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

Mon Jan 26 13:26:43 UTC 2009

Hi Tatiana,

I agree very much with your point of inserting the critical imaginary, and in a way, this is precisely what I'm attempting, however imperfectly, with the peer to peer narrative that I use through the p2p foundation,

but I think that there is one more missing element, i.e. using the tools at our disposal, not just for a critical imaginary, but for a counter-construction of new forms of life, relationships, work et... and it is my, I guess optimistic, opinion, that we are in the midst of such reconfiguration.

But first is letting go of the hold of a 'permanent capitalism' in our own consciousness,

Michel

----- Original Message ----
> From: Tatiana Bazzichelli <t.bazzichelli at mclink.it>
> To: john sobol <john at johnsobol.com>
> Cc: idc at mailman.thing.net
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:03:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [iDC] A Reflection on the Activist Strategies in the Web 2.0 Era
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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