniti ovakav anonimni vid iznošenja stavova te prijeći na komentiranje putem Facebooka.

Zanimljiv je i naslov „Vrijeme je da plane mostarska Vijećnica.“^[208] Ovaj tekst je napisan i objavljen 10 mjeseci prije nego što je mostarska Gradska vijećnica zaista i zapaljena.

Gore spomenuti naslov privlači pažnju čitatelja, jer se tog dana kada je prenesen, desila pucnjava i rušenje spomenika ispred te Vijećnice. Agresivni su i izbor riječi („plane“) kao i fotografija koja prati tekst. Međutim, iz teksta saznajemo da autor poziva na bunt protiv podjela u Mostaru. Tako možemo razumjeti da je naslovom želio privući pažnju na tekst koji kritizira postojeću vlast u Mostaru, da kritizira neuređeno društvo i podsjeća na daleko bitniju podjelu u društvu od podjele na nacionalnoj osnovi, a to je podjela na bogate i siromašne. Ipak poruka teksta (kada se on čitav iščita) i poruka naslova su najblaže rečeno oprečni.

Pojedinim novinarima je inače imperativ u naslovu apostrofirati naciju ili spomenuti vjeru u negativnom izričaju i uz to podsjetiti na događaj koji s lokalnom zajednicom (naizgled) nema nikakve veze. Primjer za to je naslov: “Velika Britanija: Tri muslimanska zatvorenika pokušala da odsijeku glavu čuvaru zatvora.“^[209] Ovakvim je naslovom ponovno u okolnostima gdje jedna do druge žive različite etničke grupe, samo jedna vjera dovedena u apsolutno negativan kontekst.

Već smo spomenuli neke od naslova u kojima se u prvi plan ističe nacionalna pripadnost počinioca nekog kaznenog djela. Imamo još podosta takvih primjera kao:

„Bosanac uhapšen zbog svirepog ubistva u Herceg Novom”^[210], “Na monstruozan način ubio bebu: Bosanac…”^[211]; „Nakon što je ubio bivšu ženu šipkom, Bosanac...“^[212], „Bosanac ubio ženu u Njemačkoj”^[213], “Bosanac ubio bivšu suprugu zbog veze s crncem”^[214], „Bosanac ubio staricu u Belgiji”^[215]. Čudno je to da se u naslovu vijek ističe Bosanac čak ako je iz teksta vidljivo da je riječ npr. o Srbima porijeklom iz Bosne i Hercegovine. Ovakve i slične naslove objavljuju hrvatski mediji, srpski ali i bosanski.

Nisu svi tekstovi samo o Bosancima. Tako nailazimo na naslov: “Hrvat je ubio 25-godišnjeg dečka samo zato jer je bio Srbin”^[216], “Hrvat ubio brata”^[217], “Srbin ubio kćerku”^[218], „Hrvati krali aute po Beču, ulovili ih s uređajima za ometanje”^[219], “Hercegovac golim rukama ubio medvjeda”^[220], (simptomatično je kako pojam Hercegovac nalazimo samo u afirmirajućem da ne kažemo herojskom kontekstu. Naglašava se da je heroj Hercegovac, ovog je puta izostavljena nacionalnost - Srbin).

Zamaskirani jezik mržnje pojavljuje se u javnom prostoru i u drugačijim kontekstima, ne isključivo u novinskim tekstovima. Poseban primjer za to su brojni grafiti kojima se veličaju osuđeni ratni zločinci kao što su Ratko Mladić, Slobodan Praljak i drugi.

Nakon što je Valentin Inzko^[221], Visoki predstavnik za Bosnu i Hercegovinu donio zakon kojim se zabranjuje negiranje genocida, u Republici srpskoj su osvanuli billboardi na kojima je ćirilicom ispisano NIJE BILO MI ZNAMO. To je eklatantan primjer estetiziranog ili bolje rečeno upravo zamaskiranog govora mržnje, gdje nisu korištene nikakve psovke, uvrede ili klevete ali je vrlo jasno kako se tu radi o nepriznavanju, odnosno, odobravanju genocida.

U nekim dijelovima Federacije BiH, točnije u onima gdje većinu stanovništva čine Bošnjaci (Bužim, Zenica) pojavili su se u vrijeme Božića billboardi koji u negativan kontekst stavljaju Djeda Mraza, jelke, obilježavanje Nove godine.

Sve je više pokušaja da se o nekoj grupi etničkoj zajednici, ili bilo kome tko je „drugačiji“ kaže ili napiše nešto loše, a da se pri tome izbjegnu sankcije koje se odnose na upotrebu jezika mržnje. Zbog toga i jezik mržnje više nije toliko manifestan i uočljiv nego je on „umotan“, ušminkan, zamaskiran. Svejedno, on ipak potiče na nerazumijevanje, netoleranciju, mržnju.

Borba protiv jezika se mora voditi kako na hermeneutičkoj, odnosno filozofskoj razini tako i u domeni legislative.

 

---

 

Literatura:

Argyle, u Shields Rob- Kulture interneta (85-112), Naklada Jasenski i Turk, Zagreb 2001.

Carelli, Emilio, Giornali e giornalismo nelle rete, Apogeo, Milano 2004.

Champagne, Patrick, La vision mediatique u La Misere du monde, Bourdieu P., Seuil, Paris 2007.

Davidson, K.P., Panebaker, I. W., Dickerson, S. S., Who talks? Sociaol psychology of illness support groups, American Psychologist 55(2000), 205-217.

Hahue, Bary N., i Loader, Brian. D., Digital democraty Taylor and Francis, London 1999.

Kurtz, Howard, The media circus The trouble with America’ s newpaper, RandomHouse, New York 1993.

Meril, John. i Odel, Jack, Philosophy and journalism With plans, New York 1983.

Obradović, Đorđe., O govoru mržnje u medijima nakon rata, Media On line, Zagreb 2020.

Peters, John Durham., Historical tensions  in The concept  of Public opinion, Guilford, New York 1995.

Terzić, Dario, Mostar, una citta divisa tra futuro e imperativo u Citta divise, Infinito, Roma 2005.

Terzić, Dario, Huškačka retorika u on line izdanjima analiza slučaja Bljesak, FPN, Sarajevo 2011.

Terzić, Dario, Brošura izgrađena  okviru projekta „Unapređivanje medijske pismensoti kroz analizu sadržaja online medija“ Fakultet humansitičkih nauka, Mostar 2014.

 

Web izvori:

belgija-poznati-detalji-zlocina-i-identitet-bosanca-koji-je-nozem-ubio-staricu; https://www.infomediabalkan.com/ datum pristupa 11.1.2022.

bosanac-u-austriji-metalnom-sipkom-nasmrt-pretukao-bivsu-suprugu-policija-traga-za-njim/ https://raport.ba/ datum pristupa 11.1.2022.

bosanac-ubio-bivsu-suprugu-zbog-veze-s-crncem.758541/ https://forum.krstarica.com/threads/ datum pristupa 12.1.2022.

bosanci-krali-traktore-u-austriji-pa-ih-prodavali-na-internetu/259443/, https://hayat.ba/ datum pristupna 12.1. 2022.

bosanci-krali-po-sirokom-brijegu/196159 https://www.bljesak.info/vijesti/crna-kronika/ datum pristupa 12.1.2022.

bosanci-pali-u-herceg-novom-krali-bicikla-televizore- https://avaz.ba/vijesti/crna-hronika/582881/motore?fb_comment_id=3256388277772298_3257461684331624, datum pristupna 13.1. 2022.^[222]

bosanci-po-njemackoj-krali-grudnjake/209042, https://www.bljesak.info/lifestyle/flash/ datum pristupna 12.1. 2022.

cuvaru-htjeli-da-odsijeku-glavu/120451, https://www.glassrpske.com/lat/novosti/svijet/ datum pristupa 12.1.2022.

hercegovac-48-golim-rukama-ubio-medvjeda-koji-ga-je-napao-316549, https://www.24sata.hr/news/ datum pristupa 12.1.2022.

Horor-u-Njemackoj-Bosanac-ubio-zenu-Pozvao-Hitnu-jer-mu-nije-bilo-dobro.html, https://mondo.ba/info/Svijet/a974057/ datum pristupa 12.1.2022.

hrvat-je-ubio-25-godisnjeg-decka-samo-zato-jer-je-bio-srbin-nismo-ga-kaznili-sad-nam-sude-u-strasbourgu/, https://www.telegram.hr/politika-kriminal/ datum pristupa 10.1.2022.

hrvat-u-njemackoj-macetom-ubio-brata-pokusao-ga-je-izvuci-iz-pakla-droge-1437178, https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/ datum pristupa 12.1.2022.

hrvati-krali-aute-po-becu-ulovili-ih-s-uredjajima-za-ometanje-zakljucavanja https://www.rtl.hr/vijesti-hr/novosti/1134473// datum pristupa 10.1.2022.

koristili-neobican-alat-bosanci-krali-milodare-iz-najpoznatijih-rimskih-crkvi/335603, https://radiosarajevo.ba/amp/vijesti/svijet/ datum pristupna 13.1. 2022.

medijske-regulatorne-agencije-i-govor-mrznje-bos-/native/ https://rm.coe.int/1680a3351a, datum pristupa 13.1.2022.

na-monstrouzan-nacin-ubio-bebu-bosanac-osuden-na-40-godina-zatvora https://hayat.ba//379280/, datum pristupa 12.1.2022.

srbin-u-italiji-ubio-kcerku-pa-izvrsio-samoubistvo https://avaz.ba/vijesti/crna-hronika/682297/ datum pristupa 11.1.2022.

 

Hate Speech disguised Language of Hate - Provocative and
Inflammatory Newspaper Headlines

 

Abstract

 

Language itself is not an ideal method of communication, therefore the meaning given to words by the one who uttered or wrote them is often not identical to the multitude of meanings given to words by those who listen or read them. Words are not difficult to manipulate with.

      

Hate speech includes statements that intimidate, harass individuals or groups, but it includes also statements that call for violence, hatred and discrimination against individuals or groups.

      

Reasons for hatred and discrimination are mainly: race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

      

Hate speech becomes even more complex when we know that it does not have to be based on lies and insults at all. The aestheticization of hatred and the masking of hate speech through provocative, intriguing and often inflammatory contents are on the horizon. In the era of online media, journalists also use headlines that can provoke today very malicious comments on forums in order to draw attention and thus create a negative and hostile atmosphere.

 

Key words: hate speech, hate aestheticization, newspaper headlines, inflammatory rhetoric, manipulation.

 

 

---

11(20)#7 2022

This journal is open access and this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

DOI 10.46640/imr.11.20.7 UDK 159.942:316.774-021.131 Izvorni članak Original scientific paper Primljeno: 25.1.2022.

 

 

Amela Delić

University of Tuzla, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Department of Journalism
Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

Digital Soul: Media Intermediation of Emotions in the Internet Age

Puni tekst: pdf (372 KB), English, Str. 3343 - 3362

 

Abstract

 

The Internet age of media communication has been gradually and subtly changing the way in which we experience ourselves and the world we live in. Broadcasting our lives on the web also involves the everyday exteriorization of emotions onto the technical mediators of the third degree, as Jensen calls them (2006). Expressions of emotional experience is something we see every day on social networks, but they are also becoming an integral part of user content under the media text on web portals. These so-called intellectual technologies are acquiring some of the essential human characteristics such as rationality, memory, calculation, and translation, as well as emotionality and communication (Carr 2014, Turkle 2011).

      

Where do Emotions live when we transfer them into the virtual world and how do they become an integral part of media content? Where does one’s soul live when transferred to one’s virtual self? These are the questions we will try to answer in the first part of this paper.

      

We will analyse the virtual space, its possibilities and limitations. We will discuss the potential of online media to mediate emotional experiences. We will also seek to understand technology and devices as an alternative humanity, when people fail or refuse to act by themselves. We will try to find answers to questions about the consequences of such mediation, referring to the research of other scholars including Siva Vaidhyanathan, Sherry Turkle, Nicholas Carr, and others. In the second part, we will discuss the subtle encroachment of the emotional upon the world of the media.

      

The last part of the paper will present some literary analyses of media intermediation that sporadically appear in works by world-renown writers (Rushdie, Hugo, Mehmedinović, Sábato, Spengler...) and the interaction of their understanding of the media with McLuhan’s view of media intermediation and the extension/mutilation of senses.

 

Key words: emotions, digital soul, media, media intermediation, internet age, virtual space.

 

 

Virtuality – What is it?

“The avatar is our voodoo doll.” This is a sentence from the Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma uttered by Tristan Harris, a former employee of Google’s ethics department, co-founder of the Center for Human Technology, and an ardent advocate of questioning the ethics of social media and search engines.

The avatar is a suit we wear when we enter the space of virtuality, the “matrix”. It is our new, extended humanity, our skin made of fibre-optic cables, and it receives its connections and stimuli from activating Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other notifications. Harris has compared their operation to the work of slot machines in Las Vegas. Like the sound of a slot machine, the sound of a notification causes an adrenaline rush. “It’s not just a tool. It’s an addictive technology,” says the former Google employee. Siva Vaidhyanathan has likewise compared the operation of social networks, above all Facebook, with slot machines in his book on Anti-Social Media: “Like casinos, slot machines, and potato chips,” this social network is “designed to keep you immersed, to disorient you just enough so you lose track of the duration and depth of your immersion in the experience, and to reward you just enough that you often return, even when you have more edifying, rewarding, or pleasurable options for your time and effort within your reach” (Vaidhyanathan 2018: 37). We, on the other hand, seem to have grown accustomed to social networks so much that we notice less and less how much we depend on them. Some of us who belong to the generation of digital immigrants as Prensky calls us (Prensky 2001) still wonder what the world is like outside the virtual. For the digital natives, an alternative world may no longer even be possible. And even if it is, the numerous social networks, applications, and tools do their best to make us think little or nothing about an alternative world. There is no room for imagination in a world where we are preoccupied with designing our own identity twenty-four hours a day. There is no time for the spirit, and it is the spirit that makes us human. “Spirit is the self,” according to Søren Kierkegaard. “The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation’s relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation’s relating itself to itself” (1980: 13). Unfortunately, this thinking about the relation has been replaced by its joint analysis with the help of statuses, photos, tags, and comments in social media. On this path, the relation that would and should be relating to itself has been obstructed by the imputed technical extensions of our hands, our mind, our spirit.

We tend to say that the modern world of online media is “virtual”, a world of extended reality, of simulacra, a timeless and spaceless realm of ​​free identities. Enchanted by the Internet, we rarely and only occasionally notice that we are missing something. And even if we notice this deprivation when it manifests itself in modern neuropsychiatric diagnoses, we are convinced that the problem is only and exclusively in ourselves. The fast-paced world of the Internet and networking leaves little time for analysis. We run away from analysis, we resist it with various anaesthetics, “a reaction that is also a defence against analysis” (Bourdieu 1998: 17).

When Bourdieu wrote in his book On Television about television as eyeglasses through which we look at the world, eyeglasses that we do not notice but that determine the range and quality of our field of vision, and when he understood television as a second-hand world, he probably had no idea that mediation could reach an even higher level or levels. Media based on the Internet technology, which Nicholas Carr calls “intellectual technologies”, have taken a step further and deeper into the virtual, mediated, and extracorporeal realm. They, Carr believes, have increased our mental abilities, but they have also displaced them outside of us. He compares the online media to a “window onto the world, and onto ourselves” that “molds what we see and how we see it – and eventually, if we use it enough, it changes who we are, as individuals and as a society” (Carr 2010). Marshal McLuhan has argued in his book Understanding Media that speech separates the human mind from the universal unconscious. Online media, it seems to us, separate man as an individual from his personal unconscious, subconscious, and substantial. The involvement of psychoanalytic terminology in this discussion is not accidental, and we are not the first or the last to interlink these fields.

In his seminal work Difference and Repetition, Gilles Deleuze has written about the virtual object and virtuality from a psychoanalytic and metaphysical perspective. Thereby he did not oppose the virtual to the real, but to the actual, implying that the virtual is also real. He literally claims that when he says, “the virtual is opposed not to the real but to the actual. The virtual is fully real in so far as it is virtual” (Deleuze 1994: 208). The virtual is not something that is merely possible, since it already exists, it is in itself quite real, but is translated from the world of virtuality to the world of reality by the process of actualization, i.e. individuation, by the experience of an individual subject. That world of representations exists as a past that never passes, a past that coincides with the present. “Virtual objects belong essentially to the past,” but it is “the pure past as it was defined above (…) the past as contemporaneous with its own present, as pre-existing the passing present and as that which causes the present to pass. Virtual objects are shreds of pure past. It is from the height of my contemplation of virtual centres that I am present at and preside over my passing present, along with the succession of real objects in which those centres are incorporated” (Deleuze 1994: 101-102). Evidently, we sense that the differences are being erased and that the real is constantly recurring in the worlds we call real and virtual, offline and online.

As the unconscious, the virtual exists stored as a memory that the individual will actualize at some point. This memory, in Deleuze’s opinion, is involuntary, a term borrowed from Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. “This kind of memory comes to us unexpectedly, not through voluntary remembering,” and Deleuze describes it as “passive synthesis, an involuntary memory that differs in nature from active synthesis” (Deleuze according to Bluemink 2020). This passive synthesis corresponds to the virtual, while the active one is a correlate of reality. The world of unconsciousness, or the world of imagination, the imagined or representation, is what the online world of modern media offers us. “The virtual is the condition for real experience, but it has no identity; identities of the subject and the object are products of processes that resolve, integrate, or actualize (the three terms are synonymous for Deleuze) a differential field. The Deleuzean virtual is thus not the condition of possibility of any rational experience, but the condition of genesis of real experience” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy^[223]).  For Deleuze, the virtual is pre-individual, and we come to the real with individual acts of creation. The virtual is the new intrapersonal: prior to the corporeal world, it is in the world of virtual identities that we plan our next steps in behaviour – at work, in friendships, love and other relationships. We first relate to the world online and only then to the world in the realm of physical bodies. “What’s on your mind?” Facebook asks us, and we respond even before we have become fully aware of our emotions and verbalized them into meaningful sentences. But the essential problem, in our opinion, is that there is little room for actualization and creation. The virtual constantly shifts us, as a mind filled with content, from one memory to another, from one situation to another, from experience to experience, mixing everything with everything and leaving us no free space for an individual act of pure thought and creation.

On the other hand, Deleuze also speaks of the virtual as an object of subconscious aspirations, a reality that complements our everyday experience, of the elusiveness of the virtual, its fluidity and fragmentation. “Deducted from the present real object, the virtual object differs from it in kind: not only does it lack something in relation to the real object from which it is subtracted, it lacks something in itself, since it is always half of itself, the other half being different as well as absent” (Deleuze 1994: 102). It may possess reality, but that reality is different from the reality of everyday experience. “What is hidden is never but what is missing from its place, as the call slip puts it when speaking of a volume lost in the library... For it can literally be said that something is missing from its place only of what can change it: the symbolic. For the real, whatever upheaval we subject it to, is always in its place; it carries it glued to its heel, ignorant of what might exile it from it” (Lacan according to Deleuze 1994: 102).

Deleuze also refers to this other, extended reality as the simulacrum, that is, the world of representations, which he describes in the following terms: “(1) the depth or spatium in which intensities are organised; (2) the disparate series these form, and the fields of individuation that they outline (individuating factors); (3) the ‘dark precursor’ which causes them to communicate; (4) the linkages, internal resonances and forced movements which result; (5) the constitution of passive selves and larval subjects in the system, and the formation of pure spatio-temporal dynamisms; (6) the qualities and extensions, species and parts which form the double differenciation of the system and cover the preceding factors; (7) the centres of envelopment which nevertheless testify to the persistence of these factors in the developed world of qualities and extensities.” It is the world, as Deleuze concludes, of an “informal chaos” that pervades and surrounds all the subjects that are part of it. These are “crowned anarchies” that are “substituted for the hierarchies of representation; nomadic distributions for the sedentary distributions of representation” (Deleuze 1994: 277-278). According to Carr, it is a world of cacophony in which everything is combined with everything else to attract our attention, and “we all know how distracting this cacophony of stimuli can be” (Carr 2010).

It is in such a world that the media operate today and that we have moved into, transferring to that world our interior, that is, our substance, our intrapersonal and interpersonal communication.

 

Media intermediation of the soul: Are networks an alternative to humanity?

This paper does not intend to paint the darkest scenarios regarding the interaction of modern technologies and man. To some extent, however, it does follow Freudianism as one of the theories on which the theories of mass society rely, because the author believes, in accordance with the opinion of other authors (Carr, Turkle, Keen, Vaidhyanathan) that social networks as digital media platforms appeal to man’s irrational aspect, the Id rather than the Ego, and that in that struggle between the Id and the Superego, man’s Ego necessarily suffers (Baran & Davis 2013).

But even though we do not endorse idealist beliefs, as Oswald Spengler calls them, describing them as those despising technology as “standing outside, or rather beneath, ‘Culture’,” we are much closer to their critique than to the position of materialists who believe that “the aim of mankind was held to consist in relieving the individual of as much of the work as possible and putting the burden on the machine” (Spengler 1976: 6-7). Neither conviction is the happiest of solutions when it comes to thinking about modern media technologies, but not asking any questions is definitely more dangerous that either of them. And that is, it seems, a quite widespread position today. Belief in progress through and due to technology, the connection of all with everyone, has networked the whole world, and there are only a few oases of questioning. Thinking about the soul and scepticism are increasingly becoming an incident and a precedent. But who has forbidden us to raise questions? Who has convinced us that our souls are not important? Maybe no one has; maybe it is the mere abundance of “nonsense” that has made it nonsensical to ask essential questions, if we can call them that. “Sense is defined as the condition of the true,” Deleuze explains, “but since it is supposed that the condition must retain an extension larger than that which is conditioned, sense does not ground truth without also allowing the possibility of error. A false proposition remains no less a proposition endowed with sense.” Therefore, it is not lies, completely false information, or fake news that is our core problem. It is nonsense. “Non-sense would then be the characteristic of that it which can be neither true nor false,” Deleuze writes. But if repeated often enough, it makes things senseless, deconstructs, “de-establishes”, like “in newspaper competitions (where everyone is called upon to choose according to his or her taste, on condition that this taste coincides with that of everyone else” (Deleuze 1994: 153, 158). Today, this is called the filter cocoon, which is a world of closed cocoons in which a person surrounds himself or herself with like-minded people in the world of online media, where truth becomes what he or she wants to see as the truth (Susten, according to Vozab 2017: 5). Andrew Keen writes about this in his work The Cult of the Amateur, where he explains that in the online media, the sum of two and two can be five if we agree upon it (Keen 2007). And when nonsense is created, then it gets repeated endlessly, until this repetition turns into pathology. “In short, things repeat always by virtue of what they are not and do not have. We repeat because we do not hear” (Deleuze 2004: 340). And that is why it is important to interrupt this repetition with therapeutically important, unpleasant questions. Such as the question of the soul, which has become almost offensive in a culture of unprecedented progress. Spengler also brings us back to that question, connecting the seemingly unconnected – technology and the soul, or rather technology and its soul. “If, then, we would attach a significance to technics, we must start from the soul, and that alone. For the free-moving life of the animal is a struggle, and nothing but struggle, and it is the tactics of its living, its superiority or inferiority in face of ‘the other’ (whether that ‘other’ be animate or inanimate Nature), which decides the history of this life… (…) Every machine serves some one process and owes its existence to thought about this process. (…) They are all just sides of one active, fighting, and charged life” (Spengler 1976: 9, 10). A question that we have not yet asked, and to which we will not know the answer any time soon, is the question of the idea behind the ​​network media technologies. What did we imagine while creating these weapons/tools? Let us hope that the modern robot “Sophia” is not the answer to this question. If we wanted to create a “superman”, did we turn ourselves into a burden?

So, it would be important to ask about the goal. “But whither? For how long? And what then? It was a little ridiculous, this march on infinity, towards a goal which men did not seriously think about or clearly figure to themselves or, really, dare to envisage – for a goal is an end. No one does (or should be doing, author’s remark) a thing without thinking of its direction and its conclusion. (…) Every truly creative human being knows and dreads the emptiness that follows upon the completion of a work” (Spengler 1976: 10). And we are still convinced of a happy ending. But happy for whom? We believe, for man the creator. Between the eye and the hand as his tools, as Spengler classifies them, man has chosen to focus on the hand and the weapon in it. So besides the “‘thought of the eye’ (…) we have now the ‘thought of the hand.’ From the former in the meantime has developed the thought that is theoretical, observant, contemplative – our ‘reflection’ and ‘wisdom’ – and now from the latter comes the practical, active thought, our ‘cunning’ and ‘intelligence’ proper.” (Spengler 1976: 21-22). “The eye seeks out cause and effect, the hand works on the principle of means and end. The question of whether something is suitable or unsuitable – the criterion of the doer – has nothing to do with that of true and false, the values of the observer. And an aim is a fact, while a connexion of cause and effect is a truth.” Man’s purposeful part does not deal with the questions of meaning or truth. Like nonsense, he is not interested in values ​​and the soul. “What it must have been to man’s soul, that first sight of ta fire evoked by himself!” (Spengler 1976: 22). We do not know if anyone else has considered this question.

Man is the only one, according to Spengler, who has managed to separate his tactics of living from the very act of living. Every living being has a tactics of living, he believes. But in animals and plants, it typically does not change. “The bee type, ever since it existed, has built its honeycombs exactly as it does now, and will continue to build them so till it is extinct,” he writes. On the other hand, man is capable of more. “Technics in man’s life (…) is learned and improved. Man has become the creator of his tactics of living” (1976: 17-18). So, in other words, we have chosen and built the life we ​​live today by ourselves, there is no doubt about it. But the question that constantly hangs above us like the sword of Damocles is the potential of the technics we cultivate and upgrade for liberation/captivation. The possibility of man’s liberation and the threat of his captivation by the technology he has developed are constantly intertwined. The mass media, which are among the most affected by human dealing with the technics of living and its progress, reflects this image of the sword above our heads. Free speech and hate speech, connecting with friends and enclosing ourselves in the circle of like-minded people, freedom to find jobs and abuse or exploitation of cheap labour, the right to self-expression and abuse of privacy – these are constantly in conflict. It is difficult to find the right measure...

 

Thoughts and emotions in the media intermediated world

“We’re too busy being dazzled or disturbed by the programming to notice what’s going on inside our heads.” This is how Carr writes about the changes that occur in human behaviour, mind, and spirit while using online media. Literally taking McLuhan’s thesis about the medium as a message, Carr argues that these media “supply the stuff of thought, but they also shape the process of thought” (Carr 2010). He considers the Internet as a universal medium that has many advantages, but occupies us too much with the glare and mass of content it produces, so our brain gets used to interruptions, to non-linear thinking that constantly shifts from one subject of interest to another. It is, as Carr puts it, a “wayward brain.” He compares it, a little nostalgically, with the way of thinking that he cultivated as a student while helping out in the faculty library. “Despite being surrounded by tens of thousands of books, I don’t remember feeling the anxiety that’s symptomatic of what we today call ‘information overload.’ There was something calming in the reticence of all those books, their willingness to wait years, decades even, for the right reader to come along and pull them from their appointed slots” (Carr 2010). On the other hand, the online media work differently on our minds. He considers them as “intellectual technologies,” which “have the greatest and most lasting power over what and how we think. They are our most intimate tools, the ones we use for self-expression, for shaping personal and public identity, and for cultivating relationships with others” (Carr 2010). According to him, they have imposed their own “intellectual ethics” on the world, same as all other intellectual technologies, such as clocks or maps. In other words, the very existence of these media, even if one excludes their content, has changed in a way our perception and understanding of the world around us. “The intellectual ethic,” Carr believes, “is the message that a medium or other tool transmits into the minds and culture of its users” (Carr 2010). Stig Hjarvard calls this intellectual ethic “media logic,” which implies “an institutional and technological modus operandi of the media” (Hjarvard 2008: 113). Thereby he primarily refers to the content of media exchange, explaining that “the media are able universally, across all fields, to form the categories that everyone uses to interpret the world. (...) the media have an essentially ideological power to describe society in a way that seems the only ‘natural’ way to comprehend it” (Couldry according to Hjarvard, 2008: 128). And the very “calling an algorithmically defined online configuration ‘social’ has been one of the smartest semantic moves in the history of media institutions,” as Couldry and Van Dijck observe (2015: 3). Using the term “social” to describe “computational connectivity has been a peculiar example of reversification – a process in which words come to have a meaning that is opposite to, or at least very different from, their original sense” (2015, 4). The “social” in this sense actually refers to the techno-economic power that is achieved through connections, likes, and shares, which are, in fact, units of attention, a commodity that is best sold in the online media and which is referred to by the euphemism “social connections.” All our data are quantified, and the said authors consider our personal data, such as health information, to be the most problematic. Numerous applications allow us to monitor our health, exchange data on the effectiveness of treatment of our chronic diseases, data on our training and calorie intake, data that are transferred into the virtual domain, quantified, and used for economic purposes.

In her famous book Alone Together, psychologist Sherry Turkle has discussed our reliance on technology in areas such as emotions, family ties, and immanently human or humane tasks such as caring for the elderly and children. She has traced the genesis of robots from the earliest and simplest toys such as Furbies and Tamagotchis to modern robots like the abovementioned Sophia. Referring to the fact that children and the elderly tend to develop certain emotions towards toy robots, she justifiably asks: “If a robot makes you love it, is it alive?” (Turkle 2010: 26). Turkle argues that “digital connections and the sociable robot may offer the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship” and that, as “we distribute ourselves, we may abandon ourselves” (Turkle 2010: 1, 12). Her question is similar to ours: “Does virtual intimacy degrade our experience of the other kind and, indeed, of all encounters, of any kind?” (Turkle 2010: 12) So, the question remains: what is lost by accepting the benefits that each new medium and technology bring us?

For Turkle, technology is like a “phantom limb” that we feel regardless of whether it is there or not. So it happens that we imagine we have heard our phone vibrate, that some other sound seems like a notification from social networks, or that we panic when we realize that we have forgotten our smartphone at home. And do we even need to mention the places where we do not have access to the Internet and the way such situations cause anxiety? Turkle also reflects on the ethical consequences of increasingly relying on technology in everyday activities. She recalls several psychological experiments in which people were called upon to injure robots in some way, after which their emotional reactions were analysed. In 2000, toymaker Hasbro introduced the robot doll “My Real Baby,” which screamed if you touched it so as to cause pain, and calmed down if you stroked it and gave it a pacifier.” Turkle and a group of researchers presented the doll to children in an institution. Some of them tortured it, while others protected it. Regardless of which of the children did what, Turkle has concluded that “sociable robots have taught us that we do not shirk from harming realistic simulations of life. This is, of course, how we now train people for war. First, we learn to kill the virtual. Then, desensitized, we are sent to kill the real” (Turkle 2011: 47).

The conclusion may seem exaggerated, but tackles problems such as virtual violence, insults and hate speech, deleting and “blocking” people, and ridiculing the sick and weak. The author has also observed the way in which not only children, but also the elderly to whom robots have been given for therapeutic purposes (such as pet robots for people in nursing homes), relate to these technological creatures. The connection is certainly established, but in Turkle’s opinion, it does not say much about the robots themselves or what they can offer us. Instead, these robots, as well as social networks, tell us more about what we actually lack. “Now the ‘work’ envisaged for machines is the work of caring” (Turkle 2011: 108). Just like robots, other technological inventions and media are, unfortunately, “rarely challenged. All eyes focus on technical virtuosity and the possibilities for efficient implementation” (Turkle 2011: 104). In her research as well as summarizing the results of other scholars, Turkle has precisely traced the direction of changes that occur in our emotional being through such mediations, which are increasing day by day. “The emotional charge on cyberspace is high,” she concludes, and “we are all cyborgs now” (Turkle 2011: 153, 152). “Networked, we are together, but so lessened are our expectations of each other that we can feel utterly alone. And there is the risk that we come to see others as objects to be accessed – and only for the parts we find useful, comforting, or amusing.” In fact, “being alone can start to seem like a precondition for being together because it is easier to communicate if you can focus, without interruption, on your screen” (Turkle 2011: 154, 155).

 

Literature has long understood it, or: Will this kill that?

What philosophers and communication scientists are debating today found its place in literature a long time ago. And although there is less and less space in the media sphere for thinking or perhaps criticizing our modern toys, in literature there are still free oases of criticism. In this paper, we would like to mention several authors who have addressed the issue of some of our contemporary media. We believe that interaction between philosophy, communication sciences, media philosophy, and literature could create room for initiating discussions on the media-technological networking of all with everyone. Various authors from around the globe and from our country have critically written on technology and its role in human life. From Hugo and Sábato to Rushdie and Mehmedinović, each of them has at least in some segment addressed the changes in man, his understanding of himself and the world he lives in within the context of modern media and media technologies. The medium of photography appears most often as a motif, but it is not uncommon for other media that McLuhan has written about to appear in such analyses.

“The archdeacon gazed at the gigantic edifice for some time in silence, then extending his right hand, with a sigh, towards the printed book which lay open on the table, and his left towards Notre-Dame, and turning a sad glance from the book to the church, – ‘Alas,’ he said, ‘this will kill that.’”

This is how Victor Hugo wrote in 1831 in his novel The Hunchback of Notre Dame about the new reality presented to the church officials with the appearance of the press. This sentence resonates across time and accompanies various technological revolutions and new inventions. There have always been concerns that the press will destroy the medium of architecture, writing the medium of memory, radio broadcasting the medium of writing and printing, television the medium of voice, and the Internet medium all of the above. But only a few have been brave enough to ask what will happen to the soul of all these media, or the soul of man himself, which is mediated and transmitted by these media to what is visible to the eye, and what McLuhan has identified in the media of clothing, games, dance, housing, means of transportation, tools, and weapons of all kinds.

As Hugo himself said, the archdeacon’s sentence has a double meaning. It first expresses the priests’ fear of the printing medium that came with Gutenberg’s invention. Today, the fear that robots and Internet services will take over our business has crept into our bones. In fact, we have lived too long and too intensely in this world without even noticing that we ourselves are actually – half-robots. The fear that the archdeacon feels is interesting, but from our media point of view not so much as the other meaning of this thought that the writer reveals to us.

“It was a presentiment that human thought, in changing its form, was about to change its mode of expression; that the dominant idea of each generation would no longer be written with the same matter, and in the same manner; that the book of stone, so solid and so durable, was about to make way for the book of paper, more solid and still more durable. In this connection the archdeacon’s vague formula had a second sense. It meant, ‘Printing will kill architecture.’” (Hugo 1831).

Here the writer, philosophically, as a true connoisseur of the nature of the media, notices that one medium gets replaced by another, but that this change does not mean only a superficial change in the form of exchange and relations, a change in the communication mode, but that it fundamentally changes the very content of what is being exchanged. Media technology itself is not neutral. Here, the words of Victor Hugo reassert a thought of Friedrich Nietzsche, who once wrote in a letter to his friend, “You are right. Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts” (Carr 2010).

Hugo further comments on the medium of architecture, explaining that initially it was only an alphabet, that each stone was a hieroglyph, and that the completed buildings were sentences, thoughts, signs that needed to be understood in order to understand the man who created them. “At last they made books. (…) The generating idea, the word, was not only at the foundation of all these edifices, but also in the form,” he writes. Even the places where the buildings were growing said something about the thought built into them: these places were the context, the meta-information about the key message transmitted by the constructed buildings. As time changed, “the face of architecture is changed also. Like civilization, it has turned a page, and the new spirit of the time finds her ready to write at its dictation” (Hugo 1831).

Before Gutenberg’s invention, in Hugo’s opinion, architecture was the main medium for writing down human thoughts. In the fifteenth century, thought found a new:

“… mode of perpetuating itself, not only more durable and more resisting than architecture, but still more simple and easy. Architecture is dethroned. Gutenberg’s letters of lead are about to supersede Orpheus’s letters of stone. The book is about to kill the edifice. The invention of printing is the greatest event in history. It is the mother of revolution. It is the mode of expression of humanity which is totally renewed; it is human thought stripping off one form and donning another; it is the complete and definitive change of skin of that symbolical serpent which since the days of Adam has represented intelligence” (Hugo 1831).

That is how Hugo thought about the press. For him, architecture was obviously a rigid form of human thought, firmer, stronger, and more penetrating, but still limited by time and space. The printed word was perceived as freer. Metaphorically, he wrote that the human mind shed its skin like a snake, taking off the stone one and putting on one made of paper. Today, that skin is an invisible network of signals, fibre-optic cables, virtual worlds...

“It is volatile, irresistible, indestructible. It is mingled with the air. In the days of architecture it made a mountain of itself, and took powerful possession of a century and a place. Now it converts itself into a flock of birds, scatters itself to the four winds, and occupies all points of air and space at once” (Hugo 1831).

As a new medium, the press grows and develops on the ruins of the old. Here the writer senses a metamorphosis – a new medium will emerge from the old. “Meanwhile what becomes of printing? All the life which is leaving architecture comes to it. In proportion as architecture ebbs, printing swells and grows. That capital of forces which human thought had been expending in edifices, it henceforth expends in books.” The writer celebrates the victory of the press, but he also pays homage to architecture, concluding that “the human race has two books, two registers, two testaments: masonry and printing; the Bible of stone and the Bible of paper. (…) This book, written by architecture, must be admired and perused incessantly; but the grandeur of the edifice which printing erects in its turn must not be denied” (Hugo 1831). Today we might have the third great book, a virtual book written by millions of people around the world, all those network users. At times, it even seems that the same thoughts are literally repeated about each new medium. Thus, Hugo has the following to say about the press:

“The press, that giant machine, which incessantly pumps all the intellectual sap of society, belches forth without pause fresh materials for its work. The whole human race is on the scaffoldings. Each mind is a mason. The humblest fills his hole, or places his stone. (...) Assuredly, it is a construction which increases and piles up in endless spirals; there also are confusion of tongues, incessant activity, indefatigable labor, eager competition of all humanity, refuge promised to intelligence, a new Flood against an overflow of barbarians. It is the second tower of Babel of the human race” (Hugo 1831).

In his collection of essays titled The Resistance (2000), Ernesto Sábato has critically addressed the medium of television. This medium has gradually expelled honest and genuine conversation from households, Sábato believes, and “table talk, including the discussions or angers, already seem replaced by the hypnotic vision” (Sábato 2013). In the first essay of this book, Sábato writes: “Television tantalizes us, we remain almost captivated by it. This effect between magical and malevolent is due, I think, to the excess of its light that overcomes us with its intensity. I cannot but remember that same effect it produces on insects, and even on the large animals. And then, it is not only difficult to leave it, but we also lose the everyday capacity to look and see.” And indeed, this is how people spend their days away from their own lives. They look at smartphones, computers, television, all those mighty screens that surround us, living entirely beside themselves and the moment. Sherry Turkle has explained this in a similar way, saying that “if you’re spending three, four, or five hours a day in an online game or virtual world (a time commitment that is not unusual), there’s got to be someplace you’re not. And that someplace you’re not is often with your family and friends – sitting around, playing Scrabble face-to-face, taking a walk, watching a movie together in the old-fashioned way” (Turkle 2011: 12). Sábato goes on:

“It is urgent to reconnect with the common spaces that prevent us from being a massified multitude isolatedly watching television. What is paradoxical is that through that screen we seem to be connected with the entire world, when in truth it removes the possibility of humanly cohabiting, and what is equally serious, predisposes us to apathy” (Sábato 2013).

He also believes that:

“One becomes lethargic in front of the screen, and while finding nothing of what one seeks, they stay there anyway, incapable of rising and doing something good. It takes away the desire to work on some artisanry, read a book, fix something in the house while listening to music or drinking maté. Or going to the bar with some friend, or conversing with your own. It is a tedium, a boredom to which we accustom ourselves ‘for lack of something better.’ Being monotonously seated before the television anesthesizes the senses, makes the mind slow-witted, harms the soul” (Sábato 2013).

Sábato argues that “man is accustomed to passively accepting a constant sensory intrusion. And this passive attitude ends being a mental servitude, a true enslavement” (Sábato 2013), which Turkle simply calls “disorientation” (Turkle 2011).

Sábato has abandoned science to devote himself entirely to literature, and he dares to ask the question about the destiny of the soul. Criticizing modern medicine for mistakenly viewing the human body as separate from his soul, he writes in another essay:

“Man is not a simple physical object, deprived of a soul, nor even a simple animal: they are an animal that not only has a soul but also a spirit, and the first of the animals to have modified its own environment as a work of culture. As such, he is an equilibrium – unstable – between his own energy and his physical and cultural medium. (...) It is not surprising that modern sicknesses like cancer be essentially due to the imbalance which technology and modern society have produced between man and his environment. Is cancer not perhaps a certain type of unmeasured and vertiginous growth?” (Sábato 2013)

He also recalls the rebellion of textile workers, which is often referred to as the “Luddite movement” in debates about the consequences of global networking:

“We cannot forget that before sowing, fishing, the gathering of the fruits, the elaboration of artisanry, like work as a blacksmith or in a dressmaking shop, or in country establishments, persons gathered and were incorporated in the totality of their personalities. It was the intuition of the beginning of this rupture which brought the 18th-century workers to rebel against the machines, to wish to set them on fire. Today men tend to massively cohere in order to comply with the growing and absolute functionality the system requires hour by hour. But between the life of the great cities, which passes over like a tornado over the desert sands, and the custom of watching television, where one accepts whatever happens and does not feel responsible, liberty is in danger” (Sábato 2013).

We can achieve liberty without starting the machines. Only we should not be the machines ourselves. We should not serve them instead of them serving us.

In this essay, Sábato again writes about information, arguing that “the human being spins in the wind without finding where to base themself, whether in the sky or in the earth, while she is choking on an avalanche of information that cannot be controlled and from which she receives no nourishment whatsoever.” Nicholas Carr has described the same phenomenon of changes that the human mind experiences in the following way:

“It’s that the Net delivers precisely the kind of sensory and cognitive stimuli – repetitive, intensive, interactive, addictive – that have been shown to result in strong and rapid alterations in brain circuits and functions. With the exception of alphabets and number systems, the Net may well be the single most powerful mind-altering technology that has ever come into general use” (Carr 2010).

Sábato, on the other hand, repeats and answers in the affirmative Rilke’s question “Is it possible that despite inventions and progress, despite culture, religion and knowledge of the universe, one has remained on the surface of life?” He adds the following question: “What has man put in place of God? They have not been liberated from cults and altars. The altar remains, yet now it is not the place for sacrifice and abnegation, but instead that of well-being, the cult to oneself, of the reverence for the great gods of the screen.” The metaphor “gods of the screen” fits incredibly well into today’s networked world. Today it is information, or rather pseudo-information as modern revelation, and the screen, the big screen as the technical god of a man who has lost the god in himself.

The essay “Resistance” begins with the statement that “the vertigo is the worst.” Fear is characteristic of it, “man acquiring the behavior of an automaton, being no longer responsible, no longer free, not recognizing others.” That mass vertigo and mass production dehumanize man. “Man cannot sustain humanity at this velocity, will be annihilated if he lives as a robot” (Sábato 2013).

“Now nothing moves at man’s pace, for who among us walks slowly? Yet the vertigo is not only outside, we have assimilated it in a mind that never stops emitting images, as if it could ‘zap’, and perhaps the acceleration will have reached the heart that already throbs urgently for everything to happen fast and not remain” (Sábato 2013).

“Defend, as occupied peoples have done heroically, the tradition that tells of what is sacred in man. Not to let the grace be wasted of the small moments of liberty that we can enjoy: a table shared with people we like, some creatures to whom we give shelter, a stroll among the trees, the gratitude of a hug. A fearless act like jumping from a flaming house. Those are not rational deeds, but it is not important for them to be so, being saved by the results. The world is powerless against a man who sings while in misery” (Sábato 2013).

Salman Rushdie, unlike Sábato and Hugo, focuses his attention on the medium of photography, which he understands with supreme precision and depth.

“But I remember only silence, the silence of great horror. The silence, to be more exact, of photography, because that was my profession, so naturally it was what I turned to at the moment the earthquake began. All my thoughts were of the little squares of film passing through my old cameras, Voigtländer Leica Pentax, of the forms and colours being registered therein by the accidents of movement and event, and of course by the skill or lack of it with which I managed to point the lens in the right or wrong direction at the wrong or right time” (Rushdie 2020).

This is how the novel’s main character experienced a natural disaster: through photography, that is, through a medium rather than through his own sense of sight. In Rushdie’s novel The Ground beneath Her Feet,he often reflects on the medium of photography, in an inner monologue and transmitting the writer’s own ideas. For Rushdie, a photograph is a “moral decision” as it steals moments. “In my stolen photographs – for the photographer must be a thief, he must steal instants of other people’s time to make his own tiny eternities – it was this intimacy I sought, the closeness of the living and the dead” (Rushdie 2020). In addition to photography, he also reflects on other media, and similarly to Sábato, he wonders about the sense of our accelerated life. Do we really need that much speed and to constantly focus on the new(s)? This is what the main character says about it:

“I’ve been an event junkie, me. Action has been my stimulant. I always liked to stick my face right up against the hot sweaty surface of what was being done, with my eyes open, drinking, and the rest of my senses switched off. I never cared if it stank, or if its slimy touch made you want to throw up, or what it might do to your taste buds if you licked it, or even how loud it screamed. Just the way it looked. That’s where for a long time I went for feeling, and truth. What Actually Happens: nothing to beat it, when you’re pressed up against it, as long as you don’t get your face torn off. No rush like it on earth” (Rushdie 2020).

He seems to se through our addiction to the news, as if he interacted with Harris from the beginning of our story, as if he understood the slot mechanism of the modern media world. In his descriptions of the city of Bombay, Rushdie also reaches McLuhan’s heights of interpreting living space as an extension of our body. Through the city, he also interprets its inhabitants, their habits, preferences, lack or excess of taste, lack or excess of emotionality, openness or closedness. “Bombay belonged too completely to my parents, V.V. and Ameer. It was an extension of their bodies, and, after their deaths, of their souls” (Rushdie 2020). At one point in the novel, he also discusses the medium of television. In it, mediation has already reached the level where that which has been transferred to the virtual sphere, onto the television screen, completely loses its originality.

“In the days before globalized mass communication (…) an event could occur, pass its peak and fade away before most people on earth were even aware of it. Now, however, the initial purity of what happens is almost instantly replaced by its televisualization. Once it’s been on tv, people are no longer acting, but performing. Not simply grieving, but performing grief. Not creating a phenomenon out of their raw unmediated desires, but rushing to be part of a phenomenon they have seen on TV. This loop is now so tight that it’s almost impossible to separate the sound from the echo, the event from the media response to it. From what Rémy insists on calling the immediatization of history” (Rushdie, 2020).

Perhaps in the 1990s, when he wrote this novel published in 1999, Rushdie already foresaw the scale of immediatization that the society would reach in the era of online media. Since social networks had not yet appeared by that time, perhaps the writer considered the television, still the most dominant medium of that period, as the most powerful mediator stealing all originality from the events. “The avatar is our voodoo doll,” says Harris. Rushdie analyses the notion of the avatar from another perspective, the religious one. In Sanskrit, he says, “avatar” means “descent”. “In Hinduism, it is the incarnation of a deity on earth in a human or animal form, especially any of the ten incarnations of Vishnu” (2019: 323). We find this explanation in Rushdie’s novel Midnight’s Children, published in 1981. This avatar metaphor echoes the aforementioned metaphor of the screen as a deity. Contemplating all these literary interpretations of screens, media, and avatars, free from discipline and censorship, rich in free associations and the most profound subconscious fantasies, we cannot help but think and wonder: Did man see in technology his primordial dream of approaching divinity? Did he see in technology the means by which he would finally banish the divine and ascend the throne of the supreme ruler? What if this dream turns out to be a nightmare...

In his seminal work Understanding Media, McLuhan comments on the car being a medium, not just a means of transportation or a tool. He explains that the car has separated man from nature, created the asphalt, and made “taking a spin in the country” an activity that is planned rather than taking place spontaneously and naturally. Perhaps even more interesting is his understanding of air travel, which he believes has fundamentally changed the experience of travelling, as it now actually begins only when a person gets off an airplane. The Bosnian-Herzegovinian writer Semezdin Mehmedinović has come to the same conclusion using the methods of literature. “We are driving. The car is an instrument of time. An airplane cannot be that. In the car, on the road, you are reduced to your bare existence and the body is focused on the present,” Mehmedinović writes. “An airplane is something else, flying from one place to another, it is a violent compression of time that completely abolishes our real experience of space” (2021: 64). An identical opinion, one might say, although the two authors have lived in different time periods and dealt with different areas in which they sought to interpret the world and know the truth. Mehmedinović has also addressed the medium of photography on several occasions. And while Rushdie believes that it “steals” moments, halts people in them and captures them together with their experiences, Mehmedinović thinks that photography has the power to “revive” (2021: 76). However, he also has a strong awareness of the mediation that this medium performs. And he understands the virtuality of the moments recorded by the photographic medium.

“Today, I came across several scenes of a young Colombian director named Ciro Guerra on the Internet,” he writes and continues:

“In one scene, a Western scientist shows a photograph of an almost completely extinct tribe to a shaman; this picturesque resident of the Amazons apparently sees a photograph for the first time in his life, and then looks with interest at himself in that picture, sees his necklace there, then stares at the same object on his chest and compares. When the scientist tries to take the photo back from his hands, he is surprised and says: ‘What are you doing?’ ‘I’ll keep it, it’s mine.’ ‘But this is me,’ says the confused shaman. And then the scientist corrects him: ‘This is not you. It is a picture of you.’” (2021: 148).

We could perhaps continue this passage. This is not happiness, it is a picture of a smile, this is not love, it is a picture of people who look like they are in love, this is not success, it is a picture of what we would like to consider as success, this is not your essence, it is a form...

 

Concluding remarks and questions

In this paper, we have raised several questions regarding the media intermediation of human emotions on the Internet. Ubiquitous, social networks and intermediaries of the third degree are increasingly mediating man’s emotions, imposing themselves on the path between man and his own self. Thinking about oneself, contemplation, and creation are separated from the human spirit and end up with technical intermediaries that ask them, even before they ask themselves the same question: “What’s on your mind?” We find the world outside the virtual to be less and less comprehensible, and we often talk about some new, virtual reality, unaware that it is already omnipresent and that we have migrated into it. The world of representations offered by the virtual has existed for a long time as a past that never passes, and as a past that coincides with the present. It is at the same time the object of our subconscious aspirations, a virtual realization of our Id and Superego in which the Ego finds it ever harder to manage and find its peace. The virtual self is fluid and fragmented, elusive and attractive, yet essentially lacking and unfulfilled.

In this paper, we have referred to the opinions of theorists who are more inclined to a pessimistic attitude when it comes to the way in which the online media have spread and crippled the world of our emotional experiences. We have communicated with the opinions of Carr, Turkle, Vaidhyanathan, Keen, Baran and Davis, McLuhan, and Spengler. From different perspectives, these authors have approached the issue of virtuality in a similar way, as a space in which nonsense replaces sense, which is, same as the truth in the online media, increasingly difficult to find. Isolated in his filter cocoon, in the circle of like-minded people, man has closed the paths of self-reflection and exposed himself to endless repetition of the same, multiplied, not thinking too often about the senselessness of the content he is viewing. In his technical extensions, man sees the expression of his superiority over other living beings, without noticing that the creature has apparently taken on the roles of the creator in the process.

Enthusiastic about his technical toys, man pays little attention to the way in which these “intellectual technologies” alter his way of thinking, his attitude towards the world, and ultimately his attitude towards himself. Thus, Nicholas Carr refers to the Internet as a universal medium that has many advantages, but occupies us too much with the glare and massiveness of the content it produces. Our brains get used to interruptions in the process, to non-linear thinking that constantly shifts from one subject to another. It is, as Carr puts it, a “wayward brain.” For Sherry Turkle, technology is like a “phantom limb” that we feel regardless of whether it is there or not. All these authors call for thinking about and understanding these media.

In the second part of the paper, we have offered examples of critique and reflection in the field of literature. Various authors have, in their literary works, consciously or not, identified the impact of modern technology on our soul and our emotional world essentially and better than many of its apologists. Commenting on the appearance of printed books, Hugo wrote the prophetic “This will kill that,” believing that the printed medium would gradually abolish architecture as art. He observed how one medium was being replaced by another, which was not merely a superficial change in the form of exchange and relations, a change in the way of communication, but essentially changed the content of what was being exchanged. Ernesto Sábato has critically analysed the television medium, accusing it of separating us from each other, of drugging us and making us lethargic. According to him, a long stay in front of the television screen “anesthesizes the senses, makes the mind slow-witted, harms the soul” (Sábato 2013). He criticizes our slavish adoration of the “gods of the screen” and protests against the fragmentation of moments and experiences, of our inner worlds, caused by our constant staring at the television screen. Salman Rushdie has criticized the medium of photography as stealing moments from the living world. He has even identified the housing medium as an extension of our skins, discussing the mediatization and networking of the world in his novels. Finally, Semezdin Mehmedinović, a writer from Bosnia and Herzegovina, has warned, similarly to McLuhan, that the airplane as a means of transportation condenses time and space, but he sees photography as a way of “reviving” the moment. All these literary associations are highly interesting, as they present technology as acquiring abilities that are usually reserved for divinities – stealing moments, killing and reviving, condensing and creating...

 

---

 

References:

Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis (2013): Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future. Stanford, CA: Cengage Learning.

Bluemink, Matt (2020): On Virtuality: Deleuze, Bergson, Simondon, https://epochemagazine.org/36/on-virtuality-deleuze-bergson-simondon/ (last accessed on April 25, 2022).

Bourdieu, Pierre (1998): On Television, trans. Priscilla Parkhurst Ferguson. New York: The New Press.

Carr, Nicholas (2010): The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company (unpaginated e-book).

Couldry, Nick and Jose Van Dijck (2015): “Researching Social Media as if the Social Mattered,” Social Media and Society: Culture Digitally: 1-7.

Deleuze, Gilles (1994): Difference and Repetition, trans. Paul Patton. New York: Columbia University Press; (2004): New York and London, Continuum.

Hjarvard, Stig (2008): “The Mediatization of Society: A Theory of the Media as Agents of Social and Cultural Changes,” Nordicom Review 29 (2): 105-134.

Hugo, Victor (1831): The Hunchback of Notre Dame, trans. I. Hapsgood. New York: Carey, Lea, and Blanchard, https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/107/the-hunchback-of-notre-dame/ (last accessed on April 25, 2022).

Keen, Andrew (2007): The Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing Our Culture. New York: Doubleday.

Kierkegaard, Søren (1980): The Sickness unto Death: A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening, ed. and trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

McLuhan, Marshal (2003): Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Corte Madera, CA: Gingko Press.

Mehmedinović, Semezdin (2021): Me’med, Crvena bandana i Pahuljica [Mehmet, Red Bandana, and Snowflake]. Sarajevo: Buybook.

Prensky, Mark (2001): Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. MCB University Press. Vol. 9, No 5.

Rushdie, Salman (2020): The Ground beneath Her Feet. London: Vintage Books (unpaginated e-book).

Sábato, Ernesto R. (2013): The Resistance, trans. D. Ohmans , http://webshells.com/spantrans/resaba.htm (last accessed on April 25, 2022).

Smith, Daniel and John Protevi (2008): Gilles Deleuze, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/ (last accessed on April 25, 2022).

Spengler, Oswald (1976): Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life, trans. Charles Francis Atkinson. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press.

Turkle, Sherry (2011): Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books.

Vaidhyanathan, Siva (2018): Anti-Social Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Digitalna duša: medijsko posredovanje emocija u mrežnom dobu

 

Sažetak

 

Mrežno doba medijskog posredovanja postepeno i suptilno mijenja način na koji doživljavamo sebe i svijet u kojem živimo. Emitiranje vlastitih života na mrežama uključuje i svakodnevno eksterioriziranje emocija na tehničke posrednike trećeg stepena kako ih naziva Jensen (prema Bogdanić 2013). Ispoljavanje emocionalnih doživljaja čitamo svakodnevno na društvenim mrežama, ali one postaju i sastavni dio korisničkih sadržaja ispod redovnih medijskih tekstova na web portalima. Ove, takozvane, intelektualne tehnologije, preuzimaju esencijalne ljudske osobine poput racionalnosti, memorije, računanja, prevođenja, ali i osobine poput emocionalnosti i komunikativnosti (Carr 2014, Turkle 2010).

      

Gdje žive emocije kada ih prenesemo u virtuelno i kako postaju sastavni dio medijskih sadržaj? Gdje živi čovjekova duša prenesena u njegov virtuelni self? – pitanja su na koja ćemo tražiti odgovore u prvom dijelu ovoga rada.

      

Analizirat ćemo virtuelni prostor, njegove mogućnosti i ograničenja. Diskutirat ćemo o potencijalu mrežnih medija za posredovanje emocionalnih doživljaja. Tragat ćemo i za razumijevanjem tehnologije i uređaja kao alternativne ljudskosti, onda kada zakaže ili ne želi djelovati čovjek sam. Pokušat ćemo naći odgovore na pitanja o posljedicama takvog posredovanja, referirajući se na istrživanja drugih autora poput Sive Vaidhyanathana, Shery Turkle, Nicholasa Carra i drugih.

      

Posljednji dio rada analizirat će književne analize medijskog posredovanja koje se sporadično pojavljuju u djelima svjetskih pisaca (Ruždi, Igo, Mehmedinović, Sabato, Spengler...) i interakciju njihovog razumijevanja medija s McLuhanovim viđenjem medijskog posredovanja i produžavanja/sakaćenja čula.

 

Ključne riječi: emocija, digitalna duša, mediji, medijsko posredovanje, mrežno doba, virtuelni prostor.

 

 

---

11(20)#8 2022

Časopis je otvorenog pristupa, a ovo djelo je dano na korištenje pod licencom Creative Commons Imenovanje-Nekomercijalno 4.0 međunarodna.

DOI 10.46640/imr.11.20.8 UDK 304.3:614.44*Covid-19 Pregledni članak Review article Primljeno: 24.01.2022.

 

 

Fulvio Šuran

Sveučilište Jurja Dobrile u Puli, Hrvatska
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

S one strane znanosti: koronavirus kao
društvena činjenica i problem moderne.
(Utjecaj pandemije na svakodnevni život).

Puni tekst: pdf (687 KB), Hrvatski, Str. 3363 - 3382

 

Sažetak

 

Značajna nemoć znanosti i protuslovlja pokrenuta od strane koronavirusa dovela je svijet do krize koja u svojoj sveopćosti ujedinjuje i otkriva nejednakosti predlažući novo razmatranje ideje modernosti i uloge društvenih znanosti. Zapravo, raznovrsne su sociološke točke pristupa epidemiji. Kao na primjer: prekid rituala koji definiraju redoslijed socijalne interakcije zbog prakse distanciranja; širenje osjećaja kolektivnog straha (moral panics) posredstvom medija i institucija koji svoj razlog ima u potrebi kolektivnog prihvaćanja velike požrtvovnosti na individualnoj razini u vezi odnosa troškova/koristi; struktura i gustoći društvenih mreža kao prediktoru širenja zaraze. Izlaganje nudi samo neka kritična osvrtanja utemeljena na dijalektici da bi pravovaljano odgovorilo na situaciju neprekidne napetosti između načela jedinstva i podjela oko kojih se društveni svijet, zbog svoje fluidnosti neprestano preuređuje. Zasnivajući se dakle na logici društvenog poretka koja podrazumijeva da se svaka tematika, događaj ili situacija može razumjeti kao privremena točka ravnoteže između kohezivne i disperzivne društvene dinamike.

 

Ključne riječi: pandemija, pandemencija, lockdown, smart working, communing, modernost, sociološka imaginacija.

 

 

Moguće je da u kameno doba epidemija nije bilo. Ali ono što je sigurno, činjenica je da su sve učestaliji i intenzivniji međuljudski odnosi neminovno doveli do sve većeg širenja zaraznih bolesti među ljudskim grupama i to sve većom brzinom i silinom. No, ovdje pažnju nećemo usredotočiti na njihovu difuziju jer to iziskuje više vremena i prostora, zato o tome sad samo ukratko.

Kao u svim fazama povijesnih katastrofa i neovisno o tome radi li se o političkim revolucijama, prirodnim uništenjima raznoraznih vrsta i podvrsta, razornim ratovima, dubokim društvenim previranjima ili ekonomsko financijskim slomovima, suvremena globalna rasprostranjenost pandemije Covid-19 od svojeg pojavljivanja predstavlja izvanredan inkubator raznoraznih znanstvenih i pseudoznanstvenih teorija, ali i konspirativnih fantazija za koje je internetska mreža - posebno pohlepna za takvim sadržajem – od samog pojavljivanja fenomena preuzela inicijativu širenja i akreditiranja istoga oblikujući ga na raznolike načine.

Međutim, treba napomenuti da što se tiče naše epohe to nije prvi slučaj kojem se pristupilo na sličan i jednako intenzivan način. Tu se misli na napad na Twin Towers 11. rujna 2001. Radilo se o događaju koji je izazvao mnoštvo ne samo racionalnih već i neracionalnih tumačenja i nagađanja koja su zbog izuzetnosti i nevjerice kod prosječnog zapadnog pojedinca poprimala sve više osobine podmuklih zavjera dugog života. Ona su i danas široko rasprostranjena, i to u većini slučajeva s naglaskom na negiranje činjenica koje su zbog same očitosti stvari smatrane lažnim, tj. da se jednostavno radilo o terorističkom napadu planiranom i izvedenom od strane najekstremnijeg islamskog fanatizma.

Iz tog primjera, izostavljajući za sada druge, moguće je pretpostaviti da su ciljevi današnjih teorija zavjere o virusima tipični za ovaj osebujan pristup povijesti i stvarnosti. Riječ je o sociološkom fenomenu koji se u suvremenoj kulturi Zapada ne pojavljuje samo kao narativni žanr već i kao inspirativni i cvjetajući oblik uredničke industrije, i to u vidu objašnjenja (točnije: okrivljenja) - mimo istina koje pružaju vlade, njima podređeni znanstvenici i većinski dio medijskog sustava - sumnjivih i ne baš vjerodostojnih istina, budući da dolaze iz službenih izvora. Pravi uzroci fenomena ili događaja predodređeni su da ostanu skriveni i dostupni samo vrlo ograničenim krugovima: Kennedyievo ubojstvo, fenomen letećih tanjura ili NLO-a, itd.

Međutim ni to nije dovoljno. Glavni cilj teoretičara zavjera u liku samoizabranih čuvara istine i demokracije je skrenuti pozornost javnosti na složenu mrežu interesa i suučesništva, okultnih manevara i poprečnih saveza koji se nalaze skriveni iza onih lažnih iako razložnih očitovanja koja se običnom pojedincu ‘prodaju’ kao neprikosnovene činjenice. Naime, kako oni tvrde, ne radi se o ‘Istinama’ koje nije moguće objasniti samo posredstvom jedne, za Zapadnog pojedinca - odgojenog na ideji nezaustavljiva znanstvenotehnološkog progresa - neuobičajene zdravstvene krize s kojom se ne samo Zapadni svijet suočava, koliko o (ako ne i pretežito, u perspektivi) neograničenom međusobnom nametanju raznoraznih skrivenih moći za svjetsku premoć ili prozaičnije, za posjedovanjem sve većeg utjecaja i kontrole na ‘svijet sutrašnjice’ - u ovom slučaju u vidu biološkog rata posredstvom konstruiranog virusa kao i uz podršku različitih već unaprijed pripremljenih strategija za njegovo suzbijanje kada za to dođe vrijeme. Kako tvrde teoretičari zavjere radi se naime o tajno usvojenim planovima nekoliko suverenih država, multinacionalnih farmaceutskih kompanija, obavještajnih agencija, IT divova i telekomunikacija, transnacionalnih kriminalnih skupina, tajnih društva najrazličitije inspiracije, financijskih lobija, humanitarnih organizacija i privatnih zaklada financiranih od strane ovog ili onog multimilijardera, vojno industrijskih nacionalnih kompleksa itd., itd.

U stvari tu se radi o iskrivljenom rezoniranju nekolicine što je dovelo, kako u prošlosti tako i danas a najvjerojatnije će i ubuduće, do nastajanja najrazličitijih hipoteza i tumačenja. Tako na primjer jedna od najekstremnijih verzija tvrdi da su širenje virusa i sam pandemijski alarm vješto proizvedeni i to s ciljem provedbe snažnog eksperimenta društvenog inženjeringa. Radi se naime o zatvaranju milijuna građana u njihove domove uporabom straha od zaraze, što služi kao nagovještaj onoga što se namjerava uraditi da bi globalni poredak poprimio određene konture razvoja u budućnosti. To je neka vrsta distopije u vidu društva kojim upravlja kruta kolektivna disciplina podvrgnuta policiji i tehnološkoj kontroli, paternalistički upravljana od strane novog sloja (new class) znanstvenika tehnokrata odvojenih od bilo kojeg narodnog ili demokratskog legitimiteta. Da je to ne samo moguće već i realno, vidljivo je, tvrde oni, jer posljednjih mjeseci svjedočimo činjenici da politika prilagođava svoje odluke obvezujućim propisima virologa i epidemiologa i to mimo volje naroda što bi samo po trebalo biti sumnjivo. Ništa manje alarmantna nije niti teorija da je ova pandemija neovisno o tome kako je izazvana prigoda koju je nekolicina divova u sektoru Big Data s nestrpljenjem čekala da bi se napokon utvrdili kao pravi gospodari svijeta.

Ako se politika donedavno još uvijek zavaravala da nameće pravila i zabrane u vezi s načinom na koji se prikuplja i upravlja informacijama (uključujući i one privatne) koje se odnose na milijarde ljudi, suvremena zdravstvena situacija je tu ambiciju vladavine prava koja je donekle već bila na zalazu potpuno zakopala, izbrisala, jer činjenica da su se podaci u njihovim računalnim bankama pokazali kao temeljni alati za rješavanje pandemije s epidemiološkog stajališta (na primjer putem udaljenog digitalnog praćenja), dramatično je povećala pregovaračke sposobnosti High-Tech korporacija ne samo prema vladama već i prema raznim međunarodnim institucijama. Naime, njihova snaga koja je s financijskog i tehnološkog aspekta već do tada bila ogromna, sada je poprimila i politički ‘format’ i to u svakom svom pogledu.

Osim toga, postoje i oni koji u utrci država, tvrtki i istraživačkih institucija (kako privatnih, tako i javnih) u otkrivanju cjepiva vide cilj koji nije toliko ostvarivanje velikog znanstvenog otkrića već i ostvarivanje goleme zarade kao i stjecanje globalne moći, toliko velike da će uskoro biti u stanju relevantno utjecati i na međunarodnoj svjetskoj sceni. Prema nekima, moć koju su pridobili oni koji imaju kontrolu nad distribucijom cjepiva ista je onoj koju imaju države koje posjeduju nuklearno oružje. To će im u skoroj budućnosti omogućiti da diktiraju pravila igre ostatku svijeta. Ali što ako je taj ‘netko’ neka multinacionalna kompanija ili neki milijarder prerušen u filantropa? 

Konačno, na razini društvene psihologije, okultni cilj kojeg teoretičari zavjere smatraju da je je pravi ulog ove, za neke čudne i ne sasvim slučajne a za druge očekivane i uvelike predvidljive pandemije - predodređene postati konstantom i to uz prijetnju bolesti koje je (potencijalno) u stanju istrijebiti veliki dio čovječanstva - ukrotiti svjetsku populaciju. Naime, pojedinci uplašeni od sablasti smrti i u stalnom stanju uzbune bit će po samoj definiciji stvari poslušniji i podložniji bilo kojoj moći (čak i takozvanih liberalnih demokracija) omogućujući joj da u budućnosti opravda svaku zlouporabu ili odstupanje od opće prihvaćenih pravila ljudskosti - uključujući suspenziju zakona i temeljnih sloboda – u ime kako individualnog, tako i javnog zdravlja.

U vezi ovih nagađanja koja, iako polaze od zabrinutosti i pitanja koja su uvelike stvarna i motivirana te u konačnici poprimaju obličja nečega što je oduvijek bio i jest polemički argument teoretičara zavjera: Svjetske vlade Iluminata, Univerzalne diktature Izabranih, globalnog Big Governmenta, snažno je iskušenje da se odgovori skeptičnim, ako ne i podrugljivim stavom. Pri tome treba imati u vidu teorije poput primjerice onih koje širenje virusa pripisuju slabljenju imunološkog sustava uzrokovanog novim standardom prijenosa podataka 5G, businessa notorno kontroliranog od neke fantomske pseudomasonerije i to u suradnji tko zna s kojim još okultnijim središtima moći. Naime, što je drugo urota, osobito kad poprima ove ekstremne i gotovo folklorne oblike, nego uvreda za zdrav razum i čovjekovu kritičku sposobnost? Ili u blažem obliku, neka vrsta stripfilozofije povijesti ili vizije stripdruštva? No takvo odbijanje obilježeno tipično prosvjetiteljskim intelektualnim prezirom, koliko god razumljivo nije dovoljno da bi se shvatila neka pitanja koja je baveći se zavjerom nemoguće izbjeći. Razlog tome? To je zato što su teorije koje inspirira ozbiljno shvaćene od velikog broja ljudi koji na temelju tih uvjerenja usmjeravaju vlastiti svakodnevni život, svoja politička tumačenja i izborno ponašanje, postajući aktivni na nivou protuinformacija šireći njihov utjecaj na taj način.

Radi li se tu samo o masovnom neznanju, o prirodnoj tendenciji da se prihvate i najapsurdnija maštanja ili o mentalnom sklopu naslijeđenom u djetinjstvu i sastavljenom od nevidljivih čudovišta, tajnih sila i zlih čarobnjaka koje neki u sebi nose nesvjesno i kad odrastu? Potrebno je također shvatiti koji su to mehanizmi - psihološki, intelektualni ili društveni - koji osobito u određenim konvulzivnim (beznadnim) povijesnim trenucima favoriziraju rađanje i stvaranje takvih teorija sa svojom čudnom i dobro prepoznatljivom mješavinom kulture trajnih sumnji, pseudoznanosti vjerodostojnih argumenata, progonske žrtvovanosti naše grupe, sposobnosti pretvaranja slučajnosti u činjenice i dokaze.

Nekima je sve to očito, osobito danas posredstvom aktivizma društvenih medija i njihove umnažajuće moći informiranja, naročito u ‘pretjerivanju’ i u oživljavanju osjetila kao u dobro organiziranoj diverzantskoj propagandi finaliziranoj na stvaranju svakojakih zabuna. Stoga se zavjera pojavljuje kao oblik namjerne manipulacije stvarnošću, kao način zagađenja javne sfere uvođenjem izmišljenih činjenica, upečatljivih i neprovjerljivih vijesti, takozvanih alternativnih tumačenja ovog ili onog tipa događaja, sa svrhom namjernog dezinformiranja radi povećanja društvenog kaosa, bacanja blata na neprijatelje da bi se od sebe otjeralo sve sumnje. To postaje očito kada na primjer velike sile (Rusija ili Kina ili SAD, ili ...) osuđuju korištenje lažnih vijesti (fake news) prikazujući ih kao sredstvo Informacijskog rata (Information Warfare ili InfoWar): u liku propagandne tehnike koja koristi trend senzacionalizma koji vlada glavnim medijskim sustavom. Unutar tog sistema bilo koja dobro plasirana lažna vijest postaje vjerodostojna kada dospijeva do publike koja ju prepoznaje te prihvaća i tumači kao istinitu. Osobina takvog razmišljanja je u tome da se zavjera tumači zavjerom, u smislu da bi oni koji na mreži vješto šire ‘hipoteze zavjere’ bili pravi zavjerenici, što je neka vrsta igre ogledala unutar koje je rizik izgubiti se. Naime, manipulativna uporaba lažnih vijesti kao i bizarnih i maštovitih objašnjenja njihovih pozadina što predstavlja zabrinjavajuću stvarnost suvremenih društva, ne isključuje činjenicu da teorije zavjere mogu djelovati i odozdo prema gore: rađaju se spontano kao odgovor na stvarnu potrebu za znanjem. Za čovjeka je teško podnijeti takav kognitivni vakuum u vezi onoga što se događa oko njega jer potrebuje neko racionalno objašnjenje koje daje dojam da je mentalno ovladao stvarnošću; neku vrsta interpretativnog ključa o stvarnom svijetu za kojeg su mnogi - bez ikakve potrebe da budu odozgo indoktrinirani ili zavedeni propagandom – uvjereni da je najautentičniji i najistinitiji zato jer nudi jednostavno i izravno uzročno-posljedično tumačenje složenih i inače neobjašnjivih činjenica. Pritom uopće ne sumnjaju da je možda to tumačenje jedan vid racionalizacije već postojećih i ukorijenjenih preduvjerenja, prosudbi i fantazija.

Radi se o mentalnom i psihološkom mehanizmu kolektivnih uvjerenja i stanja raspoloženja koji osvjedočuje Marc Bloch kada opisuje kolektivno djelovanje lažne vijesti među vojnicima za vrijeme Prvog svjetskog rata. Taj mentalni sklop uvijek nastaje, kaže Marc Bloch, “iz kolektivnih pogleda koji postoje i prije njezinog pojavljivanja; ona je samo naizgled slučajna, sve što je u njoj slučajno je početni događaj/incident, apsolutno beznačajan, koji pokreće rad mašte; ali to se pokretanje događa samo zato što su mašte već pripremljene i u tihom vrenju, […] lažna vijest ogledalo je u kojem ‘kolektivna savjest’ promatra vlastita obilježja”^[224]. To govori da se kroz zavjeru umnožavaju duhovi, dakle strahovi i predrasude koje čovjek već nosi u sebi, u svom umu.

Ostajući u okviru te Blochove misli postaje jasno kada i kako ‘depresivni um u umornom tijelu’ – što oslikava dio čovječanstva u vremenu Covid -19 – može postati lak plijen emocija, jer zbog razočaranja postaje nesklon vježbanju vlastite kritičke misli i stoga spreman vjerovati u svaku dobro zapakiranu ili izgledno uvjerljivu besmislicu.^[225]

 

Urota kao bijeg od stvarnosti

Tako se dolazi do nekoliko temeljnih upita: Što je to što samo po sebi objašnjava mentalitet zavjere? Zašto ta vizija zavjere – koja u normalno vrijeme ima osobine ‘opasne zabave’ za nekolicinu društveno graničnih skupina ili maštovitih i emocionalno nestabilnih pojedinaca koji su kao takvi usmjereni na lov na duhove (misli se tu na manjinske grupe i na devijantne osobe koje svojom paranojom često izazivaju tragedije, provode progone i čine zločine) – ima danas sve osobine opasne masovne pojave? Na kraju ali ne i zadnje, koliko i na koje sve načine pandemija globalnih razmjera može doprinijeti njezinom daljnjem širenju i ukorjenjivanju?

Da bi to barem donekle shvatili treba poći od stajališta (ili, ako želite, činjenica) da je zavjera oblik društvene imaginacije koja u svim svojim različitim oblicima manifestacija uvijek oscilira između demonologije (zlo pokreće povijest) i apokalipse (kraj povijesti kao stvarna mogućnost). Eksplicitno: između ideje da nekoliko moćnih i zlih bića (inkarnacija Antikrista) iz tame spletkari da bi nametnula svoju vlast nad svijetom i ideje da će čovječanstvo ubrzo biti pozvano da odgovara za svoje grijehe i to sve u nadi o nekakvom nebeskom otkupljenju ili obliku spasenja (naravno, rezerviranom samo za čiste, pravedne i nevine). Radi se dakle o uvjerenjima koja nisu novijeg datuma jer svoju osnovu naveliko crpe iz narodnih tradicija^[226], koje su se u većini slučajeva konsolidirale u srednjem vijeku. Radi se, ne zaboravljajući pritom i sugestibilnost masa, o vizijama koje su potaknute pseudoteološkim nagađanjima uobličenim u tisućljetnom kalupu društvenih predrasuda tipičnom za zatvorena i zaostala društva podložna velikim valovima straha izazvanim ratovima i pošasti, uvijek u potrazi za žrtvenim janjetom na kojeg će navući sve nedaće svijeta. Vjerovalo se da ti fenomeni pripadaju nekim drugim vremenima, međutim usprkos racionalizmu moderne koji je na mase utjecao samo površno, podrugljivo i neadekvatno, ta uvjerenja nastavljaju živjeti i danas u svom podzemnom obliku u vidu kolektivnog sjećanja ili predodžbe koja je kada se pruži prilika za ponovno pojavljivanje straha od kraja uvijek spremna i to neovisno o tome da li se radi(lo) o oružanom sukobu ili prirodnoj katastrofi koja kao takva prevladava određenom tipologijom pojedinaca i društava.

Ali ono što mnogi mislioci, a tu se naročito misli na povjesničare, filozofe i sociologe, ne uviđaju, ili ne žele, ili ne mogu reći je da je taj paranoični pogled na život uvršten, ukorijenjen, racionalno oblikovan u svakom, ponavljam svakom nacionalizmu kao ideologija koja se održava i širi posredstvom odgojno obrazovnih institucija čija je pedagoška uloga usmjeriti (vlastite) školarce prema obrani (zdravih) nacionalnih interesa. Naime, radi se o mladeži koja zbog umne otvorenosti ne uviđa da je korijen njenog egzistencijalističkog straha naspram nesigurnosti sutrašnjice u liku obrane nacionalnih interesa podsvjesni, i da zahvaljujući (nacionalistički) usmjerenom odgoju lako može, naročito u trenucima beznađa, poprimiti i druge oblike eksplikacije nasuprot induciranom putu razvoja i eksplikacije posredstvom liberalno usmjerenog odgoja i obrazovanja.

Da bi to donekle i shvatili dovoljno je prisjetiti se u moderno doba najmoćnijeg i najraširenijeg mita o zavjeri. Radi se o ‘mitu’ koji je ‘znanstveno’ konstruiran i postao dijelom nacionalnog usmjerenog odgoja i obrazovanja. Radi se o takozvanoj ‘židovskoj tajnoj vladi’ poznatoj i kao  Sionski priorat^[227], koja je svoj tragični vrhunac dostigla u dvadesetom stoljeću proizvodeći istrebljenje milijuna ljudi. Tome je doprinijela i tisućljetna demonološka tradicija, koja je već u 13.-14. stoljeću u Židovima prepoznavala Sotonine Sinove ujedinjene planom da nadvladaju i dominiraju kršćanskim narodom, što je dovelo do toga da ih se smatra apsolutnim, lukavim, pa čak i nevidljivim neprijateljem, upravo kakvim se danas smatra Covid-19. 

Problem je da je taj uvrnuti i iracionalni imaginarij, iz očiglednih razloga očišćen od svakog eksplicitnog pozivanja na antisemitizam danas pretvoren u narativno-spektakularnu radnju koju su formirali sotonski zemaljski agenti ili čak sam Sotona; ali i bića koja potječu iz podzemlja ili iz izvanzemaljskog prostora; tajne sekte sposobne za bilo kakvu makinaciju; in exstremis spasitelji čovječanstva; nerazlučive ili nevidljive mračne moći kao i iz svi mogući scenariji ‘smaka svijeta’. To se prikazuje u vidu invazija vanzemaljaca, virusa ili istrebljenja bakterijama, utjecaja asteroida na planetu Zemlju, katastrofalnog porasta mora, nuklearne nesreće uzrokovanom ljudskom greškom ili ludim znanstvenikom, novog doba glacijacije, klimatskog kolapsa, pobune protiv vladajućih tehničara, povrataka mrtvih ili zombija iz grobova itd.

Kao što smo već spomenuli taj imaginarij koji je u suvremeno doba do te mjere kultiviran od strane kinematografije, popularne književnosti, svijeta stripova i televizijskih serijala da se za određenu tipologiju pojedinaca (umno retardiranih ili misaono nekritičnih) pretvorio u činjenično stanje stvari prožimajući masovni mentalitet, čini da svatko od nas u sebi posjeduje sve osobine zavjerenika ili je pod određenim utjecajem urote iako je toga nesvjestan (zbog čega treba biti itekako kritičan) i čija je temeljna osobina nerazlikovanja fikcije od stvarnosti. Dovoljno je prisjetiti se radiofonske emisije koju je vodio Orson Welles^[228] koji je čitajući odlomak H. G. Wellsovog romana Rat svjetova / The War of the Worlds^[229] bez da o tome obavijesti publiku, inicirao veliko paničarenje kod mnogih pojedinaca koji su pratili emisiju. To je bilo i moguće je jer kod mnogih je ukorijenjeno uvjerenje da je mašta scenarista i pisaca tijesno povezana s predviđanjem stvarnosti; da je povijest samo odraz, s nekim zakašnjenjem, onoga što smo sposobni zamisliti (što je bila i James Hilmanova misao u vezi uloge mita)^[230]. Zbog toga je razložno zamisliti da se i pandemija Covid-19 dogodila prema metodologijama ‘zavjera’ već predviđenih u mnogim filmovima i sadržanih u mnogim apokaliptičnim romanima što je među ostalim posljedicama definitivno ukorijenilo i gore navedeno uvjerenje da je mašta scenarista i pisaca jedno predviđanje stvarnosti, odnosno da je povijest samo odraz, s nekim zakašnjenjem, onoga što je čovjek sposoban zamisliti.

Dolazi se tako do pitanja: tko je odgovoran za takve katastrofe - podrazumijeva se zao i sa zlokobnim obilježjima - tko ih je prouzročio, planirao ili jednostavno sakrio njihove pogubne posljedice? Zašto oni koji znaju istinu - oni rijetki odabrani koji su, poput proroka apokaliptične tradicije, kroz viziju ili snove primili otkrivenje misterija svijeta - tu istinu ne dijele s ostatkom svijeta? 

Zavjereništvo na svoj način pokušava odgovoriti na ta i slična uznemirujuća pitanja i to posebice na sljedeće: koje su sve oblike sposobne poprimiti i upotrijebiti demonske sile protiv kojih su ljudska bića oduvijek bila prisiljena oduprijeti se za svoj spas i slobodu?

Unutar dimenzijskog tumačenja stvarnosti, posljednja inkarnacija zla i posljednji scenarij apokalipse koja je ujedinila teoretičare zavjere cijelog svijeta zasigurno je Covid -19. Zar nije istina da je kineski predsjednik Xi Jinping, koji se dobro razumije u borbu protiv koronavirusa pozvao svoje sunarodnjake na ‘narodni rat protiv virusa’, kojeg trebaju voditi ‘ujedinjeni poput Velikog zida’, jer ‘epidemija je vrag i ne smijemo dopustiti da se vrag skriva’?

Na ovu kaotičnu i uznemirujuću povijesno-kulturnu pozadinu, koju je ultratehnološka i bogata postmodernost naslijedila od predmoderne, u kojoj dominiraju neznanje i bijeda, povezuju se i drugi elementi, više povezani s psihološkom dimenzijom (kako individualnom tako i kolektivnom), doprinoseći objašnjenju zašto je zavjera u modi. Zna se, na primjer, da svaka faza ubrzanja povijesti kada se svijet oko nas radikalno i iznenada promijeni izaziva ogromnu potrebu za spoznajom i sigurnošću.

Upečatljive povijesne događaje koji često prodiru u naše postojanje na neočekivan i neuobičajen način nije nikada lako objasniti samo uporabom njihovih uzroka. I povjesničarima i sociolozima teško je shvatiti ih u svom vremenskom događanju, a kamoli suvremenicima koji ih doživljavaju na vlastitoj koži. Razlog tome je da oni izazivaju neočekivane preokrete - materijalne i duhovne, objektivne i subjektivne – koji se gotovo nikada ne dešavaju prema nekom predvidljivom planu ili na nekoj racionalnoj osnovi, što u čovjeka neminovno povećava tjeskobu kao i osjećaj bespomoćnosti. Tumačenja zavjere služe upravo ovome: u svom iluzornom prikazivanju stvari daju nam uvjerenje da smo shvatili uzroke i podrijetlo pojave i epizode koji izmiču uobičajenom razumijevanju i u čijem razvoju naši pojedinačni postupci nemaju nikakvu težinu.

Radi se o aspektu koji nemalo doprinosi širenju zavjere: saznanje da se stvari događaju bez da imamo ikakve moći djelovanja što je ponekad i psihološki neodrživo jer od čovjeka čini pasivnog gledatelja kolektivne povijesti koja izmiče svakoj odluci i uzročnoj inteligenciji. Drugim riječima, zavjera je također način povratnog posjedovanja povijesti i svijeta kao i bijega od osjećaja bespomoćnosti koji inače riskira da nas dovede u pasivni (i egzistencijalno nepodnošljivi) nihilizam.

Ono što nas donekle intelektualno može tješiti je društveno stati na strani onih koji su – jedna dobra manjina koja se bori protiv onih loših - shvatili kako se svijet zaista kreće.

Drugi uzrok koji objašnjava suvremenu zavjeru odnosi se na ograničenja objektivne i subjektivne naravi znanstvene spoznaje koja nije nikada do ove pandemijske krize promatrana na shizofreničan i kontradiktoran način: kao jedini izvor spasenja ali i uzrok svega zla. Bez obzira na postignuti napredak u svakom sektoru znanja - od medicine do fizike, od kozmologije do biologije - u prirodnom svijetu i dalje postoje sive zone i pojave za koje imamo previše komplicirana objašnjenja, te su kao takva teško razumljiva za nestručnjake jer su znanstveno djelomična ili nisu dovoljno uvjerljiva i eksplikativna. To je itekako postalo očito upravo u vezi virusa Covid-19. Do toga je došlo kada smo postali svjedoci činjenice da se stručnjaci ponašaju kao da su alfa i omega našeg života, i to usprkos unutarnjim protuslovljima u svjetskoj znanstvenoj zajednici; oklijevanju Svjetske zdravstvene organizacije; nedostatku objektivne i zajedničke vizije događaja koje su u raznim zemljama svijeta i medicinska struka i većina znanstvenika proživljavali poput eksperimenta bez presedana čiji je cilj bio pridobiti veća saznanja. To je izazvalo više tjeskobe nego nade kod onih koji su kao obični građani htjeli samo saznati kako se virus širi, koliko je smrtonosan, koje je najbolje cjepivo i koje su njegove nuspojave. Radilo se i radi se o pitanjima jednostavnim i ogromnim u isto vrijeme na koja nijedan stručnjak do sada nije dao siguran i konačan odgovor. Sa stajališta znanstvene metode to nije nekakva novost ili problem, budući da znanstvena spoznaja polazi od nepoznatog da bi stupnjevito i mukotrpno stigla do saznanja, što se uvijek odvija pokušajima i pogreškama (u laboratoriju ili na terenu) što je važeće sredstvo znanja. Problem je u tome što se takva metoda koja ne razmišlja o nepogrešivosti i ne nudi konačne i apsolutne odgovore kosi s popularnom slikom znanosti koja ju naprotiv smatra ne samo izvorom izvjesnosti, već ima i spasonosna očekivanja koja joj je moderna dodijelila. To znači da ukoliko odmah ne zadovoljava našu potrebu za sigurnošću i sigurnim rješenjima, znanost riskira diskreditaciju ili certifikat nepouzdanosti, tim više ako je u pitanju vrhunsko dobro kao što je život.

Dodajmo tome da svijet znanosti danas sve više ima elemente organiziranog mrežnog sustava svjetskih razmjera, specifični jezik i posebne protokole prema kojima, da bi unatoč bilo kakvom zahtjevu nezavisnosti i autonomije razvila sve složenija istraživanja mora djelovati u bliskoj sinergiji s politikom i ekonomsko-industrijskom moći. To je dovelo do takve razine globalne međusobne povezanosti koja je znanost pretvorila u laku metu za one koji u tim ispreplitanjima između aparata i društvenih struktura ne vide neku funkcionalnu nužnost već opasnu koncentraciju moći. Oni ju vide kao jednu tako veliku konvergenciju interesa da se može itekako posumnjati da iza toga postoje i neke izopačene političke svrhe.

Svatko od nas od znanosti očekuje blagostanje i spas, ali zbog znanstvenog sustava koji je sve više podložan političkim i ekonomskim pritiscima dovedeni smo do kolektivnog nepovjerenja u kojemu teoretičari zavjere nalaze razloge svog postojanja. Razlog koji više od drugih opravdava kulturu urote i njezinu zavidnu imaginativnu snagu je efektivno postojanje - u političkoj praksi, u natjecateljskoj igri koja upravlja gospodarstvom i u sferi društvenih odnosa - okultnih makinacija i manevara, zasjenjenih zona ili rezerviranih ili tajnih područja djelovanja, neprozirnih mehanizama i dvostrukih istina. Ukratko, zavjere su činjenica.

Međutim, problem koji teoretičari zavjere jednostavno ignoriraju je da sve to ima malo ili nimalo veze s vragom i njegovim prerušavanjima, s apokalipsom ili dolazećim smakom svijeta i sa zlim djelovanjem protiv čovječanstva od strane neke tajne organizacije ili manjine gladne moći (jučer templari, masoni, Židovi i isusovci, a danas multimilijarderi iz Sillicon Valleya, gnostici, nositelji tajni ljudskog genoma, čuvari u laboratorijama bakterioloških oružja, gmazovi, pseudodobročinitelji čovječanstva koje profitiraju na tragedijama koje su sami proizveli, vijećnici postljudskih učenjaka, itd.).

To je u stvari tijesno povezano s izvornom moralnom nesavršenošću ljudi od krvi i mesa, s njihovim atavističkim apetitima i željama, s nepredvidljivošću povijesti koja čini da svaki pokušaj organiziranja planova za stolom pokaže beskorisnim i sa činjenicom da se živi u društvima koja su po samoj sociološkoj definiciji nesavršena i često nepravedna i da se ne odvija sve prema našim očekivanjima ili nadama. ‘Velika zavjera’ protiv čovječanstva i za svjetsku vlast koju svako toliko netko pokuša ostvariti ustvari je filozofska floskula ili smeće, čista književna zabava, ukoliko se ne radi o običnoj paranoji prerušenoj u politiku.

Tako ostaju zavjere, tajni planovi i slučajne izmišljotine, odnosno prečaci koje ljudi oduvijek koriste, koji osciliraju između oštroumnosti i nasilja, između cinizma i želje za posjedovanjem kako bi zauzeli posebno mjesto u svijetu i to na štetu drugih. To dakle znači da smo u stvari problem mi a ne Vrag, koji se ovaj put (kakvog li vrhunskog lukavstva!) čovječanstvu pojavio u obliku mikroorganizma.^[231]

 

Pandemija i distopijsko-katastrofalne slike Zapada kao izvor dominantne znanstveno-tehnološke infodemije

Ovo vrlo tužno doba virusa Covid-19 u koje je svijet potonuo što je donekle i zanimljivo, ima značajnu komponentu već viđenog. Posebice je Zapad taj koji preživljava pravu katastrofu vlastitih društvenih, ekonomskih i liberalno demokracijsko-političkih struktura u znaku nekih medijskih formata koji su se zapravo vremenom formirali poput supstancijalnih suvremenih arhetipova.

Znanstveno-fantastični strip Eternout Hectora Germana Oesterhelda i Francisca Solana Lopeza, iz 1957.^[232] koji govori o invaziji vanzemaljaca započinje snježnim pahuljicama koje, govoreći o napretku, sadržavaju smrtonosni virus (u tom se slučaju radilo o alegoriji nestabilne političke situacije onog vremena u Latinskoj Americi podložnoj opetovanim autoritarnim zaokretima).

‘Napravljeni smo od iste tvari kao i snovi’, reći će Shakespeareov čarobnjak Prospero u ‘Oluji’, što znači da se svako povijesno razdoblje ogledava u ogledalu vremena posredstvom ‘svoje’ književnosti i ‘svojih’ umjetničkih izraza.

Na isti način mi danas, unutar dimenzije koja je gotovo pedeset godina podložna manifestacijama postmoderne kulture, sanjamo snove proizvedene od dominantne kulturne industrije i koji proizlaze iz procesa medijskog posredovanja. Naime, sa značajnim dodatkom znanstvena je fantastika postala jedan od najpraktičnijih žanrova na Zapadu, i to od godina Hladnog rata nadalje, donoseći kao miraz, zajedno sa sposobnošću odražavanja sadašnjosti u svom ostvarenju čak i čitav niz ‘vizionarskih sposobnosti’. Stoga se često nalazimo u stanju budnog sanjarenja. To je neka vrsta noćne more naseljene Electric Sheep-om, kao što stoji u samom naslovu znanstvenofantastičnog romana američkog književnika Philipa K. Dicka, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (Sanjaju li androidi električne ovce?)^[233], majstora onog distopijskog podžanra znanstvene fantastike koji će tijekom šezdesetih godina prošlog stoljeća snažno restrukturirati imaginarni svijet koji se nalazi u osnovi zapleta filma Ridleyja Scotta, Blade Runner (1982.).^[234]

Svojim romanom pisac je razvio niz serija sugestija i tjeskoba koje je filmska industrija učinkovito prenijela na veliko i malo platno: od filma Total Recall (Potpuni opoziv iz 1990.) Lenija Wisemana do Minority Report (Specijalni izvještaj iz 2002.) Stevena Spielberga, od Paychecka (Isplata iz 2003.) Johna Wooa do A Scanner Darkly (Replikant iz 2006.) Richarda Linklatera, od The Adjustement Bureau (Nemogući susret iz 2011.) u režiji Georgea Nolfija, čija se radnja temelji na kratkoj priči The Adjustement Team, do televizijske serije The Man in the High Castle (Čovjek u visokom dvorcu iz 2015.)^[235], koja prikazuje distopijsku alternativnu povijest.

I ova se serija temelji u kroničnom^[236] (prema istoimenom romanu Philipa K. Dicka (iz 1962.), u   produkciji Ridleya Scotta, koji je ostao vrlo vezan za Dickov simbolički svemir nakon filma iz ranih 1980-ih u kojem su glumili Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer i Sean Young, koji zapravo postaje poznat i kao vizualni manifest postmodernizma.

Uzastopno s urušavanjem barijera između stvarnosti i fikcije (i to uz utjecaj medija), među brojnim strujama koje se isprepliću u dikovskoj naraciji ima i onih o uroti i zavjeri koje su zahvaljujući paranoji i psihičkim tegobama američkog pripovjedača u njegovim su pričama dostigle najveći oblik sublimacije.

Teorije zavjere poklapaju se također s jednom od značajnih struja književnog postmodernizma. Naime, 2000-te su godine prožete svojevrsnom ‘emocionalnom nestabilnošću’ koja ima nečeg patološkog u sebi. Radi se o ‘ozračju’ koji se savršeno slaže sa zavjerom i načinom razmišljanja o zavjerama oživljenim raznim proizvodima mainstream kulturne industrije, a posebice vrlo popularnim TV serijalima: od Mr. Robot do Black Mirror, od 24 do X-Files i Homeland, koje sa svojim podžanrovima nude vrlo uspješne primjere evokacijske moći ‘zavjereničkog sindroma’.

Moglo bi se reći da je Dickova ‘ideologija’ inspirirala svojevrsno ‘pokretanje’ kulturnog ‘uzvišenja’ zavjere kao i njezinu progresivnu integraciju unutar sve učestalijeg mentaliteta. To će se kasnije pretvoriti u kultno usmjerenje koje će u narednih dvadeset godina zbog svojevrsne heterogeneze ciljeva dati vitalnost i dosljednost takozvanoj alt-right desnici, a u antitezi pacifističkih simpatija i slobodarske ljevice uvijek duboko negativno raspoložene prema republikanskoj desnici romanopisca znanstvene fantastike.

Treba reći da panika prema takvom ‘sustavu’ koji sve kontrolira i nesmetano nadzire, i koji je što se tiče kulturnih i medijskih proizvoda preimenovan na raznorazne načine, od orvelovskog Velikog brata do filmskog Matrixa, može itekako dovesti do raznih konspirativnih paranoja.

Distopijska znanstvena fantastika dikovskih obilježja uspjela je književno kodificirati tematiku opsesivne kontrole moći i to u fukoovskom filozofskom smislu, postižući intelektualnu raspravu o društvu nadzora i o transparentnosti, koja se u ime izrazitog postmodernog protuslovlja ponekad poistovjećuje s jednim od opravdanja i intelektualnih temelja prethodne sci-fi.

U suvremenoj kolektivnoj mašti prisutnost jednog neolevijatana koji učinkovito primjenjuje tehnološki nadzor proizlazi i od ‘dugoročnog’ i slojevitog američkog mentaliteta uspostavljenog na ideji da je u nadležnosti slobodnog građanina obraniti vlastitu autonomiju od neprestanog i invazivnog uplitanja države, i to u čudnoj povezanosti između anarhoindividualizma i slobodarstva. Radi se o misaonoj konstrukciji koju je prikupila i prenijela distopijska književnost koje je Dick zasigurno predstavnik par excellence. To je na neki način omogućilo i predviđanje suvremene epohe ‘diktature algoritma’ kao i unutar (bio)politike primjenu sve sofisticiranijih elemenata umjetne inteligencije osposobljene za ‘digitalno praćenje’ građana-birača kao i prediktivnu analizu koja može ne samo identificirati buduća glasačka ponašanja, već pružiti i osnove za praćenje i najosnovnijih ljudskih ponašanja i to sa značajnim stupnjem vjerojatnosti^[237], i koja u formatu dark side verzije, osim temeljnih problema u vezi neuspjeha zaštite privatnosti određenih podataka izravno ulazi u nedopuštene ‘sfere’ kršenja računalne sigurnosti i integralne manipulacije. Odnosno, ‘digitalna psiho-politika’, kako ju filozof njemačko-korejskog porijekla Byung-Chul Han naziva u svojoj knjizi Psicopolitica^[238], odgovorna je za različita iskrivljenja kojima svjedočimo u suvremenim demokratskim društvima, ponajviše za ona proizvedena od strane privatnih subjekta: kao što je to bio slučaj iz vremena George Orwellovog narativa.

Slutnja – još jedan ključni pojam Dickovog opusa – ‘tehnološkog paternalizma’, u određenim kontekstima s popratnom prijetnjom  tehnototalitarizma, jedan je od najznačajnijih oblika distopijske znanstvene fantastike koji tako potvrđuje, naročito ako se ima na umu eksponencijalnu rasprostranjenost kao tematiku i kao subjekt od osamdesetih godina naovamo, i definiciju Michelea Maffesolije o postmodernosti kao ‘sinergiji arhaičnog i tehnološkog razvoja’^[239]. To znači da u doba digitalnog praćenja i orvelovskog društvenog distanciranja distopijske sugestije poprimaju zamaha evokativnom snagom jednog novog, modernog arhetipa.^[240]

Treba međutim istaknuti da u postmodernom kaosu sci-fi distopije postoje različite tendencije, a zasigurno jedna od najznačajnijih je ona o nadolazećem kraju svijeta, apokalipse koju je televizijska serijalnost uspjela ukorijeniti u vizijama publike putem iterativnosti koja identificira jednu od njenih strukturnih osobina^[241], pružajući svojevrsne viralne imaginarije posredstvom njene sposobnosti širenja u transmedijskom i konvergentnom univerzumu postmodernog krajolika masovnih komunikacija i pop kulture. Ona se pak povezuje s podžanrom o kraju vremena, sa ‘zombi apokalipsom’ u vidu neminovnog preokreta civilizacije izazvanog epidemijom koja vodi do desetkovanja populacije i umnožavanja živih mrtvaca. Zombi je jedan od najpolisemičnijih i najpreoblikovanijih proizvoda vizija postpolitičkog imaginarija dvadesetog stoljeća i to prema kreativnim namjerama raznih autora koji ga koriste,^[242] polazeći od antikapitalističkog i antikonzumerističkog filma Georgea A. Romera, Night of the Living Dead (Noć živih mrtvaca, 1968)^[243], da bi došli do osvjedočenja prirodnog stanja hobsovskog tipa u televizijskom serijalu The Walking Dead (Živi mrtvaci, 2010)^[244], među kojima postoji podosta diferenciranih varijacija i deklinacija. Ono što ih ujedinjava je zaraza ali i definicija daljnjeg toposa straha koji je u stvari autentični izvor postmoderne imaginacije koja uvelike djeluje posredstvom apokaliptičnih prikaza.

Zombiji su također predviđanje još jedne tematike koja je iz različite perspektive odraz doba virusa Covid-19. Radi se naime o kategoriji posthumanosti na koju nailazimo u pandemijskom režimu. Zombi politiku je na razini fantastike moguće pripisati i općoj klimi biopolitičkog javnog mnijenja poput ovog u kojem se zbog korona virusom izazvane zdravstvene krize nalaze ljudska bića. Zapravo, tematika živih mrtvaca može se slobodno pripisati kategoriji postljudskosti koja će od epidemijske krize zasigurno dobiti i niz daljnjih redefinicija unutar kulturne rasprave koja bi, na primjer, mogla započeti oko nekih ideal-tipova, tehnoznanstvene derivacije uvedene unutar javnog mnijenja i zajedničkog jezika. Tu se naročito misli na termine poput ‘epidemiološke krivulje’ koja posjeduje sve osobine svojevrsne neometrike diktirajući ublažavanje ili neograničenja dnevnih i gospodarskih aktivnosti; ne zaboravljajući pritom i tematike poput ustavnih prava i slobode koja s obzirom prethodnu krizu, onu gospodarsku iz 2011. godine sliči već uobičajenom izrazu spread koji je specijalističke i tehničke naravi. Prisutan je i asimptomatski nositelj Covid-19, koji bi se iako neodređenog tipa mogao odnositi na značajan postotak populacije, koji se uzdigao do paradigme potencijalnog nesvjesnog nosioca, što je od tih pojmovno neodređenih pojedinaca učinilo temelj nespretne i krajnje upitne (ako ne i zlobne) komunikacijske strategije bezobzirne krivnje kako bi tijekom ograničavajuće i zamorne klauzure održali stabilno raspoloženje sveukupne populacije. Promatran kao osoba koju treba na uzoran način podvrgnuti Foucaultovom paru nadziranja i kažnjavanja, postčovjek nije više samo cyborg cyberpunkovih serijala, već je na neki način i virus, u znaku jednog znatiželjnog i devijantnog procesa subjektivizacije koja u svojoj najradikalnijoj i iracionalnoj verziji prožetoj new age sugestijama poistovjećujuće Covid-19 sa svojevrsnim ‘indikatorom propasti’ kojeg je ranjena planeta ‘Gaia’ poslala svom krvniku u liku punishera, imaginarnog lika stripova i TV serija da bi se napokon ‘osvetila’ zbog nekontroliranog demografskog rasta pučanstva i posljedičnog zagađenja ekosustava.

Sve su to manifestacije i izrazi postmodernizma za kojeg su apokaliptične vizije jedan od temeljnih sastojaka, i koji se u posljednja tri desetljeća razvio i širio posredstvom svog glavnog ideologa filozofa Paula Virilia (1932.-2018.)^[245]. Naime, njegova se misao^[246] bavi pitanjem oko kojeg se u svojim raznim modulacijama vrti cijela postmoderna, to jest tehnološkim razvojem. Radi se o problematici koja za Virilia predstavlja onu crvenu nit koja ga je dovela do analiza o utjecaju brzine u redefiniranju društva i do promišljanja o katastrofama kao znakovima vremena, kao i do kategorije ‘stereostvarnosti’ i vidu proširenja stvarnosti koje proizlazi iz udvostručavanja iskustva između stvarnog i medijalnog. Radi se o razradi tematike prema kojoj je uvijek imao kritični stav što ga je dovelo do izražavanja vrlo zabrinutih sudova o suvremenom razdoblju dromokracije i turbokapitalizma, što neminovno vodi do nestajanja umjetnosti i do epidemije maštarenja, kao i do sve veće muzeifikacije svijeta kao posljedice nestanka stvarnosti. Također, dovodi i do vizija jednog pustog i dematerijaliziranog svijeta u skladu s katastrofizmom što proizlazi iz njegovog teoretiziranja nesreće kao neminovnog ishoda sve ubrzanijeg tehnološkog napretka i neizbježnog neuspjeha bezdušne tehničke racionalnosti.

U stvari, radilo se o posljednjem elementu njegove meditacije koja se kretala prema dolazećim katastrofizmima kao ‘neodisciplini’ koja je nužno proizlazila od dromologije kao znanosti o brzini, manifestaciji par excellence prethodne faze modernosti. Za njega je ‘računalna bomba’ u vidu uporaba Mreže u logici rata dovela do rastuće homologacije i bezizlazne kulturne kolonizacije kao i do novog kibernetskog rata, dok je ‘futurizam trenutka’ posvuda razasut gradskim ekranima ukinuo dubinu vremena i nametnuo društvenu kulturu apsolutne sadašnjosti (neku vrstu negativnog Carpe diem) u vidu post moderne apokalipse.^[247]

Radi se o viziji koja je pronašla plodno tlo u kulturnoj i ekonomskoj raspravi lijevo orijentiranih mislilaca i koja se također nalazi u osnovi takozvane kolapsologije, pravca koji je zahvaljujući svojoj ambiciji da razmotri budućnost nakon kolapsa podosta u skladu s današnjim mračnim vremenima. Za Virilia je katastrofa ona termoindustrijske civilizacije koja je i prema mišljenju intelektualaca koji se bave ovom tematikom već uvelike operativna ^[248]. Stoga, usred zdravstvene krize novog koronavirusa neminovno je upitati se: što još, nakon činjeničnog stanja kojeg preživljavamo na vlastitoj koži, scenaristi i voditelji emisija mogu izmisliti da bi ponovno zadivili javnost, s obzirom na to da je stvarnost koju preživljavamo na kraju nadmašila čak i najneobuzdaniju maštu?

 

Zapadna kulturna civilizacije između pandemije i pandemencije

Upit implicitno vodi i do povezanosti pandemije i pandemencije kao spoja koji uništava suvremena zapadna demokratska društva^[249]: jedna implicira drugu. Budući da je druga nuspojava nepoznatog i opasnog virusa, pojavljuje se kao način tumačenja svojevrstan onima koji - pod utjecajem sve raširenije infodemije koja u mnogočemu upravlja razmišljanjem i djelovanjem nekritičnih suvremenih pojedinca - bezrazložno poriču ili umanjuju opasnost pandemije Covid-19. Oni pak drugi, nepovjerljivi su i užasnuti nevidljivom prijetnjom koju po svaku cijenu pokušavaju objektivizirati u liku zavjere koju su izmislile tajanstvene sile kao alternativnu istinu onoj službenoj, ali nikako jasnu u svom obrazloženju, i koja kao takva služi odvraćanju pozornosti od pravih uzroka koji su toliko evidentni koliko i uznemirujući.^[250]

Ona glasi da prirodni tijek stvari može proizvesti viruse i bolesti koji su sposobni pokositi stanovništvo bez obzira na stupanj industrijalizacije, razvoja i blagostanja jedne civilizacije. I to ne bi bilo prvi put u povijesti - od epidemije kuge petnaestog stoljeća do one iz sedamnaestog stoljeća, pa sve do ‘španjolske kuge’ ali i mnogih drugih zaraza o kojima nema traga u znanstvenim knjigama, što ne znači da nisu uzrokovale mnogo žrtava i u nama bližim vremenima (iako ne na dobrostojećem Zapadu). Pandementi ovog tipa u svom paranoičnom deliriju neprestano niječu uznemirujući nivo stvarnosti kako bi skrenuli pozornost na drugu razinu, koja je više pod nadzorom i kao takva je i utješnija. Naime, radi se o ‘znanstvenoj’ neadekvatnosti mnogih vlada u upravljanju izvanrednim situacijama, što neminovno vodi do razornosti neučinkovitih mjera suzbijanja po ekonomiju i sistem zdravstva.

U tome veliku ulogu imaju i mediji koji su u većini slučajeva pod nadzorom vlada posredstvom dobivenih novčanih potpora, a puni su tendencioznih informacija koje spekuliraju i spektakulariziraju opseg izvanrednog stanja pretjerivanjem brojki, čime generiraju uglavnom nemotiviranu ali isplativu paniku. U tom obliku pandemencije nalazi se također i etički neuspjeh društava koja su već desetljećima upravljana imperativima sebičnog individualizma, uske vizije stvarnosti, ograničena na same sebe poricanjem općeg dobra i nedostatkom odgovornosti zbog odgojno konstruiranog poistovjećenja s društvom, zbog čega su prava popraćena dužnostima i individualni profit općim dobrom, a u protivnom bi došlo do raspada tog društva kao i samog pojma građanstva. Naime, radi se o popratnom fenomenu kojeg je svojevremeno španjolski filozof Ortega y Gasset^[251] nazvao invertebration.^[252] Međutim, ako se dobro razmisli uvidjet će se da pandemija virusa Covid-19 nije prvi uzrok pandemencije jer bi potonja mogla biti na izvoru same pandemije. Stvari bi dakle mogle biti i obrnutog toka.

Ova pandemencija već desetljećima tjera (ne samo) zapadna društva da se bezuvjetno posvete kategoričkom imperativu profita, i to neovisno o saznanju da su troškovi koji su povezani s prihvaćanjem tog kategoričkog imperativa tijesno povezani s ekosustavom iz kojeg čovjek crpi resurse i o kome ovisi, a kojeg je taj imperativ sveo na sredstvo za postizanje ciljeva koji su isključivo ekonomske naravi i povezani sa sve ubrzanijim tehnološkim napretkom. To je vremenom dovelo do toga da su više od tri četvrtine bolesti koje pogađaju ljude zoonoze, tj. one koje prenose životinje, a jedan od sve učestalih faktora širenja zoonoze zasigurno je rastući utjecaj čovjeka na ekosustavee^[253].

Ali i pandemencija generirana primjenom neoliberalnih kategoričkih imperativa se tijekom trideset godina nesmetanog djelovanja preobličila u neselektivno smanjenje državnih doprinosa javnom zdravstvu, socijalnim uslugama kao i svemu što može nekako doprinijeti razvoju kritičkog mišljenja. Tu se naročito misli na obrazovanje, na osposobljavanje i na odgoj. Upravo u ovim posljednjim sferama dolazi do potenciranja začaranog kruga ravnodušnosti koji je potreban širenju bezobzirne potrošnje. Radi se naime o globaliziranom konzumerizmu koji, da bi se eksponencijalno širio potrebuje tuplju populaciju, nesposobnu za bilo kakvu, barem minimalnu kolektivnu odgovornost. Bezobzirno se ide prema konstrukciji jedne populacije prožete (kakvog li besmisla!) toliko hvaljenim ali ispraznim demokratskim vrijednostima. Radi se o ‘formalnoj demokraciji’ iz koje proizlaze ne samo bezglavi građani, već i nesposobni vladari koji nisu u stanju preuzeti odgovornost za svoje i tuđe zdravlje a kamoli za dobrobit vlastite djece. Samo unutar takvog scenarija mogu slobodno vladati one, više ili manje skrivene moći koje su tijesno povezane s tehnofinancijama (kakve li zavjereničke misli!).

Ovdje je moguće primijetiti suštinu viralnog društva u kojem je zamjena postojećih sustava moći i vrijednosti nezamisliva zbog nedostatka političkih i kulturnih subjekata sposobnih misliti vlastitom glavom i posljedično tome, programiranja različitih razvojnih scenarija, alternativnih društvenih struktura nasuprot dominantnom tehnofinancijskom sustavu koji je nesposoban raspetljati klupko trenutnog socioekonomskog i zdravstvenog poremećaja do kojeg je došlo zbog koronavirusa, a za što je društvo samo stvorilo uvjete koji su doveli do eksplozije.^[254]

U takvom kontekstu dominantni sociopolitički sustav ima(o je) dvije alternative: ponovo otvoriti aktivnosti i društveni život, budući da se klauzura pokazala štetna za razvoj ekonomskog sustava, uz istovremeno otvaranje umova za građanski osjećaj i zajedničku odgovornost; ili otvoriti samo ekonomske i društvene aktivnosti, kako ne bi došlo do uništenja gospodarstva, i obuzdati drugu, budući da postoji rizik da se dovede u pitanje monopol tehno-financijske moći. Zato će se i dalje ustrajati u (mentalnom) stanju pandemije i pandemencije, u nadi da će svevladajući znanstvenotehnološki aparat, djelotvoran iako besvjestan u svojoj učinkovitosti sve učiniti, kao što i čini, da se vratimo u ‘normalno stanje’ tupe konzumerističke pandemije i pandemencije.

 

---

 

Literatura:

Bloch, Marc, La guerra e le false notizie. Ricordi (1914-15) e riflessioni (1921), Edizioni Donzelli, Roma 2004.

Campi, Alessandro,  Il virus del cospirazionismo e la ‘false notizie’ di pace. Congiure e complotti all’epoca del Covid-19, u Dopo. Come la pandemia può cambiare la politica, l’economia, la comunicazione e le relazioni internazionali. Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, 2020, str. 177-188.

De Marchi, Luigi, Psicopolitica, SugarCo, Milano 1975.

Dick, Philip.K., Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Doubleday and Company, New York 1968.

Ercolani, Paolo, Pandemia e pandemenza: la coppia che sta distruggendo le società occidentali, https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2020/10/22/pandemia-e-pandemenza-la-coppia-che-sta-distruggendo-le-societa-occidentali/5976315/ (Pristup: 17. 11. 2021)

Ficare, Matteo, Pensare Futuro. Usare il pensiero narrativo: tra mito e immaginazione, https://www.matteoficara.it/pensare-futuro-pensiero-narrativo-mito-immaginazione/ (Pristup: 17.09.2021.)

Han, Byung-Chul, Psicopolitica, Nottetempo, Milano 2016. https://www.academia.edu/42076399/Psicopolitica_Il_neoliberismo_e_le_nuove_tecniche_del_potere_Byung_Chul_Han20200226_32786_1pu408v (Pristup: 17.08.2021.)

Krajcar, Dražen, Radio drama Orsona Wellesa izazvala paniku u SAD-u (1938.), https://povijest.hr/nadanasnjidan/radio-drama-orsona-wellesa-izazvala-paniku-u-sad-u-1938/ (Pristup: 17.09.2021.)

Mouterde, Perrine, Coronavirus: la dégradation de la biodiversité en question, https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2020/04/04/coronavirus-la-degradation-de-la-biodiversite-en-question_6035591_1650684.html (Pristup: 17.09.2021)

Oesterheld; Hector, German, Francisco Solano Lopez, Eternaut, Naklada Fibra, Zagreb 2018.

Ortega y Gasset, José. Hrvatska enciklopedija, mrežno izdanje. Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, 2021 . http://www.enciklopedija.hr/Natuknica.aspx?ID=45603 (Pristup: 17.12.2021.)

Ortoleva, Peppino, Miti a bassa intensità. Racconti, media, vita quotidiana, Einaudi, Torino 2019.

Palano,Damiano, Apocalisse zombie. La metamorfosi della paura nell’immaginario ‘postpolitico’ contemporaneo, «Rivista di Politica», VII, (2/2017), str. 120-138.

Panarari, Massimiliano,  La pandemia e l’immaginario distopico-catastrofista : l’Occidente di fronte alla collassologia u Dopo. Come la pandemia può cambiare la politica, l’economia, la comunicazione e le relazioni internazionali. Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, 2020, str. 59-63.

Pellegrini, Valeriano, Mitologie del presente e dei tempi che verranno, http://www.quadernidaltritempi.eu/peppino-ortoleva-miti-a-bassa-intensita-einaudi/ (Pristup: 17.09.2021.)

Penati, Grasso e C., La nuova fabbrica dei sogni, Il Saggiatore, Milano 2016.

Prenc, Mladen, Nije važno tko već zašto su napisani Protokoli Sionskih mudraca ili Krvave osnove!, https://portal.braniteljski-forum.com/blog/vijesti/nije-vazno-tko-vec-zasto-su-napisani-protokoli-sionskih-mudraca-ili-krvave-osnove (Pristup: 17.09.2021.)

Servigne; Pablo, Stevens, Raphaël, Stevens; Chapelle Gauthier, Un’altra fine del mondo è possibile. Vivere il collasso (e non solo sopravvivere) / Another end of the world is possible. Experiencing collapse (not only hoping to survive), Treccani, Roma 2020.

Susca, Vincenzo,Note sulla postmodernità: intervista a Michel Maffesoli, https://appelloalpopolo.it/?p=16343 (Pristup: 17.08.2021.)

Šantek, Miroslav, Kurioziteti: Noć živih mrtvaca (George A. Romero, 1968), https://www.zgkult.eu/2018/10/30/kurioziteti-noc-zivih-mrtvaca-george-a-romero-1968/ (Pristup: 17.08.2021.)

The Man in the High Castle: Season 1 (2015)https://lookmovie.io/shows/view/1740299-the-man-in-the-high-castle-2015#S4-E2-66373 (Pristup: 17.12.2021.)

Valjetić, Mihailo,  Recenzija: Fear the Walking Dead — Kako su šetači zauzeli televiziju, https://www.serijala.com/izdvojeno/recenzija-fear-the-walking-dead-kako-su-setaci-zauzeli-televiziju/ (Pristup: 17.08.2021.)

Wells, Herbert, George., La guerra dei mondi, Newton Compton Editori, Roma 2018.

 

On the Other Side of Science: the Coronavirus as
a Social Fact and the Problem of Modernity.
(The Impact of the Pandemic on Everyday Life)

 

Abstract

 

The significant impotence of science and the contradictions raised by the Corona-virus as current crisis, which unites and reveals inequalities, suggests a scrutiny of the idea of modernity, with relative considerations regarding the social sciences. In fact, the sociological points of approach to the epidemic are diverse. Such as: breaking - with distancing practices – the rituals that define the order of social interaction; as well as like moral panics co-produced by the media and institutions to jointly accept very large sacrifices in terms of individual cost / benefit ratio; the structure and density of social networks as predictors of the spread of infection. The exposition offers some reflections based on dialectics, on the constant tension between the principles of unity and the division around which the social world is constantly being rearranged. The reason for such an approach is that the logic of social order (nomos) implies that any theme, event, or situation can be understood as a temporary point of balance between cohesive and divisive dynamics.

 

Key words: pandemic, pandementia, lockdown, smart working, communing, modernity, sociological imagination.

 

 

---

11(20)#9 2022

This journal is open access and this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

DOI 10.46640/imr.11.20.9 UDK 177:316.774 Izvorni članak Original scientific paper Primljeno: 9.2.2022.

 

 

Fahira Fejzić-Čengić

Faculty of Political Science, University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

Hybrid News for Hybrid Times

Puni tekst: pdf (386 KB), English, Str. 3383 - 3390

 

Abstract

 

Hybrid genres include infotainment, infomercial, arguetainment, communication stampede, spin, and media spectacle. In altered social circumstances, the usual elements of existence as a society, citizen, and public are transformed into the market, consumerist and commercial. Conventional information education becomes ad hoc commercial education. Instead of genuine media content that seeks a media audience that resonates with it, there is advertising (entertainment) through private media intended for consumers. In a construed reality, media corporation owners are not interested in the citizen, but in profit. The consequences include social spectacularization, the illusion of de-ideologization, celebrity culture, and the fact that we are generally becoming shallow. The pandemic has further intensified these trends, which in the horizons of media philosophy may be primarily considered as a Neronian intensification of fear on a global scale.

 

Key words: genre, ethics of responsibility, truth, interpretation, fear.

 

 

It was already while writing my master’s thesis that I started questioning the possibility of establishing a journalistic episteme as a valid episteme about the world and man. I also wondered whether the mass media could help the emancipation of the world and contribute to the greatest aggregate happiness as John Stuart Mill formulated it. Or whether they could contribute to the ethics of responsibility, which Hans Jonas has referred to as responsibility towards posterity and the future... The media and happiness, the media that make people happy... That kind of naivety can perhaps be forgiven when one is writing one’s master’s thesis and has at least twenty years less life and experience behind one than I have now.

But, after the Scylla and Charybdis that we go through in our doctorates, written books, essays, and analyses, after hundreds and hundreds of books read, and thousands and thousands of kilometres of various roads and travels, such naivety in a researcher can hardly be forgiven. Because, when asked whether the mass media still bring happiness to most people, one should rather answer sceptically that the modern mass media might actually do the opposite, not bringing happiness or even pleasure,^[255] and that they do not care responsibly about the posterity... While criticizing the mass media back then, I was referring to Gadamer’s position as he said: “We must learn to respect the other and the different. We must learn to lose in the game that starts in the early childhood, when we are two years old or maybe even younger... (Gadamer, 1999: 20) And this means that our responsibility in thought and action must be a priority, even if such principles of thought and action might lead us to “lose in the game of life,” and we must incorporate them differently into our concepts or the rules of living, even if we do not like them. Some of them have been completely erased from our modern human civilization and culture, such as the rule that wherever there is light, there is also a shadow.^[256] As both physics and chemistry have proven that energy is not destroyed, but only changes its form, it is useful to recall Goethe’s view that all laws of life and the world seek to come closer to a moral world order, as that will make it easier to achieve harmony as a basis of true peace. “Just as foul-smelling fertilizer is needed to grow a fragrant rose, or as a dazzling lotus grows from the Indian marshland” (Dahlke, 81). It could be also said that everything has its truth, and that problems are solved by overcoming them… It is difficult in a mediatized society, in mediated interpersonal relations, to understand the simple rule of the “world of life”: that what really bothers us must have something to do with our own shadow, our dark side that is like Nero’s dark side, otherwise it would not affect us that much…

In polyvalent times such as ours, ethics is essential. Necessary and desirable. Like air and water, like earth and immunity. In our time, the media are increasingly becoming centres of the “ideology of demagoguery,” accepting modern premeditation as a principle. In addition to deontological professional imperatives, we also need the public role of intellectuals and journalists. That is, journalists as intellectuals who will, as Edward Said has argued, not become centres of dominant discourse, appointed to create silent consents and acceptance, to stifle, make senseless, and break down resistance or challenge whenever false universal values ​​reach them (Said, 2011: 18).

As far as technology is concerned, both total manipulation and total communication are possible on earth. Hermeneutically, both truth and lies become social constructs, a matter of consensus or persuasiveness of interpretation, therefore again a hermeneutical problem. From Nietzsche to the present day, the problem of truth has been the problem of interpretation and in the mass media it is all about information: whether as a professional, encoded message it brings the truth or lies in its cognitive-informative core, i.e. whether these cognitive-informative elements successfully impose their interpretation, which has always been and remains an expression of power. In order to rule easier and more economically, the social constellation of truth must be transformed into a social constellation of lies. (Fejzić, 2004: 65)

 

Spreading fear – ruling the world

In his essay on the “Balance between Aesthetic and Ethical,” speaking of Nero after he burned half of Rome, Kierkegaard wrote: “His glance is so flashing that it alarms, for behind the eyes the soul lies like a gloomy darkness. This is called the imperial look and the whole world quakes before it, and yet his innermost being is anxiety... Only when the world quakes before him does he calm down, for then there is no one who dares to seize him. That is the reason for the anxiety about people that Nero has in common with every such personality. He is as if possessed, inwardly unfree… He, the emperor of Rome, can be afraid of the look of the lowliest slave. He catches such a look; his eyes dispatch the person who dares to look at him that way… He burns up half of Rome, but his agony is the same. After a while, such things do not give him pleasure any more. There is a still greater pleasure; he will make people anxious. He is a riddle to himself, and anxiety is his nature; now he will be a riddle to everybody and rejoice over their anxiety... He does not want to impress; he wants to cause anxiety.” (Kierkegaard, 1987: 186-187)

Today, in a more mature phase of thinking, I am aware of how important it is to spread fear – it means ruling the world. With the health-related news from corporate scientists and the frightening photographs, videos, statements, and dark forebodings, the Neronian editors, managers, producers, and journalists do not want to impress, but rather, as Kierkegaard observed, spread and instil fear and cause panic. Be it fear of infection, viruses, mutations, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Mu, Omicron, fear of breathing, of mechanical respiration, oxygen from machines, fear of dirt, fear of isolated and even more of non-isolated viruses, fear of another person, fear of closeness, contact, touch, of burning half of Rome or half of the Planet, it doesn’t matter, as the fear of the look is perhaps the most horrible. As they approach Nero’s throne and see him smile, ordinary women and men fall dead from fear, and smiling becomes their death sentence. This finally makes Nero happy. And fear makes us obedient and subject to some of our modern Neros.^[257] They smile when the rest of the herd of civilization is terrified… The Emperor of Rome holds in his hand the lives of people terrified to death. Anyone who can help with that is welcome. Especially messengers, especially journalists!

One day, when everything is over, it will be said that we had overdone it a little... and more med treatments will be introduced.

Why modern Neros are always possible, Kierkegaard wonders, and states that there will always be such chances in time. For, according to him, Nero has melancholy as his weakness. For us today, melancholy is a mild trait, not at all dangerous, but Kierkegaard reminds us that it was a mortal sin according to the early church teaching. Melancholy is a trait of a man who has himself to blame for it. For example, an old lustful man longs to satisfy his passions. But when he grows old and his soul matures while his powers wane, his spirit cannot rise and he has no strength, so he reaches for pleasures. Constant pleasures. The spirit tries to break out and rise, but it has no strength and is therefore disillusioned. It is deceived and overwhelmed by rage, which, like Nero’s, grows into that frightening instinct like a gloomy darkness. Thus, melancholy is a condition that cannot be explained. If one asks a melancholic man what is the matter with him and why he is melancholic, he will say: I don’t know, I can’t explain. And there is the infinity of melancholy. Because, as soon as it is disclosed, it is also removed. It disappears. That is why melancholy is a sin “instar omnium.” (Kierkegaard, 1987: 189) And that is why all immediacy is happiness. All directness is happiness. Understanding the world of immediacy is happiness. An immediator cannot understand unhappiness, he can only sense it. If Kierkegaard could have glimpse of our world, if he only knew how much indirectness and mediation is present in this constant online world, in these uninterrupted virtualities and fierce technosphere, how much space, free space for melancholy there is… He would realize exactly how accurately he had located the great sorrow of the soul of the modern world.

Sophocles would say that nothing great enters a man’s life without being damned. Yet we seldom apply and try out this thought, because fear blocks us. People who live well have one small advantage – they have their own lifestyle. And they do not give away their happiness. Which we naively think of while working on our master’s and graduate theses. Therefore, they need good media, those media that will bring a bit of pleasure to every person, every group, and the whole world, every day. Because happiness or pleasure are the things or factors that protect immunity. Turn to yourself, to your inner self, with your own serotonin and dopamine that arise within us and not in the mass media. Not on the global media screen. Happiness is in strengthening our humility against the media proclamation of glamor and vanity. And, of course, of the obligatory progress. If we fast for a day, we will realize how little we need to live, and not as much as the mass media suggest, since the very circumstances of life give us support. Escaping fear and renunciation are hard for us, although they are what makes us happy.

It is wonderful to realize how many “things” we do not really need. And yet we are constantly purchasing and piling them up. Pure thoughts, pure emotions, pure happiness. At the time of the great syphilis epidemic, Nietzsche and Semerlein were the most severely infected among those 90% of them. And they talked about it. The order of nature does not stop, never, not even for a second, in the Heraclitan atmosphere of Panta rei – it brings us back to that flow of happiness as a beautiful flow, a natural flow. “All the ingenuity of the world must devise new pleasures for him, because only in the moment of pleasure does he find rest.” (Kierkegaard, 1987: 186).

 

The crowd is untruth, as Kierkegaard would say

There is an understanding that the truth is where the crowd is. But also that wherever there is untruth, there is a crowd… “Because the crowd is untruth.” (Kierkegaard, 1990: 56) For the crowd weakens the responsibility of the individual and in the crowd truth becomes insignificant for the individual. Because the crowd is abstract and has no hands. “But each individual has ordinarily two hands, and so when an individual lays his two hands upon Caius Marius they are the two hands of the individual, certainly not those of his neighbour, and still less those of the crowd which has no hands.” (Kierkegaard, 1990: 57). That, in turn, means that every individual fleeing for refuge into the crowd contributes his share of cowardice to the already existing cowardice of the crowd… in the mass media audience as a kind of crowd, the infodemia we are constantly mentioning and diagnosing similarly takes away the active hands from an individual, who manages things easier within the crows, while alone he could hardly become or remain self-consistent. And think. And learn. And thus be moral, ethical.

Learning makes us happy. Searching, reading, analysing, synthesizing, connecting, our growth in general. One of the good lessons is learning not to be afraid. Not to fear a priori or a posteriori. But to live. Be happy. Every prick of a needle can weaken our immunity, even school medicine admits that and not just homeopathic and alternative. So the question remains – whom do the media serve more, the sick or the pharmaceutical companies? COVID-19 has again revealed our human helplessness. In a global crowd. And so it has always been. With the syphilis and the plague... If the mass media do not understand this, they might soon lose their stage of action, discrediting and disabling themselves. Hybrid knowledge, as well as hybrid seeds, can last a year or two. Afterwards, one must buy new seeds, but from the same dealer. Namely, seeds cannot be permanently extracted from hybrid seeds as has been the case with every natural seed for thousands of years. The mass media lacks this natural seed, resistant to all changes, resistant to quarrels, manipulations, lies... Of the 100,000 drugs in pharmacy today, only about 2,000 are really necessary. That is how many East Germany had while it existed. The mass media do not deal daily or decently in their feuilletons, educational shows, articles, reports, or travelogues with the risk groups – the obese, diabetics, those with high blood pressure, smokers, alcoholics, or drug addicts – as unhealthy lifestyles. And that needs to be repeated every day. Through very different and beautiful, long forgotten journalistic forms or genres such as reports, travelogues, travel reports, group interviews, field reports, live reports, feuilletons, homages… Instead, the modern mass media often prevent or hinder healing by omitting such content and through the so-called “postings” as a new term and a hybrid genre borrowed from social networks, which no longer needs to correspond to any recognized and real journalistic genre as an actual skill in journalism, which European history of journalism knows in many journalistic types and subtypes.

 

The religious as a phenomenon of spectacle or heart

Here we will focus on Kierkegaard’s fascinating discussion of the religious in us, of the phenomenon of fear and when that fear can be overcome. I am referring to his famous discussion about Ibrahim and Ishak, Abraham and Isaac, a father and a son to be sacrificed by his father – a father who must kill his son. Probably the most terrible existing sacrifice for a human being. Kierkegaard says that Ibrahim or Abraham is greater than all in his helplessness, as this is where love of God means hatred of oneself. He has no lamentations. For he who believes in the impossible achieves it… Ibrahim (Abraham) and Sarah desire a child although they are old, and they get it. Miraculously. Today it is the greatest miracle of existence – to have an idea of ​​God at all times. God sees the hidden and hears one’s tears. He forgets nothing. Faith is the age of truth. Because God is love... “To have loved gives a person’s being a harmony that is never entirely lost” (Kierkegaard, 1987: 176).

In 1981, Dean Koontz (Leigh Nicholas) published his novel The Eyes of Darkness about a disastrous epidemic caused by a lung virus, where school medicine is powerless and the virus is called “Wuhan-400”. Is it a coincidence? Or is there an intention? Premeditation? A part of the potential answer to why the “conspiracy theories” emerge is somewhere here, because they doubt the official truth, the media truth, and because people simply feel that they have been lied to for a long time...^[258]

The religion of our time is science, and growth at all costs, but we do not need growth in this destructive way. Making peace between man and his immunity is very necessary. Less is more. We all got what we deserved. Both sides need to be involved, both the fear spreaders and the fear acceptors. The law of resonance as a general law around us. The mass media cannot frighten those who are not afraid. Young people from the group “Fridays for Future” and “Extinction Rebellion” are already greeting each other by saying “degrow”… We could have learned that from them as well. Because learning makes us happy. So better ever than never.

Kierkegaard teaches us that in the age of technosphere and mediation, immediacy is happiness, because there is no contradiction in immediacy. An immediator is essentially happy. Understanding the world of immediacy is happiness. An immediator cannot understand unhappiness, he can only sense it. (Kierkegaard, 1990: 24). The aesthetical has the motto In vino veritas. He who lives aesthetically cannot think more deeply about himself, as every moment of his life is crumbled into details. It is ethical when you are in yourself and existing, you have your peace, but if you have no duty outside of yourself... A person living religiously has chosen himself in his eternal importance. Only in despair does a person calm down. Finding the absolute is not calm, but despair... whoever believes is eternally young, remains in eternal youth. That is the value of the story of Ibrahim, Abraham, Sarah... because only what is hard delights noble persons. (Kierkegaard, 1990: 53) God is love. The idea of God transforms a man into another man. Life is a repetition, and its struggle is beautiful. And that is why life is beautiful. (Kierkegaard; 1990: 24)

The modern man lives in such a way that he knows no greater measure of life than pragmatic reason, and therefore his whole life is relativity. He works exclusively for relative purposes. With the absolute, it is something else. It means that giving your life for sacrifice is reasonable insanity. And where it seems to us that something has no purpose, that is where the absolute is hiding. And that is a torment for the reason. For God does not think. He creates. God does not exist, he is eternal. Man, on the other hand, thinks and exists, and existence creates a gap between thinking and being (Kierkegaard; 1990: 52). Only what is hard delights noble natures. No generation has learned from another how to love. No generation starts from another point but from the beginning. “No generation has a bigger task than the previous one.” (Kierkegaard, 1990: 53). Our time is reasonable and rational, and it persists in indifference. A passionate time will destroy and overturn everything. A passionless time is cunning – it leaves everything as it was, but cunningly and insidiously nullifies its meaning. A reasonable time suffocates and prevents – it levels everything. Levelling is a quiet, abstract mathematical occupation that does not attract any attention. “If levelling is to happen, then a phantom needs to be created first: his spirit is a huge abstraction, a fata morgana. This phantom is the public. It is only in a dispassionate, but reflective time that this phantom can develop through the press, when the latter itself becomes an abstraction… in such times, the press will take on the character of opinion… the public is a real levelling expert. Because if the levelling is approximate, it is done by someone or something, but the public is a huge nothing. The audience is everything and nothing. It is the most dangerous and most insignificant force… the public is less than a single insignificant real person. (Kierkegaard, 1990: 55) Hybrid genres, same as hybrid seeds, bring hybrid times and hybrid experiences. No content can be lasting, true, good, and ethical if it has no locus in profit. If someone resists it, they do it to their private, personal, or individual hazardous experience and consequences.

 

---

 

References:

F. Fejzić (2004), Nelagode s medijima [Trouble with the media], Promocult, Sarajevo

F. Fejzić Čengić (2006) Nelagode s medijima [Trouble with the media], Globus, Dobra knjiga, Sarajevo

S. Kierkegaard (1987), Either/Or, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

S. Kierkegaard (1990), Brevijar [Breaviary], Moderna, Belgrade

S. Kierkegaard (1936), Filosophical Fragments, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

F. Shuon (1995), The Transfiguration of Man, World Wisdom Books, Bloomington, IN

R. Dahlke (2015), Zakoni sudbine [The laws of destiny], Laguna, Belgrade

R. Dahlke (2012), Bolest kao put [Illness as a path], Belgrade

R. Dahlke (2013), Bolest kao govor duše [Illness as the speech of the soul], Belgrade

 

Hibridne vijesti za hibridno vrijeme

 

Sažetak

 

U hibridne žanrove spadaju infoteitment, infomercial, arguteitment, komunikacijski stampedo, spin i medijski spektakl. U promijenjenim društvenim okolnostima uobičajeni elementi postojanja kao društvo, građanin i javno se preobražava u tržište, potrošača i komercijalno. Uobičajeno informativno obrazovanje se pretvara u ad hoc komercijalno obrazovanje. Umjesto istinskog medijskog sadržaja koji traži medijsku publiku koja rezonira pojavljuje se reklamerstvo (zabava) kroz privatne medije namijenjeno konzumentima. U konstruiranoj stvarnosti vlasnike medijskih korporacija ne zanima građanin već profit. Posljedice su društvena spektakularizacija privid dezideologizacije, celebriti kultura i naše sveopće postajanje plitikima. Pandemija je ove trendove dodatno osnažila koji bi se u obzorjima filozofije medija mogli nazvati neronskim jačanjem straha na globalnom planu, prije svega.

 

Ključne riječi: žanr, etika odgovornosti, istina, interpretacija, strah.

 

 

---

11(20)#10 2022

Časopis je otvorenog pristupa, a ovo djelo je dano na korištenje pod licencom Creative Commons Imenovanje-Nekomercijalno 4.0 međunarodna.

DOI 10.46640/imr.11.20.10 UDK 599.4-049.35:578.1-0.43.83*Covid-19 Izvorni članak Original scientific paper Primljeno: 23.1.2022.

 

 

Suzana Marjanić

Institut za etnologiju i folkoristiku
Zagreb, Hrvatska
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

Šišmiš ili laboratorij – ponovno oživljene rasprave o
porijeklu koronavirusa lipnja 2021. godine

Puni tekst: pdf (927 KB), Hrvatski, Str. 3391 - 3405

 

Sažetak

 

S obzirom na to da je lipnja 2021. ponovno oživljena rasprava o porijeklu koronavirusa, u okviru dobro poznate dihotomije šišmiš ili laboratorij, članak iznosi pregled činjenica koje smo u Hrvatskoj naučili u doba pandemije koronavirusa o tom nažalost demoniziranom i navodnom uzročniku pandemije. Naime, jedan o povoda za oživljavanje rasprave o nerazjašnjenom porijeklu koronavirusa bio je i članak objavljen svibnja 2021. u Wall Street Journalu, temeljen na neobjavljenom izvještaju američkih obavještajaca u kojem se tvrdi da je troje znanstvenika Instituta za virologiju u Wuhanu (WIV) hospitalizirano u studenome 2019., gotovo dva mjeseca prije no što je Kina prijavila novu bolest. Veliku ulogu u pozitivnoj medijskoj slici šišmiša kod nas imala je Udruga za zaštitu šišmiša Tragus koja je upozorila, primjerice, što se tiče Zagreba, i na tzv. dobre strane potresa (iz 2020. godine) s obzirom na to da su ugrožene kolonije šišmiša nakon potresa pronašle utočište u napuklinama brojnih zagrebačkih zgrada (usp. Mazija 2021).

 

Ključne riječi: demonizirani kineski šišmiš, pandemija koronavirusa, specizam.

 

 

„Gripa, kako se ispostavilo, ovisi o našem odnosu prema pticama“
(Foer 2012: 117)

Kako je lipnja 2021. godine ponovno oživljena rasprava o porijeklu koronavirusa, u okviru dobro poznate dihotomije šišmiš ili laboratorij, zamisao je ovoga eseja pregled za ovu prigodu odabranih činjenica koje smo naučili u doba pandemije koronavirusa o tom nažalost demoniziranom i navodnom uzročniku pandemije. Jedan od povoda za oživljavanje rasprave o nerazjašnjenom porijeklu koronavirusa bio je i članak objavljen svibnja 2021. godine u Wall Street Journalu temeljen na neobjavljenom izvještaju američkih obavještajaca u kojemu se tvrdi da je troje znanstvenika Instituta za virologiju u Wuhanu (WIV) hospitalizirano u studenome 2019., dva mjeseca prije no što je Kina prijavila novu bolest (usp. Gordon et al 2021). Pritom, veliku je ulogu u pozitivnoj medijskoj slici šišmiša kod nas imala Udruga za zaštitu šišmiša Tragus koja je upozorila, primjerice, što se tiče Zagreba, i na tzv. dobre strane potresa s obzirom na to da su ugrožene kolonije šišmiša nakon potresa pronašle utočište u napuklinama brojnih zagrebačkih zgrada.^[259] Tako Mirna Mazija iz navedene udruge ističe da su Konvencija o migratornim vrstama (CMS), Sporazum o zaštiti europskih populacija šišmiša (EUROBATS) i Sporazum o zaštiti afričko-euroazijskih migratornih ptica močvarica (AEWA) objavili zajedničku obavijest o šišmišima i bolesti COVID-19 u kojoj pokazuju kako šišmiši ne prenose virus COVID-19 (Mazija, 2020). Autorica, među ostalim, ističe da su brojne vrste šišmiša pod zaštitom CMS-a i EUROBATS-a, a u trenutnom suočavanju čovječanstva s pandemijom virusa COVID-19 potreba za zaštitom i očuvanjem ovih već ugroženih sisavaca još je izraženija.^[260]

U kontekstu naslovne teme nadovezujem se na članak“Kako je to biti šišmiš u doba COVIDA-19? ili koliko pandemije možemo podnijeti?“ koji sam objavila zajedno s kolegom Goranom Đurđevićem (izlaganje smo imali na skupu COVID-19 u humanističkoj perspektivi 2020. godine u Institutu za etnologiju i folkloristiku u Zagrebu). U kontekstu zooaktanta kao navodnoga uzročnika i prijenosnika pandemije istaknuli smo istraživanje Leonarda Schilda i suradnika koji su utvrdili kako COVID-19 potiče porast sinofobije na webu^[261] te da je širenje sinofobnog sadržaja višestruki fenomen na digitalnim društvenim platformama. S jedne strane, postoji na rubnim internetskim zajednicama, npr. na politički nekorektnoj platformi 4chan (Schild et al. 2020: 1). S druge strane, medijima dane izjave visokih dužnosnika poput bivšeg američkog predsjednika Donalda Trumpa o kineskom virusu doprinijeli su razvoju sinofobije (usp. Đurđević, Marjanić 2020, 2021, 2022; Marjanić 2020, 2021). Trump je vrlo rano stvorio javnu paranoju nazivajući ga „kineskim virusom“, „virusom Wuhan“ i „kung gripom“. Navodno je izraz koristio više od 20 puta između 16. i 20. ožujka 2020. godine (prema Peters 2020).

Zapadnoeuropski znanstvenici kineskog porijekla Yunpeng Zhang i Fang Xu napravili su dubinsku analizu novinskih natpisa zapadnih medija koja je pokazala nekoliko trendova poput marginaliziranja, diskreditiranja i nepovjerenja prema kineskim i azijskim istraživačima te reproduciranja orijentalizma, rasizma i seksizma. Osim navedenoga, prema riječima dvojice citiranih znanstvenika, cijela produkcija znanja kroz medijske reprezentacije napravljena je iz perspektive državofobije (engl. Statephobia) i diskreditiranja uspjeha pojedinih azijskih zemalja, a posebice Kine, u rješavanju zdravstvene krize i pandemije (usp. Đurđević, Marjanić 2020, 2021, 2022; Marjanić 2020, 2021).

Michael Adrian Peters, izvršni urednik časopisa Educational Philosophy and Theory, u članku „Žižek o Kini i COVIDU-19: Wuhan, autoritarni kapitalizam i empatijski socijalizam u Novom Zelandu“ upozorava da su u jeku koronakrize naročito Sjedinjene Države, Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo i Australija razvijale orkestriranu kampanju temeljenu na Five Eyes, obavještajnom sustavu za produljenje trgovinskih ratova kao što je to slučaj s nedavnom britanskom zabranom Huawei 5G tehnologije što u konačnici povećava izglede za novi Hladni rat (Peters 2020: 3–4)^[262] Naime, Five Eyes je obavještajni savez koji čine Australija, Kanada, Novi Zeland, Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo i Sjedinjene Države. Dakle, u jeku koronakrize srpnja 2020. godine Velika Britanija odlučila je da se Huawei 5G tehnologija do 2027. godine mora ukloniti iz Velike Britanije. Odnosno, davateljima mobilnih usluga u Velikoj Britaniji zabranjena je kupnja nove Huawei 5G opreme od 31. prosinca 2020. Slijede sankcije koje je uveo Washington, s obzirom na tvrdnju da tvrtka predstavlja prijetnju nacionalnoj sigurnosti. Zamjetno je da 5G mreža uvedena 2020. i 2021. u jeku koronakrize, pa tako i u Hrvatskoj.^[263]

 

Negacija demonizacije šišmiša

Nakon uvodnoga podsjećanja na oživljene rasprave o dihotomiji šišmiš ili laboratorij navodim što sam osobno naučila o toj demoniziranoj životinji koji je pao gotovo kao žrtva u posljednjoj pandemiji. Na poziv kolega napisala sam članak kraćega formata „O fiktivnim i ugroženim šišmišima, navodnom uzročniku i prijenosniku koronavirusa iz Wuhana ili kako je to biti šišmiš u doba bolesti COVID-19“ (Marjanić, u: Đurđević, Marjanić 2020). Na temelju navedenoga naslovnoga pitanja napravila sam interpretativnu poveznicu s člankom iz 1974. godine američkoga filozofa Thomasa Nagela u kojemu se u kontekstu meditacije o nemogućnosti objektivnoga razumijevanja subjektivnoga iskustva zapitao kako je to biti šišmiš te smatra da nas neuroznanost nikada neće dovesti bliže razumijevanju navedenoga iskustva, šišmišje fenomenologije. Nagelov utjecajni članak „Kako je to biti šišmiš” [What is It Like to Be a Bat] (1974) pogađa u suštinu problema, a to je pitanje svijesti (qualia), ili njegovim retoričkim pitanjem: „Ja želim znati kako je šišmišu biti šišmiš. Ako ipak pokušam to zamisliti, ograničen sam sredstvima vlastitog uma, ona toj zadaći ne odgovaraju“ (Nagel, prema Coetzee 2004: 37, usp. Laird 2018: 144–145).

Wendy Doniger navodi da je davno prije Nagela bila upotrijebljena metafora s konjem (riječ je o dobro poznatoj Ksenofanovoj kritici religije) kako bi se izrazili problemi što ih imamo sa zamišljanjem životinjskog uma. U razgovoru sa svojim kolegom Maxom Gluckmanom, antropolog Radcliffe-Brown je, za način kojim je Frazer oblikovao Zlatnu granu, izmislio krilaticu „argumentacija u stilu da sam ja konj“, „prema priči o farmeru sa Srednjeg Zapada čiji je konj odlutao s ograđenog pašnjaka. Farmer je stao na pašnjak, žvaknuo malo trave i mozgao: ‘E sad, da sam ja konj, kojim bih putem otišao?“ (Doniger, prema Coetzee 2004: 115).^[264]

Nagel, naime, uzima kao primjer šišmiša zbog toga što, kako navodi „ako biće zauzima mjesto prenisko u filogenetskom sustavu, ljudi sve manje vjeruju u prisutnost iskustva u njemu“ (prema Coetzee 2004: 37), te je njihov osjetilni aparat daleko drugačiji od našeg. Naime, koliko god istraživali, čak i imajući sve informacije o arhitekturi šišmiševa moždanog sklopa, ne možemo znati kakvo je njegovo iskustvo u doba pandemije.

Pritom Merlin D. Tuttle, znanstvenik i osnivač međunarodne nevladine organizacije Bat Conservation International, voditelj neprofitne organizacije Merlin Tuttle’s Bat Conservation, u članku „Give Bats a Break“ iz 2017. godine ističe da traganje za novim virusima kod šišmiša vjerojatno neće značajno pridonijeti ljudskom zdravlju, no može ozbiljno ugroziti budućnost šišmiša. Sažimam navedeni članak: ideja da šišmiši mogu biti odgovorni za prijenos nove smrtonosne infekcije na ljude započela je 2002./2003. godine s otkrićem novoga koronavirusa koji je uzrokovao SARS, usmrtivši oko 800 osoba (Wikipedia navodi 775 osoba).^[265] Tri godine kasnije, članak u časopisu Science pod naslovom „Šišmiši su prirodni rezervoari koronavirusa sličnih SARS-u“ (Li, Shi, Yu, 2005: 676–679) najavio je znanstveni linč na šišmiše, s obzirom na to da se znanstveno proklamiralo da su šišmiši globalna prijetnja javnom zdravstvu. Od tada su takozvani lovci na viruse intenzivno tragali za opasnim virusima šišmiša. Autor, u kontekstu navedene demonizacije šišmiša, postavlja ključnu tezu da bismo se trebali početi brinuti što činimo šišmišima u ime znanosti i javnog zdravstva. Merlin D. Tuttle, nadalje, iz ekocentrične vizure ističe kako je nemoguće da su šišmiši utjecali na pojavu zaraze, s obzirom na to da smo tijekom većeg dijela ljudske povijesti zajedno sa šišmišima živjeli u spiljama, zatim u slamnatim kolibama i brvnarama, no posljednjih stotinu godina trend je postao obrnut. Populacija šišmiša se uslijed industrijalizacije smanjila, a suvremeni ljudi počeli su živjeti u zgradama koje isključuju šišmiše iz habitata. S obzirom na našu dugu povijest bliskih veza, razumljivo je da smo razvili otpornost jedni prema drugima u odnosu na bolesti. Možda to objašnjava zašto je bilo tako teško dokumentirati šišmiše kao izvore smrtonosnih bolesti kod ljudi i zbog čega je potrebno poništiti demonizaciju šišmiša (Tuttle 2017: 44). U tome smislu navedeni zoocentrički članak Merlina D. Tuttlea može se uzeti kao primjer iznimnoga odgovora na Nagelovo filozofijsko i retoričko pitanje iz perspektive njegova članka. Upućujem i na kampanju za zaštitu šišmiša u doba pandemije COVID-19 #DontBlameBats s namjerom suzbijanja neutemeljenih strahova od šišmiša kao izvora novog koronavirusa.^[266]

Zamjetno je da „infektivna” priča čini se ne donosi i dubinskoekološku priču o tome kako je navodno kineski šišmiš u metonimijskoj kineskoj juhi postao uzročnik i prijenosnik koronavirusa iz Wuhana. Dubinskoekološka priča slična je scenariju filma Zaraza Stevena Soderbergha iz 2011. godine, koji prati smrtonosan virus koji u svega nekoliko tjedana izaziva globalnu pandemiju. Posljednja sekvenca filma razotkriva uzročnika i prijenosnika zaraze – sustavna deforestacija u okviru čega demonizirani kineski šišmiš iz divljine zarazu prenosi na gospodarstvo, uzgoj svinja, kojim se poslužio jedan lanac hotela. Dakle, na samom vrhu te apokaliptične, pandemijske, distopijske priče stoji deforestacija uslijed čega je demonizirani šišmiš došao u kontakt s gospodarstvom za uzgoj svinja. U kontekstu tog fiktivnoga virusa iz filma Stevena Soderbergha, koji je znatno opasniji i nema povezanosti s virusom COVID-19, ističem Wilsonov koncept jedinstvo znanja, koji je potreban u komparativnoj analizi priča glavnih medija i tzv. kiničkih teorija zavjera, koje podrivaju cinizam moći na vlasti, u Sloterdijkovu određenju i u određenju politologa, teoretičara teorija zavjera Nebojše Blanuše, o tome kako humani ulazak u prašume, deforestacija, kao što je dokumentirao Soderberghov film, donosi i nove pandemije. Kao što demonstrira grafikon World Wildlife Funda, prvi korak u izazivanju pandemije sustavna je deforestacija, zatim trgovanje divljim životinjama, nadalje mokre tržnice^[267] gdje nastaje kontakt različitih vrsta. Bilo bi to sažeto putovanje pandemije o kojemu se toliko u glavnim medijima i ne govori jer je riječ o ekocentričnoj, biocentričnoj priči koja ide protiv globalnoga specizma neoliberalne ekonomije.

Udruga Prijatelji životinja u Hrvatskoj 14. travnja 2020. na svom je portalu objavila sljedeću vijest^[268] o grupi NOVID-50, koja je započela s timom od 20 ljudi koji su pokušali iznijeti rješenje za krizu COVID-19 na Global Hacku – online događaju na kojem timovi širom svijeta pronalaze radna rješenja kroz 48 sati. NOVID-50 bavi se uzrokom pandemija uzrokovanim bolestima koje prenose životinje, no s naglaskom na intenzivnom iskorištavanju životinja (npr. Charles Patterson navedenu industrijsku strategiju određuje industrijskim holokaustom). Pozivaju Ujedinjene narode da naprave strategiju okončanja rada industrijskih farmi životinja, tržnica sa živim životinjama kao i cjelokupno iskorištavanje životinja. Sažeto, navedena je platforma istaknula dubinskoekološki uzročnik pandemija, među kojima je svakako i prehrana životinjama, ili kao što bi Melanie Joy rekla – ideologija karnizma.

 

 

 

 

Izložbeni šišmiši u Zagrebu

Zadržimo se na dvjema izložbama o šišmišima koje su 2019. i 2020. godine bile priređene u Zagrebu. Izložba Tehnologije u biologiji: Šišmiši (Zagreb, Tehnički muzej Nikola Tesla, 2019)^[271] predstavila jetehnologije koje otkrivaju do tada nepoznata iskustva šišmiša, gotovo u smislu Nagelova članka Kako je to biti šišmiš. Izložba je rezultat dvogodišnjeg istraživanja šišmiša na otoku Lokrumu kod Dubrovnika (Javna ustanova Rezervat Lokrum)^[272] s posebnim osvrtom na dvije vrste šišmiša – Plecotus kolombatovici i Rhinolophus hipposideros. Pritom su izložbom bili povezani svijet šišmiša i tehnologija (detektor za šišmiše, telemetrija) koje se koriste za njihovo istraživanje s pojedinim predmetima (npr. reprodukcije da Vincijevih crteža razrade ideje kojom je proučavajući krila i let šišmiša osmislio napravu za let čovjeka; maketa druge, kasnije inačice aviona Slavoljuba Penkale – TMNT 1852; mala talijanska podmornica CB–20, proizvedena 1943. godine u Milanu u Italiji – TMNT 332) iz stalnog postava Tehničkog muzeja Nikola Tesla u Zagrebu.^[273] Izložba je poseban naglasak stavila na eholokaciju, kao što je to učinio i Nagel svojim člankom koji iz filozofijske niše postavlja pitanje „kako je to biti šišmiš“. Kao što navode autori/ice izložbe, eholokacija omogućuje šišmišima da se orijentiraju u prostoru uz pomoć povratnih odjeka njihovih poziva. Uređaj koji omogućuje potvrdu prisutnosti šišmiša pretvaranjem njihovih zvukova, tj. eholokacija, u zvuk koji čovjek može čuti, naziva se ultrazvučni detektor ili detektor šišmiša.^[274] U tome smislu možemo reći da je detektor za šišmišeomogućio djelomičan odgovor na Nagelovo pitanje “kako je to biti šišmiš”. Drugo istraživanje telemetrijom odvijalo se tako da su se tijekom istraživanja na pojedine jedinke šišmiša pričvrstili vrlo mali radio-odašiljač koji šišmiši odbacuju za desetak dana. U tom razdoblju, istraživači opremljeni radio-prijemnicima i usmjerenim antenama mogu pratiti šišmiše i odrediti njihov položaj u prirodi. Prikupljeni se podaci obrađuju te se izrađuju karte njihovog kretanja, kao što je pokazala i karta izložena na izložbi. Izložba je jednako tako pokazala, kao što sam već spomenula, na koji su način let šišmiša koristili neki znanstvenici u svojim istraživanjima. Tako je Leonardo da Vinci, proučavanjem leta i krila šišmiša, prvi razrađivao zakone letenja. Reprodukcije da Vincijevih crteža razrade te ideje u stalnom su postavu Odjela Prometna sredstva Tehničkog muzeja Nikola Tesla.^[275] Jednako tako proučavanje šišmiša i njihovog snalaženja u prostoru pomoću eholokacije pridonijelo je razvoju radara i sonara. Kao što šišmiši proizvode zvuk koji se širi kao val, tako i ti uređaji, kako smo mogli pročitati na legendama izložbe, odašilju i primaju povratne valove na temelju kojih mogu izračunati udaljenost ili brzinu nekih objekata, kao što su podmornice, zrakoplovi i slično. Poznato je da je osmišljavanju radara pridonio i Nikola Tesla.

Sljedeća zagrebačka izložba na kojoj su zoo-aktanti bili šišmiši bila je izložba Otvoreno – Živa bića i njihove opasne veze/ Open – Living Beings and Their Dangerous Laisons, izložba radova produciranih u sklopu europske mreže EMAP – European Media Art Platform koja okuplja europske organizacije i institucije posvećene novomedijskoj umjetnosti, postavljene u okviru Touch Me festivala (Tehnički muzej Nikola Tesla, Zagreb, kustoski tim KONTEJNER; Tereza Teklić i Olga Majcen Linn).^[276] Na navedenoj su izložbi Daniela Mitterberger i Tiziano Derme (MAEID Büro für Architektur und transmediale Kunst) predstavili svoj rad Oko Drugoga III „O cvijeću“ – Međuvrsna komunikacija između čovjeka i šišmiša (imerzivno audio-vizualno sučelje, multimodalna skulptura, 2019.–2020). Kako umjetnici ističu, The Eye of the Other „je projekt koji istražuje neverbalnu komunikaciju između ljudi i šišmiša, kroz proučavanje i prevođenje senzornih sustava šišmiša. Rad prevodi percepcijski svijet nektarskih šišmiša u perceptivne obrasce koje čovjek može razumjeti – od eholokacije do naših osjetila kao što su sluh, vid i dodir.” Naime, šišmiši koji se hrane nektarom pronalaze cvijeće sortiranjem okoliša pomoću vizualnih i sonarnih informacija. Oni mogu raspoznati geometriju pojedinog cvijeta proizvodeći takozvane eho-otiske (usp. Touch Me Festival 2020: 131).^[277] Projekt Oko Drugoga III „O cvijeću“ prevodi te otiske u čujne frekvencije i vizualne, osjetilne uzorke razumljive ljudskim čulima, ukratko, šišmišje iskustvo prevode u ljudsko. Pritom se umjetnici-znanstvenici pozivaju na teorijske koncepte  Derridainačlanka Životinja koja, dakle, jesam (više slijedi) (1997, 2002) Giorgia Agambena Otvoreno: Čovjek i životinja (2004), Brune Latoura i naravno na Nagelovo filozofijsko promišljanje „kako je to biti šišmiš“. Navodim njihov umjetničko-znanstveni opis susreta sa svijetom tih letećih sisavaca: „Unutar ovog prostora gubimo svoju individualnost, ne ubrajamo se u vrstu, već kao agense postavljene u rezonanciju unutar okoliša. Možda su ove vrste iskustava izravan poziv da se preispita naš položaj kao vrste među mnogima na zemlji, što bi Latour definirao kao ‘zemaljce’ ili one pri/vezane za zemlju” (Derme & Mitterberger 2020). Za instalaciju su izradili 3D printano umjetno cvijeće. Također su koristili sintetički pelud za punjenje cvijeća kao hranu za šišmiše.^[278]

I dok je prva ovdje navedena izložba znanstveno dokumentirala eholokaciju, spomenuti znanstveno-umjetnički rad o međuvrsnoj komunikaciji eholokaciju je prenio u vizualni, čujni i taktilni segment svojstvenu ljudskoj komunikaciji i pritom je segmentirao istraživanje na samo jednu vrstu šišmiša – na šišmiše koji se hrane nektarom koji imaju jedinstveni sustav senzorne kompenzacije koji im omogućuje da traže hranu u napučenim habitatu kao što su prašume. Pritom umjetnici su istaknuli ulogu navedenoga umjetničko-znanstvenoga projekta u kontekstu biosonarne tehnologije koja je prisutna u prirodi samo kod dvije grupe životinja – šišmiša i moljaca koji koriste zračni biosonar dok su kitovi i dupini orijentirani na podvodni biosonar. Pored matrice biosonarne tehnologije navedeni umjetnici-znanstvenici ističu i ulogu senzorne ekologije (engl. sensory ecology) (Derme & Mitterberger 2020), koji proučavaju kako organizmi stječu i reagiraju na informacije o svom okolišu i kao primjer ističu senzorni sustav eholokacije šišmiša.

Marina Gržinić u knjizi Estetika kibersvijeta i učinci derealizacije u poglavlju o umjetnom životu i terminalnom pozicioniranju napominje da je u 18. stoljeću vrhunac mehaničke simulacije predstavljala Vaucansonova mehanička patka “koja je pila, jela, kvakala… i probavljala hranu kao živa patka”. Navedena produkcija umjetnoga života čini uvod u autoričino promišljanje o umjetničkim strategijama genetskoga inženjeringa u sklopu kojih Oron Catts, Ionat Zurr i Guy Ben-Ary (The Tissue Culture & Art Project) uzgajaju žive vlaknaste mikroorganizme kao žive skulpture, i pritom autorica odašilje bioetički upit-sumnju: “No, moramo se pitati što će se desiti sa živom skulpturom kad joj opadne vrijednost na tržištu umjetnina.” Iako su prvenstveno znanstvenici, medijski umjetnici i arhitekti Daniela Mitterberger i Tiziano Derme na svojoj internetskoj stranici ističu o sebi i umjetničku matricu vlastitih istraživanja – suosnivači su i direktori MAEID / Büro für Architektur und Trasmediale Kunst, interdisciplinarnog studija za dizajn za kritičko lociranje novih tehnologija unutar novih spojeva čovjeka-životinje-stroja.

Instalacija Oko Drugoga III „O cvijeću“ – Međuvrsna komunikacija između čovjeka i šišmiša koristi ponašanje šišmiša i njihovu eholokaciju na tehnologije poput samovozećih automobila. Proučavanje njihovog biosonarnog sustava trenutno čini ključni napredak za tehnologije koje se primjenjuju na radarske i računalne uređaje za vid. Te aplikacije koriste sonar kako bi olakšale i interpretirale prikaz trodimenzionalne geometrije u izlaznom signalu (kompjutorski vid). Samovozeći automobili trenutno koriste sonarnu tehnologiju za upravljanje vozilima u slučaju detekcije magle i slabe vidljivosti (Derme & Mitterberger 2020).

Završno navodim i niz malih popularno-znanstvenih izložbi, namijenjenih najmlađima, koji se održavaju u pojedinim gradovima Hrvatske u povodu obilježavanja Međunarodne noći šišmiša. Tako je Osijek Devetu noć šišmiša (29.–30. kolovoza) 2020. godine obilježio u Zoo vrtu^[279] pod programskim geslom „Šišmiši nisu krivi za koronu, ali bi Osijek mogli riješiti komaraca“, i to u znaku poništavanja demonizacije šišmiša, koja je 2020. godine kulminirala zbog navodne povezanosti demoniziranoga kineskoga šišmiša i pandemije.

 

 

 

Zaključno o demoniziranom kineskom šišmišu

Zaključno, što danas znamo^[280] o navodnom pandemijskom šišmišu čija je demonizacija započela izbijanjem SARS-a 2002/2003. godine, nastavljena izbijanjem MERS-a 2012. godine, a kulminirala znanstvenim člankom objavljenom 2015. godine u časopisu Science pod naslovom „Šišmiši su prirodni rezervoari koronavirusa sličnih SARS-u“ (Li, Shi, Yu, 2005: 676–679) koji je otvorio znanstveni linč na šišmiše (Tuttle 2017: 44)? Sigurno je da pitanje porijekla virusa p/ostaje politizirano, kao i pitanje cjepiva, a neki kineski diplomati i državni mediji podupiru teorije po kojima virus potencijalno potječe iz neke druge zemlje, kao što je globalno medijski virus gurnut na tržnicu u Wuhanu za koju se pak u prvim danima pandemije isticalo da i nije inicijalno mjesto širenja virusa. U lokalnom kontekstu Tea Sumić Miletić u članku objavljenom 27. ožujka 2020. u Slobodnoj Dalmaciji, sumira pandemijsku situaciju iz ekokritičke perspektive, i to svega nekoliko dana nakon proglašenja pandemije i kod nas: Njezinim riječima: „Šume su se nastavile krčiti. Ako mislite da ih krče siromašni kineski seljaci gladni mesa egzotičnih životinja, promislite malo bolje. Odgovor se, kao i obično, krije u profitu“ (Sumić Miletić 2020).

Stoga zaključno s obzirom na naslovnu dihotomiju na sve medijske infekcije šišmiš kao da je postao zoometafora ili zoometonimija Huwaeia.

 

---

 

Literatura:

Coetzee, J . M. 2004. Život životinjâ. Zagreb: AGM.

Cohen, Jon. 2020. „Wuhan Seafood Market May Not Be Source of Novel Virus Spreading Globally”. Science. Dostupno na: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally (pristup 10. 2. 2021.).

Cohen, Jon. 2020a. „Wuhan Coronavirus Hunter Shi Zhengli Speaks Out“. Science, Dostupno na: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6503/487 (pristup 27. 2. 2021.).

Derme. Tiziano & Daniela Mitterberger © MAEID. 2020. „The Bat That Therefore I am – Exploring The Eye of the Other“. Interviewed by Rob La Frenais. https://www.makery.info/en/2020/11/18/la-chauve-souris-que-donc-je-suis-the-eye-of-the-other-de-daniela-mitterberger-tiziano-derme/ pristup 27. 2. 2021.).

Đurđević, Goran i Suzana Marjanić. 2020. „Šišmiš. 1. Šišmiš u popularnoj kulturi i mitologiji prije COVID-a. 2. O fiktivnim i ugroženim šišmišima, navodnom uzročniku i prijenosniku koronavirusa iz Wuhana ili kako je to biti šišmiš u doba bolesti COVID-19“. U: Politički leksikon: pandemije (ur. Zlatko Bukač, Biljana Kašić, Jelena Kupsjak, Atila Lukić i Gordan Maslov). Dostupno na: https://www.politicki-leksikon.com/sismis-demonizirani-kineski-sismis/ (pristup 27. 2. 2021.).

Đurđević, Goran i Suzana Marjanić. 2021. „What is It Like To Be a Bat in the Time of Covid-19, or How Many Pandemics Could We Have“. Studia Mythologica Slavica 24: 24–60.

Đurđević, Goran i Suzana Marjanić. 2022. „Dubinskoekološka priča o demoniziranom kineskom šišmišu ili kako je to biti šišmiš u doba pandemije bolesti COVID-19“. U: COVID-19 u humanističkoj perspektivi. ur.Ivana Katarinčić, Jelena Marković, Ines Prica, Ana-Marija Vukušić. Zagreb: Institut za etnologiju i folkloristiku, str. 285–300.

Gordon, Michael R., Warren P. Strobel and Drew Hinshaw. 2021. „Intelligence on Sick Staff at Wuhan Lab Fuels Debate on Covid-19 Origin“. The Wall Street Journal, 23. svibnja 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/intelligence-on-sick-staff-at-wuhan-lab-fuels-debate-on-covid-19-origin-11621796228 (pristup 27. 2. 2022.).

Gržinić, Marina. 2005. Estetika kibersvijeta i učinci derealizacije. Zagreb, Sarajevo: Multimedijalni institut, Košnica.

Ivanišin-Kardum, Katarina, Crnčević, Marija, Hamidović, Daniela, Henry Schofield and the Vincent Wildlife Trust, Rnjak, Dina, 2019. Tehnologije u biologiji: Šišmiši. Technologies in Biology: Bats. Zagreb: Tehnički muzej Nikola Tesla.

Laird, Betta. 2018. Bat. Islington, London: Reaktion Books.

Li, Wendong; Zhengli Shi i Meng Yu. 2005. “Bats Are Natural Reservoirs of SARS-Like Coronaviruses“. Science 310/5748: 676–679.

Marguš, Drago. 2010. Šišmiši Nacionalnog parka „Krka“. Šibenik: Javna ustanova Nacionalni park Krka. Mazija, Mirna. 2020. „Šišmiši ne prenose virus COVID-19“. https://mingor.gov.hr/vijesti/sismisi-ne-prenose-virus-covid-19/5838

Marjanić, Suzana. 2020. „O fiktivnim i ugroženim šišmišima, navodnom uzročniku i prijenosniku koronavirusa iz Wuhana ili kako je to biti šišmiš u doba bolesti COVID-19“. U: Politički leksikon: pandemije (ur. Zlatko Bukač, Biljana Kašić, Jelena Kupsjak, Atila Lukić i Gordan Maslov). Dostupno na: https://www.politicki-leksikon.com/sismis-demonizirani-kineski-sismis/ (pristup 27. 2. 2021.).

Marjanić, Suzana. 2021. „Of fictitious and endangered bats, alleged catalysts and carriers of the coronavirus from Wuhan, or, what is it like to be a bat during the COVID-19 pandemic?“. U: Đurđević, Goran i Suzana Marjanić. „What is It Like To Be a Bat in the Time of Covid-19, or How Many Pandemics Could We Have “. Studia Mythologica Slavica 24: 24–60.

Nagel, Thomas. 1974. ‘’ What Is It Like to Be a Bat?’’ The Philosophical Review 83/4: 435–450.

O’Neill, Marnie, 2020. „Chinese influencer Wang Mengyun, aka ‘Bat soup girl’ breaks silence“. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/food-warnings/chinese-influencer-wang-mengyun-aka-bat-soup-girl-breaks-silence/news-story/63ef0cec5b6d448d1843e2e1bcadb14d (pristup 27. 2. 2021.).

Peters, Michael A. 2020. “Žižek on China and COVID-19: Wuhan, authoritarian capitalism, and empathetic socialism in NZE“. Educational Philosophy and Theory https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/00131857.2020.1801122?needAccess=true (pristup 27. 2. 2021.).

Schild, Leonard, Chen Ling, Jeremy Blackburn, Gianluca Stringhini, Yang Zhang, Savvas Zannettou, 2020. “Go eat a bat, Chang!”: An Early Look on the Emergence of Sinophobic Behavior on Web Communities in the Face of COVID-19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340523411_Go_eat_a_bat_Chang_An_Early_Look_on_the_Emergence_of_Sinophobic_Behavior_on_Web_Communities_in_the_Face_of_COVID-19 (pristup 27. 2. 2021.).

Sumić Miletić, Tea. „Ako smo koronavirus dobili od šišmiša, stanje bi uskoro moglo biti puno gore. Uništavanjem šuma životinje stižu među ljude, a s njima i virusi”. Slobodna Dalmacija, 27. 3. 2020. Dostupno na: https://slobodnadalmacija.hr/vijesti/svijet/ako-smo-koronavirus-dobili-od-sismisa-stanje-bi-uskoro-moglo-biti-puno-gore-unistavanjem-suma-zivotinje-stizu-medu-ljude-a-s-njima-i-virusi-1012250 (pristup 13. 2. 2021.).

Touch Me Festival. European Media Art Platform. ur. Luja Šimunović, Jurica Mlinarec. Zagreb: Kontejner, biro suvremene umjentičke prakse.

Tuttle, Merlin D., 2017. „Give Bats a Break“. Issues in Science and Technology 33/3, 41–50.

Zaradija Kiš, Antonija. 2021. „Šišmiš: od pučkih predaja i predodžbe bluda do COVID-a.“ Narodna umjetnost: hrvatski časopis za etnologiju i folkloristiku 58 (1): 147–163.

 

Bat or Laboratory – revived debates
on the Origin of the Coronavirus in June 2021

 

Abstract

 

As the debate on the origin of the coronavirus was revived in June 2021, within the well-known dichotomy bat or laboratory, the article provides an overview of the facts we learned in Croatia during the coronavirus pandemic about this unfortunately demonized and alleged cause of the pandemic. One of the reasons for reviving the debate on the unexplained origin of the coronavirus was an article published in May 2021 in the Wall Street Journal based on an unpublished report by US intelligence claiming that three scientists from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) were hospitalized in November 2019 year, almost two months before China reported a new disease. A large impact in the positive media image of bats in Croatia was carried out by the Association for Bat Conservation Tragus, which warned, for example, regarding Zagreb and the so-called good sides of the earthquake (in 2020) since the endangered bat colonies found refuge in the cracks of many Zagreb buildings after the earthquake (cf. Mazija 2021).

 

Key words: demonised Chinese bats, the coronavirus pandemic, speciesism.

 

 

---

II PRIKAZI KNJIGE

11(20)#11 2022

Časopis je otvorenog pristupa, a ovo djelo je dano na korištenje pod licencom Creative Commons Imenovanje-Nekomercijalno 4.0 međunarodna.

 

 

Lucija Dujmović

Alma Mater Europaea

Recenzija knjige
Naslov knjige: Online novinarstvo:
služenje javnosti ili podilaženje publici
Autor: Siniša Kovačić

Puni tekst: pdf (186 KB), Hrvatski, Str. 3407 - 3410

 

 

Izdavač : Hrvatska sveučilišna naklada - Sveučilište u Mostaru, Zagreb 2021., 256 str.

(ISBN 978-953-169-474-2)

Dr. sc. Siniša Kovačić, autor znanstvene knjige „Online novinarstvo: služenje javnosti ili podilaženje publici“ poznat je otprije javnosti kao novinar, urednik, komentator, reporter i koordinator s Hrvatske radiotelevizije. Nakon HRT-a, svoju karijeru je nastavio na Hrvatskoj katoličkoj mreži, gdje danas radi kao glavni urednik. Ova knjiga je njegov književni prvijenac, ali u znanstvenim krugovima je poznati suautor znanstvenih radova na temu medija i online medija, manipulacije u medijima, kriznom komuniciranju i odnosima s javnošću. Uz to, sudjelovao je i na više međunarodnih i znanstvenih konferencija, te svoje znanje i stečeno iskustvo dijeli studentima na medijskim kolegijima kao aktivni predavač na Poslovnom veleučilištu Zagreb i Visokom učilištu za komunikacijski management Edward Bernays.

Znanstvena knjiga „Online novinarstvo: služenje javnosti ili podilaženje publici“ novo je, tvrdo tiskano djelo na hrvatskome jeziku koje je javnosti predstavljeno u studenom 2021. godine u sklopu online „Međunarodne konferencije PR & Media Days Mostariensis“ održanoj u Mostaru. To je djelo koje je sinergijski povezalo njegovo profesionalno znanje i dva provedena znanstvena istraživanja koje je autor predstavio i obranio u svojoj doktorskoj disertaciji na temu: „Razvoj novinarstva na mrežnim elektroničkim publikacijama – služenje javnosti ili podilaženje ukusu publike (Utjecaj informatičkih tehnologija na interakciju s korisnicima društvenih mreža u Republici Hrvatskoj)“. Knjiga nema prethodnih online recenzija, ali su kratki recenzijski osvrt na nju napravili red. prof. dr. sc. Zoran Tomić i njegov mentor izv. prof. dr. sc. Ilija Musa, čiji se osvrti nalaze na zadnjoj korici knjige. Objavu Kovačićeve knjige popratili su i neki online portali u Republici Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini, poput: vecernji.hr, tportal.hr, laudato.hr, zagreb.info, mediadaily.biz, glasistre.hr, stvarmo.ba, fena.ba…

Sadržajno gledajući, knjiga je strukturalno pisana (sadrži uvod, obradu teme i zaključak) i konceptualno je tematizirana na 10 zasebnih poglavlja, od koja se dva zadnja odnose na popis literature, grafikona, slika i tablica. Tematska poglavlja koje knjiga sadrži su sljedeća:

(1) Regulacija i upravljanje internetom u Republici Hrvatskoj; (2) Teorijski kontekst online medija; (3) Tehnike i alati medijskih manipulacija; (4) Lažne vijesti – fake news; (5) Istraživanje razvoja novinarstva news portala na društvenim mrežama Facebook i Twitter; (6) Dubinski intervjui; (7) Rezultati istraživanja dubinskog intervjua; (8) Zaključak; i dodatak popisa (9) Literature; i (10) Popis grafikona, slika i tablica.

U prvom poglavlju (1) „Regulacija i upravljanje internetom u Republici Hrvatskoj“, autor iznosi činjenice o regulaciji medija od strane Zakona u republici Hrvatskoj te pregled Upisnika pružatelja elektroničkih publikacija.

Drugo poglavlje (2) „Teorijski kontekst online medija“ donosi pregled masovnog komuniciranja i masovnih medija, prilagodba informacija internetskom okruženju, društvene mreže i odnos online novinarstva i PR-a te utjecaj oglašivača na online medije. U ovom poglavlju autor analizira i raščlanjuje određene pojmove koje potkrjepljuje primjerima i objašnjenjima uz navođenje izvora.

Treće poglavlje (3) „Tehnike i alati medijskih manipulacija“ govori o digitalnoj manipulaciji i ulozi društvenih mreža u dijeljenju dezinformacija. Autor u ovom poglavlju zasebno obrađuje tehnike i alate kojima se digitalni mediji služe u manipulaciji javnosti i medij; poput cenzura, diskreditacija, manipulacija fotografijom i tako dalje.

U četvrtom poglavlju (4) „Lažne vijesti – fake news“ autor se dotiče dezinformacija i širenja lažnih vijesti u online medijima. Veći dio poglavlja se odnosi na temu transparentnost vijesti, izvora i novinarskih procesa. Autor spominje i mjere koje poduzima Europska komisija te Kodeks prakse za borbu protiv dezinformiranja. Također, autor ističe i ključne točke Europske komisije i višedimenzionalni pristup u suzbijanju lažnih vijesti i dezinformacija.

U petom poglavlju (5) „Istraživanje razvoja novinarstva news portala na društvenim mrežama Facebook i Twitter“ autor predstavlja istraživanje na temu identičnu nazivu poglavlja te sistematično započinje s uvodom u kojem piše o dosadašnjim istraživanjima online novinarstva i online medija u Hrvatskoj te nastavlja s istraživačkim metodama (analiza sadržaja), ciljem istraživanja, uzorkom koji se koristio u istraživanju, konceptu istraživanja, statističkim podacima i rezultatima istraživanja koje je autor prikazao pomoću slika, tablica i grafikona. Posebnost ovog poglavlja je ta što autor iznosi zaključke na temelju provedenog istraživanja.

Šesto poglavlje (6) „Dubinski intervjui“ donosi rezultat provedenog dubinskog intervjua kojim se ispitalo „mišljenje, stavovi i iskustva novinara o utjecaju razvoja društvenih mreža na stanje u novinarstvu u Hrvatskoj“. Autor je proveo intervju pomoću elektroničke pošte i kontaktirao deset urednika i novinara news portala koji su tijekom 2019. godine redovito objavljivali novinarske tekstove. Intervjuu je jamčio povjerljivost i anonimnost sudionicima, a od deset potencijalnih sudionika, njih pet se odazvalo i dobrovoljno sudjelovalo u intervjuu. Autor je u ovom poglavlju prikazao popis pitanja koje je poslao urednicima i novinarima, te je vizualno prikazao i tablicu s deset news medija uz koje je naveo koji online mediji su odgovorili na njegova pitanja, a koji nisu. Za lakšu analizu podataka koji su pružili ispitanici, autor je svakome dodijelio veliko početno slovo abecede, od A do E te je diferencirao ispitanike po spolu i novinarskom iskustvu.

U sedmom poglavlju (7) „Rezultati istraživanja dubinskog intervjua“ donosi odgovore ispitanika na postavljena pitanja u intervjuu. Iako autor u ovom poglavlju nigdje ne navodi koje početno slovo abecede pripada kojem news portalu (od onih pet koji su se odazvali intervjuu); odgovori koje nude ispitanici daju naznaku o kojem portalu govore; što bi moglo dovesti do toga da bi neki pojedinci koji poznaju i prate online medije mogli povezati ispitanike s odgovarajućim portalom. Na kraju ovog poglavlja, autor daje interpretaciju rezultata dubinskog intervjua te potvrđuje hipotezu i neke pomoćne hipoteze.

U osmom poglavlju (8) „Zaključak“ autor svrsishodno sažima i objedinjuje iznesene podatke i rezultate istraživanja u četrnaest zaključnih točaka.

Poglavlje (9) „Literatura“ donosi pregled literature i internetskih izvora spomenutih u radu; a u poglavlju (10) „Popis grafikona, slika i tablica“ se može pronaći popis svih spomenutih tablica, grafikona i slika u knjizi.

Budući da je ovo znanstvena knjiga, stil pisanja koji autor upotrebljava je također znanstveni. Iznose se činjenice i citati koji se potkrjepljuju izvorima te se parafrazira tekst uz spominjanje izvora. Treće poglavlje u kojem autor piše o tehnikama i alatima medijskih manipulacija evidentno proizlazi iz autorovog novinarskog i medijskog iskustva. To se ponajviše vidi u potpoglavlju 3.2.9. „Manipulacija medija“ (str. 106.-120.) koje otvara spominjući francuskog sociologa P. Bourdieua, koji je također pisao o manipulaciji medija. S obzirom na to da autor u ovom poglavlju koristi vlastite riječi i objašnjenja, uz parafraziranje, primjećuje se odmak od strogog znanstvenog stila pisanja jer u opisu piše sljedeće: „Ima puno ljudi koji ne čitaju nijedne dnevne novine i koji se tijelom i dušom predaju portalima i televiziji kao jednom izvoru informacija“ (str. 106.). Autor poetskim izrazom naglašava predaju puno ljudi „tijelom i dušom“ jednom izvoru informacija za što nema znanstvenih dokaza. Primijećeno je i kako autor u nastavku poglavlja ponegdje koristi epitete, antonime i fraze uz koje naglašava neke primjere koristeći dramatične riječi. Jedan primjer takvih riječi pojavljuje se u dijelu gdje govori o „Riječima“ kao obliku manipulacije za koje naglašava da mogu „opustošiti i unakaziti“ (str. 108.).

Procjenjujući cjelokupnu knjigu kao znanstveno djelo ono je prikladno i metodološki pisano te zadovoljava sve temeljne metodološke kriterije. U smislu analize podataka, način obrade pojedinih tema je sistemski i analitičan. Autor u knjizi argumentirano i promišljeno iznosi činjenice te radi komparaciju i analizu sadržaja i podatka s kojim dolazi do mjerodavnih i ispravnih zaključaka. Knjiga je svakako doprinos znanosti i kao takvo relevantno djelo koje nudi nove spoznaje o online medijima i online novinarstvu u odnosu s društvenim mrežama te daje odgovor na pitanje koliku ulogu u kreiranju sadržaja imaju oglašivači u hrvatskim online medijima.

Naslov knjige je atraktivan te sadržaj i teme poglavlja odgovaraju naslovu. Knjiga se zbog svoje tematike, podataka i informacija koje su iznesene može smatrati sveučilišnim udžbenikom koji će poslužiti akademskoj zajednici, a posebice studentima koji studiraju neki od smjerova komunikacijskih znanosti, ali i bilo kojim drugim osobama koje zanimaju mediji i novinarstvo. Iako je pisana znanstvenim stilom, čitateljima će biti jasna i pregledna jer tijek izlaganja teče logičnim slijedom. Tekst je dodatno popraćen vizualnim elementima, poput slika, grafikona i tablica koje zorno i prikladno prikazuju podatke i informacije koje autor iznosi i analizira. Vjerujem da će načini manipulacija medija biti posebno intrigantne svakom čitatelju, kao i zaključci koji dokazuju kako se mediji i stvaranje sadržaja u online okruženju podređuju više oglašivačkoj industriji nego političarima i vlasnicima portala.

 

 

---

II PRIKAZI KNJIGE

11(20)#12 2022

Časopis je otvorenog pristupa, a ovo djelo je dano na korištenje pod licencom Creative Commons Imenovanje-Nekomercijalno 4.0 međunarodna.

 

 

Ivana Babić

Alma Mater Europaea
Ova e-mail adresa je zaštićena od spambota. Potrebno je omogućiti JavaScript da je vidite.

Recenzija knjige
Naslov knjige: Persuazivne poruke - Proces utjecanja
Autori: William L. Benoit, Pamela J. Benoit

Puni tekst: pdf (161 KB), Hrvatski, Str. 3411 - 3413

 

 

Izdavač : “Naklada Slap”, Jastrebarsko, tvrdi uvez, 278 stranica, 2013.

Američki stručnjaci za komunikologiju, William L. Benoit i Pamela J. Benoit, svojim dosadašnjim radom proteklih par desetljeća dali su veliki doprinos komunikološkoj znanosti. William L. Benoit ugledni je profesor komunikologije na Sveučilištu Alabama u Birminghamu i svjetski priznat znanstvenik u području političke komunikacije. U komunikološkoj znanosti poznat je i po razvoju teorije “Image Restoration”, kao bitnog dijela kriznog komuniciranja u odnosima s javnošću, odnosno razradi strategije kojom se popravlja narušeni imidž pojedinca, tvrtke ili organizacije. Osim velikog broja pisanih znanstvenih i stručnih djela, sav svoj dosadašnji znanstveni doprinos te iskustva koja su stekli radeći na prestižnim američkim Sveučilištima, William L. i Pamela J. Benoit odlučili su objediniti knjigom Persuazivne poruke – proces utjecaja. Knjiga je nastala na temelju višegodišnjeg rada i istraživanja te kao vodič za uspješnu persuaziju obuhvaća sva do sada stečena teoretska znanja i iskustva samih autora, ali i mnogih drugih autora o čijim se teorijama diskutira kroz knjigu.

S obzirom da je persuazija ili moć uvjeravanja prisutna svakodnevno u svim ljudskim aktivnostima, tema je brojnih rasprava i predmet proučavanja još od doba starih grčkih filozofa. Iako se o persuaziji često misli kao o propagandi i manipulaciji, o persuaziji se zapravo treba razmišljati kao o legitimnom sredstvu za postizanje nekog cilja. Upravo tom mišlju i teorijama vode se William i Pamela Benoit autori knjige. Kombinacijom teorijskog i praktičnog znanja te spoznaja o persuazivnoj komunikaciji i njezinim metodama kroz ovu knjigu nastoje čitatelju dati dublji uvid u definiciju persuazije i persuazivnih metoda u komunikaciji te kako ju koristiti, ali i razlikovati od manipulacije i prijevare.

Unatoč tome što se od autora, kao od američkih stručnjaka za komunikologiju, očekivalo da svojim znanstvenim iskustvom i pristupom ovu knjigu učine razumljivom samo znanosti i komunikološkim stručnjacima, knjiga je sadržajno obuhvatila puno širu publiku. Svojim praktičnim, no u prvom redu i sveučilišnim (školskim) pristupom teorijskom dijelu persuazije,  knjigu su učinili zanimljivom, lako razumljivom i primjenjivom u svakodnevnom životu – i znanosti i struci i učeniku, ali i ‘’slučajnom’’ čitatelju.

Iako je knjiga u velikom dijelu čvrsto teorijski utemeljena na istraživanjima, idejama i teorijama drugih autora, što saznajemo već u predgovoru knjige, autori knjige sva do sada stečena znanja i ideje analiziraju iz potpuno druge perspektive i daju im potpuno novi, svježi opis. Stavljajući jak naglasak na specifične i praktične savjete ovu knjigu iz stručne literature vrlo lako pretvaraju u udžbenik i ozbiljan vodič za uspješnu persuaziju u svakodnevnom životu.

Knjiga je podijeljena u četiri dijela, a svaki dio čini više logično strukturiranih poglavlja. U prvom dijelu knjige, kroz četiri poglavlja, autori se bave persuazijom i ključnim pojmovima vezanim uz njezino definiranje. Smatrajući da je uspješna persuazija rezultat pomnog promišljanja i sprovođenja odgovarajuće taktike u djelo, autori u svojoj knjizi persuaziju definiraju kao proces koji …’’počinje osobom (izvorom ili uvjeravateljem) koja ima cilj. Izvor zatim stvara poruku koja će, po mišljenju izvora potaknuti druge (auditorij) na postizanje cilja. Ta poruka mora biti prenesena auditoriju, onima koji mogu pomoći ostvariti govornikov cilj.“ (Benoit W., Benoit P.; 2008.; str. 9). Također, uz preciznu definiciju, već na samom početku ističu i četiri osnovne komponente na kojima se temelji uspješna persuazija: 1.Persuazija je usmjerena na cilj; 2. Persuazija je proces; 3. Persuazija uključuje ljude; 4. Persuazija može stvarati, mijenjati ili jačati stavove (Benoit W., Benoit P.; 2008.; str. 9).

Osim brojnih primjera iz svakodnevnog života kojima olakšavaju čitatelju prepoznati persuaziju kao svakodnevno prisutnu pojavu u svim segmentima života, u prvom poglavlju autori objašnjavaju i važnost teorije o persuaziji i prirodi i učincima izvora persuazivnih poruka, a završavaju s raspravom o etici, etičkoj odgovornosti i korištenju etike iznoseći svoja etička stajališta vezana uz pojam persuazije čime i završavaju dio koji je čitatelju dao sve osnovne informacije o persuaziji koje su mu potrebne za razumijevanje ostalih poglavlja u knjizi.

Drugi dio knjige sastoji se od pet poglavlja, a uz treći dio, kako i sami autori napominju, ovaj dio predstavlja srž i svrhu nastanka knjige. Drugi dio knjige kroz svoja poglavlja uči čitatelja kako stvoriti učinkovitu persuazivnu poruku. Kako detaljno odrediti svrhu, razumjeti primatelje poruka te kako im se prilagoditi. Također, autori u ovom dijelu knjige daju i jasne upute i hodogram kako uz pomoć ideja i potpora za poruke pretvoriti ideje u riječi te kreirati persuazivnu poruku. Posljednje poglavlje drugog dijela knjige autori posvećuju vrstama primatelja poruka kao najbitnijem faktoru pri kreiranju poruke, kako ih prepoznati te kako im pristupiti.

U trećem dijelu knjige, kroz tri poglavlja, autori raspravljaju i analiziraju tri važne teorije persuazije – teoriju konzistencije, teoriju socijalnog prosuđivanja/angažiranosti i teoriju razumne akcije. Iako se radi o teoretski najsloženijem dijelu knjige, detaljno analizirajući svaku od teorija autori se trude kroz brojne grafove, tablice i primjere čitatelju daju priliku da svaku od njih shvati i zajedno s njima ujedno i testira.

Četvrti i posljednji dio knjige u svoja dva poglavlja bavi se kritičnošću konzumenata persuazivnih poruka te raspravlja o persuaziji u reklamiranju i persuaziji u političkim kampanjama. U ovom dijelu knjige, autori uče čitatelja kako procijeniti i kritizirati persuazivne poruke političkih kampanja i reklama te na što obratiti pozornost kako bi u budućnosti, pri izboru za sebe, donesli odluku u skladu sa svojim potrebama i preferencijama.

Odlomci i poglavlja u knjizi složeni su u logične cjeline čime je čitatelju znatno olakšano praćenje sadržaja od početka do kraja knjige. Osim osvrta, svaki odlomak u knjizi završava s rječnikom koji obuhvaća kratke definicije termina i svih ključnih pojmova koji se pojavljuju u tekstu. Takav pregled sadržaja u kombinaciji s rječnikom na kraju svakog odlomka, čitatelju koji nema ‘’bitnijeg’’ predznanja i doticaja s komunikološkom strukom i/ili znanošću, daje dovoljno informacija da shvati i primjeni sadržaj knjige bez asistencije dodatne literature.

Umjerena kompilacija znanstvenih teorija i velikog profesionalnog iskustva autora te veliki broj hipotetičkih i stvarnih primjera, čine ovu knjigu dinamičnom i zanimljivom od prvog do posljednjeg poglavlja. Iako autori William i Pamela Benoit u svojoj knjizi ne donose nove teorije o persuaziji, njihova analiza postojećih i odlična ilustracija čine ovu knjigu aktualnom, relevantnom i drugačijom od sličnih knjiga na istu temu, što ju, bez obzira tko je njezin čitatelj, zasluženo stavlja u kategoriju ne samo stručne i znanstvene literature već i praktičnog, svakodnevno primjenjivog udžbenika i komunikološkog vodiča kroz persuaziju.