In history the
role of the town crier pervades all cultures and geographies; from Asia to
Europe to Africa and North America, the town crier was an invaluable source of
information. This was especially important when the vast majority of the
populace was illiterate, and before move-able type was invented.
In medieval
England the town crier or bellman was elaborately outfitted in black boots,
white breeches, a red and gold coat and a tricorne hat. He carried a handbell
and yelled “Oyez!, Oyez!, Oyez!” (“Hear Ye!”) and delivered a range of
announcements and pronouncements, everything from new births to royal edicts
and decrees. These were read out in the town square or whatever official
station was appropriate. A great deal of scripting likely went into these grand
pronouncements, so that the subjects were both reminded of the power of the
monarchy that ruled over them and left in no doubt as to the essence of the
pronouncement. Power and grandiosity characterised the performance, yet clarity
remained essential. Clarity ensured that order flowed from the monarch's, or
the monarch’s representatives’, pronouncements.
President Donald
Trump’s tweets, however, are unfiltered, straight from the source. They lack
any semblance of officialdom, yet still reaches supporters, opponents,
detractors and enemies alike. His reach is not just his base; it is much
broader, and perhaps that is precisely what he, in his self-acknowledged
“unmatched wisdom”, seeks to achieve. Yet it must be noted that while the
‘digital pronouncement’ is effective in terms of its broad reach, it is
delivered through a system (i.e twitter) that is designed for more conversational
stream of consciousness-oriented interactions. Hence it can become unwieldy,
even contradictory, and in no small part due precisely due to the varied
audience his tweets are intended for. It is difficult to strike a coherent
officially sanctioned line through an un-managed twitter account. Long
sanctified institutions of the state and government are left trailing in his
wake.
The digital
pronouncement is more about the projection of power and influence – in the
circus of political drama that now prevails in the public realm – than it is
about making official statements. At the same time it speaks to identity and
its empowerment or reinforcement on a regular, almost daily, basis.
Leveraging the fact that a particular set of values characterises the personal
and group identities of his followers, his digital pronouncements reach deep
into his base and its sympathisers. Detractors and enemies are also targeted at
the same time, and so are potential deal-partners. No matter where you sit in the
system – through a digitally enhanced media and social media
(multimedia) that amplifies his messaging while distributing it ever widely at
the same time – you cannot escape the digital pronouncement, whether directly
or indirectly. It pervades and persists in all the spaces available to it. It
can reach you on a desert island, a submarine, pretty much anywhere, anytime …
as long as you are connected of course (i.e. to the global media stream and its
many interfaces). It has system-wide impact.
With the digital
pronouncement, he is able to control and influence – not just the narratives –
but also the reality of those whom he is targeting. He’s on to something, and
he knows it. In that respect, President Trump is a bloodhound. He can smell
fresh blood a mile away and any weakness, any chink in the system that allows
him to pursue his typically self-interested agenda is quickly and thoroughly
exploited. He’s not whispering in their ears on twitter, he is trumpeting his
agenda out. It is an advance attack on his enemies and an affirmation of
his supporters’ values and identity at the same time. He is constantly
announcing himself as ever present and dominant. In this way he multiples and
amplifies himself and his messaging, in no small part with the help of the
global media establishment - but also with ours, who transfixed by the spectacle
cannot bear to turn our heads away from it. What a tangled web is woven by the
digital pronouncement; it is the new 21st Century propaganda
conveyance system for the ‘voice of the leader’, so to speak.
What a brave new
world this is, where leader can reach followers and detractors alike with equal
ease! Where the institutions no longer hold significant sway over the words and
actions of an individual leader, one who despite his broad reach is more
atomised than ever in his own administration. So alone that the company of
millions on a mobile phone constitutes his access to power, his validation and
his misery alike. So insecure that the members of his leadership and
administration are set up against each other; where they are forced to vie for
his affections, competing against each other as though in the court of a
monarch. Whoever he anoints the latest holds sway with him, but only
temporarily. The attrition rate
of those serving at the White House bears testament; it is worse the closer to
him they are!
What is lost in
this brave new world of democratic monarchy is precisely what was most
important in times of old; clarity and order. The ancient world was not a world
like ours; there was no surveillance state, so it relied on the exercise of
clarity alongside power to ensure order. The world of digital pronouncements is
not a world that acquires more order through the grandiose pronouncements of
the leader. Institutional power (generally, and not only that of the White
House) is dissipated, spent, after being wasted on misdirection and internal
contradiction. The centre ceases to hold the institutions of government
together; the centre is adrift in a sea of endless noise. The great leader
proceeds disjointed from the institutional purposes, directives and
infrastructure that is there to support them. And to be sure, Donald Trump is
not the only celebrity-populist with quasi-monarchic aspirations in this new
era, although he might be the only one who literally sits on a golden toilet.
In the
hyper-connected, post-literate, information overloaded world of today we are
experiencing increasing levels of disorder, rather than what we might have
originally expected the internet revolution to bring i.e. increased mutual
understanding, tolerance and space for healthy debate. Perhaps it was
inevitable that the virtual realm would mirror real-world prejudices, alterity,
exclusions and the myriad fragmentations of human experience, but it was not
foreseeable a few decades ago. It is undoubtedly of great concern and
consternation that it has hamstrung institutions of government that have kept
the post-war consensus of the 20th Century intact. Moreover; that
social and political polarisation and antagonism have replaced tolerance and
dialogue in the public realm, rendering the polis fragmented and unable to act
coherently to exert democratic power when it is needed the most. It cuts a sad
and pathetic picture; one that augers no good for the 21st Century.
No comments:
Post a Comment