[iDC] Participationism (was "why do we need physical campuses")

Dean, Jodi JDEAN at hws.edu
Thu Jun 10 17:32:01 UTC 2010

Here! Here! Thanks, Beka. The critique of participation you and your group raise is compelling. I fully agree. This strikes me as exciting, powerful, and fresh, an authentic counter to the mainstream.


Jodi Dean

From: idc-bounces at mailman.thing.net [idc-bounces at mailman.thing.net] on behalf of beka economopoulos [beka at notanalternative.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:07 AM
To: idc at mailman.thing.net
Subject: [iDC] Participationism (was "why do we need physical campuses")

Hi all,

With due respect to the current thread, I won't speak directly to the issue of education, but rather I want to share a more general statement about the internet and power.

It feels relevant to introduce in light of George Siemen's Open University post "Why do we need physical campuses", which in my mind promotes a techno-utopic open source logic, one that often celebrates the dismantling of contemporary institutions as the distribution of power.

Below is (one of) the curatorial statement(s) of a show that Not An Alternative has curated with Upgrade NY! and Eyebeam, called Re:Group: Beyond Models of Consensus<http://www.notanalternative.net/regroup-beyond-models-of-consensus>, about the subjects of collaboration and participation. After constant debate, the curatorial committee never came to consensus about the thesis for the show, and so we've presented two distinct positions.

Below is that of our group, Not An Alternative. The opening is tomorrow, with a curators talk at 5pm, so if you're in NY and you're ready for a rumble join us there.




These days everyone – individuals, corporations, governments and DIY punks – idealizes participation. Many believe that when horizontal structures of participation replace top-down mechanisms of control, hierarchy and authoritarianism, this will eliminate apathy and disenfranchisement. While we acknowledge that distributed systems are proven and powerful tools for dismantling certain monolithic structures, we question an unalloyed faith in participation. As co-curators of the show we fought the temptation to simply celebrate the subversive potential of networked collaborations. Instead, we sought to critically analyze the contours of this emergent ideology, and to re-evaluate refusal, non-engagement, antagonism, and disagreement as fundamental to a participatory framework.

We are all the time besieged to Participate! Choose! Vote! Share! Join! And Like! And yet, we are all, already, integrated into structures of participation (whether we “like” it or not). We worry that a veneer of engagement only obscures deep flaws in the participation paradigm. Too often, it seems, progressives believe that power operates exclusively from above, that command and control emanate from some centralized, closed authority. It is no wonder that many latch on to notions of openness, transparency, and participation as radical ends in themselves; however we must not fetishize process over product.

Participatory frameworks are not in and of themselves politically significant, nor is power limited to distant and impersonal structures. Power is diffuse and distributed, operating through us and on us; participation therefore can turn into a vector for dominant ideologies as easily as it can liberate.

If participatory frameworks are to have any meaningful political consequence or activist import, they must intervene on some object, to operate in service of an end. Conflict is a necessary result of such collaboration, and a key driving force within it. Current conversations around participation idealize harmony and unison, but we ask whether synthesizing perspectives and valorizing consensus might actually subsume dissenting viewpoints, through the tyranny of compromise and the rule of the lowest common denominator. From this view, we fear a disavowal of power rather than an honest discussion about it.

And so we pass on politesse, and draw a line in the sand. We aren’t interested in raising questions, exploring models of participation or experiments in collaboration. We take a position: that participationism plagues us. More than dismantling or distributing power, we’ve invisibilized and extended it. An intervention is in order, and we offer practices and programming that contribute to this conversation: foregrounding the contours and boundaries inherent in participation, the contradictions and conflicts in a fruitful collaboration.

Not An Alternative

The Change You Want To See Gallery

Fission Strategy

Phone: 917-202-5479
Skype: bekamop
Twitter: http://twitter.com/bekamop

More information about the iDC mailing list