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

Mon Jun 14 09:15:24 UTC 2010

Hi Rebecca - "University is a cultural form that has only a little bit to do
with lectures".

I agree. The physical space of the university - particularly in a US context
- is as much associated with cultural and social experiences (identity
formation, coming of age) as it is with learning. Many learners are
sequential - i.e. into university after high school. As a result, age
attributes of learners are applied to the notion of "university". I wonder
how universities will change as they become less of a space for young people
and greater age diversity is introduced. I'm familiar with several
mid-career MBA programs that take a blended learning approach. The residency
portion of the program - and the campus as a whole - has a dramatically
different feel when it is not dominated by sequential learners.

George

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Rebecca Ross <r.ross at csm.arts.ac.uk> wrote:

> Hello, I've been on the list for a few years and never replied to anything
> before. I hope this doesn't make too ridiculous of a first impression:
>
> > Why do we need physical campuses?
> So that undergraduates can have sex with each other.
>
> University is a cultural form that has only a little bit to do with
> lectures, etc. The still developing late adolescent body is as crucial as
> the mind. So is the broader cultural resonance of the university as a
> typology of place with certain unique characteristics and associated values.
>
> My 2¢...
>
> Rebecca
>
> ___
> Rebecca Ross
>
> Interactive Design Tutor | Senior Lecturer | BA (Hons) Graphic Design
> Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design
> Southampton Row | London WC1B 4AP | United Kingdom
>
> PhD Candidate | Advanced Studies Program
> Harvard University Graduate School of Design
> 48 Quincy Street | Cambridge, MA 02138 | USA
>
>
> On 10 Jun 2010, at 18:32, Dean, Jodi wrote:
>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Beka
> >
> > RE:GROUP: BEYOND MODELS OF CONSENSUS
> >
> > 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
> > http://notanalternative.net
> >
> > The Change You Want To See Gallery
> > http://thechangeyouwanttosee.org
> >
> > Fission Strategy
> > http://fissionstrategy.com
> >
> > Phone: 917-202-5479
> > Skype: bekamop
> > Twitter: http://twitter.com/bekamop
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.thing.net/pipermail/idc/attachments/20100614/5c64d03a/attachment.htm 