Viral Style: Technology, Culture, and the Politics of Infection
Douglas Thomas
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281
(213) 740-3937
douglast@usc.edu
Viral Style: Technology, Culture, and the Politics of Infection
Overview
This book explores the phenomenon of computer viruses through an examination of the history of
computer viruses in computer culture and industry, in the computer underground, and in the
popular imagination. These three, seemingly distinct, ways of thinking inflect on each other in
interesting and often surprising ways.
Computer viruses are perhaps one of the best known, yet least understood elements of the
computer underground. While most people are acquainted with the ideas and effects of
computer viruses, few understand the social, cultural, and political implications from either the
point of view of virus writers or from the impact that narratives of viral infection have had on the
popular imagination. From AIDS and Ebola to the Michelangelo computer virus, the discourse of
viral infection has permeated the social consciousness for the past two decades. What has been
remarkable is the manner in which the notion of a virus, as a purely biological phenomenon, has
undergone a technological transformation, becoming instituted in the popular vocabulary and
imagination as a something that is able to infect technology. The result has not only to give life to
the virus itself, but has, in the process, rendered the technology of the computer organic as well.
This work combines three approaches. The first is an effort to historicize the notion of viral
infection in terms of its relation to the moment of technological transformation when it became
possible to speak of a computer virus. The second approach is focused on media and cultural
criticism in an effort to trace out the cultural, social, and political implications of what viral
infection has connoted in the last half of the 20th century. Third, and perhaps most interestingly,
this work approaches the culture of underground virus writers ethnographically to understand
the cultural, social, and political motives of this groups of programmers who actively constitute
themselves as a subculture of technology that is both driven by these narratives of viral infection,
but also constitutive of them.
As these stories unfold, what is made clear is that the notion of viral style, the means by which
these programmers constitute themselves as a subculture, has a great deal to tell us about popular
anxieties over technology and infection. The story of these virus programmers culture cannot be
divorced from either the history that has produced it or from the popular representations of viral
infection that often serves as its inspiration and site of reception.
I bring several unique advantages to the study of the computer underground. I have just
completed a similar study, Hacking Culture (University of Minnesota Press), an ethnography and
examination of the underground world of computer hackers and in doing so have had the
opportunity to speak with a number of hackers who also participate in virus culture. Because of
my former experiences participating in hacker subculture and discussing these matter with virus
programmers, I have both a technical and cultural literacy required to understand the ways in
which virus programmers address issues of representation, performance, and identity both as
expressed in their programming and in response to cultural and media representations of them. In
my research, I have spoken or corresponded with a number of virus programmers who figure
2
prominently in both the underground culture and in my analysis of it. Over the past year I have
begun to engage in ethnographic research, spending time with virus writers on-line and through a
series of private correspondences. Virus programmers, by nature, are suspicious and distrustful of
academic research. Having a connection to and a familiarity with the culture of the underground
allows me a kind of access that is usually difficult to attain.
As a result, I am in a position uniquely to inform my audience about the ways in which this culture
functions and provide insight into a subculture that is, itself, cautious and secretive about its own
activities and behaviors.
Competing Works and Target Audiences
No other work to date has taken up the task of theorizing the culture of virus production in the
computer underground. Although there are a range of books which have dealt with the social and
political dimensions of infection, particularly around AIDS, this book differs markedly from those
approaches based on its intent to interrogate the subculture of technological virus production.
While those works are tremendously important in thinking through the manner in which the
concept of infection has permeated American culture, they serve more as a parallel discourse upon
which virus writers have capitalized upon, rather than a discourse inherent to the subculture itself.
Peter Denning s Computers Under Attack : Intruders, Worms, and Viruses (1990) is perhaps the
best example of the typical computer-related work on viruses. In it, he documents and details the
component parts of computer viruses and discusses strategies for system protection. On the other
side, George Smith s The Virus Creation Labs : A Journey into the Underground (1994) provides
an interesting narrative history of both virus and anti-virus programmers. The account, however,
is primarily journalistic in nature and theorizes neither the underground culture itself nor the
broader implications for mainstream culture. Other works, such as Mungo and Clough s
Approaching Zero: The Extraordinary World of Hackers, Phreakers, Virus Writers, and
Keyboard Criminals (1992), or Charles Platt s Anarchy Online: Net Crime (1996), do address
viruses, but also do so from a journalistic perspective, detailing how and when viruses were
created, but do little to explain the social and political motivations of virus writers themselves. In
addition, there is no work to date which historicizes the culture of virus production or addresses
the phenomenon in terms of cultural anxieties or attitudes toward it.
This book will be of interest to a number of different audiences, both academic and popular.
Most directly and most obviously, as a cultural study of technology, it will appeal to those
interested in Cyberculture Studies and those interested in issues of the cultural reception of
technology or subculture studies. Second, the book also inflects on questions of cultural and
popular representation through film, TV, and newspapers and, accordingly, will be interest to
those in media studies, popular culture, cinema/TV, and communication and journalism scholars.
Third, because the book discusses in detail the relationship between computer crime, the law, and
the legal status of viruses and virus writers it will hold some appeal for those interested in the
questions of identity, particularly in relation to the juridical constitution of the subject. Finally,
3
there will be a popular appeal for this work, given the importance of technology in everyday life.
Newspapers such as the LA Times and the New York Times frequently report on viruses and
periodicals including Time and Newsweek have each reported regularly on computer viruses. As a
work that provides insight into a phenomenon (computer viruses) which is often discussed, but
poorly understood, this book should be of interest to anyone who spends time on-line, surfs the
net, or is curious about the computer virus s place in the history and practice of technology.
Table of Contents
I. Historicizing Viruses
Ch 1. The Nature of the Beast: The Anatomy of a Virus
Ch 2. The History of Infection: From Shockwave Rider to Robert Morris
Ch 3. Viruses in the Popular Imagination: from War of the Worlds to Independence Day
Ch 4. From Biology to Technology: Technological Transformations in the Discourse of
Infection
II. The Culture of Virus Production
Ch 5. The Culture of Virus Production
Ch 6. Tools of the Trade: VCL and other Goodies
Ch 7. Smashing the System: From Boot Sectors to Microsoft Word
III. Viral Style: Technology, Culture and the Politics of Infection
Ch 8. Computer Style and Incorporation
Ch 9. The Industry and Its Discontents: From Microsoft to McAfee and Associates
Ch 10. Viral Style: Polymorphism and Resistence
Manuscript Specifics
I estimate the manuscript will be between 200-250 pages in length and will be completed in Fall of
1999. In addition to text, the manuscript will contain between 10 and 15 still photographs.
4
Outline of the Book
I. Historicizing Viruses
The computer virus is perhaps the most feared, yet least understood phenomenon of the
information age. Cast in biological terms, computer viruses are seen as microscopic organisms
too small to see, yet capable of wreaking untold damage. They also appear to be a recent
phenomenon, the product of the widespread use and adoption of technology both in the
workplace and in the home and, most specifically, tied to the growth and usage of the Internet.
Most viruses, however, are not spread via the Internet, but instead come from the sharing of data
over smaller networks (such as LANs) or, most commonly, from people sharing floppy disks and
exchanging software. One is much more likely to get a virus from someone you know or work
with then from a download off of the Internet.
This section offers a view of viruses which both explores the nature of computer viral infection by
examining what viruses are and how they work and by historicizing their place in both computer
and popular culture.
The Nature of the Beast: The Anatomy of a Virus
The question of what precisely defines a virus is the subject of debate within the computer
community. There are, however, at least two characteristics that show up in most definitions.
First, a virus must in some manner self-replicate, meaning that it must make a copy of itself
which has the ability to also make a copy of itself. Accordingly, the quality of self-replication is
the means by which the virus is also able to propagate. The second characteristic is that the virus
must function without the user s knowledge, meaning simply that it must propagate undetected
and must perform its basic task or function of self-replication without the users knowledge or
consent. Apart from those two characteristics, there are a number of qualities which may or may
not define a virus, but in almost every case, absent from the list is the idea of a malicious intent.
While the popular understanding of viruses is that they are primarily to cause damage, virus
writers see their own productions differently. Indeed, all virus writers seek first and foremost to
have their viruses keep replicating. While some viruses do cause damage, referred to as
malware, short for malicious software, some are completely benign. In fact, often times
viruses are propagated that display greetings or messages on a particular date or simply send the
message Have a Nice Day, when exiting a particular program or application. The idea behind
damage and more benign messages is the same, they serve as a marker to indicate how
successfully the virus has been in its mission to self-replicate. News of damage spreads more
quickly than Have A Nice Day, and is therefore often times selected as the virus s payload in
the hopes the virus writer will be better able to view the impact of his or her programming.
In order to understand exactly what a virus is and how it functions, this chapter examines the
basic workings of a personal computer and illustrates how virus is written, executed and the
5
processes by which viruses go about their mission of self-replication. In doing so, I trace out the
basic ideas behind bootstrapping or booting the system, fundamental elements of the
operating system, and how computers access and store information. With those basic
understandings, I trace out how virus writers program code which takes advantage of the basic
system architecture and how such code is able to hide and later replicate itself within the system.
In each case, it is easy to see how a short (often times only a few dozen lines of code) program
can be used to either send silly messages or wreak havoc inside a user s computer and how these
programs begin to take on a life of their own, jumping from machine to machine, constantly
replicating themselves and attaching new code to programs.
The History of Infection: From Shockwave Rider to Robert Morris
Understanding the basic structure and function of a virus provides some insight into the technical
aspects of how viruses function. Of equal interest is the social and cultural dynamics that make
these programs of interest. The choice of the term virus was not serendipitous, but instead was
the product of intense and heated debates within the computer community. It was also a term that
conveyed both the sense of danger and mystery to the public. Before there were viruses,
however, there were worms, another biological entity that carried far less threatening
overtones.
This chapter traces the debate over nomenclature which grew out of John Brunner s 1975 novel
The Shockwave Rider (often considered a manifesto for hackers and virus writers) and how the
concept of both hacking and virus writing grew out of fears of technological dominance that
Brunner suggests is inevitable. Brunner suggests that any system of technological dominance is
subject to a basic strategy of resistance: using technology to defeat technology. Technological
systems are inherently fragile and the more complicated they become, the more fragile they are.
Brunner s hero, who is capable of changing identities to hide from authorities, creates a program
that, essentially, smashes the system, causing the government to lose its technological domination
over the population. The power comes not from the ability to control or manipulate the system,
but from the ability to interfere with and disrupt it. That power comes not from a specific assault,
but from a decentralized attack, a networked attack.
Thirteen years later, on November 2, 1988, Robert Tappan Morris released what would become
known as the Internet Worm, a program which tested systems of the Internet for a known
security hole, accessed the system, and tried to break passwords by comparing them to a list of
commonly used words. It was the actualization of Brunner s tapeworm, which spun out of
control, crashing over 6,000 systems. Although the damage was unintentional, Morris s worm
illustrated precisely what was at stake--the ability to crash the system. Computer programmers
and experts debated over the proper designation for Morris s program, was it a worm or was it
a virus? Eventually, the designation worm won out, but the discussion opened up a new area
of examination, one which the media and the public would become aware of in the years that
followed as viruses began to spread.
6
The transformation from worm to virus marks an important element for the study of virus
culture for two reasons: first, it marks the transformation from a useful, and most important,
identifiable creature to a sinister, invisible object that is tied to illness, disease, and death and
second, it enacts the metaphor of infection which transforms computer virus infection from
something which can be located and defined into a public health threat. That threat has produced
a multi-million dollar business in the form of anti-virus software and updates.
Viruses in the Popular Imagination: from War of the Worlds to Independence Day
The computer industry is not the only arena in which the notion of the virus has played an
important role. In the popular imagination, infection has (at least) twice saved the human race.
The first time, in H.G. Well s War of the Worlds, invaders from Mars are thwarted in their efforts
to take over Earth by infection with an Earth-bourne bacteria which their delicate Martian systems
are unable to combat. In the 1997 updated version, Independence Day, the invading aliens meet a
similar fate. This time, however, the virus has been changed. It is no longer a biological
infection, but, instead, a technological one. The hero of Independence Day is in fact a computer
virus which interferes with the alien s computer system, forcing them to lower their defenses so
that U.S. attack planes can destroy the invading ships.
The transformation of the biological into the technical marks an important point in the evolution
of the computer virus. It suggests that the ability (and willingness) to smash the system is
inherently tied to both human instinct and freedom, but it also suggests that in the late 1990s,
human resilience has become tied to technology. Where the Martians in the War of the Worlds
were defeated by a biological infection, aliens in Independence Day are proved vulnerable to
technological infection.
In tracing out this technological transformation, I argue that what is revealed is how anxiety about
the political domination has been transformed into fears of technological domination.
From Biology to Technology: Technological Transformations in the Discourse of Infection
The discourse of infection is, of course, nothing new. What may be considered new, however, is
the technological transformation that such infections have undergone. In the 1980s and 1990s, as
the discourse of AIDS and Ebola figured prominently in the popular consciousness, there also
arose a discourse of technological infection around the computer virus.
This chapter examines the parallel discourse of biological and technological viruses in an effort to
understand how the discourse of technological infection relates to and mirrors the discourses of
biological infection. In doing so, I also examine how the computer itself had to undergo a similar
transformation, literally becoming a biological organism itself, capable of serving as a host and
undergoing processing of both infection and healing as well as a parallel discourse of prevention
and safe computing.
7
This chapter also examines the manner in which protection in the form of anti-virus software has
been marketed in relation to discourses of other infections, particularly in terms of AIDS.
II. Viral Style: Technology, Culture, and the Politics of Infection
The Culture of Virus Production
Within the world of the computer underground there exists a subculture devoted to potentially the
most lethal and problematic form of computer programming--the creation and dissemination of
viruses. These programs, which range from code which prints humorous messages across the
screen to programs which delete or destroy information, are produced and exist in relation to a
clearly marked and defined subculture of virus writers. Unlike the image of virus writers as high
tech vandals, these programmers are often very talented and see virus writing as a social, cultural
and political project. This essay traces the history and motives of this subculture in an effort to
explore both the conditions under which that subculture was born and evolved as well as the
shifting cultural and political contexts to which these programmers have responded. Accordingly,
I argue that the creation of viruses is not merely a malicious act of vandalism or a senseless act of
high-tech destruction, but, instead, functions as a means of subcultural signification and as a
strategy for the preservation of a subcultural style in an age of increasing incorporation and
commodification of underground computer culture.
As a subculture, virus writers present themselves as what Dick Hebdige identified as noise, as an
actual mechanism of semantic disorder: a kind of temporary blockage in the system of
representation. 1 Subculture, Hebdige argues, manifests itself in style as an intentional form of
communication whereby the cultural and social negotiation of signs takes place. Marked as a kind
of deviant behavior, subcultural style is often times incorporated through the process of
commodification which results in the conversion of subcultural signs into mass-produced objects
(i.e. the commodity form). 2 The result is a diffusion of the subculture s subversive power, (e.g
the way in which punk innovations fed back directly into high fashion and mainstream fashion in
the 1970s).3
The birth and growth of virus culture can be traced directly to the commodification of the
computer in the form of the PC and as a response to the incorporation and dilution of computer
culture which accompanied the mass marketing of the PC. In terms of technology, the mass
appeal of the personal computer, particularly in the mid-1980s, produced a widespread
incorporation of computer culture, taking the essentially subversive hacker style which
demanded an intimate knowledge of these machines and how they worked and stripping it of its
transgressive character for mass consumption. With the introduction and growth of GUIs
(graphical user interface), computer users have become increasingly distanced from the machines
and software that they use. As a result, the technology has been rendered increasingly opaque,
even as it has become easier to use and more user friendly.
8
Virus writers are reacting with a kind of digital violence to these transformations which have
taken place in computer culture. The dynamics of the production of a commodified opaque
technology have created two motives for virus production. First, viruses force the end user to
become aware (or at least more aware) of his or her blind reliance or dependence on technology.
In doing so, the threat of viral infection forces him or her to take note of the technology itself.
The threat of viral infection forces the end user to understand how his or her computer works, to
take precautions, to be aware of how viruses are spread and how to protect oneself. As one
writer commented about the threat arising from the Microsoft Word Macro viruses: Control is in
your hands. Don t panic. Take this as an opportunity to learn more about the features of the
software you use, to test and verify any security features you plan to utilize and then to configure
accordingly. 4 To the virus writer, the philosophy is simple--there are risks associated with
ignorance, especially with ignorance about technology. Typically, virus writers are more
hyperbolic in their assessments. As Dark Angel (one of the more vitriolic virus writers) sees it:
Virii are wondrous creations written for the sole purpose of spreading and destroying the
systems of unsuspecting fools. This eliminates the systems of simpletons who can't tell that there
is a problem when a 100 byte file suddenly blossoms into a 1,000 byte file. Duh. These low-lifes
do not deserve to exist, so it is our sacred duty to wipe their hard drives off the face of the Earth.
It is a simple matter of speeding along survival of the fittest. 5 While many, even most, virus
writers in the subculture do not harbor such malicious intent, few would disagree with the
assessment of the typical computer user as an unsuspecting fool.
This split, between programmers and end users, opens up the space for the production not only
of viruses bot of virus culture itself. In this chapter, I examine how the incorporation of computer
culture has fostered a new level of subcultural identity and new strategies of technological
resistance.
Tools of the Trade: VCL and other Goodies
If virus programmers learned anything from the incorporation of computer culture, it was how
they might incorporate it back into their own subculture as well. One of the results of such re-
incorporation has been a flood of GUI-based virus programs and mutation engines. This
software is the point-and-click version of virus programming, which allows anyone to not only
create viruses for distribution, but also to mutate viruses to make them increasing difficult to
detect and protect against.
These programs are born in an environment which still requires a level of access before they are
made available. For example, the most famous program VCL (Virus Creation Laboratory) is
itself password protected. Anyone who has spent a fair amount of time reading virus literature
has come across the password a number of times. It does, however, prevent a neophyte access to
the potentially destructive tool. Since VCL s distribution there have been a series of similar
programs, each designed to stay one step ahead of the anti-virus software on the market. Usually,
the viruses these programs create are quickly neutralized by virus detection software, but for the
underground they serve a second, more useful purpose. They provide a hands-on introduction to
9
virus programming from which programmers can learn and begin to experiment. They provide, in
essence, tutorials and introductions to the world of virus programming.
Once introduced to the subculture, it becomes a relatively trivial task to find manuals on virus
writing, periodicals devoted to the topic, and a wide range of informational resources that enable
potential virus writers to learn how to code. It is also the site of discourse where virus writers
express social, cultural, ad political concerns. One such zine, called 40Hex served for a number
of years as both a political soapbox and virus distribution/tutorial forum for it creators,
programmers who went by the name SKISM (Smart Kids Into Sick Methods). The remainder of
the chapter examines the history and evolution of the virus underground through readings of key
documents and discussions with participants.
Smashing the System: From Boot Sectors to Microsoft Word
A second motive for virus writing grows out of the split that virus writers see between the expert
programmer and the end user. Virus writers see the broader cultural implications of such
dependence on technology as well. They see the commodification of the computer and of
computer culture as leading to the possibility of technological domination and viruses provide a
sense of protection. Accordingly, the targets for viral infection are not just individual users.
Instead, the inspiration for such coding comes from precisely the kind of blockage that is
characteristic of subcultural style. As one virus writer explains, the typical virus writer is usually
just this angry kid who happens to be very clever, and what s going through his head when he
codes this thing is how fuckin cool it ll be when it starts blowing holes through the infrastructure
of some industrial monolith like IBM, where a bunch of drones will start going bugfuck when
everything stops working. 6 The idea of being able to smash the system has its roots as far back
as John Brunner s sci-fi classic The Shockwave Rider, which tells the story of a computer
programmer who liberates society from the tyranny of technology by releasing a virus-like
program throughout the government s network. Like Brunner s hero, virus writers see
themselves as maintaining the fragility of the system, keeping it in a state of precariousness such
that its power over us is always limited by our ability to destroy it.
Virus writers have learned an important lesson from the past. Watching the process of
commodification, whereby computer style has been commodified and stripped of its potentially
subversive force, virus writers have adopted a different sense of style which has made them more
resistant to cultural incorporation. Accordingly, viral style represents a break from Hebdige s
initial notion of subculture in an important respect. The culture surrounding viruses is a
subculture which demands constant innovation and which accounts for mainstream culture s (and
the industry s) ability to commodify and incorporate aspects of subversive style. Viral style is a
response to a response, a mutation of style which is negotiating precisely the moment of
incorporation of earlier computer style and culture by the mainstream.
10
With the mass-production of the personal computer and the widespread incorporation of
computer culture, viral style emerged as a style that negotiates a previously incorporated style.
Cognizant of the dangers and possibilities of incorporation itself, viral style is self-replicating and
polymorphic, continually changing with each iteration. It is a style that enacts its own defense
mechanism against incorporation.
This chapter traces out the cultural history and methods of smashing the system, beginning with
the first boot sector viruses and concluding with the innovation of Microsoft Word s
automacro feature, which has spawned a new method of virus delivery, previously thought
impossible.
III. Viral Style: Technology, Culture and the Politics of Infection
In addition to issues of popular culture and the computer underground, virus programming
intersects with specific legal issues. One such issue is the ontological status of the virus itself,
another is the issue of attaching responsibility to issues of virus production and virus
dissemination, and yet another touches upon issues of the separation of textuality (the code) from
the entity (the virus itself). Each of these issues raises questions that complicate conventional
notions of law, policy, and textuality.
Legal Issues in Virus Coding
When Robert Morris unleashed his Internet Worm in 1988, the concept of a computer virus was
not part of public discussion. Since that time, the public discussion of computer viruses has
occurred at the lowest levels, often promoting fear and misunderstanding of what computer
viruses are and what can be done to prevent them. Until very recently, cases of virus
programming have not intersected with law enforcement. In fact, virus production, which is both
an international phenomenon and an activity that is nearly impossible to attach to a single agent,
clearly marks a challenge to a number of legal ideals.
There are a number of ways in which virus code can be disseminated. First, and most obviously,
the code can be compiled and attached to a program which is then disseminated over a network or
through floppy disks. Such a method, if able to be proved, would be subject to laws that already
protect property (e.g., trespass, vandalism, and other damage to property). In most jurisdictions
knowingly distributing a virus is a criminal offense. The problem arises, however, with the
second, more common means of distribution, the computer code itself. Often, virus programmers
will distribute the code in an uncompiled form. In doing so, they are not distributing a virus and
are not infecting any files. That code, as long as it is marked as virus code and not intended to
infect a user s computer without their knowledge is then protected under the First Amendment of
the Constitution. It has status as text, rather than as a virus.
Accordingly, virus code, harmless in its textual form, may have a single point of origin, but its
dissemination and eventual transformation into viral form is always multiple, decentralized, and
11
essentially divorced from its origin. Because the process of compilation of the virus is a
transformative process, it fundamentally changes the nature of the text and problematizes the
notion of authorship.
The Industry and Its Discontents: From Microsoft to McAfee and Associates
While the legal status of virus programming is ambivalent, the industry response has been much
more direct. In the wake of the Robert Morris Internet worm and the growth and spread of
computer viruses more generally, Silicon Valley has responded with the introduction of anti-virus
software, creating an multi-million dollar business almost instantly. But the relationship between
virus writers and anti-virus programmers is a curious dance. Rather than reading anti-virus
software as a response to virus programmers, it is important to understand the symbiotic
relationship that has developed among them. Virus writers devote their time, almost exclusively,
to finding better ways to trick, hide from, or otherwise subvert anti-virus software, which, in turn,
promotes the need for continual upgrades, modifications and new software from the anti-virus
establishment. Most virus programmers will insist that the competition with anti-virus software
writers has functioned to make them better virus writers. But it is the Silicon Valley anti-virus
software programmers who reap the greatest benefit, particularly financial benefits, from this
improved code.
In that sense, the relationship between virus writers and anti-virus programmers is one which
allows us to explore what might be considered the limits of capitalism in an information culture
and forces us to rethink basic notions of commodification and incorporation of subcultural style.
Where traditionally such subversion would be seen as a threat to the market, the computer
industry has been able to transform that threat into a marketable commodity, so much so that the
elimination of the threat itself is more of a problem than the threat itself. The anti-virus industry
does not need to transform or incorporate virus subculture. Instead, it relies on virus subculture
being precisely what it is. As a reaction of subculture, we are witnessing a new form of
incorporation which demands that the subculture resist, and in doing so a component of
mainstream culture begins to depend on that resistance as a means to create and define itself.
Viral Style: Polymorphism and Resistence and the Transformation of Capital
The book concludes with an assessment of what precisely virus culture and mainstream culture s
response to it tells us about living in an information culture and how notions of subculture and
resistance might meaningfully be rethought in the age of information. The creation, production,
and dissemination of virus code can be seen as a metaphor for larger issues that are shaping our
world and our perceptions. In the discourse of the virus, we witness the fusion of textuality and
biology, of machine and the organism, of public anxiety and industry marketing of it, and of the
breakdown and reformulation of subcultural incorporation.
In such a series of transformations, it is clear that the transformation from a primarily material
culture to a culture of information is going to force us to rethink some of the most central tenets
12
of contemporary thought. How we consider textuality, authorship, and the construction of the
subject will have profound impacts for us, not only in questions of law, but also in the radical
transformation of capitalism that will accompany both the shift in mainstream culture and which
will underwrite the market for a new economy of information and the anxiety that will doubtlessly
accompany it.
Accompanying those transformations will be a new style of subculture, one born from resistance
to a new style of capitalism. It will be polymorphic and highly resistant and will, one can hope,
serve as a model from which the next generation can learn, adapt, and continue to transform the
very possibilities of what it means to live in an information culture and adopt a viral style.
13
Notes
1. Dick Hebdige, Subculture: The Meaning of Style, New York: Routledge, 1979, p. 90.
2. Hebdige, p. 94.
3. Hebdige, p. 95.
4. In Charles Platt, Anarchy Online: Net Crime, New York: Harper Collins, 1996, p. 149.
5. Dark Angel, Dark Angel's Phunky Virus Writing Guide. Text file. n.d. (c. 1992).
6. Platt, p. 145.
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
K Srilata Women s Writing, Self Respect Movement And The Politics Of Feminist TranslationTravel and the Making of North Mesopotamian PolitiesClassical Translation and the Location of Cultural AuthorityBarnett Culture geography and the arts of governmentGill (Plato and the scope of ethical knowledge) BBdrugs for youth via internet and the example of mephedrone tox lett 2011 j toxlet 2010 12 014Bates, Gramsci and the Theory of HegemonyHarry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets[1]Nicholas Agar Biocentrism and the Concept of LifeSorites Paradoxes and the Semantics of VaguenessGrooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language by Robin DunbarPokemon Movie film 8 Lucario And The Mystery Of Mew Napisy PlBaker; The Theology of the Body and the Dignity of Women; speech CMA[Mises org]Boetie,Etienne de la The Politics of Obedience The Discourse On Voluntary ServitudStephen Wilkinson Eugenics and the Criticism of BioethicsDream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light Namkhai NorbuKraggerud, Boethius and the Preface of Theodoricuswięcej podobnych podstron