Kites

Virtual chat applications are very active during this pandemic. At home, millions of Brazilians are connecting more intensely through social media in order to reduce feelings of isolation.

The idea that there would be thousands of virtual communities providing opportunities for interaction, however, is not entirely true. Each WhatsApp group is, in fact, composed of people with some affinities. But they do not form entirely homogeneous communities. These groups in which we all participate do not constitute a "we," as the South Korean theorist Byung-Chul Han has already observed. They are veritable collections of "I's," although they share certain partial common senses.

Imagine a blue sky and dozens of colorful kites in the wind. They seemingly form a group of kites, but each one is connected by a string to an individual kite flyer. There is no "we" among the kite flyers, there is a bunch of "I's," each with their own kite. Not infrequently, some in that group use cerol (a mixture of glue and glass powder used to coat kite strings) to cut the strings of the others.

In many social media groups, similarities are even fewer than differences (think of a family), which persist because each "I" present, even without forming a "we," is connected to the others for some individual reason. There is no real community, no common unity, no living together, no coexistence. In most groups, individuals who know each other superficially (or not even that) share information, both true and false, strengthening common sense (Aristotelian topos) that confirms certainties which are, through the individual initiative of one of the "I's" in the group, shared in other similar groups, also composed of individual "I's." There is no "we" sharing with, sharing points of view. Each set of these groups that feed off each other, reproducing the same ideas, is called an "internet bubble."

Note the amount of identical information posted in the same group or in several groups one participates in. There is no "we," no group of people thinking together about a particular topic, building consensus. There are only "I's." Each "I" posts what it considers important for others to read. And there are few debates or disagreements. Each person shares what they want, for their own self-indulgent, individual satisfaction, even though everyone feels part of a collective, a "we."

In the preceding paragraphs, redundancies and reiterations were used precisely to emphasize the central idea: online groups are not, and could never be, a place for the production of debated consensus. There is no "we," there is merely a sum of "I's," each with their own kite.

And so these "bubbles" form on the internet, creating irreconcilable antagonisms that conform and are conformed to each other. Each bubble with its absolute certainties, polarized in relation to the other bubbles, and to the ideas that circulate within them as topoi, as common sense.

Consider what has been said so far regarding the controversies surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic. There are countless possible divisions, but everyone perceives the fundamental polarization. On one side are the denialists, anti-science, anti-culture, mostly religious, certain that it was just a little flu, a minor cold. On the other, brandishing statistics and logical arguments, are those convinced of the need for social isolation.

The selves that make up each group, and the set of groups in each bubble, cannot and do not want to converse with the selves that make up the groups in the other bubble. They are incompatible. They confront each other. Everything is symbolic.

On both sides, certainties abound. If even within each social media group there isn't a clear "we," then even less so within each bubble. It would sound more than naive to abstractly propose a dialogue where everyone promised to strive for desired consensus or compromises. Certainties don't allow for it.

Interestingly, however, despite the absence of a single "us," we can easily identify "them," the group on the other side. Each "I" has its "them," the others, the enemies to be defeated and, if possible, annihilated. Do you see the functionality of this opposition for neoliberal ideology? The worst part is that this opposition exists on both sides.

Symbolically, there are only pandemoniums of kites in our social network that the Brazilian breeze kisses and sways.

The challenge, within the limits imposed by the capitalist mode of production, remains, on this side, the configuration of a "we" to replace the "I's" that vainly expose themselves on social media, especially during this extraordinary period of confinement and reflection.

Wilson Ramos Filho (Xixo) holds a doctorate in law, is a professor at UFPR, and is a member of the Institute for the Defense of the Working Class.