[iDC] Activism
Brian Holmes
brian.holmes at wanadoo.fr
Mon Dec 5 15:46:11 EST 2005
Activism comes in waves. There are those wild moments when
you think you can somehow win. San Cristobal 1994. Paris
1995. Seattle 1999. Porto Alegre 2001. Buenos Aires
2001-2002. Venezuela for the past 7 years. Bolivia next
December 18 (think of them and hope for the better).
In those moments the movement is everything. Don't worry
that the others have a hard time understanding. Because so
many people get it right. And more are streaming in. The
main thing is to keep the momentum, feed the energy. All you
can do is try to be the wave you're riding. Until it crashes
on the shore.
Then what? Fall back, take a reality check, put away the gas
masks and start creating culture.
Resistance is cultural. It's about ideas, it's about
feelings. Texts and objects and gestures are a way to keep
them alive, suspended animation, secret free. Nothing can be
presupposed: it has to be anonymous, impersonal, available.
What happens when the other looks you in the eye? Resistance
takes place in that space between two gazes.
Our societies are pathological. Thanaturgic. Death-dealing.
It's not easy to survive amid organized blindness.
Consensual cynicism. Orchestrated degradation. Resistance is
counted in time spans. How long you hold out is the measure.
But also the quality - the usefulness - of what you emit.
Who could have predicted what Peter Lamborn Wilson's crazy
rants would inspire?
The last wave needed technology. Computers. A way to
communicate, to welcome all those people streaming into the
circles. Digital activism. Interactive arts. No copyright.
Then the wave crashed onto the shore. And the people holding
onto their computers found themselves with less
communication, less interaction, more career.
So what? Is it really any different? Let your resistance
flow through the keyboard. Create culture, create tools,
create latency. It's measured in time spans. It has to be
impersonal, freely available. It only works when it's
useful. Those who want to watch, watch; those want to
listen, listen. Meanwhile, go to secret meetings. Change
countries, keep a line into wilder places. Produce culture,
create latency, pay attention to process, keep the free
spaces free. The next wave is gathering. Que ondas? Life
comes in oscillations. Culture holds the rising curve.
Trebor Scholz wrote:
> What does it mean to live a radical vision in this
network society? There
> are a great number of different visions. For one, there
is the Che Guevara
> mutiny rhetoric of radicality. Today, that has really
nothing to do with the
> radical politics of the Argentinean medical doctor who
took off into the
> Congo and later the Bolivian jungle. Come on. We need
immutable
> contributions that force social change and contribute to
crisis. But the
> raised fist, closed, is empty. Your fingers bent in
toward the palm and held
> there tightly don't signal a blow anymore. At worse they
may even stand for
> a type of self-contained, liberal "feelgoodiness" of the
traditional
> artworld. Stencil aesthetics is instantly sucked into the
event-culture of
> the spectacle. Culture jammers become special-interest
communities. Often
> hand and hand with the rhetoric of radicality goes
conceit. Revolution?
> Where, in the US, do you see the millions who are
desperate enough to put
> their lives in jeopardy. Show me. You can't just cook up
a revolution
> without the necessary ingredients. Vast numbers of people
here are muted by
> consumption and disinformation. They still have glimpses
of hope lulled by
> lies about class mobility and the "American Dream." The
millions here work
> boundless hours and they are poor. But they are not
impoverished enough. And
> they are not even loosely joined.
>
> How do we affect the fundamental nature of what surrounds
us? How do we
> reflect meaningfully on the technologies that saturate
our lives? Foucault's
> notion of biopower describes our bodies as being guided
by political
> technologies. Therefore one form of resistance is about
the insertion of the
> blip, like a high-pitched interruption, into the
algorithm of societal
> software. I am writing this in New York on a snowy day.
The situation here
> is different than in Munich or Chiang Mai, for instance,
where the tentacles
> of the network have not sunk in their teeth as deeply.
But in the US the
> always-on-lifestyle permeates our daily lives in full.
How can deviance not
> be, at least partially, defined in relation to the
cooperative technologies
> of the Internet? If you want to take protest to the
centers of power then
> you will have to consider the geographically distributed
network as much as
> the town hall. The corporate headquarters that ActUp
attacked in the 80s
> dissolved like soap in the streams of the network. The
centers of power are
> now distributed. Deviance is about hot bodies and the
dark fiber of cold
> cables. Resistance is about the "streets," about
demonstrations,
> door-to-door grassroots campaigns, in-flesh sit-ins, and
other affective
> manifestations of contestational presence.
>
> Pressing our hands tight against our eyes does not help
us. The network
> still recognizes us even if our eyes are wide shut.
People have good reason
> to be skeptical about the networked lifestyle. But there
is both, the gray
> network clouds and the sun that sparkles through them. To
reject network
> technologies altogether is unreasonable. There are the
military-industrial
> roots of the Internet. But then there are also the
cybercommunist uses of it
> with all the alternative economies of gifting and sharing
and commons-based
> peer production that clearly make the original DARPA
masterminds irk.
> Equally, claims that digital communication devices take
away from warm
> face-to-face encounters are only partially correct. The
stereotype of the
> white, obese, socially alienated teenager in the basement
needs to be
> calibrated. The studies of University of Toronto
cybersociologist Barry
> Wellman show that in-flesh social connectedness increases
for those who are
> more frequent email users. Also in the realm of education
horrible examples
> of misguided, corporate long-distance learning indeed
show the dark side of
> the network force. And it does not stop there. Skeptics
question the
> efficacy of online resistance in the face of the anywhere
and nowhere of the
> Internet that supposedly does not speak to the class,
race, or gender
> disparities in a particular locale. They may even argue
that people try to
> hide behind the screen so that they don't have to smell
the sweat of "real
> people" at a demonstration. But in actuality deviant
practices are
> increasingly mixed. One foot is on the plaza and the
other online. Activists
> still go from door to door. They do powerfully
demonstrate as we saw on
> February 15, 2003. They use blogs and mailinglists and
online artworks to
> further their objectives, organize, and document their
urban interventions.
> Locative media projects and the notion of situated
software (Shirkey) put
> Virillio's argument of a lack of place to the test. A
thousand flowers will
> bloom for locative activism.
>
> The often-debated effectiveness of activist art is hard
to put a finger on.
> There surely are countless artistic gestures online that
have been
> consequential. They can hardly be discounted. In the same
breath I need to
> address the perception of the online flaneur as "user" or
"consumer" or
> "customizer." This reduction is only part of the story. I
don't argue with
> the fact that the amazons and eBays of this world dream
of calling their
> online sirens to lure the swarms of online wanderers into
their
> commodifiable web of content production. The heads at IBM and
> trendwatching.com surely steam thinking about ways in
which to commodify the
> word-of-mouse economy. They want to turn the enthusiastic
web-drifting
> "crowds" into corporate workhorses. Recent studies by the
Pew Institute have
> shown that 51 million Americans are involved in content
production (e.g.
> blog entries, Wikipedia entries, file swaps etc). Network
talk is
> frequently, and often exclusively, revolving around
business and the future.
> We are better off if we look at the clumsy heap of
technology in front of us
> instead of concerning ourselves with the future promises
of technologies
> (that always sell). Don't believe in the gibberish of
network salvation.
> However, there are refreshing reasons to use these
technologies to improve
> our lives. Wikipedia is a potent example of cooperative
technologies that
> benefit the public. We can form groups online that help
us live more engaged
> lives. Fibreculture, Nettime, Institute for Network
Cultures and Sarai are
> but a few examples. We can get inspired! We can have
intellectual community!
> We can create open, living cultural archives! We can
warden ourselves from
> collaboration burnout and bitterness (the worse of all).
Such social
> networks I call extreme sharing networks (derived from
the concept of
> extreme programming). They allow access to a distributed
talent pool and
> associated resources. Just in the spirit Peter Kropotkin
people provide
> mutual aid to each other. They can create visibility for
discourses and
> artworks that would otherwise be overlooked. They can
inspire younger
> generations of artists by exposing them to ideas and art
projects. They have
> the ability to respond to issues in a fast, and flexible
way. They shape
> expectations. But such extreme sharing networks are not
alternatives or
> heads on opposition to institutions. Such alternative
social networks can't
> claim snow-white innocence. They are fluid. They are
inside and out of brick
> and mortar institutions.
>
> It's hard to keep up with evolving technologies. Network
luddites and the
> tech-fatigued can't bear the work that it takes to stay
on track with
> technological developments. Fair enough. It's Ok to
unplug. Unlink. Throw
> out technology that comes between you and the other. Data
speed through
> network cables like cockroaches. New hardware and
software radically change
> the information landscape constantly. For some people,
online communication
> just brings out the worse of their character. For them
there is no need to
> keep on rolling in the virtual world. But they should not
label social
> technologies as inherently inadequate on their way out of
the door. We are
> shaped by technologies while at the same time our uses
defines them. We can
> reverse-imagineer technologies. (Ani DiFranco: "every
tool can be a weapon
> if you hold it right"). We can use the throw-away video
camera as tactical
> media device.
>
> We dance to the iTunes beats that are remotely fed into
our living room. How
> can we bring the (issues of the) network clash home? I
first think of
> self-direction. How can I really govern my own life? How
can I be in charge?
> So much of the day-to-day is merely uploaded just like an
rss feed into our
> brain. Living like a hermit, out-of-touch, sounds
appealing at times.
> Leaving the cellphone at home is tempting. Who does not
know such moments?
> The "always-on" condition is demanding. Filtering takes
up too much time.
>
> What does a politically radical life style mean for me?
We live in
> challenging times that demand engagement. The last that
is needed are people
> who are soft on the edges. Radical leftist positions are
needed now. But
> where do we start? What does it mean to be an activist?
> There is the politics of time. An 8-hour work day sounds
radical. To
> introduce the habit of getting rest sounds pretty
far-reaching in a society
> that blends casualized work and play. In 1978 Mladen
Stilinovic, for
> example, created a photo series that shows him sleeping
in his Lubljana
> apartment. Title: "The Artist at Work." Don't let labor
drool over your
> leisure time! Time for reflection and thinking is
rarified. Instead of
> thinking we remix the content of others. Maybe the "Power
of Now"-slogan
> that Vodaphone advocates is best interpreted by going for
a swim. Perhaps
> T-Mobile's "Upgrading Downtime" should be understood as
an invitation to
> read a book. "Downtime-Download" could mean that I close
my eyes and recall
> a meaningful, moving encounter. Having actual friends
(not business
> associates, or people who fit into a career plan) sounds
pretty unusual
> today as well.
>
> There is the moment when we close down on the possibility
to meet, and get
> inspired by, the stranger because we went off into "Treo
land." It's that
> obsessive email syndrome. It has little to do with a need
for communication
> and lots to do with a cry for attention. Radicality could
mean to not
> (immediately) respond. It could mean not to react. We can
disappoint the
> competition and efficiency-enhancing aspects of these
social technologies!
> It was historically the job of artists to disappoint
social expectations.
> Having a meaningful, concentrated long-term life vision
is highly
> unconventional and radical. How can we live our life in
an engaged and
> fulfilled way? Not arbitrarily drifting from one
opportunity to the next is
> profound. Getting less efficient is rebellious. Taking
care of your body is
> uncommon.
>
> In addition, I teach at a research university. Here I
have personal
> encounters with students. This surely is an arena that
makes personal
> transformation and productive conflict possible. In that
context the
> question of rhetoric becomes important. What gets heard?
Which argument
> allows the young other to remain open, listen, and
consider? From my
> experience, a "radical" language does not get through to
students. Maoist
> frontier language may make you feel all so radical but in
most young
> American minds such references just call up associations
of baby-eating
> Soviets. This may be hard to understand for Europeans who
perhaps assume a
> leftist in every person. A Leninist rethoric effectively
shuts down the
> doors of thinking almost right away. Each context
requires a different
> language. The question of activism is obviously not new.
Cooperation
> enhancing technologies have somewhat shifted the debate
recently. Camps now
> also divide in pro-or-con technology, which is unuseful.
We should support
> extreme sharing networks wherever we come to encounter them.
>
> -Trebor
>
>
http://collectivate.net/journalisms/2005/12/5/activism-now.html
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> iDC -- mailing list of the Institute for Distributed
Creativity (distributedcreativity.org)
> iDC at bbs.thing.net
> http://mailman.thing.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/idc
>
> List Archive:
> http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/
>
>
>
>
More information about the iDC
mailing list