Sol Montero: "Milei's social media always features a belligerent discourse, where symbolic and discursive violence plays a central role."

How politics is discussed today, what mobilizes society, what interests citizens when the tradition of the press and the public square, and even television, seem to interest a shrinking audience, how and from where meaning is constructed today. All these topics are addressed by Conicet research associate Sol Montero in her book , "Avatars in Power: Keys to Political Discourse on Networks " (UNSAM Edita), in an attempt to understand the current state of politics.

Montero is a sociologist and holds a PhD in Literature from the University of Buenos Aires (UBA). Her research focuses on the analysis of political discourse in relation to memory, political identities, and the controversial dimension of language. In an interview with Ñ , she spoke about Milei and her discourse, particularly on social media.

–There's a sense that the falseness of politics seems to be the only truth. Is this conceptualization amplified by social media?

–There are a large number of studies that demonstrate and attempt to expose the proliferation and amplification of misleading discourse and false news on social media, given their ability to spread messages in an unprecedented way, both misleading and not. What I'm interested in showing—and what I'm working on in the book—is that this isn't the first time that lies have been told in politics .

Political lies have been present since the beginning of time; just think of the notion of political propaganda, which has always been in focus. Or the number of scenes we know where lies are at the center. But furthermore, the idea of truth doesn't go well with politics , because to believe in a single truth would imply a single thought, and that has authoritarian overtones . A single truth isn't a democratic ideal either.

–What's new about libertarians regarding the use of truth and lies in politics?

–I think libertarian discourse is novel because it presents distinct characteristics and qualities that differentiate it from traditional political discourse, and one of these is its problematic relationship with truth. It also emphasizes the way it places truth, lies, and fiction in tension, or the uses it makes, particularly on social media, of fictional or fictional discourses from the various variants of post-truth, which aren't necessarily false. One example is copying: Milei on her social media is constantly copying Trump or making imitative use, plagiarizing or paying homage (you have to see what she's trying to do), of things Trump does in the United States, which she doesn't try to hide.

Milei isn't concerned with being original or disguising the fact that it's a copy, but rather almost celebrates, praises, the artifice, as if he were copying all the time and showing it, or saying things that aren't entirely true, dubious, or confusing, and showing that he's doing that. It's as if there were a celebration of artifice, of fiction, and as if, with that gesture, he were almost denouncing the mendacious and false nature of politics itself. It's as if he were saying, "Politics is a big lie, a big fiction, and we have the honesty to say it." So there's a shift there because there's an intention to show the backstage of politics.

–What differentiates a political discourse from a reality show, an advertisement, a religious sermon, or a social media post?

–There are many places where libertarian discourse also exposes these characteristics of tension between truth, or between merely informative or truthful discourses, and other variants. On social media, Milei uses memes and publishes pieces created with artificial intelligence. These are not entirely informative discourses, as one might think, like the traditional political discourse where a plaque is projected and provides some information or quotes a fragment of a speech.

Milei uses social media as a completely heterogeneous mosaic, a kind of collage where she can place elements from popular culture, memes, pieces of artificial intelligence, a joke, a fragment of the Bible, an economic quote, and she can tweet against someone. This creates an entire style I call "digital baroque." Regarding what characterizes contemporary political discourse on social media in relation to traditional political discourse, in the book I work with five characteristics that are characteristic of political discourse on social media, and one of them has to do with the strained use of truth, lies, and fiction, but then there are others.

–What are those five traits?

–The first thing I address in the book is the predominance of the first person, emotions, and the "I" in conversation. On social media, politicians present themselves as if they were conversing face-to-face with another person, with the "I" and emotions taking center stage. And that's something inherent to social media; previously, politicians didn't speak like that, but rather as if they were addressing a large audience, a large collective, and they themselves acted as representatives. In this case, they present themselves almost explicitly as individuals.

The second characteristic has to do with the hypertextual issue, that is, the fact that we are constantly quoting on social media. Politicians are constantly quoting others, linking, intersecting their words with other people's words, with texts written elsewhere, with other situations of enunciation . In other words, they are highly polyphonic discourses that constantly refer to other discourses, and so the political word is constructed there as a word that is not entirely autonomous or its own, but rather in permanent dialogue and contact with other discourses.

–What other characteristics do you point out?

–Let's see... The third has to do with metadiscursiveness, that is, with lexical productivity and the productivity that exists on social media for discussing words, that is, for constantly discussing the meaning of words, talking about words. Social media is the most appropriate place for that, for discussing whether to talk about the Falkland Islands or the Malvinas, whether to spell "cluaca" or "sewer," and whether to speak with the inclusive "e" or not, whether words are appropriate for describing reality. So, as a conversational forum, social media allows for that, and politicians often echo the naming power of social media and its ability to name new realities.

And the fourth characteristic is the narrative aspect, the fact that networks allow us to tell stories, to establish narratives and narratives in a very particular way, because they are no longer the grand historical narratives of traditional political discourse, but rather we're talking about much shorter narratives, in the style of stories and storytelling, for example. In other words, very short narrative capsules, where very brief, very small stories are told.

–What did you find in particular when you started researching Milei's interactions on social media?

–In the studies we've been conducting on Milei's social media, many of the features I've been working on regarding digital political discourse are verified. His social media platforms are, first of all, where a completely central "I" predominates, a first person who is completely central because he speaks in his own name, as a user and not as the president. In fact, he doesn't even present himself as president on his X account.

There's a lot of talk these days about affective polarization to explain this new phenomenon, which has to do with polarization, not based on ideas, but rather on feelings, emotions, the visceral rejection of others, and the blind adherence to a collective or group . So, networks foster this to the extent that they constantly create highly biased communities, and Milei is an expert in this, as he is in unfolding this entire emotional dimension.

–What personality emerges in these presidential posts?

–In Milei's social media, we find that there is no informative discourse, nor one that attempts to account for real facts. Instead, there is always a belligerent discourse where symbolic and discursive violence takes center stage, reaching unprecedented levels in terms of degree , because it is far more violent and far more aggressive than other presidents. But also, in terms of a qualitative leap, never before has a president insulted all kinds of figures, not only in politics but also in civil society, from "I" to "you," that is, in the second person.

–Hasn't this happened before? I mean, playing with the limits of lies, fiction, and truth?

–There's something interesting here, and it's that the targets are often sectors and actors of civil society, something that's very striking, like an actor, a journalist, a scientist, a singer. We also find this hypertextual feature I was telling you about, the idea of networks as a mosaic, like a collage, with a very particular baroque style. Baroque in a double sense: because it's variegated, because it's loaded, it's heterogeneous, heterogeneous, it has different genres and styles. But it's also baroque in the sense of Velázquez, that is, it's constantly putting the boundaries between reality, lies, and fiction under tension. He's constantly saying: "What you're seeing is fiction, this is artifice, this is all lies."

In the book, I also quote that famous interview with legislator Lilia Lemoine, where she says, "I'm disguised as a representative." That's also very baroque in the sense that it completely puts the idea of truth in tension and equalizes all the planes: that of dreams and that of waking life, that of reality and that of lies, that of representation, that of theater, and that of the wings . In short, I think this discourse is constantly challenging us to rethink what truth is.