A full programme of links to pre-recorded videos, short position papers, artworks, performances, presentations, book launches, and online discussion groups, and so on… will be released throughout a two-day period in mid-July (tbc).
Before Covid-19, the concept of universal virality cut a hitherto marginal figure in media theory. References to contagion, immunology, epidemiology and viral networks were of ancillary concern. After all, media and communication studies were supposed to be about establishing connection; not the opposite of it! Viral metaphors referred to trivial contagions of fads, crazes and marketing hype. Some media theorists optimistically translated these metaphors into the media viruses and spreadable media of participatory culture. However, now, all of a sudden, unpredictably, and rather shockingly, viral media stands at the centre of contemporary issues both materially, economically, and socially. In the wake of global uncertainty and anxiety caused by the uncontainable spread of Covid-19, there has been an abrupt move to the viral – from the margin to the middle.
Covid-19 draws urgent attention to the workings of a viral logics that criss-crosses from biological to cultural, technological and economic contexts. Virality is a techno-social condition of proximity and distance, accident and security, communication and communication breakdown. Indeed, it is in the current context that our understanding of the movement of people and messages is framed by the logics of quarantine and confinement, security and prevention.
Virality automates affective reactions and imitative behaviours that relate to different visceral registers of experience compared to those assumed to inform the logic of the market. Which is to say, the mainstream cognitive models that are supposed to support the failing economic model of rational choice (if indeed anyone really ever believed in Homo Economicus) are replaced by seemingly irrational and uncontrollable financial contagion.
Recent outbreaks of panic buying of toilet roll and paracetamol, some of which have been sparked by the global spread of Instagram images of empty supermarket shelves, are spreading alongside scenes of isolated Italians, impulsively bursting into songs of solidarity and support from their balconies. All of these are bizarre contagions because, it would seem, they are interwoven with contagions of psychological fear, anxiety, conspiracy and further financial turmoil; all triggered by the indeterminate spread of Covid-19. Virality is resolutely non-metaphorical.
To think these contagions through is, for a number of reasons, a difficult task. We are after all dealing with an ecology of technological, biological, and affective realities moving about in strange feedback loops. Future predictions are taking place against a backdrop of contested epidemiological models, reliant on, for example, the uncertain thresholds of herd immunity or total social lockdown. Certainly, following a sustained period of comparatively stable risk assessment, mostly based on known knowns and known unknowns, we have just entered a vital, possibly game changing phase in which unknown unknowns will prescribe the near future.
We welcome suggestions inspired by, but certainly not limited to this list of topics
(Bloomberg Opinion) — You may not have been exposed to the
new coronavirus yet, but you’ve almost certainly been exposed to
an adjacent contagion. Maybe you’ve even helped spread it.
It might be retweeting Australian complaints about
supermarkets sold out of hand sanitizer. Liking Gwyneth
Paltrow’s Instagram post of herself in a face mask. Scrolling
agog through Facebook photos from a friend in Texas of long
supermarket queues for water and paper towels.
Online platforms are taking social contagion to new
heights, making it harder for people to know where the real
risks lie or what the right precautions are to take. Panic-
buying isn’t a new phenomenon. But instant knowledge of the
ripple effects from the virus, whether justified or not,
turbocharges the panic. It’s a phenomenon we’ve never quite
experienced on this scale.
When the Spanish flu took hold a century ago, there was
initially very little press coverage. Indeed, it was so named
not because it originated in Spain, but because that’s where the
virus’s impact was first widely reported. Censorship imposed
during World War I meant the press in France, the U.K., U.S. and
Germany barely covered the disease until late 1918, when
millions were already infected. Spain was a non-combatant, so
newspapers were free to report on the illness that ultimately
claimed some 50 million lives globally.
In the era of Covid-19, the challenge is the inverse:
information and misinformation alike are spreading faster than
the virus itself, amplified by the online news cycle and endless
personal reactions and anecdotes shared far beyond one’s closest
family and friends. In one attempt to cut through the noise,
Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said on
Wednesday that the social network would give the World Health
Organization free advertising for its response to the disease,
and work to remove false claims and conspiracy theories about
the virus. Credit the effort, at least.
Back in 1918, support for censoring Spanish flu reports
stemmed from the medical establishment’s view that there was a
direct link between a person’s emotional state and their
physical well-being, historian Mark Honigsbaum has written.
Spreading negativity, it was feared, would not just undermine
public morale, but also actively make the general population
more likely to contract and succumb to the malady.
These days, medical authorities have different reasons to
be circumspect in their public statements. Not only do they want
to avoid provoking a general hysteria, which might keep crucial
medical gear and service from those who need it more, but they
want to avoid crying wolf by accident. In the midst of the swine
flu outbreak of 2009, England’s chief medical officer warned
there could be 65,000 fatalities. In the end, 214 people died.
That has added to “an erosion of trust and deference” not
only toward experts, but expertise in general, according to
Honigsbaum, author of “The Pandemic Century: One Hundred Years
of Panic, Hysteria and Hubris.” That may result in people being
less likely to seek salient expert advice.
In the decade since swine flu, the way we consume news has
also changed. Facebook has grown from 360 million to 2.5 billion
users. Multitudes of people are now rapidly sharing and re-
sharing information, not always weighing beforehand how
trustworthy or potentially frenzy-feeding it may be.
The fire hose of information has made it harder to know
what to trust. It’s not necessarily that people are inclined to
believe “fake news,” but, because untrustworthy sources are
presented in the same way as credible ones, the latter are
devalued by association. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey found
that 57% of Americans expect news they see on social media to be
“largely inaccurate.” People like and share away irrespective.
Facebook and Twitter Inc. are trying to crack down on
misinformation — and to ensure the most trusted information
surfaces first for those who search for it — but that’s only
part of the equation. The viral nature of real personal
experiences or opinions also accentuate panic. The social
networks aren’t going to block a photo from a friend, nor should
they. But the post could still make you consider rushing out to
the supermarket to stock up on toilet paper whether or not you
really need to. The U.S. surgeon general even took to Twitter to
urge people to stop buying masks, to ensure there are enough for
health care professionals.
There’s a strand of social thought called contagion theory,
which looks at how ideas, and at times irrational behavior, are
spread in a group. Social networks play on this by generating
emotional reactions to content — Facebook invites you to respond
to a post with a like, love, anger, amazement, laughter or
crying emoji. All emotions you broadcast out to an array of
people near and far, encouraging them to do the same.
Social networks are wired to “stir up emotional engagements
and make them contagious,” according to Tony D. Sampson, a
critical theorist and author of the upcoming “A Sleepwalker’s
Guide to Social Media.” It can be detrimental to a whole range
of things from politics to health, he says, because “what
spreads tends to be on a rapid visceral register of
communication rather than reasoned thinking.”
The irony is that, as the epidemic progresses, those
advertising their efforts to combat the real-world virus are
also perpetuating the digital contagion. Platforms and health
authorities will need to keep playing catch up.
WAKE UP DONNIE! This is a targeted ad. Sleepwalk your way to Barnes and Noble. Purchase your pre-order copy. Pass on this message to your lookalikes. WAKE UP DONNIE! This is a targeted ad. Sleepwalk your way to Barnes and Noble. Purchase your pre-order copy. Pass on this message to your lookalikes. WAKE UP DONNIE! This is a targeted ad. Sleepwalk your way to Barnes and Noble. Purchase your pre-order copy. Pass on this message to your lookalikes. WAKE UP DONNIE! This is a targeted ad. Sleepwalk your way to Barnes and Noble. Purchase your pre-order copy. Pass on this message to your lookalikes.WAKE UP DONNIE! This is a targeted ad. Sleepwalk your way to Barnes and Noble. Purchase your pre-order copy. Pass on this message to your lookalikes.WAKE UP DONNIE! This is a targeted ad. Sleepwalk your way to Barnes and Noble. Purchase your pre-order copy. Pass on this message to your lookalikes. WAKE UP DONNIE!
As with previous events, we have tried to keep costs down so that the conference is affordable to colleagues from other institutions on hourly paid or fixed term contracts, students and artists. The event is free for all UEL staff and students.
Carolyn Pedwell is Reader in Cultural Studies at the University of Kent. Her research focuses on affect, habit, embodiment, digital culture and social transformation. Carolyn is the author of Transforming Habit: Affect, Assemblage and Social Change in a Minor Key (forthcoming, McGill-Queens UP), Affective Relations: The Transnational Politics of Empathy (2014, Palgrave) and Feminism, Culture and Embodied Practice (2010, Routledge). Her new research project, ‘Digital Media and the Human: The Social Life of Software, AI and Algorithms’, examines the production of the human, non-human and more-than-human in the context of emergent media ecologies.
Tero Karppi is Assistant Professor at the ICCIT & Faculty of Information, University of Toronto. A Finnish-born new media scholar, his book Disconnect: Facebook’s Affective Bonds was published by the University of Minnesota Press in October 2018. In it Karppi contends that platforms like Facebook see disconnection as an existential threat — and have undertaken wide-ranging efforts to eliminate it— Karppi’s focus on the difficulty of disconnection, rather than the ease of connection, reveals how social media has come to dominate human relations.
In addition to a full programme of presentations and sensorium performances (tbc), there will be a keynote panel, including responses and discussion with Amit S Rai (Queen Mary), Rebecca Coleman (Goldsmiths), Ian Tucker and Darren Ellis (UEL). Chaired by Tony Sampson.
Data Streams is a digital film collaboration between Mikey Georgeson, film-maker Cameron Poole and performed by the band David Devant and his Spirit Wife. The work is a speculation in transmitting art’s more-than registers outside of conceptualised models. Check out everything you need to know about A&SM#5, including the cfp for the conference and art show
Very pleased to announce that Tero Karppi joins Carolyn Pedwell as our second keynote at Affect and Social Media#5: More Than (East London, June 25-26th 2020). Check out his excellent book: Disconnect: Facebook’s Affective Bonds
We are expecting to announce soon the release of this year’s Sensorium Song. Attendees at A&SM#4 will remember Mikey Georgeson’s Kindness is a Virus was centre stage at the after conference Sensorium performances.