[iDC] A Reflection on the Activist Strategies in the Web 2.0 Era

Tue Jan 20 15:03:51 UTC 2009

Hi everybody,

thank you very much for your answers and suggestions!
My idea of a "new language criticism" was of course a provocation. I 
naturally think that it does not make sense to look for a new enemy or 
to re-create a new wave of static definitions.
Anyway, my proposal is to try to analyze the social networking 
phenomenon starting from a critic of collective art, referring to the 
first developing of networking practices and the activities of the 
grassroots movements in the 90s (and in the 80s, if we consider the 
practice of networking not only as technologically determined).

My point is that in the last half of the twentieth century Avant-garde 
art practices from Fluxus to Mail Art and Hacker Art have promised the 
creation of collaborative art and the production of new models of 
sharing knowledge. Today, these narrow practices have inspired the 
structure of the Web 2.0 platforms, reaching for the first time a huge 
mass of Internet users. This is of course good, because these platforms 
increase possibilities of sharing knowledge. But at the same time, I 
think that they don't give what they promise, and it is _also_ a matter 
of language.

It is difficult to consider them "open" because they are vertically 
managed and it is also difficult to define them "social", because 
actually the way of sharing internal information is quite simple and, 
most of the time, superficial. I would better say that they are a 
powerful data bank or data archive.
I agree with Michael when he writes: "you can use the Web 2.0 meme, 
which is very popular and understood, but fill it in with your own 
proposals and values."

But in my point of view hacker ethic and techniques of networking 
developed in grassroots communities have being used since the beginning 
as a model to increase the market of users in the Web 2.0.
It is of course good to "customize" these platforms with our own values, 
but people should be conscious that in doing this, they are producing 
economic value for others.

Btw, the proposal of Michael is of course a good strategy if we aim to 
create successful critical and creative routes that involve 
"alternative" channels, compared to those dominated by the economy of 
the market and by commercial information. But instead of simply add our 
values and contents - that is what these platform are based on, we 
should think about how to create new critical imaginary within them. For 
example, situationist, multiple singularity and plagiarist projects in 
the web 2.0 could be an interesting field of "study" and action...
Possibility could be to think about inverse-dynamics of control of data 
and information --- I am sure artists and activists are great in doing this.

Best,
Tatiana

john sobol wrote:
> Tatiana,
>
> thank you for that wonderfully concise overview of your group's 
> ambitious activities.
>
> But I do fear that this suggestion:
>
>>
>>> Future
>>> reflection on activism and hacker culture should therefore include
>>> a deep study of the language and rhetoric of presenting conceptual
>>> models and dynamics of networking.
>>>
>>
>
> will yield more arcane talk and less urgent action. Not that more talk 
> is a bad thing per se, but I would argue that intellectuals have been 
> obsessed with nomenclatures for decades now, whereas the heart of the 
> matter (language as enacted worldview and indeed, as world) is 
> technological not lexicological, mundane not obscure. It is far too 
> easy to get caught up with rarified terms and definitions, which can 
> be – and are – argued to death, and thus fail to see what lies in 
> front of our nose.
>
> For example, John's suggestion that we make use of the term 'action 
> set' suggests that by doing so we will have learned something new. But 
> I would argue that many names are interchangeable in practice, whereas 
> what is not interchangeable are the lived dynamics of people engaged 
> in activism (or anything else for that matter). Whether you call a 
> network an action set or a team or a movement or a mob or a community 
> or a cell or anything else matters not a whit to that group when it is 
> actually enacting its collective will.
>
> Specialized language is for specialists, and is inherently exclusive. 
> In my opinion plain language is preferable if one's goal is to 
> understand and be understood, and especially if one hopes to effect 
> meaningful change. (Although for very specialized situations 
> specialized language may occasionally be required.)
>
> Poetic language can do the trick too if it is worthy enough. ideally 
> one's plainest language is also one's most poetic. I am reminded here 
> of Muhammad Ali's statement when giving a commencement speech at 
> Harvard. In response to the question: "What is your philosophy?" Ali 
> replied with two words: "Me. We."
>
> Now 'that' is a deep study of the language and rhetoric of networking.
>
> John
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at mailman.thing.net
> https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
> iDC Photo Stream:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/
>
> RSS feed:
> http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc
>
> iDC Chat on Facebook:
> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647
>
> Share relevant URLs on Del.icio.us by adding the tag iDCref