Emojification

The emoji is a neo-hieroglyph, a pictoral abstraction of a generalized symbol. Such a generalization, like an original hieroglyph, communicates a category e.g. feeling, animal type or object. These logograms are in contrast to phonemic written languages which, for the most part, lack representation of the visual aspect being communicated. Instead phonemic languages focus of conveying the phonetic pointers to nouns, verbs and adjectives (through words and morphemes). Such phonemic languages are bought together by the rules of grammar. This standardizes linguistic patterns, but not their manifestation. Emojis, in contrast to phonemic writing, insist on representing the specific manifestation of the logogram. This includes not only the type intended to be communicated, but also includes the context that such a type is represented within.

The story of language from our contemporary language could be summarized thus:

1. Pictoral artistic representation gave forth to some standardization of hieroglyphics. Although partially systematized as a logographic writing system, hieroglyphics focus on pictorially representing the type which they intend to point to.

2. Phonemic writing replaces logographic writing by virtue of their efficiency and flexibility. Pointers instead are focused on representing phonics. Grammar allows for phonic pointers to be re-arranged with less contextual oppression than hieroglyphics insist upon.¹

3. Global telecommunications, ubiquitous computing and the centralization of server/software delivery provided the correct incentive for hieroglyphs to once again become prime utility. The majority of the communication, done by the majority of the human race doesn't require the flexibility of phonemic writing systems, hence the emoji becomes efficient.

The Emoji

Language has 'evolved'² to maximize efficiency. In contemporary times, the example par excellence is emoji. This doesn't mean the phonemic languages have no use, can you imagine having to write this text using emoji? Phonemic languages have their utility in the folding and unfolding of both abstract and concrete concepts at once. Phonemic writing is a delicate and specialized tool which, naturally, requires intelligence and practice to use with any skill. The emoji, on the other hand, is like a hammer. The emoji is blunt in both its abstract type (the combination of character code and the CLDR short name e.g. "winking face" or "rolling on the floor laughing") and its concrete instantiation (the actual logogram displayed to the end user, dictated by the technological substrate of hardware and software).

This admission made, the emoji is egalitarian in the purist sense. They are a tool perfectly suitable for the majority of humanity, most of the time. The average conversation involving the average persons requires merely a concept (a type). Some of these involve an abstract of feeling e.g. joy or sadness or an abstract of concept e.g. car, lake or nature. But, for the most part, human interaction is essentially reactive to a degree of like or dislike (and arguably apathy, which is no response). Telecommunications and software, particularly in the forms of messaging apps and social media, reveal this fact as the majority of interactions are, as a matter of fact, represented by "like" and "dislike".

The technical makeup of an emoji has two interrelated but independent parts:

Abstract Type - Actually represented in a shorthand of schematic language. This is the unicode character which digitally represents the emoji alongside text. Separate from the unicode character, the data actually communicated digitally, is the "CLDR short name" which provides a brief description guideline regarding the target logogram.

Concrete Instantiation - This is the actual appearance of emoji. Each abstract type of emoji is intended to have a specific representation dictated by the software context where it is to be rendered. Although this is open to the whims of the consumer of open software, the fact is the majority of software which renders emoji is closed and issued by centralized corporations. The concrete instantiation is what the end user ends up seeing.

Concrete Instantiation

An interesting dynamic arises as a result of the concrete instantiation aspect of emojis. The imposition of software as to the specificity of the hieroglyph, for the majority of cases a corporation, introduces a covert interested party into any communication which uses emoji. The type which is the original intention of all hieroglyphs is infected with the form and context of the emoji. An extra hidden party essentially intercepts and interprets parts of the conversation.

An example which makes the implication of this clear is the "pistol" emoji. A majority of concrete instantiations of this emoji switched from a nominally real pistol representation of such a type into a water gun. Although the unicode name of the emoji remains as "PISTOL" its CLDR short name has been morphed into "water pistol".

The move from a tool intended to kill into a plaything associated with childishness and a context of safety has clear ideological implications (particularly in regards to the contemporary political culture of the United States), as does a decision to keep the 'actual' weapon. The 'progression' of language, under the pressure of 'convenience' and 'utility', has lead to a landscape of language which leans into the homogenized centralization of emotive affect. Interests at the heart of the centralization have embraced the novelty of hieroglyphics to slip their ideological conformity into the concrete form language takes. This will intensify as language is swallowed by the 'convenience' and 'utility' of the digital. This will intensify as we move towards utopia.

Language and Collective Reality

All language, as a social tool, inevitably has it's meaning influenced by consensus:

"The word and the meaning that attaches to it is truly a collective reality. The slightest nuance in the total system of thought reverberates in the individual word and the shades of meaning it carries."³

This collective reality has a great utility for human cooperation,⁴ but oppresses and retards the granular expression of the individual. The "slightest nuance" in the collective moves the dial of communicative possibility a great deal, but a great shift in the individual moves them outside the bounds of what can be communicated.

This mechanic is intensified in cyberspace, and is further intensified by the centralization of control over what can be communicated and how. The utopia promised by digital communication has been usurped by the contemporary state of affairs, the theory of digital utopia has been subverted by incentivized practicality.

"Concepts we have and the universe of discourse in which we move [...]" was (under phonemic languages) "[...] dependent largely upon the historical-social situation of the intellectually active and responsible members of the group".⁵ Whereas under neo-hieroglyphics this is dependent on the mass, popular culture and whatever is average. In an unthinking society this tends towards the intellectually inactive and as a result of increasing technological safety, convenience and automation tends towards the irresponsible.

Slogans, hieroglyphic iconography and the oracle of the 'search engine' have a upstream effect of the ontological orientation of our elastic psyche. Contemporary technologies have weakened our ability for prolonged concentration, recall, ability to defer gratification and inter-personal understanding.

Emojis are the fast food of language, subject to our hyperthalomic desires' tendency to prefer convenience. Just like fast food, it's terrible for you in the long-term and leaves you unsatisfied in the short-term.

The implementation of emojis as dictated centrally in regards to their representation makes them a language of "relativism" under the fashion of market forces and ideology. This is in contrast to phonemic languages which are largely, even in the form of morphemic particles, subject to a heuristic system of "relationism":

"The norms arising out of our experience in actual life situations do not exist in a social vacuum, but are effective as real sanctions for conduct. Relationism signifies merely that all of the elements of meaning in a given situation have reference to one another and derive their significance from this reciprocal interrelationship in a given frame of thought."⁶

Something is lost when language is vivisected, artificially reconfigured or productized. We accept this eventuality as inevitable at our historical peril. There will be nothing left to do if 'progress' achieves its 'end of time' (utopia). Nothing messy nor dangerous, communicative or experienced, which we can unclinically throw ourselves into. Emojification aims to disadvantage life of its livedness. Emojification promises efficiency and fun. Emojification gives us conformity, dullness and lack of expression.

1. This is true to a varying degree, depending on the writing system. Two exemplifications of either extreme are Chinese characters and Hangul. Chinese characters, leans towards the pictorial. This is to an extent that it is technically classified as logographic, the same category as written hieroglyphics. Hangul, on the other hand, is an 'invented' and 'logical' schema which is a late creation historically speaking. Hangul is entirely focused on representing in the, minimal necessary way, the phonics and grammar of the originally spoken Korean language.

2. I use this term incredibly loosely.

3. Mannheim, K. (2015). Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. Translated by Wirth, L. and Shils, E. Martino Publishing. p.74

4. This is covered in depth throughout books by David Hume in his description of common life.

5. Ibid. p.77

6. Ibid. p.76