Dear Jean, John, and all,<br><br>Jean said:<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>I think I share your view at least in part, but could you say a little more about what you mean by "a lack of attention to action"? Do you mean a lack of discussion about what actions might be made possible by the theoretical propositions raised in discussion, or do you mean a lack of attention to actually-existing cultural and social practice?</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>Both. I find it perplexing that there are few discussions (or even simply posts) on the list about often glaring current political contradictions/crises affecting every day life, OR articulations of the relationships between possible interventions in these and the often brilliant theoretical discussions, as you so lucidly note:<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Rather, I feel that the materiality of lived experience (or even the specificity of case studies) is constantly backgrounded in favour of the most astounding (but at times, really stimulating) abstraction; and an at-times visibly strained mode of competitive discourse. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br>(Agreed this isn't reducible to the gender of the actual participants, but it seems often to correlate to such...)<br><br>And it is quite interesting to consider together your points here, and John's observation about the network labor and time required for "big" theoretical voices/texts, and how this can sometimes override focus on action...<br>
<br>Perhaps it is not so much a question of there being actually "two" lists - one more abstract/theoretical, the other more concerned with praxis, as it is a question of lack of articulation between the two concerns -- how can these theoretical insights enable praxis, and vice versa?<br>
<br>For this of course, as a participant, I must assume equal responsibility. I had (perhaps erroneously) come to the conclusion that this list was more "academic" than I am really interested in, and so had assumed a less-engaged role -- until John's post struck me in raising some compelling questions, ones I've never seen raised before on a list.<br>
<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Lucia<br><br><br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font color="#888888"><div>
<span>Jean </span><br></div></font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div><br><br>On 01/10/2009, at 9:22 AM, Lucia Sommer <<a href="mailto:sommerlucia@gmail.com" target="_blank">sommerlucia@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Dear John,<br><br>As one of the "smaller" voices, who has nonetheless enjoyed a number of the threads on this list, I appreciate the spirit of this post, in asking important questions. <br>
<br>I'm not sure, however, whether the problem is really one of "too much" seamless theory - or whether it is simply a relative lack of attention to action, that can't necessarily be blamed on the "big" voices.<br>
<br>I do also think it would be important to examine the gender dynamics involved in the question of "big" and "small" voices. I have noticed a dynamic on this - and many other - lists, wherein women's contributions to discussion tend to be overlooked / ignored, etc. <br>
<br>Similarly, posts of people newer to a list tend to be ignored to a greater degree. This latter may be at least somewhat unavoidable, due to the nonrational bonds in friendships or acquaintances formed off-list. <br><br>
Not surprisingly, people find this discouraging and will choose to focus their energy elsewhere, thereby diminishing the multiplicity of voices on a list.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Lucia<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 6:08 AM, John Hopkins <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jhopkins@tech-no-mad.net" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:jhopkins@tech-no-mad.net" target="_blank">jhopkins@tech-no-mad.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> Social control is real, that's the problem. It is organized by elites<br>
> and imposed on the different classes, regional groups, ethnicities etc.<br>
> There are many forms of it. I am claiming that one of them, which has<br>
<br>
Dearest List<br>
<br>
I am coming to wonder about the presence of powerful authorial voices on mailing<br>
lists, and the radical departure from the traditional set of BIG voices<br>
pre-internet that The Network promised, a utopia of pluralism. Has it come to<br>
pass? I don't think so.<br>
<br>
As I troll my personal archive of lists (nettime, spectre, 7-11, microsound,<br>
x-change, etc), I find that all of the lists that I have "participated" in have<br>
numerous subscribers (most list admins will not divulge the actual numbers,<br>
though I hereby invite Trebor to), along with a very short tail of posters,<br>
dominated by a very small clump of BIG voices. Without hard numbers, but doing<br>
a sort on poster names in my 15-year Eudora archive on a number of lists the<br>
percentages run around 1-2% or less are BIG posters (80%+ of all content), with<br>
another 3-10% taking up the balance and a minor number of single posters. These<br>
numbers are calculated on the total number of all posts, and would therefore be<br>
MUCH more rarified if compared to all readers and subsequently, all subscribers.<br>
<br>
What about all those other potential voices out there?<br>
<br>
As I was reading yet another soaring post from Brian, I suddenly got the feeling<br>
I was reading a NYT best-selling novel, a page-turner, compelling, seamless,<br>
complete in both its content and its style (sometimes self-deprecating,<br>
sometimes bold, provocative, inviting the reader to question (rhetorically or in<br>
fact) the conclusions), a FORCE to silence competing views if only through the<br>
eminent readability, completeness, and intellectual coherence and<br>
seam-less-ness. You can read nothing else except through the long text,<br>
consuming in the process, a largish piece of irretrievable life-time. Time<br>
subtracted from embodied praxis. The network labor of paying attention to BIG<br>
voices. When the reading is done, the time for action is also spent.<br>
Theory-as-text or text-as-theory soaking up valuable life-time for praxis,<br>
action. And because the reading of this cannot simply stop in mid-word,<br>
mid-phrase, mid-sentence, mid-paragraph, mid-tome, mid-thread, mid-list<br>
subscription, more and more life gets absorbed in reading. One long<br>
socially-constructed text which keeps action limited to eye-and-finger twitch<br>
for the duration.<br>
<br>
And, by default, then, a dominant, BIG voice talking about action but<br>
obstructing the actuality. Is a mailing list a community?<br>
If community is a situation dominated by a small number of BIG voices and minor<br>
actions, I guess it is. Is this a subtle form of social control? what's the<br>
difference between that and subtle coercion? (if I don't read, if I don't give<br>
attention to the BIG voices, is there a bite-back from the social system? I<br>
think so.)<br>
<br>
What does the health of "community" mean if community is literally not more than<br>
a handful of BIG voices within the collective? (community in quotes largely<br>
because of this historically repeated suspicion at the illusions of<br>
techno-democracy (or just distributed creativity) that was embedded at the<br>
outset of such online "communities")...<br>
<br>
Wednesday morning non-threaded meditation commentary.<br>
<br>
jh<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed Creativity (<a href="http://distributedcreativity.org" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://distributedcreativity.org" target="_blank">distributedcreativity.org</a>)<br>
<a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:iDC@mailman.thing.net" target="_blank">iDC@mailman.thing.net</a><br>
<a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc" target="_blank"></a><a href="https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc" target="_blank">https://mailman.thing.net/mailman/listinfo/idc</a><br>
<br>
List Archive:<br>
<a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/" target="_blank">http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/</a><br>
<br>
iDC Photo Stream:<br>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/idcnetwork/</a><br>
<br>
RSS feed:<br>
<a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc" target="_blank">http://rss.gmane.org/gmane.culture.media.idc</a><br>
<br>
iDC Chat on Facebook:<br>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2457237647</a><br>
<br>
Share relevant URLs on <a href="http://Del.icio.us" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://Del.icio.us" target="_blank">Del.icio.us</a> by adding the tag iDCref<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>
</div></blockquote><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>