Whither Symbolic Efficiency? Social Media, New Structuralism, and Algorithmic Desire

Flisfeder, Matthew

doi:10.1080/08935696.2022.2111959

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When compared to the world acclamation of the book, it is even awkward to remark upon some theoretical shortcuts, when not shortcomings of Zuboff’s work, which are going unnoticed. A similar nonchalant use of the concept of ‘Big Other’ can be observed, which is even equaled to a ‘puppet master’ (Zuboff, 2019: 376), without Slavoj Žižek’s interpretation being dealt with (not to mention the original Lacan’s category 4 ), which had already been brought into the Internet studies by Jodi Dean (2005: 162–167 in particular), and has been recently revived by Jamil Khader (2022) and Matthew Flisfeder (2022). It is a shame, as Žižek—through the ‘immanence of resistance to Power’ attributed to Foucault—points to the big other as a governmental entity both codifying the norms of obedience, and subsuming and prescribing the possible practices of subversion (Žižek, 1999: 261–264 in particular).…”

Section: The Myth Of Data Capitalismmentioning

confidence: 72%

“… 4. As much as the social media can be imagined as the living manifestation of the big other—or better, the only space in which it can possibly materialize—the reference to Lacan is quite problematic, especially as the connection between mega-platforms and the big other can hardly be explained in terms of desire (see Flisfeder, 2022: 416–417 in particular; and Dean, 2010: 39–41 and 93–95 in particular). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On Digital Fetishism: A Critique of the Big Data Paradigm

Miconi

2023

Critical Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article takes into exam the current literature about Big Data and data capitalism, from the perspective of the critical Internet theory. Particular attention will be placed to the ideas of data exploitation and raw data, which will prove to betray a form of digital fetishism: in short, the focus on the final results of the production process, rather than on the social relations by which the very same process is fueled.

show abstract

Section: The Myth Of Data Capitalismmentioning

confidence: 72%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On Digital Fetishism: A Critique of the Big Data Paradigm

Miconi

2023

Critical Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Since publishing the book, Flisfeder (2022) has elaborated upon this contention with regard to the 'Internet troll'. Here, the relation to the Other is reflected in 'the character of the troll … since their practice of reputation management is premised on the idea of tarnishing the reputation of others, an act for which trolls aim to satisfy the desire of their own friends and followers.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Matthew Flisfeder (2021). Algorithmic Desire: Towards a New Structuralist Theory of Social Media

Black

2023

Postdigit Sci Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Navigating the Psychotic and Perverse OnlineThe contemporary study of digital media technologies continues to elicit robust debate as to the effects of the algorithm for both society and the subject. Whether the algorithm is to function as a source of political agency, or as the very tool for reproducing social inequality, the current lack of regulation has resulted in a number of concerns regarding its adoption (White and Lidskog 2022). Beyond the fact that social media algorithms have provided a unique space for perpetuating forms of online hate and discrimination (as denoted in the frequently cited, 'online echo chambers'), the potential for algorithms to calculate, measure, and record your location, as well as your 'mood' and health status, is now being manifested in the growing importance of algorithmic technologies in our day to day lives. Here, technological innovation is increasingly exposing the subject to new assemblages of algorithmic automation, resulting in a reconsideration of how we define, make sense of, and approach the 'human' (Beer 2023;Black and Cherrington 2022;Haraway 1991).Despite such uses, for many, it is this very technology that is believed to be deepening our current social antagonisms and divisions, resulting in new forms of identarian politics that have ended-up coalescing in an online libertarian philosophy and untenable, far-right conspiracies. As a result, the potential benefits afforded to the algorithm-most notably, the capacity for our digital technologies to encourage an emancipatory egalitarianism-is now more likely to be cynically derided by those openly decrying the influence of digital media, while all the while remaining active participants in its various platforms (on most occasions, such cynicism is easily recited by 'us', its users). Consequently, whether academic study remains tied to the potential benefits that can be sustained from our online activities, or whether it seeks to criticise ongoing adaptations of the algorithm within the ubiquity of our digital lives, what is perhaps lost, or worse, ignored in such debates, is that which remains an inherent characteristic of our social media-the social itself.It is this very contention that sits at the heart of Matthew Flisfeder's, Algorithmic Desire: Towards a New Structuralist Theory of Social Media (2021). In spite of the accusation that, today, our social media is in fact hampering democracy and subjecting us to increasing forms of online and offline surveillance, for Flisfeder (2021: 3), '[s]ocial media remains the correct concept for reconciling ourselves with the structural contradictions of our media, our culture, and our society'. With almost every aspect of our contemporary lives now mediated through the digital, the significance of the algorithm maintains a pertinent importance in making sense of the social and psychic investments that our interactions on social media, as well as other forms of digital media, rely upon and encourage. The socio-political tensions and contradictions that such interaction prescr...

show abstract

“…the world of desire) is the real, a traumatic moment that resists all symbolization. (2007, p. 211) Although Flisfeder (2022) associates the realization that enjoyment resides in fantasy with a move towards drive (itself a traversal of the fantasy), this does not mean that we should so easily avoid the significance of fantasy, as outlined by McGowan (2007), and the importance of desire. 5 This importance is born out of the (non-)relation that the subject maintains with the Other and its impact upon the subject's desire.…”

Section: The Ethics Of Desire and Drivementioning

confidence: 99%

The dialectic of desire: AI chatbots and the desire not to know

Black

2023

Psychoanal Cult Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Exploring the relationship between humans and AI chatbots, as well as the ethical concerns surrounding their use, this paper argues that our relations with chatbots are not solely based on their function as a source of knowledge, but, rather, on the desire for the subject not to know. It is argued that, outside of the very fears and anxieties that underscore our adoption of AI, the desire not to know reveals the potential to embrace the very loss AI avers. Consequently, rather than proposing a knowledge that seeks to disavow loss, we can instead recognize the potential in loss itself: an opportunity to assert and define the gap inherent to both the subject and AI we create.

show abstract

Whither Symbolic Efficiency? Social Media, New Structuralism, and Algorithmic Desire

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

On Digital Fetishism: A Critique of the Big Data Paradigm

On Digital Fetishism: A Critique of the Big Data Paradigm

Review of Matthew Flisfeder (2021). Algorithmic Desire: Towards a New Structuralist Theory of Social Media

The dialectic of desire: AI chatbots and the desire not to know

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About