OVER the month of March, the cultural codes which media (re)produces as part of capitalist ideology could not be disguised.

I was in attendance at various events whereby media was the focus of discussions. The themes which consistently came through at each event were blame and lack of representation.

Blame lay at the door of the media, whose relentless, unaccountable propagation of hate was to blame for the dehumanisation and attacks of humans, by humans. The state could be blamed. Post-Leveson – a judicial public inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press – questions continue to be raised around the relationship between the state and the media. The state often viewed as mobilising media for the promotion and positioning of state ideologies. Equally, people – consumers and spectators of media – were to blame. People had enabled any sense of agency and self to become secondary to the needs of the free market, too paralysed by the vastness of an ideology to do anything other than produce and consume capitalist cultural codes.

The issue around lack of representation manifested itself in different ways. At the Media Reform Festival 2019, the conversations around lack of representation focused on leftist political ideologies within mainstream media and the impact on society when these voices were silenced or ridiculed. Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Representation in Journalism – a panel discussion hosted by the University of Edinburgh’s newspaper, The Student – sought solutions to challenge the dominance of media discourse by white narratives. Other events – whereby media wasn’t the centre of discussion but shaped the discourse – questioned media and state responses to the Christchurch terror attack and the death of Shamima Begum’s baby son. Can these stories only be told within a capitalist ideology? Would these stories even be told if the ideology was different?

Creators and curators of capitalist culture

SUPPOSE then you try to change media, by becoming independent, accountable and – most importantly -– representative of us as a people. All the people who have been historically misrepresented and/or underrepresented are given a voice. Does doing this change the ways in which people see themselves and how they are viewed by others?

While more people might consume, purchase and support media which is produced in a voice similar to their own experiences – we seek belonging and connectivity – independent, accountable and representative media and the messages it sends still exists as part of a wider ideology. This reinforces the importance of buying/spending power and reproduces the cultural codes of capitalism which are contained within all facets of the media. If access to social media platforms promotes a sense of agency and/or self, this easily becomes individualised. A narrative can only be developed when a collective is formed around that individual’s ideas, which can all too easily be lost/gained/deleted/blocked, or also remains at risk of reproducing cultural codes of capitalism.

Concepts which surround class, gender, race, masculinity and femininity, marriage, the family, religion and even government, are only some of the social constructs within European societies. The practice of discrimination against any of these social constructs – from personal abuse to colonial oppression – has existed for several hundred years and is an essential part of the European capitalist system and the ways in which it maintains itself.

Discrimination becomes rationalised by theory and as a practice, and has historically been supported by different theories each relevant to the environment of the era. That’s why one practice can be underpinned by various theories. Throughout the centuries to present day, discrimination moves from biblical (grounded in religion) to biological (grounded in “science”), to historical and/or cultural.

The National: New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern comforting a member of the public after the horrific terrorist attack on Muslims in Christchurch, which sparked debates about the media’s role in the rise of the far rightNew Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern comforting a member of the public after the horrific terrorist attack on Muslims in Christchurch, which sparked debates about the media’s role in the rise of the far right

In the history of discrimination towards women in Europe – including Scotland – women were named as witches and were killed to cement patriarchal power and create the subjugated, domestic labour class necessary for capitalism. As Silvia Federici argues, “The witch-hunt deepened the divisions between women and men, teaching men to fear the power of women, and destroyed a universe of discipline, thus redefining the main elements of social reproduction.

The practice of discrimination – against any one of these social constructs – drives the production and consumption of media.

(re)creating cultural codes

SOCIAL media via technology allows us to become creators and curators of capitalist culture. It is often heralded – and demonised – as a gateway to agency, the expression of authentic voice(s) and where people can experience true freedom of speech. Yet, these voices, plentiful and rich in ways traditional, legacy and mainstream media cannot be, (re)produce and reinforce the same ideological beliefs which exist both within and outside of media all together.

Operating within capitalist ideology – with the same gate-keepers and methods of extraction/exploitation, creators can only produce content in response to capitalist ideology – particularly in the practice of discrimination, for capitalist consumers who have curated their media within this ideology. We create, curate and consume capitalist ideology as culture.

How and in what ways do we (re)create cultural codes which shift our consciousness away from capitalist culture to one(s) which are not? Current solutions to building community often include hosting events and creating safe spaces offline. “All welcome” events held in places which are inaccessible (for numerous reasons), use huge amounts of energy (emotional and environmental), often come at a financial cost and can leave both organisers and attendees feeling empty. We create safe spaces – ‘xxxx only’ – exclusive to the construct we struggle because of and causes we struggle for. These safe spaces are important for sharing knowledge and turning a solitary experience into a collective experience, which for many, sustains life. These, like “all welcome” events, are strategies which can be utilised in (re)creating cultural codes, but must – and should – seek techniques which enable the new collective consciousnesses to develop without risk of (re)producing capitalist cultural codes.

The photographs, live stream/tweet/story which accompany the gatherings dutifully perform the function of documenting our conformity, our resistance to transformative action and re-establish capitalist cultural codes.

By allowing certain people into certain places, we feed the energies and practices of discrimination the capitalist system thrives on. We individualise the collective and create divisions. Instead of building strength, we are weakening our ways to find commonality.

Outside of binary (un)realities

EXPOSING the ideology which produces social constructs can’t be done within existing structures. To do so means looking outside of the binary (un)realities we have grown accustomed to, whose right/wrong, good/bad, ugly/beautiful disallows the spaces in-between.

The spaces in-between can be found in asking questions, in the sharing of our homes, time and vulnerabilities. The question is, can we share ourselves with people who seem so unlike us – to (re)create cultural codes which remove the struggle for us all – as easily and readily as we share our data?