Affect, symbolization, and “practices of the Self”

Based on some of the states of Sergey Zenkin’s article, I describe the relationship between affect and symbol. Affect has two sides — cognitive and non-cognitive. The latter manifests itself in unconscious reactions. Conscious affect is regulated by the communicative situation and the sociocultural environment. Sergey Zenkin describes two systems of meaning circu­la­tion. The first is sign communication, the second is working with features and symbols. Sym­bols can be generated unconsciously and evoke similar reactions. Disruption of the flow of in­for­mation through the system of non-cognitive affectations leads to their objectification. Af­fects arise in their place, centred on the tension between the source of the affectation and the individual. The former becomes a symbol of the relationship underlying the affect. I illustrate the transition from non-cognitive affectation to affect with the emergence of a new symbol with examples from "practices of the self" in the digital environment. Here, representation dis­places the thing, and the source of non-cognitive affectations becomes the interface, net­work, account, etc. Affects of hope, togetherness, and a new naivety characterise the tension between the individual and the digital environment. When objectified, they become symbols of social status. Thus, representation and its tools evoke a sense of elevation above the world. The overall modulation of these affects is positive; status symbols convey the meaning of a better future, which encourages a shift in the boundaries between the real and the virtual. The me­chanism of symbol generation during the transition from noncognitive affectation to normal affect may be part of the third system of meaning circulation discussed by Roland Barthes.