Value and Slavery, or the Longue Durée of the Analog-Digital Distinction

What does it mean to speak in terms of aesthetics of an object whose distinctive property is its mode of production-in-circulation? Theories of internet memes emphasize “aggregate texts, collectively created, circulated, and transformed by countless cultural participants,” texts that put “more voices in the air,” and that exhibit a “mystifying” capacity to change in the course of their circulation, to the extent that they appear the “instrument of an unconscious drive.”1 The formulation meme aesthetics thus seems like a trap—an invitation to isolate single instances or genres and, in so doing, to jettison the circulatory operations that make a meme a meme, rather than, say, an image with some text on it, or a particular format of image-with-text, or a GIF of this or that person reacting to something in this or that manner, or the genre of GIFs of people reacting to things. The question of meme aesthetics, thus posed, seems to lead one away from the meme as relation and toward the meme as a thing standing in for a relation.Another way of approaching meme aesthetics, the one I want to pursue here, consists in tracing the bundle of concepts, feelings, and attachments the meme mobilizes. Since, as I have already identified, the meme is a form defined by its relations of circulation, that bundle centers on the idea of a collective, uncoerced social product promising contact with some unmediated—whether because unconscious or, more mundanely, natural—site of collective social life. The context for the meme’s evocation of that site comprises a number of nested levels: (1) a developed internet culture that exists within and is shaped by (2) a so-called digital culture, whose history precedes the consumer internet, and which itself is part of (3) a science-, technology-, and media-historical network within (4) a distinctive form of society that we can call, I like to think uncontroversially (although recent theory has attempted to dispute that), capitalist. My method here is to begin from the middle—the science-, technology-, and media-historical network—and to move from there to the deepest level in order to explain the logic of the highest.There already exists a language for thinking across a given media-technological object’s aesthetic properties and the means of its circulation: the language of analog and digital. The analog-digital distinction makes it possible to connect an object’s basic properties (continuous or discrete) to the substrate on which its circulation is predicated (say, phonograph cylinder or electronic digital computer). But this, too, leads to some meme-specific complications. Is the internet meme analog or digital? Its technical substrate makes the answer appear obvious: it’s digital! But, as I have already suggested, the question of meme aesthetics is a trap that invites such reduction to the individual object, and thus to saying nothing very specific about memes. And it’s not so clear that meme circulation—or the concepts, feelings, and attachments that adhere to the meme understood as a certain mode of circulation—can be reduced to the technical substrate. Insofar as internet memes are stored in and transmitted between electronic digital computing machines, they’re digital. But the implications their mode of circulation carries—the mark of some uncountable aggregate; the manifestation of a collective unconscious; the direct expression of a real sociality that hitherto appeared only in artificial forms, in the media outputs of some top-down entity, either private or public—veer closer to the associations historically borne by analog forms.In The Meme Machine (1999), one of the founding texts of a discipline, memetics, whose waning appears to have tracked the ascendance of internet memes, the psychologist Susan Blackmore wrote that the capacity to imitate is definitive of the human person. This capacity, she continued, comes naturally, which is to say, it appears an unmediated source. In his preface to The Meme Machine, Richard Dawkins developed this figure of the meme as toggle between culture and nature through a media-technological framing. We “do not know what memes are made of or where they reside,” he wrote, but they “presumably exist in brains” and can be tracked through populations by “phenotypes” stored on media-technical substrates such as paper.2 This claim followed an extended reflection on the way memes that retain a more or less coherent identity across many instances—which is to say, memes that remain recognizable as memes—share something with the digital, which for Dawkins signified high fidelity. Memes, Dawkins explained, are reproduced not through the copying of every detail from one instance to the next but through the transmission of instructions that, when followed, ensure identity even when there are imperfections in the act of figuration. He gave the example of two groups of children producing representations of a boat in series. In the first group, each child draws a boat and then passes their image to the next, who produces a new drawing based on it. Here, the final image is radically different from the first, as imperfections accumulate down the line. In the second group, each child follows a set of instructions for folding a piece of paper into a boat and then passes the instructions onto the next, who does the same. In this case, imperfections of execution are not passed down the line; the final instance will retain clear identity with the first even when there are significant variations in the executors’ dexterity.For Dawkins, then, meme reproduction is digital. And, from that perspective, it is significant that he described the meme’s relationship to the gene—itself a memetic relationship, since the circulatory power of the meme concept is surely derived from its putative closeness to nature, as compressed into genetics—as one of analogy. The meme-gene similarity is not governed by a set of rules that ensures identity, but the meme’s circulation through culture is, in “at least a superficial” manner, understood as analogous to genetic transmission.3 The real motor of that circulation could be “nature,” could be the unconscious, but in any case cannot be reduced to a set of rules knowingly followed by individual actors.For all its limitations—or, more likely, because of them—Dawkins’s framing something about the analog-digital distinction the of meme In it, as analog and digital a technical distinction between and a in a more or less between and But the as by Dawkins, each to a bundle of associations that are by the technical operations its meme is digital, it is so because the digital the meme-gene relation is it is so because circulation is understood to be by some property of social that, like is the of individual or The of culture is in an analog relationship to that of nature, and this all of to the meme as an expression of sociality to its mode of circulation, even as the are understood to be as artificial as can to the mode of that meme circulation as different to that by media and so not have that I here the analog and the digital as more I the analog-digital distinction as a I thinking of the analog-digital distinction as a meme that the a memes, because of their distinctive mode of circulation, closer cultural to a or site of social a between for the meme’s collective, and the associations between culture and between the capacity for and a Dawkins, and In the of that I by that there is a site in which of the and the of the can be to the of social in which the of the means of and the with to that are to be In the I the of and associations that the analog-digital distinction from its formulation in to its formulation in on and to the and formulation of in the second of the is a because it the analog-digital distinction with of and thus invites about the in the of the form of society from which it and This to the distinctive of with and and, by to of and and of and of between which of the meme as mode of circulation a and whose the of is by the digital. This is as a for certain of based not on and but on he could and he could to such of the into a in which as are with to an unmediated The of an and the of to direct with the that digital then that as with a to the and This to to an between and and human a that something is by the of digital are a of the of the comes what made the analog so so the answer she the analog to more it is that we in a social the of and that is surely within the form of society in as are by the of the analog surely some not that which is with the This invites of one that on the one and the of this or that on the does the something is closer to the make that thing more more the digital and the analog is the so to be the is not the case that either the distinction between analog and digital media or the extended about the more or less reproduction of that it can be in the properties of a given as in a of of the is as a of the as it is of like of so with the operations of digital the of the is the mark of the does appear as a of when with one and of when with that putative The from from from two of and substrate. In the case of digital by the to the of a given In the case of analog the of substrate with is by the and which relation to the In that to unmediated of it from the or the properties of the through which that is to the analog to the of the analog as a of or the and associations that in a network of concepts, and a form of society whose the of and electronic the form to the of relations in which analog the of to a second site of whose relation to of media and can be more to to the analog and is by an with a that first to made by and then to the and the in the of to his in terms that are to his of analog and digital, is “more and made by attachments in digital of a from of and that in a the of to in a in the he to and what the of in the and the of who the technical and of and understood as a property that can be in certain cultural and as the and thus as as the of historically specific and as the of an whose the analog that of unmediated and of as the of unmediated as and have not or that or are of and this a of media and makes possible into the of for and people and the of and order the historically specific network of relations that and as social on the of made in I here with the of the analog-digital distinction and, by its relationship to more that can be to the real and the described the real as that the real in his on The he that of the the is he continued, comes can be there is instance of a language in which are the of language is already the of the The then, is a of an by the of and a of and The of the wrote, is a of the What of the course of the electronic and appear the of and even as But, as the of analog there is a of whose relationship to the is less this is the distinction so to that to radically the nature and of media to the that site of in and of the the real less with particular media with certain of or with the of the image or the in its more to the of real and to technical media and In this the of real and the site of their the a onto which particular media can be on the of their of or and reproduction (continuous or the in the that certain of are with one or the The wrote, the of reproduction is thus the of or and of The is a with of exists in a relationship to the and is through the of from the to the digital computing And that means of an of from to the this perspective, it appears to the analog with the real and the digital with the and computing but But to one thing with is to have already into the of the to for the of their The then be what it about the of analog the with which the concept of a certain mode of technical is with unmediated nature and of on the of its of and the question of each to the then, is that of each comes to be to the real and its the the the and so from this question into a by media the of or of and in in the The for one to and the distinction between and a of this the itself cannot be on either of the distinction it cannot be in the real or the but rather as the means by which the two into in this an from which they as cultural and a real that cannot be the of cultural then, the analog-digital distinction does not exist of the network of and that and makes the between and The between the analog and some unmediated or, as in the that the by the an of this that followed the on analog and digital in the of the which in the on the of a clear of and the course of this technical to the the and and and and so the is by a between the technical and the in the of the to a question from on the of analog and digital by that he from that is one in which one of two is on the in a digital the is and In that for the as as for the which are to are in on the of a in a and a with to the relationship between and are analog because are by different in a digital the distinction that analog is wrote, and digital are the of In this of the analog-digital the analog is with and is the of every or The digital exists only in a through technical and in this that analog and digital of one and the the of the with and real and the with and an on the that into the as of and a method for less and to method on the of and as in This in some between and The to be through operations on In a on and for the that “at any given the between any two be either or that to the in the real through a of first, the of and then, the of possible real to two or or then, a of the onto and drawing from and, the of from the the made to in the of the this the analog-digital distinction of of of the of In so doing, he the on which the of thus not a that is by some of like but exists only in that in which a is is the product of machines, in which the and of the is and each in by cannot be to from any real or is an of as is on the of an already reduction of forms, in of the already by the that one the to The in a makes artificial In to the an that can be the and in so makes the the real analog through operations the logic that the real (continuous as to the And, as it is a for of that the real and its the with some source. some and to act as a a could be like a in the for a new the a or with in and the the of such and of down a of on the of and The that the and the of its the which the of its of the his by a certain as one and that as of which nothing to in the of reduction of all to or the technical the of the as a product on some real predicated on this in the of the appears as a wrote, a of in the of the What are the of this which is the of in a form of The real and the cannot be as relation is one of not The through and in the and from a of concepts, and that followed this the associations that and to to the of analog and digital the of the And it is rather some property of analog or digital forms, that the of and attachments in toward analog media and the with the internet meme as uncoerced form to some unmediated or unconscious site of social it associations to not from a distinction between of and but from operations that made possible of the into the and that in in the real that can be in with a of the digital as a means of the And this surely the figure of the meme as a digital of collective the and attachments that adhere to to explain they so as identified, with of and is to move and and into the form of society that is by and in which their in the specific that media This move to coherent as analog and of many in a form of the for such a for the of of and that appear and with across be to be the social In the course of this what is, for the and instance in which the in the This appears in of the that of in which what from the is not in the first instance but the of an with the real as here as the for a through which the capacity for and a to the of the the by the of the real by the In the of this in the a certain in We are not to it because of or or some of or in the or for the is that on a certain could be This is where what is the of want to in this are in and, so are the and that the of the real and the one of the significant of which the in a significant way what is the of which is to say, where to the by which the form of society and on its distinctive the social form is, on the by the of or that is the of or what the real is not in the but through of and as real is the in the of real of human the of a of power into into into the and to and this from to in the And, like the a with direct in the which cannot be a its But, the of the and the of the of any and The of a of is an expression not of any particular but of an through the relations of in an The which the reproduction of this what the that a certain in is what from social such as and the mode of one in as in many across the history of is a through collectively of and are as whose in and and across a and make and a of with the of then that power is a of the capacity of and And one that and its are representations that have direct relation to any specific instance of and but that as through in real In on a form that cannot be in the in in the means of in and has to be with particular in any specific The concept of power to the but it is in a of the form of whose and is specific to This historically specific of real and the form of society in which the analog-digital distinction And, as on the of the the logic of across the as a of a form of society predicated on the of capacity into his on the the of the with the he in from the of operations in the real that the developed form of the analog-digital the relation between and here understood in as the in rather any one of its many with the that and and that thus the and the the of by means given with the circulation of and but when the of the means of and the on the as the of his This comprises a The with the of thus with the of a real and the is not to direct for by into the the of and the derived from that in to their and to they of as two of this are by the digital of real capacity its into the of and This is not a onto the real of but the of into that by the of a for the of to appear as the of a given social rather the of a network of operations the of the it is to the that are and thus to their by not in social and in a that is of the basic relation that the as of the to on as a of in the between the of capacity as its for by and the capacity for for in the to appear an analog rather a digital of an social capacity, it appear in some property of rather in the specific which of and are to the that and I the to this claim here, it to that the the of in and and the of they to and appears as the of a This of and the that into single a of means and so as to individual or whose to the meme social not be the question of thus of its relation to the network of real and operations by the form of to the deepest of the analog-digital on the of operations that the of by is on the figure of the And that in the form of society on the of is to by as a for one who exists in a relation of to and by the from that as the real of which could be a certain to in the of I want to that the historically form of the the person to what make the digital of their the the in for itself in the of social the that social thus is an analog of real capacity rather the of a digital thus social Richard history of an into of and In a of his the of on the they are to the of the where they and can not be in any as they in a the and the is a for the and or for a the are for the of into analog representations of real and representations a of that could be from the person their And that into a of to the of and by and by the of a given that this of made the not only a object but and to the of feelings, and such the between the real and the from the of the social from the network of and circulation, on the of the of a analog-digital the of a for on the one and capacity to more on the a the of power into has on of the of the of to mark as the of of or which as the of In of capacity so for a rather by for a the of between the real and the the of analog representations of capacity in the of that are away in the of a that to and attachments to in the The logic of this can be in an on in which the to their and all their and by that to make not only but of the the execution of the and and from in a second on to for the to their for and “more then the of the not such a the question of he that the and with then the who are the but for to the of the in a the their he of to the and in which they are by the which their so a as they not to any and the that are from of who and by that one of not of for the of is in of and across the network of and his of the which follows his of the that invites a different in the of the in the real that the form of a of more his on the on as with an toward that on He described so He on which they appeared to with their to and with their to and so they their or in of their And he wrote that the to their as any that the first are with the of that and the a more between such and the specific relationship to in the of not but they be not by the not because of a toward the but because they their In the an analog relation to that is to and their In order to the power as a between and made In so doing, he an of its the of the network in which and toward the that social form in of whose of in way to and, with it, capacity for property and are for or in of their are in by and a for that is in its similarity to two that could the the or the of are and are and The of real with the of an in itself and, as the and of of the that the appear the of the social in the the of that is in a capacity by the through the of the of a real between of capacity and The of this which the so as on a relationship to the digital form of is the figure of the and the social that are derived from of and relations the of I tracked the first of this from the with the of and its to the the of the digital and the of the to the about the of the by the power of the meme as significant through the This surely from and its from the that social form as the of social when a digital form by rules relations with the of can the mode of understood as a site of unmediated or into collective as the of a direct with the The meme’s in its digital circulation of some real that is to of into the of the We be of such as they from operations that through and a of and attachments through their and

Art · Statistics · History · Mathematics · Philosophy · Political Economy and Marxism