Google, Words beyond Grammar

9 Pages·2.47 MB·English

by  Groys B.

)'
N 046
100 Notes - 100 Thoughts 1100 Notizen - 100 Gedanken I NQ046 ' Q
Boris Groys , ·
0 S
[ 1
~
Google: Words
j
beyond I
[ 0 S
Grammar / .
Google: Worte
. jenseits der
ll,
Grammatlk
HATJE "
dOCUMENTA (13)
CANTZ
Boris Grays
Google. Words
beyond
Grammar/
Google Worte
jenseits der
Grammatik
_
--.'---
,---... .
Boris Groys users. And if we want to answer the questions
that the world asks us, we act as content pro
viders. In both cases, our dialogical behavior is
Google .. Words
defined by the specific rules and ways in which
the questions can be asked and answered within
beyond Grammar the framework of the Internet. Under the cur
rent regime in which the Internet functions,
these rules and ways are predominantly defined
by Google. Thus, today Google plays the role
Human life can be described as a prolonged that was traditionally fulfilled by philosophy and
dialogue with the world. Man interrogates the religion. Google is the first known philosophi
world and is interrogated by the world. This cal machine that regulates our dialogue with the
dialogue is regulated by the way in which we world by substituting "vague" metaphysical and
define the legitimate questions that we may ad ideological presuppositions with strictly formal
dress to the world or the world may address ized and universally applicable rules of access.
to us- and the way in which we can identify That is why it is central to contemporary phil
the relevant answers to these questions. If we osophical research to analyze Google's mode of
believe that the world was created by God, we operation, and in particular to analyze the phil
ask questions and wait for answers that are dif osophical pres~ppositions that determine its
ferent from those that we ask if we believe that sU·ucture and functioning. As I will try to show,
the world is an uncreated "empirical reality." Google, as a philosophical machine, has its ge
And if we believe that the human being is a nealogy in the history of philosophy-especially
rational animal we practice this dialogue dif recent philosophy.
ferently from the way we do if we believe that it Let us consider Google's rules of dialogue
is a body of desire. Thus our dialogue with the with the world. According to these rules, ev
world is always based on certain philosophical ery question has to be formulated as one word
presuppositions that define its medium and its or a combination of words. The answer is giv
rhetorical form. en as a set of contexts in which this word or
Today, we practice our dialogue with the combination of words may be discovered by
world primarily via the Internet. If we want the search engine. This means that Google de
to ask the world questions, we act as Internet fines the legitimate question as one about the
4 I 100 Notes -100 Thoughts 1100 Notizen -100 Gedanken rr-046 I Boris Groys EN I 5
meaning of an individual word. And it identifies Google dissolves all discourses by turn
the legitimate answer to this question as a dis ing tllem into tlle word clouds mat function as
play of all the accessible contexts in which this collections of words beyond grammar. These
word occurs. The sum of all displayed contexts word clouds do not "say" anything- they only
is understood here as the true meaning of the contain or do not contain tllis or that particu
word that was asked by the user. And because lar word. Accordingly, Google presupposes tlle
there is no other question that can be formu liberation of individual words from their gram
lated by Google besides the question concern matical chains, from their subjection to lan
ing the meaning of an individual word, this true guage understood as a grammatically defined
meaning appears as the only possible truth that word hierarchy. As a philosophical machine,
is accessible to the contemporary subject. Ac Google is based on a belief in extragrammati
cordingly, true knowledge as such is understood cal freedom and the equality of all words and
here as a sum of all the occurrences of all the their right to migrate freely in any possible di
words of all the languages through which man rection-from one local, particular word cloud
kind currently operates. to another. The trajectory of this migration is
Thus, Google presupposes and codifies tlle me truth of an individual word as it is displayed
radical dissolution of language into sets of indi by Google. And the sum of all these trajectories
vidual words. It operates through words that are is me truth of language as a whole- the truth
liberated from their subjection to tlle usual rules of language tllat has lost its grammatical power
of language- to its grammar. Traditionally, over words. Grammar is the means by which
when we chose language (and not, for example, language traditionally created hierarchy among
religious ecstasy or sexual desire) as a medium its words. And this hierarchy informed and even
of dialogue with me world, we assumed that determined tlle way in which tlle traditional
our questions- to be legitimate- had to take philosophical questioning of knowledge and
the form of grammatically correct sentences, trUtll functioned. Questioning via Google pre
like "What is tlle meaning of life?" or "Is the supposes, on the conu"ary, an exu"agrammati
world created by a higher intelligence?" etc. cal set of word clouds as an answer- the word
Obviously, mese qu.estions could and should be clouds in which the sought-for word occurs.
answered only by a grammatically correct dis In fact, the understanding of u·uth as the
course- by philosophical teaching, a scientific true meaning of individual words is not exactly
tlleory, or a literary narrative. philosophical news. Plato had already begun
6 I 100 Notes -100 Thoughts 1100 Notizen -100 Gedanken N'046 I Boris Grays EN I 7
to question the meaning of individual words context to anotiler, permanentiy changing their
like "justice" or "good." Thus Plato started the meanings on the way. Accordingly, any attempt
process of liberating words from their subjec to establish a normative context was declared
tion to the grammar of mythical narratives and futile. But this migration was understood by de
sophistic discourses. But he believed ·that this construction as a potentially infinite migration
meaning could be found only in a unique word with an infinite trajectory, so that every ques
cloud that had its place in the transcendent sky tion that concerned the meaning of words was
of pure ideas. Later, encyclopedias and dictio declared to be unanswerable.
naries tried to define the privileged, normative Google, therefore, can be seen as an answer
meanings of individual words. These ency to deconstruction in at least two ways. On the
clopedias and dictionaries made the next step one hand, it is based on the same understand
in the history of the liberation of words from ing of language as topological space, in which
language. But the freedom of the words was individual words follow their own trajectories
still restricted by their use in normatively pre undermining any attempts to territorialize them
scribed contexts. Twentieth-century philosophy in fixed, privileged, normative contexts and to
futhered this process of liberation. Structural ascribe normative meanings to them. On the
ism-beginning with Ferdinand de Saussure other hand, Google is nonetheless based on the
and Roman Jakobson-shifted its attention belief that these trajectories are finite- and be
from the normative use of words to tileir factual cause of this can be calculated and displayed.
use in tile framework of living, contemporary Of course, we can imagine an infinite number
languages. It was a huge step toward the libera of contexts and therefore infinite trajectories for
tion of words, but the concept of the normative every individual word. Yet this kind of imagina
context of usage remained basically intact. The tion neglects the fact that every context has to
present, living, contemporary language became have a certain material bearer-a medium-to
the typical normative context. The same can be "real." Otherwise, such a context is merely
be said about tile Anglo-American tradition of fictional and therefore irrelevant as regards our
tile investigation of "ordinary language" that search for knowledge and truth. One can say
is also based on an ideology of presence. The that Google turns deconstruction from its head
real change began with poststructuralism onto its feet by substituting a potentially infinite
especially Witil Derridian deconstruction. Here, but only imaginary proliferation of contexts,
individual words began to migrate from one with a finite search engine. This search engine
8 I 100 Notes -100 Thoughts /100 Notizen -100 Gedanken N!!046 I Boris Groys EN I 9
looks not for infinite possibilities of mean targeting of advertisements-usually remain
ing but for a factually available set of contexts hidden from the user.
through which meanings are defined. In fact, Heidegger spoke about language as a house
the infinite play of imagination has its own limi of being-a house in which man dwells. This
tations within the situation in which all words metaphor presupposes the understanding of
occur in all contexts. In such a limit situation all language as a grammatical construction: the
words become identical in their meaning-they grammar of the language can indeed be com
collapse into one floating signifier with zero pared to the architectural grammar of a house.
meaning. Google prevents such an outcome by However, the liberation of individual words
limiting its search to really existing and already from their syntactic arrangements turns the
displayed contexts. The trajectories of different house of language into a word cloud. Man be
words remain finite and therefore different. One comes linguistically homeless. Through the lib
can say that every word becomes characterized eration of words, the language user is sent on
by the collection of its meanings- a collection a trajectory that is necessarily an extralinguis
of the contexts that this word has accumulated tic one. Instead of being a shepherd of words,
during its migration through language, and that as Heidegger suggested, man becomes a word
can be characterized as this word's symbolic curator-using old linguistic contexts, places,
capital. And these collections- being "real," i.e., or territories, or creating new ones. Thus, man
material-are also different. ceases to speak in the traditional sense of the
In the context of a Google search, the Inter word. Instead, he or she lets words appear or
net user finds him or herself in a metalinguistic disappear in different contexts-in a comple
position. Indeed, the user as user is not pre tely silent, purely operational, extra- or meta
sented in the Internet as a word context. Of linguistic mode of practice.
course, one can go ogle one's own name-and This fundamental shift in the use of lan
get all the contexts in which this name ap guage is well reflected by the growing equiva
pears. But the results of this search manifest lence between affirmative and critical contexts.
the user not as a user but as a content pro The dissolution of grammar and the libera
vider. At the same time, we know that Google tion of individual words make the difference
tracks the search habits of individual users and between yes and no, between affirmative and
creates contexts out of their search practices. critical positions, increasingly irrelevant. What
But these contexts-used primarily for the is important is only whether a certain word
10 I 100 Notes -100 Thoughts 1100 Notizen -100 Gedanken N2046 I Boris Groys EN I 11
(or name, theory, or event) emerges in one or 1 I Filippo Tommaso disgust or even hatred causes one's name to oc
many contexts. In terms of a Google search, MarinertiJ us mOlS cur more often in the media than to be an ob
en libeTlejuwrisles
an occurrence in an affirmative or a nega ject of public sympathy. We all know how this
(Lausanne: Editions
tive context brings a word the same amount I'Age d'Hornme, 1987 strategy has become a standard tactic of self
of symbolic capital. Thus the basic linguistic [orig.1919]),pp.13ff. publicity in the Google era.
operations of affirmation and negation become 2 I Ibid., pp. 40-41. Another early source for the emancipation
irrelevant and are substituted by the extra of the word from grammar can be seen in the
linguistic operations of the inclusion or ex Freudian use of language. Individual words
clusion of certain words in certain contexts function here almost as Internet links: they lib
which is precisely the definition of curatorship. erate themselves from their grammatical posi
The "word curator" operates with texts as with tions and begin to function as connections to
word clouds- he or she is interested not in other, subconscious contexts. This Freudian
what these texts "say," but in what words occur invention was used extensively by Surrealist art
in these texts and what words do not. and literature. The Conceptual art of the 1960s
In fact, this development had already and 1970s created installation spaces for word
been predicted by advanced artistic move contexts and word clouds. Avant-garde art has
ments at the beginning of the twentieth cen also experimented with the liberation of sound
tury-especially by the Italian Futurist Filippo fragments and individual letters from their
Tommaso Marinetti in his text of 1912 on the subjugation to grammatically established word
"destruction of the syntax," in which he ex forms. One is reminded of these artistic prac
plicitly called for the liberation of the words tices when one follows the Google search "in
from syntactic chains. I Around the same time, real time"-here, the search engine begins its
in 1914, he proposed an early version of word work before the grammatically correct form of
clouds that he named parole in liberta (words the sought-for word emerges.
in liberty).2 And, as is well known, he began Thus one can say that Google- with its
consciously to practice art and politics that meta linguistic, operational, and manipulative
had the goal of shocking and disturbing bour approach to language-establishes itself even.
geois cultural European milieus. In this way, more in the tradition of twentieth-century
Marinetti invented what one could call nega avant-garde art than in the tradition of ad
tive self-propaganda. He understood that in an vanced philosophy. But at the same time it is
era of liberated words, to be an object of public precisely this artistic tradition that challenges
12 I 100 Notes -100 Thoughts 1100 Notizen -100 Gedanken N"046 I Boris Groys EN I 13
Google's practices. The struggle for the libera in a metalinguistic position. He or she does not
tion of words is also a struggle for their equal speak-but practices the selection and evalua
ity. The radical equality of words-liberated tion of words and contexts. However, Google
from the hierarchical structures dictated by itself also escapes linguistic representation. It
grammar-projects language as a kind of per practices preselection and a prioritization that
fect word democracy that corresponds to po are also acts of word curatorship. The subject of
litical democracy. Indeed, liberation and the the Internet search knows that his or her selec
equality of words among themselves also make tion and evaluation of contexts depend on the
them universally accessible. One can say that processes of the preselection and pre-evaluation
avant-garde poetry and the art of the twenti that were effected by the Google search engine.
eth century have created a vision of a utopian The user can see only what Google shows.
Google- of the free movement of liberated Thus, Google is inevitably experienced by its
words in social space. The factual, really ex users as a hidden (and potentially dangerous)
isting Google is obviously a technico-political SUbjectivity- operating in a mode of world
realization but also a betrayal of this utopian conspiracy. Such conspiratorial thinking would
dream of word liberation. be impossible if Google were infinite-but it
Indeed, one could ask whether Google ac is finite and therefore suspected of manipula
tually displays every really existing context tion. Indeed, the following questions become
when we use it to reveal the truth of language unavoidable: Why these and not other displayed
namely, the complete sum of trajectories of contexts? Why this and not other prioritizations
all individual words. Obviously the answer of search results? What are the hidden contexts
to this question can only be negative. First of that Google creates by observing the search
all, many of these contexts remain secret-to practices of individual users?
be able to visit them one needs special access. These questions lead toward a phenomenon
Additionally, individual contexts are prioritized that increasingly defines the intellectual atmos
by Google- and the user generally restricts phere of recent decades. I speak here about the
his or her attention to the first few pages that political and technological turn in the history
are displayed. But the most important prob of metaphysics. There was- and still is-much
lem relates to the-metalinguistic position of the talk about the end of metaphysics. But I would
Google search engine itself. The user of the In argue that in fact, the contrary is true: we are
ternet search operates, as has already been said, experiencing not the end of metaphysics but
14 r 100 Notes -100 Thoughts / 100 Notizen -100 Gedanken N!!046 J Boris Grays EN r 15
the democratization and proliferation of meta individual words become a result of the extra
physics. Indeed, every Internet user is not "in linguistic practices of inclusion and exclusion.
the world" because he or she is not in language. "Really existing" Google can only be criticized
And Google presents itself as a metaphysical from the poetic perspective of what can be
machine that is also manipulated by a meta called a utopian Google-a Google that embod
linguistic, metaphysical subjectivity. Thus the ies the concept of equality and freedom for all
subject of a Google search becomes involved in words. The utopian, avant-garde ideal of the lib
a struggle for the truth that is on the one hand erated word produced a "difficult poetry" that
metaphysical and on the other hand political for many readers seems inaccessible. However,
and technological. It is metaphysical because it is precisely this utopian ideal that defines our
it is a struggle not for this or that particular contemporary, everyday struggle for universal
"worldly" truth or-to put it in other terms access to the free flow of information.
for a particular context. Rather, it is a struggle
for access to the truth as such- understood as
the sum total of all materially existing contexts. Philospher, art critic, and media theorist Boris Groys (b. 1947)
is Global Distinguished Professor in the Faculty of Arts and
It is the struggle for a utopian ideal of the free
Science at New York University.
flow of information-the free migration of lib
erated words through the totality of social space.
However, this struggle becomes technico
political, because if all words are already rec
ognized as "metaphysically" free and equal,
every particular instance of their inclusion or
exclusion must be identified as an act of politi
cal, technological, or economic power. Without
a utopian vision of the fully liberated word,
Google would be impossible-and a critique of
Google would also be impossible. Only if lan
guage is already transformed into a word cloud
may the question concerning the symbolic capi
tal of every individual word be asked-because
only in this case does the symbolic capital of
16 I 100 Notes -100 Thoughts / 100 Notizen -100 Gedanken N2046 I Boris Groys EN I 17