Abstract
Scholars have long debated the ambivalence embedded in online behaviours, as shown in memes, trolling and weird Internet jokes. Recently, Donald Trump’s surprising win of the 2016 US Presidential Election and the notable ascent of conservative populism along with it have prompted an ongoing meme war in online spaces such as Facebook, Tumblr, 4chan and Reddit. In this context, The Ambivalent Internet invites us to consider the social and cultural significance of ambivalent online expressions.
To accomplish this, the authors Whitney Phillips and Ryan M Milner draw on folklore and communication theories to explicate the weird, mean and in-between that characterise everyday online behaviours. To begin with, the Introduction discusses the explanatory lens of the book. The authors argue that neither ‘online trolling’ nor ‘weird Internet’ would offer adequate explanations for the mischief, oddity or antagonism found in online behaviours. Instead, online behaviours are inherently ambivalent: they are ‘simultaneously antagonistic and social, creative and disruptive, humorous and barbed’ (p. 9). These expressive behaviours call attention to power, voice and access underlying social, political and cultural issues. Thus, despite their apparent weirdness, odd online behaviours such as satirising brands, mocking celebrities and joking about tragedies deserve serious scholarly attention.
Arguing from a theoretical perspective, Chapter 1, ‘Folkloric Expression’, explores the continuity and divergence of digital folklore in comparison to traditional vernacular culture. The fundamental logics of digital folklore, such as multimodality, re-appropriation, resonance, collectivism and spread, could be found in early forms of folkloric art such as xeroxlore and memorial page trolling. In this regard, digital folklore continues the tradition of vernacular culture by demonstrating ‘the overlap between then and now, formal and folk, and commercial and populist’ (p. 21). Meanwhile, the affordance created by digital mediation, the chaos emerging from participants’ constant manipulation and remix of source material, and the ethical controversies caused by wilful misbehaviours collectively push the ambivalence of online expressions to a new level.
The following chapters elaborate four key aspects of Internet ambivalence: identity play, constitutive humour, collective storytelling, and public debate. Chapter 2, ‘Identity Play’, explores how the basic form and function of identity play have been altered by digital mediation. According to the authors, online identity play demonstrates the intertwined, inextricable relationship between the individual and the collective. It is an ambivalent business in the sense that while online identity play is marked by performative fracture and covered by anonymity, it often goes out of control in unprecedented ways since the boundary between individual mask and the reciprocal influence of the collective tends to get muddy in online spaces.
Chapter 3, ‘Constitutive Humor’, focuses on weird Internet jokes and the difficulty of pinning down their embedded humour. Why do we laugh at online memes and jokes that have little/no narrative or punchline? The authors argue that the constitutive humour of memes originates from their ability to obscure the full emotional, political or cultural contexts of a given event, thereby foregrounding the amusing details to readers. The consumption and spread of these memes contribute to online community formation. Constitutive humour is both generative and magnetic: it creates a sense of collective identity by weaving an influx of new experiences and references into highly fetishised insider jokes, and these jokes in turn maintain in-group dynamics and attract new members to the group.
Chapter 4, ‘Collective Storytelling’, continues the discussion of collectivism underlying online behaviours. It begins by emphasising the centrality of collectivism to the storytelling process. As shown in famous urban legends such as Bigfoot and Martha Stewart, the hybrid and heteroglossic nature of storytelling derives from the collective power of individual voices. The chapter then explicates how online urban legends can effectively draw from ‘hybrid vernacular sources and creatively reconfigure existing narrative tropes’ (p. 161). Digital mediation provides people faster and easier ways to add individual voices into established urban legends.
Chapter 5, ‘Public Debate’, analyses the ambivalence underlying online debates. Using the contentious 2016 US Presidential Election as the prime example, it illustrates how online debates are situated within the overlap ‘between the evil twins of conflict and unity, along with affect and rationality’ (p. 198). As public multiplicity becomes increasingly polarised, such ambivalence further complicates the relation between digital mediation and democratic process.
Finally, the Conclusion summarises the whole book by suggesting a dirt work approach to Internet ambivalence. The authors propose that online expressions cannot be treated as a singular, self-contained and easily traceable litany built by explicit texts with authors and meanings. Instead, we should focus on ‘how specific vernacular expressions – however unusual or unintelligible they might appear – illuminate and often complicate broader cultural logics’ (p. 202). The best way to deal with online expressions, in other words, is to live with their embedded ambivalence.
Grounded in multidisciplinary literature and vivid examples drawn from US online culture, The Ambivalent Internet presents a methodologically innovative account of the complexity underlying everyday online behaviours. The book’s thesis (i.e. ‘ambivalence is an essential aspect of the Internet’) has been well argued through a wide range of interesting yet confusing expressions found in online spaces. As a timely contribution following the 2016 US Presidential Election, the book also offers a useful framework for analysing the antagonism currently unfolding across the Internet.
If there was any room for further improvement, I wish that the book could be more accommodating for readers without sufficient background knowledge in North American culture. In addition, the book’s colloquial language style, though understandable given its research subject, may disappoint some readers since, occasionally, it can be difficult to follow. With all being said, the book has raised serious questions concerning online behaviours, and it is a valuable reference for ongoing academic debates.