Love in the time of Snuff: Social Media, Intimacy, & the Death of Neda Agha-Soltan

 Theresa Senft, Programme Leader & Senior Lecturer, Media Studies, University of East London, UK

 

On a hot June day of protests in Tehran, a young woman named Neda Agha-Soltan is murdered while walking towards her car in broad daylight. A doctor rushes to save her, while a friend of the doctor’s videos the event. After she dies, the doctor uploads the video YouTube. The forty-second video sweeps across the net, galvanizing both activists and casual viewers of Iranian politics. There is something about this video--a beautiful woman, staring into the camera as blood pours from her orifices, legs splayed open--that impossible to forget.

In this presentation, I plan look deeply at the production, consumption and internet-based recirculation of the Neda video. I am particularly interested in interrogating a claim that at least part of the Neda video’s impact on its viewers has to do with the fact that it is constructed like a perfect ‘snuff’ film. Using Susanna Passonnen’s writing on affect and pornography, Judith Butler’s work on the politics of photography at Abu Graib and Jacques Ranciere’s thoughs on ethics in the age of the ‘emancipated spectator’, this talk will consider my own love of social media as a tool of political change against the ‘snuff aesthetics’ of the Neda phenomenon. I argue that in order to produce an ethically robust theory of digital intimacy, we must first account for the fact that online or off it, intimacy is composed of a range of constituent localized parts including (but not limited to) affect, arousal and abjection.  

 

 This changes EVERYTHING!

 People, it is the PERFECT fall (people here say autumn) day! It's crisp enough for a sweater (people here say jumper)  but not so cold you want to go indoors. I'm sitting outside on a picnic bench typing away with free wifi. There is a coffee the size of my head next to me. If Denzel Washington showed up to offer me a date and a bag of money, that would make the  day better. Otherwise, it's perfect as it is.

 Hi Pals,

I'm in the middle of thinking about three separate, though often overlapping, groups of people:

1. People who read (or sneak peaks in the supermarket) at celebrity-based magazines like People, Us, or in Heat (in the U.K.)

2. People who look at  celebrity-oriented websites like PerezHilton.com

3. People who participate in making fan fiction (writing or film-based) 


I'm wondering where people fit into these categorizations? 

Personally, I get a kick out of celebrity magazines and websites, but don't really engage in fanfiction much.

I'm really interested in hearing from fan fiction folks on this one. I have this belief that the fanfic people are radically different from 'regular' celebrity followers, but I could be very wrong on this.


People who want to weigh in to tell us they never, EVER would do something like read celebrity stuff are welcome to chime in, but nobody is going to believe you (kidding, okay?)

Thanks in advance for responses!

T

 

Hey, does anyone who reads the technical forums know if there are any plans to include videocam posting abilities into LiveJournal? I know I can embed media from other sites but it would be nice to do it on the fly from here...

This time, I'm really really really going to start writing in here again.

I have three different book projects I am hashing out, and I miss talking with LJ people and getting feedback on things.

 Is anyone reading here anymore?

How has your summer been?

This weekend, I went swimming for the first time ever in England.

It was, uh, bracing.

More to come tomorrow morning (really)!

This is my partner. Two days ago, he donated his kidney to his sister.

Both brother and sister are doing quite well, now.

I think he is amazing.  I love him more than anything in the world.

There is a man on the ward who has been waiting for a kidney since 2001.

If you haven't marked 'organ donor' on your driving license, please
do consider it.

Most people in the world don't  have a brother like Mike.
 

 I'm only a year late to their party, but I'm really enjoying the conversation between William Merrin and David Gauntlett on "Media Studies 2.0" at:

http://twopointzeroforum.blogspot.com/

Wondering: why aren't more MS programs doing this sort of work? What would it take to get my program refitted along these lines?

 
Do you know of any media or comm. programs that try to integrate theory, practice and activism? Any specific teachers who do things like David Silver does inhttp://silverinsf.blogspot.com/2009/01/digital-media-production-spring-09.html ?

I'm open to any and all thoughts, here...

 

The conference "YouTube and the 2008 Election Cycle in the United States" is
streaming live for the duration of the conference at the following URL:

http://youtubeandthe2008election.hosted.panopto.com/CourseCast/Student/Default.aspx

User: guest
Login: youtube

A complete program is available here:
http://www.umass.edu/polsci/youtube/final_program.pdf

You need to return to the home page, refresh and launch the stream for each
speaker.

(Quick note: I started to get a little tired, so some of these are far more flip than they ought to be. I doubt anyone's been reading this far, but big thanks if you have!)

Does micro-celebrity threaten traditional celebrities? Does it cheapen them in some way?

I certainly don’t see the process of micro-celebrity as threatening the culture industries. If anything I’m a bit alarmed by the idea of armies of people busy doing the industry’s dirty work for them. It reminds me much like kids working for ‘street teams’ today to bring in information on the latest clothes and sounds, only to have that information packaged and sold back to them as commodity by giants like Sony and MTV.

think in the future, people who want to become bonafide celebrities will be expected to operate as their own promotion machine long before they are managed by places like Hollywood. Tomorrow’s starlets aren’t going to be ‘discovered’ working at the corner store; they’ll already have MySpace locales, online portfolios, and networks of viewers long before Hollywood finds them.

You ask whether the process of micro-celebrity ‘cheapens’ traditional celebrity. Let’s be clear on what celebrity is not, and what it is. Celebrity is not an impartial declaration of merit or talent; it is an economic mechanism designed to keep consumers from asking questions about media ownership, control, and taste-making.

Earlier I noted that celebrity runs on two contradictory messages: fame can come to anyone, yet only some people will be famous. Some people engaged in the process of trying to become celebrities figure this out, while others never quite get it. One of the things that fascinates me about micro-celebrity is the degree to which it helps people ‘get’ the culture industries quicker than they ever have before. As Mark Twain once said, “You learn some things swinging a cat by the tail you learn no other way.”


Is there a way to commercialize micro-celebrity? Are companies trying or are the audiences too small to effectively hawk commercial products?

Today, thanks to Google Adsense and programs like Amazon’s “power sellers’, no audience is too small to hawk commercial products.

What role does discovery play in all of this? Do audiences get upset when their micro-celebrity gets discovered?

That’s a really good question but I don’t have enough data to give you a quotable answer. I’m going to ask people for feedback on my LiveJournal on this one…


Do you think reality television is related to this phenomenon?

I think reality television is related to nearly every significant media-based performance of identity of the last decade, but that’s just me.



Do you see any political undercurrents to micro-celebrity culture?

I certainly do! But this is the topic of my next book, so you’ll have my fully formed thoughts on the matter when I do.

Is micro-celebrity being studied in the academy? Is there any prejudice directed at studying micro-celebrity? Are there any other academics working on micro-celebrity?

I get about one or two pieces of email a week from students interested in writing about micro-celebrity. I can recommend two excellent academics doing this sort of work: Alice Marwick from New York University (see http://www.tiara.org/blog/) danah boyd from Microsoft (see http://www.danah.org/) There are probably lots and lots of other people out there. I often don’t know what’s being researched until someone’s standing next to their book at a conference!


Is there more of a proprietary feeling among audiences of various micro-celebrities than there would be with fans of actors or more traditional celebs?

This is a hard question for me to answer, because I don’t study fan communities in depth, but I think it says something that I bristled a bit when reading the word ‘fan’ used in combination with micro-celebrity (even though I’ve used it myself!) Take my own case of micro-celebrity: there may be people who think of themselves as my fans, but the idea of it sort of weirds me out. That wouldn’t be the case were I trying to position myself as a bonafide celebrity.

This talk of a ‘proprietary feeling’ is interesting to me, as well. We feel proprietary when we own something (or want to own it.) Again, while some folks probably do feel proprietary feelings for people engaged in micro-celebrity, I think a far more common feeling is a demand for accountability and connection to ones community. We don’t expect Jennifer Aniston to email us back, but many of us do feel sort of left out if we comment on someone’s LiveJournal and they don’t respond to us.

(continued from the reporter's questions)

Does the rise of blogs and Youtube democratize the celebrity-selection process?

Yes, to the extent that celebrity can ever be thought of in the same breath as democracy (see my remarks on P. David Marshall, above.) I prefer the term ‘popularize’.

 What about the fact that the celebrity of micro-celebrity seems based around people who aren’t that talented or who only have one talent, does that prevent them from going mainstream?

People engaged in micro-celebrity tend to reach certain audiences because they give interesting perspectives, offer what others see as useful information, seem quirky, or present something that touches others emotionally. They may strike viewers as professional, attractive, funny talented, gifted and so forth. However, and as one million episodes of Star Search have shown, none of this means these individuals have what it takes to enter today’s film, recording, or advertising industries.


The means of production is inexpensive, but do you think that the various stages on which micro-celebrities are performing (like youtube) are becoming more commercialized?

Certainly, and I suppose the convergences we are seeing between content in places like MySpace, YouTube and MTV is fueling lots of hopes among folks who would like to transmit their micro-celebrity activities to celebrity cash. Personally, I wouldn’t quit my day job.

 You mentioned that micro-celebrities are more ‘real’ than their celebrity counterparts, but isn’t their personality still a performance or brand? Aren’t we deluding ourselves the same way we are when we presume to ‘know’ Paul Newman?


The simplest answer to your question is “yes.” That said, aren’t we deluding ourselves anytime we think we know someone else completely?

 Sociologist Erving Goffman has an argument I find very useful when we’re thinking about who or what is ‘real’, online or off. For Goffman, identity amounts to little more than a series of performances directed to particular audiences in our lives. If you think about it for a moment, it makes sense. The ‘me’ who is a student differs from the ‘me’ who is daughter, and the ‘me’ who is a girlfriend has similarities to (but distinct differences from) the ‘me’ who is a best friend.  Different audiences, different realities presented.

If we use Goffman as a starting point, the question switches from “Are people engaged in micro-celebrity practice just as unreal as Hollywood-style celebrities” to “what audiences are being addressed by each group?” The audience address of a Hollywood celebrity is quite specific: their sole function is to service a paying customer of some sort. The audience addressed by someone engaged in micro-celebrity is much harder to pin down.

When I was studying camgirls (women who webcam from their homes, attempting to gain a modicum of fame in the process), paying customers were often a consideration. When I study academics trying to reach students beyond their university by building themselves into a brand, money might or might not figure into the equation. When I was studying young girls circulating YouTube videos of their dancing to friends inside their high school cliques, money didn’t figure in the equation at all.

It’s important to remember that celebrities are commodities masquerading as people, while individuals engaged in micro-celebrity are people experimenting with branding themselves as commodity. We can never ‘know’ the Jennifer Aniston we want to know, because frankly, she’s not a person, she’s a product. In my experience, the same is not true of people engaged in micro-celebrity, who tend not to have things like managers, public relations assistants and other sorts of ‘handlers.’ 

Because they are human, people engaged in micro-celebrity are just as capable of one-sided presentation, spin and outright lies as are the rest of us. The difference between these people and bonafide celebrities is that for the latter group, misrepresentation is not a accident or a strategy: it’s a structuring fact of existence.

(Continuing reporter's questions in this series...)

P.David Marshall writes that celebrity embodies two contradictory ideologies within American culture: democracy (in which everyone is equal) and capitalism (in which some of us are more equal than others.) Micro-celebrity likewise reflects this tension: while all sorts of people can engage in the practice of micro-celebrity, only some will get the sort of attention and notice they desire. Having said this, I think the differences between celebrity and micro-celebrity are more significant than the similarities.

Celebrity describes a product of the culture industries, and has gradations that are a direct reflection of the market: this is why we can speak of minor celebrities, niche celebrities, subcultural celebrities and so forth. On the other hand, micro-celebrity describes a process by which people express their identities online. If you ask whether someone is a micro-celebrity, you’ve missed the point. Micro-celebrity is something you do, not something you are.

Micro-celebrity looks like celebrity-fashioning, but it’s not, in part because there is no ‘man behind the curtain’ orchestrating our look, our lines, our communication for the world. Certainly, there are those engaged in the practice of micro-celebrity who may well want to become bonafide celebrities of one sort or another, but it’s certainly not the desire for most of us who engage in the practice.

Think of it this way: when I’m going to a party, I often put on my Marilyn Monroe dress. I don’t do this because I’m hoping to get discovered by Hollywood:  I do it because it’s fun! Now, I’m not saying people who engage in micro-celebrity are blind to the allure of celebrity, of course not. I’m the product of a mother who thought Marilyn Monroe was glamorous, and I’m sure it’s rubbed off on me, which means Hollywood is having no small influence on my ideas about femininity, sexuality and so forth. But is this the same as saying that I dress like Marilyn because I want to be Marilyn? Certainly not.

(I've been answering some reporter's questions on micro-celebrity. I'm going to post my thoughts in the next few posts. Feel free to read or skip!)

To my knowledge, I coined the term micro-celebrity. I was trying to describe what I saw as a newish cultural phenomenon: the desire to present oneself to others over the Web using tools formerly associated with celebrity promotion.

To understand the development of micro-celebrity, it helps to remember the early days of internet communication, when people usually conceptualized online identity as a place of play and anonymity. The classic example is the famous New Yorker cartoon in the 1990’s that featured two dogs and had the tagline, “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”

Although anonymity still flourishes in plenty of online places today, it seems to me that identity in a time of “Web 2.0” functions differently. Some of us think of our online identity in terms of our avatars in online gaming, but far more of us think of it in terms of the fonts we use on our home pages, the blogs we’re asked to post to for on behalf of our schools and companies, the networked photos others post of us on Facebook, the follows we receive on Twitter, the serialization of our videos on YouTube. We present ourselves through media, we are experienced as media, and we often experience ourselves as media.

When I took classes on personal identity, I learned about the ‘big three’ (race, class, gender) which then expanded into sexuality, religion, nation, language, age, and ability. I think it’s time to add two new categories to this list: market and brand. To make media (and that is what we are doing when we go online) is to determine an audience—a market-- or one’s message. One of the most successful ways to signal a desired market is to brand. We now have the tools to do this, the desire is there, and often, the process works effectively. Why wouldn’t we engage in these behaviors?

2nd Digital Cultures Workshop: Social Media Publics
4-5 June 2009, University of Salford, U.K.

Final Call for Contributions

Organizers
Ben Light and Marie Griffiths, University of Salford
Sian Lincoln, Liverpool John Moores University
Steve Sawyer, Syracuse University

Confirmed Speakers
Dr. Carsten Sørensen - Information Systems and Innovation Group, Department of Management, London School of Economics
Dr. Theresa Senft - School of Social Sciences, Media and Cultural Studies, University of East London

It is clear that the boundaries between the 'public' and the 'private' are becoming increasingly blurred within and amongst sites of home and work. Indeed, in the wake of reality television shows, national identity card schemes, increased social media usage and the like, publicity appears to be the order of the day. For this workshop we seek papers that discuss the issues raised for those living in environments where there is seemingly little room for privacy. As was the case last year, we intend for the workshop to be multi-disciplinary in nature, broad in the approaches participants take and issues they cover. If your work is about any aspect of digital culture, this is the workshop for you! The following are thus only indicative of potential topics that could be raised:

- How do people domesticate social media in their attempts to maintain a balance in publicity and privacy? Do they? Why do they, or don't they?
- What matters are raised by increased access to data about individuals and organizations?
- What does the blurring of boundaries between public and private mean for our knowledge and experiences of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity and disability?
- How are ICT mediated spaces created and maintained at home, work and those spaces in between? For example, how are 'geek gamers' finding spaces to play now the only console in the house can be in the living room?
- How are ICT policies shaping public and private spaces throughout societies around the world?
- What privacy issues are presented by media convergence?
- What role are mobile and ubiquitous computing technologies playing in public and private spaces?
- How is the increased commodification of social media affecting our privacy?

Following from the first workshop we continue to see this workshop having three purposes. First, we seek to give voice and structure to existing new media, ICT and technology related research which may not readily sit within conventionally accepted areas. Second, we wish to draw in research on new forms of digital technology, ICT, computing, organizing and social interactions. Third, we want to continue discussions regarding potential futures for ICT related research which combine research as related to the evolving forms and functions of work organizations and the changing boundaries and relations between these organizations and their social milieus.
We seek abstracts (of up to 600 words) that focus upon some aspect of digital culture. We hope to have a special issue of a journal associated with the workshop as was the case last year (a special issue of the Journal of Information, Communication, Ethics and Society was published early in 2009 - Vol 7, Issue 1). Abstracts should be submitted to Ben Light at: b.light@salford.ac.uk

Important Dates
Abstract Submission Date: 28 February 2009
Notification of Acceptance: 31 March 2009
Workshop Dates: 4 and 5 June 2009

Workshop Arrangements
The fee for presentation/attendance at the workshop is £75 GBP. This will cover refreshments and meals throughout the workshop and a workshop dinner to be held on the evening of the 4th of June.
There is no fee for PhD students, however they still need to register for the workshop. PhD student registration includes refreshments during the workshop but excludes attendance at the workshop dinner (This is subject to a £25 GBP fee, payable upon registration).

You will be able to register for the workshop at: https://shop.salford.ac.uk <https://shop.salford.ac.uk/>
Further details regarding the location of the workshop will be posted nearer the time at: http://www.iris.salford.ac.uk <http://www.iris.salford.ac.uk/>

So a reporter from Newsweek is calling me to briefly discuss the ten year anniversary of The Truman Show. I thought it would be funny to take the call while broadcasting myself and tell him midway through that it's happening. Feel free to join in!
( Read more... )