Love of the Middle

Aidan Blackmore

Introduction

“Love of the Middle” is a chapter from the book “Excommunication: Three Inquiries in Media and Mediation” written by Alexander Galloway, Eugene Thacker, and McKenzie Wark. The book was published by University of Chicago Press in Chicago and London in 2013. The book is centered around media theory and more specifically on the “unreal” aspects of mediation that are difficult for us to describe. The chapter is written exclusively by Galloway and seeks to describe the paradox of “excommunication” which they argue has arisen from today’s media and media consumption. Galloway describes excommunication as “the impossibility of communication that appears at the very moment in which communication takes place” (31). To understand the intangible and unreal paradox of this idea, the author describes the need to venture “out into the realm of purely nonhuman” (31). The method of this venture is by resorting to the western commonality of ancient Greek mythology and the Gods who represent each of the forms of mediation that we are readily familiar with. Hermes for Hermeneutics (textual media), Iris for iridescence (image media), the Furies for networks (system media), and Aphrodite for erotics (bodily mediation). In doing so, we may find that we are not so much in an image of our world but “a message from a world in which we are absent” (31).

Background

The chapter not only provides a clear framework for understanding excommunication in mediation, it also provides a hierarchy of understanding the theory leading up to its creation. Put in terms of “post-hermeneutics,” or the age of the image and system instead of text, Galloway explains how each theory has lead and evolved to the next. Media theory has many overlaps with ontology and phenomenology as described by Martin Heidegger with which Galloway starts. Heidegger provided a way to locate “a foundational instability within the ontological apparatus itself” (51), in other words, a way to criticize ontology as a discipline. Following Heidegger is Gilles Deleuze who “reinvented a tradition of materialist philosophy” so rather than focussing on the metaphysical like Heidegger and previous theorists discussed, Deleuze analyzed a world that is more real and tangible. Meaning is therefore found in the real like the image and less like the proposed “meaning” of texts (51). Following Deleuze is the works of Alain Badiou which regress from Deleuze back to more metaphysical notions and a core pursuit of philosophy in the ancient Greek sense. He would go on to ideally bring back names like Hegel who Deleuze opposed, once again opening the theory to Marxist influences (51). Finally, and most notably before Excommunication, are the works of Francois Laruelle. Laruelle defines the world in terms of “mediative relation” (52). He says that there cannot be a world where there is no mediation of some sort since the world exists on the basis of communication; whether this be the biological communication of organs and cells in a body to the functioning of society through the communication of social structures and hierarchies. The Laruellian philosophy is that all real things are mediated and communicated. This is crucial for understanding Galloway, Thacker, and Wark’s argument of excommunication and alienation since to be ex-communicated, would imply that it is beyond a realm of reality that is “real.” To contextualize and understand the non-real, ancient Greek mythological stories are employed as metaphors to how the non-real can function. The stories of Gods are not “real” and yet through narrative, narration, and characterization, they nonetheless feel real. To understand the process of hermeneutic (textual) mediation to iridescent (visual) mediation to systemic mediation, it’s important to understand the process of theory and its origins. Galloway also takes a lot of inspiration from Susan Sontag: namely “Against Interpretation.” He often refers to her explanations on “the luminousness of art” and her focus on “erotics” which he elaborates on in the section about Aphrodite (48). In terms of the rest of the book, Thacker and Wark seek to address the paradoxes of excommunication and further elaborate on Galloway’s sections. Thacker seeks to “recast” media in terms of its own absence and what it would mean to communicate with that which is fantastic and inaccessible (63). Wark focuses on the idea of the “swarm” through the Furies and infuriated systemic media where the excommunicant is “celebrated as a new anti-hero” of society (63). From Laruelle and others, it can be determined where Galloway’s argument is derived and where the future of media theory will go as technology evolves.

Summary

Hermes/Hermeneutics

Hermes is commonly known as the Messenger God and in this chapter, he represents the mediation of hermeneutics which is the knowledge that deals with the interpretation of texts. He represents “movement, passages, state changes, transitions, and contact between foreign elements” (31). He is not “fixed” nor “stable” (31). Instead, he acts as a mediator for merchants and travelers who go to far off lands to exchange goods (32). He is also known as the signifier god who invented writing, language, and numbers which coincides with hermeneutic interpretation of texts (33). One of the most famous Hermes myths is his birth; when he was born, he could play the lyre in the morning and steal Apollo’s cattle by night. When Apollo questioned a nearby old man what had happened, he claimed to have not seen anything. Hermes then lead the cattle backwards, leaving the footprints in the wrong direction (34). Thus, Hermes is also the God of deceit and promiscuity. When caught, Zeus simply laughs at Hermes, for a hermetic lie is a “white lie,” others play along with the lie even if it is for other reasons like commerce, diplomacy, or expediency (34). Like Aphrodite, Hermes is also a seducer god since he can “intoxicate and seduce” with the promise of profit or the beauty of music (35). Finally, it can be noted that Hermes does not die off with the ancient Greek tradition. Instead, he lives on in other figures like Thoth in Egypt, showing the timelessness of written communication (36).

Hermeneutics, stemming from Hermes in the word itself, is mediation in which there is never a direct relationship with the truth, but rather a “confrontation” with truth (36). It acknowledges that even the “clearest forms of communication is beset by deception and withdrawal” (30). This confrontation with truth is influenced by varying factors such as social, political, or commercial elements (37). The confrontation itself can be understood in order with the tradition of criticism as follows: exegesis, to hermeneutics, and to symptomatics. Exegesis is the “critical explanation or interpretation of a text” and is notably sympathetic to the author’s own intention and with the dominant ideology of the status quo (37). An example of exegesis is interpretation in which someone states: “this is what text A says…” Hermeneutics proper is synonymous with criticism. It originates from the interpretation of scriptures and religious texts and tends to act like they are uncovering some hidden, “deeper truth” (38). Hence, it correlates to Hermes’ ideas of traveling to far off lands and deception. Finally, symptomatics, which is associated with “post-structuralism and destruction” (39). It does not follow the exegetical framework in the slightest. Instead, it runs parallel to the original text and is “skeptical” of it (39). In short, it is to try and interpret, the literal, metaphorical, and counter ideas of a text. The shortcoming of Hermeneutic reading is that it blindly follows the text but through symptomatics there is a possibility of understanding the “absence” from the blindness (40).

Iris/Iridescence

Iris is also a messenger goddess but is more known as the goddess of the rainbow without a distinct story of her own and represents the mediation or iridescence or “the image.” She provides an alternative mediation that isn’t anywhere near like the parameters of Hermeneutics: she provides “immediacy” in space and time, a “physical immanence with itself,” and an “absolute certainty” with what is known (41). She is always present in communicating her messages and does not “withdraw and deceive” as Hermes does (41). She is described in Homer as “the messenger” or “golden-winged” but she is also more commonly described as the “Bright Goddess,” placing an emphasis on luminescence (42). In homer, she is often “humanized” in physical form but not entirely “earthy” (41). Like Hermes, her mediation operates in the zone between two individuals, relaying and carrying messages directly to the individuals rather than chaperoning the travel like Hermes (42). Her movements are quick and non-linear, like the arc of her rainbow. She takes a message and repeats it to the designated target, sometimes telling it slightly different than the original sender intended (42). It is also important to note that the direction of her communication goes in one way in that it is a singular, instantaneous, transaction such as God to man (42) – a back-and-forth conversation loop is therefore unnecessary in Iris’ iridescent communication.

Iridescence brings communicants the joy and ease of immediacy as a short “hyper-communication” (30). It is the mediation of the image; the “here and now” and therefore messages from the past like texts mean nothing (43). Iris is always in the present. The model of iridescence can also be divided into three aspects: The first is nearness which is meaning that is found “close at hand.” Nearness is therefore an experience for whatever appears in the moment (43). In this form of mediation, both individuals involved remain as they are. This also means that iridescence is uninterested with ideas of circulation and systems of structure (44). Next, there is ecstatic surplus which exists since there is no meaning in iridescence and so it is purely over-expression or “unmotivated aesthetic output” (44). The image radiates this energy to say something obvious, like the rainbow telling us that it had rained (44). Iridescence is about relaying and telling and nothing more. Lastly, there is certainty. Since Iris does not deceive like Hermes, one is left in world where there is nothing inconsistent and everything is clear (45). This also means that there is a scientific aspect to iridescence that isn’t found in Hermeneutics since there are certain quantifiable aspects (45). As Galloway puts it, if the text is best understood as a problem then the iridescent image is best understood as a poem.

Furies/Infuriation

The mediation of the furies rises in the age of information technology. The Furies are not gods but monsters - a “blood ravening pack” as Aeschylus called them. Associated with terms like “fragmented” and “scattered” (57). They are absent from both Iris and Hermes and therefore ignore presence and difference, or in other words, they represent non-linear systems (57). In mythology, the furies are said to have been born from the bloody testicle of Ouranos when the blood dripped onto the earth and created the giants and furies (59). If Hermes, Iris, and Aphrodite are media then the furies are “anti-media” (59). And, unlike Hermes and Iris, the Furies’ system reveals nothing nor reflects anything (59). The system can make the world function and communicate, however, it cannot beyond that, interpret anything nor remain in the world in a tangible way (59). Instead, they exist in a constant state of agitation and “sensuous energy” which they exert on a target of some sort (60). Continuing to compare them to Hermes and Iris, if those two are variations on metaphysics then the system is not related at all, but merely a “micro-physics” of various links and vectors that hunt together (59).

Furies and their “infuriation” destroy the primacy of the communicators, turning the basic elements of communication into endless multiplicities (30). If Hermes and Iris represent theological models of mediation then the Furies are secular and nihilistic (60). Philosophies of ontology nor aesthetics functions with the system, but rather we must look to politics instead (60). Going hand in hand with politics is military and social theory which resonates well with the tale of the furies. Therefore, words that have been used to describe infuriated media include: “insurgent” and “popular rebellion” (60). Some writers that are listed that have written about these aspects listed in the chapter include Robert Taber “The War of the Flea,” Elias Canetti on “the crowd,” and Guy Brossollet on the “non-battle,” the last one being especially key as it deals with warfare that is network and communication based rather than combat (61). Infuriated media today can be thought of like “rhizomatics, distributed networks, or swarming clouds” (61). It can be used to explain all the types of networked media that are commonly contemporaneously like social networks and neural networks (62). The emphasis on “swarm” and “contagion” mean that the prevalence of systemic mediation in the twenty-first century means that the network has become the main signifier, dominating the other previous two (62). This also means that with the rise of the system and network, there is less of a desire to retreat to hermeneutic and iridescent forms of mediation, or in other words, we can expect a fall in the use of texts and images and an increase in the efficiency of networks (62). Finally, the Furies directly correlate to the idea of excommunication since they completely embody the “non-real.” Humans are at risk from swarms and systems since they reduce the matter of their prey, or in the case of systems, reduce “consciousness” and “causality” into individual micro functions (63).

Aphrodite/Erotics

Aphrodite is the Goddess of sexual or bodily media, in other words, the genitals (59). As Susan Sontag used “erotics” to label her definition of “luminous” media, we too can draw upon that imagery to define it. However, erotics can refer to more than just sexual desire, but also love and intimacy and therefore Aphrodite is representative of all those elements (64). The accounts of Hesiod claim that, like the Furies, she was born from the blood of Ouranos and created when combined with the foam of the water. From this, she is therefore considered the “lover of genitalia” (66). Homer, on the other hand, claims that she is the daughter of Zeus and Dione and is instead called “she who loves laughter” (67). So, in ancient accounts, she had two names: Aphrodite Ouranos meaning “love of the whole people” and Aphrodite Pandemos which was responsible for lower sexual life such as prostitution (64). Through her, things make their “primordial entrance” into life through desire (64). She unites lust and seed through her repetitious surge of birth and rebirth on the foams of the water, she is creation (65). She is also known as the “genial” Goddess where genial means both to be smiling and genial as in reference to genitalia (66). Smile and sex is often one and the same in Aphrodite since the smile of a lover can cause arousal and being sexually intimate with someone can cause a smile of pleasure – both act as devices of communication.

Seemingly, Aphrodite combines elements of the other middles established. From Hermes, she gains mediatory promiscuity of mixing and cross-fertilizing. From Iris, somatic immediacy from appearing in the surging waves at creation. Lastly, from the Furies, she is commonality in conforming to non-reproductive sexual desire innate in almost all humans (64). That being said, Aphrodite can be considered “pure” mediation since she does not get lost in foreign lands like Hermes, is never as ethereal and bright as Iris, is never as non-human as the Furies (64). She is the middle of the various middles. This means that genital mediation/sexual desire is communication in its purest form. Desire is a middle since the body and mind while under the effects of lust are “oriented” and “preoccupied” (65). Sex is also a middle it is the linkage of communicating body parts. However, it is also important to note that all the sexual organs like hands, mouths, penises, vaginas, etc. are all in the literal middle of the body – not at the type such as the psyche or the bottom on the ground (68). Thus, going back to the link of smile and sex being one in the same, sex is a middle that cannot be reduced like in hermeneutics, nor become translucent and overtly clear in iridescence, nor be propagation in the form of “tessellated” infuriated systems (68). As such, Aphrodite becomes the ultimate metaphor for human beings as lovers of sex and smiles and, in being so, lovers of media (68).

Discussion

Although much of the chapter is devoted to the telling and elaboration of the stories and context of Greek mythological figures as metaphors for the broad types of mediation that we are faced with, it equally considers how the mediation of old like textual hermeneutics and image iridescence is slowly shifting out of fashion compared to networked systems of communication. Galloway is largely concerned with the confusion and mass spread of networks and how we use them despite them being “non-human.” Hermeneutics, in terms of interpretation, is human since it is the human condition itself to understand why we exist and find that very hidden meaning can be found between the lines of scriptures and texts (33). The image is also human since it is an immediate message that explains the natural world, like the rainbow signifying the passing of rain (44). At the same time, it is proposed that these old middles were destined to be “superseded” by another signifier at some point or another – the question not being by “what” but “how” (50). And, if hermeneutics is synonymous with theory, then what happens when we are in a post-hermeneutic world? Without theory do we regress to a “pre-social” or “pre-political” state (50)? In this case, the networked system takes over and does more than this. It’s algorithms and transactions happen rapidly and invisibly in a web that connects us yet isolates us at the same time, much like Deleuze’s spider which, like the furies, acts as “the spirit of resentment” whose weapon is the “threads of morality” that bind us together (58). As to whether we are in a pre-political state, the answer is almost certainly no. In considering the Furies and infuriated systems, Galloway mentions how in order to understand them, we have to go beyond philosophies of “ontology and aesthetics” and must therefore delve into the realm of the “political” (60). This suggests that there is an inherent political nature to computation and the network systems that surround it. The most easily identifiable example of this would be social media like Facebook and Twitter. The algorithms of the systems allow for communication between humans but organizes it in a way that is for capitalistic or political gain through advertisements and the content that those in your “network” are talking about. The communication is therefore inhuman because it is not a genuine connection with signification like a text or image, there is a system surrounding it with “micro” intentions beyond purely communicating (63).

Of equally important to discuss is the inclusion of Aphrodite as the middle of erotics who may act as the answer to what is human in a world surrounded by non-human communication. Galloway begins the chapter by outlining the three middles of Hermes, Iris, and the Furies and explains how Thacker and Wark will later in the book expand on them, however, it is just this chapter that includes Aphrodite and a focus on sex as a medium. In a world that is chaos through the general middle of systems and there being a widespread and “contagious” lack of “non-human” (61), there is a necessity to find a middle that is entirely human. Galloway ends the chapter by saying “Aphrodite is like us… lover of smiles, fondler of media, and lover of the middle” (68) which means that Aphrodite, as the metaphorical figure for erotic mediation, shows that even in a world that is ravaged and rampaged by infuriated systems, there will always be true connection through desire in smiles and sexual/bodily contact – whether it results in procreation continuing the human species on or not.

Practical Application

Galloway’s chapter can be applied to other books and chapters on media theory such as the chapter “The Internet in Theory” from the book: “Social Theory After the Internet: Media, Technology, and Globalization” written by Ralph Schroeder in 2018. Schroeder argues mainly for the social issue of technological determinism in which technology and media shape the way society and all societies would function with it (Schroeder 7). He argues this with contemporary systemic medias in mind like the internet and how it functions within the three spheres of power of “politics, culture, and economy” (Schroeder 13). Using Galloway’s model of the Furies and infuriated system media, there are a few similarities between the two. The first, and most important, being the innate political nature of networks. Galloway states that since networks are “inhuman” vis-à-vis more traditional forms of media like the text and image, they are inherently “political” since they have no “aesthetic” or “ontological” function (Galloway et al. 60). He brings up political ideas like “network centric warfare,” however, this just barely scratches the political surface that Schroder elaborates on. Combining aspects of all three spheres of power, the internet, as a systemic media, has the power to push people to greater “differentiation” despite connectedness since the content can be tailored to the individual’s political alignment, caging them into a certain ideology (Schroeder 9). It also allows for gatekeepers like search engines, who you must use to get to the information that you desire, to distribute your searches to political elite and to corporations with economic intent (Schroeder 8). Society is thus alienated on a mass level since they are individualized by their search engine queries. An example of this is in China and India where smartphone use has allowed for there to be less of a divide between the rural and urban classes while the political elite can maintain control through systemic observation (Schroeder 7). The two chapters also differ in some instances of their system theory. One main instance is when Schroder talks about “traditional media still often dominating in the digital age” (2). While it remains true that hermeneutic analysis and the consumption of images are still prevalent, they are also part of the integrated systems that are designed for economic means in capitalism as well as political means if the text is from social media posts. Galloway states that “hermeneutics and iridescence” will “wither away” as the system becomes more prevalent and it is already possible to allow such an interpretation to exist, since it is nearly impossible to live in twenty-first century society without being connected to a system of some sort (62). In the end, both agree that digital, systemic media “tethers us” to each other and information (Schroeder 5) but at what cost? Since the systems themselves are “infuriated” and “inhuman” it is no doubt that human society will naturally change as a result of its seemingly necessary use.

Works Cited

Galloway, Alexander, Eugene Thacker, and McKenzie Wark. “Love of the Middle.” Excommunication: Three Inquiries in Media and Mediation, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 2013, pp. 25-76.

Schroeder, Ralph. “The Internet in Theory.” Social Theory After the Internet: Media, Technology, and Globalization, UCL Press, 2018, pp. 1-27. www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20krxdr.4. Accessed 10 Dec. 2018.