Kargadan Weekly Interviews Bijan Abdolkarimi on Instagram

Dr. Bijan Abdolkarimi has always held a critical view of the media. These criticisms are rooted in his philosophical inclinations. His approach to and critique of technology and media possess a philosophical-phenomenological character. Abdolkarimi attends to the ontology and metaphysics of technology and media, and believes that new media technologies, following the new technology itself, possess a particular ontology and mode of being, a matter that has been overlooked by the vast majority of Iranian experts. In his view, new media are among the factors expanding nihilism and the crisis of meaning in the contemporary world, and this nihilism is closely linked to consumerism in the world today. The subject of our interview with Dr. Abdolkarimi was a discussion about the social network Instagram, but our conversation broadened beyond the initial topic and also encompassed issues such as the philosophy of media technology and its relation to the crisis of nihilism.

Instagram now has nearly half a billion members. On average, 70 million posts are shared daily, and 1,000 comments are shared every second. In your opinion, what is the reason for this astonishing reception of a social network? Has it eliminated the feeling of boredom in human life? Has it filled the lack of meaning, or the lack of politics and political activism, in people's lives?

The first point I must mention is that phenomena, and especially social phenomena, are not always formed based on a primary and a priori purpose; that is, a phenomenon may occur, and then this phenomenon may acquire unpredictable and uncalculated consequences and implications. Technology in general, and media technologies as well, are in fact a kind of eventfulness. That is, first, in the course of technological developments, things have occurred and technology has expanded; then this expansion has brought about consequences and implications that, in all likelihood, even the founders of that technology did not initially foresee. Another point is that phenomena are multi-dimensional and multi-valent. Social networks like Instagram, in one sense, bring the individuality of the individual to the fore and allow the individual to announce their presence in this world and take the media out of the hands of powers. However, these networks also have harms to which we cannot remain indifferent.

Furthermore, Instagram cannot eliminate the boredom, everydayness, and loneliness of human beings, nor give meaning to their lives. Social networks initially have attractions, but these attractions are all transient and quickly fade, and after a while, they themselves become boring.

Let me address your question in a more fundamental way. With the transformations that have taken place in the field of communication media, we have entered the “Second Industrial Revolution.” The first Industrial Revolution did not merely mean the construction of a number of tools and the addition of certain devices to the world. The first “Industrial Revolution” did not simply mean a “revolution in industry”; rather, this revolution signified a revolution in the historical lifeworld of humanity and a “revolution in the worldhood of the world,” and the scope of its changes was vast, encompassing all areas of rural life, the expansion of urbanization, family relations and the disintegration of extended families into nuclear families, the transformation of religious, cultural, and moral institutions, and even a change in the most personal realms of human existence, such as religious feeling and private worship. Now, with the second Industrial Revolution—that is, with the revolution that has occurred in the domain of new media technologies—a new world and a new human being have emerged, a world that can be called the “mediatized world.” These technological transformations are not confined to the external and peripheral world; they have also brought about anthropological and existential transformations, meaning we are witnessing the emergence of a new human being who can be called “online man,” a human being who differs not only from traditional man but even from the humans of early modernity. For such a human being, action and activism have taken on a new meaning. Online man can no longer act in the manner of the past. Figures like Lenin, Trotsky, Ernesto Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Bijan Jazani, and Mohammad Hanifnejad will no longer emerge from the new generations. Not because the new generations do not wish to be like them, but because action and activism in the sense of the activism of the past are fundamentally no longer possible among us and in our time. In the present age, any action as “struggle” is, in fact, considered a kind of anomaly. The activism of this online man is, so to speak, click-based activism. That is, he tries to engage in activism through his mobile phone, tablet, computer, and laptop. This kind of activism is very low-cost and, in many cases, even cost-free. In our time, the arena of external activism, on the asphalt of the street, has been set aside, and online activism has taken its place. Of course, this activism in our time also possesses a powerful effectiveness.

In other words, it can be said that in the present age, the “force of negation” has disappeared. In our time, there is no longer any force of negation. If in the past, for instance, the proletariat was supposed to break the chains of humanity’s bondage and, through a socialist revolution, liberate humanity from the yoke of imperialist colonialism and capitalist exploitation, or it was the intellectuals who engaged in a radical critique of the existing state of the world, in our time, neither the proletariat, nor the intellectuals, nor any other genuine force of negation exists in the world that seeks to confront the current course of the world. Today, the world seems to be moving on a one-way path. In such a world, authenticity is also dead. There is no longer a spontaneous human force to fight for a utopia and an ideal. In our time, there is no activist subject that draws nourishment from its own inner forces and engages in the negation of the existing world. Therefore, the work that was previously done by, say, the guerrilla, the intellectual, or anarchist and revolutionary forces has today been transformed into activism in cyberspace.

You mentioned that virtual networks cannot compensate for the lack of meaning and the ennui of life. Are these networks themselves not a consequence of the meaninglessness of modern human life and the result of the third wave of nihilism?

There is a dialectical relationship at play here. The subject of late modernity, due to the ennui and meaninglessness of his life, takes refuge in the network, and the network, in fact, itself causes the expansion of ennui and meaninglessness.

In your view, where does this voracious appetite for self-display, which is particularly evident among social networks on Instagram, originate from?

In my view, this is the result of the expansion of individualism and the primacy of the individual, which took shape with the modern era and the emergence of modernity. Based on this individualism, human beings have become extremely atomized. In such a world, in order to escape this individuality, the individual desperately needs to put themselves on display in order to be seen and felt, and in this being seen and felt, the individual seeks meaning and identity.

But the individuality of the individual, in the modern and liberal sense of the word, of course, cannot be the source of meaning. Individualism is wall-to-wall with nihilism and is, in fact, identical to nihilism. This voracious appetite for self-display indicates that the human being of our time has been severely emptied of inner sources of authority and meaning, and reveals this emptiness in putting themselves on display. The human being of earlier periods had far more "solitude" and "authentic moments" than modern humans, and because they possessed a mode of being, they became the object of others' feelings. The "being felt" of the past human was the continuity of their being. But the human being of our time exists only as long as they are on display, like many so-called artistic and political personalities who exist as long as they are in front of the camera or in the media, but as soon as they step away from the camera or are removed from the media, their existence comes to an end. They were not, in fact, real and authentic personalities, but rather media personalities, meaning their existence is an unreal, virtual, and media existence.

Regarding the desire for display, there is a statement by Baudrillard where he says we no longer consume objects but rather consume their symbolic character. Today we see, for example, that on their travels, more than wanting to enjoy the trip or nature, people's concern is taking photos with all sorts of poses and sharing them on Instagram.

To complete Baudrillard's point, one could say that we ourselves have also turned into symbols. It is not just objects and the world that have become symbolic; we ourselves are afflicted by a kind of emptiness, and our existence has turned into a kind of symbolic existence. Today, many people are willing to pay exorbitant sums to be placed in front of the camera or in the media. Personalities, both political and non-political, constantly ask reporters and photographers to zoom the camera in on them and desire to be constantly in front of the camera. Media-centrism in today's world is a sign and echo of the emptiness of the world and the human being of our time.

Since your primary activity is in the field of philosophy, please tell us what the philosophical roots are of this spectacularization of everything, or what Guy Debord called the "society of the spectacle"?

With the emergence of Descartes and modern philosophy, a massive turn takes place in philosophy. Traditional and pre-Cartesian philosophies are "being-based" philosophies, but with Descartes and modern philosophy, thought turns from being and entities (realities) toward "consciousness." With Descartes and modern philosophy, a new paradigm is formed that is very different from the earlier being-based philosophies. This new paradigm is "consciousness-based." With Descartes and Kant, who are, in fact, also the philosophical founders of the modern world, the main issue becomes the question of consciousness, and the world becomes the phenomenal world. The phenomenal world is a world that is constituted in consciousness. Schopenhauer has a book called "The World as Will and Representation." Let us pass over the discussion of the will here. But in his conception, the world is as representation, meaning the world is a world that is constituted in representation and consciousness and through my concepts. This "phenomenal world" loses its own essence and substance, which is "being," and in Heidegger's beautiful expression, the world turns into a "picture of the world." This metaphysics is entirely compatible with modern technology, and the new media technologies are, in fact, the realization of this very metaphysics and compatible with this very ontology.

Let me return to the subject of Instagram. We know that Facebook emerged before Instagram and became very popular. On Facebook, one could write relatively lengthy texts. But now, with the advent of Instagram and Twitter, Facebook has, so to speak, gone out of fashion, and in general, media where one can write more detailed texts have fewer fans. Can it be said that we are moving further away from writing and the word day by day, and heading toward the image? Its artistic example would be the fading interest in the novel and a greater inclination toward cinema.

But it must be noted that the image itself also operates according to the rule of "accelerationism." It is not only that the image has replaced the word, and film has replaced the novel and poetry, but even fewer people now have the patience to watch long, slow-moving films like the works of Tarkovsky. For today's audience, images must also possess excitement, momentum, and speed. Even in virtual spaces like Instagram or Telegram, if a clip is longer than two or three minutes, or if a clip contains a transcendent concept beyond everyday issues, such as the proposal of a deep philosophical, historical, or social idea, no one has the patience to watch them. Everything is steeped in a kind of acceleration and superficiality. The human of our age is "time-less." Despite the fact that we are supposed to have more time and leisure with new technologies, the more the momentum and speed of life increase, the more time-less and timeless we become.

It must be noted that in no era has the "present time" held such sway as in the contemporary period. Humanity has always had a past and a future. But the human of our age has become without a past and without a future. By past, I mean historical heritage. The human of our age has no past, in the sense that their relationship with their historical heritage has been severed. Today, in our society, there are fewer and fewer people who read the Shahnameh or the Divan of Hafez in a serious and deep manner. By future, I also mean possessing hope, desire, the projection of an idea, and an anticipation for the realization of a utopia. But the human of our age possesses no utopia and no anticipation for the realization of a project in the future, meaning they have no future. The human of our time has had their relationship with the past and their historical heritage severed, and they also possess no future, ideal, or utopia. The only thing that exists is everyday life in the present time. Precisely because of this dominance of the present time and humanity's disconnection from the past and the future, the horizon of the human of our age has become very narrow. The category of eternity has also vanished from the mind, feeling, and life of the human of our age; hence, they cannot interpret and make sense of themselves in the mirror of eternity.

Another point is that human existence, in a certain sense, has two realms: one is the existential and authentic realm, and the other is the inauthentic and virtual realm. A human who has no (time) in the authentic sense of the word, meaning a human who possesses no lived artistic experience, no poetic presence in this world, and no solitude with themselves, also has no real and authentic life and is always running out of time. Such a human becomes a virtual person whose existence is dependent on virtual networks, meaning a person who has no authentic and real self and is, in Kierkegaard's terms, a "public individual."

In your opinion, what has been the impact of these networks on human relationships? For instance, can Instagram fill the loneliness of what you call atomized human beings?

One of the reasons for being on social networks is to satisfy the sense of togetherness. But human loneliness will by no means be compensated for by social networks. The dominance of instrumental and technological reason has advanced to such an extent that the “other” has become an “object,” and the lack of empathy and convergence with the other has led to a profound loneliness among the people of our time. In no era has humanity enjoyed the communicative possibilities it does in the current period; nevertheless, and despite the existence of all these communication tools, in no era has humanity been as lonely as in our time. In our contemporary world, “attachment” and the feeling of belonging to the other—whether the feeling of belonging to another individual, which manifests itself in the phenomena of friendship and love, or the feeling of belonging to society, which reveals itself in the political and in sacrifice and selflessness for society—has, to a very great extent, vanished. In such a situation, the only place where humanity can recover its meaning is in ever-greater consumption. Of course, this latter path is also blocked for the vast majority of the world’s population due to its immense poverty, so it is forced merely to think about greater consumption without having the means to realize it.

If you agree, let us turn to Iranian Instagram. Iranians, who in their ancient, pure, and immaculate culture have traditionally believed in preserving privacy and veiling, and have opposed any form of unveiling, how is it that they welcome Instagram and display the most private corners of their personal lives on it? Does this indicate a fundamental change in our society?

Yes, without a doubt, fundamental changes have taken place in our society. In recent decades, not only has the traditional world collapsed, but we are also witnessing the collapse of the modern world, meaning the modern world itself has become a part of the ancient world. In Marx’s beautiful phrase, “All that is solid melts into air.” This statement of Marx has gained double speed, acceleration, intensity, and severity in the last half-century.

“Privacy” belongs to the human of the past. A human who has something within themselves that is “their own” and wishes to protect it from “strangers” has privacy. But a human who is empty within has no privacy. This “loss of privacy” is a global phenomenon and is not specific to our society. Essentially, the history of local societies has come to an end. Of course, this does not mean that the local and indigenous do not exist, but the local and indigenous exist in a dialectic with the global. Therefore, the Iranian’s loss of privacy is a reflection of the human’s loss of privacy in the global space and in today’s world.

What is the impact of networks like Instagram on consciousness? Many believe that social networks can be very enlightening.

The global network (the Internet) and social media can be greatly enlightening, but enlightening in a specific and limited sense. Plato spoke of two types of knowledge: one, "conventional knowledge," which is found in the street and marketplace and is teachable, learnable, and transferable to another; and the other, "royal knowledge," or what the Greeks called sophia and Plato called "love of sophia" or "philosophy" (philosophia). Plato's point was that the Sophists take money and transmit this vulgar knowledge, but they cannot transmit royal knowledge, because this knowledge, or better to say "self-knowledge," is of a different kind and nature and differs from mere "information." It is said that modern civilization is a knowledge-based civilization. The volume of knowledge and information production in our era is incomparable to any other period in human history. It is said that the amount of knowledge and information produced in the last century exceeds all the knowledge humanity produced over several thousand years of living on Earth, and it is also said that in the coming decades, the volume of human knowledge will double every few months, and even in shorter time spans. But it must be noted that in the modern era, we are dealing with knowledge in the modern sense of the word, but no trace of "self-knowledge" or that royal knowledge Plato spoke of can be found in it, because these media fundamentally and in principle lack the possibility of representing this type of knowledge, that is, self-knowledge, for the simple reason that self-knowledge is not of the kind of knowledge that can be represented. This is why I believe that new media are compatible with a specific metaphysics and epistemological system, that is, with knowledge in the modern sense of the word. On social media, you encounter knowledge in a specific sense, namely information. But mere information is not enough for the human being. For an authentic human life, one needs another kind of knowledge, namely self-knowledge, or in the late Fardid's interpretation, heart-knowledge. This self-knowledge or heart-knowledge, or what Heidegger interprets as "poetic dwelling in the world," is not something that can be translated and expressed in binary language and displayed on screens (monitors). There is countless information and knowledge on social media, but no trace can be found in them of self-knowledge, heart-knowledge, poetic dwelling, or what the Indians called vidya, the Greeks sophia, and the Iranians hikmat.

Neil Postman, the American media theorist, says that past humanity had a pitcher's worth of information and drank it to the last drop, but modern humanity dies of thirst beside a vast ocean of information. Why? Because, in my belief, the human soul needs another kind of knowledge that is not of the same kind as this information and conventional knowledge. The human being needs a kind of self-knowledge that relates not to the understanding but to their soul, giving light and warmth, that is, direction and meaning, to human existence. This knowledge arises from a kind of presence in the world and is not the result of acquisition and acquired concepts. Social media can only transmit information and acquired knowledge.

So, in your opinion, was McLuhan right when he said the medium is the message?

In my opinion, Marshall McLuhan was exactly right in this regard. Every medium is not merely a tool for transmitting a message, but possesses its own ontology and metaphysics. Unfortunately, in our society, the vast majority of experts in the field of media have no understanding of the ontology and metaphysics of new media. The metaphysics of the medium is part of the medium's message, and this metaphysics, in my belief, is nihilistic. I agree with Baudrillard that "the network is an explosion of meaninglessness."

.

---

.

Discussion about Instagram

Prepared and arranged by: Alireza Najafi

Reporter for Kargadan Magazine

15 June 2017

.

---

.