Death of the Author, 2
(continued | 1,
2)
Jen
Liu
Text means Tissue; but whereas
hitherto we have always taken this tissue as a product, a ready-made veil
behind which lies, more or less hidden, meaning (truth), we are now
emphasising, in this tissue, the generative idea that the text is made, is
worked out in a perpetual interweaving; lost in this tissue-this
texture-the subject unmakes himself, like a spider dissolving in the
constructive secretions of (her) web.
- Roland Barthes, The
Pleasure of the Text
®TMark, in their quest against
corporate imperialism, are terrorists. One difference from classic
terrorism is in ®TMark’s only (and very adamant) requirement:
that all acts are non-violent. However, if we loosen the meaning of
violence, ®TMark, in infringing upon the legal terms that many
corporations consider their right, and names they consider their
property, had committed crimes against freedom of will and
property, according to their victims. In addition, not only is the name
regarded as property, but it is also regarded as identity. What are
the means of bodily harm available for use against the incorporated
entity? One would certainly be to strike at the source of their identity,
while also stripping them of their means of retaliation.
Generally,
classic terrorism is an act of violence against innocent members of a
select group identity deliberately designed for shock value. It exists to
voice (thus resist) unbearable oppressions experienced by the terrorist
members and those they perceive as the (ethnic, national, cultural) group
for whom they are speaking. The emphasis is on awareness, media coverage,
and global recognition through high symbolism. With shock value (with
media) there comes a high premium on novelty, aided by the fact
that many acts of terrorism are crafted with only the most lowbrow means.
In ®TMark’s case, dot-com skills and media-spin supplied this
novelty factor — they used the tools of corporate culture against its
point of origin.
In the terrorist act, we see a body not as
individual, but a body that hopes to be seen as nation. He did not kill
the civilian to get a dollar for a meal, he killed the citizen for a
nation of millions starving. The body, and the identity-laden name
trailing at its heels, has been requested to disappear. Eventually, this
is all war. But there is a way in which every act of terrorism is built
upon a seed on confusion. For in every terrorism’s implicit or explicit
dependence upon media, there is little accounted for the nature of
contemporary media, that capricious but most self-aware of meaning makers.
These acts tend to get mangled in media’s hands. Deliberate high-density
meaning, so important to the act, is always displaced.
For media is
incapable of processing collective identities or clarifying the play of
symbols. It tends to seek within the terrorist act identifiable faces and
names — no matter how relevant or real the link. So while the act may have
been meant to bring awareness to a structural condition involving complex
histories and innumerable peoples, media reduces it to the psychodrama of
a select number of individuals. The rest fall aside. This may, however, be
a dynamic implicit in war itself — and the locus of its paradox. For
amidst a collective army who stands involved in highly coded advances and
collateral damage counts, there are also the individual deaths which are
of a wholly different type of reality, one which is intimately lived.
Media attempts to approximate this, as the personal is the frequency along
which we all live, thus what we understand best, but in this it loses a
clear picture of the large-scale movements of a militarized, global
economy. Or, worse, media’s handful of human faces are used to obfuscate
that reality, to divorce its symptoms (poverty, disease, nations of
refugees) from causality.
>Media’s merchandise is the persona —
individuated identities with biography. This is also partly due to media’s
format — the news bite — which is incapable of processing anything more
than individual names and faces. A public accustomed to this format - and
thus incapable of grasping long or complicated strings of information - is
also at fault, in a chicken-and-egg play with media’s ADD. But this also
has much to do with its role as a form of entertainment. For one of the
peculiarities of our postindustrial world is that it retains a desire for
the individuated. In all our forms of entertainment, select names and
faces ameliorate a sense of self as anonymous unit shuffled about by
unnamable and incomprehensible forces. This is a reactive release for a
globalized, telecommunicatory world, organized by those long strings of
data, produced by massive amounts of strangers. So, if the author is dead,
the thirst for identifiable protagonists lives on.
Now, if
anything, ®TMark does understand how media works — or do they?
As I speak, they have receded from public view. Large-scale media coverage
has all but dissipated since mid-2001, and even then it’s been waning
since 2000. This could be due to the short attention span of media, and
®TMark’s inability to sustain the first proviso of coverage:
novelty. It may also have something to do with the final deflation of
computer fascination with the net-bust, as well as the events of fall 2001
onwards, which were accompanied by a certain amount of media tunnel vision
and a temporary drop in tolerance for stories of deadpan transgression (we
saw some real terrorism, after all).
However, it may also have to
do with their position of anonymity. In order to be newsworthy, one must
possess a face. This is the rule for Hollywood, and this is why the
exploits of corporations are often invisible. For a long time,
®TMark piggybacked on the faces of their targets.
®TMark’s most widely received acts were those in which there
was a famous persona anchoring the whole - Bush, Beck, and Barbie.
Regarding media, fame begets fame, but what does not beget fame is
anonymity. Their more recent projects seem to be veering towards more
shadowy targets — WTO, money for votes (Voteaction.com — fairly
successful, but low in ®TMark recognition), G8. To shift focus
to more abstract entities, while entirely honorable, is to situate
themselves in a different way to media. For these targets, as crucial as
they are to real power, do not possess the glitter of a
name.
Perhaps in the quest for worthy opponents, ®TMark
has encountered its Achilles heel. For as one climbs deeper into the dark
tracts of power, one finds entities of higher abstraction — acronymated
post-legal nebula, which most people still do not understand, or know
exist due to the lack of a public persona. To battle faceless
entities as faceless entity is something that others are good at — the
ACLU is one — those who possess a commitment to working on a political
front with much effort shadowed behind stage wings. If ®TMark
has chosen this path, it loses its most basic component - and perhaps what
it was truly best at. To develop a situation of scrutiny, one must possess
the means for disseminating vision. Media, at the center of any
consideration of vision and truth production, always demands that it be
romanced on its own terms. And without the appeal of names,
®TMark may suffer the death of the true political activist —
media blackout.
< previous
| 1
| 2