Over the last five years, but more than ever in the last few months, I have heard such a phrase repeated. An immediate consequence of the pseudo-intellectualisation of Twitter and similarly accessible social media platforms — in opposition to increasingly normie-fied Facebook — the article brain has been a long term development in Internet sociology. Who among us could have seen a 2013 Nick Land tweet and imagined JSTOR-Stans and the social-commodification of pdfs?
This paradigm shift of the Internet from stark anti-intellectualism to endless threads fawning over Hegelian dialectics is not an entirely unwelcome one. Certainly, it has had some pleasant side-effects in its promotion of historical literacy, criticism of electoral politics, and inclusion of various thinkers shirked from mainstream discourses (see: Norman Finkelstein, Seymour Hersh). But from this same river flows the worst cultural products of the last decade: video essayists, the Jordan Peterson vs Slavoj Zizek debate, and the titular article brain.
More so than a nifty but annoying turn of phrase to justify sharing an idea you just had, someone should write an article about this has become a dominating mindset beyond the Internet. Articles from seemingly reputable publications are used to rehash days-old social media discourse in a faux display of cultural criticism, essentially making real what should not be by reintroducing it to a wider, public conscience.
Your mother asks what Meg did wrong. Your Swiftie coworker asks if you’ve heard of Adam Friedland. Suddenly the option to reply log off and put your phone down dissipates.
It’s getting worse. The more everything needs to become an article, the further the quality of articles — and with them, journalism as a whole — deteriorates . An episode of Succession can’t just be an episode of Succession, you have to read an article about it afterwards. While print media is bludgeoned to death, online articles are more abundant than ever. Buzzfeed, the Daily Mail, and the Washington Post are among the leading oversaturators of the information marketplace, not to give a free pass to their Australian equivalents. AI has developed in time to create a perfect storm. Last year News Corp was found to have produced “3000 hyperlocal articles a week” using AI. Job listings appear every day for ‘AI content editors’ and ‘AI editors’ to produce hundreds of articles a week.
While the term ‘article’ here may well be used interchangeably with ‘think-piece,’ the realm of essayists does not remain untouched. Though the gatekeepers of academic writing prevent any damage to their stock, outside these castle walls, the journalistic essay — as Sontag or Baldwin imagined it — burns. The phrase’s cousin, I could write an essay about this, finds itself in an even more absurd situation, as if essays are written from vibes and transient opinions rather than critical reflection and engagement with the field.
For the article brain, an idea needs to be written about in a certain way, and in a certain publication, to be worthy of thought. More so than the intellectualisation of the Internet, the mystification of journalism and non-fiction writing plays into this desire. No longer can we simply discuss ideas and issues in a general public discourse; they must be opinionated on by the higher authority that is The Culture Writer. We find a much different impression if we look at journalism as understood historically, through the eyes of someone like Dickens, as a much more pragmatic occupation largely concerned with who wrote the most accurate shorthand. In a characteristically more sardonic view, Dostoevsky defines the relationship between writers and editors as that between timid failures and shallow money-grubbers.
Both present a stark contrast to present notions of journalism as inscribers of truth and reality: though ultimately showing respect and admiration towards the profession, these two journalists saw themselves as slightly elevated ditch diggers. Though not to suggest this as a journalist’s natural position, it is certainly closer to the mark than current perspectives. When nearly anyone who can write can be a write-r, publication alone can not be taken as an assurance of quality.
Of course, anyone who has clicked through The Washington Post homepage would think just the same. But more significant than these writers’ views on journalism is the fact they gave up its diligent pursuit of truth almost a century before the postmodern turn. Why? Because if writing something real is a practical matter of mere rigour and sweat, why not write something interesting?
Could Finnegan’s Wake have been a think piece? Would SMH publish all three volumes of Capital?
In contrast to this seemingly archaic understanding, the article brain adores the think piece, the article, and the essay as spaces where truths can be stated with certainty, where their beliefs can be cemented in the affirmation that “there’s a great article about this.”
Instead of this reactionary defence of the article, we should embrace its deposition. Even more so than in aforementioned past eras, the written word has been degraded: peer-reviewed essays justify carpet-bombing the Global South, publications practically deified through the nineties to naughties post clickbait and culture war incitations, the smartest and dumbest person you know both have substacks.
In short, it’s over for the article, the essay, the thinkpiece as symbols of cultural and intellectual significance. It has been for a long time.
Let’s read the words and come to our own conclusions.
