Thread by @richterscale

To understand the freakout over the shape of Zina Bash's hand yesterday, you have to realize that the alt-right has weaponized the wink.

Permit me to get Geertzy with it.

(thread!)

First off, I am unconcerned with Bash's intent (or lack thereof) in this case. While it's within the realm of possibility that she made the 'ok' symbol intentionally in order to communicate a message of white power, we can't know for sure. And we shouldn't assume much from it.

In "The Interpretation of Cultures" (1973) the anthropologist Clifford Geertz said that an ethnographer must base interpretation on "thick description" -- attempting to see all possible meanings of a practice, an act, an artifact, etc.

Geertz gives the example of a wink. If you see a person close and then open one eye, what are you to supposed to understand from that physical action?

Well, there are lots of possibilities. Without any other context, maybe Nic Cage just has something in his eye:

But maybe the winker is trying to tell you something. Very often, a meaningful wink indicates shared knowledge or understanding between the winker and winkee, which is kept secret from or is unacknowledged by people who are right there.

But since we all know that a wink connotes a shared secret, we can use winks to fool others who are not in on it. Geertz warned that a wink could be intended "to deceive an innocent into thinking conspiracy is in motion."

Sounds familiar:

The problem, of course, is that the plan to use the 'ok' symbol to fool the left into thinking there is a conspiracy *IS* itself a conspiracy!

A meaningful wink, by its very definition, *IS* a conspiracy.

So, what can we interpret from any instance of the the 'ok' symbol?

First: we can't assume that it's always intentional.

Second: if it is intentional, we can't assume it's sincerely conveying committed "white power" intentions.

Third: if it's intentional, the primary meaning is that the winker is in on the joke--and this is a cruel joke.

Basic semiotics here: a symbol has no inherent meaning other than what people ascribe to it. Context matters--no one thinks that Eddie Murphy was signalling for a white power takeover of the government:

But when someone associated with the Trump administration or the alt-right flashes the 'ok,' you have to wonder.

Of course, that's exactly what they want. They have weaponized a symbol to draw attention and make people on the left look like conspiracy freaks.

This image of Stephen Miller is a classic example. The 'ok' looks like it could be intentional but covert; the explanation has details like locality of origin and a meaning ("WP") built into the symbol itself as if its a gang sign.

I mean sure, it's Stephen Miller, and we know what his politics and goals are. But it's less plausible that he is trying to communicate those goals through hand signals. He doesn't need secret symbols--he's doing just fine communicating them through White House policy.

When MAGAs flash the 'ok' at the White House, they are communicating that they are in on the joke, and that the joke has made its way to the top. It's in-group signalling, and make no mistake: it signals a despicable group.

But they're not just signalling to other MAGAs. They're signalling to YOU. They're daring you to say something. They're baiting you to read into a common hand gesture--one with copious deniability--a conspiracy with secret symbols that you have begun to decode.

Remember: a conspiracy does not need to be hidden. It doesn't need secret handshakes or passwords. It just needs people "breathing together" with one purpose.

Most conspiracies are out in the open. Watch Senate Republicans right now for an illustration.

(end thread!)