“… a reality mediated and transformed by the spectacle”, from “The Society of the Selfie”

Remarks: These excerpts from Chapter 2 of “The Society of the Selfie” relate historical aspects of the rise of the image and spectacle in communication systems. In this presentation, television reflects the profound impact of the spectacle, well before the internet; and it is interesting, in addition, to consider the fate of print literacy in this context. How is meaning conveyed in popular communication, or the public sphere, when heavily influenced by imagery and spectacle? What are the effects on the individual and their (intellectual) autonomy?

“The spectacle stands between us and the real world, like a massive looking glass. People see everything through it, including themselves and one another.” (Jeremiah Morelock and Felipe Ziotti Narita)

 

Source: The Society of the Selfie: Social Media and the Crisis of Liberal Democracy. Jeremiah Morelock and Felipe Ziotti Narita. Published By University of Westminster Press.115 New Cavendish Street, London W1W 6UW. www.uwestminsterpress.co.uk. 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16997/book59. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Society of the Selfie: Social Media and the Crisis of Liberal Democracy

Jeremiah Morelock and Felipe Ziotti Narita

 

2.1 Introduction

(Chapter 2. Communication Technologies and the History of the Spectacle)

The world of social media renders sociality dependent on images – digitized shapes, sounds, movement and colours that are embedded in the surfaces disseminated on screens. This condition is the result of a long process of socioeconomic development encompassing the growing dominance of sociotechnical apparatuses over the production of human relations. The saturation of the social world with media and images is especially preeminent in the age of the internet, but this sort of condition was well known decades before. An important account of these transformations appeared in the late 1960s, when French theorist Guy Debord published The Society of the Spectacle. The book was very popular among the radical left and student activists in France. Debord also produced a film about his powerful book. In the film he mixed various images – from Fidel Castro giving a speech to the fashion designer, Coco Chanel – with the reading of his book. The book is about a broad cultural development that emerged from modern capitalism: the spectacle. It comprises all of the media images in society taken together, but it is more than this. It has a very specific function that concerns Debord: ‘The spectacle is not a collection (ensemble) of images, but a social relation mediated by images’ (1992, 16).  The spectacle stands between us and the real world, like a massive looking glass. People see everything through it, including themselves and one another.

[ … ]

2.3 The Spectacle of Mechanical Culture

Image-mediated socialization, which constitutes the spectacle of modern communication technologies, gained momentum with photography and, in the end of the nineteenth century, the cinema. This new sensibility in modern geoculture turned the spectacle of industrial image effects into something beyond shapes: images appear to the senses (Didi-Huberman 2013, 356–359), that is, they interpellate and disclose visibility available through surfaces. Visual culture, in the first decades of the twentieth century, was subjected to the mechanical reproduction of sensations, combining visual effects, sound, colours and movement. The aesthetic of industrial forms of communication produced new regimes of attention and subject positions, since the individual would be affected by visual stimuli in surfaces and abrupt flows of information (Crary 2001). Walter Benjamin (1974, 113–114), reflecting on the ‘shock experience’ of modernity, located the modernization of the senses at the very centre of capitalist culture and the new sociotechnical relations with mechanical images.

The multiplication of sensorial stimuli in urban life, with crowds and rapid succession of scenery, illustrates a broader cultural complex grounded in new social experiences connected to mass communication outlets. Technology and mechanical images displayed many dematerialized kaleidoscopic signals to consciousness and, especially with the cinema, the human sensorium was constantly subjected to the need for adaptation (training) in relation to the ever-changing surfaces. The mechanical reproduction of culture can also be conceived as the first act of the era of the spectacle.

If the printing press and illustrated newspapers paved the way for the mass consumption of culture, photography and the translation of its techniques into the cinema put the pictorial representation of the world in sequential frames. The projection of mechanical images in film entailed two innovations: movement and staging (Kracauer 1960). Both features reinforced the growing appeal to observers’ senses, as the modern entertainment industry took shape, with its mass production of cultural items (Horkheimer and Adorno 2009), creating new needs and popular icons for the geoculture. A sociological figure emerged from this shift: the anonymous masses as a target affected by communication technologies. The mechanical reproduction of culture entailed the mass-production of the person, that is, the individual as a generic being (Gattungswesen) (Horkheimer and Adorno 2009, 159) that could be everyone and no one. The standardization of communication technologies rendered the individual person abstract amid the levelled, generalized masses.

In the early twentieth century, radio illustrated this condition under the need for spreading audio contents (especially news and advertisements) to a mass of anonymous, diffuse, generalized individuals. Radio extended the domination of media product to everyday life through the intrusion of narration and rhapsodic voices (from Wagner’s Parsifal, as in the first Argentinian radio broadcasting, to the news from distant fronts during the World Wars) into the private sphere (Wolf 2010). It was a cultural force that reached a wider public during its glory days in the 1930s and 1940s, serving as an artifact to unify the nation (Hilmes 2002). The radio spread rapidly through the United States, Britain, France and Weimar Germany (Fuhrer 1997; Douglas 2004). In peripheral countries of Latin America, the first experiences with stable radio transmissions took place in Brazil (with the Radio Sociedade do Rio de Janeiro and Radio Clube de Pernambuco between 1919 and 1923), Argentina (LOR Radio Argentina in 1920), Mexico (XEB in 1923), Venezuela (Ayre in 1926), Peru (LIMA OAX-AM in 1925) and Colombia (HJN in 1929) (Dangelo and Sousa 2016). However, the massification of radio in the region occurred only in the 1930s under the aegis of its political uses, for example, with Getulio Vargas in Brazil and the populist regime of Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico (Haussen 2001).

With mass communication technologies, capitalist modernizing moves rearranged the public sphere and empowered the masses with a politicized culture and promises of a new protagonism (Morelock and Narita 2018b). At the same time, these technologies and their effects constituted and facilitated new forms of domination and a structural transformation of politics and culture in the twentieth century (Pavlik 1996; Hyden et al. 2002; Oswald 2009).

The great turning point in the production of contemporary mode of perception, dependent on the combination of images in movement and sound with the spread of these media outlets through broader publics, took place in the 1940s and 1950s. The television became the prototype of a sensorial revolution, since it unified image and sound with a massive industry devoted to the production of entertainment. It also promoted the personal use of technology, and the pervasive effect of images, displaying contents in surfaces, that became the medium of new forms of relatedness that traversed the globe alongside the expansion of market structures.

2.4 Era of the Television

The television is a potent metaphor for the cultural power of communication technologies in the twentieth century (Wolton 1990). The first experiments with it were in the late 1920s and 1930s in England, Germany and the United States. In the New York World’s Fair of 1939, themed ‘The World of Tomorrow’, several companies presented televisions to the public for sale (Kovarik 2015).

The spread of TV took off during les trentes glorieuses, that is, the 30 years from 1945 to 1975 that experienced great economic growth and the rise of a new sociotechnical milieu with the ubiquitous effect of duplication of reality (Habermas 2003, 208) into real life and images. Industrialization and markets expanded quickly, and cultures all across the world experienced rapid cultural shifts (Hobsbawm 1994, 259–262). The process was an entanglement of technological innovation, market expansion, cultural change and urbanization.

In the years following World War II, the number of American TV stations expanded rapidly, and by the early 1950s, the television became a popular household item (Winston 1998, 95–102). In core countries, major networks like America’s NBC and CBS and England’s BBC broadcast for far and wide audiences. In countries on the periphery of the capitalist world-system like Brazil and Mexico, the first transmissions were only to small audiences on networks such as Brazil’s TV Tupi and Mexico’s XHTV-TDT, which were inspired by the massive market for television in the United States (Fox 1998). It was not until the mid-1960s that television became something people along the capitalist periphery privately owned and watched in their homes (Fox and Waisbord 2002).

Japan, which was in reconstruction after its defeat in 1945, was entering a phase of rapid economic development that included a rising high-tech industry and a booming market for home televisions (Yoshimi 2005). And the cultural tensions derived from this were far from being residual: the exhibition of images for middle-classes desiring consumption, banal and of vulgar scenes, and many appeals for material success were articulated through mass media (Kim 2017).

During the Cold War, TVs and TV networks expanded their domain throughout both capitalist and socialist countries. Naturally, both sides (the USA and USSR) had a vested interest in improving their technologies faster, for purposes of national advancement in tandem with the competition between capitalism and communism for securing political allies and trading partners across the world. In this way, the space race and the arms race were two legs of the same beast. And the space race – agitated in 1957 with the success of the Soviet satellite ‘Sputnik’ – would connect with the spread of TV, in the sense that satellite technology became an enormous boon to the ability for televisions to broadcast distant events, and so also to connect disparate regions of the world. In 1964, the United States started this trend when the country used a satellite to broadcast the Summer Olympics from Japan. That year, 143 countries came together in the International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium (INTELSAT). The use of satellites for TV broadcasting expanded through the 1970s, which also entailed the expansion of international broadcasting and coordination (Kovarik 2015).

Television was rapidly becoming a central beacon of mass culture, and as such it could and did serve political functions that both supported the growing capitalist geoculture and fuelled popular protest within core countries. The expansion of television networks was a vital component for spreading ways of life, propaganda and even psychological warfare (Schwoch 2002). Yet the American Civil Rights movement, for example, gained many more sympathizers due to protests acquiring televised media coverage. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I have a dream’ speech at the Washington, DC Lincoln Memorial in front of 250,000 spectators in the 1963 March on Washington and the brutalizing of Civil Rights protestors by Alabama police in 1965 made lasting popular impressions.

In socialist countries, TV broadcasting also expanded vigorously. The political potency of television became evident, for example, when the screens reached and inflamed the audience in the streets during the Prague Spring (1968) – after the Soviet repression, even the Communist Party stimulated soap operas (with the dramatic serials of Jaroslav Dietl) in order to communicate with the public and negotiate the normalization of everyday life under late communism (Bren 2010). Televisual entertainment became a force for globalizing culture through the spectacle of mechanical images. The circulation of imported entertainment from Western countries, comprising cartoons, films and a variety of commercially produced programs, was significant in Hungary, Poland and especially in the former Yugoslavia (due to the relatively independent geopolitical situation of the country in relation to the Soviet bloc) (Mihelj 2012). In the late 1980s, Brazilian telenovelas and their eye-catching social realism became blockbusters in Poland and the Soviet Union (Mattelart and Mattelart 1990).

It was a turning point in the scope and form of communication. Communication technologies were important elements in the uneven integration of different regions (be it capitalist countries or planned economies of the ‘actually existing socialism’) into the modern world-system. The rise of mass communication devices in industrial core countries and the spread of technologies to peripheral areas created interdependent nodes of a vast network for the production and circulation of images. In this context of broadening cultural circulation, for example, Carmen Miranda could sell worldwide the Brazilian exoticism in the Jimmy Durante Show in the 1950s, when Nikita Kruschev also sold the agricultural and industrial improvements of Soviet politics on Face the Nation (CBS).

Sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein (1996, 124–125) called this process the basis of ‘capitalist civilization’. The global expansion of markets was accompanied by an expanding cultural logic where people treated new technologies as if they carried with them the keys to the good life. The enchantment of the new and the promises of unlimited abundance went hand in hand with the touting of well-being and quality of life as major boons of capitalist civilization. If the consumer society of the twentieth century ‘is to be sure a function of science and gadgetry’, as Wallerstein states, the rapid expansion of radios and televisions across the globe played an important role in spreading consumerism and reverence for new technologies.

In consumer-oriented capitalism, desires are stoked and through taking part, people in all parts of the world become entranced, and buy in. In leisure, consumption, entertainment and the dictates of advertising and self-exhibition, the compulsion to buy hooks people in a variety of forms. New ‘must-have’ objects arise and turn obsolete, arise and turn obsolete, in a perpetual cycle with increasing speed. The consumerist geoculture has no boundaries: it is pervasive and tireless, spouting new branches and bringing new territories under its spell.

It finds a way into everywhere and everything. The world becomes united in a global industrial order, and intrinsic to this order is the culture and logic of the commodity. It is facilitated by new powers of media – first print media, then radio, then TV. The uneven integration of different regions – Wallerstein’s ‘capitalist world-system’ – would not have been possible just because of physical connections (transoceanic cables, telegraphic lines, etc.). The critical factor was the hypnotic spell of images and their commodities, a spell that was already thriving but that really colonized the globe when TVs colonized the household.

It is not that the images people become so enthralled by misrepresent the reality of the products they consume. It is also not the case that the images accurately represent the value. The images become a big part of the value of the products, both in terms of production and consumption. Images must be produced, but it is in the name of the product, not of the image itself, that they are produced. The value invested in the production of the image has its use-value in the spectacular value it adds to the product, in the way it builds connotations for the product in the cultural lexicon, thereby calculated to increase consumer demand. People learn to desire the product not only because of the longed for visceral, embodied experience of consuming the image, but also because of the spectacular value delivered from the commodity to the consumer through osmosis. The self that consumes items of social value becomes a more socially valuable self. Affected by the spread of mechanical images and communication devices, people buy and assimilate impressions and appearances by buying commodities. In other words, people deal with a reality mediated and transformed by the spectacle.

2.5 Spectacle and Commodity Fetishism

Debord never says communication technologies caused the spectacle, but clearly, they were indispensable in facilitating it. The spectacle, thus, is a social relation derived from the sociotechnical development of capitalism: a social structure and a historical moment in which social relations became mediated by images (Debord 1992, 16). The TV is only one aspect of a deep historical movement well underway since the nineteenth century, where vastly different groups of people were united by their growing exposure to images and their exhibition en masse – be it via the printing press, the radio, the cinema or the TV – that often carried with them flashy advertisements and encouragement to acquire and consume this or that commodity. Society was subsumed and unified under the domain of the spectacle.

By ‘spectacle’ he means not only something in public that people gawk at. It is not just about whether a media image excites people. The spectacle has a central place in the structure of society, and it dehumanizes. The most obvious reason for this dehumanization is that when people’s minds are saturated with media images, their perspectives on themselves and one another are at least partly coloured by media images, along with the internal labyrinth of desire and aversion that goes with them. Another reason for the dehumanization is that people encounter the commodities they buy separately from the people who produced them. This occlusion of social relations is connected to Debord’s account of alienation (Bunyard 2018), since commodities appear as autonomous forces based on the growing divorce between human power and the direct control on the production. According to Debord (1992), the sublimation of this process in images is completed (achevé) when the individual deals with an alien world in which reified social relations represents the complete separation of the subject from the activities society takes (dérober) from him. This tension between subject and an alien objectivity is a concrete production (fabrication concrète) of alienation of life as a whole: the externality (exteriorité) of the spectacle puts sociocultural pressures on human relatedness to produce needs for an alienated consumption according to an alienated production.

This is where the spectacle mediates between producer and consumer. The spectacle promises cultural unification – since different people can have standardized experiences, using the same imagistic references and surfaces – but it delivers social separation (Faucher 2018). One can think about this in two ways. First, socialization is largely dependent on the dynamics of images (embedded in information, advertisements, etc.), which are the very sign of separation (détachement) between life itself (vécu) and its representation (Debord 1992, 15). Second, if the spectacle crystalizes the structural separation between producers and products (28), commodities do not belong to workers, but become foreign (étrangers) to them and multiplicate needs in a loop, that is, they appear (image) and circulate as premises of the modern abundance of dispossession (31). The structural separation implicit behind the images feeds consumption à distance, which is to say, the new desire economy is necessarily sublimated in the medium and its potency of multiplication of exhibitions ad infinitum. Most of the time, people do not meet the others who produce the items they consume. And most of the time, people do not think about the producers of their purchased commodities. In everyday life, on supermarket shelves and in department stores, shoppers find commodities packaged and presented, beckoning to them. There may be a person operating a cash register, but that person bears no personal relationship to the various items the shopper selects for purchasing. This is the waking life of consumer society: production is invisible. The individual encounters media images and commodities – not the workers, the people who built the commodities and images. The consumer experiences the finished product, not the process or people behind it.

When a person consumes images (watching Coke commercials), just like when they consume commodities (drinking Coke in real life), they are not just relating to objects (commercials and Cokes). They are also relating to all of the work and all of the people involved in the work that went into making them. Yet the typical consumer tends to just think about the object itself. Anselm Jappe (1998, 51) calls it the disappearance of the subject – people act as if the social world were ruled by objects and images, as if objects and images had an autonomous life. This is the problem of commodity fetishism, an important concept for Debord and in Marxist social theory in general, first introduced in volume 1 of Marx’s Capital (1962 [1867], 85). In Debord’s words,

It is the principle of the fetishism of the commodity – the domination of society by ‘supersensible [suprasensibles] as well as sensuous [sensible] things’ – that attains its ultimate fulfillment [s’accomplit] in the spectacle, in which the real world is replaced by a selection of images that exist above it and at the same time succeed in making themselves regarded as the sensible par excellence. (Debord 1992, 36)

As mediation between labour and consumers, embedded in the apparent autonomy of commodities, the spectacle is an ‘abstract general equivalent’ that ‘is money one can only look at, because in it all use has already been exchanged for the totality of abstract representation’. The aesthetic features of exhibition and the quantitative jump of production of images lead to a new sensory discipline grounded in value production, since ‘the commodity is this effective [effectivement réelle] illusion, and the spectacle is its general expression’ (44). Images and surfaces, like commodities, are the primeval nuclei of contemporary capitalist socialization dependent on the ways people see and are seen by the diffuse audience. The visibility implies the need for self-valorization and inter-subjective recognition grounded in esteem, solidarity or moral complaisance (Honneth 2003), but it also deals with the imagistic power of surfaces and the inhuman amount of information in communication technologies. The connection of moral components with the new sociotechnical milieu produces a peculiar kind of spectacle that renders the individual prone to watch and to sell their own self according to the new visibility of media devices.

2.6 The New Visibility

In a famous study, Marshall McLuhan (1994) pointed out that TV opened up a new universe of perception. Through TV, a rhapsody of shows and ads started making the world accessible and knowable via unprecedented barrages of images, sounds, colours, and so on. The myth about the ‘global village’, with spaces increasingly more interconnected via the spectacle, is the cultural icon of the promises of the modern geoculture. It made the world more accessible and knowable, but only through surface appearances – the particular sequences of image and sound presented on TV. And of course, it was a pleasurable experience. The TV image became a key item for consumption; be it the success of John F. Kennedy’s self-presentation in the 1960 presidential campaign in the United States, the general appeal of the troubles of the American marines in Vietnam in the late 1960s, Castro’s nationalization of Cuban television in order to project images of radical political transformation (Rivero 2015) or the mass celebration (in coloured images) of the 1970 soccer championship in Brazil and the nationalist propaganda of the military dictatorship (then in its apex). Instead of being there inside the events of our lives, people became spectators of events, onlookers of images of a world on display for private enjoyment. But enjoyment was only the tip of the iceberg.

The world of the spectacle is the constant stimulation of the senses. Debord speaks of objets sensibles, in French: literally, objects whose first appeal lies in our sensory experience. Consider how hedonism and consumerism facilitate one another so well. All of the senses are enlisted in this spectacular way of life, but one stands out even more than the others, and that is sight. How things look matters a great deal to us, and often sight is the first sense involved in noticing – never mind evaluating – an object. In the society of the spectacle, the pleasure of seeing is exploited most out of all of the senses. This is true first of all by advertisers, shop owners, and really anyone with commodities to sell.

Consider the phenomenon of ‘window-shopping’, for example – people walk past the windows of shops, stoking their desires for the items that are placed in the shop windows in order to grab the attention of people walking by, or the advertisements on billboards towering over highways. It is also true in human relationships, where physical appearance has risen to a paramount consideration for social and self-esteem for so many people.

People are bombarded with messages about this or that item that they should buy, and about how to think about goods and people that appear in surfaces. This ‘how to think’ aspect is almost always with social connotations attached such as being sexy, attractive, powerful, fun, popular, in fashion, and so on. The individual is surrounded by stores and advertisements prodding them to buy things, suggestions abounding that the commodities will not only be satisfying but that they will also make the consumer give off good impressions to other people. In this sense, people want one another to know about the things they buy, because what people consume defines them to such a great extent. It gives voice to common people and makes demands (political issues, lifestyles, etc.) visible. At the same time, while the world of buying and selling and the commodities involved are thrust into human awareness constantly, individuals become more concerned with how they are coming across to others in the most basic of ways, and in how they can use the things they buy to manage others’ impressions of them.

The new visibility of the spectacle carries an important feature, especially with media coverage of the big stories: ritualized emotional intensity (Compton 2004, 83–84). Be it with the Gulf War in the United States or the daily news on the criminal investigations led by the Federal Police of Brazil that targeted mainly (between 2014 and 2017) the former leftist government of the Worker’s Party, attention-grabbing footage is featured and repeated, diffusing dichotomies (e.g., good/evil) with sensationalist appeal. In both cases, the novelty is not destruction nor political corruption, but rather the visibility gained by these issues due to the spectacle.

The world of experience is fixated on the ‘visible’ by a flood of advertising and exhibition, surface appearances and countless icons. The tease of these images is both ecstatic and alienating. People are steeped in them to the point of overstimulation, stoking an insatiable coveting: the desire to acquire, to experience the full thing, ‘the real thing’, and to participate in all of the glory portrayed in the image. As the old Faith No More song goes: ‘You want it all but you can’t have it. It’s in your face but you can’t grab it’. The coveting of images and their objects carries a yearning – an attempted command, even – for the object to disclose itself, to become fully ‘visible’, no longer alien. And as a modus operandi of the society of the spectacle, this extends beyond commodities; it invades how people relate to one another as well as to themselves. With the rise of social media in the 1990s, this would only deepen.

With the home computer, the internet and social media, the spectacle took on new dimensions. Instead of a top-down ‘culture industry’ like Adorno and Horkheimer (2009) once described, the online spectacle was much more decentralized, and even participatory and democratic in some ways. In Debord’s (1990) terms, it became ‘diffuse’ and integrated through the forces of capitalist globalization. In this diffusion and democratization, many people began to take part in generating the images that they then collectively took for reality, or at least wanted reality to be. But now it was no longer just images and movie stars and cans of Coke. Now everyone could take part in the spectacle, not just as spectator, but as producer and as image. The alienation of a reality mediated by images now went beyond the realm of consumption, and into the realm of social life in a more thorough way than even before.

[ … ]

2.9 The Spectacular Self

The audiovisual revolution was grounded in the one-way dispersion of information: from the production company and transmission centre to the masses.

The computer, on the other hand, allowed for much more individual autonomy. Users could copy, edit and rearrange information according to their own wants and needs. This laid the groundwork for the individual – as opposed to the company – to become a significant new productive unit in society. When the World Wide Web spread in the early 1990s, the individual started to become a new productive unit of media culture. In other words, the spectacle began a process of decentralization and democratization. Now the production of culture became a participatory affair (at least in principle) mediated by surfaces.

Social media extended this in a very specific way: a good part of social life went digital. Social media is used so much today that it is no longer reasonable to claim that it is only a digital representation of our own persons and our relationships. It is more accurate to say that most of our relationships are partly online, some of them entirely. People keep in regular contact by liking and commenting on one another’s status updates, tweets and posts. Instead of meeting face-to-face, they simply open a chat window.

In these digitally mediated, alienated forms of interaction, people sacrifice some things and gain some others. Obviously, they do it because they want to, at least on some level. Users gain the capacity to make new friends they would probably have never met before and keep in touch regularly with people all over the world, without waiting for the international postal service or paying long distance phone charges. At the same time, some communication with friends and family is now relegated to these online forums – one does not have to call or meet someone in order to talk with them. Clearly, the impact is both connecting and alienating. Users gain frequency of interaction and wideness of social networks, and yet the gained interactions come with a loss of the particular sort of spontaneity and intimacy that face-to-face social interactions involve.

The loss of spontaneity and intimacy also means a loss of real-time pressure and risk. This was particularly true in the early 1990s, before the days of social media platforms Friendster and Myspace. Socializing online originally took place through chat rooms and private messages, with no associated avatar other than the ‘screen name’ one gave oneself. On the one hand, this made it possible for a person to easily project an entirely bogus identity, and this reality raised public concerns about sexual predators lurking in chat rooms and adopting fake personas. On the other hand, this meant that people could explore various genuine aspects of themselves through expressing themselves in a multiplicity of screen names and identities (Turkle 1995). With the invention of Windows, it became possible to participate in multiple identities simultaneously in real time (Turkle 1999). Yet over the past two decades, this opportunity for freedom and multiplicity in online identity has narrowed, and at the same time the internet has garnered a dramatically expanded user base as well as an increasing presence in the lives of users. Avatars on Friendster, Myspace, Twitter, Facebook, and so on ask for profile descriptions and photos, and in such a situation, the social media profile explicitly ties the user account to a unified, embodied, organic self with a ‘real’ face and a ‘real’ name. It is still possible to completely fabricate identities in user accounts for purposes of trickery or predation. It is more complicated, however, to casually express oneself through a multiplicity of online identities. The trend moved more towards curating one’s general online presence to project a coherent, desired online identity (Van Dijck 2013; Marwick 2013a, 2013b) that was still anchored, more or less authentically, in the attributes and identity of the flesh and blood user (Wee and Brooks 2010; Banet-Weiser 2012). This marriage of curation and authenticity is contradictory, and it reflects the one/many characteristics of the self that is split between the spectacular and the organic on the one hand, and on the other hand is at least ostensibly a coherent reconciliation of the spectacular and the organic.

If someone’s avatar on Twitter shows them at their most fit, in their best clothes, at the best camera angle and with perfect hair, then whenever they tweet, it is as if that image of them generates the tweet. Their online social identity is wed to that ideal image. And yet just as the spectacle is in one sense alienated and, in another sense, real (unto itself and in its establishment of representation as reality), the spectacular self and the organic self are in a dialectical relationship, each one informing and partially inhabiting the other. Along with the injunction to be ‘authentic’, i.e., to fashion one’s online identity in good faith as a reflection of the organic self, comes the injunction to measure up, i.e., to fashion one’s organic self in good faith as a reflection of one’s online identity.

Turkle (2017, 185) describes it well: ‘Social media ask us to represent ourselves in simplified ways. And then, faced with an audience, we feel pressure to conform to these simplifications’.

The spectacular self is both an alienated, digital rendition of the organic self, and a logical extension of neoliberal rationality. As we will see in Chapter 3, neoliberalism is much more than a set of economic policies, promoting privatization, deregulation, and so on. It involves a kind of broad colonization of governments, cultures and personalities by the ways of the market. Despite all the talk about being free to choose (Friedman and Friedman 1980), neoliberalism involves a transformation of state power rather than its dissolution: increasingly, the government is run by and for the market, as well as according to its rationality of calculation, self-interest and maximization. And people increasingly run their own lives this way too, holding individual responsibility, productivity and self-valorization as central values. People act like they are their own enterprises, as if they are entrepreneurs of themselves. As Tom Peters (1997) put it,

Regardless of age, regardless of position, regardless of the business we happen to be in, all of us need to understand the importance of branding. We are CEOs of our own companies: Me Inc. To be in business today, our most important job is to be head marketer for the brand called You. It’s that simple – and that hard. And that inescapable.

Neoliberalism and the digital era emerged together within a broad process of social, cultural and economic transformation. The network infrastructure was the condition and the product of the spread of global capitalism. Neoliberalism and the digital shaped one another in integral ways. The neoliberal dream was more or less the marketization of the world, and information technologies provided the communications infrastructure to make the dream easier to approach. Digital communications constituted a new lucrative frontier for Wall Street traders, while the stock market became exponentially more fast-paced and completely dependent on the transfer of data within digital networks. The financial sector exploded when it went digital. Multinational corporations were given a tremendous boost in efficiency as well, feeding a deterritorialization of the market wherein very powerful businesses were able to constitute themselves above and beyond national borders and laws.

The intertwined issues of alienation – estrangement from self and other on the one hand and sociality mediated by images and surfaces on the other hand – were already well underway decades before the personal computer became commonplace. The spectacle was already in full force during the middle of the twentieth century. The digital era just helped it spread in new directions, namely into the self. [ … ]

__________________________________

Citation: Morelock, Jeremiah and Narita, Felipe Ziotti. 2021. The Society of the Selfie: Social Media and the Crisis of Liberal Democracy. London: University of Westminster Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.16997/book59. License: CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 To read the free, open access version of this book online, visit https://doi.org/10.16997/book59.

Bibliography

Adeane, Ant. 2019. ‘Blue Whale: What is the Truth Behind an Online “suicide challenge”?’ BBC News, January 13.
Adorno, Theodor. 1951. ‘Freudian Theory and the Pattern of Fascist Propaganda’. Psychoanalysis and the Social Sciences, 3 (1), 408–433.
Adorno, Theodor W. 2003. Negative Dialektik/Jargon der Eigentlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Adorno, Theodor W. 2014. Lectures on Negative Dialectics: Fragments of a Lecture Course 1965/1966. London: John Wiley & Sons.
Adorno, Theodor W. 2017. An Introduction to Dialectics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Adorno, Theodor. 2020. Aspects of the New Right-Wing Extremism. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Adorno, Theodor, Else Frenkel-Brenswik, Daniel Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford. 2019 [1950]. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Verso.
Agar, Jon. 2012. Science in the Twentieth Century and Beyond. Malden, MA: Polity.
Agassi, André. 1991. ‘Canon EOS Rebel Commercial’. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E78OnfyQiWo. Accessed: November 10, 2019.
Aguirre, Francisco. 2019. ‘El Violador Eres Tú: Quiénes Son el Colectivo Lastesis’. La Tercera, November 26.
Ahler, Douglas J. 2014. ‘Self-Fulfilling Misperceptions of Public Polarization’. The Journal of Politics, 76 (3), 607–620.

Al Jazeera. 2020. ‘“Silence is Pro-Racist”: Anti-Racism Protests Continue Worldwide’. Al Jazeera, June 7.
Allcott, Hunt, Luca Braghieri, Sarah Eichmeyer and Matthew Gentzkow. 2020. ‘The Welfare Effects of Social Media’. American Economic Review, 110 (3), 629–676.
Alvares, Claudia. 2018. ‘Online Staging of Femininity: Disciplining Through Public Exposure in Brazilian Social Media’. Feminist Media Studies, 18 (4), 657–674.
Amengay, Abdelkarim. 2019. Les Thèmes de Prédilection du Front National Dans la Presse Régionale. Ph.D. Dissertation. Paris: Institute of Political Studies.
American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5®). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
Amorós, Celia. 1993. Hacia una Crítica de la Razón Patriarcal. Madrid: Anthropos.
Anderson, Edward and Arkotong Longkumer. 2018. ‘Neo-Hindutva: Evolving Forms, Spaces, and Expressions of Hindu Nationalism’. Contemporary South Asia, 26 (4), 371–382.
Andrejevic, Mark. 2004. Reality TV: The Work of Being Watched. New York: Rowan and Littlefield.
Antonio, Robert J. 2021. ‘When History Fails Us: Immanent Critique of Capitalism to the New Right and Beyond’. In: Jeremiah Morelock (Ed.). How to Critique Authoritarian Populism: Methodologies of the Frankfurt School. Leiden: Brill.
Armelagos, George and Kristin Harper. 2016. ‘Emerging Infectious Diseases, Urbanization, and Globalization in the Time of Global Warming’. In:
William Cockerham (Ed.). The New Blackwell Companion to Medical Sociology, pp. 291–311. Chichester: Blackwell.
Augé, Marc. 1994. Pour une Anthropologie des Mondes Contemporains. Paris: Flammarion.
Banaji, Shakuntala and Ram Bhat. 2020. ‘How Anti-Muslim Disinformation Campaigns in India Have Surged During COVID-19’. London School of Economics, September 30.
Banet‐Weiser, Sarah. 2012. Authentic TM: The Politics and Ambivalence in a Brand Culture. New York: New York University Press.
Barassi, Veronica. 2015. ‘Social Media, Immediacy and the Time for Democracy: Critical Reflections on Social Media as Temporalizing Practices’. In: Lina Denick and Oliver Leistert (Eds.). Critical Perspectives on Social Media and Protest: Between Control and Emancipation. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2000. Liquid Modernity. Malden, MA: Polity.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2006. Liquid Fear. Malden, MA: Polity.
Bauman, Zygmunt. 2017. Retrotopia. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Bayer, Joseph, Nicole Ellison, Sarita Schoenebeck and Emily Falk. 2015. ‘Sharing Small Moments: Ephemeral Social Interaction on Snapchat’. Information, Communication & Society, 19 (7), 1–22.

BBC. 2018a. ‘Case that Fuelled Egypt’s #MeToo Movement Shelved’. BBC News, May 12.
BBC. 2018b. ‘Iran Protests: Social Media Messaging Battle Rages’. BBC News, January 7.
BBC. 2020. ‘In Pictures: Global Protests Against Racism and Police Brutality’.

BBC News, June 6.
Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Becker, Gary. 1993. A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Begby, E. 2017. ‘Evidential Pre-Emption’. Presented at the American Philosophical Association Pacific Division 2017 Meeting.
Beistegui, Miguel. 2018. The Government of Desire: A Genealogy of the Liberal Subject. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Beller, Jonathan. 2012. The Cinematic Mode of Production: Attention Economy and the Society of the Spectacle. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Benites, Afonso. 2018. ‘A Máquina de “Fake News” Nos Grupos a Favor de Bolsonaro no WhatsApp’. El País, September 28.
Benjamin, Walter. 1974. Charles Baudelaire: Ein Lyriker im Zeitalter des Hochkapitalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Benjamin, Walter. 1998. The Origin of German Tragic Drama. New York: Verso.
Bernabou, Roland and Jean Tirole. 2006. ‘Incentives and Prosocial Behavior’. American Economic Review, 96 (5), 1652–1678.
Bernstein, Michael, Eytan Bakshy, Moira Burke and Brian Karrer. 2013. ‘Quantifying the Invisible Audience in Social Networks’. CHI (Proceedings), Stanford University.
Betz, Hans-Georg. 2003. ‘The Growing Threat of the Radical Right’. In: Peter Merkl and Leonard Weinberg (Eds.). Right-Wing Extremism in the Twenty-First Century. London: Routledge.
Bicker, Laura. 2018. ‘#MeToo movement takes hold in South Korea’. BBC News, March 26.
Biebricher, Thomas. 2019. The Political Theory of Neoliberalism. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bishop, Bob. 2009. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Blair, Ann. 2010. Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information Before the Modern Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Boltanski, Luc and Eve Chiapello. 2011. Le Nouvel Esprit du Capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard.
Bonnin, Juan Eduardo. 2020. ‘Hashtag Tactics: Algorithmic Activism in Chile’. Diggit Magazine, March 9.
Bren, Paulina. 2010. The Greengrocer and His TV: The Culture of Communism After the 1968 Prague Spring. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Brennan, Matthew. 2020. Attention Factory: The Story of TikTok and China’s ByteDance. New York: TechCrunch.

Brittain, Christopher C. 2021. ‘Donald Trump and the Stigmata of Democracy: Adorno and the Consolidation of a Religious Racket’. In: Jeremiah Morelock (Ed.). How to Critique Authoritarian Populism: Methodologies of the Frankfurt School. Leiden: Brill.
Briziarelli, Marco and Emiliana Armano (Eds.). 2017. The Spectacle 2.0: Reading Debord in the Context of Digital Capitalism. London: University of Westminster Press.
Brooks, Peter. 2005. Realist Vision. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Brown, Wendy. 2015. Undoing the Demos. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brunner, José Joaquín. 1995. ‘Notes on Modernity and Postmodernity in Latin American Culture’. In: John Beverley (Ed.). The Postmodernism Debate in Latin America. Durham, NC:  Duke University Press.
Bruns, Axel. 2008. Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
Buffardi, Laura E. and W. Keith Campbell. 2008. ‘Narcissism and Social Networking Web Sites’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34 (10), 1303–1314.
Bulu, Saniye Tugba. 2012. ‘Place Presence, Social Presence, Co-Presence, and Satisfaction in Virtual Worlds’. Computers & Education, 58 (1), 154–161.
Bunyard, Tom. 2018. Debord, Time and Spectacle: Hegelian Marxism and Situationist Theory. Leiden: Brill.
Burbach, David T. 2017. ‘Gaining Trust While Losing Wars: Confidence in the US Military after Iraq and Afghanistan’. Orbis, 61 (2), 154–171.
Burbach, David T. 2019. ‘Partisan Dimensions of Confidence in the US Military, 1973–2016’. Armed Forces and Society, 45 (2), 211–233.
Burris, Val, Emery Smith and Ann Strahm. 2000. ‘White Supremacist Networks on the Internet’. Sociological Focus, 33 (2), 215–235.
Bustamante, Carolina. 2021. ‘Protesta Social: de las Redes Sociales a la Calle’. Radio Nacional de Colombia, May 13.
Busvine, Douglas. 2018. ‘German Far Right Far Ahead in Use of Social Media’. Reuters, September 13.
Caiani, Manuela, Donatella Della Porta and Claudius Wagemann. 2012. Mobilizing on the Extreme Right: Germany, Italy and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, Keith W. and Jean M. Twenge. 2015. ‘Narcissism, Emerging Media, and Society’. In: Larry D. Rosen, Nancy A. Cheever and L. Mark Carrier (Eds.). The Wiley Handbook of Psychology, Technology, and Society, pp. 358–370. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
Campbell, Scott W. 2015. ‘Mobile Communication and Network Privatism’. Review of Communication Research, 3 (1), 1–21.
Candón Mena, José. 2013. Toma la Calle, Tome las Redes: el Movimiento #15M en Internet. Madrid: Atrapasueños.
Carbonnel, Alissa. 2011. ‘Social Media Makes Anti-Putin Protests Snowball’. Reuters, December 7.

Caro, Isaac. 2005. ‘Movimientos Neonazis en el Cono sur Americano y sus Ramificaciones a Través de Internet’. Persona y Sociedad, 19 (1), 305–330.
Carr, Nicholas. 2020. The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains. Boston, MA: W.W. Norton & Company.
Carty, Victoria and Francisco Reynoso Barron. 2018. ‘Social Movements and New Technology: The Dynamics of Cyber Activism in the Digital Age’. In:
Berch Berberoglu (Ed.). The Palgrave Handbook of Social Movements, Revolution, and Social Transformation. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Castells, Manuel. 2012. Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age. London: Polity.
Center for American Women and Politics. 2021. 2020 Presidential Gender Gap Poll Tracker. Available at: https://cawp.rutgers.edu/presidential-poll-tracking-2020
Chkhartishvili, Alexander and Ivan Kozitsin. 2018. ‘Binary Separation Index for Echo Chamber Effect Measuring’. In: 2018 Eleventh International Conference Management of Large-Scale System Development (MLSD), pp. 1–4. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Chrisafis, Angelique. 2021. ‘France Planning to Allow Use of Algorithms to Detect Extremism Online’. The Guardian, April 28.
Chritton, Susan. 2014. Personal Branding for Dummies. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Citton, Yves. 2014. Pour une Écologie de l’Attention. Paris: Seuil.
Cohen, Stanley. 2002. Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. New York: Psychology Press.
Collins, Patricia Hill and Sirma Bilge. 2016. Intersectionality. London: Polity.
Compton, James. 2004. The Integrated News Spectacle: A Political Economy of Cultural Performance. New York: Peter Lang.
Cooper, Melinda. 2017. Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism. New York: Zone Books.
Cooper, Melinda. 2020. ‘Neoliberalism’s Family Values: Welfare, Human Capital, and Kinship’. In: Dieter Plehwe and Quinn Slobodian (Eds.). Nine Lives of Neoliberalism. New York: Verso.
Correa, Sonia. 2020. ‘The Anti-Gender Offensive as State Policy’. Conectas Human Rights, July 7.
Cossard, Alessandro, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales, Kyriaki Kalimeri, Yelena Mejova, Daniela Paolotti and Michele Starnini. 2020. ‘Falling into the Echo Chamber: The Italian Vaccination Debate on Twitter’. In: Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 14, pp. 130–140. Atlanta, GA: The AAAI Press.
Costa, Maria Cristina Castilho and Patricia Blanco. 2019. Liberdade de Expressão: Questões da Atualidade. São Paulo: USP Press, Palavra Aberta.
Crary, Jonathan. 2001. Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle, and Modern Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crary, Jonathan. 2013. 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep. New York: Verso.

Creedon, James. 2021. ‘#MeToo in Morocco, Female Farmers in Ivory Coast and Women Activists in Libya’. France24, March 12.
Cumiskey, Kathleen and Larissa Hjorth (Eds.). 2013. Mobile Media Practices, Presence and Politics: The Challenge of Being Seamlessly Mobile. New York: Routledge.
Cunningham, Carolyn (Ed.). 2013. Social Networking and Impression Management: Self-Presentation in the Digital Age. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Dângelo, Newton and Sandra Garcia de Sousa (Eds.). 2016. 90 Anos de Rádio no Brasil. Uberlândia: UFU Press.
Dardot, Pierre and Christian Laval. 2013. The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society. New York: Verso.
Dean, John W. and Bob Altemeyer. 2020. Authoritarian Nightmare: Trump and his Followers. New York: Melville House.
Debord, Guy. 1990. Comments on the Society of the Spectacle. New York: Verso.
Debord, Guy. 1992. La Société du Spectacle. Paris: Gallimard.
Deibert, Ronald and Rafal Rohozinski. 2010. ‘Liberation vs. Control: The Future of Cyberspace’. Journal of Democracy, 21 (4), 54–57.
Del Frate, Claudio. 2021. ‘Indagato Gruppo Filonazista Ordine Ario Romano’. Corriere Della Sera, June 7.
Del Vicario, Michela, Gianna Vialdo, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2016. ‘Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook’. Scientific Reports, 6 (1), 37825.
Deleuze, G. 1991. Bergsonism. Trans. by H. Tomlinson. New York: Zone Books.
Deleuze, G. 1994. Difference and Repetition. Trans. by P. Patton. New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, G. 2004. Desert Islands and Other Texts. 1953–1974. Trans. by M. Taormina. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Delmore, Eric. 2020. ‘This is How Women Voters Decided the 2020 Election’. NBC News, November 13.
Derks, Sanne and Ingrid Gercana. 2021. ‘Netherlands: Anti-Curfew Riots Shake Dutch Society’. Deutsche Welle, January 27.
Di Fonzo, Nicholas. 2011. ‘The Echo-Chamber Effect’. New York Times, April 22. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/04/21/barack-obama-and-the-psychology-of-the-birther-myth/the-echo-chamber-effect

Didi-Huberman, Georges. 2013. Phalènes: Essais sur l’Apparition II. Paris: Minuit.
Dominick, Joseph. 1999. ‘Who Do You Think You Are? Personal Home Pages and Self-Presentation on the World Wide Web’. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76 (2), 646–658.
Dorethy, Marcie D., Martin S. Fiebert and Christopher R. Warren. 2014. ‘Examining Social Networking Site Behaviors: Photo Sharing and Impression Management on Facebook’. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 6 (2), 111–116.

Douglas, Susan. 2004. Listening In: Radio and the American Imagination. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Dubois, Elizabeth and Grant Blank. 2017. ‘The Echo Chamber is Overstated: The Moderating Effect of Political Interest and Diverse Media’. Information, Communication & Society, 21 (5), 729–745.
Duffy, Brooke Emily and Jefferson D. Pooley. 2017. ‘“Facebook for Academics”: The Convergence of Self‐Branding and Social Media Logic on Academia.edu’. Social Media + Society, 3 (1), 1–12.
Dutton, William, Bianca Reisdorf, Elizabeth Dubois and Grant Blank. 2017. Search and Politics: The Uses and Impacts of Search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United States. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
Durkheim, Émile. 1990. Le Suicide: Étude de Sociologie. Paris: PUF.
Durkheim, Émile. 1991. De la Division du Travail Social. Paris: PUF.
DW. 2021. ‘Germany Places Entire Far-Right AfD Under Surveillance’. Deutsche Welle, March 3.
Elias, Ana Sofia and Rosalind Gill. 2018. ‘Beauty Surveillance: The Digital Self-Monitoring Cultures of Neoliberalism’. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 21 (1), 59–77.
Elliott, Anthony and John Urry. 2010. Mobile Lives. London: Routledge.
Ellison, Nicole, Rebecca Heino and Jennifer Gibbs. 2006. ‘Managing Impressions Online: Self-Presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment’. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11 (2), 415–441.
Enikolopov, Ruben, Alexey Makarin, Maria Petrova and Leonid Polishchuk. 2020. ‘Social Image, Networks and Protest Participation’. SSSN Research, April 20.
Ernst, Nicole, Sven Engesser, Florin Büchel, Sina Blassnig and Frank Esser. 2017. ‘Extreme Parties and Populism: An Analysis of Facebook and Twitter Across Six Countries’. Information, Communication & Society, 20 (9), 1347–1364.
Fairbairn, William Ronald Dodds. 1994. Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality. New York: Psychology Press.
Fardouly, Jasmine, Phillippa C. Diedrichs, Lenny R. Vartanian and Emma Halliwell. 2015. ‘Social Comparisons on Social Media: The Impact of
Facebook on Young Women’s Body Image Concerns and Mood’. Body Image, 13 (2), 38–45.
Faris, David. 2012. Dissent and Revolution in a Digital Age: Social Media, Blogging and Activism in Egypt. London: IB Tauris.
Fatima, Branco. 2019. Dias de Tormenta: Os Movimentos de Indignação que Derrubaram Ditaduras, Minaram Democracias no Mundo e Levaram a Extrema-Direita ao Poder no Brasil. São Paulo: Geração Editorial Press.
Faucher, Kane. 2018. Social Capital Online: Alienation and Accumulation. London: University of Westminster Press.

FGV (Getúlio Vargas Foundation). 2018. Robôs, Redes Sociais e Política no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Press.
Fleck, Giovana. 2021. ‘Netherlands: What’s Behind Violent Anti-Lockdown Riots?’ Al Jazeera, January 27.
Fox, Elizabeth. 1998. Media, and Politics in Latin America. London: Sage.
Fox, Elizabeth and Silvio Waisbord. 2002. Latin Politics, Global Media. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, Michel. 2003a. Abnormal: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1974–1975. New York: Picador.
Foucault, Michel. 2003b. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976. New York: Picador.
Foucault, Michel. 2004a. Naissance de la Biopolitique. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, Michel. 2004b. Securité, Territoire, Population. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, Michel. 2008. Psychiatric Power: Lectures at the College de France, 1973–1974. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Foucault, Michel. 2009. History of Madness. New York: Routledge.
Foucault, Michel. 2012. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage.
Frank, Manfred. 1989. Einführung in die frühromantische Ästhetik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Frayssé, Olivier. 2017. ‘Guy Debord, a Critique of Modernism and Fordism: What Lessons for Today?’ In: Marco Briziarelli and Emiliana Armano (Eds.). The Spectacle 2.0: Reading Debord in the Context of Digital Capitalism. London: University of Westminster Press.
Freud, Anna. 2018. The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense. London: Routledge.
Fromm, Erich. 1941. Escape from Freedom. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Fromm, Erich. 1947. Man for Himself: An Enquiry into The Psychology of Ethics. London: Routledge.
Fromm, Erich. 1955. The Sane Society. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Fromm, Erich. 1956. The Art of Loving. London: Harper.
Fromm, Erich. 1962. Beyond the Chains of Illusion: My Encounter with Marx and Freud. London: Routledge.
Fromm, Erich. 1973. The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Fuchs, Christian. 2018. Digital Demagogue: Authoritarian Capitalism in the Age of Trump and Twitter. London: Pluto Press.
Führer, Karl Christian. 1997. ‘A Medium for Modernity? Broadcasting in Weimar Germany, 1923–1932’. Journal of Modern History, 69 (4), 722–753.
Fukuyama, Francis. 1992. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
Furedi, Frank. 2006. Culture of Fear Revisited. London: A&C Black.

Furedi, Frank. 2007. ‘The Only Thing We Have to Fear is the “Culture of Fear Itself ”’. American Journal of Sociology, 32 (2), 231–234.
Furedi, Frank. 2018. How Fear Works: Culture of Fear in the Twenty-First Century. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Gabowitsch, Mischa. 2017. Protest in Putin’s Russia. London: Polity.
Galison, Peter. 2003. Einstein’s Clock, Poincaré’s Maps. New York: Norton.
Gandini, Alessandro and Ivana Pais. 2020. ‘Reputation and Personal Branding in the Platform Economy’. In: Susan Luckman and Stephanie Taylor (Eds.). Pathways into Creative Working Lives. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gentzkow, Matthew. 2016. ‘Polarization in 2016’. Working Papers. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Available at: https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/PolarizationIn2016.pdf
Gerbaudo, Paolo. 2017. The Mask and the Flag: Populism, Citizenism and Global Protest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, Anthony. 1992. The Transformation of Intimacy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Giddens, Anthony. 2002. Modernidade e Identidade. Trans. by Plinio Dentzien. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar.
Giles, Christopher. 2021. ‘Myanmar Coup: How the Military Disrupted the Internet’. BBC News, February 4.
Ging, Debbie and Eugenia Siapera. 2018. ‘Online Misogyny’. Feminist Media Studies, 18 (4), 515–524.
Glasser, Melissa, Itamar Kolvin, Diane Campbell, Adrian Glasser, Ivan Leitch and S. Farrelly. 2001. ‘Cycle of Child Sexual Abuse: Links Between Being a Victim and Becoming a Perpetrator’. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 179 (6), 482–494.
Glassner, Barry. 2010. The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are Afraid of the Wrong Things: Crime, Drugs, Minorities, Teen Moms, Killer Kids. New York: Basic Books.
Gnambs, Timo and Markus Appel. 2018. ‘Narcissism and Social Networking Behavior: A Meta-Analysis’. Journal of Personality, 86 (2), 200–212.
Goebbels, Joseph. 1934. ‘Goebbels at Nuremberg – 1934’. Der Kongress zur Nürnberg 1934. Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., Frz. Eher Nachf., 130–141. Available at: https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb59.htm
Goffman, Erving. 1956. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1963a. Behavior in Public Places. New York: The Free Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1963b. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Goffman, Erving. 1968. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.

Goffman, Erving. 1969. Strategic Interaction. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goldstein, Michael. 2000. ‘The Growing Acceptance of Complementary and Alternative Medicine’. In: C. Bird, P. Conrad and A. Fremont (Eds.). Handbook of Medical Sociology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
González-Bailón, Sandra and Ning Wang. 2016. ‘Networked Discontent: The Anatomy of Protest Campaigns in Social Media’. Social Networks, 44 (2), 95–104.
Gounari, Panayota. 2018. ‘Authoritarianism, Discourse and Social Media: Trump as the “American Agitator”’. In: Jeremiah Morelock (Ed.). Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism. London: University of Westminster Press.
Greenfield, Patricia M. 2009. ‘Technology and Informal Education: What is Taught, What is Learned’. Science 323 (5910), 69–71.
Guo, Lei, Jacob A. Rohde and H. Denis Wu. 2020. ‘Who is Responsible for Twitter’s Echo Chamber Problem? Evidence from 2016 US Election Networks’. Information, Communication & Society, 23 (2), 234–251.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, Jürgen. 2003. ‘Aus Katastrophen lernen’. In: Jürgen Habermas (Ed.). Zeitdiagnosen: Zwölf Essays. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hall, Jeffrey A., Natalie Pennington and Allyn Lueders. 2014. ‘Impression Management and Formation on Facebook: A Lens Model Approach’. New Media & Society, 16 (6), 958–982.
Hamilton, William, Oliver Garretson and Andruid Kerne. 2014. ‘Streaming on Twitch: Fostering Participatory Communities of Play within Live Mixed Media’. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1315–1324.
Hands, Joss. 2010. @ is for Activism: Dissent, Resistance and Rebellion in a Digital Culture. New York: Pluto.
Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Harvey, David. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hassan, Ihab. 1987. The Postmodern Turn: Essays in Postmodern Theory and Culture. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Hassan, Robert. 2020. The Condition of Digitality: A Post-Modern Marxism for the Practice of Digital Life. London: University of Westminster Press.
Haug, Marie R. 1972. ‘Deprofessionalization: An Alternate Hypothesis for the Future’. The Sociological Review, 20 (1), 195–211.
Haussen, Doris. 2001. Rádio e Política: Tempos de Vargas e Perón. Porto Alegre: Pontifical Catholic University Press.
Havertz, Ralf. 2021. Radical Right Populism in Germany: AfD, Pegida, and the Identitarian Movement. Abingdon: Routledge.

Hearn, Alison. 2010. ‘Structuring Feeling: Web 2.0, Online Ranking and Rating, and the Digital “Reputation” Economy’. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 10 (3/4), 421–438.
Hegelich, Simon, Juan Carlos Serrano, Morteza Shahrezaye and Orestis Papakyriakopoulos. 2017. Socia Media Report: The 2017 German Federal Elections. Munich: Technische Universität München.
Held, David. 2006. Models of Democracy. London: Polity.
Heller, Patrick. 2020. ‘The Age of Reaction: Retrenchment Populism in India and Brazil’. International Sociology, 35 (6), 112–139.
Hendershot, Cyndy. 2001. I Was a Cold War Monster: Horror Films, Eroticism, and the Cold War Imagination. New York: Popular Press.
Henriques, Joana Gorjão. 2021. ‘Ataques Racistas e Neonazis Interrompem Sessão Organizada por Alunos do Liceu Camões’. Público, February 22.
Higley, John and Michael Burton. 2006. Elite Foundations of Liberal Democracy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hilmes, Michele. 2002. ‘Rethinking Radio’. In: Michele Hilmes (Ed.). Radio Reader: Essays in the Cultural History of Radio. London: Routledge.
Hmielowski, Jay D., Myiah J. Hutchens and Vincent J. Cicchirillo. 2014. ‘Living in an Age of Online Incivility: Examining the Conditional Indirect Effects
of Online Discussion on Political Flaming’. Information, Communication & Society, 17 (10), 1196–1211.
Hobsbawm, Eric. 1994. The Age of Extremes. London: Vintage Books.
Hochschild, Arlie. 2012. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Palo Alto, CA: University of California Press.
Hoffman, Bruce, Jacob Ware and Ezra Shapiro. 2020. ‘Assessing the Threat of Incel Violence’. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 43 (7), 565–587.
Hoiland, Thea. 2019. Incels and the Stories They Tell: A Narrative Analysis of Incels’ Shared Stories on Reddit. Master’s Thesis in Sociology – Department of Sociology, University of Oslo, Norway.
Holdsworth, Clare and David Morgan. 2007. ‘Revisiting the Generalized Other: An Exploration’. Sociology, 41 (3), 401–417.
Hong, Sun-Ha and Selena Neumark Hermann. 2020. ‘“Fuck Your Feelings”: The Affective Weaponisation of Facts and Reason’. In: The 21st Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers.
Honneth, Axel. 2003. Unsichtbarkeit: Stationen einer Theorie der Intersubjektivität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Horkheimer, Max and Theodor Adorno. 2009. Dialektik der Aufklärung. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Howard, Philip N. 2020. Lie Machines: How to Save Democracy from Troll Armies, Deceitful Robots, Junk News Operations, and Political Operatives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hsu, Tiffany. 2019. ‘2,200 Viewed Germany Shooting Before Twitch Removed Post’. New York Times, October 9.

Hu, Yuheng, Lydia Manikonda and Subbarao Kambhampati. 2014. ‘What We Instagram: A First Analysis of Instagram Photo Content and User Types’. In: Proceedings of the 8th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, Arizona State University.
Hui, Mary. 2019. ‘Hong Kong’s Protesters Put AirDrop to Ingenious Use to Breach China’s Firewall’. Quartz Magazine, July 8.
Hui, Yuk. 2016. On the Existence of Digital Objects. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Hui, Yuk and Harry Halpin. 2013. ‘Collective Individuation: The Future of the Social Web’. In: Geert Lovink and Miriam Rasch (Eds.). Unlike Us Reader: Social Media Monopolies and Their Alternatives. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
Huurdeman, Anton. 2003. The Worldwide History of Telecommunications. New York: Wiley Interscience.
Huws, Ursula. 2016. ‘Logged Labour: A New Paradigm of Work Organisation?’ Work Organisation, Labour and Globalisation, 10 (1), 7–26.
Hyden, Goran, Michael Leslie and Folu Folarin Ogundimu. 2002. Media and Democracy in Africa. Uppsala: Transaction Publishers.
IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics). 2016. Acesso à Internet e à Televisão e Posse de Telefone Móvel Celular para Uso Pessoal. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE.
Iglesias, Mariana. 2015. ‘Todo el País le Dijo Basta a los Femicidios: Histórica Marcha Contra la Violencia Machista’. Clarín, June 4. Im, Jane, Eshwar Chandrasekharan, Jackson Sargent, Paige Lighthammer, Taylor Denby, Ankit Bhargava, Libby Hemphill, David Jurgens and Eric Gilbert. 2020. ‘Still out There: Modeling and Identifying Russian Troll
Accounts on Twitter’. In: 12th ACM Conference on Web Science.
Jackson, Mason. 1885. The Pictorial Press: Its Origin and Progress. London: Hurst and Blackett.
Jackson, Nigel and Darren Lilleker. 2011. ‘Microblogging, Constituency Service and Impression Management: UK MPs and the Use of Twitter’. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 17 (1), 86–105.
Jacobson, Susan, Eunyoung Myung and Steven L. Johnson. 2016. ‘Open Media or Echo Chamber: The Use of Links in Audience Discussions on the Facebook Pages of Partisan News Organizations’. Information, Communication & Society, 19 (7), 875–891.
Jaki, Sylvia, Tom Smedt, Maja Gwozdz, Rudresh Panchal, Alexander Rossa and Guy de Pauw. 2019. ‘Online Hatred of Women in the Incels.me Forum: Linguistic Analysis and Automatic Detection’. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 7 (2), 25–51.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall and Joseph N. Cappella. 2008. Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jappe, Anselm. 1998. Guy Debord. Trans. by Luis Bredlow. Barcelona: Anagrama.
Jessop, Bob. 2019. ‘Ordoliberalism and Neoliberalization: Governing Through Order or Disorder’. Critical Sociology, 45 (8), 967–980.
Johnson, K. M. 2013. ‘Cyberspace and Post-Modern Democracy: A Critique of the Habermasian Notion of the Public Sphere’. In: Gaurav Desai (Ed.). The Virtual Transformation of the Public Sphere: Knowledge, Politics, Identity. London: Routledge.
Jordans, Frank and David Rising. 2021. ‘German Far-Right Crime Rises; Police Arrest Alleged Neo-Nazi’. Associated Press, May 4.
Kalekin-Fishman, Devorah and Lauren Langman. 2015. ‘Alienation: The Critique that Refuses to Disappear’. Current Sociology, 63 (6), 916–933.
Kant, Immanuel. 1956. Kritik der Reinen Vernunft. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.
Keane, John. 2009. The Life and Death of Democracy. London: Simon & Schuster.
Kellner, Douglas. 2003a. Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics Between the Modern and the Post-Modern. London: Routledge.
Kellner, Douglas. 2003b. Media Spectacle. London: Routledge.
Kern, Stephen. 2003. The Culture of Time and Space: 1880–1918. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Khamis, Susie, Larence Ang and Raymond Welling. 2017. ‘Self-Branding, “Micro-Celebrity” and the Rise of Social Media Influencers’. Celebrity Studies, 8 (2), 191–208.
Kildis, Huseyin Pusat. 2021. ‘The Far-Right is not Limited to the West: The Case of India’. Ankara Center for Crisis and Policy Research, February 11.
Kim, Seong Un. 2017. Crazy Shows: Entertainment Television in Cold War Japan (1953–1973). PhD Dissertation, University of Chicago.
King, David C. and Zachary Karabell. 2003. The Generation of Trust: Public Confidence in the US Military since Vietnam. New York: American Enterprise Institute.
Klyueva, Anna. 2016. ‘Taming Online Political Engagement in Russia: Disempowered Publics, Empowered State and Challenges of the Fully Functioning Society’. International Journal of Communication, 10 (2), 462–479.
Koehler, Daniel. 2014. ‘The Radical Online: Individual Radicalization Processes and the Role of the Internet’. Journal of Deradicalization, 23 (1), 116–134.
Kotfila, Christopher. 2014. ‘This Message Will Self-Destruct’. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 40 (2), 12–16.
Kovarik, Bill. 2015. Media History from Gutenberg to the Digital Age. London: Bloomsbury.
Kracauer, Siegfried. 1960. Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kracauer, Siegfried. 2019 [1947]. From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film. New Haven, CT: Princeton University Press.
Krämer, Nicole C. and Stephan Winter. 2008. ‘Impression Management 2.0: The Relationship of Self-Esteem, Extraversion, Self-Efficacy, and

Self-Presentation Within Social Networking Sites’. Journal of Media Psychology, 20 (3), 106–116.
Kubisa, Julia and Katarzyna Rakowska. 2018. ‘Was It a Strike? Notes on the Polish Women’s Strike and the Strike of Parents of Persons with Disabilities’. Praktyka Teoretyczna, 30 (4), 16–50.
Kymlicka, William. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lahire, Bernard. 2011. L’Homme Pluriel: Les Ressorts de l’Action. Paris: Fayard.
Langman, Lauren. 2005. ‘From Virtual Public Spheres to Global Justice: A Critical Theory of Internetworked Social Movements’. Sociological Theory, 23 (1), 42–74.
Langman, Lauren. 2020. ‘The Dialectic of Populism and Cosmopolitanism’. In: Vincenzo Cicchelli and Sylvie Mesure (Eds.). Cosmopolitanism in Hard Times, pp. 339–354. Boston, MA: Brill.
Langman, Lauren and George Lundskow. 2016. God, Guns, Gold and Glory. Boston, MA: Brill.
Langman, Lauren and Avery Schatz. 2021. ‘The Dialectic of Unreason: Authoritarianism and the Irrational’. In: Jeremiah Morelock (Ed.). How to Critique Authoritarian Populism: Methodologies of the Frankfurt School. Leiden: Brill.
Larkin, Brian. 2013. ‘Making Equivalence Happen’. In: Patricia Spyer and Mary Steedly (Eds.). Images That Move. Santa Fe, NM: School of Advanced Research Press.
Lasch, Christopher. 1984. The Minimal Self: Psychic Survival in Troubled Times. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Lasch, Christopher. 2018. The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Latin American Public Opinion Project. 2019. Pulse of Democracy 2019. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Laubier, Charles. 2021. ‘De Twitch à YouTube, l’Engouement pour les Live sur Internet Bouscule les Chaînes de Télévision Traditionnelles’. Le Monde,March 14.
Le Monde. 2021. ‘Diffusion de Photos d’Exactions de l’État Islamique: Marine Le Pen et Gilbert Collard Relaxés’. Le Monde, May 4.
Leidig, Eviane. 2020a. ‘Hindutva as a Variant of Right-Wing Extremism’. Patterns of Prejudice, 54 (3), 215–237.
Leidig, Eviane. 2020b. ‘The Far-Right Is Going Global’. Foreign Policy, January 21.
Licoppe, Christian. 2004. ‘Connected Presence: The Emergence of a New Repertoire for Managing Social Relationships in a Changing Communication Technoscape’. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22 (1), 135–156.
Lipovetsky, Gilles and Jean Serroy. 2007. L’Écran Global: Culture-Médias et Cinéma à l’Âge Hypermoderne. Paris: Seuil.
Lipovetsky, Gilles and Jean Serroy. 2013. L’Esthétisation du Monde: Vivre à l’Âge du Capitalisme Artiste. Paris: Gallimard.

Litvinenko, Anna. 2021. ‘YouTube as Alternative Television in Russia’. Social Media + Society, 5 (1), 1–11.
Lordon, Frédéric. 2013. La Société des Affects: Pour un Structuralisme des Passions. Paris: Seuil.
Löwenthal, Leo and Norbert Guterman. 1949. Prophets of Deceit. New York: Harper.
Luca, Tania Regina. 2018. A Ilustração: Circulação de Textos e Imagens Entre Paris, Lisboa e Rio de Janeiro. São Paulo: UNESP Press.
Lupton, Deborah. 2015. Digital Sociology. London: Routledge.
Lupton, Deborah. 2016. The Quantified Self: A Sociology of Self-Tracking. London: Polity.
Lyotard, Jean-François. 1979. La Condition Postmoderne. Paris: Seuil.
Maffesoli, Michel. 1990. Au Creux des Apparences. Paris: La Table Ronde.
Maltby, John, Liz Day, Ruth M. Hatcher, Sarah Tazzyman, Heather D. Flowe, Emma J. Palmer, Caren A. Frosch et al. 2016. ‘Implicit Theories of Online Trolling: Evidence that Attention-Seeking Conceptions are Associated with Increased Psychological Resilience’. British Journal of Psychology, 107 (3), 448–466.
Maraj, Louis, Pritha Prasad and Sherita Roundtree. 2018. ‘#BlackLivesMatter: Pasts, Presents, and Futures’. History, Theory, Criticism, 40 (2), 1–14.
Marcuse, Herbert. 1991. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. London: Routledge.
Martuccelli, Danilo. 2010. La Société Singulariste. Paris: Armand Colin.
Marwick, Alice E. 2013a. Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Marwick, Alice E. 2013b. ‘Online Identity’. In: John Hartley, Jean Burgess and Axel Burns (Eds.). A Companion to New Media Dynamics. London: Blackwell.
Marwick, Alice E. and Danah Boyd. 2011a. ‘I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience’. New Media & Society, 13 (1), 114–133.
Marwick, Alice E. and Danah Boyd. 2011b. ‘To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter’. Convergence, 17 (2), 139–158.
Marx, Karl. 1960 [1852]. Der Achzehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte. Berlin: Dietz (Marx Engels Werke, vol. 8).
Marx, Karl. 1962 [1867]. Das Kapital: Kritik der Politische Ökonomie (vol. 1). Berlin: Dietz (Marx Engels Werke, vol. 23).
Mattelart, Michèle and Armand Mattelart. 1990. The Carnival of Images: Brazilian Television Fiction. New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Maxwell, December, Sarah Robinson, Jessica Williams and Craig Keaton. 2020. ‘A Short Story of a Lonely Guy: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis of Involuntary Celibacy Using Reddit’. Sexuality & Culture, 24 (2), 1853–1875.
McCombs, Maxwell and Sebastian Valenzuela. 2020. Setting the Agenda: Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge, MA: Polity.

McGuigan, Jim. 2009. Cool Capitalism. London: Pluto Press.
Mead, George Herbert. 1913. ‘The Social Self ’. Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, 10 (1), 374–380.
Mead, George Herbert. 1932. The Philosophy of the Present. London: Open Court Company.
Mead, George Herbert.1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Menillo, Gregory J. 2021. ‘“Variation within a Single Paradigm”: The Latent Authoritarian Dynamics of the Culture Industry’. In: Jeremiah Morelock (Ed.). How to Critique Authoritarian Populism: Methodologies of the Frankfurt School. Leiden: Brill.
Menon, Praveen. 2020. ‘New Zealand Court Set to Sentence Killer in Christchurch Mosque Massacre’. Reuters, August 21.
Merton, Robert. 1938. ‘Social Structure and Anomie’. American Sociological Review, 3 (5), 672–682.
Meza, Andrés. 2021. ‘Internet en Colombia: El Otro Gran Escenario de las Protestas’. France24, May 8.
Mihelj, Sabina. 2012. ‘Television Entertainment in Socialist Eastern Europe: Between Cold War Politics and Global Developments’. In: Timothy Havens, Imre Anikó and Katalin Lustyik (Eds.). Popular Television in Eastern Europe During and Since Socialism. London: Routledge.
Miller, Peter and Nikolas Rose. 2008. Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life. Cambridge, MA: Polity.
Mohammadkhani, Parvaneh, Ameneh Setareh Forouzan, Katayoon S. Khooshabi, Shervin Assari and Maryam Moghani Lankarani. 2009. ‘Are the Predictors of Sexual Violence the Same as Those of Nonsexual Violence? A Gender Analysis’. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6 (8), 2215–2223.
Mohan, Sriram. 2015. ‘Locating the Internet Hindu Political Speech and Performance in Indian Cyberspace’. Television & New Media, 16 (4), 87–111.
Morelock, Jeremiah. 2017. ‘Authoritarian Populism contra Bildung: Anti-Intellectualism and the Neoliberal Assault on the Liberal Arts’. Cadernos CIMEAC, 7 (2), 63–81.
Morelock, Jeremiah (Ed.). 2018. Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism. London: University of Westminster Press.
Morelock, Jeremiah. 2019. ‘Resuscitating Sociological Theory: Nietzsche and Adorno on Error and Speculation’. In: Michael Ryan and Christine Payne (Eds.). Nietzsche and Critical Social Theory, pp. 340–360. Boston, MA: Brill.
Morelock, Jeremiah. 2021a. Pandemics, Authoritarian Populism, and Science Fiction: Medicine, Military, and Morality in American Film. Abingdon: Routledge.
Morelock, Jeremiah. 2021b. ‘Siegfried Kracauer and the Interpretation of Films’. In: Jeremiah Morelock (Ed.). How to Critique Authoritarian Populism: Methodologies of the Frankfurt School. Leiden: Brill.
Morelock, Jeremiah (Ed.). 2021c. How to Critique Authoritarian Populism: Methodologies of the Frankfurt School. Leiden: Brill.

Morelock, Jeremiah. 2021d. ‘Teoria Crítica e os Movimentos do Agitador Autoritário’. In: Tatiana Noronha Souza and Vânia Martino (Eds.). Políticas Públicas e as Agendas Contemporâneas. Curitiba: CRV Press.
Morelock, Jeremiah and Ayesha Hussain. 2020. ‘Recuperando a Brincadeira e o Lazer: Para uma Crítica Humanista e Psicanalítica da vida Adulta e da Ética do Trabalho. Revista Interdisciplinar de Saúde e Educação, 1 (2), 71–93.
Morelock, Jeremiah and Felipe Ziotti Narita. 2018a. ‘Ilusões Perdidas: Sobre o Fim de um Ciclo na América Latina’. Nexo Jornal, October 30.
Morelock, Jeremiah and Felipe Ziotti Narita. 2018b. ‘Public Sphere and World-System: Theorizing Populism at the Margins’. In: Jeremiah Morelock (Ed.). Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism. London: University of Westminster Press.
Morelock, Jeremiah and Felipe Ziotti Narita. 2019. O Problema do Populismo: Teoria, Política e Mobilização. São Paulo: São Paulo State University and Paco Press.
Morelock, Jeremiah and Felipe Ziotti Narita. 2021. ‘A Dialectical Constellation of Authoritarian Populism in the United States and Brazil’. In: Jeremiah
Morelock (Ed.). How to Critique Authoritarian Populism: Methodologies of the Frankfurt School. Leiden: Brill.
Morelock, Jeremiah and Daniel Sullivan. 2021. ‘Introduction: Frankfurt School Methodologies’. In: Jeremiah Morelock (Ed.). How to Critique Authoritarian Populism: Methodologies of the Frankfurt School. Leiden: Brill.
Motte, Dean and Jeannene Przyblyski (Eds.). 1999. Making the News: Modernity and the Mass Press in Nineteenth-Century France. Cambridge, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Muelrath, Forrest. 2018. ‘Phantasmagoria and the Trump Opera’. In: Jeremiah Morelock (Ed.). Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism. London: University of Westminster Press.
Naaman, Mor, Jeffrey Boase and Chih-Hui Lai. 2010. ‘Is it Really About Me? Message Content in Social Awareness Streams’. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Network.
Narita, Felipe Ziotti. 2017. A Educação da Sociedade Imperial: Moral, Religião e Forma Social na Modernidade Oitocentista. Curitiba: Appris.
Narita, Felipe Ziotti. 2018. ‘As Piras de Outono’. Jornal da USP, May 28.
Narita, Felipe Ziotti. 2019. ‘Espectros da Multidão’. Revista USP, 122 (3), 89–98.
Narita, Felipe Ziotti. 2020. A Experiência da Aceleração: Paisagem, Infraestrutura e o Imaginário da Modernidade. Postdoctoral Research Report – Postgraduate Program in Sociology, Federal University of São Carlos (UFSCar), Brazil.
Narita, Felipe Ziotti and Danilo Seithi Kato. 2020. ‘Construção Democrática e Educação Popular: Para um Esquema Interpretativo da América Latina’. Cadernos CIMEAC, 10 (3), 29–61.
Nassehi, Armin. 2019. Muster: Theorie der digitalen Gesellschaft. Munich: C. H. Beck.

Naxara, Marcia Capelari. 2018. ‘Ciência, Técnica e História no Século XIX’. In: Marcia Capelari Naxara (Ed.). Fragmentos da Identidade Brasil. São Paulo: Intermeios.
Negt, Oskar and Alexander Kluge. 1993. Public Sphere and Experience: Toward an Analysis of the Bourgeois and Proletarian Public Sphere. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Nemer, David. 2013. Favela Digital: The Other Side of Technology. São Paulo: Gsa Press.
Nemer, David. 2018. ‘The Three Types of WhatsApp Users getting Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro Elected’. The Guardian, October 25.
NetBlocks. 2021. ‘Internet Disrupted in Myanmar Amid Apparent Military Uprising’. NetBlocks Project: Mapping Net Freedom, February 7 (see also NetBlocks Twitter account).
Neudert, Lisa and Nahema Marchal. 2019. Polarisation and the Use of Technology in Political Campaigns and Communication. Brussels: Panel for the Future of Science and Technology, European Parliamentary Research Service.
Nguyen, C. Thi. 2020. ‘Echo Chambers and Epistemic Bubbles’. Episteme, 17 (2), 141–161.
Norris, Pippa. 2010. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Northam, Jackie. 2012. ‘Russian Activists Turn To Social Media’. NPR Europe, January 13.
Ong, Aihwa. 2006. Neoliberalism as Exception: Mutations in Citizenship and Sovereignty. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Ong, Walter. 2002. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the World. London: Routledge.
Oswald, Kristine. 2009. ‘Mass Media and the Transformation of American Politics’. Marquette Law Review, 77 (2), 384–414.
Otto, Shawn Lawrence. 2016. The War on Science: Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions.
Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin.
Pavlik, John. 1996. New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives. Boston, MA: Beacon.
Penner, Devin. 2019. Rethinking the Spectacle: Guy Debord, Radical Democracy, and the Digital Age. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Pescosolido, Bernice A., Steven A. Tuch and Jack K. Martin. 2001. ‘The Profession of Medicine and the Public: Examining Americans’ Changing Confidence in
Physician Authority from the Beginning of the Health Care Crisis to the Era of Health Care Reform’. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42 (1), 1–16.
Peters, Tom. 1997. ‘The Brand Called You’. Fast Company, August 31. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/28905/brand-called-you

Pezet, Jacques. 2021. ‘Est-Il Vrai que 75% des Auteurs d’Attentats Commis en France Depuis 2015 sont Français?’ Libération, April 29.
Pizarro-Sirera, Margalida. 2020. ‘Toxic Masculinity in American Politics: Donald Trump’s Tweeting Activity in the US Presidential Election of 2016’. European Journal of American Culture, 39 (2), 163–181.
Poell, Thomas. 2020. ‘Social Media, Temporality, and the Legitimacy of Protest’. Social Movement Studies, 19 (2), 609–624.
Pooley, J. 2010. ‘The Consuming Self: From Flappers to Facebook’. In: M. Aronczyk and D. Powers (Eds.). Blowing Up the Brand: Critical Perspectives on Media Culture. New York: Peter Lang.
Poster, Mark. 1995. ‘Postmodern Virtualities’. Body & Society, 2 (4), 79–95.
Postiglione, Fabio. 2020. ‘Bambino di 11 Anni Morto a Napoli, l’Ipotesi della Sfida sul Web: “Devo Seguire l’Uomo Col Cappuccio”’. Corriere Della Sera, September 30.
Postman, Neil. 2006 [1985]. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. London: Penguin.
Potter, Simon. 2007. ‘Webs, Networks, and Systems: Globalization and the Mass Media in the Nineteenth‐ and Twentieth‐Century British Empire’. Journal of British Studies, 46 (3), 621–646.
Prange, Astrid and Clarissa Neher. 2014. ‘Brazilians Believe Victims Deserved Sexual Assault, Study Finds’. Deutsche Welle, April 3.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rajagopalan, Sudha. 2019. ‘Misogyny, Solidarity and Postfeminism on Social Media’. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 22 (6), 22–41.
Reich, Wilhelm. 1980 [1946]. The Mass Psychology of Fascism. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Rensmann, Lars. 2018. ‘The Persistence of the Authoritarian Appeal: On Critical Theory as a Framework for Studying Populist Actors in European Democracies’. In: Jeremiah Morelock (Ed.). Critical Theory and Authoritarian Populism, pp. 29–47. London: University of Westminster Press.
Reyes, Ignacio and Veronica Smink. 2011. ‘El Fenómeno de la Ultraderecha en América Latina’. BBC News, August 3.
Rheingold, Howard. 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rivero, Yeidy. 2015. Broadcasting Modernity: Cuban Commercial Television, 1950–1960. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Rosanvallon, Pierre. 1999. Le Capitalisme Utopique: Histoire de l’Idée de Marché. Paris: Seuil.
Ruesch, Jurgen, Gregory Bateson, Eve C. Pinsker and Gene Combs. 2017. Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry. London: Routledge.
Ruscio, Kenneth. 2004. The Leadership Dilemma in Modern Democracy. Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Rupp, Isadora. 2021. ‘Ameaças de Neonazistas a Vereadoras Negras e Trans Alarmam e Expõem Avanço do Extremismo no Brasil’. El País, January 10.
Saco, Diana. 2002. Cybering Democracy: Public Space and the Internet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Safatle, Vladimir. 2015. O Circuito dos Afetos. São Paulo: Cosac Naify.
Saffioti, Heleieth. 1978. Women in Class Society. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Sanahuja, José Antonio and Camilo López Burian. 2020. ‘La Nueva Extrema Derecha Neopatriota Latinoamericana’. Conjuntura Austral, 11 (55), 22–34.
Sandberg, Sheryl. 2013. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead. New York: Knopf.
Sandoval-Almazan, Rodrigo and J. Ramon Gil-Garcia. 2014. ‘Towards Cyberactivism 2.0? Understanding the Use of Social Media and Other Information Technologies for Political Activism and Social Movements’. Government Information Quarterly, 31 (3), 365–378.
Schäffner, Wolfgang. 2008. ‘Los Medios de Comunicación y la Construcción del Territorio en América Latina’. História, Ciências, Saúde, 15 (3), 811–826.
Schawbel, Dan. 2009. Me 2.0: Build a Powerful Brand to Achieve Career Success. New York: Kaplan Books.
Schmitt, Carl. 2005. Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Schroeder, Ralph. 2016. ‘The Globalization of On-Screen Sociability: Social Media and Tethered Togetherness’. International Journal of Communication, 10 (2), 26–43.
Schwartz, Edward. 1996. NetActivism: How Citizens Use the Internet. New York: O’Reilly Media.
Schweitzer, Dahlia. 2018. Going Viral: Zombies, Viruses, and the End of the World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Schwoch, James. 2002. ‘Crypto-Convergence, Media, and the Cold War: The Early Globalization of Television Networks in the 1950s’. In: Media in Transitions Conference, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Sedysheva, Anna. ‘The #яНеБоюсьСказать Campaign of July 2016 in Facebook’s Russian Speaking Community’. Praktyka Teoretyczna, 30 (4), 180–203.
Seeman, Melvin. 1959. ‘On the Meaning of Alienation’. American Sociological Review, 24 (6), 783–791.
Senft, Theresa M. 2008. Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Networks. Vol. 4. London: Peter Lang.
Senft, Theresa M. 2013. ‘Microcelebrity and the Branded Self ’. In: John Hartley, Jean Burgess and Axel Burns (Eds.). A Companion to New Media Dynamics, pp. 346–354. London: Blackwell.
Seymour, Richard. 2019. ‘The Right’s Use of Trolling Is So Predictable, Why Do We Keep Falling for It?’ The Guardian, October 28. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/28/right-trolling-posts-political-opponents

Seymour, Richard. 2020. The Twittering Machine. New York: Verso.
Shafie, Latisha Asmaak, Surina Nayan and Nazira Osman. 2012. ‘Constructing Identity Through Facebook Profiles: Online Identity and Visual Impression Management of University Students in Malaysia’. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65 (1), 134–140.
Shaw, Deborah. 2019. ‘#MeToo in Mexico: Women Finding Their Voice as Campaign Gathers Force’. The Conversation, April 9.
Shepard, Benjamin. 2015. Rebel Friendships: ‘Outsider’ Networks and Social Movements. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shifman, Limor. 2014. Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Shore, Jesse, Jiye Baek and Chrysanthos Dellarocas. 2018. ‘Twitter Is Not the Echo Chamber We Think It Is’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60 (1), 1–5.
Silva Castro, Raul. 1958. Prensa y Periodismo en Chile: 1812–1956. Santiago: Ediciones de la Universidad de Chile.
Simondon, Gilbert. 1989. Du Mode d’Existence des Objets Techniques. Paris: Aubier.
Simons, Dominique A., Sandy K. Wurtele and Robert L. Durham. 2008. ‘Developmental Experiences of Child Sexual Abusers and Rapists’. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32 (5), 549–560.
Sindermann, Cornelia, Jon D. Elhai, Morten Moshagen and Christian Montag. 2020. ‘Age, Gender, Personality, Ideological Attitudes and Individual Differences in a Person’s News Spectrum: How Many and Who Might Be Prone to “Filter Bubbles” and “Echo Chambers” Online?’ Heliyon, 6 (1).
Sipling, William. 2021. ‘Applying and Extrapolating Prophets of Deceit: Heuristics of “Agitator” Identification through Löwenthal and Guterman’s Analysis’. In: Jeremiah Morelock (Ed.). How to Critique Authoritarian Populism: Methodologies of the Frankfurt School. Leiden: Brill.
Slobodian, Quinn. 2018. Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Smith, David Norman. 2019. ‘Authoritarianism Reimagined: The Riddle of Trump’s Base’. The Sociological Quarterly, 60 (2), 210–223.
Smith, David Norman and Eric Hanley. 2018. ‘The Anger Games: Who Voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 Election, and Why?’ Critical Sociology, 44 (2), 195–212.
Smith, Hayden P. and Robert M. Bohm. 2008. ‘Beyond Anomie: Alienation and Crime’. Critical Criminology, 16 (1), 1–15.
Smith, Kevin B., Matthew V. Hibbing and John R. Hibbing. 2019. ‘Friends, Relatives, Sanity, and Health: The Costs of Politics’. PloS One, 14 (9), e0221870.
Smith, Lauren Reichart and Jimmy Sanderson. 2015. ‘“I’m Going to Instagram it!” An Analysis of Athlete Self-Presentation on Instagram’. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59 (2), 342–358.
Sontag, Susan. 1989. Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and Its Metaphors. New York: Picador.

Statista. 2020a. Leading Countries Based on Facebook Audience Size as of October 2020. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/268136/top-15-countries-based-on-number-of-facebook-users
Statista. 2020b. Leading Countries Based on Number of Twitter Users as of October 2020. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/242606/number
-of-active-twitter-users-in-selected-countries

Statista. 2021. Countries with the Highest Number of Internet Users as of December 2019. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/262966/number-of-internet-users-in-selected-countries
Statzel, Sophie. 2008. ‘Cybersupremacy: The New Face of White Supremacist Activism’. In: Megan Boler (Ed.). Digital Media and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stiegler, Bernard. 1996. La Technique et le Temps. Paris: Galilée.
Stirk, Peter. 1992. Max Horkheimer: A New Interpretation. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Stout, Martha. 2006. The Sociopath Next Door: The Ruthless Versus the Rest of Us. New York: Harmony.
Stroud, Natalie J. and Ashley Muddiman. 2013. ‘Selective Exposure, Tolerance, and Satirical News’. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25 (3), 271–290.
Sunden, Jenny and Susanne Paasonen. 2018. ‘Shameless Hags and Tolerance Whores: Feminist Resistance and the Affective Circuits of Online Hate’. Feminist Media Studies, 18 (4), 643–656.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2009. Republic.com 2.0. New Haven, CT: Princeton University Press.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2017. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. New Haven, CT: Princeton University Press.
Susser, Mervyn and Ezra Susser. 1996a. ‘Choosing a Future for Epidemiology: I. Eras and Paradigms’. American Journal of Public Health, 86 (5), 668–673.
Susser, Mervyn and Ezra Susser. 1996b. ‘Choosing a Future for Epidemiology: II. From Black Box to Chinese Boxes and Eco-Epidemiology’. American Journal of Public Health, 86 (5), 674–677.
Taibo, Carlos. 2011. Nada Será Como Antes: Sobre el Movimiento 15-M. Madrid: Catarata.
Tatsis, N. C. and G. V. Zito. 1974. ‘Marx, Durkheim, and Alienation: Toward a Heuristic Typology’. Social Theory and Practice, 3 (2), 223–243.
Taylor, Charles. 1991. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, Charles. 2001. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Terán, Oscar. 2008. Vida Intelectual en el Buenos Aires Fin-de-Siglo (1880–1910). Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Therwath, Ingrid. 2012. ‘Cyber-Hindutva: Hindu Nationalism, the Diaspora and the Web’. Social Science Information, 51 (4), 107–131.

Timberg, Craig, Drew Harwell, Razzan Nakhlawi and Harrison Smith. 2021. ‘Nothing Can Stop What’s Coming: Far-Right Forums that Fomented Capitol Riots Voice Glee in Aftermath’. Washington Post, January 7.
Tisseron, Serge. 2001. L’Intimité Surexposée. Paris: Ramsay.
Tisseron, Serge. 2005. Psychanalyse de l’Image. Paris: Dunod.
TST. 2018. ‘International Women’s Day: Activists March in Philippines, South Korea Stages #MeToo Protest as Spain Goes on Strike’. The Straits Times, March 8.
Tucker, Joshua, Yannis Theocharis, Margaret Roberts and Pablo Barberá. 2017. ‘From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media and Democracy’. Journal of Democracy, 28 (4), 46–59.
Türcke, Christoph. 2002. Erregte Gesellschaft: Philosophie der Sensation. Munich: Beck.
Turkle, Sherry. 1995. Life on the Screen. London: Simon and Schuster.
Turkle, Sherry. 1999. ‘Cyberspace and Identity’. Contemporary Sociology, 28 (6), 643–648.
Turkle, Sherry. 2017. Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other. New York: Basic.
Turner, Fred. 2006. From Counterculture to Cyberculture. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Twenge, Jean and W. Keith Campbell. 2009. The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. New York: Free Press.
Twenge, Jean M., W. Keith Campbell and Nathan T. Carter. 2014. ‘Declines in Trust in Others and Confidence in Institutions Among American Adults and Late Adolescents, 1972–2012’. Psychological Science, 25 (10), 1914–1923.
Udupa, Sahana. 2015. ‘Internet Hindus: Right-Wingers as New India’s Ideological Warriors’. In: Peter Veer (Ed.). Handbook of Religion and the Asian City. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Press.
United States Senate. 2019. Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate on Russian Active Measures; Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election. Volume 2: Russia’s Use of Social Media with Additional Views. Available at: https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume2.pdf
Usher, Nikki, Jesse Holcomb and Justin Littman. 2018. ‘Twitter Makes It Worse: Political Journalists, Gendered Echo Chambers, and the Amplification of Gender Bias’. The International Journal of Press Politics, 23 (3), 324–344.
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. 2018. Antisocial Media: How Facebook Disconnects Us and Undermines Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vallas, Steven, and Emily Cummins. 2015. ‘Personal Branding and Identity Norms in the Popular Business Press: Enterprise Culture in an Age of Precarity’. Organization Studies, 36 (3), 293–319.
Vallas, Steven P. and Angèle Christin. 2018. ‘Work and Identity in an Era of Precarious Employment: How Workers Respond to “Personal Branding” Discourse’. Work and Occupations, 45 (1), 3–37.

Valluvan, Sivamohan. 2019. The Clamour of Nationalism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Van Alstyne, Marshall and Erik Brynjolfsson. 1997. Electronic Communities: Global Village or Cyberbalkans? Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School.
Van Dijck, José. 2013. ‘“You Have One Identity”: Performing the Self on Facebook and LinkedIn’. Media, Culture & Society, 35 (2), 199–215.
Viding, Essi and Eamon J. McCrory. 2012. ‘Genetic and Neurocognitive Contributions to the Development of Psychopathy’. Development and Psychopathology,
24 (3), 969–983.
Viding, Essi, James Blair, Terrie Moffitt and Robert Plomin. 2005. ‘Evidence for Substantial Genetic Risk for Psychopathy in 7-Year-Olds’. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46 (6), 592–597.
Von Behr, Ines, Anaïs Reding, Charlie Edwards and Luke Gribbon. 2013. Radicalisation in the Digital Era: The Use of the Internet in 15 Cases of Terrorism and Extremism. London: RAND Corporation.
Vonnegut, Kurt. 1999. Breakfast of Champions: Or, Goodbye Blue Monday! New York: Dial Press Trade Paperbacks.
Wajcman, Judy. 2015. Pressed for Time: The Acceleration of Life in Digital Capitalism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Walby, Sylvia. 1991. Theorizing Patriarchy. London: Blackwell.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1996. Historical Capitalism with Capitalist Civilization. New York: Verso.
Waterson, Jim. 2019. ‘Viral “Momo Challenge” is a Malicious Hoax, Say Charities’. The Guardian, February 28.
Weber, Max. 2009. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Wee, Lionel and Ann Brooks. 2010. ‘Personal Branding and the Commodification of Reflexivity’. Cultural Sociology, 4 (1), 45–62.
Weld, Kirsten. 2020. ‘Holy War: Latin America’s Far Right’. Dissent Magazine, July 13.
Whine, Michael. 1999. ‘The Use of the Internet by Far Right Extremists’. In: Brian Loader and Douglas Thomas (Eds.). Cybercrime: Law, Security and Privacy in the Information Age. London: Routledge.
Williams, Jamillah, Lisa Singh and Naomi Mezey. ‘#MeToo as Catalyst: A Glimpse into 21st Century Activism’. The University of Chicago Legal Forum, 20 (2), 371–393.
Williams, Raymond. 1961. The Long Revolution. London: Parthian Books.
Williams, Raymond. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolf, René. 2010. Radio and Modernity. In: René Wolf (Ed.). The Undivided Sky. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Woodcock, Jamie. 2021. The Fight Against Platform Capitalism: An Inquiry into the Global Struggles of the Gig Economy. London: University of Westminster Press.

Woodcock, Jamie and Mark Johnson. 2019. ‘Live Streamers on Twitch.tv as Social Media Influencers: Chances and Challenges for Strategic Communication’. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 13 (4), 321–335.
Wu, Tim. 2017. The Attention Merchants: The Epic Scramble to Get Inside Our Heads. New York: Vintage.
Yanagizawa-Drott, D., A. Rao, M. Petrova, R. Enikolopov and L. Bursztyn. 2020. Echo Chambers: Does Online Networkstructure Affect Political Polarization? Working Paper. Zurich: University of Zurich.
Yates, Frances. 1966. The Art of Memory. London: Routledge.
Yoshimi, Shunya. 2005. ‘Japanese Television: Early Development and Research’. In: Janet Wasko (Ed.). A Companion to Television. London: Blackwell.
Yudkin, Daniel Alexander, Stephen Hawkins and Tim Dixon. 2019. ‘The Perception Gap: How False Impressions are Pulling Americans Apart’. Available at: https://perceptiongap.us
Zayani, Mohamed. 2015. Networked Publics and Digital Contention: The Politics of Everyday Life in Tunisia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zhao, Shanyang and David Elesh. 2008. ‘Copresence as “Being With”: Social Contact in Online Public Domains’. Information, Communication & Society, 11 (4), 565–583.
Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, Maria Petrova and Ruben Enikolopov. 2020. ‘Political Effects of the Internet and Social Media’. Annual Review of Economics, 12 (1), 415–438.
Zirakzadeh, Cyrus. 2006. Social Movements in Politics: A Comparative Study. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zuboff, Shoshana. 2018. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. New York: Public Affairs.
Zytko, Douglas, Sukeshini A. Grandhi and Quentin Jones. 2014. ‘Impression Management Struggles in Online Dating’. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 53–62. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________