MEDIA CREED FOR THE FIN DE SIECLE
by Hakim Bey
1. We can define "The Media" according to whether or not a given
medium professes itself to be "objective" -- in three senses of
the word, i.e., that it "reports objectively" on reality; and that
it defines itself as part of an objective or natural condition of
reality; and that it assumes reality can be reflected and
represented as an object by an observer of that reality. "The
Media" -- used here as a singular but collective noun -- brackets
the subjective and isolates it from the basic structure of
mediation, which is professed as the self-reflecting gaze of the
social, "impartial", "balanced", pure empirical reportage. By
deliberately blurring the line between the objective and the
subjective -- as in "infotainment", or the "soaps" which so many
people believe are "real", or the "real-life" cop shows -- or in
advertising -- or the talkshows -- the Media constructs the image
of a false subjectivity, packaged and sold to the consumer as a
simulacrum of his/her own "feelings" and "personal opinions" or
subjectivity. And at the same time, the Media constructs (or is
constructed by) a false objectivity, a false totality, which
imposes itself as the authoritative world-view, far greater than
any mere subject -- inevitable, inescapable, a veritable force of
Nature. Thus as each "feeling" or "personal opinion" arises within
the consumer it is felt as both deeply personal and as objectively
true. I buy this because I like it because it's better; I support
the War because it's just and honorable, and because it produces
such entertaining excitement ("Desert Storm", a made-for-TV
primetime mini-series). Thus by seeming to refute the merely
subjective (or to bracket it as "art"), the Media actively
recuperates the subject and reproduces it as an element within the
great object, the total reflection of the total gaze: -- the
perfect commodity: -- oneself.
2. Of course all media behave like this to some extent, and should
perhaps be consciously resisted or "criticized" precisely to that
extent. Books can be just as poisonous as Top-40 Radio, and just
as falsely objective as the Evening News. The big difference is
that anyone can produce a book. It has become an "intimate
medium", one in which critical faculties are engaged, because we
now know and understand the book as subjective. Every book, as
Calvino remarked, embodies a personal politique -- whether the
author is conscious of it or not. Our awareness of this has
increased in direct proportion to our access to the medium. And
precisely because the book no longer possesses the aura of
objectivity which it enjoyed in, say, the 16th century, that aura
has migrated from the intimate media to "The Media", the "public"
media such as network TV. The media in this sense remains by
definition closed and inaccessible to my subjectivity. The Media
wants to construct my subjectivity, not be constructed by it. If
it allowed this it would become -- again by definition -- another
intimate medium, bereft of its claim to objectivity, reduced (in
Spectacular terms) to relative insignificance. Obviously the Media
will resist this eventuality -- but it will do so precisely by
inviting me to invest my subjectivity in its total energy. It will
recuperate my subjectivity, bracket it, and use it to reinforce
its own false objectivity. It will sell me the illusion that I
have "expressed myself", either by selling me the lifestyle of my
"choice", or by inviting me to "appear" within the gaze of
representation.
3. In the 1960's the Media was still emerging and had not yet
consolidated its control over the realm of the image. A few
strange glitches occurred. It tried to trivialize and demonize the
counter-culture, but inadvertently succeeded in making it appear
more attractive; it tried to glorify and justify the
neo-colonialist war in Vietnam, but inadvertently revealed it as
cruel and meaningless, like a bad acid trip. These glitches arose
out of a dissonance between ideology and image. The voice told us
that the counter-culture was clownish and wicked, but it looked
like fun: the voice told us the war was just and heroic, but it
looked like Hell. Luckily for the Media, however, McLuhan and
Debord came along to explain what was really going on, and the
situation was soon rectified. (McLuhan wanted to empower the
Media, Debord to destroy it -- but both writers analyzed and
criticized with such insight that their findings proved useful to
the Media in ways that neither of them intended.) The media was
able to bring ideology and image into focus, so to speak, and
eliminate virtually all cognitive dissonance.
4. During the 1960's a few people began to sense or even understand
the misalignment of ideology and image in the media, and perceived
therein an opening, an unguarded means of access to power. The
counterculture and protest movements began to seek out "media
exposure" because they were confident that their image was more
attractive than the ideology which sought to interpret that image.
Some theorists became adept at seizing the media. The eye appeared
to be drawn irresistibly to gaze upon certain images, even those
images which were coded as assaults on "the system" or "the
establishment". But once again, the Media survived -- and even
thrived -- on the very oppositional dissident imagery which sought
to assault its power. Finally what was important was "good TV",
and TV thrived on hot images of protest, Yippie stunts, devilish
rock stars, psychedelic aesthetics and the like. The media
appeared now far stronger and more resilient than its opposition;
in fact, the reality studio had been stormed (as Burroughs urged),
and had resisted by opening all image-doors and ingesting its
enemies. For, ultimately, one could only appear in the Media as an
image, and once one had reduced oneself to this status, one simply
joined the shadow-play of commodities, the world of images, the
spectacle. Without a few hundred millions to buy a network for
yourself, there was no way to impose one's subjectivity on the
Media. (And even this would prove impossible, since no one with
that much money and egotism could ever produce anything but
oppressive banality; is this a "law of nature"?) The media, in
other words, lost a few battles in the sixties -- but won the war.
Once it understood that the medium (the image) is the message (the
ideology), and that this identity itself constitutes the spectacle
and its power, the future was secure. Kennedy had acted like an
actor to win power, but Reagan was an actor -- the first symbol of
the emptying of the spectacle itself and its re-consolidation as
pure simulation. Bush then perfected "pure" or simulated war and
Clinton is our first fully "virtual" president, a symbol of the
absolute identity of image and ideology. It's not that the Media
has all the "power" now, or that it uses power in any
conspiratorial manner. The truth is that there is no "power" --
only a complete and false totality in which all discourse is
contained -- a false and totalitarian objectivity -- an absolute
Empire of the Image outside of which nothing exists except the
pathetic and insignificant and (in fact) unreal subjectivity of
the individual. My subjectivity. My absolute meaninglessness.
5. This being the case -- and so obviously the case -- it would seem
a cause for amazement that media theorists and activists still
talk and behave as if it were 1964 instead of 1994 -- nearly a
third of a century later. We still hear about "seizing the media",
infiltrating, subverting, or even reforming the media. Of course,
some of the master media manipulators of the 60's are still alive,
Allah bless and preserve them, old beatniks and hippies, and one
can forgive them for urging on us tactics which once seemed to
work for them. As for me, however, it was one of those old 60's
types who alerted me to what was really going on. In 1974, I was
seated at a dinner table in Tehran, Iran, at the house of the very
hip Canadian ambassador, James George, with Ivan Illich, when a
telegram arrived from Governor Brown of California, inviting
Illich to fly there at Brown's expense to appear with him on TV
and accept a post in the administration. Illich, who is a fairly
saintly individual, lost his temper for the first and only time
during his stay in Iran, and began cursing Brown. When the
Ambassador and I expressed puzzlement at this reaction to a
cordial offer of money, fame, and influence, Illich explained that
Brown was trying to destroy him. He said he never appeared on
television because his entire task was to offer a critique of
institutions, not a magic pill to cure humanity's ills. TV was
capable of offering only simple answers, not complex questions. He
refused to become a guru or media-star, when his real purpose was
to inspire people to question authority and think for themselves.
Brown wanted the display of Illich's image (charismatic,
articulate, unusual-looking, probably very televisual) but not the
task of thinking about Illich's critiques of consumer society and
political power. Furthermore, said "Don Ivan", he hated to fly,
and had only accepted our invitation to Iran because our letter
was so full of typing errors!
6. Illich's answer to the question, "Why do you not appear in the
media?", was that he refused to disappear in the media. One cannot
appear in "the media" in one's true subjectivity (and the
political is the personal just as much as the personal is the
political); therefore one should refuse the Media any vampiric
energy it might derive from the manipulation (or simply the
possession) of one's image. I cannot "seize the media" even if I
buy it, and to accept publicity from, say, the New York Times,
Time magazine, or network TV, would simply amount to the
commodification of my subjectivity, whether aesthetic ("feelings",
art) or critical ("opinions", agitprop). If I wish to bring about
this commodification -- if I want money and fame -- there might be
some reason to "appear in the Media" -- even at the risk of being
chewed up and spat out (for the Gaze is cold and bored and easily
distracted). But if I value my subjectivity more than the dubious
gamble for 15 minutes of fame and twice that many pieces of silver
-- I will have one very good reason not to "appear", not to be
gazed upon. If I wish my own "everyday life" to be the site of the
marvels I desire, rather than wishing to project those desires
into a bodiless progression of images for public consumption (or
rejection), then I will have another good reason to evade the
media rather than try to "seize" it. If I desire "revolution" I
have an urgent motive not to exchange the chance of social change
for the image of change, or (even worse) the image of my desire
for revolution, or (worse yet) the image of the betrayal of my
desire.
7. From this point of view I can see only two possible strategies
toward "the Media". First, to invest our energies in the intimate
media, which can still play a genuine role (of "positive
mediation") in the everyday lives of ourselves and others. And
second, to approach the "major public media" (or "negative
mediation") either in the mode of evasion, or the mode of
destruction. Creativity in this case would indeed have to be
destructive, since the "space" taken up by false representation
can only be "liberated" by violence. Needless to say, I don't mean
violence to individuals -- which would be utterly futile in this
case, however tempting -- but violence to institutions. I admit
that in both these strategic positions (evasion and destruction) I
have not yet developed very many specific and effective tactics --
and of course tactics are vitally necessary, since we must
precisely break through the spooky realm of ideology and image
into a real "field of struggle" which can be compared with war.
The last thing we need in this struggle are more naive theories
about seizing the media or boring from within or liberating the
airwaves. Give me one example of a radical take-over of major
media, and I'll shut up and apply for a job at PBS, or start
looking around for a few million dollars.
[Not one??]
Then I'll stick to my silence.
Référence: http://www.notam.uio.no/~mariusw/bey/media.creed.for.fin.de.siecle.txt