'Affective Publics,' Impressive but Heavy on the Jargon

Reading Papacharissi’s “Affective Publics” (2014) requires a great

deal of effort. Its composition poses barriers for non-academics and academics (of other disciplines) alike. For those who aren’t grounded in classical philosophy, rhetoric and affect theory, translating the author’s jargon and verbosity is steep. I could not stop wondering, “Who is this book’s written for?” This is, not at all, to say that the book is dispensable. In fact, Papacharissi’s (2014) research and perspective is impressive, and much needed in our world – one in which digital participation and engagement touches nearly every aspect of life; and increasingly, political affairs, communication and activism. However, the preface doesn’t specify the book’s target audience, and therefore, I can only assume it’s likely for fellow academics. If true, the opportunity for transcending this gem into “publicness” is missed. That is, “the state of being publicly visible and subject to scrutiny by the [general] public” (Wessler & Freudenthaler, 2018).

Walt (2011) asserts, “there’s a widespread sense that academic research on global affairs is of declining practical value, either as a guide to policymakers or as part of broader public discourse about world affairs.” He continues, “Former policymakers complain that academic writing is “either irrelevant or inaccessible. . . locked within the circle of esoteric scholarly discussion...scholars are focusing more on themselves, less on the real world” (Walt, 2011). This is exactly why I consider conveyance of utmost importance, and especially for a book like “Affective Publics” (2014); which offers a deep-dive into what drivers lie behind publically displayed political sentiment on Social Network Sites (SNSs).

According to the Pew Research Center (2016), “roughly two-thirds of American adults who use social media sites express a relatively wide range of [political] opinions on [SNSs].” As such, social media scholarship should be written in a style that can “bridge the gap” (Walt, 2011) between researchers and the general public, also known as, users.

On the contrary, Papacharissi (2014) elaborates on an astute point as follows:

While online media are utilized as resources that help accelerate mobilization, they present a necessary but not a sufficient cause for radical mobilization (Ingram, 2011; Tufekci, 2011). And so, impact is not determined by the technology but rather by the historically singular interplay of the various sociocultural, economic, and political conditions at work.

Academic jargon provides a good framework for articulating concepts and constructs. However, Martin (1992) postulates that entrenched jargon in academia serves to “maintain power and status” and to “exclude those who have not served their time in study or research.” Papacharissi’s (2014) book must become inclusive. Mainly due to misinformed groups possibly believing that heaps of networked support sustain and win movements. Encouragement in the forms of likes, tweets, shares or profile photo changes are driven by affect. Alone, they don’t produce change. Eradicating the structural (offline) culture, economic, and political forces that breed dissent is vital.

Papacharissi (2014) confirms that these supporters initially ignite action and do disrupt foreign affairs, but she underscores that these distant viewers feel like they’re directly experiencing the upheaval, while in most cases, [they] are not able to think like the actors immediately involved. This insight is key because it seems like networked support doesn’t last. Not unlike televised news, people tend to move onto the next breaking story – leaving behind those communities they helped spur into action.

In an article published by the Guardian (2016), various writers expound on how they lost hope, partly due to the absence of support initially received. Robin Yassin-Kassab (2016) shared his thoughts about his perceived loss of hope, and consequently, submission to the counter-resistance. As per his account, those who continued to resist are called “nutters” – by those who, at one time, were fellow resistors (Kassab, 2016).

Papacharissi’s (2014) insights are crucial, and perhaps, a matter of life or death for those who rely on networked support in pursuit of change. For this reason, sharing her knowledge – sans jargon – with non-academics is essential.

References

Duggan, M. and Smith, A. (2016). The political environment on social media. Pew Research Center. Retrived from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/25/the-political-environment-on-social-media/

Martin, B. (1992). Secret passwords at the gate of knowledge. The Australian, 23:1992, p. 16.

Retrieved from: https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/92aust09.html

Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press, New York, New. York, US. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199999736.001.0001.

The Guardian. (2016). I was terribly wrong’ - writers look back at the Arab spring five years on. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jan/23/arab-spring-five-years-on-writers-look-back

Walt, S. (2011). International affairs and the public sphere. Institute for Public Knowledge. Retrieved from: http://publicsphere.ssrc.org/walt-international-affairs-and-the-public-sphere/

Wessler, H. and Freudenthaler, R. (2018). Public sphere. Oxford Bibliographies. Retrieved from: http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756841/obo-9780199756841-0030.xml