| nettime's de-terminator on Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:12:09 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> [[email protected] vs [email protected] More Crisis in the Information Society.] |
----- Forwarded message from Eric Kluitenberg <[email protected]> ----- From: Eric Kluitenberg <[email protected]> Subject: Re: <nettime> More Crisis in the Information Society. Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 23:06:03 +0200 To: [email protected] Resent-From: [email protected] Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 18:27:21 +0200 Resent-To: Nettime <[email protected]> Resent-Message-Id: <[email protected]> Hi Mark, I was not suggesting that 'society' can be designed - a rather absurd idea indeed, but that we can 'design' democratic politics, which in my understanding means things like decision making procedures, oversight and control structures, protocols, both social and technological ones, forms and modes of assembly, deliberation spaces, communication modalities (alternative social media platforms for instance) and much much more. All these kinds of 'interventions' can certainly be designed, just as current institutional structures have been designed, and if they do not function properly they should be re-designed. But there is a much more serious flaw in your argument - it is overly techno-deterministic. Your claims imply that democracy would be a by-product of television and other mass-media. Maybe McLuhan and Kittler would like that idea, but it is way too crude. Democratic forms of governance evolved out of much deeper lineages, over much longer periods of time, mostly connected to the rise of new dominant groups in society (merchants / industrialists / workers / post-urban middle class, etc.) It is much more productive to think about the interaction of social processes and technological infrastructures in terms of 'assimilation' as Lewis Mumford proposed in his seminal two volume work The Myth of the Machine in the late 60s. The one cannot be thought without the other, but as many STS (Science and Technology Studies) scholars would say 'impact is dead' - i.e. the existence of the internet is not the cause of deeper changes in society but rather evolves along with them and they continuously interact and influence each other. Thus, the technological is not some condition that is just inflicted upon us, as some bad fate outside of human influence, but rather a force to be reckoned with and a force that can bend in different ways. No one is all powerful here, I agree with you on that, but we can all intervene at some level (micro/macro). So, I resolutely stand by by assertion that we need political design and not just critique, and what's more I think that it would be an absolute disaster to give up on our democratic ideals and aspirations - they will change, transform, mutate, but that's no reason to write them off because we are living in 'net-times'. Btw - I think that the operators of the control state would be very happy with such a fatalistic discourse. Bests, Eric ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from [email protected] ----- From: [email protected] Subject: Re: <nettime> automated digest [x2: griffis, gurstein] Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 09:32:45 -0400 (EDT) To: [email protected], [email protected] John: As used to happen on the Groucho Marx "You Bet Your Life" show (and presumably in many "Marxist" salons around the world), when you say the SECRET WORD, a duck (smoking a cigar) drops from the ceiling . . . <g> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Bet_Your_Life You are, of course, correct that the STRUCTURE (today's *secret* word) is the key to all of this -- not some fantastic "Deep-State" run by the "neo-liberal 1%" (which, along with Occupy Wall Street, was just the plot-line of another Reality television show) . . . !! It is that *structure* which "controls" us all -- but what is that and how does it operate on us? To grasp the answers to these questions, one has to discard the notion that everything is "mutable" into everything else and toss aside the notion that we are all somehow "evolving" into a NEW MAN. Everything isn't and we aren't. Mere humans who "shape our tools and, thereafter, our tools shape us," nothing more (nothing less.) One of these days, FORMAL CAUSE will become the "secret word" and we will *all* be entertained by the cigar-smoking duck . . . Mark Stahlman Jersey City Heights ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from [email protected] ----- From: [email protected] Subject: Re: <nettime> More Crisis in the Information Society. Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:36:31 -0400 (EDT) To: [email protected], [email protected] Eric: Thanks for considering my argument! Yes, you are correct. What I am saying is *exactly* what most modern social scientists, trained as they are in "constructivism" would call "techno-deterministic." I'm glad that you recognized the "pattern" in my argument! However, as you might also know, as far as I can tell, none of these social scientists has ever seriously examined what they mean by "determinism" (or, for that matter, where the notions on which their presumptions rest came from in the first place.) And, this is where the problem starts (which actually started quite a long time ago and is deeply related to our understanding of *causality* and, if you will, its magical twin, "fate.") > Btw - I think that the operators of the control state > would be very happy with such a fatalistic discourse. #FAIL Cheap shot! <g> In fact, "they" (if, indeed, any of "them" even exist) would NOT be very happy at all -- for the simple reason that what I'm saying applies to them also (i.e. you can run, but you cannot hide) . . . !! You probably recall the phrase, "We shape our tools and, thereafter, our tools shape us." It is often attributed to Marshall McLuhan but, in fact, it was suggested by John Culkin, SJ, who is the one who invited McLuhan to Fordham University in 1967. The selection of the term "shape" in this quote is quite deliberate. SHAPE =/= DETERMINE (does *not* equal.) Instead, it is an "ecological" term, which tries to describe how *environments* operate on those who live inside them. Environments do not *determine* and cannot be thought of in those terms. Instead, they SHAPE (or "mold" or "sculpt" or "form") -- as in INFORM and CONFORM and REFORM. What is commonly done, likely as no surprise to you (or the many others who have been trained in the methods of "Social Construction of Technology" -- SCOT), is that social scientists over the past 40+ years have largely paid no attention to the "and, thereafter, our tools shape us." Yes, STS will claim to deal with both aspects but then they don't follow through. That is a BIG mistake. In fact, it is a brutally IGNORANT mistake. Without "our tools shape us," technologies have no *consequences* and thinking that way makes us STUPID in the face of our own inventions. That's not a good place to be! <g> So, I am now forming the Center for the Study of Digital Life (planning to launch this Fall) to try to help people to avoid that mistake . . . Mark Stahlman Jersey City Heights # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Eric Kluitenberg <[email protected]> ----- From: Eric Kluitenberg <[email protected]> Subject: Re: <nettime> More Crisis in the Information Society. Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:39:31 +0200 To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Hi Mark, On 24 Jul 2014, at 19:36, [email protected] wrote: > Thanks for considering my argument! Always... > > Btw - I think that the operators of the control state > > would be very happy with such a fatalistic discourse. > > #FAIL Cheap shot! <g> Yeah, sorry - couldn't resist! > You probably recall the phrase, "We shape our tools and, thereafter, > our tools shape us." It is often attributed to Marshall McLuhan but, > in fact, it was suggested by John Culkin, SJ, who is the one who > invited McLuhan to Fordham University in 1967. > > The selection of the term "shape" in this quote is quite deliberate. > SHAPE =/= DETERMINE (does *not* equal.) > > Instead, it is an "ecological" term, which tries to describe how > *environments* operate on those who live inside them. Environments > do not *determine* and cannot be thought of in those terms. Instead, > they SHAPE (or "mold" or "sculpt" or "form") -- as in INFORM and > CONFORM and REFORM. > > What is commonly done, likely as no surprise to you (or the many > others who have been trained in the methods of "Social Construction > of Technology" -- SCOT), is that social scientists over the past 40+ > years have largely paid no attention to the "and, thereafter, our > tools shape us." Yes, STS will claim to deal with both aspects but > then they don't follow through. > > That is a BIG mistake. In fact, it is a brutally IGNORANT mistake. > Without "our tools shape us," technologies have no *consequences* > and thinking that way makes us STUPID in the face of our own > inventions. That's not a good place to be! <g> If your observation about STS not following through on the 'reverb' of the tools is correct, then I would agree that this is a failure on their part. I'm not an 'STS person' myself. but was reminded of this dictum 'impact is dead' - I think we agree at least that it is the reciprocity of the relationships between human ends and the agency of the tools that needs to be considered to get the full picture, but it seems we draw some markedly different conclusions from this. bests, Eric ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from [email protected] ----- From: [email protected] Subject: Re: <nettime> More Crisis in the Information Society. Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 08:21:14 -0400 (EDT) To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Eric: Thanks again -- what I'm reporting about STS (as it is practiced today) comes from many conversations that I've had with those who are "STS-people" and in related fields, many of whom tell me that this *failure* is both debilitating and ready to be "overthrown." Let's face it, the "canonical" text on all this -- the 1985 Bijler/Hughes/Pinch/Douglas "The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology" -- was written on the basis of developments in sociology in the 1970s and represents partisan conflicts that few remember or care about anymore. It's "use by date" expired a long time ago. <g> http://www.amazon.com/The-Social-Construction-Technological-Systems/dp/02625 17604/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406288477&sr=8-1&keywords=bijker+social+constr uction&dpPl=1 These "polemics" were fueled by the post-Vietnam struggles in social science more broadly (and, in particular, the "politicization" of science funding that forced ARPA to become DARPA in 1973) as well as "generational" conflicts leading to the rejection of much of the work done in the 1950s/60s, the shift towards (mostly) French "critical theory" (which was more of an Anglophone fad than it was Continental) and, let's be honest, the whole sweeping influence of the "counter-culture" on academia (yes, including LSD.) The 1989 workshop at MIT that led to the 1994 "Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism," might be the last time that these matters received a semi-public airing and, despite the clear biases involved, reflected a "debate" (including chasing the difference between "hard" and "soft" determinism) that never went anywhere. By then, it seems, the *dogma* was already in place. http://www.amazon.com/Technology-History-Dilemma-Technological-Determinism/d p/0262691671/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406289148&sr=8-1&keywords=does+technolo gy+drive+history When Manuel Castells went on his world-wide tour of sociology departments to try to drum up interest in his notions of "Network Society" in the late-90s, as was previously discussed on nettime, the reception was largely hostile and, as best I can tell, he attracted few supporters. Apparently, no one else has even tried. > I think we agree at least that it is the reciprocity of the > relationships between human ends and the agency of the > tools that needs to be considered to get the full picture, > but it seems we draw some markedly different conclusions > from this. Excellent! Personally, I don't much care what "conclusions" are drawn -- as much as I care that there is a robust attempt to understand how technological environments *inform* those living in them. Or, to put it directly, the INFORMATION AGE has been one in which media-as-environment has been far more important than the "content" of those media productions -- a conclusion that will likely disturb many who think that their own "output" deserves all the attention that tenure committees can give them. <g> Your ideas about "designing" new social/political institutions are just fine with me! However, I maintain that our presumptions about society have often been the "product" of these environments, so that as we examine the *inventory* of these effects, we will be compelled to ask some *radical* questions -- which is probably what the "ban" on considering "impact" was *designed* to avoid in the first place (i.e. SCOT was born of a time in which partisans were convinced that they had the answers to the most basic social questions, closing off a discussion which now has to be re-opened.) Mark Stahlman Jersey City Heights # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]