[iDC] Conference Report: Internet as Playground and Factory #IPF09
David Golumbia
dgolumbia at virginia.edu
Thu Nov 19 17:07:55 UTC 2009
Dear IDC,
TripleC just published a review I wrote of the conference, which I left
feeling more optimistic than I have in a while about where all this is
leading, despite the seriousness of the problems that many of us are
trying to keep firmly in view. I've pasted a copy of the review below
the reference to TripleC.
David
Golumbia, D. (2009). Conference Report: The Internet as Playground and
Factory (November 12-14, 2009, The New School, New York City, USA). /tripleC
- Cognition, Communication, Co-operation/, 7(2), 401-403. Retrieved
2009-11-19, from
http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/152/143
<http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/152/143>
=========
*Conference Report: The Internet as Playground and Factory
(November 12-14, 2009, The New School, New York City, USA)*
David Golumbia, University of Virginia
Christian Fuchs provided an excellent overview of the methods and themes
in evidence at the Playbor conference in his recent review
<http://www.triple-c.at/index.php/tripleC/article/view/150/128>; here I
want to stand back and make some observations about the functions of the
kinds of work done at the conference, the role of academic inquiry in
the construction of media, and the possible uses of critical studies in
the world of practice. More than that, I want to draw our attention to a
potentially groundbreaking change in the functions of critical theory
and even academic inquiry.
I will admit to being very surprised by this conference. Like many, it
turns out, I felt the original theme of the conference was a bit
"light." This is by no means to fault the organizers; it's a subject
that many people have been talking about, and that many of us have a lot
to say about; it's just that the basic questions appear to come mostly
out of commercial software products (Facebook, Twitter, /World of
Warcraft/), which few of us in critical studies of the digital world
consider particularly transformational, even in the long history of
ICTs. But as the frequently contentious discussion on the IDC list
preceding the conference showed, it helped to define a fault line in our
thinking and theorizing that ultimately proved electrifying.
I have been at many conferences in my life, but I have never been at one
like this. My impression was not of academics trying to hone their
theory to fit the latest facts, although some of that went on. My
impression was of close to 1000 incredibly smart people, mostly but not
all academics, from a variety of backgrounds, experiences, methodologies
and orientations, trying to stand with as much critical distance as
possible from what is perhaps the definitive technological and media
change of recent times, trying to frame it in terms of the historical,
cultural, and geographical changes on top of which it lays, and trying
to understand what is happening and why it is happening as it happens.
As much as the Frankfurt school critics, and later the critical
theorists of the late 20^th century, engaged profoundly with every media
form of their time, something about this conference struck me quite
differently. Because of the distributed nature of ICTs, we all come to
the subject with different levels of technical skill and even production
commitments in the very medium we are discussing. This is new; we are
closer to our object of study, without necessarily being enmeshed in its
corporate sites of production, than we could have been in radio,
television, movies, and even earlier regimes of ICTs; this is in part
exactly the reason that we are wondering whether "social technologies"
like web 2.0 can distribute skill and understanding more widely than
they can have been before.
I was struck by this most forcefully at the conference's closing panel
discussion. My sense was that a body of knowledge---a knowledge of how
dramatic, how forceful, and how ideological have been the historical
conditions out of which our contemporary moment emerged, perhaps
summarized most forcefully by Jon Beller's invocation of the Armageddon
that about 2/3 of the world has experienced as "we" have created the
world of IT---was coming into direct contact with a practice, namely the
computerization of the world. That very fact is different from the
printing press, the telegraph, the railroad, radio, tv, and film. At the
panel Trebor Scholz mentioned that employees from Yahoo, Microsoft and
Google appeared to have attended the conference, though none of them
agreed to speak. This seemed just right. The knowledge contained in that
room was too well-earned to be dismissed by the commercial powers that
largely run our world; the possibility that we do have some sort of
technical purchase from which to effect real change, again, very close
to the subject of the conference, seemed to come to the fore again.
Perhaps in that room, we understood that technologies almost never, of
themselves, produce positive social change; that when we are sold a
story that some particular communication technology and its distribution
(as has been done with every prior technology---and can it possibly be
different this time?) will change the world, too often in the past that
story has concealed very much the opposite. Yet very few of us were
willing to reject the idea, as one question put it toward the very end,
that "there really might be something different about information
technology."
Is there? We can't know, unless and until "it" happens, until we see
mass-distributed ICTs truly undo totalitarian governments, make
impossible the concentration of finance capital and its domination over
almost the entire world, or draw input from democratic polities in a way
that seems structurally different from prior methods, or distribution of
technology to the poor and disenfranchised helps them to attain
self-sufficiency without sacrificing their own self-understanding in the
process.
The advent of ICTs presents challenges and opportunities within every
sphere of human activity; the advertisement of its opportunities often
masks the challenges ICTs pose with its other hand while we aren't
looking. The world is already networked and the world will never be
networked; we are powerful actors in the network and we are dwarfed by
the oligopolies that mange too much of it. We have never before had a
major leader of innovation use "Don't Be Evil" as a regulative ideal in
the Kantian sense, despite the suspicion that many of us have that such
an ideal can largely be realized only in the breach. At another panel
someone asked: "if Google is evil, what should replace it?" Maybe
something better, but maybe something worse.
I saw this challenge as profoundly reciprocal, and here was something
really new, and to my mind inspiring. I heard the vague presence of
Google, Microsoft and Yahoo (and a few representatives of their general
mindset among the attendees) saying: "if your methods really have
anything for us, show us." And I heard us saying back: "if this
'revolution' really is for the good, show us." Both sides, I think, were
serious in their message for the other. In this sense, I heard a call to
responsibility to those of us from the world of critical studies of
ICTs: we need to push even harder on all the fronts we've opened: we
need to keep working to develop protocols that pull society toward its
own ethical sense of itself; we need to keep standing and working
outside of protocol, making outrageous accusations, worrying about
catastrophes that may never happen. In this global call to bring our
political and ethical insights into direct contact with the object of
our critique, both socially and technologically, something really may be
different this time---and it's up to us, maybe especially the people in
that room and the people not there many of us were trying to keep in our
minds---to bring that promise into being.
--
David Golumbia
Assistant Professor
Media Studies, English, and Linguistics
University of Virginia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20091119/4682527f/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the iDC
mailing list