typhotic iceberg 煙霧冰山

(written in response to another blog post that said everyone should blog as a form of self-expression)

（為了回復說大家都該寫部落格來自我表現的另一個部落格文章）

Yes, this is polemic. No, it's not just because I think your life is uninteresting, or that we need to “unplug and get back to the real world.” It's because I'm convinced that when you publicly put your thoughts on the internet, it's impossible to avoid becoming spectaclized.

是，這是反調。不，不是因為我覺得你生活無趣，也不是因為我覺得我們都該「擺脫電子器回到真正的世界去」。是因為我認為把自己思想公開放在網路上時，無法避免自己的景觀化。

By “spectacle” I mean the situationist concept of the same name, defined in thesis 4 of Guy Debord's The Society of the Spectacle as “a social relation between people that is mediated by images” (translator: Ken Knabb). Images in this case don't refer to strictly visual images but representations of reality in general. You don't—or rather, I'm very convinced that you can't—exist as a whole person on the internet. Only as digital representations of a person, only as fragments of yourself mediated by the internet in ways that alienate you from your own self-expression. This alienation through mediation of representations is what I mean by “becoming spectaclized.”

所謂的「景觀」是指情境者的同名概念，在居伊·德博的《景觀社會》第四節定義為「人與人之間的一種社會關係，透過圖像的中介而建立的關係」（譯者：張新木）。圖像在這個情況之下不是嚴格只在指視覺圖片，而是廣義指任何代表現實的表演。你不能—或許該說，我非常認為你不可能—作為一個完整的人在網路上存在。只能有數位代表個人的表演，只有被網路中介的個人的碎片，造成你和你自我表現之間的異化。這樣通過表演的中介而造成的異化就是我所謂提到的「景觀化」。

One of the worst examples of spectaclization on the internet is how most social media platforms force you post as voice of authority, because the platform requires everyone to interact with each other as potential followers. Even if you say you're not speaking as a voice of authority, the platform's mediation disciplines everyone to respond as potential followers—and so I've discovered on these platforms, those who object to some opinion often speak with a tone of “you're imposing your authority on me,” because they're playing the role of those who've refused to follow. Actually refusing to follow or be followed by anyone will still not free you from spectaclization; you still cannot prevent the platform from representing you with a 0 following / 0 follower count, from giving you with the appearance of refusing other people's authority / being someone with no authority at all.

最糟糕的網路景觀化例子之一就是大部分社交媒體平台強迫你冒著照權威聲的身分來po，因為平台規定大家必須利用潛在跟隨者的身分來互動。就算你說自己不是在利用權威聲的身分說話，平台的中介會規訓大家按照潛在跟隨者的身分來回應—因此我發現在這種平台上，反對意見的人常會有「你在強迫我接受你的權威」的口氣，因為他們在扮演拒絕當跟隨的角色。真的拒絕跟隨或讓別人跟隨你的話，也還是不能擺脫景觀化；你還是不能阻止平台利用 0 個跟隨中 / 0 位跟隨者的算數來代表你，為你創造拒絕其他人的權威 / 自己沒有權威的面貌。

What about “better, less alienating ways of mediation” like “friends” on Facebook? To me that's using the appearance of personal intimacy to disguise the alienation created by Facebook's mediation. A Facebook friend does not have to be your actual friend, but by accepting a Facebook friend request from someone, you're forced to represent yourselves as friends regardless of your actual relationship. Even if you only accept friend requests from people who you do have an actual relationship with, rejecting other people's friend requests will create a representation of not wanting to be friends, regardless of whether or not you wish to express that meaning. On a platform where everyone plays the role of a potential friend, disagreements take on a personal nature. You issue opinions as someone who should have friends, and when you disagree, you must consider whether or not to unfriend someone, creating a representation of a ruined friendship (that might have never even existed in the first place).

那麼，有沒有「更好，更不會有異化性的中介」，像臉書的「朋友」類似？對我來說，那是在利用親密關係的面貌來隱藏臉書的中介造成的異化。一個臉書朋友不需要是你真正的朋友，但是如果你接受了別人的交友邀請，不管真正的關係是怎樣，就必須有朋友的表演。就算你只要接受真的跟你有關係的人的交友邀請，取消別人的交友邀請會造成不當朋友的表演，無論你想不想表達出那種意思。在一個大家扮演潛在朋友角色的平台上，意見不合會有針對個人之意。發表意見的時候，你身為一個該有朋友的人；反對意見的時候，必須考慮該不該解除朋友關係，創造毀掉友情的表演（甚至是一開始根本就不存在的友情也要毀）。

I'm not convinced that there's some indie platform out there where we find true free expression by self-managing our own self-spectaclization under capitalism. I don't even know if destroying capitalism will lessen all the spectaclist tendencies we've accustomed ourselves to accepting. My point is that blogging in the society of spectacle feels less like a playground for self-expression than it does like a prison—but so do a lot of things. Sure, we can stop expressing ourselves online, we can refuse to have connections with anyone online because in the end it's all spectacle, but this is social suicide. I want to live.

我不認為有什麼獨立平台能在自我管理我們的自我景觀化之中讓我們找到真正自由的表現。我也不知道消滅資本主義之後會不會減少我們習慣接受的景觀主義傾向。重點就是說，在景觀社會之下寫部落格感覺不像是自我表現的遊樂場，反而更像是監獄—可是很多事情也是這樣。的確，我們可以禁止在網路上表達自己，拒絕跟任何人有關係，說最後都只是景觀，但是這樣是社交自殺。我要的是活。

Or do I? Often I feel like my goal of posting on the internet isn't to realize self-expression, but to get validation from other people. In darker times, I've felt like posting something that doesn't get engagement is just the same as not having posted at all—that at least online, I have the appearance of not having existed at all, and if I can't even convince others to acknowledge a representation of my existence, then why should I bother existing in reality at all?

可是這是實話嘛？我覺得我常常在網路上 po 的目的不是為了實現自我表現，而是為了得到別人的認可。在絕望的時候，我甚至覺得沒人跟我 po 的東西互動就跟什麼都沒 po 一模一樣，而且如果連自己的表演都吸引不了別人的注意，真正的自己憑什麼資格活下去？

“The spectacle presents itself as a vast inaccessible reality that can never be questioned. Its sole message is: 'What appears is good; what is good appears.'” I have a personality disorder where my ego is severely impacted by other people's perceptions of me to the point where other people's negative perceptions—or merely the potential or representation of negative perceptions—can make me feel suicidal. Every time I make another post with no engagement the disordered side of my brain sides with the spectacle and says, “that means your post was bad, that means you're bad, that means you should disappear.” But nobody can rescue me from the hell of my brain besides myself. Nobody is obligated to engage with my posts, and nobody is obliged to care about who I am or what I think or what I'm going through. So where does that leave me?

「景觀表現為一種巨大的實證性，既無可爭辯又難以企及。它所說的無非就是『岀現的就是好東西，好東西就會出現』。」我有人格違常，我的自我會在別人的看法之下受到嚴重的影響，嚴重到別人的消極看法—或只不過是消極看法的潛在或表演—能讓我想自殺。每當我又創造一個沒有互動的貼文，心裡有一部分就會跟著景觀站在同一邊，告訴我說：「那表示你的貼文不好，那表示你就是不好，那表示你就該消失。」但是除了自己之外，沒有人能從我腦海中的地域把我救出來。沒有人有跟我貼文互動的義務，也沒有人必須關心我是誰或我的想法是什麼或我現在生活過得怎樣。所以我這樣該怎麼辦？

I end up posting for myself, because as someone who can't usually get engagement, I have no other alternative. Still, there is a part of me that insists on continuing to issue opinions as a “worthless nobody” in the spectacle, that insists on continuing to take up space that the spectacle's numbers tell me I don't deserve—because I know I am not the only one who's viewed as a “worthless nobody,” and that there are others who have it way worse. I end up posting for something more hopeless than self-expression—for finding solidarity in the face of alienation. I see myself in the negations of other people's existences, and I hope that others can see themselves in my negation too. But I only end up grasping at representations, longing to feel something real.

我最後是為了自己在 po，因為身為通常是得不到互動的人，我沒有別的選擇。可是，我還是有一部分執意想繼續在景觀中「無名之輩廢物」的位置發表意見，執意想霸佔景觀的算數說我沒資格佔的空間—因為我知道我不是唯一被視為是無名之輩廢物的人，也知道還有其他人的狀況更糟。我最後是為了比自我表現更沒救的原因在 po—是為了找到不顧異化的團結。我在別人存在的否定中看見自己，也希望別人能在我的否定中得到同樣的意識。可是我最後接觸到的就只是表演，就只剩下感受到真實的希望。