Towards a Culture of Open Networks

In the Shade of the Comm

onsTow

ards a Culture of O

pen Netw

orks

In the Shade ofthe Commons

In the Shade ofthe Commons

Towards a Culture of Open Networks

�

In the Shade of the CommonsTowards a Culture of Open Networks

Authors (in alphabetical order): Ayisha Abraham, Shaina Anand, Konrad Becker, Ewen Chardronnet, Mike Davis, Peter Drahos, Alexander Galloway, Sheela Gowda, Abishek Hazra, Paul Keller, Jamie King, Lawrence Liang, Geert Lovink, David Lyon, Arjen Mulder, Rajivan, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. , Saskia Sassen, Shuddhabrata Sengupta, Felix Stalder, Ashok Sukumaran, Eugene Thacker, Kenneth C. Werbin

Editors: Lipika Bansal, Paul Keller, Geert LovinkLayout: Ron BoonstraPrinted in India by Impress, C.R. Park, New DelhiCover photo: Paul Keller

© 2006, Waag Society Amsterdam, The Netherlands

ISBN-10: 90-806452-3-0ISBN-13: 978-90-806452-3-3

Except where otherwise noted the contents of this book are published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Netherlands License.You are free:• to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work• to make derivative works• to make commercial use of the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor.

Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.

• For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.• Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.Full license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/nl/legalcode

As part of the project ‘Towards a Culture of Open Networks’ this publication has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union’s Economic Cross Cultural Programme. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.http://www.delind.ec.europa.eu

�

ContentsIntroduction 4

Chapter 1: ���ar��� a C��t�re ����ar��� a C��t�re �f Open Net��rk��TheDelhiDeclarationofaNewContextforNewMedia 9TheViennaDocument 17ALettertotheCommons 19

Chapter 2: ��r�� �nf�r�at��n C�t��r�� �nf�r�at��n C�ty Banga��reWorld-InformationCity:CulturalintelligencefortheUrbanMultitudes 25Security,SeductionandSocialSorting:UrbanSurveillance 30DisembeddingfromPsycho-urbanContainment 43TheNewSecurityCulture 47HaussmannintheTropics 53FragmentedUrbanTopographiesandtheirUnderlyingInterconnections 57CitiesofPlanningandCitiesofNon-Planning:AGeographyofIntellectualProperty 61IPandtheCity-RestrictedLifescapesandtheWealthoftheCommons 64PirateAesthetics 66ElectricFences,HumanSheep 70ARTeries:NetworksofanArtRouteNotesontheWorldInformationCityExhibition 76AirAround 81Someplace 82WICTV 88World-InformationCity:aPhotographicReview 105

Chapter 3: Open Net��rk��IntroductiontoOpenNetworks,PowerandPoliticsofGoodIntentions 123LudwigvonBertalanffy’sandtheBirthofOpenSystems 125SometimesaGreatNotion:aReflectiononCybernetics,IsolatedSystemsandOpenBeings 133InDefianceofExistence:NotesonNetworks,ControlandLifeForms 141OpenSource,OpenSociety? 146OnthePlaneofthePara-Constituted:TowardsaGrammarofGangPower 150OpenCommunitiesandClosedLaw 165OntheDifferencesbetweenOpenSourceandOpenCulture 168

�

This publication attempts to offer aglimpse into the discussions, activities andcoincidencesthathaveconstitutedtheproject‘Towards a Culture of Open Networks’and even now - after almost three years ofactivity - we find ourselves having to checkthepreciseorderofwordsinthetitleofourproject.Arewe ‘TowardsaCultureofOpenNetworks’or,arewe ‘TowardsaNetworkofOpenCultures’?

Infact,ifwebegintoconsiderthefulltitleoftheproject(whichhasbeenmadepossibleby the generous support of the EuropeanUnion’s EU-India Economic Cross CulturalProgramme) it becomes even more difficultto remember, primarily because its absurdlength:

Sohereitis–‘Towards a Culture of Open Networks

– a collaborative initiative on bridging‘information society’ in Europe and Indiathroughcultureandcommunication’.

Asyousee,ifyoupaycarefulattentiontothe title, it is both about creating networksthatopenspacesinculture,andaboutculturesthat lead to the opening out of networks.So, the confusion, about the order of wordsin the title, which sometimes befuddlesus, does have its productive edge. We are anetwork of openness, we are at the sametime creating the conditions of openness incultural communication. As we draw to a

conclusionofthreeyearsofworkingtogetherwe have come to realize the validity andworthofthisconfusion.Ithasbecomeakindofguidingvision.Abridgebetweenourownvery different work cultures, attitudes andimaginations.

Over the last two and a half years WaagSociety (an Amsterdam based mediaLab) Sarai-CSDS (a Delhi based researchprogramme that embraces urban space andmedia forms) and Public Netbase (a web-focusedculturalinstituteinVienna)havesetout to build this bridge. We have done thisthrougha seriesofcommonworkshopsandpublic events, through an experimental webplatformandanumberofpublicationsbothsmallandlarge.Foragoodpartthishasalsomeantexchangingideas,teachingeachotherconceptsandprovidinginformationtoothers.Informationhasbeenthekeyinthisproject,thathasanimatedallourinteractions.

Information - by which we mean thegamutofpracticesandprocessesofknowingandmaking;theworldcanalsobeseenasthatconstellationofembodiedintellectuallabour,accumulated cultural capital and evolvingknowledgesystemsthatplaysakeypartinthemaintenance of the fabric of contemporaryexistence.

Information seems to be implicated ineverything - from piracy to privacy, fromcommoning to control, from identification

IntroductionPaul Keller & Shuddhabrata Sengupta

�

to identity, from repression to resistance,fromlearningto labour, fromborderpatrolsto border crossings, from urban planningto urban. Yet, information, which acts as a‘glue’ that adheres reality to representationis a grossly under-theorized, hyped andmisunderstood category. Our work at WaagSociety, Sarai-CSDS, and Netbase has agreat deal to do with information, thoughweall comeat it fromdifferentangles.Thispublication, which marks in one sense aculminationofourjointeffortsisalsoaneffortonourparttoplaceonrecordthediscussionsthatwehopewillanimateourfuturework,aswellascontributetodebatewithinthepublicdomain.

While currently prevailing notions of‘information-society’ belabour under thedelusion that more efficient informationmanagementsystems(suchas‘e-governance’)arethepanaceaforallsocietalproblems,theterm ‘information’ also seems to conjure formany, anxietiesof lossof agency in the faceof excessive information control. A morenuancedviewsuggeststhattheeveryday lifeof information in contemporary societiesoccupiesafarmoreslipperyterrainthancanbelistedbythenarrativesofeither‘progress’,or‘paranoia’,itconsistsofsurveillanceregimesandcounter-surveillanceprocessesthatworkonly inconsistently, of a chain of intellectualproperty claims and violations that bring anew level of constant attrition and strain tobearoncapitalism,ofcomplexhistoriesandconflictsaboutknowing

Our network has aimed to initiatereflections on the histories of differentinformation regimes, on the transformationof urban spaces in the emerging globalinformation economy, on the realitiesof intellectual property, surveillance andcensorship (and efforts to counter them),on the efforts to found and sustain (as

well as erode) ‘commons’ of information,and to consider ways in which practices ofknowledge, interpretation and creativityuphold, transgress or subvert governingprotocolsofsocial,culturalandpoliticallife.

Wehope thatbydoing this,wewillhelpkeep the emergent ‘commons’ of cultureand communication between us, betweenpeopleworkinginIndia,Europeandindeed,elsewhere,alive.Wededicatethispublicationtoallthatwehopewillgrowinthesoilofthatfertiletrans-continentalcommons.

Lookingbackatourcollaborationthetitleofthisproject-ashardtorememberasitmaybe-hasproventobeagoodchoice.Wehaveindeed managed to create an open networkthathasenabledmanydifferentactorstojoinour discussions and events; they are far tomanytonamethemhere,butthecontributionof one organization – the Alternative LawForum in Bangalore stands out. Withoutthem the ‘World Information City’ event,whichisdocumentedinchapter2wouldnothave been possible and their contributionshavefoundawayinalmosteverypublicationthathascomeoutofthisproject.

Paul Keller, Shuddhabrata Sengupta November 2006, Delhi/Amsterdam

Towards a Culture ofOpen Networks

�

S�t�at�ng Ne� Me��a �n the Space �f a G��ba� Urban C�nte�p�rane�ty

The streets of our cities arecrowded with signals. Cinemas, desktop publishing, satellite television andfm radio, increasingly pervasive andubiquitouscomputing,mobiletelephony,telecommunications and the internetsurrounding us in a matrix that alsocontinues to feature analog and offlinecommunication practices as diverse astheater, live performance, print culture andbooksandtheproductionofvisualandtactileobjects.Oldandnewformsofcommunicationcreate a new context for culture by theircontinuous interaction with each other. Welive and practice, as artists, critics, curatorsand audiences – within this context. Wealso realize that this context extends deepinto the substructure of local histories andsituations,justasmuchasitextendsfarintoaglobalspaceofcommunicationsthatspansthe entire planet. Our neighborhoods andstreetscontaintheworld,andtheworldisapatchworkmadeupofallourlocalhistories.

Backgr��n� t� the Meet�ng �f the ��rk�ng Gr��p : Fr�� He����nk� t� De�h�

This document was produced in Delhisubsequent to the discussions of theInternational Working Group on NewMedia Culture at Sarai-CSDS in January2005 and emerged from a dialogue betweenpractitioners, artists, curators, theorists,criticsandactivistsinthefieldofnewmedia

and digital culture that sought to reflect onthisreality.ThedialoguetookplaceduringanInternational working group meeting underthe aegis of ‘Towards a Culture of OpenNetworks’ – a collaborative programmedeveloped by Sarai-CSDS (Delhi), WaagSociety (Amsterdam) and Public Netbase(Vienna) with the support of the EU-IndiaEconomicandCrossCulturalProgramme.

The meeting took place immediatelyfollowing from ‘Contested Commons,Trespassing Publics’ an internationalconference on culture, conflict andintellectual property organized by SaraiCSDS and the Alternative Law Forum(Bangalore) fromthe6th-8thof January inDelhi. The meeting also comes half a yearafter the drafting of the Helsinki Agenda, adocumentproducedbyagroupofexpertsinthe new media field in a meeting hosted bym-cult inHelsinki inthewakeof ISEA2004.TheHelsinkiAgendatookforwardtheideasthat emerged in the Amsterdam Agendaand it particularly emphasized the need to

The Delhi Declaration of a New Context for New Media The Open Networks Agenda for International Collaboration in Media and Communication Arts

The discussions that gave rise to this document took place at a meeting of an international Working Group on New Media Culture hosted by Sarai CSDS in January 2005 in the framework of the project ‘Towards a Culture of Open Networks’.The meeting brought together artists, theorists, critics, curators, arts administrators, researchers, social scientists and software programmers from India, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, Finland, Italy, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

10

shift new media arts and culture policy tobettersupportinternational,translocal,non-nation based cultural practices. The OpenNetworks Agenda builds on both of thesesets of ideas to propose a framework forthinking substantively on what it means tocreatecontextsforcollaborationindigitalandelectronicmediapractices.

Thediversediscussionsonculture,conflictand intellectual property that marked the‘Contested Commons/Trespassing Publics’conferenceandthebroadvisionforarenewalof international new media and electronicculture outlined in the Helsinki Agendaprovideasetofconceptualfoundationsforthepropositionsputforwardinthisdocument.

C���ab�rat��n, D�a��g�e, C�nver��at��nWe acknowledge that there is a growing

incidence of collaboration, dialogue andconversation between practitioners ofnetworked culture in different parts of theworld.Atthemomentwearepayingspecialattention to construct collaboration andnetworks between Europe and Asia. Thesetransactions emerge from a growing levelof formal and informal contact, throughresidencies, greater mutual visibility ininternational platforms - such as biennials,festivalsandconferences,andactualinstancesofcrossculturalcollaboration.Thereisastrongdesireamongstcommunitiesofpractitionersandtheoristsinseveralpartsoftheworldforthelayingofstablefoundationssoastoensurethat this surge of collaborative processeshas an enduring and equitable future for allthose who are involved. While we endorsethe energies that are key to this moment,we are aware that unreflective continuitymay actually deepen existing inequalities.This requires us to inaugurate a process ofsubstantive thinking about the plurality ofprocesses that can fall under the umbrellaof the term ‘collaboration’, to develop a set

of conceptual tools that can help articulatedifferentethicsandprotocolsofcollaboration,andsetpragmaticgoals thatcanbe realizedthroughinstancesofactualpracticeinaveryheterogeneous world. This means we takeaccountofthefactthatdifferencesinculturaland societal infrastructure and politicalconditions (within and between countriesandsocieties)areasrealasaretheincreasinginstancesofsimilarity.

Thisdocumenthopestoinitiatepreciselysuchanexercise.Itdoesnotclaimtoprovideallorevenmostoftheanswers,anditinvitesthenetworkedculturepractitionerstoextend,elaborate and deepen the questions andissues we hope to raise. We are addressingpractitioners who collaborate or desirecollaborationacrossculturalanddisciplinaryboundaries, curators, critics and theoristswhoactas interlocutors inthisprocess,andadministrators who influence or shape theconcrete conditions that enable culturaldialogueandtransactions.

Heter�gene�ty �f F�r��� an� Pract�ce��: C����n�cat�ve Pract�ce�� �n S��th A���a

The Open Networks Agenda recognizesthat the culture of communicative practicesincontemporarySouthAsiaischaracterizedbyarichheterogeneityofformsandprotocolsandexpressahealthydiversityinthefaceofthe tendency of the formal operations ofintellectual property to flatten the protocolsof cultural production on to a single plane.Ratherthanhaveeveryculturalgoodavailableasacommoditydesignedforonetimesale,theprevalence of a vigorous cluster of practicesof ongoing cultural transaction withinand outside formal commodity relationsguarantees the diversities of contemporarysouthAsianculturalexpression.Thisdoesnotimplyanantagonismorindifferencetomarketimperatives,rather,itplacessuchimperativeswithinalargermatrixofpracticeswhichalso

11

includesharing,giftgivingandformalaswellasinformalprotocolsofreciprocity.

Bey�n� ‘Acce����’ These impulses to improvise, re-mixand

re-purpose that characterizes the daily lifeof electronic culture in South Asian urbancontexts is something that the agenda urgesseriousconsiderationof,especiallyinordertomovebeyondthe ‘developmentalist’ rhetoricof ‘granting access’ when speaking of theplaceofnewmediaintheglobalsouth,andinunderservedzonesintheglobalnorth.

Similarly, a more grounded view of theplaceofdigitalmediawouldrequireustogobeyondthenaivecelebratoryrhetoricthatseesthemereplacementofcomputersanddigitaltools in the hands of under privileged andunderserved actors as sufficient conditionsfor the cultivation of a sensibility of digitalcreativity within society. The importantquestiontoaskisnotwhetherthemajoritiesofsocietiesaredeprivedofdigitaltools,orareonthe‘wanting’sideofthe‘digitaldivide’buttoquestionwhatpeoplecando,andwhattheyactualizewhentheygainaccess.HereweareclearlyemphasizingcontentandprocessmorethansimplypresenceofandaccesstoICT.

In going ‘beyond’ the discourse of accessalone,theOpenNetworksAgendarecognizesthe necessity of resilient thinking that takesdifferenceandconflictaswellascollaborationandsolidarityintoaccount.

�he C���ab�rat�ve Nat�re �f C��t�ra� Pract�ceWe (the authors of the Open Networks

Agenda) recognize that all cultural workis necessarily collaborative, and thatcollaboratorsmayeitherbepartofgenerationseither contemporaneous or previous to ourown. Taking this further, everything thatwe produce today is also potential materialfor collaboration with partners in all our

tomorrows. We also recognize that thecollaborativenatureofculturalworkrequiresnotonlyfreedomofspeech,butalsoincreasedmobility of our words, images and ideas. Akey challenge is to develop methodologiesthatenableopen sharingwhiledevelopingaplurality of models and approaches towardssustainable, mixed and re-mixed modes ofusage of intellectual and cultural resources,someofwhichmaybeexpressedasdifferentkinds of intellectual property (in someinstances) and others as a varied culturalcommons(inotherinstances).

F�r�a� an� �nf�r�a� Me��a Lan���cape��Takentogether,theseelementsconstitute

a landscape of intermedia constellationsand media processes nested within differentinterlocking and coexistent contexts, someof which may be formal, institutionallyanchored, located within recognized formsanddisciplines,whileothersmaybeinformal,located between and across forms anddisciplines, and on occasion, expressed in atangential relationship to the requirementsof legality. The formal and informal aspectsof this landscape are not a neat binary, butexpressed as two poles of a continuousspectrum.

Fr�� ‘Ne� Me��a’ t� ‘Ne� C�ntext Me��a’Ourrecognitionthatallnewmediaobjects

andprocessesare located inspecificcontextssuggests that we see new media as whatNancyAdajaniahasdescribedas‘newcontextmedia’-asinstancesofwhathappenswhenaplethoraof communicativepractices, rangingfromworkonandwith theweb, tovideo, toradio, to telecommunication based practices,to installations, to sound work, to print andgraphicdesign,andemergingformsofpervasivecomputingenternewsemanticmaterialspaces,andtakeondifferentrecombinantpossibilitiesthat spring from their mutual interactionsthroughouttheworld.

1�

WeuseAdajania’sconceptof‘NewContextMedia’withsomedeliberation,insistingthatitisnotadrivetostraintokeepabreastwiththe latest technology that concerns us hereas much as it is the continuous renewal ofthe conceptual field of contexts that enablecommunication. Also, it is to indicate ourimpatience with the inadequacy of theportmanteauterm‘NewMedia’becauseinasenseallmediapracticeswereonce,‘New’.Tosaythattheinternetislaterintimethanthecinemaisnottobeinanywayinsightfulaboutanythingotherthanchronology.IninstancessuchasthatofSouthAsianmediaculture,thisgets further complicated by the coexistenceand synergy between what is today’s ‘NewMedia’andwhatmighthavebeenyesterday’s‘New Media’. To privilege one of these overtheotheristobeunmindfuloftheecologyofthemedialandscapeaswellastothevitalityoftherelationshipsbetweenactuallyexistingpractices.

�he Q�e��t��n �f ‘�ran���atab���ty’Theclimateofmutualitythatcharacterizes

thislandscapeisfoundedonthemanyactsofmaking, sharing, viewing, listening, reading,researching, curation and criticism thatdraw their strength from existing networksofeverydaycollaborationsbetweendifferentnodes spanning the universe of practicein new context media. Practitioners bringto this intersection of creative. Intellectualand discursive energies the markers andhistories of different cultural-historical-spatial specificities and the received aswell as emerging traditions of differentpractices. Through processes of sustainedinteractions practitioners are able to evolvea neighbourhood of affinities in practice, acommonsofexpression.

However,itneedstobeclearlyunderstoodthat this coming together is not contingenton an easy translatability, or the evolution

of somekindof ‘Esperanto’ formof culturalpractice. Rather, we need to work with theunderstanding that there are and will benecessary difficulties of translation, thatinvite us to be at least legible to each other,beforewemaketheclaimtocomprehensivelyunderstandeachother.Weneedtosharewitheachotherwhatwedonotknowabouteachotherbeforewecanmaketheclaimtomutualunderstanding.

De���gn�� f�r C����n�ngTheseencounterswhenallowedtoplayout

totheirfullestextent,cangiverisetovariousdesigns for commoning, different protocolsof working together, of sharing materialsof having access to each other’s work andmaterials, some of which may be expressedin quasi legal languages - as licenses andcharters,whilesomeothersmaybeexpressedsimplyasinvitationsandinvocations.

A P��ra��ty �f C����n��Weemphaticallyendorseapluralityofways

inwhichthecommonsofculturalandsocialmedia use can be and are being constitutedthrough different modes of practice. Someofthesemaybemorediscursivethanothers,some may be more invested with aestheticpursuits, while others may find themselvesmore committed to social and politicalquestions, and still others may be recursivein the sense that they may involve practicesof consistent but critical self reflexivity. Theone thing that we do insist on is that thecommonsconstitutedbysuchcollaborationsgrowimmanently(admittingthatthereisnomasterplanoroveralldesign)and that theymakeroomforanethicofcollegialcriticismacross the boundaries of cultures, histories,tastes, formsanddisciplines. Inotherwordswe want to insist that there are and will bemany kinds of commons, and that we allmustretaintherighttobecriticalofdifferentmodesofcommoningastheyemerge,evolve

1�

anddissolve,evenasweagreeonthevalueofthecommonsitself.

Clearly, what this entails is a refinedpractice of trust. Where people allow forthe fact that they need to nurture practicesthat foreground trust and respect preciselybecausetheymaynotbetransparenttoeachother. We recognize that the groundworkneededforsuchtrustandfortheconditionsof collaboration to grow are directlyproportionaltoculturaldistance.Andherebyculturaldistancewemeanboththedistancebetweenpractitionersbasedindifferentpartsoftheworld,aswellasthedistancesbetweendifferentkindsofpractitioners,regardlessofthe coordinates of their physical location orhistoricalinheritances.

Expan��ng C�ncept�a� H�r�z�n��Collaboration requires an expansion of

conceptual horizons. Practitioners, critics,curators and audiences based in themetropolitancentresofglobalculture(oftenin theglobalNorth)willoftenhave toworkharder to learn about the spaces, historiesandculturesofotherpartsoftheworld.Thismakes it possible to adequately respond toandreciprocate the informedunderstandingthat people in the global south have of theglobal north as a result of the histories ofcolonial encounters. It will also mean thatpractitioners, critics, curatorsandaudiencesin the global south will have to reconsiderthearticulativeprivilegesthatarisefromthedefault and often a-historical assumption ofan automatic ‘victim’ position by artists andcultural practitioners simply because theyhappentobefromthesouth.

L�cat��n an� Exten����nThe practice of a networked culture will

necessarily involve a rethinking of what wemean by locatedness and extension. Thismay on an occasion mean a withdrawal or

curtailment of the privileges of an excess oflocatednessandparticularity,andatthesametimeitwillalsoinvolveanattenuationofanyattemptstoconstructaheroichyper-globalistuniversalism that is not attentive to specifichistories and especially to global as well aslocal inequalities of power and articulativecapacity.

S�c�a�/C��t�ra� C�ntext�� f�r FLOSS‘Collaboration’ in general, and more

specifically free, libre and open sourcesoftware(FLOSS)co-development,havebeenromanticized in thepastandcontinue toberomanticized in the present as benevolent,essentially “good” practices. We insist thatattentionmustbepaidinsteadtotheculturalandsocialcontextsofuseandeffectofthesepractices in order to evaluate them. SpecialattentionneedstobepaidwithintheFLOSSmilieutotheurgencyof localizationandforcreating software interfaces that are able totranslate the ideals of sociality inherent inFLOSSpracticestotherelationshipsbetweenlayusers,software,thehackerscene,softwaredevelopers, artists, critics and accessibletechnologicalinterfaces.

Bey�n� ‘F�r��t �ave Ne� Me��a C��t�re’Weassertthat it is timetomovebeyond

theselfcongratulatorymutualselfrecognitionthat characterized the global expansion ofwhat may be called first wave new mediapractices. To continue in that mode wouldbe toallowus todegenerate intoacliqueofcliques of global new media practitioners,unitedbyanarcane‘inspeak’andinsulatedbythehermeticcomfortoftheirpracticesfromtheexigenciesanddisturbancesoftheworldoutside our media labs, gatherings, galleriesandconferences.Rather,newcontextmediapractitionerswillhavetolearntobeopentoeachothers vulnerabilities, theywillhave toworkwithdifficultiesintranslation,willneedto learn to livewithand thriveon the fluid,

1�

unpredictableanddynamic(asopposedtothesolidandstable)natureofthecontemporaryglobalmoment.

�ype�� �f C���ab�rat��n��

�hat k�n��� �f C���ab�rat��n�� D� �e See ?Firstly, between practitioners based in

differentspacesandculturalcontexts:-between theorists, curators, critics,

researchersbasedindifferentspacesandculturalcontexts

-between practitioners and theorists,curators,critics,researchers

-between practitioners of different kindsofmediapractices

-between practitioners at different levelsofvisibilityandrecognition

-between practitioners, theorists andinhabitantsofurbanneighborhoodsandlocalities

�hree M��e��� f�r C���ab�rat�ve Pract�ceWealsoproposethatseriousattentionbe

paidtothetaskofevolvingdifferentmodelsofcollaboration,notjustthoseofpeoplemakingthingstogether,butalsobasedontheideaofdialogueandconversation.

TheDramaturgModel:Here,forinstancewe propose the ‘dramaturg’ model which isusedinsometheatrepracticesassomethingthat might merit serious consideration.This entails a structural accommodationof interlocution and interlocutors in theshaping of a practice. Practically, it mayinvolve the dialogic presence of theorists,writers,researchersinsituationswheremediaprocesses and objects, or art projects arebeingcreated.Thiswouldnecessarilyinvolvethe cultivation of hospitality and attentionby practitioners towards people engagedprimarily with discourse, just as it requirestheoristsandresearcherstobesensitivetotheexigenciesofpracticeandartisticcreation.

The Archive Model : Another model ofcollaboration could emphasize the rigorousdocumentation, chronicling and archivingofapractice.Here,practitionerscouldenterintoa seriouslyconsideredrelationshipwithpeople dedicated to the act of documentingand archiving what practice entails. Heredocumentation would not be seen as a‘service’ performed for the practitioner, butcruciallyasameanstoensurethedurabilityofapracticethroughcriticalannotationanddetailed description. What this necessarilyinvolves is the creation of many archives ofpractices andprocess.Here,wealso see thenecessityofthepublicrenditionofprocessesakeyfunctionofextendedarchiving.Involvingwritersanddocumentaryfilmmakerstoworkwith thearchivesof completedandongoingartistic collaborations will generate a ‘publicintelligence’ of processual work that we feelwill be crucial to the imperatives of wideraudience development for new media/newcontextmediaworks.

�he En��e�b�e M��e� an� ‘C���ab�rat�r�e��’Collaboration can also be dynamized

through structured co-improvisation andensembleplaying.Thiswouldrequiremediapractitioners to learn from the traditionsthat animate the worlds of music anddance where the presence of performingbodies in given coordinates of space andtime as ensembles can be a sufficientcondition for acts of collaborative creativity.Situating programmers, technicians, artists,practitioners and theorists from differentbackgroundsinconditionsofrealtime,offlineconviviality in ‘collaboratories’ - workshops,residencies,tacticalmedialabsandfieldwork- (collaborative laboratories) can produceconditions of high synergy. This recognizesthatthedeepeningofnewmediapracticesarecruciallydependentontheinterplaybetweenembodied learning and knowledge. On theconventionsofknowledgesharingthatoften

1�

tie communities of practitioners together.Thisrequiresusalsotodeepenourawarenessandunderstandingoftheethicof friendshipand informal solidarity that significantlyunderpinssubstantialaspectsofthe‘everydaylifeofpractice’innewmediacultures.

U��er�� an� Pr���cer��In a new media context, the distinctions

between producers and users, practitionersand audiences, writers and readers arecharacterized by porosity. Users can be andoftenareproducers,however,mereaccesstomedia technologyandnetworksdoesnot initselfprovidetheproductiveagency.Inorderto facilitate productive agencies and criticalmedialiteracies,weneedtothinkofaudiencesas partners in collaborative processes,and requires support for development,education and outreach activities that bringaudiences/users and producers/practitionersinto close contact. As new media is anemerging domain of practice, support for italso involves sensitivity to the urgency thataudiences and practitioners both feel fordevelopingtheconventionsandexpectationsthat are pertinent to questions of audience-practitioner interaction appropriate to thefield.Thismeanssupportforfamiliarization,for informal and formal immersion andeducation processes, for publications thatcontextualize works and practitioners, andforgreaterattentiontoactivitiesthatinvolveyoung and new audiences by cultivatinga heightened curatorial sensitivity andinnovativeoutreachstrategies.

C���ab�rat��n a�� �ran��f�r�at��nWeneedtoacknowledgethatcollaboration

is a transformative process, that it changespeople, organizations and institutions,challenges them and provokes them togrowandbranchout indifferentdirections.This can be a necessary precondition forcollaboration,justasitmaybeaconsequence

ofitssuccess.Intheeventoftheinaugurationofarelationshipbetweenpartnerswhoarenotat the same level in terms of infrastructure,theupgradingofresourcesmaybeanecessarypreconditionforthecollaborationtooccur.Inotherinstances,thedestinyofexchangesandupscaling of activities that occur during theprocessmaydemandaprocessofdeepening,expansion and renewal, within each nodein the networks. This process of growthoften requires an expansion in capacity andinfrastructure which need to be understoodand acted upon by the structures (at thegovernmental, inter governmental and nongovernmental level) thatenableandsupportcollaborativenetworks.

D�rat��n an� ���eCollaboration also necessarily involves

duration and different temporal registers.There can be synchronous as well asasynchronous modes of collaboration anddialogue, and both merit considerationand support. Sometimes it may be cruciallynecessarythatpeoplecometogethertoworkatthesametime,atothertimestheprocessofcollaboration may require intervals, periodsdedicated to re-evaluation and assessmentand re-engagement at a different level ofintensity and activity. Support for one formof engagement (short term, intensive, goaloriented)shouldnotprecludethepossibilityofdurableforsupportalternative(longterm,processual, durable) temporal registers. Weneedtorecognizethattheinterplaybetweenthese two rhythms is vital for both researchandartisticpractices.

Pract�t��ner�� an� P�b��c��Finally,weneedtorecognizeandendorse

the fact that in theend, themost importantcollaborative process is that betweenpractitioners and their publics. This isespeciallytrueinthecaseofnewmedia/newcontextmedia,becausetheculturesofonline

16

filesharinganddigitalpeertopeerprotocolshave already laid the foundations for theblurringoftheboundariesbetweenusersandproducers, audience and artist, publics andpractitioners. We need to found structuresofsupportforcreativeaudiencesandcreativeend-users,byenablingcommunitiesof fans,artist-audience interfaces and a vibrantcritical culture that actively intervenes inartisticproduction.Thiswillinvolvesupportnot only for those who speak and perform,butalsoforthosewholisten,view,readandparticipate.Newmediapracticeswillrequireinfrastructural support through the creationofpods,interactivearchives,workshopspacesandlisteningroomsinallculturalinstitutionsandpublicspaceswhichwillbecomethehubsofadenseanddynamiccultureofpleasurableand informed exchange through art andcreativity.

Thiswillrequireustobeimaginativenotonlyabouthowweseepractitioners,butalsoabout how we see publics, and will involverethinkingtheparadigmof‘permissions’andconsentthatanaudienceimplicitlygrantstoitselfandthoseithascometosee.Intheendthis could involve a transformation of howweseecreativeactivityandartinsociety,butthat is precisely the challenge new forms ofcommunication place before us. The streetsofourcitiesarelivewithsignals,andwehavetolearntorespondtothem.

The draft of this Declaration is written by Shuddhabrata Sengupta from Sarai CSDS & Raqs Media Collective, Delhi and Tapio Makela, m-Cult, Helsinki based on the inputs and contributions made by the members of the working group during the course of their deliberations.

17

Information technologies aresetting the global stage for economicand cultural change. More than ever,involvement in shaping the future callsfor a wide understanding and reflectionontheecologyandpoliticsofinformationcultures. So called globalization notonly signifies a worldwide networkof exchange but new forms of hierarchiesand fragmentation, producing deeptransformations in both physical spaces andimmaterialinformationdomains.Whileglobalinformationcitiesincreasinglyresembleneo-medieval city states, market concentrationsestablish a dominion over knowledge. Onthe way to information feudalism, diversityseems to loose out. Nevertheless globalcommunication technologies still hold asignificant potential for empowerment,cultural expression and transnationalcollaboration.Tofullyrealizethepotentialoflife in global information societies we needtoacknowledgethepluralityofagentsintheinformationlandscapeandtheheterogeneityof collaborative cultural practice. Theexplorationofalternativefuturesislinkedtoalivingculturalcommonsandsocialpracticebased on networks of open exchange andcommunication.

We an open group of artists, researchersand cultural activists recognize commonground for transnational exchange andcollaboration towards a culture of opennetworks. Cultural practices surveying

information grids of global cities paintlandscapes of global transformations andprovidedepthtoanoutlooktowardsafuturethathasalreadybegun.Culturalinvestigationsinto the urban grids of communicativepracticesareatthebaseofmappingoptionsand negotiating conditions of socio-culturalreality. Cultural collaboration, providinga wealth of perspectives and ideas incommunication practices, is in itself atransformativeprocess,anagencyofchange.We need to value the diversity of emergingrecombinant interactions and networks ofimagination that provide a rich resource forourfutureculturalheritage.

Weapplaudallinitiativesthatreclaimthebenefitsofnewcommunicationtechnologiesforthecommonpublic.

We know that the future is too precioustoleaveittoexperts;digitalhumanrightsineverydaylifeareeveryone’sconcern.

We trust nodes open of informationculturestoexplorethediversityofchoicesintheshapingofinformationsocietiesbasedonsemioticdemocracy.

The Vienna Document“The Need to Know” of Information Societies

This document is the outcome of a meeting of the ‘Networks of Imagination’ workshop hosted by Public Netbase in June 2005 in the framework of the project ‘Towards a Culture of Open Networks’. The workshop brought together artists, theorists, critics, curators, researchers and software programmers from India, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

18

We recognize that street level openintelligence is of high public value and acultural process that is highly dependenton information climate and environmentconditions.

WedonotacceptaworldwherepopularcultureandhumanheritageisfencedinandIPrestrictionmanagementseparatesusfromourownthoughts.

We appreciate the fact that boundariesbetween users and producers becomepermeable in new communicationenvironments and new practices dissolvetraditionalnotionsofauthorship.

Wearecommittedtocriticallyobservingthe mindsets of possession and the creationofscarcityasprocessesimplementingcontrolintheinformationeconomy.

We refuse to live in an informationsociety where nothing belongs to all of us,but everything is owned by cartels, lockinghuman knowledge into the vaults of privateinterests.

We acknowledge that knowledge is forthosewhodo,notforthosewhodon’t,becausecultural progress implies that ideas emergefromexchanges, fromcommunication, frominteraction.

Wedonotwantaworldwhereyouneedalicensetowhistleasongoraccessyourownmemories.

We value information as a humanresourceofculturalexpressionratherthanacommoditytobesoldtoconsumers.

WeanticipateasilentspringinInformationSociety’slandscapeswhenevenabird’ssongbecomessubjectofcopyrightcontrol.

We realize that intangible informationresourcesraisetheissueofadigitalecology,theneed to understand ecosystems constitutedbyinformationflowsthroughvariousmedia.

We urge to ask who benefits fromtechnologythatisneverneutral,empowermentand participation or domination andcontainment.

We reaffirm that security concerns arenot an excuse for pervasive surveillanceand control environments linking personalprofiles and producing social sorting andsegregation.

This text is a document that emerged from a work meeting in Vienna June 2005. This draft of the Vienna Document is written by Konrad Becker and Felix Stalder based on the inputs and contributions made by the members of the working group.

1�

Dear Inhabitants of the ‘legal’Commons,

Greetings! This missive arrives atyour threshold from the proverbialAsiatic street, located in the shadow ofan improvisedbazaar,whereallmannerof oriental pirates and other dodgycharactersgathertotrade inwhatmanyamongstyouconsidertobestolengoods.Wecallthem‘borrowed’goods.Butadifferenceinthelanguageinwhichonetalksaboutthings(‘stolen’vs,‘borrowed’)isaalsoameasureofthedistancebetweentwodifferentworlds.

Youcanonlystealsomethingifitisownedbysomeoneinthefirstplace.Ifthingsarenot‘owned’butonlyheldincustody,thentheycanonlybe‘borrowed’asopposedtobeingstolen.Sowhatyoucalla ‘pirated’DVDiswhatwewouldcallaDVD‘borrowed’fromthestreet,andthepricewepayforitisequivalent,oratleastanalogoustoanincrementalsubscriptionto the great circulating public library of theAsiaticstreet.

Weaddressthis,writtenintheprecinctsofthatlibrary,toallyouwhoenjoythesalubriouscomfortofthelegalcommons,especiallytheonethat calls itself ‘creative’. We have occasionallystepped into your enclosures, and have fondmemoriesofourforays.However,oursojournsinyourworldhaveofnecessityhadtobebrief.Before long, we have been asked about ourprovenance,our intent,ourdocuments.There

has rarely been enough paper for us to provethatwehadtherightofway.

We appreciate and admire thedetermination with which you nurture yourgarden of licences. The proliferation andvarietyof floweringcontractsandclauses inyourhothousesisastounding.Butwefindtheparadoxofaspacethat iscalledacommonsand yet so fenced in, and in so many ways,somewhat intriguing. The number of timeswehadtoaskforpermission,andthenumberof security check posts we had to negotiatetoenterevenacornerofyourcommonswasimpressive.Andeachtimewewereatanexitwewerethoroughlysearched,justincasewehadnotpilferedsomething,orleftsometraceofanoxiousweedbymistakeintoyourfragileecosystem. Sometimes, we found that whenpeople spoke of ‘Common Property’ it washardtoknowwherethecommonsendedandwherepropertybegan.

Most of all, we were amazed by theingenuity (and diligence) you display inupholding the norm that mandates thatunlesssomethinghadbeennamedexplicitly

A Letter to the CommonsFrom the participants of the ‘Shades of the Commons Workshop’

This letter is the outcome of the ‘Shades of the Commons’ workshop hosted by Waag Society in May 2006 as part of the project ‘Towards a Culture of Open Networks’. The workshop brought together artists, theorists, critics, curators, social scientists and software programmers from India, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, France, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

�0

aspartofthe‘commons’byit’srightfulowner,itissomehowoutofboundstoeveryoneelse.Hitherto,ourunderstandingofthewordyouuse, ‘thecommons’,hadsuggestedtousthatit indicatedaspacewherepeoplecouldtakeaccording to their desires and contributeaccording to their capacities. This implieda relationship essentially between people,foundedonamoreorlesstakenforgrantedethicofreciprocity,inthesensethatwhatgoesaround, eventually comes around. However,in the spaceyoudesignateas ‘commons’,wefoundthattheruleis-takeinaccordancetothelabelonthethingthatyouencounter,andgiveaccordingto themeasureof the licenceyouprefer.

This indicated that a relationshipbetweenpeople,wassomehowreplacedbyarelationship between people and the thingsthat these people owned, inherited, or hadcreated. It meant being told that we couldaccess something only if the owner said wecould.Thismeantthatthesongorthestoryortheideathathadnolabelonitwasnotforthetaking.Wehavetoadmitthatthisdidfeelabitsuffocating,becauseitwasabitlikerationingthe air you breathe according to whether ornotyouhadtherighttobreathefreely.

Strangely,thecapacitytonamesomethingas‘mine’,evenifinorderto‘share’it,requiresa degree of attainments that is not in itselfevenlydistributed.Noteveryonecomesintotheworldwiththeconfidencethatanythingis‘theirs’toshare.Thismeans,thatthe‘commons’inyourparlance,consistsofanarrangementwhereinonlythosewhoareinthemagiccircleofconfidentownerseffectivelygetashareinthatwhich isessentially, stillaconfigurationofdifferentbitsof fenced inproperty.Whatthey do is basically effect a series of swaps,based on a mutual understanding of theirexclusive proprietary rights. So I give yousomething of what I own, in exchange for

which, I get something of what you own.Thegoodoriteminquestionneverexitsthecircuitofproperty,even,paradoxicallywhenit is shared. Goods that are not owned, orthosethathavebeentakenoutsidethecircuitofownership,effectivelycannotbeshared,orevencirculated.

Wheredoesthisleavethosewhohavenoproperty to begin with? Perhaps, with evenlessthanwhattheymighthaveinascenariowhere there was some comfort in beingabletomakedowithbitsandpiecesbrokenoff, copied and patched together and thencirculated,essentiallybypeoplewhohadnopriorclaimtoculturalpropertyorpatrimony.Yousee,weundertookoureducation in thepublic libraryof the street, in thearchiveofthesidewalk.

Here,ourculture,cametousintheformoffadedanddistressedcopies,notallwrappedandribbonedwithlicenses.Wetookwhatwecould,whenwecould,wherewecould.Hadwewaitedtotakewhatwewerepermittedto‘share’ in, we would never have gotten veryfar, because no one would have recognizedourworthas ‘shareholders’.Ourattainmentswerenotbuiltwiththeconfidencethatcomesfrom knowing that you have a right to ownwhatyouknow,andadutytoknowwhatyouown.

Your‘commons’isnotaplacethatwecanshareineasily.Because,often,whenyouaskus for what we ‘own’, we have to turn awayfromyourenquiringgaze.Weownverylittle,andthelittlethatweownisitselfoftenunderdispute,becausenoonehasbotheredtokeepadetailedenoughrecordofprovenances. Inthesecircumstances,ifwehadlistentoyourstipulationtoshareonlythatwhichweown,hardly anything would have been passedaround.Andforlifetocontinue,thingshavetopassaround.Sowesharealotofthingsthatwehaveneverowned.Theyare‘borrowed’.

�1

You call this piracy. Perhaps it is piracy.But we have to think of consequences.The consequences of absences of theinfrastructuresthatmakeacultureofsharingthat is also a culture of legality possible. Intheabsenceofthoseinfrastructures,wehaveto rely on other mechanisms. When you donothaveapublic library,youhaveto inventoneonthestreet,withallthebooksthatyoucanmuster,witheverythingyoucanbeg,orborrow.Orsteal.

All we ask, dear inhabitants of the ‘legal’commons,isforyoutoletusbe.Tobealittlecautious before you condemn us. A worldwithoutour secretpublic librarieswouldbeapoorerworld.Itwouldbeaworldinwhichveryfewpeoplereadveryfewbooks,andonlythose who could own things were the oneswhocouldsharethem.Itwouldalsomeanaworld in which, eventually, very few peoplewritebooks.Soinsteadofmore,therewouldintheendbe lessculturetogoaround.Themoreyouown,thelessyoucanshare.

All we ask is for a little time. It has notyetbeenconclusivelyproventhatthecultureof ‘borrowing’ which you happen to call‘piracy’ has only negative consequences forthe production of culture. It has also notyet been proven that one must necessarilyreadnegativeconsequencesforculturefromnegativeconsequencesforthebalancesheetsof the culture industry.Until such time thatthisisdone,pleaseletusbe.

Learnaboutusbyallmeans ifyoumust,arguewithusbyallmeans,butdonotrushtodestroythewildernessweinhabit.Weadmireyourcarefullycultivatedgarden.Weknowitisnoteasyforyoutoletusenterthatspace.Weunderstandandrespect that.Wedonotask to be appreciated in return for the factthatwepreferhiding in theundergrowthofculture.Allweask for is thebenevolenceofyourindifference.Thatwilldofornow..

Weremain,yours

Denizens of Non Legal Commons, andthosewhotraveltoandfromthem

The draft of this letter was written by Shuddhabrata Sengupta, based on the input and contributions by the working group.

World Information CityBangalore

��

‘World-Information City’ was a one-weekprogramofeventsandapublicationaddressing global issues of intellectualproperty and technology in conjunctionwith changing urban landscapes. TheactivitiesthattookplaceinBangaloreinNovember 2005, presented a rich spectrumof public relations including conference andworkshops, outreach programs and publicart, interventions and exhibits, screenings,performances and guided tours. ‘World-Information City’, focusing on cultures ofopen networks in technology driven urbaninformation societies, was the result of anextended process of global collaborationand rooted in the diversity of Bangalore’sInformation Society projects. It washeld parallel to the UN’s World SummitInformationSociety(WSIS)inTunis.‘World-InformationCity’constitutedpartofalargerprojectintheframeworkoftheEU-IndiaCrossCultural Programme together with WaagSociety,Sarai-CSDSandtheInstituteforNewCulture Technologies/t0 working together‘Towards a Culture of Open Networks’. Theprimaryobjectiveoftheoverallprojectwastobuildbridgesof culture andcommunicationin Europe and India, focusing on issuesrelatingtotheemergenceofthe‘InformationSociety’: a web of social, cultural, economicand political relationships giving primacyto the technologies of information. Thiscollaboration under the well-informed andreliable project guidance of Waag Society’sPaulKelleremergedfromaprevioushistory

ofthethreepartnersworkingtogether inanextensive dialogue on these very same areasof discourse and practice. In the course ofthe project this developed into an extensivenetwork of cooperation including theAlternative Law Forum (ALF) in Bangaloreitself.

World-Information.Org, a model forindependentmediaproduction,wasinitiatedbytheInstituteforNewCultureTechnologies/t0togetherwithawiderangeofinternationalexperts,theoristsandpractitionersasatrans-national cultural intelligence agency. Sincethe launch of World-Information.Org underthepatronageofUNESCOinBrussels2000,itstageditsextensiveexhibitionandconferenceprogram in Vienna, Amsterdam, Belgrade,and Novi Sad and spawned activities invarious European cities like London, Berlin,Geneva or Helsinki. ‘Towards a Culture ofOpen Networks’ presented a unique chancetorealizeWorld-Information.Orgoperationsbeyond the geographic borders of Europe.‘World-InformationCity’becameachallengeto adapt concepts of cultural intelligenceto a South-Asian practice and perspectiveand to map its processes into the contextof Bangalore, the icon of IT outsourcing.However, the sharing and transmission

World-Information City: Cultural intelligence for the Urban MultitudesKonrad Becker

The two-day conference, addressed social and political questions related to neo-medievalism and information feudalism, as well as semiotic democracy and the psychological and structural qualities of urban development reflected in urban zoning and the rise of city states.

�6

of public knowledge is a prerequisite fora thriving, participatory society based onequality while valuing diversity all over theworld.Similarly,andinadditiontotheirabilitytopoolknow-howtospearheadICTresearch,cultural organizations and networked mediaartsoffermodelsofalternativepractice,andauniquecontributiontoongoingdebateaboutintellectualpropertyrightsandtheknowledgecommonsonaglobalscale.

In introductoryconferences like ‘NetworksofImagination’(June2005,Vienna)researchers,practitioners and institutions from Asia andEurope working in the field of culture andknowledge economies, looked into thepractice,strategiesandinterventionsofagentsin the information landscape and debatedassessments regarding change and everydaylife in information societies beyond Europe.Surveying emerging maps of social andcultural interaction, tracking the mindsetsof property, the creation of scarcity in theinformation economy, and the processesof control materializing in global cities andconvertinginformationintointelligence.The‘Vienna Document - “The Need to Know”of Information Societies’ a digital culturalpolicy manifesto was formulated by theOpen Cultures Working Group and againasserted that exploring alternative futures islinkedtoalivingculturalandsocialpracticebased on networks of open exchange anddissemination.Nodesofsemioticdemocracybasedonclustersoffreeinformationculturesprovide trajectories for discovering differentoptions in the shaping of informationsocieties. Independent investigations intothe urban grids of power that shape thesocial reorganization of cultures enrich theimagination towards a multiplication ofchoices in negotiating conditions of socio-cultural reality. Smart modes of networkingare a prerequisite of being able to challengethe overwhelming noise of vested interests

in order to get these voices heard. VentureslikeWorld-Information.Orgneedtodevelopa broad spectrum of communicationstrategiesdesignedtoengagetheimaginationof potential target audiences. The existingresources need to be carefully adapted torealize an optimized approach to influenceresults appropriate to specific time basedcontexts and conditions. The identificationand assessment of target groups and theiraccessibilityprovidesthebaseforamultileveloperationplanwithdifferentcommunicationlayers.

Ca�pa�gnTheWorld-InformationCityNewspapers

objective was to alert the general public,decision makers in politics and business,and multipliers in media and educationalinstitutions about the dangers emanatingfrom restrictive information regimes, aboutglobalintellectualproperty(IP)aswellastheculturalandsocietalpotentialsofalternativeinformation management regimes underthe heading of an ‘information commons’or ‘knowledge commons’. With a view tothe World-Information.Org program, andits focus on the interrelationship betweeninformationregimesandurbanenvironments,a majority of the contributions focused onurbanissues.Invitingagroupofoutstandingauthors to contribute non-specialist and to-the-point articles, care was taken to reflectkey concerns with regard to IP/Commonsandurbandevelopmentaswell as toensurea balanced geographical perspective. Inorder to gain in-depth reach within each ofthe audience groups and geographical areasthe publication was aimed at, the paper hasbeen produced in three different editions:aninternationaledition,aBangaloreedition,with additional specific contents and aGermanlanguageversion.Withtheprincipaltarget areas being the World-InformationCityeventsatBangalore,theWorldSummit

�7

of the Information Society in Tunis andEuropean and international readers a globaldissemination strategy of 30,000 copies ofthe publication could be realized. As themain printed publication the paper playeda key role in the World-Information Cityprogramaswellasinthegeneralactivitiesofthe Institute for New Culture TechnologiesandhasservedasapointofreferenceinthedebatesaroundthecommonsandIPalsoasanonlineresource.

From an early point in the World-Information City project artists andcommunication designers have beeninvited in open calls to join the process ofdevelopingkeyiconographyforurbanmediainterventionsregardingIPandthecity.World-InformationCityaimedtoraiseawarenessonissuesoftheinformationsocietyinthepublicsphereandtointroducethesethemesintothestreetsandurbanenvironmentofthecity.Amultitudeofideasandimageryemergedandhavebeendisplayedinvariouscontextswhilesome works have been specifically realizedfor the streets of Bangalore, highly diversemedia interventions located in differentparts of the city. Along with billboards,posters,stickersandtraditionalIndianmediaforms like cut-outs, street-banners and wallpaintings, branded rickshaws and mobiledisplayspresentedkeymessages inthecity’sstreets,repeatedlypromptingthelocalmediaand newspapers to pick up on this imageryanduseit fortheir illustrations.TheWorld-Information City campaign caught passers-by by surprise through its infiltration ofthe city’s ad-dominated visual info-spherewith billboards, posters and even flowerarrangements, questioning the politics of IPin places usually dominated by undisputedcommercialimperatives.

Exh�b�t��nThe locations of the artists work and

installations, stretched between three main

points in the city, from some of the oldestquartersoftowntosomeofthenewupscaleareasof thecity.Thedispersed showacrossdifferentsiteswasdesignedto facilitatesite-specificworks,butalsotoallowforinteractionwithdifferentpublics.Theexperience,sights,soundsandsmellsalongthewaybeingpartoftheshow,andsimultaneouslybeinginformedandbroadenedbythemediaandartprojects.Amultitudeofartisticpracticerepresentedawide rangeof approaches toa technologicalcommunication culture and provided manylayers of investigation into the info-sphere.ThediversityofartworksthatcontributedtoWorld-Information City addressed conflictssurrounding the rise of the informationeconomy, be it in the form of installations,objects, performances, or films accessibleto the public at different points of bustlingBangalore. The many interventions whichreappeared in the city in various formats,likeSebastianLütgert’sbrightlycoloredGood Questionsseriesofsimplebutcleverinquiries,Ulrike Brückner’s Delinquents billboardfeaturing a theme of the criminalization ofsharing, Vasu Dixit’s Copycat mural at thebusterminal,orAshokSukumaranElectricity as Network street installation at the oldestcinemaofBangalore,tonamejustafew,wereentering into an imaginary dialog in publicspace.

Broadcasting in the electroniccommunication spectrum Shaina Anand’sWIC TV, after engineering the supportof a commercial cable operator, went intooperationinoneofthecity’sneighborhoodsandmanagedtogetaholdofaprimeslotona local TV channel. Produced together witha highly spirited team it was receiving greatinterest from local audiences and quicklyacquiredadedicatedfanaudience.Indifferentlocationsartworks,werecomplemented;likeChristophSchäfer’sironicreflectionsonglobalmediated culture and by Ayisha Abraham’s

�8

media archaeology and the screening ofthe international Thought Thieves videoaward for WSIS. Rajivan Ayyappan’s radiosoundscape installation Air Around meetingwithMarkoPeljhan’s conceptsof alternativecommunication technologies and alongside0100101110101101.org’s over-affirmativerendering of a fictional European Unionmoviecampaignareexamplesofthebreadthin artistic production. With the conferencelocation in a public park next to a spaciousbamboo groove, visitors could wander offinto a World-Infostructure show of a largenumberofgraphicdisplaysbasedonresearchby World-Information.Org. Numerousvisualizations illustrate issues associatedwith the development of digital media andsophisticated technical instruments like theincreasing use of biometric devices, themeslinked to various aspects of informationsocieties as well as topics relating toBangalore.

C�nferenceParallel to the World Summit in Tunis,

theWorld-InformationCityconferencewithsatellite events in Paris and Vienna broughttogether renowned European and South-Asian researchers on issues of informationeconomiesandIntellectualPropertyRegimesrelated to the social dynamic of emergingglobal information cities. Like all WIOconferences the event was open to non-specialistaudiencesandaccessibletoalargeraudienceviaInternetstreaming.Thetwo-dayconference, addressed social and politicalquestions related to neo-medievalism andinformation feudalism, as well as semioticdemocracy and the psychological andstructural qualities of urban developmentreflected in urban zoning and the rise ofcity states. Emerging intellectual propertyregimes make knowledge and freely sharedresources into private possessions of a fewlargecorporations.Thisvirtuallandgrabhas

new feudal figures dominating knowledgeeconomies, reducing the promise of a newpublicdomainandthedigitalcommonstoafaintpossibility.

The talks looked into the question ofhow the city is affected by Information andCommunicationTechnologiesandtheriseofelectronicsurveillanceandcontrol.

Mapping interrelations of globalinformation landscapes and urbantransformations, of immaterial regimes andsocial realities, it highlighted conflicts overthedominiononknowledge,theimplicationsof new information regimes on knowledgeandcultureproductionandthezoningoftheinformation city. Questioning the obsessionoverintellectualpropertyrightsandthenewlimitations imposed on digital informationexchange, it explored arguments for the‘Information Commons’, a democraticallyregulated information space with publicaccountability.Thisrequiresavibrantcultureof ‘Open Source’, based on a plurality ofagents in the information landscape andthe heterogeneity of collaborative culturalpractices.

Beyondlongtermcollaborators likeFelixStalder, co-editor of the WIC newspaper, orEric Kluitenberg from WIO Amsterdam, orproject partners like Lawrence Liang fromAlternative Law Forum (ALF) or the Saraigroup itself, a range of stimulating speakersengaged in the dialogue. “The globalized ITindustryinIndiaisaninternationalislandofprivilegeinaseaoflocaldespair”,saidIndianwriterandcriticArundathiRoyattheWorld-Information City conference concludingsession.SpeakingashortdistanceawayfromBangalore’s IT corridors, Roy stressed theparallels between the technologies of thecolonial period, roads and railways, and thecontemporaryexpansionofITintotheruralareas. Surveillance expert David Lyon views

��

Bangalore call centers as the sites of ‘socialsorting’, the automatized hierarchization ofsocial strata according to criteria of profitgeneration,asindatabasemarketing.Cloudedby rhetoric of service and privacy, politicalaccountability is being eroded by invisiblestreamsofdata.However,asBangalore-basedfeministandhistorianLataManipointedout,“Thelogicofcapitalistglobalizationisnottheonly logic at play”, a statement that finds anempiricalgroundinginSollyBenjamin’sworkonurbanlandconflicts,alsopresentedattheconference. His accompanying guided toursCities within Cities did give an intriguinginside view into urban and zoning and thetransformation of cities. Even more layersof inquiry into the theory and practice ofemancipatoryknowledgeworkwasprovidedbyarangeofaccompanyingworkshopsontheorganizationandeconomyof thecommons,open source tools and programming as wellasarangeofmediaskills.

With this mix of locations, media andtechnologies, World-Information Citywas able to catch the attention of a vastaudience even outside of the closed spacesof the conference, the various exhibitionspaces, workshops and performances andto set amodel forcrosscultural intelligencecooperationandartistic interventions in theglobalinfo-sphere.

http://world-information.org/wio/wsis

Konrad BeckerInstitute for New Culture Technologies

Konrad Becker is a hypermedia and interdisciplinary communication researcher, director of the Institute for New Culture Technologies/t0, and World-Information.Org, a cultural intelligence provider. Co-founder and chairman of Public Netbase in Vienna from 1994 to 2006, he has been active in electronic media as an author, artist, composer as well as curator, producer and organizer. Since 1979, numerous intermedia productions, exhibitions, conferences and event designs for international festivals, cultural institutions and electronic media. Publication of media works, electronic audiovisuals and theoretical texts.

�0

�he kn���e�ge-p��er �atr�x t��ayTwenty-first century cities rely on

the order-creating capacities of digitaltechnologies to classify, sort, and tomanage social outcomes across ofrange of sectors. Using personal data,techniques derived from military,administrative,employment,policingandmarketingpracticescombinetocreateacomplexmatrixofpower;asurveillanceassemblage. Cyberspaces may in some waysbemappedontophysicalgeographies,helpingtocreatenewconfigurationsof thesocialaswellastoerodesomeolderones.

Between the local organizational level ofsurveillanceandtheglobalflowsofpersonaldata in surveillance networks, lie the urbanspaces where surveillance is perhaps mostevidentlypresent.Surveillance,asunderstoodhere, is among other things an outcome ofestablishing information infrastructures asthe basis for administration, production,marketing, entertainment and lawenforcement. It involves garnering personaldata for a variety of purposes in a quest forgreater efficiency, convenience or safety. Itsethicsandpoliticsare inherentlyambiguousbut at the same time surveillance is neverneutral.

What happens in information-orientedcitiesisthateverydaylife–residing,working,traveling, being entertained, communicating- is articulated with electronic networks,

databases and devices. This transcends theobvious sense in which numerous gadgetsand systems in everyday use are codedwith software. From the kitchen fridge andmicrowavetothelivingroomentertainmentcenter to the car, highway, transit system,elevator, office and beyond, software is nowpart of the material fabric of life (see AminandThrift,2002:125).ThearticulationIhaveinmindhereiswithsurveillancetechnologiesthatareincreasingly‘designedin’totheflowsofeverydaylife(Rose,1999:234).

The outcomes of this interaction withautomatedandremoteclassificationsystemsmay in some circumstances have profoundeffects on the shaping and ordering of citylife.Theseareoftennotthoseoutcomesthatare anticipated by the pundits, such as thereductionintravelenabledbytheuseofnewcommunications media or the switch awayfrompaper-baseddocumentsmadepossibleby electronic text processing. Such changesrepresentthemistakenattempttoreadsocialchanges off technological developments.In the cases mentioned here, city travel has

Security, Seduction and Social Sorting: Urban SurveillanceDavid Lyon

Why anyone ever dreamed that cyberspace would be primarily a realm of freedom defeats logic. The very term ‘cyberspace,’ used first by William Gibson in the novel Burning Chrome and later, more popularly, in Neuromancer, hints strongly at its dark side. And its etymology, in mid-twentieth century cybernetics, does more than hint. Cybernetics is the science of control, of regulation through feedback loops.

�1

increasedalongwithcommunicationdensityandpaperuseproliferatesevenaselectronicinformationstorageandtransferexpands.

As Manuel Castells points out,paradoxically, advanced telecommunicationshelped to slow corporate relocation awayfrom New York, and not vice-versa, and inFrance, the first mass-diffused system ofcomputer-mediatedcommunication,Minitel,didnothingtoreduceurbandensity(Castells,1996:377).Indeed,Minitelwasalsousedbystudents to arrange street demonstrationsagainst the government just as, in 2005,riotersinParisusedblogsandcell-phonesforguerilla-type tacticsofprotestagainstpolicediscrimination involving North Africanminorities. At the same time, since the riseof so-called anti-globalization movements,policeandsecuritymonitoringoftheInternet,cell-phonesandsimilardevicesisincreasinglyattemptedasameansofpre-emptingprotestand demonstration. Castells spends lesstime on such matters, holding that “mostsurveillance will have no directly damagingconsequencesforus–or,forthatmatter,noconsequencesatall”(Castells,2001:180).

However, it is just these unanticipatedconsequences of reliance on electronicinfrastructures that are in focus here, andespeciallythosethataffectrelativedegreesofaccessandpowerinthecity.Itisatruismthatcities have always been divided and zonedin ways that reflect the interests of groupsdistinguished by their wealth, income, class,status, ethnic background or gender. Theterm ‘ghetto’ speaks to ethnic sequestering,‘the wrong side of the tracks’ to enclaves ofpoverty and ‘central business district’ to thewell-heeledcommercialcore.Theemergenceof urban electronic infrastructures doesnot necessarily produce quite differentdivisions so much as overlay existing oneswith additional, sometimes crosscutting

distinctions.Nonetheless,theyhelptoshapethecitynolessthanhighwaysandhigh-risesdo.

Manytreatmentsofthe‘globalcity’focusontheirroleaseconomicpowerhouses.WriterssuchasCastellsarguethatsuchcitiesarenotsomuch‘places’as‘processes.’Theemphasisisonwhymega-citiescontinuetogrowdespitethetechnicalpossibilitiesfordecentralizationandflexibility.SaskiaSassenshowsthatglobalcitieshavenewroles,beyondthetraditionalcenters of international trade and banking.They are concentrated command points fororganizingtheglobaleconomy,keylocationsforfinanceandspecializedservicesandsitesof both production and of consumption(Sassen, 2001). This being so, it is hardlysurprising that more conventional urbaninequalitiesarealsoreproducedinnewwaysin theglobal citiesofbothnorthand south.In Bangalore, for instance, hailed as India’sSilicon Valley, one can see some very directunequal relationships between the shinyelectronics-based technology parks and thepredominant situation of poverty and socialdeprivation(Madon,1998).

Beyond such direct correlations betweentransnational corporate wealth in high-tech software and hardware and a massivelack of adequate basic infrastructure for themajority, more subtle modes of reinforcingsocialandeconomicdivisionsarealsovisible– or, more properly, invisible -- in someurban areas. In order to understand howsurveillance affects today’s cities we haveto consider both the technologies involvedand their uses in particular contexts. Theideaof ‘socialsorting’ is introducedtoshowhow populations are clustered in order tosingleoutdifferentgroupsfordifferentkindsof treatment. This is done using softwarealgorithms,theinformationalcodesthathavesocial consequences. Examples are drawn,

��

next,bothfromconsumercontextsinwhichchoicesandlife-chancesareaffectedandalsofromcontextsinwhichmorestringentformsofcontrolareevident,andwheresomekindoflawenforcementistheaim.

Interestingly enough, these apparentlyseparate and distinct spheres of surveillanceactivity overlap in some ways – thedomesticpurchaseof insuranceservices, forexample, also relates to policing criteria inneighborhoods–andtheyarealsoincreasinglyinterrelated at the level of data. Differentdatabases may contain personal informationthatiscommontomorethanone,andundercertaincircumstancespersonaldataacquiredforonepurposeareusedforanother.Atthesame time, other kinds of techniques areconstantly appearing that help to refine orto elaborate what already exists. Geneticscreening,locationtracking,radiofrequencyidentification(RFID)andbiometricmeasureseach add a further dimension to the socialsortingpotential.

Taken together, this combination ofsurveillancesystemsmaybethoughtofasan‘assemblage’ (the term is from Deleuze andGuattari’s work but Ericson and Haggertygive it some more specific content). And itis thisphenomenonwithwhich surveillancestudies – and, of course, all urban dwellers– have to deal in the twenty-first century.Although the ways that social power isallocated and struggled over has much todo with the capitalist world system andwith bureaucratically run organizations,the argument here is that informationinfrastructures,andsurveillanceinparticular,has to be introduced as a key explanatoryfactor today. True, the aftermath of 9/11is also giving rise, to much technologicalopportunism and the state is strengtheningits law-and-order arm, but the surveillanceassemblage, with its unique social sorting

capacitieswasalreadydevelopingbefore theterrorattacksonNewYork.

�echn���g�e�� �f ���c�a� ���rt�ng: c��e�� an� c�n��eq�ence��

Whyanyoneeverdreamedthatcyberspacewould be primarily a realm of freedomdefeats logic. The very term ‘cyberspace,’used first by William Gibson in the novelBurningChromeandlater,morepopularly,inNeuromancer,hintsstronglyat itsdarkside.Anditsetymology,inmid-twentiethcenturycybernetics,doesmorethanhint.Cyberneticsis the science of control, of regulationthroughfeedback loops.Originally, ithadtodo with the processes of production. Today,since the convergence of computing withtelecommunications in the 70s and 80s, wecansaythatthecyber-realmisoneofremotecontrolorregulationatadistance.

How this control and regulation isachieved is unique to computer-basedsystemsofsurveillance;itiscontrolbycode.The hardware and software of such systemsarecodedinspecificways.LawrenceLessig,whose book on Code and Other Laws ofCyberspace helped to establish this point,saysthatcyberspaceisregulatedbycode,forgoodorill.Thebigmistakeistoimaginethatcyberspaceis inanysense ‘unregulated.’ Inamomentweshalllookmorecarefullyathowcodesregulatecyberspaces,butIwanttotakethe point one stage further. It is not merelysomevirtual–asin‘immaterial’–realmthatcodeoperates.Controlandregulationinthemessymaterial spacesandplacesof thecityalsooperatebycode.

Onecaveat.This isnotmeantas amereattack on cyberspace as a realm of ‘un-freedom.’ The cyberspaces of today’s worldarearenas,cockpits,orterrainsofstruggle.Acarefulexplorationofthesocialandmaterialrealitiesofcyberspacedoes inducecynicism

��

aboututopianvisions,but thisbynomeanspaintssocialanalysisintoadystopiancorner.Codingcanoperateinwaysmoreconsonantwithnotionsofparticipatorydemocracyandorganizational accountability than they all-too-oftendoatpresent.

Assomeonewhohasspentafairamountoftimetalkingwithothersaboutcontemporarysurveillance,Ihavenoticedaconstantrefrainfrom those whose historical memories arestill in good shape. They acknowledge thatconstant monitoring does occur today butaskwhetheritreallyisallthatdifferentfromthe days of small-scale local communities,whereeveryonekneweveryoneelseandsuchmutual monitoring was taken-for-granted(even though it may have been resented orregrettedbysome).Myresponse is that it isindeedverydifferent,notonlyquantitativelybutqualitativelyaswell.

The data may seem trivial (shoppingpreferences,forexample)butwhencombinedwithothersmayhelpbuilda (ratherpartial)profile.Anditisnotmerelyapartialprofile.Itisaprofilethat,inmanycases,simplysuggestswhatsortofpersonishere.Thecategory,notthe character, is all- important. As well, inmostcasesthedataarecollectedwhetherornot we agree to that collection process, andnowsomanyagenciesgarnerourdatathatitissimplyimpossibletokeeptrack.AsLessigobserves, village ‘surveillance’ was carriedoutbypeersandotherhumanbeings.Todaysurveillanceisdonebymachineandmoreover,the machine is voracious in its appetite forpersonal data. It does not merely note thedifferencesbetweenyouandthenextperson,butmanyfacetsofbehavior.Andsearchablerecordswerenotinviewinthevillage;‘…nowthe default is that all monitoring producessearchablerecords’(Lessig,1999:151).

Lessig goes on to show how concerns

of manipulation and equality accompanyprofiling. Targeted advertising, for example,may influence desires in new ways, butprofiling may also normalize the populationas individuals are encouraged by feedbackto fit the expected patterns. As for equality,LessigwritesfromtheUSA,whereequalityinthe marketplace was an assumed ideal fromthe start. But subtle distinctions of rank arebasedonprofiles,suchasthosegeneratedbyfrequentflyersystems,whichensurethatthebestseatsandthefirstmealchoicesgotothemost frequent flyers. These kinds of statusdifferences are increasingly exploited bysurveillance-as-social-sorting,whichdependson collected data to provide the grounds ofdiscrimination.

In an urban context the use of statusdifferencesmayberelatedtoare-thinkingof‘digital divides.’ Stephen Graham (following6and Jupp,2001)argues thatdigitaldividestake various forms, not only unequal accesstonewtechnologies,butthe“…powerfulandofteninvisibleprocessesofprioritizationandmarginalizationassoftwareandcodeareusedto judgepeople’sworth,eligibilityand levelsofaccesstoawholerangeofessentialurbanspaces and services” (Graham, 2004: 324).Computer algorithms are used at databaseandtelecommunicationinterfacesinordertoprovidedifferentlevelsofservicetouserswhohavebeenautomatically‘sorted’accordingtosomecriteria.Thesecriteriamaybeopaquetotheend-user,butinaneraofcompetitiveglobal commerce and ‘terror threats’ theirbasisissomewhatpredictable.

Personal information may be collected,then,inordertodetermine–inthesecases–levelsofservice,access,andspeedofpassage.Once the data are collected, the system canautomatically (without human discretion),continually (24/7) and in real time (with nodelay)makedeterminationsaboutoutcomes.

��

The rapidity of one’s Internet access, forexample,dependsinpartontheuserprofilegleaned from sophisticated surfer-tracking(Winseck, 2003) and the speed with whichonemaybeableto‘fast-track’throughairportsecurity depends on the use of biometricpassesforwhatPeterSloterdijkcallstheglobal‘kineticelite’(quotedGraham,2004:239).

L�fe-chance��, ch��ce��, exc������nWe turn now to some further examples

of the consequences of coding in primarilyurbancontexts.Thefirstsetarecommercial,to do with the consumer sphere, whereasin the subsequent section we shall examinesome security coding, relating more broadlytocitizenship.Theaimistodemonstratejusthow decisive the codes are for people’s life-chances and how they affect their everydaychoices even to the point of being excludedfrom certain opportunities. How, then, does‘consumerseduction’operate?

The term ‘seduction’ in the commercialcontext refers to the efforts of marketersto persuade consumers to buy goods andservices.Specifically,Ihaveinmindthewaysinwhichdatabasemarketers,usingvarietiesof Customer Relationship Management,cluster geo-demographically their potentialconsumers,inhopeofsinglingoutforspecialtreatmentthosewiththehighestlikelihoodofbeingsubstantialspenders.Inparallelwaystothe‘categoricalsuspicion’thatattendscertaingroups of ‘likely’ offenders, such ‘categoricalseduction’servesnotonlyto‘woo’consumersbut, inasense,actuallytoproducethemforcorporations.

Insimilarways,broaderprocessesofsocialsorting privilege certain consumers, clientsandcitizensoverothers,throughdifferentialpricing mechanisms or through shorter andlongerwaitingtimes.Thecorollary,ofcourse,isthatthesameautomatedprocessesproduce

neglect or abandonment for other groups.Insomecasestheymaybeactivelyexcludedbutinmostcasestheysimplyreceiveinferiortreatmentorarepassedby in themarketingdrive.Theso-called ‘freedomofchoice’ thatsupposedly characterizes market economiesis if not a chimera, at least somewhatcompromisedbysuchpractices.

Some of the other cases mentioned by

Graham include basic ones like the use ofurbanroadsand the locationof foodstores.Electronicroadpricinghasbecomeanobviouspoliticalchoiceinaneraofgreatcongestion,andsoitisinToronto,forexample.Toavoidbottlenecks on the main east-west corridor–highway401,whichatsomepointsalreadyhas sixteen lanes including both ‘collector’and‘express’--onthenorthsideofToronto,highway 407 was added, with an automatedtolling facility.Atmost timesof thedayyoucanpaytocruisealongatthespeedlimitorabove, even when the 401 is in stop-startmodeinalllanes.(IconfessthatIonceusedittogettoaweddingontime!)SanDiego’sI-15takesthingsfurther,however,offeringfluidconditionsatalltimes.Astheroadgetsbusier,driversareinformedthatthetollsarerising,causingdemandtodropoffaccordingly,thusensuringcontinuousfreeflowoftraffic.

Geographical Information Systems (GIS)areusedtomapcities,torevealtheirshiftingsocial and economic composition in greatdetail. The purpose behind this, says TsungLeong(2001:765) is to “understand,controlanddirectmarketbehavior.”Geo-demographicprofiling,apracticethathasexistedsincethe80s,isvastlyenhancedbytoday’salgorithmiccoding and searchable databases to enablethe simulatedmappingprocesses,whicharethen taken as the basis for actual decisionsaboutwheretolocatestores,banksorsportsand entertainment facilities. Unprofitablebank branches and small local stores tend

��

tocloseasmoreprofitablelocationsfornewenterprises are pinpointed by GIS mappingusinggeo-demographicdata.

Even without direct mapping ofsocio-economic data onto geographicalneighborhoods, processes of CRM may stillhaveadifferential impactonzoneswithinacity.SusanneLacereferstotheadventof‘glassconsumers’whohaveappearedinaworldofintensive information gathering on the dailylives of ordinary people. As she says, the“propertiesandcapacitiesofglass–fragility,transparency, the ability to distort the gazeof the viewer – mirror…” our vulnerability(Lace, 2005:7). Banks, insurance companies,employers, welfare departments, health-carefacilities and retailers all want to assess therisks attending our dealings with them andthe value that our interactions with themrepresent. On the basis of this knowledgethey will make offers, deny opportunities,treatusdifferentlyfromothersinapparentlysimilar circumstances.Thismayormaynotbe compared with postal code (ZIP USA)datatoconnectmorecloselywithterritorialrealities,butevenwithoutit,thelikelihoodisthatcertaingeographicalareaswillbefavoredormarginalizedasanindirectoutcome.

AsPerri6pointsout,thesedevelopmentsrepresent qualitative differences with earlier(50s,60s)‘redlining’practicesthatproscribedcertain areas in the city, rendering themdifficult for (would-be) residents to obtainmortgagesorinsurance(6,2005:28-29).Thehugequantitiesofdatathatcanbeprocessedmeansthatmuchfiner-grainedclassificationsare possible, based sometimes on hundredsof thousands of calculations with individualalgorithms for each case, to which may beadded data-mining procedures for evengreater depth. Retail sector loyalty cardspermitmoreprecisetargetingofoffers,oftenlinkedwithpostalcodes.6alsoobservesthat

miniaturizationanddatastoragemeans thatpersonal information may also be storedlonger, which means organizations ‘forget’and therefore ‘forgive’ less in the personalinformationeconomy.

That these personal information regimes

haveconsequencesinurbanareasisbecomingincreasingly clear to sociologists andgeographers.Aswellasthesimpledifferencesof treatment accorded to one area favoredover another because of its profitabilityto corporations and relatively low risk forpolicingand

Insurance, self-fulfilling prophecies mayalso set in. There are incentives to behavedifferently – move out -- if your area isdeemed risky for insurance purposes, or ifyouobtainalowercreditratingthere.Equallyif loyalty card data discourages stores fromremaining open in relatively deprived areas,they too may move out, creating the ‘fooddesert’ phenomenon in increasingly run-downurbanareas.

R���k, P���c�ng, Sec�r�tyIf categorical seduction describes a

world in which an opportunity calculusidentifies certain groups as potentiallyprofitable consumers, then categoricalsuspicion bespeaks one in which a riskcalculusidentifiescertaingroupsaspotentialoffenders.Ofcourse,riskisinvolvedinsomeconsumer contexts, but it predominates inlaw enforcement and related contexts. Suchrisks emerged from earlier conceptions ofsocialcontrolinthecity,amongthemMichelFoucault’s,whichsawthepanopticprincipleof hierarchy, surveillance and classificationspreadingwellbeyondprisonsintoquotidianurbanlife.

More particularly, argues Stanley Cohen,one finds late nineteenth and twentiethcentury attempts to map visions of the city,

�6

suchastheChicagoSchool’s‘moralmapping’,those concentric zones “on which grids ofcrime, delinquency, suicide and other formsof social disorganization were projected”(Cohen 1985: 220). For Cohen, writingtowards the end of the twentieth century,such mapping produced both inclusionaryandexclusionarypolicies,but tending to tilttowardsthelatter.Theinclusionarytendencywouldentailtheuseof‘bleepers,screensandtrackers’while theexclusionarywouldrelateto “walls, reservations and barriers (230)”.Althoughtheuseofelectroniccontroldeviceswasclearlycomingintofocusinthe80s,laterdevelopments were to make for changedcircumstances. The use of new networks ofcontrolinthecitywoulddigitizeexclusionaswell.

By the late 1980s, Gary T. Marx arguedthat “the state’s traditional monopoly overthe means of violence is supplementedby new means of gathering and analyzinginformation thatmayevenmake the formerobsolete”(1988:220).Henotedthatthisnewsurveillance is justified by positive goals,to combat crime and terrorism, to protecthealth or to improve productivity. Marxacknowledged the tendency to see prison-like techniques spreading into the widercommunity,butalsonotedthat“…techniquesand an ethos once only applied to suspectsor prisoners are applied to the most benignsettings” (220).Hence,his tellingneologism,‘categorical suspicion,’ the sense that simplyinhabiting a categorical niche is enough toattractsuspicion.ThusMarxwarnedthattheUSA was accelerating down a road towardsthe‘maximumsecuritysociety.’

Suchwarningshavedonelittle,itseemstohelp, halt or slow this development. Indeed,the development of newer technologiescombinedwiththemedia-amplifiedexpansionofculturesoffearandtheirsupposedsolutions

hasincreasedrelianceonthekindsofmethodsthat Marx was concerned about. In the late90s Richard Ericson and Kevin Haggertywrote about ‘policing the risk society’ andshowed that the use of digital technologiesis transforming the ways in which orderis created and maintained in urban areas.Old barriers of time-and-space are erodedsuch that jurisdictions are hierarchies arechallenged, and ‘remote control’ becomesincreasinglyfeasible.

The communication systems in usecreate the territories and populationsthat are policed. “The use, the electronicinfrastructuresinpolicevehicles–computerterminals, mapping systems, video cameras,voice-radiosystems,stillcamerasansoon–totracetheirterritoriesandthosewhopopulatethem” (Ericson and Haggerty, 1997: 436).Police-worknowcontributestotheprocessesofurbandesignandofcreatingenvironmentsconducivetoconsuming(andthatdiscouragethepresenceofnon-consumers).

Inspection devices are also used to tracepeople into their spaces, using contactcards, registration of certain groups such assex-workers, special events, business andresidentialsecurityreviews,andsoon.Whatone sees in private security settings such asshoppingmallsismorewidelydiffusedinthecommunity. As Ericson and Haggerty say,“A focus on population categories, precisemovement through territories, pervasivesurveillancedevicesandaestheticallypleasingdesignmakescoercionembedded,cooperativeandsubtle,andthereforenotexperiencedascoercionatall”(EricsonandHaggerty:436).

Contingentcategorization,then,becomesameansofcontrolinthedigitalcity,anditisameansofcontrolinwhicholdlinesbecomeblurred – lines that once distinguishedpolice work from private security, or law

�7

enforcement from consumer management.GillesDeleuzeseesthisasashiftawayfromFoucault’s disciplinary society to what hecalled ‘societies of control’ (Deleuze, 1992)andRichardJonesrefinesthisto‘digitalrule’(2000). As it happens, such digital rule mayoccurwith fairlyunsophisticatedequipmentaswellaswithadvanceddataveillance.Videosurveillance or CCTV is a case in point. AsJones observes, CCTV may be used, notnecessarily so much for ‘hard’ surveillanceas for providing a ‘real-time resourcecoordinationandmanagementsystem’(Jones17).

AsNorrisandArmstrongpointoutintheirnow-classicstudyofTheMaximumSecuritySociety (1999)CCTVhasgrown immenselyin theUKand seems set tobecomeamoredigital system as facial recognition facilitiesand system integration are seen as thelogicalnext steps.The integrationofCCTVsystems includes both public and privatepolicing,asMcCahill(2003)hasshown,andextendstheprocessdiscussedbyEricsonandHaggertywherepoliceworkischaracterizedprimarily by ‘knowledge brokering’. Large-scale automated algorithmic surveillancewouldseem,asNorrisandArmstrongargue,tofollowfromthis,giventhealreadyexistingemphasis on intelligent scene monitoring,automatic license plate identification andfacial recognition. As they say, the couplingof databases with cameras and automatedrecognition systems means that ‘not is itpossibletocreatealogofthemovementsofindividuals as theymove throughspace,butit isalsopossible toautomateassessmentofallpeople’smoralworthinessastheyenteralocalebasedoninformationcontainedinthedatabase’(221).

It is no accident, however, that CCTVcamerasproliferate inurbanareas thathavebecome the focus of government initiatives

to‘regenerate’thecity.Theideaistocontrolthe streets of the city with a view to itseconomic revitalization. As Roy Colemanpoints out, this is a neo-liberal street-cleansing program that aims to remove thesigns of social inequality from public places(2004: 221). The urban space is re-made inthenameof ‘safety’(whichinturnsplaysonpublic fear) but simultaneously hides thestructureddegradationsofsome‘undesirable’areas.ForColeman,asthis‘…socialorderingstrategyunfoldstherighttodecidewhowalksthroughacity’sstreetswillalsoimpactuponthe right to protest and public campaign inthe city against, for example, shops dealingin sweatshop goods or those encouragingenvironmentaldestruction’(233).

E�erg�ng techn���g�e�� an� the a����e�b�ageThe main focus of what we have looked

at so far is algorithmic surveillance basedon personal data gleaned from consumeractivities and from official, public andcommercial records. Apart from alludingto some possibilities for facial recognition,in association with CCTV and relatedsearchable databases, no mention has beenmadeofotherkindsofdatathatoriginateinthebodyorfromsomemeansofmonitoringbody behaviors and activities in space andtime. However the contemporary city isalso an emerging site of such surveillancepotentials, using for example biometric,genomic,locationandtrackingtechnologies.Moreover,theincreasinglyfluidinterrelationbetweendatabasescontainingthesekindsoftracesmeansthatprofilesrelatingtoriskandother relating toopportunitymaybe linked.It makes sense to speak of a surveillance‘assemblage’intoday’scities.

Once again, it is important to note thatsocialandpoliticalfuturescannotbereadoffnewtechnologies.Butatthesametime,eachofthesetechnologiesisalreadyinwidespread

�8

use and already their impacts are felt insignificant ways within wider contexts ofsocio-technical development. Some of thesemade their public appearance as practical‘solutions’withinthepost-9/11‘waronterror’whereas others started life in retail or othercontexts. They may migrate from one tothe other as well. Biometric devices may beused to sort out suspects at airport securitybutalsotofilterfraudulentcustomersatthebankmachine;radiofrequencyidentification(RFID)tagsmaybeusedonitemsontheWal-MartshelforinUSpassportstoauthenticatetravelersasno-risk.

Thevariousanti-terrorismmeasuresthathavebeentakeninmanycountriesaroundtheworldsince9/11andthesubsequentattacksinBali,Madrid,LondonandAmmaninvolve,prominently, new surveillance technologies.Ormorecorrectly,theyinvolvetechnologiesthat may have been in development forsome considerable time and lacked only theopportunityorpretextfortheirdeployment.They include the obvious – from the pointofviewofthosetryingtoincreasethepublicperception of safety – devices and systemsinpublic transit systemsandatbordersandairports, plus many more subtle means ofidentifyingpersonswithmalign intenttodoviolence.Theseincludetheuseofdataminingtechniques to locate possible ‘terrorist cells’and of CRM-type measures, for example toreducethecreditlimitforsomeMuslimNewYorkers.Theyhavealsomadeseveralspecifictechniquesmorepubliclyknown.

Biometric technologies regard the bodyas information. The best-known is probablyfingerprinting, originally used on criminaloffenders and suspects but today extendedto migrants, welfare recipients and refugeesand stored in electronic databases (Cole,2001).Anyphysiologicalorbehavioral traitsthat seemstablemaybeused inbiometrics,

and they contribute to surveillance ascategorization. Patterns of live individuals–fromtheface,iris,hand,finger,signatureorvoice--maybecheckedinrealtimeagainstdatabaserecordsforallkindsofmanagementand security purposes in workplaces, travelsitessuchasairportsorconsumersitessuchasbankmachines.Theirsuccessdependsonthequalityoftheoriginaldatum,theadequacyofthedatabaseandofcoursethelevelatwhichthesystemisused(seee.g.ZureikandHindle2004).

Genetic technologies, or those relatingto the Human Genome Project, rely ondata actually taken from the human body–blood,body fluids,hairorhuman tissues.Although ‘DNA evidence’ has been in(often controversial) forensic use for sometime, genetic methods of surveillance arebecomingincreasinglypopularinhealthcare,employment and in insurance calculations.If employers or insurance companiescould have advance indications of possiblehealth complications in some individual’sfuture, these could be prejudicial for thatindividual. Although the film, GATTACA,providesapurely fictionalaccountofhowa‘genetic underclass’ may develop, such fearsare expressed by many analysts of geneticsurveillance (see e.g. Nelkin and Andrews,2003). Those carrying genetic markers for adisease that they may never develop, couldbeunfairlydiscriminatedagainstby insurerswho assume that all such markers are likelysignsofthatdiseasedeveloping.

Locationtechnologiesareofvariouskinds,but theyall refer to the trackingof items inspace and time. Best-known examples areGlobal Positioning Satellite (GPS) enabledcell-phones that permit the holder to betrackedass/hetravels. Inthiscase, thedatarefer to locations which, given the earlierdiscussion, are of great interest in many

��

contexts including law enforcement andmarketing.Employerscancheckwheretheirdriversareontheroad,policemaybeabletolocatesuspectoffenders,corporationsmaybeable to pinpoint the position of consumers,such that they can be targeted for place-specific advertising and, in non-systemicways,parentsmaykeeptrackofwheretheirteenagersareintheborrowedfamilycar.Thisis a relatively new development; consequentintheUSAonthedevelopmentofenhancedemergency services calls but seems to begrowingrapidlyinsomesectors(seeLyonetal,2005).

Lastly,trackingtechnologies,usingRFID,are a major component both of the newsecurity arrangements in American airportsandbordercrossingsandoflarge-scaleretailconcernsattemptingtofollowtheprogressofgoodsintransitorpassingfromwarehousestocustomeroutlets.Thesesmalldevicesrelyon small tags thatmaybe readwirelessly asthe tag passes the sensor. Once again, theyare a further means of classification andcategorization whose data have to do withspatiallocation.Unlikelocationtechnologies,however, they have to be triggered by asensor; theyarenot simplyonandavailableatalltimes.

The above discussion makes it clear notonlythatsurveillancecarriedoutindifferentsectors may be cross-referenced in somesignificantways,butalsothatdifferentkindsofsurveillancedatamayalsobeconcatenated.With regard to the firstdevelopment,KevinHaggerty and Richard Ericson suggest thatthe concept of the ‘assemblage’ (derivedfrom Deleuze) may be utilized to aid ourunderstanding of the rapid growth andintegrationofsurveillancesystems.

The surveillant assemblage is not a fixedor determinate object. Rather, it is multiple,

emergentandunstable.Itisaformthatrelatesto state power but is not a conventionalapparatus of administration or control.The assemblage captures and limits flowsof phenomena and may do so in ways thatfix them at least temporarily in relations ofasymmetricalpower.Ifthosewhomitaffectsobject to its manner of operation, suggestHaggerty and Ericson, it is futile merely toprohibitatechnologyorlimittheworkofaninstitution.

The surveillant assemblage exists tocaptureflowsemanatingfrombodies,bodiesthathavebeen fragmented intobitsofdata.Takentogethertheseformconstantlyshiftingversionsofthe‘datadouble’thatbothreferstoindividualsbutsimultaneouslyisonlyakindofpragmatics–usefulornot to institutionswishing to distinguish between individualsand populations. It is information. It canbe recombined, in principle endlessly, forotherpurposes,and thismaybeseen in thecommercial use of government information,police use of consumer information, andmarketing use of emergency servicesinformation. Moreover it grows not as ahierarchical structure but as a rhizome, aspreadingplant-likeorganismthatsendsoutshoots indifferentdirections,eachofwhichmaytakerootinitsownright.

The outcome is that it becomesprogressively more difficult to disappear.Anonymity seems impossible, and the gazeseems ubiquitous. However, this should notbe taken as a counsel of despair, any morethanthereminderthattheassemblagegrows‘likeaweed’andcannotbecounteredmerelyby some legal measure, technical device orpolicy rule.Those so-calleddata-subjects towhomthedatadoublealludes,albeitfleetingly,arenotincapableofnotingthepresenceandeffects of the assemblage and of negotiatingandresistingtheir interactionswith itat the

�0

pointswheretheyencounterit.Thefactthatwecannotdisappear‘undertheradar’oftheassemblage does not mean that counter-measuresarepointless.Itmeansratherthantheensuingstruggleiscomplex.

Cha��enge�� t� �e��cracy an� t� part�c�pat��nThe outcomes carry both deep dangers

for democracy and potential for democraticinvolvement, ethical critique and alternativepractices.

Thisisnottheresultofthe9/11aftermath,althoughthe ‘waronterror’hascontributedtremendously to the further digitizingand globalizing of surveillance. Nor canit be understood as a simple extension of,for example, class or bureaucratic power,even though these are still significant.Questions of risk and trust, of security andopportunity are central. Today’s surveillanceis a peculiarly ambiguous process in whichdigital technologies and personal data arefundamentally implicated and meet in thesoftwarecodingnexus.

Firstly, existing regulation and legislationdoesnotsignificantlyreduceormitigate theamountofpotentiallydamagingsocialsortingthatoccurs.WhiletheFIPsthatliebehinddataprotectionandprivacylawincludeimportantitemsthat,ifcompliedwithatalllevels,couldreduce social exclusion,unfair targetingandnegative discrimination, on their own theydo not go very far. The kinds of issues thatareraisedbyurbandataprofiling,CRMandsecurityoperationsgofarbeyondthenarrowconfinesof‘privacy’and‘dataprotection’thatwere once raised in the context of debatesoverthe‘informationsociety.’

Secondly, the so-called ‘personalinformation economy’ has grown upsymbiotically with the global deregulatoryregimes of the late twentieth and earlytwenty-firstcenturiesinwhichmarketswere

openedupandriskwastransferredawayfromtaxpayerstoconsumersandworkers(6,2005:36). The aim of liberalization is to reducerisk pools and eventually to individualizerisk,transferringittoconsumers.Thisraisesquestions of distribution, and ultimately,of human dignity as opposed to the merelytechnical kinds of approaches that tend toprevail at present. The issues mentionedhereincludeunfairexclusion(e.g.frombankservices),unfairtargeting(e.g.ofcreditrisks)and unfair discrimination (e.g. by postcodeorothergeo-demographiccategory,seeHall2005).Although‘consumerpower’isgrowing(ZureikandMoshowitz,2005)it isnotclearthat this aspect of consumer politics hasbecomeverysignificantyet.

Thirdly,otherlevelsofethicalcritiqueandpolitical involvement are required, in orderto combat at least the most negative effectsof these trends; above all, pressure on theaccountability of organizations that processpersonaldata.Butthisalsospellsawillingnesstoengagetheissuesinconjunctionwiththosewho construct and understand code. Theconfluence of geographical and social spaceenabled and driven by software sorting alsocontributestothecollapseofolder(Weberian)distinctions between class and status. Thefact that people share similar consumptionpatternsdoesnotmean that theywillmeet,letaloneorganize,eveniftheydoinhabitthesamegeographicalarea.Thosewiththepowerto ascribe identities and access use largelyinvisible means to do so which suggests afurtherroleofsociologistsinilluminatingandcritiquingtheseprocessesthatconnectcodeandclass(BurrowsandGane,2006).

Lastly, these comments hint at theemergenceofanewurbanpolitics,one thatis attuned to the ways that the surveillantassemblage is using electronic systems toshape daily life in cities, by mapping the

�1

configurationsofpersonaldataoverthesocialgeographiesofthepresent.Ifthenewurbanpolitics is to be equal to the emerging task,it will have to be concerned not only aboutplaces of poverty and deprivation and howtheyrelatetoplacesofaffluenceandrule,buthowthoserelationsarethemselvesshapedbysurveillance. New kinds of social classes arebeing created by the codes that classify andcategorize populations and the subtle waysthat they are created will have to be madevisiblebeforesuchapoliticswillstarttomakeadifference.

Reference��6, Perri 2005. ‘The Personal Information

Economy’inLace(ed.).6, Perri and Jupp, B. 2001. Divided by

Information? London:Demos.Amin,AandThrift,Nigel2002.Cities: Re-

imagining the Urban, Oxford:PolityPress.Burrows, Roger and Gane, Nick 2006.

‘Geodemographics, software and class’,Sociology,vol.40no.5p.793-812.

Castells, Manuel 2001. The Internet Galaxy, Oxford and New York: OxfordUniversityPress.

Castells, Manuel 1996. The Rise of the Network Society, Oxford and New York:Blackwell.

Cohen, Stanley 1985. Visions of Social Control,Cambridge:PolityPress.

Coleman,Roy2004.Reclaiming the Streets: Surveillance, Social Control and the City,CullomptionUK:Willan.

Cole, Simon 2001. Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification, Cambridge MA: HarvardUniversityPress.

Deleuze, Gilles 1992. Postscript on the societies of control,October.

Ericson, Richard and Haggerty, Kevin1997. Policing the Risk Society, Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

Graham, Stephen 2004. ‘The software-

sorted city: rethinking the digital divide’ inStephenGraham(ed.)The Cybercities Reader,NewYork:Routledge.

Haggerty, Kevin and Ericson, Richard2000. ‘The surveillant assemblage’ in theBritish Journal of Sociology,51(4)p.605-622.

Hall,Harriet,2005.‘Datauseincreditandinsurance: controlling unfair outcomes’ inLace(ed.).

Jones, Richard 2000. ‘Digital rule:punishment, control and technology’Punishment and Society,2(1)p.5-22.

Lace, Susanne (ed.) 2005. The Glass Consumer: Life in a Surveillance Society,Bristol: Policy Press/ National ConsumerCouncil.

Lessig, Lawrence 1999. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace,NewYork:BasisBooks.

Lyon, David, Marmura, Stephen andPeroff,Pasha,2005.LocationTechnologies.

Lyon, David 2003 (ed.). Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Digital Discrimination, London and New York:Routledge.

Madon, Shirin 1998. ‘Informationbased global economy and socio-economicdevelopment: the case of Bangalore,’ in The Information Society,13(3)p.227-43.

Marx, Gary T. 1988. Undercover: Police Surveillance in America,Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Nelkin,DorothyandAndrews,Lori2003.inLyon,David(ed.)

Norris, Clive and Armstrong, Gary. The Maximum Surveillance Society: The Rise of CCTV,OxfordandNewYork:Berg.

Rose, Nikolas 1999. Powers of Freedom,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Sassen, Saskia 2001. The Global City,Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Tsung Leong 2001. ‘Ulterior spaces’ inC. Chung et al eds., Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping,Cologne:Taschen.

Winseck, Dwayne 2003. ‘Netscapes ofpower: convergence, network design, walled

��

gardens and other strategies of control inthe information age’ in David Lyon (ed.)Surveillance as Social Sorting, London andNewYork:Routledge.

Zureik,EliaandMowshowitzAbbe2005.‘Consumer power in the digital society’Communications of the ACM,48(10),p.47-51.

Zureik, Elia and Hindle, Karen 2004.‘Goverance,securityandtechnology:thecaseofbiometrics’Studies in Political Economy,73(Spring/Summer),p.113-137.

David Lyon

David Lyon is Queen’s Research Chair, Professor of Sociology and Director of the Surveillance Project at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. See www.queensu.ca/sociology/Surveillance/His most recent books are Surveillance after September 11 (sole-authored; Polity Press, 2003) and Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond (edited; Willan Publishing, 2006). Surveillance Studies: An Overview will appear from Polity Press in 2007.

��

To create a common element abovethethreedimensionsofurbanlife(work,housing,publicandgatheringspaces),theterms ‘traffic’ and ‘communication’ imposedthemselvesintheurbanisticgeneralitiesaboutmovement.Withtheexplosionofelectronics,realizing the science-fiction of yesterday, weare now in scenarios of the virtual city, theonlinecity,thecityofbits,thecybertownandothermetaphorsofdisembodiment.But thereal function of cities is still to organize theproper cohabitation of centers, non-centersand outlying areas, like an accumulation oftopographic powers (factories and offices,flatsandhouses,stadiums,theatres,squares,streetsandpublicbuildings).

Un�tary �rban����In the second half of the 20th century,

a significant number of utopian architects

wanted to find fundamentally new modelsfortheorganizationofurbanspace.Manyofthemexperimentedinsearchofanalternativeto the failures of centralized rationalism inold Europe, and to the disgusting fascistholism of control. This broad movementwas partly a reaction to post-World Warreconstruction models that appearedunsatisfactory2.TheSituationistInternationalavant-garde movement, created in 1957 byartists including Guy Debord, Asger Jorn,Constantandothers,proposedtostudycitieswithnewtechniques:Psycho-geographyandUnitaryUrbanism.Psycho-geography is “thestudy of the precise effects of geographical

setting, consciously managed or not, actingdirectly on the mood and behavior of theindividual”. Unitary Urbanism is “the theoryof the combined use of arts and techniquesas means contributing to the constructionof a unified milieu in dynamic relation withexperimentsinbehavior”3.

“The sudden change of ambiance in a street within the space of a few meters; the evident division of a city into zones of distinct psychic atmospheres; the path of least resistance which is automatically followed in aimless strolls (and which has no relation to the physical contour of the ground); the appealing or repelling character of certain places — these phenomena all seem to be neglected… People are quite aware that some neighborhoods are gloomy and others pleasant. But they generally simply assume that elegant streets cause a feeling of satisfaction and that poor streets are depressing, and let it go at that.”- Guy Debord, Introduction to a Critique of Urban

Geography4

Inthedecadeofthe60sthatfollowed,theutopianandpoliticaldimensionsofurbanismwerealsoextensivelyanalyzed,notonlybytheSituationists,butalsobyMarxistresearcherssuch as Henri Lefebvre or later by ManuelCastells5. As the development of the ‘newtowns’ continued in America and Europe,withhistoricaleventssuchastheWattsriotsin the USA, urbanism was interpreted bythem as an ideology that ‘organizes silence’

Disembedding from Psycho-urban ContainmentEwen Chardronnet

In modern cities, increasingly fragmented into ‘export zones’, special ‘safety zones’, ‘no-go areas’, it becomes almost impossible to structure an oppositional assault.

��

in the emerging Information City. Thisanalysis drove the Situationist Internationalto abandon utopian architecture in order toconcentrateonsemioticsandthedistributionofinformationinwhattheycalledtheSocietyoftheSpectacle6.

Nevertheless, psycho-geography hasbeenco-optedalongwithadvocacyplanningand participation by think-tanks on spacemanagement. Today’s companies can easilyquoteGuyDebordifitjustifiestheirbusinessorientations.Spatialmanagement is insertedintemporalityandinapermanentprocessofsemantization.Whatwasdescribedas‘intenselife’bytheleftistromanticismofthe50sand60sisnowintegratedinlifestylemanagement.Thedreamforthecyber-citizensistoescapetheir physical location and its embeddedsituations. Mobile phone companies alreadyfinance‘locative’artiststodevelopprototypesthatwillinvadetheFlexiblePersonalitymarketvery soon7. ‘Disembedding’, decentralizing,are the romantic escapology dreams oftoday’s individualisturban life;an illusionoffreedom that goes hand in hand with socialcontainmentinthephysicalcity.

Z�n�ng, ���ft�are, �t�p�a, an� �n����tr�a� pr�pertyThe way towns and cities are set up

now - wide streets, strip malls, cul-de-sacs,segregated functions (industry over here,offices there, housing at a safe distance)- is dictated by rules and regulations. Thesprawlingsuburbisanexpressionofthefreemarket combined with the consequences ofarrangementsarrivedatby localpoliticiansand real-estate agents scheming together.Zoninglawsandregulationsareoftendeeplyflawed, having been created haphazardly,largely to suit developers and politicians,and they too often lead to dull, dead livingconditions. A set of laws and regulationsfor the commons would surely result inneighborhoodsthatsuitpeoplebetter.

Governments and local administrationshavealwaysbeenamongthemajor‘consumers’ofarchitecturalcommissions.Inthisareathemodern state, either as charitable patron ordirectoverseerofthejob,doesnomorethancontinue a centuries-old tradition of publicworks. Since the 60s and 70s, organizationsoperatingunderpubliclawhavebecomeavidclientsof intellectual servicescommissionedfromoutsidesuppliers,whethertheseservicesinvolve studies, contractualized research orcomputerprogramdevelopment.

Thuswehaveseenagrowingcomplexityin the production-lines of authoring andservice provision, with a generalization ofoutsourcing,anincreasinglylargepercentageof‘imported’elementsineverygivenproduct(mostcommonlythroughthe‘cut-and-paste’functionofcomputersoftwaretools),andthespreadofmulti-authorandmulti-professionalproduction modes which formerly werelimitedtotheaudiovisualfield8.Thequestionof software patents thus becomes equallycrucial in the realm of public construction.While in certain countries computerprogramsaretreatedas‘artworks’underthedefinitionofArtisticandLiteraryIntellectualProperty(ALIP),thereisastrongpressuretosimplyconsider themas IndustrialProperty.That would entail demonstrating a possibleindustrial applicationoranactualuse.Thusadefactorelationemergesbetweenutopianartist-architects(whosecreationscanremainunderALIP,whereasconstructedarchitectureoften falls under Industrial Property) andutopianartist-programmers-andifthelatterlose the artistic and literary possibility, theywill also lose the chance to develop opensystems9.

C�t�e�� �f fearElectronics wields increasing influence

over today’s urbanism. Everything is liableto create more profit in the cities of world

��

commerce, as soon as the exchange speedhasbeenincreased.WhatiscalledElectronicUrbanism is only the surge of acceleration,the spreading foam of nodes and pipes inthe telematic networks between connectedpeople. But for State planners, the mostimportantthingremainstheabilitytomonitorcirculationandstop it in thephysical space.Zoningthephysicallandscapehasbecomeatoolforgovernancetokeepcontrolofcounter-powers and their potential disobedience.In modern cities, increasingly fragmentedinto ‘exportzones’, special ‘safetyzones’, ‘no-go areas’, it becomes almost impossible tostructure an oppositional assault. Zoningcan be contested but is usually approved bythe citizens, in the name of their sovereignindividualsecurity.

Controloverthephysicallandscapestrivestobeverystrong,butcanstillbequiteweakin its effects on the circulation patterns ofeveryday life. Only totalitarian governancecouldimaginefullcontroloverthemovementsof individuals.Ontheglobal level,weaknessalsoappearsatthetensegritynodes,underthestrainofgeo-economicconflicts.Toillustratethis,wejustneedtothinkoftoday’sdramaofglobalterrorism.

P��ych�-h���t�ryIf theSituationistutopiasomehowfailed,

thepsycho-historyoflocationsisstillatoolkitfor social movements. Some places havea strong history. In Paris, demonstrationscan easily shift to confrontation with thepolice when they pass by the Latin Quarter,Bastille and Charonne, as opposed toInvalides or Montparnasse. Past eventspsychologicallyinfluenceacrowd,whichcanbecome uncontrollable. This is integratedin the tactics of unions when they organizedemonstrations. Go here when you want toheatuptheconflict,ortherewhenyouwanttocooldownandnegotiate.

Another strong and long familiar modelfor bringing people together is the re-appropriationofarchitecture;notdevelopingutopianmodels,butreclaimingoldbuildingsor constructions, because of democraticnecessity. This has been well known sincethe improvised gathering of the republicansin the royal building of the ‘Jeu de Paume’handball court, just a few days before theFrenchRevolution. Inour times, squats andtemporary occupations are still an effectivetactic for people to gather when they haveno other possibilities: airports runways forteknivals, medieval fortresses in strategicareas10, occupation of universities or trainstationsduringsocialmovements11,obsoletespying stations or military infrastructuresof former empires12, et cetera; anything thatpermitsagrouptogatherandtalk.

But somehow, this was much strongerin the mid-90s, before the rise of theWorld Wide Web and mobile phones. Inten years, the entire city has been invadedby information technologies: surveillancecameras, biometrics, wireless networks,mobilephones,automaticdoors,identificationcardsornumbersfortransportsandbuildings,et cetera. If it was still possible for socialmovementstooccupytrainstationstenyearsago,itwouldbedifficultnow,becauseofmassterrorism.Itwasalsotheperiodoftheillegalraves,soundsystemswereinvadingbuildingsall over European cities; it is now forbiddenor controlled. The paradox is that peoplehavemoretoolstocommunicatebutliveinamorecontrolledphysicalspace.Isitpossiblethat the Information decade simultaneouslygenerated a Mass Terrorism decade? 9/11’sunprecedentedscalegivessizetotheenemy,butUnitedNationsstatisticsshow–althoughthere is no valid definition of terror – thatterrorist acts worldwide have been on thedecline and not on the rise for a decade,despite all the media and political shuffling

�6

(theIrishRepublicanArmylaunchedrocketsatnumber10DowningStreetinthe80s).Thepointisprobablythattheeconomyoffearisontherise:mediatedangst,mediaterrorism.

Reference��1 With creators like Buckminster Fuller,

Archigram, Yona Friedman, Paolo Soleri orConstant.

2 Tolearnmoreaboutthis,readSphären IIIbyPeterSloterdijk.

3 Définitions,Internationale Situationniste 1,1958.

4 GuyDebord,Introduction to a Critique of Urban Geography,LesLèvresNues,1956.

5 From Henri Lefebvre in that period,readforinstanceThe Production of SpaceandfromManuelCastells,The Urban Question.

6 The Society of Spectacle, Guy-ErnestDebord,1967.

Ewen Chardronnet

Ewen Chardronnet is the author of an anthology about the Association of Autonomous Astronauts, Quitter la gravité (Editions de L’Eclat, november 2001). He is also collaborator of Projekt Atol and Makrolab (SI) and coordinator for the art organization Ellipse (Fr), which aims to promote music and art collaborations in Europe. Ewen Chardronnet is operator in the Electronic Media Monitoring.

7 The Flexible Personality,BrianHolmes,inHieroglyphsoftheFuture,2002.

8 Marchés Publics et droits de la Propriété Intellectuelle, Groupement Français del’Industriedel’Information,2003.

9 On today’s convergence betweenutopianarchitectsandutopianprogrammers,see the Makrolab project: http://makrolab.ljudmila.org

10A good example is the Fadaiat eventintheCastleofGuzmanElBuenoinTarifa,thesoutherntownofSpain,withanaffirmedobjective to develop a counter-surveillanceobservatoryof theGibraltarStraitsbetweenAfrica and Fortress Europa (http://www.fadaiat.net).

11AsinParis in December,1995.12Good examples are in Latvia with the

ex-tsarist and ex-Soviet facilities of Karosta,ortheformerColdWarspydish‘LittleStar’.

�7

Ever since the end of the Cold War, culture has made a dramatic return to the international stage. The predictions are that its presence will be even more widely felt in the new millennium [.] displacing military coercion as a political tool. - ‘Culture, Identity and Security’, Project On World

Security, Rockefeller Fund, Amir Pasic, 1998

A new security culture is emerging inkeysectorsofsociety.Securityhasbecomeacentraleconomic,societalandpoliticalissueand reaches deep into the sphere of art andculture. While culture increasingly receivesthe spotlight in International Relationsstudies and military strategy documents theOECD calls for a ‘Culture of Security’ andencourages the development of a mindsetto respond to the threats andvulnerabilitiesof Information Systems, Raoul Vaneigem inThe Revolution of Everyday Life pointed tothe importance of an assurance of securityfor the project of cultural self-realization byproviding energy formerly expended in thestruggle for survival.Although thisneed forsafety can get in conflict with the need forfreedomofartandexpression, this freedomis itself based on security for the arts. Asthe traditional discourse on the freedom ofart has slowly faded to the background; ithasgivenplacetothinkingabouttheroleofart in a security culture. It therefore seemsappropriatetolookattherelationofartandsecurityandtheroleandservicethatartcanoffertosecurityissues.

In a changing world of insecurity andthreats, which is based on politics ofmediated reality control, artists are forcedtoadapt theirrole insociety.Thepoliticsofcreative industries have been criticized forendangeringdemocratic struggleagainst the‘reductionofinequalitiesandofvariousformsofsubordination’,asaresultofprivatizingthepublicsphere.Byshifting‘democratizationintherealmofaestheticsandtaste’,theideologyof a commercially driven culture of creativeindustries is opposed to an understandingof culture as central to social justice andself-governance,but a securitydrivenglobalcultural environment raises new questionsregarding dissent, resistance and autonomy.Security seems to know no ideologicalboundaries;fromthemanualsoftheBrazilianUrban Guerrilla to those of the School ofAmericas, never the slightest sign of laxityinthemaintenanceofsecuritymeasuresandregulationswaspermitted.InSecurityCulturetheconceptofcreativeindustries,tobringthefineartsinfromthecoldintotheproductiveforces of industry and thus bring securitytotheartistsandculturetothemachinesofcapitalisadvancedintotheunderstandingoftheartsbecomingasecurityforcebyitself.

The word ‘secure’ started to find itsmodern use in the 14th century, when the

The New Security CultureKonrad Becker

Secure hegemony and information dominance needs to embrace culture, art and ideology to subdue criticism and resistance, extending mastery to the symbolic level, what Max Weber calls ‘charismatic domination’.

�8

securingofroads,inparticularformerchantsand pilgrims, became a major concern.The Emperor, and more importantly, therespective princes declared the protectionof the highways and signed treaties to thiseffect.1375theDukesofAustriaandBavariaagreed,“thattheywillprotectandsecuretheroads everywhere”. While classic ideologicalassumptions hold that liberal freedoms inculture are by necessity bought with bloodand that liberal values can only be upholdthrough lethal force, Paul Virilio claims thatwhat drives our technocratic societies isnot capital but militarism and the securitycomplex itself. The culture that developsout of this dromological movement andpermanentstateofcrisisisfixatedonsecurityand speed, on who can protect themselvesbestandfastest.Thankstothis,technologicalproduction attains a new dimension, andcapitalcanbeinvestedinweapons,toolsandeven more security. The age of computingbrought about the control revolution but asevery cryptographer knows, security is anillusion.

Security has complex dimensions ininformational societies and is stronglybased in subjective experiences. Personalfeelings of fear and safety are grounded inmultiple unconscious causes and compositeexperiences.The‘fearofdeath’combinestheabstract, empirical fact of biological death,subjective emotional fear of ceasing-to-beand ontological anxiety itself. This sense of‘ontological insecurity’ is intensified by anincreasing awareness of ‘risk’ in society atlarge.UlrichBeckdividesmoderncivilizationintothreeepochsofpre-industrial,industrial,and ‘global risk society’ suggesting thatindividuals have all become increasinglyawareofthedangersthatfacetheminboththesocialandthenaturalenvironmentsandfeelpowerlesstominimizethem.Butinacultureof fear,publicperceptionsaboutriskcannot

onlybeunderstoodasreactionstoaparticularincidentortechnologyandanxietiesarenotnecessarily correlated with the scale andintensityofaspecificrealdanger.Thesocialchanges of this ‘politics of uncertainty’ havereached every sphere of our lives and everycontextof social interactionandhave led towhat Lasch called the ‘survivalist mentality’.Although society at large is affected by thepervasive effects of ontological insecurity -survivalism,millenniumangstorwhateveritiscalled-thecrisisremainstoalargeextentonly indirectly visible at the societal level.Inaculturalnarrativeofaworldoffearandimpending catastrophe, survival is the bestpossible outcome for the individual andexperimentsoraspirationsforchangeappeardangerous.Whiletheadvocacyofsafetyandthe rejection of risk-taking are now seen aspositive values across the entire politicalspectrum, avoiding injury and encouragingpassivity becomes an objective in itself anddissentasecurityconcern.Butriskavoidancehas not only become an important themein political debate and the issue of safetythoroughly politicized, risk has becomebig business from ‘risk analysis’ to ‘riskmanagement’and‘riskcommunications’.

In the ‘The Culture of Control’ DavidGarland describes the shifting policies ofcrime, punishment and security in a rapidlychanging world. He predicts that this newcontrolcultureguaranteestoprovidean‘ironcage’ for all, a dark age of fear that servesthe informational data lords controllingthe security zones. In the USA, besides the‘virtualprison’orprisonswithoutwallsmadepossible by the Global Positioning System(GPS), there are already more than twomillionpeople inprisonandtwoexecutionsevery week, Europe’s prison population isgrowingfasterthanever,asarethenumbersofsurveillancecamerasoncitystreets.Publicpolice are increasingly replaced by, private

��

security corporations, public prisons byprivate corrections management facilitiesand state armies by mercenary forces. Thisprivatization has a direct effect on conceptsand practices of security and creates newforms of war and peace both within andbetweenstates.

Surveillance to control persons and theirbehaviorisaprimemethodtogainsecurity.Inwesternliberalsocietiesthathaveundergoneprocessesofsteadyprivatizationsurveillanceis primarily viewed in terms of privacy oran intrusion on intimacy and anonymity,which fails to identify the key aspects ofcontemporary surveillance ‘social sorting’and exclusion. “The increasingly automateddiscriminatorymechanismsforriskprofilingand social categorizing represent a keymeansofreproducingandreinforcingsocial,economic, and cultural divisions”, writesDavid Lyon in Terrorism and Surveillance.Foucault described surveillance as a socialtechnology of power in Discipline andPunish and his thesis that western societiescan be characterized, as ‘disciplinarian’, asa strategy for normalizing the individual ormanaging social collectivities, has becomea widely accepted formula of domination inthese societies. Although the Orwellian orFoucaultian perspectives provide a largelycentralized understanding of surveillance,given the technological capacities fordecentralization Gilles Deleuze and FelixGuattari in Thousand Plateaus suggest thatthegrowthofsurveillancesystemsisalooseand flowing rhizomatic set of processesrather than a centrally controlled andcoordinatedsystem.Butthemorenetworkedmodes of social organization with theirflexibility and departmental openness, thesurveillanceassemblage,canstillbeco-optedfor conventional purposes although as GuyDebord mentions in his Treatise on Secrets“The controlling center has become occult:

never to be occupied by a known leader, orclearideology”.

Secure hegemony and informationdominanceneedstoembraceculture,artandideology to subdue criticism and resistance,extendingmasterytothesymboliclevel,whatMax Weber calls ‘charismatic domination’.Even when coercion or force remainsnecessary, culture can intensely supportsecurityoperations.Likegamerules,culturealso defines value and constitutes interestsby delineating what is worth pursuing andwhatmustbeavoided.Therulesofagamedonotsimplytellaplayerwhatkindsofmovescanandcannotbemade,theyindicatewhatthe game is about; they reveal its purposeandobjectives,andhowaplayerisexpectedto behave. Culture not only keeps actorsin line, and through this eases the work ofthe sanctioning agent, but it can legitimizesecurity enforcement, thereby reducingresistance to it.As “the info-sphere imposesitselfonthegeo-sphere”andpropelledbythedynamicsofinternationalsecuritythreatswehave entered a new era which mirrors thehegemonic instrumentalization of culture inthebipolar‘CulturalColdWar’onthelevelofglobalEmpire.“Weareattemptingtoinfluenceaglobalmixofemotionsandculturestojoininthecreationofanewworldorder”.

In analogy to the military InformationPeacekeeping and psychological stabilityoperations in so called Other Operationsthan War, artists can increasingly play arole in Cultural Peacekeeping reinforcingvalues and counter general disorientationofthepopulation.Thetacticalandstrategicuse of cultural symbol manipulation bytrained artists can be most successfullyapplied to cultural security management.The artistic intervention at the interfaceof fear and longing, the personal desiresamong which physical and psychological

�0

security rank highest, can be extremelyeffective. Along with the culturalization ofsecurity we are facing what Franco BerardiBifo calls the “militarization of the generalintellect” a militarization of the intellectualcapacity created by the development ofcollective intelligence,andsupportedbythetechnicalitiesICT.

Anincreasingconvergenceofsecurityandcultureandtheriseoftheso-calledMilitaryEntertainment Complex or MIME-Net(Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment-Network)havebeendescribedbyJamesDerDerian and Bruce Sterling amongst others.VirtualWarhasgonetoHollywoodwheretheboundariesbetweencomputersimulationsformilitary purposes and computer games andentertainment graphics have long dissolvedintomutualcooperation.WhatJohnNaisbittdubbedtheMilitary-NintendoComplexrefersto an increasingly intense collaboration ofhigh-tech,media,militaryandtheintelligencesectorsinvolvingpersonnelandtechnologiesfromboththesecurityandtheentertainmentindustry in cooperative ventures. Thisdevelopment creates a fusion of the digitalsimulationandthefactual,ofthevirtualandtherealandwithitthedisappearanceofthebordersbetweenfantasyandreality.

In the widely discussed Chinese strategypaper on the 21st century Global SecurityEnvironment by Qiao Liang and WangXiangsui the boundaries lying between thetwo worlds of military and non-militarywill be totally destroyed. This matches USconcepts of Total War without a definedstage or theater of battle. The war of thefuture is described as non-war actions on abattlefield that will be everywhere. Usingthe term ‘Omnidirectionality’ as the startingpoint of an ‘Unrestricted Warfare’ culturebased on information technology andunconventional warfare in low-intensity

conflicts. “Thedirectionofwarfare isanartsimilar to a physician seeing a patient” (FuLe) and an artistic tradition of security maywellbeprovenbySunTzu’s famous treatiseonWarasanArt(500BC).GuyDebord, in‘Methods of Detournement’, strictly deniesthejustificationofanytraditionalpracticeofartandpositionstheartistinsocietalconflictthathedefinesascivilwar:“whereallknownmeansofexpressionaregoingtoconvergeinageneralmovementofpropagandawhichmustencompass all the perpetually interactingaspectsofsocialreality”.

This principle of omnidirectionalityextends to the conquest of outer space. By1968spacehasbeendeclared ‘Today’sFrontLineofDefense’andtheextensionofmilitarysystems beyond the lower atmosphere as‘natural and evolutionary’. Three decadeslater ‘Space is a real priority for nationalsecurity’andthegroundforexoticweaponrylike directed-energy weapons, such as spacelasers, is prepared. At the same time as, forthe first time inhistory, thearenaofhumanconflictsisextendedfromtheplanetssurfaceinto outer space the colonization of innerspace, the internalized pacification and thepolicingofthecognitiveactisaccelerated.Theprogramsforcolonizationandmilitarizationof outer space in the sixties have gainedmomentum at the same time as the searchfor counter-intelligence truth serums led toexoticpsychologicalexperimentswiththesideeffect of a massive diffusion of psychoactivesubstancesintheUS.Advancedtechnologiesof the Star Wars program and space-basedweaponsystemsarealsoappliedtothemostinternal security issues of the imaginationand desire. “Communication and controlbelong to the essence of man’s inner life,evenastheybelongtohislifeinsociety”,saidNorbert Wiener and what used to be calledthe ‘colonization of the mind’ is now moreaptlydescribedastheencodingofthemind.

�1

Thuscreatingtheclassofcodewarriorsinthepsychologicalwarzoneof ‘bunkering inanddumbingdown’.

With theendof thebipolarworldof theColdWarnucleardeterrence,wherethefearoftotalannihilationkeptthe‘peace’,itseemsnow that terrorism, a rhizomatic omni-directionalnetworkoffear,isthepivotpointofglobalsecurity.Thisubiquitouslowintensityconflictswithdecentralizedstructuresofflathierarchies corresponds to the postmoderntheoriesofgeopoliticalconflictmanagementand security policies. But statistics ofterrorism are fundamentally meaningless,because to say thatnodefinitionhasgaineduniversal acceptance is an understatement.Theexpression‘Oneman’sterroristisanotherman’sfreedomfighter’indicatesthatthetermis usually applied on the basis of whetheroneagreeswiththegoaloftheviolence,andterrorism is the violence committed by thedisapproved other. The first use of the term‘terrorism’ in 1795, related to the Reign ofTerror instituted by the French governmentwhile any use in anti-government activity isnot recorded until 1866 (Ireland) and 1883(Russia).Butsincethenithasbeennotonlyaninstrumentofthearmiesandthesecretpoliceofgovernmentsbutofpolitical,nationalisticorethnicgroupswithmostdiverseobjectives.Incontrast to theattackonmilitary targets,state- or guerrilla terrorism actions aredirectedatciviliantargets.Terrorism’sintentis to change behavior by inducing fear insomeoneotherthanitsvictims.TheUSDODdefinitionofterrorismis“thecalculateduseofviolenceorthethreatofviolencetoinculcatefear; intended to coerce or to intimidategovernments or societies in the pursuit ofgoalsthataregenerallypolitical,religious,orideological”. These indirect attacks create apublicatmosphereofanxietyandtheneedforpublicityintheeconomyofattentionusuallydrives target selection. Terrorist violence

is neither spontaneous nor random butintendedtoproducefear,apsychologicalactconductedforitsimpactonanaudience.Thusdespite its violent character terrorism canbe understood as a psychological disciplineandtheconceptofterrorcanbeextendedtomanipulationbasedonfearwithoutphysicaldamageorviolenceagainstpersons.

Althoughtheterm ‘PropagandabyDeed’coined by Serge Nechayev originally refersto the acts of violence used against therepresentatives of political and economicrepressioninthelate19thcentury,sincethenmany have begun to redefine Propagandaby Deed to incorporate more than simpleacts of violence. Like terrorists, artists areasymmetric and unconventional in theiractions, choosing unorthodox methods ofoperation. These ideas in the cultural fieldbecame visible in movements like BerlinDada or the Situationists whose membershavebeendescribedasintellectualterroristsor authors like William Burroughs whodescribed tactics of psychological attacks(The Electronic Revolution) and culturalsabotage in the 60s. In the influential workon the Temporary Autonomous Zone, theconcept of art as poetic terrorism has beenintroducedtoalargeaudienceandcontinuedtobeanimportantsourceforurbanculturalvigilantes.Withtheaimtochangesomeone’slife, poetic terrorism does not necessarilytarget feelings of angst but tries to achievethe emotional intensity of terror throughother powerful psychological agents likedisgust, sexual arousal, superstitious awe oridentity deconstruction. Advanced artisticandculturalpracticehas increasinglyshownan affinity with the operational mode andanalytical thinking that is related to thecounterterroristandspecialoperationsunits.InMindInvaders,areaderoncontemporarypsychic warfare, cultural sabotage andsemioticterrorism,ofamultitudeofcultural

��

terroristgroupsthatarededicatedtoattackingsome of the very foundations of ‘WesternCivilization’areportrayed.Thisvortexoffreeassociation and continuously dissolving andregrouping anonymous cells spontaneouslyorganizes collective psychic attacks andtacticaloperationsagainstrepressivenotionsofidentitywhilemovinginseveraldirectionsatonce.

A new security culture emerges inthis economy of fear and it is critical forartists to analyze the issues of perceptionand representation in a technologicallyaccelerated risk society. A convergence ofsecurity industry and culture based on theoverlapping of psychological and emotionalmotivesbecomesevidentandnotsurprisinglyartistsandculturalworkershavebeenthefirsttorealizethisandputitintopractice.

Konrad BeckerInstitute for New Culture Technologies

Konrad Becker is a hypermedia and interdisciplinary communication researcher, director of the Institute for New Culture Technologies/ t0, and World-Information.Org, a cultural intelligence provider. Co-founder and chairman of Public Netbase in Vienna from 1994 to 2006, he has been active in electronic media as an author, artist, composer as well as curator, producer and organizer. Since 1979, numerous intermedia productions, exhibitions, conferences and event designs for international festivals, cultural institutions and electronic media. Publication of media works, electronic audiovisuals and theoretical texts.

There is a high investment into the newsecurity culture, which makes it well worthto look into the underlying premises andconstituting influences of this culture. Thetransferofdesiretotheinformationalsecurityapparatus, the machinery of control, createsa new market for art and culture wheresecure imagination and secure imaginaryenvironments are best selling propositions.But the extended subjective experienceof instability and personal insecurity isincreasinglyshapingsocietyinitsrelationtoauthoritarian implications of psychologicalstates of regression and dependence. Artistsand cultural workers could bring diversityto some of the a priori monolithic conceptsofan inheritedontotheologyofsecurityandreversethesurvivalistsecurityimpulseintoarefinedart.

��

“The root cause of urban slumming seems to lie not in urban poverty but in urban wealth.”- Gita Verma, Slumming India: A Chronicle of

Slums and Their Saviours 1

Polarized patterns of land-use andpopulation density recapitulate older logicsof imperial control and racial dominance.Throughout the Third World, post-colonialeliteshaveinheritedandgreedilyreproducedthephysicalfootprintsofsegregatedcolonialcities.Despiterhetoricsofnationalliberationand social justice, they have aggressivelyadapted the racial zoning of the colonialperiod to defend their own class privilegesandspatialexclusivity.

In India also, independence did littleto alter the exclusionary geography of theRaj. Kalpana Sharma, in her book about‘Asia’s largest slum’, Rediscovering Dharavi,emphasizes that “the inequalities thatdefinedBombayasacolonialporttownhavecontinued…Investmentisalwaysavailabletobeautify the already well-endowed parts ofthecity,butthereisnomoneytoprovideevenbasicservicestothepoorerareas”2.ForurbanIndiaasawhole,NandiniGooptuhasshownhow the ‘socialist’ Congress Party middleclasses,whoduringthe30sand40sextolledthegaribjanata(thepoorcommonpeople)intheabstract,endedupafterIndependenceasenthusiasticcustodiansofthecolonialdesignof urban exclusion and social separation.“Implicitlyorexplicitly,thepoorweredenied

a place in civic life and urban culture, andwereseenasanimpedimenttoprogressandbettermentofsociety”3.

Re��v�ng ‘H��an Enc��ber�ent��’Urban segregation is not a frozen status

quo, but a ceaseless social warfare in whichthe state intervenes regularly in the nameof ‘progress’, ‘beautification’, and even‘social justice for thepoor’ to redraw spatialboundaries to the advantage of landowners,foreign investors, elite homeowners, andmiddle-class commuters. As in the 1860sParis,underthefanaticalreignofBaronvonHausmann,urbanredevelopmentstillstrivesto maximize both private profit and socialcontrol. The scale of population removal isimmense: everyyearhundredsof thousandsof poor people – legal tenants as well assquatters – are forcibly evicted from ThirdWorldneighborhoods.Theurbanpoor,asaresult,arenomads,“transientsinaperpetualstateofrelocation”4.

In big Third World cities, the coercive,panoptical role of ‘Haussmann’ is typicallyplayed by special-purpose developmentagencies. Financed by offshore lenders liketheWorldBankandimmunetolocalvetoes,their mandate is to clear, build and defend

Haussmann in the TropicsMike Davis

Urban redevelopment still strives to maximize both private profit and social control.

Every year hundreds of thousands of poor people are forcibly evicted from Third World neighborhoods.

��

islands of cyber-modernity amidst unmeturbanneedsandgeneralunderdevelopment.

Solomon Benjamin has studied theexample of Bangalore where the AgendaTask Force, which directs overall strategicdecision-making,isfirmlyinthehandsofthechiefministerandmajorcorporateinterests,withnegligibleaccountabilitytolocalelectedrepresentatives.

“The zeal of the political elite to turn Bangalore into a Singapore has resulted in extensive evictions and demolitions of settlements, especially small business clusters in productive urban locations. The demolished land is reallocated by master planning to higher income interest groups, including corporations”.- Solomon Benjamin, Globalization’s Impact on

Local Government5

Similarly in Delhi, - where BanashreeChatterjimitrafindsthatthegovernmenthasutterly“subvertedtheobjectivesofsupplyingland for low incomehousing”byallowing itto be poached by the middle classes – thedevelopment authority has targeted nearlyhalfmillionsquattersforevictionor‘voluntaryrelocation’6. The Indian capital offers brutalconfirmationofJeremySeabrook’scontentionthat“theword‘infrastruction’isthenewcodewordfortheunceremoniousclearanceofthefragilesheltersofthepoor”7.

Off ��r����In contrast to Second Empire Paris,

contemporary Haussmannization oftenreclaims the center for ungrateful upperclasseswhosebagsarealreadypackedforthesuburbs. If the poor bitterly resist evictionfrom the urban core, the well-heeled arevoluntarily trading their old neighborhoodsfor fantasy-themed walled subdivisions onthe periphery. Certainly, the old gold coastsremain - like Zamalek in Cairo, Riviera inAbidjan, Victoria Island in Lagos, and soon - but the novel global trend since theearly 90s has been the explosive growth ofexclusive, closed suburbs on the peripheriesofThirdWorldcities.Even(orespecially)inChina,thegatedcommunityhasbeencalledthe “most significant development in recenturbanplanninganddesign”8.

These‘offworlds’–tousetheterminologyof Bladerunner – are often imagineered asreplica Southern Californias. Thus ‘BeverlyHills’isnotonlythe90210zipcode;itisalso,likeUtopiaandDreamland,asuburbofCairo-anaffluentprivatecity“whoseinhabitantscankeeptheirdistancefromthesightandseverityofpovertyandtheviolenceandpoliticalIslamwhichisseeminglypermeatingthelocalities”9.Likewise, ‘Orange County’ is a gated estateof sprawling million-dollar California-style homes, designed by a Newport Beach

Some famous evictions year(s) slum city number evicted 1950 Hong Kong 107,000 1965-74 Rio 139,000 1972-76 Dakar 90,000 1976 Janata Mumbai 70,000 1986-92 Santo Domingo 180,000 1988 Seoul 800,000 1990 Maroko Lagos 00,000 1990 Nairobi 40,000 1989-94 Rangoon 1,000,000 1995 Zhejiangcun Beijing 100,000 2001-03 Jakarta 500,000 2005 Harare

��

architectwithMarthaStewartdécor,on thenorthern outskirts of Beijing. Laura Ruggericontraststheexpansive‘imported’Californialifestyles of residents in their large semi-detached homes with the living conditionsoftheirFilipinomaidswhosleepinchicken-coop-likeshedsontherooftops10.

Bangalore, of course, is famous forrecreatingPaloAltoandSunnyvalelifestyles,complete with Starbucks and multiplexes,in its southern suburbs. The wealthy expats(officially‘Non-ResidentIndians’)liveastheymight inCalifornia in “exclusive ‘farmhouse’clustersandapartmentblockswiththeirownswimming pools and health clubs, walled-in private security, 24-hour electrical powerbackupandexclusiveclub facilities”11.LippoKarawaci in Tangerang district, west ofJakartadoesn’thaveanAmericannamebutisotherwisea‘virtualimitation’ofaWestCoastsuburb,boastingamoreorlessself-sufficientinfrastructure “with hospital, shopping mall,cinemas,sportandgolfclub,restaurantsandauniversity.”Italsocontainsinternallygatedareas known locally as ‘totally protectedzones’12.

Thequestsforsecurityandsocialinsulationare obsessive and universal. In both centraland suburban districts of Manila, wealthyhomeowners’ associations barricade publicstreets and crusade for slum demolition.BernerdescribestheexclusiveLoyolaHeightsdistrictneartheuniversity:

An elaborate system of iron gates,roadblocks and checkpoints demarcates theboundaries of the area and cuts it off fromthe rest of the city, at least at nighttime…The threats to life, limb, and property arethe overwhelming common concern of thewealthy residents. Houses are turned intovirtual fortresses by surrounding them withhigh walls topped by glass shards, barbedwire,andheavyironbarsonallwindows13.

This‘architectureoffear’,asTundeAgboladescribes fortified lifestyles in Lagos, iscommonplace intheThirdWorldandsomepartsoftheFirst,butreachesaglobalextremein large urban societies with the greatestsocio-economic inequalities: South Africa,Brazil,VenezuelaandtheUntiedStates14.

Brazil’s most famous walled andAmericanized edge-city is Alphaville, in thenorthwest quadrant of greater Sao Paulo.Named (perversely) after the dark newworld in Godard’s distopian film; Alphavilleis a complete private city with a large officecomplex, an up-scale mall, and walledresidentialareas–alldefendedbymorethan800privateguards.

TheJohannesburgandSaoPauledgecities(as well as those in Bangalore and Jakarta)are self-sufficient ‘off worlds’, because theyincorporate large employment bases as wellasmostoftheretailandculturalapparatusoftraditionalurbancores.Inthecasesofmorepurely residential enclaves, the constructionof high-speed highways – as in NorthAmerica-hasbeenthesinequanonforthesuburbanizationofaffluence.

Privately-built motorways in BuenosAires now allow the rich to live fulltimein their countries (country club homes) indistant Pilar and commute to their officesin the core. (Gran Buenos Aires also has anambitiousedgecityormega-empredimientocalled Nordelta whose financial viability isuncertain15.InLagos,likewise,avastcorridorwasclearedthroughdenselypopulatedslumstocreateanexpresswayforthemanagersandstateofficialswholiveinthewealthysuburbofAjah.

Itisimportanttograspthatwearedealinghere with a reorganization of metropolitanspace, involving a drastic diminution of theintersections between the lives of the richand the poor, which transcends traditional

�6

social segregation and urban fragmentation.Some Brazilian writers have recently talkedabout “the return to the medieval city,” butthe implications of middle-class secessionfrom public space16. Rodgers, followingGiddens, conceptualizes the core process asa ‘disembedding’ofeliteactivitiesfromlocalterritorial contexts, a quasi-utopian attemptto disengage from a suffocating matrix ofpovertyandsocialviolence17.

Fortified, fantasy-themed enclaves andedgecitiesdisembeddedfromtheirownsociallandscapesbutintegratedintoglobalization’scyber-California floating in the digital ether–thisbringsusfullcircletoPhilipK.Dick.Inthis ‘gilded captivity’, Jeremy Seabrook adds,the third-world urban bourgeoisie “cease tobecitizensoftheirowncountryandbecomenomads belonging to, and owing allegianceto, a super-terrestrial topography of money;they become patriots of wealth, nationalistsofanelusiveandgoldennowhere”18.

Reference��1 GitaVerma,Slumming India: A Chronicle

of Slums and Their Saviours,London2003,p.xix.

2 Sharma,p.8.3 Gooptu,p.421.4 Tunde Agbola, Architecture of Fear,

IFRA,Ibadan1997,p.51.5 Solomon Benjamin, Globalization’s

Impact on Local Government, UN HabitatDebate7:4(December2001),p.25.

6 Banashree Chatterjimitra, Land supply for low-income housing in Delhi, in BakenandvanderLinden,p.218-29;andNeelimaRisbud,Policies for Tenure Security in Delhi,in Durand-Lasserve and Royston (eds.),Holding Their Ground: Secure Land Tenure for the Urban Poor in Developing Countries,London2002,p.61.

7 Seabrook,p.267.8 PuMiao,DesertedStreetsinaJammed

Town: The Gated Community in ChineseCities and Its Solution, Journal of Urban Design 8:1(2003),p.45.

9 AsefBayatandEricDenis,Whoisafraidofashiwaiyat?,Environment and Urbanization17:2(October2000),p.199.

10Laura Ruggeri, Palm Springs. Imagineering California in Hong Kong,1991/94, author website (www.spacing.org). Another ‘Palm Springs’ is a elegantcondominiumcomplexinBeijing.

11Solomon Benjamin, Gobernance,economicsettingsandpoverty inBangalore,Environment and Urbanization 12:1 (April2000),p.39.

12Harald Leisch, Gated Communities inIndonesia,Cities19:5(2002),p.341,344-45.

13Berner,Defending a Place,p.163.14For a description of Lagos’ fortress

homes,seeAgbola,p.68-69.15Guy Thuillier, Gated Communities

in the Metropolitan Area of Buenos Aires,Housing Studies 20:2 (March 2005), p. 258-259.

16Amalia Geraiges De Lemos, FranciscoScarlatoandReinaldoMachado,“Oretornoacidademedieval:oscondominiosfechadosdametropolepaulistana,”inLuisCabrales(ed.),Latinoamerica: paises abiertos, ciudades cerradas,Guadalajara2000,p.217-36.

17Rodgers,p.123.18Jeremy Seabrook, In the Cities of the

South: Scenes from a Developing World,London1996,p.211.

Mike Davis

Mike Davis is an urban sociologist based in San Diego. He is the author influential books such as City of Quartz (1992) and Ecology of Fear (1999). His latest book, Planet of Slums, will appear in 2006.

�7

Topographic representations ofthe built environment of cities tendto emphasize the distinctiveness ofthe various socio-economic sectors:the differences between poor and richneighborhoods, between commercialand manufacturing districts, and so on.Whilevalid,thistypeofrepresentationofacityispartialbecausethereareavarietyof underlying connections. Further, it mayeven be more problematic than in the past,givensomeofthesocio-economic,technical,andculturaldynamicsofthecurrentera.Onesteptowardsunderstandingwhatconstitutesthe complexity of large cities is the analysisof interconnections among urban formsand fragments that present themselves asunconnected.

�he �nf�r�a� C�ty �n ‘A�vance�’ Urban Ec�n���e��

Thecorporatecomplexandtheimmigrantcommunity today are probably two extrememodes in the formation and appropriationof urban space in global cities of the North.In major complex cities of the South,including global cities, we see the informalcity rather than the ‘immigrant community’.Globalization has brought about an oftenmassive development of the corporateeconomicbuiltenvironmentinthesecitiesoftheSouth,asisevidentinMumbai,Shanghai,SaoPaulo,MexicoCity,Bangalore,andsoon.

Theurbanformrepresentedbytheglobal

cityfunction–theinternationalizedcorporateservices complex and the highly paidprofessional workforce with its high-pricedlifestylespaces–istheonehabituallythoughtto constitute the essence of an advancedpost-industrial economy. The urban formrepresented by the immigrant community,or the informal city, is habitually seen asnotbelongingtoanadvancedeconomy,onetobe found intheglobalcitiesof theNorthonlybecause it is importedvia immigration,and in the cities of the South as a sign ofunderdevelopment.

These two forms reveal how power andthe lackofpower inscribe themselves in theurban landscape and which narratives areattachedtoeach.Oneisseenasrepresentingtechnological advance and cosmopolitanculture, the other, economic and culturalbackwaters.Onepresentsitselfaspartoftheglobaleconomy,suffusedininternationalism;theother,while international in itsorigin, ispromptlyreconstitutedasalocal,vernacularform. One is read to be disembedded,transterritorialtothepointofbeingthoughtof as a-spatial, captured by concepts such

Fragmented Urban Topographies and their Underlying InterconnectionsSaskia Sassen

Through this reorganization these low-profit sectors are actually incorporated into the advanced economy. But it just does not look like it. The changes in the sphere of social reproduction described above also add to this reorganization insofar as consumption and life-style have contributed to a proliferation of small, labor intensive firms. Some of these cater to high-income households and others cater to very low-income households.

�8

as the information economy and telematics.Theother isreadasdeeplyembedded inaneconomic, social and cultural territory ofneighborhoods and particularistic traditionsthat have little if any connection with theadvancedcorporatesector.

However, the informal economy and,

moregenerally,certain‘workingclass’usesofspace are actually also forms through whichadvancedeconomiesfunctionandmaterializeinurbanspace.

Many of the highly differentiatedcomponents of the economy, whetherfirms, sectors, or workers – are actuallyinterconnected, but with often extremesocial, economic, racial and organizationalsegmentation. The result is fragmentedtopographies that obscure the underlyingconnections. This segmentation is regularlystrengthened, and even enabled, throughracism and discrimination. Ethnic/racialsegmentation not only produces economicoutcomes that devalue some firms andworkers and over-value others, but alsoproducesanarrativeaboutthenatureofourlargecities,whichmarginalizestheeconomicsandthecultureofnon-dominantsectors.

C�t�e�� a�� pr���ct��n ���te�� f�r g��ba� c�ntr�� capac�t�e��

Complex cities, especially if global cities,areproductionsitesforalargearrayofinputsand ‘organizational commodities’ necessaryfor global control and coordination. Thekey point from the perspective of theinterdependencies underlying what appearas fragmented topographies is that theseinputs need to be produced. The producerservicessectorisasortofnewbasicindustry–itrangesfromadvancedcorporateservicessuchas financeandaccounting to industrialservicesliketruckingandwarehousing.Majorcitiesarepreferredsitesofproductionforthe

specializedservicesthatfirmsneed.Butfirmsintheadvancedsectoralsocreateademandfor industrial services – the software usedby the financiers and accountants needs tobe trucked.Further, the lifestylesof thenewprofessionalclassescreatealargedemandforgoodsandservices,oftenmadeanddeliveredthrough low wage workers. These do notseemtobepartoftheadvancedeconomy,buttheyare.

Focusing on the production of thesevarious services helps us to see the manydifferent types of firms, workers andneighborhoods that are actually part of theadvanced urban economy. Furthermore, ithelps us focus on the organization of theglobalized economic sectors: outsourcing,subcontracting, supply chains, networks, orinputandoutputmarkets.Allofthisallowsustoseethatmuchofthisworkhappenspartlyintheinformaleconomyofthesecities.Thustheexistenceofadynamicgrowthsectorfeedstheexpansionofwhatappeartobedecliningor backward economic sectors, such as thedowngraded manufacturing sector and theinformaleconomy.

Even the most sophisticated professionalsectors need access to a broad range ofindustrial services located in easy access incentralareas.Whenthese lowerprofit firmslack the bidding power to locate in centralareas they often operate partly or fully inthe informal economy. Further, the growinginequality in the distribution of householdincome and firms’ profits reorganizesconsumption and life-styles. High incomehouseholds and newly gentrified residentialareas require more services, often throughinformal workers. But also the growingnumbers of low-income households – orfirms-are likely tomeetmoreandmoreoftheir needs through the informal economy,albeitthroughadifferentcomponentofit.

��

Finally,aquestionbringingthesedifferentstrands together is that of the effect ofeconomicrestructuring(initsmanyguises)ontheorganizationofthecapital-laborrelation.Informalization of economic activities anddowngrading of manufacturing in particular(e.g.goingfromunionizedfactoriestosemi-informaloperations)are,intheend,modesofreorganizingtherelationshipbetweencapitalandlaborinanadvancedurbaneconomywithenormous differentials in the profit-makingcapacities of different types of firms andsectors. Through this reorganization theselow-profit sectors are actually incorporatedintotheadvancedeconomy.Butitjustdoesnotlooklikeit.Thechangesinthesphereofsocialreproductiondescribedabovealsoaddtothisreorganization insofar as consumption andlife-style have contributed to a proliferationof small, labor intensive firms. Some ofthese cater to high-income households andotherscatertoverylow-incomehouseholds.Both however share the fact that they havea distinct form of organizing work, quitedifferent from the large-scale, standardizedfirm where unionization and adherence tovariousregulationsaremoretypical.

Oneeffectofallofthisistheproliferationof small firms, including interestingly anexpansion in labor-intensive and informaltypesofmanufacturinginthecity,evenaslargestandardizedfactoriesleavethecity.Iliketothinkofthisas‘urbanmanufacturing’–akindof networked manufacturing, dependent oncontractors and sub-contractors and mostlyservicingservicefirmsandhouseholds.Thisinverts the historic relationship wherebyservicesservicedmanufacturing.Thesesmallfirmsbecomemoretypicalatthesametimethat global market firms dominate the city’seconomy.

Onefundamental formofthe interactionofspace,production,andsocialreproduction

in our ‘advanced’ cities is the growingdemand for both luxury housing and low-pricehousing.Displacementofmoremodesthouseholds, including the lower ends of themiddle class, is common in all global citiesaroundtheworld.Soareconflictsoveraccessto city land. But pushing out the low-wageworkersdoesnotmakesense: iftheirtriptowork becomes unacceptably long or costly,those highly dynamic sectors with a criticalmassofbothhigh-andlow-incomejobswillsuffer–andtheyarelikelytobringincometocity government. The informal city of workand housing and daily services can then beseen as a strategic component of advancedurbaneconomies.

Ne� Fr�nt�er Z�ne��: �he f�r�at��n �f ne� p���t�ca� act�r��

The other side of the large complex city,especiallyifglobal,isthatitisanew‘frontierzone’ where an enormous mix of peopleconverge.Thosewho lackpower, thosewhoare disadvantaged, outsiders, discriminatedminorities, can gain presence in such cities,presencevis-à-vispowerandpresencevis-à-viseachother.This signals thepossibilityofanewtypeofpoliticscenteredinnewtypesofpoliticalactors.Itisnotsimplyamatterofhaving or not having power. There are newhybridbasesfromwhichtoact.

Heretheinteractionbetweenfragmentedtopographiesandtheexistenceofunderlyinginterconnectionsassumeaverydifferentform:whatpresentsitselfassegregatedorexcludedfromthemainstreamcoreofacityisactuallyan increasingly complex political presence.The spaceof thecity is a farmoreconcretespaceforpoliticsthanthatofthenation.Here,non-formalpoliticalactorswhoarerenderedinvisibleinnationalpolitics,havebetteraccessto the political scene. And, perhaps moreimportantly, they can constitute themselvesaspoliticalactors.Thefactitselfthatthenew

60

advanced urban economy generates a vastlyexpanded luxury zone that displaces otherfirms and homes becomes a fact feedingpolitics. Urban space is no longer civic, asold local ruling elites aspired to: today it ispolitical.Muchofurbanpolitics isconcrete,enacted by people rather than dependenton massive media technologies. Street levelpoliticsmakespossibletheformationofnewtypes of political subjectivity, which are notdependentontheformalpoliticalsystem,asisthecasewithelectoralsystems.

Further, the Internet can strengthen anew type of cross-border political activism,onecenteredinmultiplelocalities,reflectinglocal struggles and initiatives, yet intenselyconnecteddigitallywithothersuchlocalitiesaroundthecity,thecountry,theworld.Thisisapoliticsofthelocalbutwithabigdifference.Digital networks are contributing to theproductionofnewkindsofinterconnectionsunderlying what appear as fragmentedtopographies, whether at the global or atthe local level. A poor neighborhood maylook isolated and out of the loop, but mayin fact be deeply connected to other suchneighborhoods and larger institutions.Political activists can use digital networksfor global or non-local transactions andthey can use them for strengthening localcommunications and transactions inside acityorruralcommunity.

Saskia Sassen

Sassen is Professor of Sociology at the University of Chicago and Centennial Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics. She holds a doctorate in Sociology and Economics from Notre Dame University, Indiana. From 1974 to 1975 she was post-doctoral fellow at the Centre for International Affairs at Harvard University and for one year each studied philosophy at the Université de Poitiers, political science at the Universita degli Studi di Roma, and philosophy at the Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires.

Thelargecityoftoday,especiallytheglobalcity,emergesasastrategicsiteforthesenewtypes of operations. It is a strategic site forglobal corporate capital: the urban momentturns that elusive category that is globalcorporatecapitalintoactualmenandwomenwhowantitallandgrabitall.Indoingsotheybecomevisibleasasocialforcewithadistinctproject, a project that also has an urbanshape.Butitisalsooneofthesiteswheretheformationofnewclaimsbyinformalpoliticalactors is given shape, and materializes inconcrete forms.Under theseconditions, theenormous mixity of the disadvantaged alsotakes the shape of a social force. These aretwonewactorson thesceneofhistory:anditisinthecitythattheyencountereachotherandbecomepolitical.

61

Whereisintellectualpropertypolicymade? Governments make intellectualpropertylaw,butwheredoesthepolicythinking that lies behind the law comefrom? More than a decade ago I, alongwith my colleague John Braithwaite, set outtoanswerthisquestion.Atthattimewewerestruckby the fact thatduring the late1980sand into the 90s governments all over theworld were busily introducing or reformingtheirnationalsystemsofintellectualpropertyprotection.CountriessuchasSingaporeandSouthKoreawerepassing lawsoncopyrightand patents. This was even more puzzlingbecause imitativeproductionwas importantto these economies just as it had been acentury earlier to European states and theUS.

We approached our study using themethods of historians and anthropologists,readingdocumentsandlawsandinterviewingand observing individuals who were keyplayers in the domains we were tryingto understand. In the case of intellectualpropertyourfieldworkkepttakingusbacktothesamefourcities:Washington,NewYork,BrusselsandGeneva.Therewereotherplaceswewentto,suchasMunichtospeaktopeopleintheEuropeanPatentOffice,SeattletoseeMicrosoft, London to see the InternationalFederation of the Phonographic Industryand so on. But over time we realized thatit was mainly in four cities that the tribe ofintellectualpropertyweremetandplanned.

Other cities turned out to be places ofnon-planning. So in an interview in Seoulin 1994 I asked a senior official why KoreahadagreedtoTRIPSbeingpartoftheWTO.“Because we were ignorant” came back thereply. Two years later I visited New Delhiwhere I saw the same non-planning. Therewasalotoffinespeech-makingfromIndianparliamentariansabouttheinequityofTRIPS,thenewimperialismofknowledgeaswellascomplaints by the generic pharmaceuticalindustryabouttheimpactofTRIPSonpricesofmedicines.Buttherewerenorealplansorstrategies of resistance. In any case Indianpolitical elites had quietly decided to hitchtheircarttotheglowingstarofUShegemony.As part of the price they had to swallow itsneo-liberal fundamentalism,which theydid,telling themselves that it didn’t taste so badafter all. Gandhi may have kicked out theBritishRaj,but thepoliticiansof the90s ledIndia back into the role of the servant whofades into an unnoticed background. Todaythere are thousands of call centers in Indiapolitely attending to the faults and troublestobefoundintherichconsumermarketsoftheWest.Theintellectualpropertyrightsthatintroducewhattheeconomistcalls“demandinelasticitiesintomarkets”,therebyhelpingto

Cities of Planning and Cities of Non-Planning: A Geography of Intellectual PropertyPeter Drahos

Knowledge capitalism cares more about its mode of production and monopoly profits than it does about producing low cost medicines for the poor in developing countries… The poor end up being pushed closer to another edge. But then they do what they have always done. They innovate.

6�

generatesupranormalprofits,remaininthefirmgripofUSandEuropeancompanies.

There are some obvious reasons whyWashington,NewYork,GenevaandBrusselsarethedreamtimeplacesfornewideasaboutintellectual property. Washington is the seatof US political power, Brussels is the homeofEurope’ssuperbureaucracy,theEuropeanCommission, Geneva has organizationalbehemoths like the World IntellectualProperty Organization and the WTO andNew York has business organizations,company headquarters and Wall Streetwherearockstar likeDavidBowiecanturnthe intellectual property in his music into atradablesecurity.Moreimportantthougharethe networks that are thick with lobbyists,thecompanymenandtheexpertconsultantsthat snake their way through the corridorsof power. These networks hum with ideasabout the future of intellectual propertyprotection for multinationals. Big ideas, likelinking intellectual property protection tothe trade regime,getputdownonpaperbytechnicalexpertsandsenttocommitteesonwhich big business sits. Those committeessendoutrecommendations,whicharemorelike marching orders, to governments. Theprivate hands of command turn the wheelsof executive power to their purpose. Tradelawsgetamendedtomakethemaweaponofeconomicwarinthefighttocontrolaresourceevenmoreimportantthanoil–knowledge.

Teams of lobbyists go to work onCongressional representatives. Gettingaccess is easy because generous campaigncontributions have bought the lobbyists andcompany men meeting time. Congressmenwant to be responsive in those meetings toinventing new intellectual property laws fortheUSandrestoftheworld.Afterall,therewill be new elections to contest. Congresspasses more and more intellectual propertylaw. An American public that is perpetually

distractedbyamediathatsatesitwithimagesbut hardly any news notices. Copying iscriminalized, copyright terms extended tomake the rich even richer and patent lawsstrengthened. When American citizens askquestions about patents and the price ofmedicinestheygettoldthatsoontherestoftheworldwillalsobepayingthesehighpricessothesystemwillbeonceagainbeequitable.

Intellectual property laws with theirepicenterinWashington,NewYork,Brusselsand Geneva travel like invisible tsunamisto developing countries. There they turnthe national innovation systems of thosecountries into so much debris. New laws toserveoldmastershavetobequicklyenacted.Thereisalsolossoflife.Thepatentprovisionsoffreetradeagreementscomplicateaccesstolife-saving medicines. The pharmaceuticalcompany men on the ground in thesecountries hiss about what will happen toforeign investment if developing countriesdo not follow the new order of intellectualproperty. Threats are not always needed.Rewards, includingtraveltothecitiesoftheepicenter are offered to developing countryofficialsiftheytoethelineonUSintellectualproperty ideology.Minoractsofbetrayalbylocals iterated many times over produce indevelopingcountriesacultureofcompliancewith the new order. Some officials evendeceive themselves into believing that thisnewenslavementservesthenationalinterest.

Life forpoorpeople in thecitiesofnon-planning remains the same. They continueto suffer ill health and lack of treatment.Westernpatent systemshavenever servicedtheirneedsandneverwill.Foralltheprattlethat comes out of the West about patentreform, the truth is simple. Knowledgecapitalism cares more about its mode ofproductionandmonopolyprofitsthanitdoesabout producing low cost medicines for the

6�

poorindeveloping countries. Their informalingcountries.Theirinformaleconomies are swept away as their citiesswept away as their citiesrezoneandrebuildtobecomeprotectedsitesofproductionforinvestorsrichinintellectualproperty. City planners pave the way withfactoriesandmallsthatwilldeliverthebrandsforwhichconsumerswithbulgingwalletsandbulgingwaistlineswillpayapremium.

The poor end up being pushed closer toanother edge. But then they do what theyhavealwaysdone.Theyinnovate.

Peter Drahos

Peter Drahos is Professor at The Australian National University. His latest book on intellectual property, co-authored with John Braithwaite, is Information Feudalism: Who Owns The Knowledge Economy? (Earthscan, London, 2002 and the New Press, New York, 2003).

Whetheritisintheformofmusicthathasemergedfromtheghettosandslaveryofthecenturies or in the diverse seeds of life thatindigenousfarmershavebequeathedusfromlivingintheharshestclimates,theyinnovate.They do so without intellectual propertyprotection, for intellectualpropertyexists toprotectwhatrichimitatorshavestolenfromthoseinnovatorsthatworkontheperipheryofsurvivalandcreativity.

6�

The booms, bubbles and busts ofthe digital networking revolution ofthe 90s have ebbed into normality. Thenew logic of information economiesis interacting with the full range ofsocial and political contexts, producing newsystemsofdominationbutalsonewdomainsoffreedom.Itisnowthatfromdeepsocietaltransformations the new informationallifescapesstarttoemerge.

It has become necessary to highlight thestrong normalizing forces that shape thisprocess.Thisisnotjustaquestionofabstractinformationpolicy.Thebuildingofimmateriallandscapeshasverymaterialconsequencesforsocial, cultural and economic realities. Withdigitalrestrictiontechnologiesandexpandedintellectualpropertyregimesontherise,itisanurgenttasktodevelopnewwaystoprotectandextendthewealthofourintellectualandculturalcommons.

Human life is physical and informationalat the same time; our physical and culturaldimensions are mutually constitutive. Theirinterrelations emerging from historicaland local context are now more than everinfluenced by global transformations inthe info sphere. The term ‘globalization’describes a deep change in how physicaland informational spaces are organized andhowtheyintersectwithoneanothertoformlandscapes,bothphysicaland informational.‘Zoning’, the establishment of domains

governedbyspecialrules,isakeyconcepttounderstandthesenewlandscapes.

Physical space is increasingly fragmentedinto ‘export zones’, special ‘safety zones’,VIP lounges at transportation hubs, gatedcommunities,‘no-goareas’andsoforth.Justwhen for the first time inhistoryamajorityof humanity lives in cities, their form startsdissolvingandisreplacedbyapatchworkofdistinct sectors. Every city has places thatare fully global alongside others which areintensely local, ‘firstworld’ and ‘thirdworld’arenolongerregionalidentifiers,butsignifyvarious patches within a single geographicdomain.

Informational landscapes are fragmentedby similar processes. What used to berelatively open and accessible culturalspaces are increasingly caved up in specialadministrative zones, privatized claims ofintellectual property, and policed throughthe ever-increasing scope of patents andcopyrights.Whatcomesnaturaltopeople,tocreate, transform and share ideas, thoughts,and experiences - as songs, as computerprograms, as stories, as new processes howtomakethingsbetter-isbeingprohibitedbyproprietaryclaimsof‘datalords’whoenforcedominionovertheirownzonesofthecultural

IP and the City - Restricted Lifescapes and the Wealth of the CommonsKonrad Becker and Felix Stalder

Every city has places that are fully global alongside others which are intensely local, ‘first world’ and ‘third world’ are no longer regional identifiers, but signify various patches within a single geographic domain.

6�

landscape. This is accompanied by intensepropaganda efforts extolling the ‘evils’ ofsharingculture.Thereisnotrespassinginthenew regimes of physical and informationalzoning,andwhiletheirculture isubiquitousaround the globe, we are more and morerestrictedfrommakingourown.

Counter-movements that talk about thecommons instead of proprietary zones havebeen gathering strength around the globe.The goal is to devise new ways in whichinformation can flow freely from one placetoanother,frompeopletopeople.Insteadofdeepening fragmentation, information andcultures are held to be a resource producedand used collaboratively, rather than beingcontrolled by particular owners. Peopleshouldbefreetoappropriateinformationastheyseefit,basedontheirownhistoricalandpersonalneedsanddesire,ratherthanhavingto consume the standardized products ofMcWorld.

Itreallyseemslikewearereachingaforkintheroadofculturaldevelopment.Thetwoalternativesaredrawnout.Ontheonehand,we have fragmented claims of ownership,whose effective control is increasinglycentralized in the hand of some very fewmultinationalorganizations.It’saworldwherethose who produce are strictly separated,through law enforcement and technology,fromthosewhoseonlyroleistoconsume.Itis a global culturemodeledafter the factoryandthetelevisionanddoesnotneed,orwantanypeople thatarenot integratedaspayingconsumers.Thosewhodonothavethemeanstoconsumeareregardedasredundant.Bettertobansurpluspopulationtotheoutskirtsofthe city into the gated communities of thepoor,renderedinvisibleasmuchaspossible,marginalized and forced out of the pictureintoblackmarketsandillegalmigration.

Ontheotherhand,thereisavisionofculture

wherethedifferencesbetweenproducingandconsuming are not hardwired into the legaland technological infrastructures, but is anindividualchoiceofpeopleandorganizations.It is a world of cultural practices based oncollaborative plurality of commons, whereinformation flows freely from those whoproduce it tothosewhoneed it.Thosewhoneed something else can become producersthemselves at any moment, thus they cangain visibility through their own culturalknowledgeandontheirownterms.

Thisseemsanutopianworld,butfreeandopensourcesoftware shows that thisutopiaisnota‘no-place’butisrighthere.Ofcourse,thingsthatarerighthere,arenevercleanandshiny, and real existing utopias are fraughtwiththeirowninadequacyandproblems.Yet,they provide not only a frame of reference,but also a basis for addressing failures thatincludes those who actually bear the bruntof the shortcomings. This is a good placeto start with. More than ever informationalcommons, accessible to everyone underconditionsoftheirownchoosing,areneededto help reconnect people bypassed by thestandardflowsofinformationandcapital.

66

The global movement towardsadopting collaborative models ofproduction of culture and knowledge isslowlygainingground.Startingwiththefree software movement, and movingtowards the domain of art and music,it promises a radical revolution in the waysthat we think of authorship and creation.One of the concerns in this article arisesform the question of how we think of thesedevelopments inthecontextofadevelopingcountry. The adverse impact that strong IPlaws have on developing countries has beenwell documented. While it is true that theworld of free software or creative commonslicense provides a very powerful alternativeto the dominant imagination of copyright,the everyday world of digital and electroniccultures seem to have little in connectionwiththeworldoffreeculture.Insteadthisisaworldofquotidianconsumptionofdiversenon-legalmediaorpiratedgoods.

One could of course argue that theseare two completely different domains, andthat one deals with the world of culturalproduction, while the other is a question ofpoliticaleconomy.Butthissimplebifurcationofthetwoworldsappearstobeproblematicsince it ends up recycling certain dominantstereotypes. The world of free culture andcollaboration gets narrated through thetropes of creativity, desire and subjectivity,whiletheissueofpiracyisnarratedprimarilythrough the trope of developmentalism and

piety.Inotherwordstheverycategoriesliketheuser-producer,whichare thestrengthofthefreesoftwareandfreeculturemovementarecompletelydeniedwhenwelookateverypiracyinmostpartsoftheworld.

Iaminterestedinlookingathowwecanmovebeyondtheaccountsof‘exclusionfromthe digital economy’ and the ‘digital divide’to look at the interesting developments thatseemtobeopeningupwithinthecirculationofonlegalmedia.Ratherthanlookingattheworld of digital art and everyday piracy asdistinct,Iaminterestedinprobingintosomeof the structural links that might tie themtogether.

One clue, which can help us thinkthrough this issue, is a statement about thecontemporary art scene in China. Thereis currently a lot of excitement about theChinese art, and indeed it seems to be theflavorof themonth in theglobalartcircles.Therearethousandsofpeoplewhoarelininguptojoinartschools,andoneoftheChinesecurator’shadthistosay“WhenyoucanbuyTarkovsky for a dollar, you will obviouslyproducemanymoreartists”.

One of the significant approaches used

Pirate AestheticsLawrence Liang

The link between pleasure, desire, aspiration and trespass has always been a complicated one, and the closer that the transgressive act is to the domain of pleasure, the more difficult it seems for it to be redeemed socially.

67

by public domain scholars is their emphasisontheabilitytocreatenewcontentbuildingon existing works. They in fact use themetaphorofinfrastructuretounderstandthepublic domain of ideas. But it often ignoresthe material linkages between content andinfrastructure. The over emphasis on thecreationofnewcontentof course raises thequestion of who uses the new content, andwhatistherelationshipbetweensuchcontentand the question of democratization ofinfrastructure?

In most cases the reason for the fall inprice of electronic goods, computers, greataccess to material, increase in photocopiers(the infrastructure of information flows)is not caused in any manner through anyradical revolution such as free softwareor open content, but really through theeasier availability of standard mainstreamcommodities like Microsoft and Hollywood.When Stallman and others castigate peoplefor pirating Hollywood, it is only from apositionofbeingable todisavowtheglobal,butformanypeopletheideaoffindingtheirplace within the global includes engagingwith a world of counterfeit commodities,replicatingtheglobal.

Wecaneitherplaythemoralhighergroundgame, and speak of their real informationneeds or provide crude theories of howthey are trapped by false consciousness. Orwe can move away from these judgmentalperspectives, and lookatotheraspects suchastheimpactoftheexpansionofthemarketfor these grey market goods has on thegeneral pricing of these goods, the spreadof computer/ IT culture, the fall in price ofconsumablessuchasblankCD’s,DVD’s,thegrowingpopularityofCDwritersetc.Ifinditalittlestrangeandmessianicthatpeoplewhopreachaccessalsopreach thekindofaccessthatshouldbegiven.

Letmenarrateaninterestingstory,whichformeillustratesthegapbetweenideasofwhatis good for people, their far more complexsubjectivities.ANGOinBangalorethatworksinthefieldofInformationandCommunicationTechnologiesfordevelopment(ICT4D)wereconducting a workshop on accessing theinternet for the information needs of ruralwomen trainers. The facilitator guided thewomenthroughthebasicsoftheinternet,onaccessing informationrelevant to theirworkrangingfromruralcredittowomen’shealth.The training was highly appreciated, and allthewomenvolunteersseemedtobeenjoyingthemselves fiddling with the computer andexploring the internet. At the end of thetraining, when the NGO started cleaningup the computers including the history andthe cached copies, they were a little aghastto find that most of the women volunteershad been surfing pornography, and a rangeofpornographyatthat.Sowhilethetrainerswereholdingfortheloquentlyabouttherealinformationneedsofthepoor,thepoorwerequite happy to access their real informationneeds.

The link between pleasure, desire,aspiration and trespass has always beena complicated one, and the closer thatthe transgressive act is to the domain ofpleasure,themoredifficult itseemsforittobe redeemed socially. Thus while one findeasier justifications for transgression thatdealwithquestionsoflivelihoodandsurvival,andinthecaseofintellectualpropertytofreespeech and access to information, when thematter involved is about new subjectivitiesand pleasurable transgressions, it gets verydifferentlyframed.

The uncomfortable relationship betweenpublic domain scholarship and pirates alsopartiallystemsfromthefactthatweareenteringaterraininwhichthepiratedcommodityisa

68

taintedone.While thequestionofmedicineand textbooks are far easier to deal with,movies,musicandsoftwaregetcharacterizedas being outside of the moral economy ofdevelopment. The demand for low costsentertainmentcommoditiesisseentobeone,whichisnormativelymoredifficulttosustain.Yetatthesametime,thesheerproliferationofthesepractices,bothwithintheeliteandalsobythetraditional‘subaltern’classesforcesusto question our own assumptions about thetermsthroughwhichpeopleengagewiththeglobal economy of information, and aboutfindingtheirplaceintheglobal.Whatthenarethecriticalconceptualresourcesthatwecandrawontobeabletoaddressthisquestionofpleasurable transgressions and subjectivitiesthatresisteasyframing?

JacquesRanciereinhisbrilliantrethinkingoflaborhistorypavesthewayforustostartthinkingseriouslyaboutthehiddendomainofaspirationanddesireofthesubalternsubject,while at the same time thinking about thepolitics of our own aspirations and desires.Rancieregoesintoanunexploredaspectofthelabor archive of nineteenth century France,wherehestartslookingatsmallobscureandshort lived journal brought out by workers,in which they were writing about their ownlives. But they were not necessarily writingabouttheirwork,andiftheywere,theywerenotwritingaboutitinglorifiedtermsbutwithimmense dissatisfaction. Instead they wereinterestedinwritingpoetry,aboutphilosophyand theotherpleasures,whichnon-workersor intellectuals were entitled to. At thesame timeof course, intellectualshavebeenfascinated with the world of work and theromance of working-class identity. Rancieresays “what new forms of misreading willaffect this contradiction when the discourseoflaborersinlovewiththeintellectualnightsof the intellectuals encounters the discourseofintellectualsinlovewiththetoilsomeand

gloriousdaysofthelaboringpeople”.

For those who are less interested in thequestionoflegalityvs.illegality,andassumingthatwedon’thavetogothroughtheexerciseof detoxifying the usual accounts of piracy,there are a wider range of interesting issuesand questions that can arise in this otherinformation city from questions aroundthe production networks, the distributionnodes, the question of livelihood, forms ofcirculation.

Asacinephile,Iamparticularlyfascinatedin the changing dynamics of the aestheticseven within the pirate markets, there isan entire world of film for instance thathas opened out in Bangalore as a result ofthe circulation of non-Hollywood foreignfilms, independent films, documentaries,experimental films. I am interested in thequestionofhowinacountrylikeIndiawherecensorship still prevails severely for cinema;the grey market emerges as the domain inwhich free speech can circulate withoutrestriction. Whether or not the grey marketdoes to the Indian art scene what it hasallegedlydoneforChineseart,istooearlytotell but the signs are already there. Some ofthebiggestclientsofthegreymarketincluderenowned filmmakers who have started tolook beyond Hollywood. Similarly with thefall in prices of video cameras, it is only amatterof timebeforeyoungpeople inspiredbythenewcinemathattheyseeviathegreymarket fancy taking a shot at becoming thenextJonathanCaouette.

6�

Lawrence Liang

Lawrence Liang, is a one of the co-founders of Alternative law Forum (ALF), a collective of lawyers working on various aspects of law, legality and power. His key areas of interest are law, technology and culture, the politics of copyright and he has been working closely with Sarai, New Delhi on a joint research project Intellectual Property and the Knowledge/Culture Commons. A keen follower of the open source movement in software, Lawrence has been working on ways of translating the open source ideas into the cultural domain. Lawrence has published extensively in various journals and is the author of ‘Guide to Open Content Licenses’ and ‘The Public is watching: A Historical Reconstruction of Film Censorship in India’.

70

The electrical network is quite unlike the network model of the internet or say telephone networks. The power grid includes no provision for communication across its end points. At the scale of the grid at least, there appears to be no doubt that this is a one-way ‘transmission’: from the power-station to the distribution network, from high to low-voltage, from producers to distributors to consumers. This is the waterworks or gas-works model; centralized structures of material transmission that are widely considered to be precursors to the electrical distribution system.

At the consumer ends of this networklie small, ‘private’ zones where elementsof electrical choice may be exercised. As aresidentorleaserofaproperty,astheownerof a factory or shop, as an architecturaldesigner or electrician authorized to designthe electrical layout for a space, you areallowed to choose from millions of electricdevices,selectwheretheymaybeplaced,mapthevisualorcontrol flowsofadailyelectriclife. An ‘interior design’ of the electricalsystem can thus proceed quite unmolested,to pragmatic or poetic ends, as long as it islimitedtotheextentofone’sownership.Themusicaldoorbell,thebetter-than-the-anand’sstairwaylight,thecompoundgatemechanism,theperimeterlighting,thesignforashop…arealllimitcases,markingathresholdofpossiblepublic influence. Extended collaborativeor de-centralizing actions (such as sharing

electricity with your neighbor) are naturallydiscouraged, in this model. ‘Interactivity’ ishereadomain-restricted,territorially-boundconcept, a means of offering differencewithoutconflict.

The behavior expected from consumerswithin the electrical network is in manyways reflected in contemporary consumertechnologies, despite the latter’s louderclaimsofuserparticipation,customizability,andequity.

Boosterist Web 2.0-speak is especiallyshallow where it is extended to physicalobjects and environments, which have deephistoriesofownershipanduse.

An ‘embedded system’ (a term used todescribeaspecializedelectronicorcomputersystem such as those in cellphones, cars,security systems, and other householdand industrial products) is by definition“completely encapsulated by the device itcontrols” (Wikipedia). Its escape from theproduct is thus impossible. Its operation isinextricable from operations on the surface:buttons, menus, user-interfaces, but alsodeeperstructuresofproductboundaries,andtheprotectionofthoseboundaries.

Electric Fences, Human SheepAshok Sukumaran

Still, possibly for maybe the first time in this street’s electrical history, the general public could trigger an electrical event from across the street. This show of ‘rewiring’, its upending of property boundaries and appropriation of municipal lamp-posts, caused some anxiety in the neighbourhood.

71

Anetworkdevicesuchasacellphonemayappeartoleapoverthemetaphorofphysicalwalls restricting its function. Yet, they exist,almostliterally.Forexample,manythousandsofprogramshavebeenwrittenforcellphonesbyenthusiasts,inthelastdecade,sincemanyphonesruncommonsoftwareplatformssuchasJava.However,allJavaprogramsonphonesrun in a ‘sandbox’ that isolates them fromall network functions, such as making calls.Inotherwords,noneof theseprogramscanenterthecoreterrainofthenetworkprovider,although they may be able to play withexperimental features like games, bluetooth,and so on. The point is that this is a classicapplicationdevelopmentscenario,wherethesandboxorotherformsofwallingarejustifiedin the name of security, and provide a risk-freedevelopmentenvironmentembeddedinexisting,widelydistributedhardware.

Beyondtechnicaldefinitionstherefore,theterm‘embedding’betraysotherinstincts:thatofspecializedplatformsthatareneverthelessdesigned to be ‘everyware’, and so must diginto, and exploit, conditions of physicalownership and existing platforms of access,acrossobjects(products)environments(realestate), bodies (consumers) and nation-states. Proprietary environments in thetraditional sense provide a physical buffer,and accountability, for protected softwaresandsystemsenclosedwithin.

This is not new. Technologies were, andcontinuetobe,preferentiallyembeddedintospaces that are protected by non-technicalmeans. If anything, scales have changed...we are now looking at minutely striated,distributedformsof‘mediaenclosure’.

Despite such ‘doubling’ of the protectionregime, however, leakage occurs constantly.As when hardware is repurposed, phonesare tapped, electricity is stolen, or nuclearsecretsrevealed.‘Phreaking’,recentlydubbed

the phone equivalent of computer hacking,hasbeen traced to the late50s,beforemostcomputers,andisitselfpartofalongtraditionofthecreativerepurposingandredistributionof technologies. Clearly, such practicescannotbeenclosedbycurrentterminologies,or even technologies. The electrical system,inmanycities aboutahundredyearsold, isstillnot free fromsuch leakages.This raisesthe question of whether it ever will be, andifregulationinthecurrentformisstilluseful.

Expert���e an� the Ong��ng Exper��entThe electrical grid is insulated from

public participation in at least two distinctways. Firstly, by the technical fact, thatelectricaltransmissionevenatitslowestend,carries voltages that can kill. ‘High-tension’infrastructure such as the neighborhoodsubstation,itsfencesandsigns,directlyevokephysicaldanger.Themessage isclear:handsoff.Withderegulation,privatecompanieshaveinheritedwhatused tobea regimeof state-controlledsigns.Theyalsoacquiredthatauraof specialist territory, in a vein that extendsto other modern infrastructures: militaryresearch,nuclearscience,biotechnology,andlargeconstructionsites.

Thesecondfactorsubsumesthefirst,intoa broader social construction of ‘expertise’.CarolynMarvin,forexample,hasdocumentedwaysinwhichengineersandelectriciansinlate19th century America and Europe attemptedto form elite, technically literate and closedgroupsaroundthedevelopmentofthis ‘newmedia’.This,sheargues,ledtoaformofclass-distinctionbetween‘experts’andthegeneralpublic, exacerbating older (and subsequent)hierarchies based on economic class, raceandgender.Theexperts’strategywastoalignwithotherpowerful groups, anddistinguishthemselves from “mechanics and tinkerers,theirpredecessors,and fromanenthusiasticbutelectricallyunletteredpublicbyelevating

7�

thetheoreticaloverthepractical,thetextualoverthemanual,andscienceovercraft”.

This description continues to haveresonance,inthedecadessinceaconsumeristnotionof technicalagency (describedabove)andapremiumon‘expertise’continuetomarkaverynarrow field inwhichparticipation intechnology can take place. Arguably, thisnarrowstheconceptualunderstandingofwhattechnologyis,andwhatwecandowithit.

Iworkprincipallyasa‘mediaartist’,creatingartworks and events that happen mostly inpublic, outdoor spaces, and occasionally ingalleries. In these, I have used a variety oftechnologies,fromnoneatalltosome‘cuttingedge’ones.Oneofthestrandsofmycurrentpractice deals explicitly with works in theelectrical‘medium’.Theseareongoingseries,inwhichIattempt,withthehelpofothers,toaddresssomeofthequestionsabove:inpublic,buildinguponasharedhistoryandexperienceof this deeply embedded technology. Theseare‘publicworks’,inwhichelectricityappearsnewly‘uncanny’.Notmagical,perhaps(intheway electricity is often described as in thearts, medicine and popular discourse of thenineteenth and early twentieth century) butdestabilizing.

Theseworksalsosuggestthatthequestionof electrical ‘literacy’, a hundred years on,deserves to be asked again. Are we more‘lettered’ now, after decades of use, or arewemerelynaturalized?Wouldwebeableto‘read’atransgressiveorpoeticelectricalact?What would it say to us? Could we build itourselves? Will it need ‘translation’? Haselectricity become such an uncontesteddomainthatitisnolongerworthwhiletobean‘expert’init?

The electrical system in these worksis figured as ‘pre-instrumental’; these are

arrangements that do not conform to anyknownusefulness.

Theyarenot,inotherwords,offeringanydesign,informatics,orarchitecturalsolutions.They confront material boundaries, andthoseoftheimagination,butdonotofferanyresolution.Theyare,touseatermcurrentlyfashionable in architecture, ‘diagramming’,offering templates for potential discovery,patterns of defamiliarization, and models ofmisconduct. Almost anyone can ‘conduct’them, or develop them further. They are anattempt to form an alternative language forsomething familiar; one whose words weknow,butwhosestorymayyetchange.

Pictures from one such project arescattered through this text, and a briefdescriptionfollowsbelow:

Change�� �f StateElgin Talkies is a 110-year-old theater in

Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore. As part of World Information City (http://world-information.org), the artwork Changes of State was set up for a period of five days, in and around Elgin Talkies.

Elgin Talkies façade, with disco ball and audience switching in background.

Several two-way mains-current circuitswere set up, connecting the building to thestreet outside. The circuits were ‘two-way’inthesensethateachcontainedtwopossible

7�

states,whichthegeneralpubliccouldswitch,fromthestreet.

Thedefault statewas thatofadecoratedbuilding.Inordertoconductthiswealsohadofficialpermission.Atthesametimemultipleswitches (sometimes three, at other timesfour) were placed on the building facadeand across the street, tied onto lamp-posts.For a total of four final switches, two non-legal street crossings were made (crossing astreetwithmainscurrentisdisallowedbytheElectricalAct),andoneelectricalconnectionwasdrawnfromthecornermeatshop.Theseswitchescaused‘changes’ortransformationsinthemoviehousefaçade,asfollows:

1.Fromacrossthestreet:posterlightsgooff, music from tape-player comes onoverhead;

2.From under the projection room:Archwaylightinggoesoff,filmposterisbacklit,andfliesout;

3.From under the ‘chimney’: Smokemachineplays;

4.From across the other street: Cornerlightinggoesoff,discoballplays.

Layout of electrical circuits, switches and ‘changes’.

Allthesearrangementswerebuilton-site,or sourced from the local decorator, HamidBhai,whoseshopwasabout25metersfrom

theElgingate.Switchesweretheon-if-pressed(momentary) type, so the system wouldreturn to the default state, if the audiencereleased the switch. The ‘on’ state was non-legal,causingelectricity to ‘leak’outbeyondthe Elgin property line, via the switches, topower the events described above. Each actwasphysicallytransgressive,eitherextendingtheenvelopeof thebuildingonto thestreet,orstealingthecinema’s‘media’,extendingitsauraof lightandsound.The ‘criminal’bodyoftheactantcompletesthecircuit,insulatedfrom direct electrical effects by a thin sheetofplastic(theswitchitself )andfromoutrightcriminality by a buffer of adjacent ‘grey’practices. Ultimately, the non-legality of thestreet-crossing is rendered trivial, by theubiquityofeventslikestreetdecorationsthatroutinely stretch the law, or the numerouswireless devices that could technicallyaccomplishthesameresults.

Still,possiblyformaybethefirsttimeinthisstreet’s electrical history, the general publiccould triggeranelectricalevent fromacrossthestreet.Thisshowof‘rewiring’,itsupendingofpropertyboundariesandappropriationofmunicipal lamp-posts, caused some anxietyin the neighborhood. This was part of theintention:toplacesimple,‘digital’binariesofon and off and the familiar acts of pressingbuttons,intoasituationwherebroader‘urban’factors come into play… including humandoubtandfear.Theseareemotionsnotoftenfound in indoor, domesticated electric life.The ‘exploding’ movie house provided anexperience of an ‘electric city’ that in somesensehasalwaysbubbledunder the surface,withitspotentialsfordisplacement,control-at-a-distance, unexpected pleasure, and itsinverse, the electrical ‘uncanny’. In manyways, this was an extension of Elgin itself,which had offered related experiences foroverahundredyears(spanningboththeaterandmovies),atthislocation.

7�

‘Now playing’ poster, activated from below.

Initially, as we were setting up thewiring and switches, the assumption in theneighborhood was that this was some kindof official celebration of Elgin as a heritagesite, or that it was related to a film release.There were no signs or explanations putup, and slowly the lack of clear referencesunderminedthepopular theory.Thesewerefamiliar pieces (the switches, the songs, theheroontheposter,thefogfromthemachine)inastrangeparty.Itwasveryunclearinwhosebenefit,whichafterawhilebecameliberatingforsome,anduncomfortableforothers.Inallthis, the ‘expert’wasmissing,orat least,hiserasurewasattempted.Thetechnologiesweretransparent, the paths from the switches totheapparatus,obvious.Therewasanabsenceof ‘representational’ claims, or strategies,beyondwhatwasapparent.Intheevent,thesemi-official electrical ‘hacks’ became theonlythingtohangonto,theonly‘meaningful’materialchange,andthereforethesubjectofthework,andofdiscussionaroundit.

Many people ignored it, or tried to. For

others,theswitchpresentedathresholdtheywere not willing to cross, on their own. Ingeneral, the electric presences were rapidlyassimilated into the noise of the street.Occasionallyadisco-ballwouldlightup,andpeoplewouldlookaroundtofindtheswitch-pressingculprit,whowouldbeembarrassed,or aggressive. Locals would point out theseanomaliestovisitors.Kidswouldcomebackwith their friends. Drunks were fascinated,andwouldnotleave.Onthe‘opening’day,agaggle of foreign (mostly white) conferenceparticipants offered some action for acurious audience. Over the following days,however, this activity became so ‘ambient’thatmanypeoplelookingforthe‘art’misseditcompletely.ThePublicWorksDepartment(PWD),whichisonthelookoutforelectricalviolations and the police passed by severaltimes,withoutnoticing.

I am interested in the idea that thesepotentials existover a longer term; switchesthat just sit on the street, offering ‘multi-media’choices,inasomewhatillegal-lookingformat.Intime,thesubtlerdimensionsofthispush-buttonactivitywouldemerge…theseareswitchesthatreallydonothinguntiltouched,yetrepresentapotential‘crime’.Theyarealsoswitches that modulate behavior, switchesthat measure interest, and mark presence.Perhaps we would recognize elements of abroader ‘digitization’ of public life. Perhapswewouldbecomewaryofother ‘embedded’statestocome.

In computer science, the ‘finite statemachine’isafeedbackloopthatisseenasabuildingblockforautomata,orindependentlogic.Thismodelexploresthebasicprocessesthrough which, using finite information(bits), higher-level machine ‘intelligence’can be achieved. The finite state machineis called such because it contrasts with thehuman brain, which has the disadvantage

7�

ofcomingfactory-fittedwithinfinitestates,andthusisafuzzier,moreunreliablething.Electric ‘changes of state’ permeate humanactivity at scales from the switching of apowergridtodigitalmemoryflip-flops(oneof the basic finite state machines). Thesesimplest of electrical acts are somewhereactivated by a human threshold, of desireor need. By extension, for even the mostcomplex machine systems, autonomy orisolation from the ‘messy’ human brain,or human society, is a somewhat pointlessobjective...humansaren’t leaving. It follows,then,thatwedonothavetolooktoArtificialIntelligence or other advanced utopias totellus importantstoriesaboutourongoingrelationshipwithmachines.Electricity, thatoldfriend,isstillaround.

Temporary switch interface on lamp-post

Porosities,poetics,formsofcommunicationand manipulation are characteristic of, notjust anomalies within, the electrical grid.Theyarepresentinthetrillionsofactsofdailyswitching, and in thephantasmof real-timeelectrical ‘wholesale markets’. The questionthat remains interesting is who controlsthingsatwhichscale,whataretheboundariesofinfluence,andwhatmaymoveacrosstheseboundaries.

Electricity is still ‘currency’. We are constantly developing new uses for it. It is unencoded, ‘open source’, it fills our

world. In the spirit of ongoing change, these experiments attempt to create new, alternative electric grammars, languages that draw from by our exposure to other technologies, and discourses around newer media. This may, in turn, offer techniques for detournements of other centralized media, on the ground: community radio, guerrilla television, movies, maps, surveillance systems.

The ‘feedback loop’, a central engine fortechnical evolution is thus implemented asa broader exercise involving public librariesof parts and processes, exposed to (andexposing)reservoirsofcommonknowledge.

76

“As an artist curator for the project, working with lawyers interested in the politics of media, visual culture and representation opened up a new way of thinking for an ‘exhibition’. For many artists such collaboration opened up the realm of the legal domain to artistic practice. The curators hoped it would in some way shape interdisciplinary ways of thinking of an exhibition, with a perspective that would bring together the social and theoretical issues around the World Information Conference with specific art projects. Observing, recording, and reflecting upon the rapidly transforming city of Bangalore from as many interesting points of view, seemed like an organic way of planning an exhibition. Many of the art projects assembled together were thematically and formally distinct, though some connecting strands existed. An unpredictable outcome, and the continuously morphing nature of the work, became an integral and dynamic part of the whole exhibition”. - Ayisha Abraham

�he Pr�ject��: ���t�p�ex facet�� Many of the projects were specially

createdbyartists for theWorldInformationExhibition; most of them selected workbetween media in interdisciplinary ways.Theartistswereinvitedtoparticipate intheexhibitionandconsider the themeofWorldInformationCity.Theyweregiventhechoiceof a space within the planned walk, locatedgeographicallyinthecenteroftown;moreovertheyhadthefreedomtointerpretthethemeof the conference and the exhibition. Theresult was a wide range of projects varyingfrom a networked performance, a soundpiece, sculpture installation,a tacticalmedia

intervention, an interactive light work,happenings,performanceart,video,drawing,andinteractivemedia.

Inmuchoftheworkforadiversegroupofartists,‘networks’ofthepastandpresenttakedifferent forms. For the curators, exhibitingaseriesofartobjectswasnot the intention.Instead, a context for collaboration and theencounterwiththesocio-politicallifeoutsideofaninscribedspacesuchasaconferenceora gallery were more relevant criteria. It wasimportanttogiveroomtotheartisttosearchandexperimentwithintheirpractice,andtoindependently consider the processes of a‘networked’societythatexist.Theephemeralpresenceof theworkbecameintegral totheshow.Iftheprojectshadbeenlesstemporary,and were absorbed into a community life,they would have constituted a different setof projects and interventions altogether.The ideasdisplayedwereperformedas theywere,andtheseveryimprovisationalquality,made the exhibition difficult to define ina single framework. The not-so commoncollaboration between artists and lawyersbroke a kind of art-world formalism andpushedtheexhibitionintomultiplemodesofreadinga‘networkedinformationcity’.

Many of the projects at the WIC exhibition

ARTeries: Networks of an Art RouteNotes on the World Information City ExhibitionAyisha Abraham

The art exhibition was not meant to be just a spectacle. The attempt here was to try and create a fluid and permeable context, where new relationships would trigger off activity and collaboration.

77

could be read in multiple ways. They could be seen as functioning documentary/documentation, as in Christoph Schaefer’s work ‘Melrose Place’, or as tactical media/community television as in Shaina and Anand’s work. Her television channel ‘Wi City TV’ was meant to rupture the neat confines of an academic conference, into the messiness of real life on the streets. The projects at Elgin theatre can be seen to illustrate this point. Now showing, The Cinematograph Act looks at how The Cinematograph Act works as an “interpretative archive of various pleasures and practices (licit and illicit) around cinema”. The Elgin theatre and its owner feature in this interactive work by Lawrence Liang and Namita Malhotra, and for WIC exhibition, the theatre itself becomes a site for an intervention, an installation like Ashok Sukumaran’s Changes of State, which was an attempt to bring to notice the networks of electricity. This work could be read as an architectural intervention, or light sculpture or interactive new media work.

Map of the art route

“Walkingthecityconnectsdifferentspacestogether.AmapisgiventothevisitorofWICpointstothesites,wheretheartinstallationsareplaced.Thepossibilityoffreeingyourselffromthismapalwaysexistsasyoudiscovertherouteandthesmallerpathsthatleadyouoffelsewhere.Everyvisitorwillonlyexperienceapartoftheexhibitionanditsactivitiesatanygiventime.Thisinstabilityproducedbetween

the mapped route and the happenings thatunfolded everyday was characteristic of asenseofplaythattheinstallationsbroughttothesitestheyinhabited”.

A D���aggregate� F�r� f�r the Exh�b�t��nOne of the unique aspects of the WIC

art and media exhibition was the dispersedway it was located in different venues,strung together in the center of town, whatis commonly referred to as the old BritishCantonment, from Cunningham Road toTaskerTown,intoShivajinagar’sElginTalkies(see map). This route connects disparateworlds of living and social functioning inBangalore. The disaggregated exhibitionspread over a short stretch (1 km) and wasintended to take the visitor through thecity, its smells and crowds, the traffic andpollution. This continuous walk acted asa connecting strand between the differentworksondisplay.Theideaofadisaggregatedexhibitionfacilitatedmovingawayfromsuchconventional art exhibition, to somethingmoremulti-faceted,complementingtheverynatureoftheprojectschosen.Adisaggregatedexhibition also facilitated us to work with anumberofdifferentgroupsinthecity,whetherfilm societies, educational and traininginstitutions (Center for Film and Drama),galleries (Colab for Art and Architecture),cinemahalls(ElginTheatre),andevenvenuessuch as a community hall (Jehangir KothariMemorialHall)maintainedandused largelyby the Parsi community in Bangalore. Asdifficultandtenuousthenegotiationsforthedifferent exhibition spaces for permissionswere; it eventually enriched the exhibitionto move from the dynamics of one space toanother.

Ne�ther Spectac�e n�r Object �’Art The art exhibition was not meant to be

justaspectacle.Theattemptherewastotryand create a fluid and permeable context,

78

where new relationships would trigger offactivity and collaboration. The exhibition asweconceiveditwouldbecomeanintegratedpartoftheday-to-dayofthecity.Theinsideof an exhibition venue would permeate intothe outside. A kind of osmosis would breakthrough the membrane of separated worlds.Theformofthework,somuchapartofthetropes of daily life, would fail to be seen asa disruption of daily life in the city. Instead,itsrolewouldbetosubtlyshiftexpectationsof what art interventions should be, andhow it should be shown. Sites chosen werenot located in conventional museums orgalleries,norweretheyprotected;corporateor commercial spaces, but were spaces thatcouldbequiteeasilyaccessedbythegeneralpublic. They also included Center for Filmand Drama a more formal film school andscreening space,Colabagallery forArt andArchitecture, a private gallery which hassubsequently closed down, a branch officeof a NGO, The Lawyers Collective etc. Theinclusion of three film screenings in theevenings, a performance and a play meantthat a fairly focused audience could thencongregateandinteractthere.Inaddition,wehadhopedthatthepublicwouldproceedtovisit theotherexhibitsbywalkingdowntheonekmexhibitionstretch.

Per�eab�e S�te��Our interest in the city was about trying

to understand the vital ways local conditions change and morph in today’s global economy and a backdrop of standardized consumption/commodities. The exhibition tried, by bringing together such diverse practitioners, to thrust the world of the fantasy and often surreal/hyper-real worlds of art practice into the real world. Thus, the sites and their utilitarian function remained an important and integral part of the exhibition and the installations, punctuations in the everyday world of architecture, roadways, and public

spaces. Except for the gallery Colab for Art and Architecture, all other sites were public spaces, not flamboyant in any way, but just there amidst people’s bustling everyday lives. None of the others were meant to be exhibition spaces, furthermore in getting permissions and negotiating with local authorities for the venues, became a part of the process of conceptualizing the exhibition. In this way public space could be transformed, recycled and reinterpreted. To transform the façade of a film theatre into an interactive art project, or the bringing of a broadband connection into the basement of a community hall, or setting up an editing suite in a lawyers office, meant that the activity and the methods that art practices were to deploy, had to be explained to a set of people who had little knowledge or contact with such activities. In the process, as people help and interact with one another, many norms and rules could be shifted, modified or improvised with.

Chance Enc��nter�� The WIC exhibition set out to create

spaces for reflection on a city caught in theinformation age, and where the notion of‘public’ is rapidly changing. In more thanone way the exhibition did more than whatthe curators set out to achieve. It madepossible new friendships between artists,curators, members of the organizing teams,and acted as a catalyst for communicationbetween practitioners, activists, lawyers,curatorsandothers, includingall thosewhohelpedinnovateonsiteandprovideservices.Whenthetableswereturned,whereby,whatmay have set out to be a service; becamethe subject matter and focus of a politics ofrepresentation,andthensomethingvitalwasseentobetakingplace.Withthelocalcableoperators of Shivaji Nagar and Wi City TV,Lokeshatfirstwasmerelyprovidingthecablenetwork and connection. Every time Shainaandherteammetwithhim,apictureofthe

7�

smaller cable operators being pushed out ofthe business, by the larger business players,began to unfold. The outcome of this was adiscussionintheformofatelevisiontalkshowwithagroupofcableoperators,at thehomeofKasheef,alsocalledSurroortelevision.HisfamilyusedtorunasmallUrduchannelwithprograms targeting the Muslim communityof Bangalore. This enterprise blossomed intheirhome.Shainabrought togetheragroupof participants from the conference and theconcerned cable channel operators, withwhomsheconductedatalkshow,inthemiddleofthenightinthismiddleclassneighborhoodofthecity.Thegroupofdiscussantsincludedlawyers,wholater,followedupthelegalissuesindependently. Even though the art project,Wi City TV, may have culminated with thebeamingofthesevenfilms,overapproximately100 television sets during the last three daysof the exhibition, other dynamic and longerlasting relationships were formed. Was thetalkshow an example of community media,or was it merely a tactical intervention?Theseweresomeoftheconceptualquestionsthat could be asked about the exhibition,given that it is still not really legal to run anindependent community television channel.Was the point of such an intervention, the

fact that the community themselves wereinspiredenough toaskSurroorTV to revivetheir programming? Or that Kasheef wassubsequently invited that night to addressparticipants at the conference with, the kindofproblemsthesmallerinitiativeslikehisface,withbigbusinessmonopolizingthemedia.

Bet�een the �n����e an� O�t����e To define the exhibition in its entirety, as

art,activismorcommunitytelevisionisalittlemore difficult. The exhibition works as anexampleformoreporousandinterdisciplinarypractice that also attempts to break thepredictableandenclosedcircuitsofprimarilyart viewers. We were hoping that through awiderinvolvementofyoungpeople,andthoseinotherfields,suchprojectscouldmakesenseto artist practitioners, lawyers, activists, andevenanordinarycitizen-worker,alike.

Some of us walked the streets of ShivajiNagarthenightthetelevisionprogramswerebroadcastonShaina’s ‘WiCityTV’; steppingintosmallshops,wheretelevisionswerebeingwatched.Theseweretheexcitingmomentsoftheevent,whenonefeltthattheexclusiveworldofartpracticehadpermeatedontothestreets.It was also opened up further, by talking to

Shop playing WIC TV

80

people,astheywatchedprogramsonthemesofinteresttothecommunity.Theseincludedrepresentationsofeveryday,inShivajiNagar,andRussellMarket,likeaportraitfilmofElgintheatre,todiscussionsonlandacquisitionbytheITcorporates,opensourceandcopyrightpiracyetc;andthroughtheselocaldepictionsaninterestedpublic,couldbeshapedonsite.People in the marketplace would step intoshops,homes,downbylanes,toseethefilms.The excitement of being able to recognizea familiar face, a known building, a voice,was quite palpable. We were told that therecontinuedtobedebateanddiscussionaboutthemakingandtelecastingoftheseshortfilmslong after the cable television ‘art project’wentoffair.Therewerepeoplewhowantedto know more about why these films weremade,andmanywantedsuchprogrammingtocontinue.

An artist however, may not want to commit to any long-term project, associating with a single community, becoming a social player resembling the work of a NGO. Sustaining the project would mean that Shaina in this context, would be a facilitator and subsequent projects spawned from this project, would have to be taken up by other interested participants or community groups. Ideally the community, if it was legal to set up a television community channel, should be assisted in setting up its own channel. Such projects could spawn others, but it would be up to a community to control the outcome. The artist here acts as a catalyst!

Exhibits that incorporated media fromvideo to lighting to performance, pipesculpture, paint, drawing, music and sound,thus became more like workshops and sitesfor young people to interact with the artists,learn and enable them to become a part oftheprocessofdoingandshapingofthework.Many projects were thus, sites of pedagogiclearningtoo.

For Rajivan’s work, a networkedperformance, yards of wire were thrownacross streets, houses and trees to enable aSkype internet connection in the basementoftheParsicommunityhall.Thishallhadtobecleanedoutofoldfurnitureandtracesofmanyparties in the formofgarbagestashedaway. Inhabitingthisdesolatespace,andtheimprovisingoftheinternetconnectionalongwithanAirtelengineer,tomakepossiblethisephemeralconcert,becameforRajivan,apartoftheconceptoftheproject.Theinhabitingofaderelictroominsuchabuildinghasalsomadehimthink‘obsoleteness’forsubsequentconcerts.

81

Air Aroundby Rajivan

The Installation, Air Around is a sample space; a composite space of many samples of spaces that are offered by people from around the world; a compound space heard through real time audio events accessed through the telephone over the net. The network was made with the help of 213 sound artists including Hans Koch, Annemie Maes, Peter Bosch, Laura Naukkarinen, Paulo Rapso, Roland Cahen, Lorenzo Brusci, Michael Northam, Petri Kulijuntausta and many more…

Air Around installation lasted for four days from the 16th till 19th of November 2005. Between 3 pm and 6 pm two computers with an automated script, dialed 213 telephone numbers, with a specified call duration that had different functions within the installation:

1.sixminfixedtime/datedecidedbytheartist2.sixminfixedtimebyme3.threeminfixedtime/datedecidedbytheartists4.twominrepeatedcall,forallfourdays5.oneminrepeated/unexpectedcallallfourdays

Air Around installation was more about composing these calls (time duration) rather than sound event. If the participants decided not to offer any sounds, Air Around installation might have ended up with just a set of electronic noises.

Theinstallationusedaround25smallradios,andthreestereosystemstomonitorthesounds.Itwasmainlyaradionetworkforthereception.

8�

Someplace[Extracted from someplace towards a reading by Abhishek Hazra]

Someplace was housed within a single large room, with the work ‘framed’ by two planes perpendicular to each other: one constituted a flat wall surface and the other a row of four, large ungrilled windows. Frame, is perhaps a Janus-faced word here, since two sections of this ‘triptych’ installation were located on those very planes.

Eachwindowwascoveredoverwithtranslitefilmsandtransformedintoa‘readymade’light-box.Thephotographsprintedontothesetranslite filmswereofothertransliteboxesthatonetypicallyencountersintherelativelynewerbusstandsinBangalore.Thedifferenceherewasthatthesephotographedtransliteswereblankanddidn’tbeartheexpectedconsumerproductorrealestate/propertydevelopmentadvertisement.Infact,itsblanksurfacewastorn,rippedapartandfromthegashesonecouldclearlymakeouttheluminescent,tubularformsofthefluorescentlightsthatwouldhaveotherwisemade theadvertisementsvisible.Thephotographswereprinted toscale,i.e.inthesamedimensionsasthebusstandtranslites.Withthesunlightstreamingthroughthese photographs, the windows appeared to reproduce the real-time optical/electromagneticattributesof theobject itwassupposedtophotographicallyrepresent. Inadeceptivelysimpleact,theselight-boxesthusrenderedturbidanyresidualnotionofaclearindexicalitybetweenthephotographand theobject.Sheelaaccentuated this ‘representational’ crisis furtherbynamingtheselightwindowsas‘self-portrait’.

Thewallsurfacewaspaintedwhiteanddrawnoverwithloose,gesturalblackandgreybrush-marksthatmadeitresembleamarblesurface.InterspersedwithinthebrushmarksweredottedlinesthatguidedtheeyetotextualannotationsusuallyassociatedwithVaastuShastralike,‘Moola

8�

Sheela spent long hours at the Doordarshan office, the Government television and radio station; trying to get permission to use A R Murthy’s radio shows, religiously listened to in the past. When she located him and struck a relationship, he took an interest in her work, and visited her exhibit, Some Place. Her sculpture of pipes subtly channelized this voice of a man who was a household name that is of a past life in the city, barely remembered. Plumbers came to help her construct this network of non-

functional pipes; the wall was decorated with marble by painters who could only work at night. They were specially brought from out of town.

Ashok Sukumaran had to negotiate theuseoftheElgintalkiesfaçade,onaday-to-daybasis.Withunusuallyheavyrainsthatyear,the19th century construction was seeped withwater, and was close to being pronouncedunsafe. The manager was expecting aninspector from the municipality. Therefore

Sthana’(placeoforigin), ‘KuberanaSthana’(placeofwealth)and‘SthanaMana’(socialstatus).Alongwiththeseevocativedescriptorsofplace,onealsocameacrossabbreviateddeclarationsoflocationandcommunication: ‘Youarehere’, ‘Areyouthere?’Theoriginalinspirationforthemarbledsurfacecamefromthefaux-marblefacadesthatSheelahadnoticedinhousesdottingthemarginsofthecity,quiteclosetoherownhouse.Occupyingtheliminalspacebetweenurbanandruralthesehouseswerewhatanofficialdemographerwouldcall“lower/middleincomegroup”housing.Aby-productoffinancialconstraintandmaterialaspiration,thesemarblesimulationsare usually generated by painting marble-like brush strokes onto fresh plaster: a process notdissimilar from the classical fresco bueno. If we now trace back, and accord the status of theoriginal only to the mineralogical entity known as marble, the marble-wall of the installationbecomesaninterestingsecondgenerationimitation:acopyofacopy.

Thethirdsectionoftheinstallationwasasculpturalassemblageofpipes(theGIpipesusuallyusedinplumbing)wheresegmentsofpipewerelinkeduptogether.Twopipesemergedoutfromthewallandappearedtoramifyintoalabyrinthlikespacefromwhichtheterminalendsofthepipesstuckoutlikemechanicalproboscis.Userswereencouragedtolendaneartothepipes.Asonepressedoneseartotheseopenings,voicesmadethemselvesaudible.Onehadtolistencarefullytopickoutthecontoursofthisauraltexture.Itwasinfact,arecordingofapopularKannadaradioprogramthatisairedfromthelocal(Bangalore)AllIndiaRadiostation. ConceivedandperformedbythepopularKannadasocialcommentator,A.SMurthy,theone-hourprogramisanextended‘conversational’monologueinwhichMurthytakingonthepersonaof‘Heeranna’holdsforthonavarietyofcontemporarytopics.AlerttothenuancesofcolloquialKannada,thedialectsofnon-urbanKannadaandtheconversationsthatcirculateacrossstreets,bazaars,devasthanasandothercontemporarypublicspaces,Murthy’sspeechisaninterestinghybridofsocialcritique,politicalanalysisandhumorousreparteesustainedwithalivelyperformativeenergy.Notallthepipeshoweverwere‘tuned’toA.S.Murthy.Thesecondaudiostreamwasproducedbylayeringtheoutputsofdifferentradiostationsatvariousintensities.Thespecificnatureofthislayeringensuredthatthoughonecoulddetectthesimultaneityoftwoaudiosources,itwasdifficulttodisentanglethem.Inafurtherextensionofthemetaphorofflow,Sheelaalsoattachedanactualvalveknobontooneofthepipes.Acarefultorsionoftheknobdidindeedproduceamixingofthetwoaudiostreams.

8�

dismantling the work and reworking thelight decorations along with other devicessourced from down the road at a localelectricians, marriage decorators etc, addedto the unexpected spectacle that came aliveeachnight,forthestreetcommunityaroundthetheatre(alsosee:ElectricFences,HumanSheepelsewhereinthispublication).

Christoph Schaefer’s original exhibitionplan fell through, as he was not allowed tomount the televisions for his video directlyon a wall at Lady Jehangir Kothari. Hedecided against constructing false walls andthen made a decision to incorporate all theexisting furniture,old tablesandchairs, andinstead of drawing on a wall, he drew onpapermakingmocktableclothsoutofthem.The final installation thus took off from theexistingspace,anditsarchaicdeco.Thevideodocument; an ethnography of residents at anew housing development, called ‘MelrosePlace’, generated interest and controversyalike,amongthevisitingpublic.

Naveen Thomas’ sound piece on callcenters came about from his one-year-long night job at a call center, where hesurreptitiously recorded the transnationalconversationsmade;hethenrecycledthistoreinterpret a soundscape of voices from theworldofoutsourcing.

The events that drew the public were still those that fit within a conventional understanding (of film screening, performances etc.), but since many of the works (ranging from video installations to exploratory databases such as Sarai Media Lab’s no_des, or ALF’s now showing) were at the same venue, many people did interact with these works. The film screenings included three films, each with a uniquely different entry point into information politics and the range of issues that WIC was attempting to

highlight. A Human Question by T. Jayashree is an exploration of the human realities behind the changing regime of patents and its impact on drug prices. Ayisha Abraham’s film Straight 8 is a poetic encounter with the world of straight 8 cameras and amateur filmmaking in Bangalore in the middle of the last century. Gautam Sonti’s Fun@Sun is a lively and unabashed peep into the corporate world and the lives of those enmeshed in the jargon of productivity and efficiency. A performance of Ram Ganesh’s play Dancing on Glass was the story of two isolated, lonely individuals, and their very real negotiations with life in call centers.

O�tc��e��World Information City Exhibition’s

success was the inclusiveness it achieved,in bringing together a broad communityof practitioners that comprised of trainedartists,filmmakers,architects,lawyers,mediajournalists, activists and numerous studentvolunteers from local colleges, plumbers,lighting guys, theatre owners, workers,watchmen, film audiences, street children,shopkeepers,painters,broadbandproviders,agents, managers, a local community, filmstudents,collegestudentsetc.

When I look back, I think our rolesas curators were merely to facilitate therealization of the artist’s projects. Whetherit was delivering gallons of water each dayor transporting mattresses to enable theparticipants to catch some sleep, ferryingartistsandothers,frompointAtopointBormakingsurethatthoseworkingdayandnightwereeatingenough,nottomentiontheendlessnegotiationswiththemanagementofall thevenues. Thus, our role was to support andcreatespacesfortemporarycommunication;where art could act as catalyst for otherunpredictable relationships to be formed.Not insisting on absolute control over what

8�

the exhibition would finally turn into, andwelcomingalltherunaway,unpremeditatedmoments that took place, makes for asomewhatorganicwayandyetacriticalformof thinking, exhibition and art practice. Inretrospect,ourdisappointmentatnothavingdrawn a wider public to see the exhibitionmay not have been that justified. Ourdisappointmentthattheeventsdidnotattractthekindofcrowdsthatmaygotobookfairsor cultural fairs, may not necessarily reflectsuchayardstickoffailure.Suchanexhibitionwouldhavetobemorethan justamanagedform of entertainment. The relevance ofprojectssuchasthoseseenatWICisthattheycanpossiblyactquietlyascatalysts,forlargerprojectsandinteractions;thatiswhatshouldbeappreciated!Aslowerwayinwhichideaspermeateareassimilated; influencesprovidecomplex ways of looking at an issue. Theymaybecriticallymorevaluable,thananeventthatattractsalargepublicinonegowheretheactivity and dialogue is not necessarily keptalive later,becausetheyseemedcomplete inthemselves.SotheremaybesomethingtosayfortheincompletenessofsomeoftheprojectsseenatWIC;thattheywereideasthatneededto be honed later sometime in the future,andthismethodcouldenableandgeneratearangeofdifferentformsofartpractices.Thatkindofmultiplicityanddiversityofpractice,seen at the WIC exhibition was what madeita stimulatingexperience forall thosewhoparticipatedinit.

S��e �h��ght��A month after the WIC exhibition Jan 2006 with Namita Malhotra, exhibition co-curator and lawyer, ALF

Any event happens in a city not onlybecause of the deliberate planning andefforts that were underway for months, butfor all that it accidentally pulls together atthe last minute. The people it attracts from

different walks of life, the connected eventsthat spiral off, the lives of those involvedand the changes that it creates. A monthlater World Information City seems smaller,as it shouldn’t need to have so much effortand heartbreak; the city has absorbed theevent and made nothing much of it, not arippleonthesurfaceorostensiblyso.Ittakesefforttoseethechangesthatithascausedindifferent directions – whether the curiosityand interest of those in Shivaji Nagar aboutthe cable channel that sporadically burst ontheir screen for a brief sharp moment anddisappeared, or the lingering traces of somepostersonthewallsofthecity.Nowamonthandahalflater,thesetracesaredisappearing,the people who brought the event togetherareonlytoowillingtolosetouch,nothavingto relive the humongous and painstakingeffortsoforganizing.

WIC was meant to engage with a range of different publics through the very choice of the exhibition spaces. This did help in re-evaluating what we would call public space or public art, because it became evident that placing events, objects and displays in what are public spaces (like parks, public venues like Centre For Film And Drama, Jehangir Kothari Hall etc.) is not necessarily all that is required to draw in the public. What might actually be required would be to create a space, to carve a niche in an existing paradigm, where a certain public visits for a limited purpose – whether a cinema theatre that specifically caters only to the local population, or a cable channel with an established monopoly. Both these spaces in some senses were pre-existing, but were closed to outsiders, and had to be prized open with a lot of effort.

It takes effort to continually sustain interest and involvement by the public, in what new media artists like to call ‘public art’,

86

but what can often be a just desolate object left in the middle of a public space, where people circle carefully around it and avoid it entirely.

While some projects were meant toengage a large audience, others weremeant to be stumbled upon, in small andsecluded corners and through their innerperambulations and convolutions bring thepersonbackintothecity,itssubmergenceinart,media, technologyandthe law.Anotheraspect of the ‘public-ness’ of WIC, wouldbe to evaluate, not only in terms of publiccampaign(includingbillboards,posters)andtheir reach, or the number of people thatattended the conference or walked into theexhibition,butalsotolookatthenatureandcommitment of the people that were drawnintotheevent.

Ref�ect��n��A year after WIC Nov 2006, with Vasanthi Das, film critic and theorist, Bangalore.

“A rhizome ceaselessly establishes connections between semiotic chains, organizations of power, and circumstances relative to the arts, sciences, and social struggles.”- Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari

The Interior Organs of a City as I write this, is a year since WIC happened in the very belly of the city. Although the Cantonment, Shivaji Nagar, Cubbon Park, Cunningham Road etc. are known as the heart of the city, the metaphor of the belly for the myriad and often contradicting and conflicting aspects of the space is apt. Walking up Queens Road, a one-way road, with its incessant flows of traffic, it suddenly bifurcates into two. One leads you to Shivaji Nagar, the other down Cunningham Road. On your left is a lively inner city with a local economy, and on your right an equally lively up-market commercial street, with global brands illuminated on

billboards. They are a part of a reality of vast contrasts in consumption, and lifestyles, conspicuous in our daily city life. The center of every city is a zone of production, consumption, ejections and rejections: the internal organs of a city coil around the place, in a network of road and vehicles, footpaths and internet connections.

Distant and not so distant pasts hauntthe interstices of the globalized city. Fresharchitectureisbornamidstliteraldecayandarenewedfertilityexistsinsuchrelationships.Thereisavitalsenseofsomethingnewbeingborn, new people, new projects, new ideasand amidst this sense of decay and dazzlingemptiness, exists a sense of hope. Untilnow the growth and development in citiesand towns in India was more organic, andgradual,andthereasoncouldbemainlydueto India’s protected nationalized economy.The open and liberal market has thrust thecitytocoexistin‘bizarre’contradictionsandit blurs/breaks many boundaries. Despiteits rapacious appetite to remake the past,creativityisspawned.Amidsttheinnumerousfly-by-night businesses and a mania forbuilding, where rampant construction bringdown familiar landmarks, give way to animageofaverydifferentcity.Inthisupheaval,peoplereorienttheirlives,inoftenperplexed,dysfunctionalways.Perhapstheartistinsertsher presence to make some sense of this,bringing fore the invisible; the unsettledworlds.

Thegrowthofthecitymaybecomparedtothestructure,ofarhizome;anappropriateconfiguration that Deleuze introduced toopenlyconfronttheanalyticalandrationalizingprinciples,whichendlesslyrepeatthemselvesagain and again. Rhizomatic structures linkandde-linkthemselves,accordingtocontextsand their developmental process occursas eruptions and fissures at unpredictable

87

intervals. The development of the presentgrowth of Bangalore City could parallel theDeluziandelirium:notnecessarilyanegativedelirium,butasasitewheretherationalandirrational,deathandlifeandotheropposites,coexistcomfortablyanduncomfortably.

The art installations manifest thisimpossible possibility by picking on thedifferentstrandsofthecity:theyworkintheintersticesoftime,thepresentandpast,richandpoor,usefulanduseless,theruralandthecity,oldandnewtechnology.Thetraversingart installation in turn traversed by city andnon-city audiences, made the city a ‘rawmaterialforpeople’sexperience’.

B�b���graphy1‘Now Showing the, The cinematograph Act’

http://media.opencultures.net/cinematograph/2 The World is Yours by Charles Esche

and Vasif Kortun. Art, city and politics inan expanding world. Writings from the9th international biennial, 2005. Istanbulfoundationforcultureandarts.

3UnderstandingtheCitybyJohnEadeandChristopher Mele From Understanding the City Contemporary and Future Perspectives Edited by John Eade and Christopher Mele,BlackwellPublishing,2002

4 Stopping the Process, Contemporary Views on art and exhibition,EditedbyMikaHannulaPublishedbytheNordicInstituteforContemporaryArt,1998

5 A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Deleuze, Gilles and FelixGuattariMinnesota:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1987.

Ayisha Abraham

Born in 1963. Lives in Bangalore, India.Ayisha Abraham is an installation artist who makes short experimental films. She curated the World Information Exhibition in Bangalore in Nov 2005, along with Namita Malhotra and Kiran Subbiah, For Netbase, Vienna and Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore.She works as a visual arts consultant at the Srishti School of Art, Design and Technology, Bangalore, India. She studied Fine Arts at the MS University, Baroda, India, BFA 1987,Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA (MFA) 1995, and did the Whitney Independent Study Program in 1991-92.Her short film ‘Straight 8’ (2005) is the first in a series of films on amateur filmmakers. She has just completed another short filmtitled ‘One Way’ (2006), chronicling the journey taken by a Nepali Security guard from the Himalaya’s in Nepal to Bangalore, India.

88

ThoseweretheDIYs…In 1972 Black & White TV

transmission came to Bombay. Myparents acquired a TV set, a few yearslater, I was born. Under the WirelessTelegraphy Act (1933) all apparatuscapableofreceivingwirelesstransmissionneededa license,andwehad toregister theTV at the General Post Office, in much thesame way my father had registered the firstradiosetthathehadbuilt(whenhewas10).My father designed power amplifiers as aprofession,tookphotographsasahobbyandtinkered with anything that could transmit,ashiseducation.Igrewupinamiddleclassmilieu of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) technologicalmarvels.WhenIwasfour,hebuiltaboosterantenna which enabled us to expand ourreception from one channel - DoorDarshan(the state channel, literally translated as ‘farvision’ or ‘tele vision’) to include darshansfromtheMiddleEast,fromacrosstheoceandividingus.OnholidayswewouldtuneintotheAirVHFband(100-200MHz)andlistento pilots converse with Air Traffic Controlas theytookoff fromBombayairport. Ihadto identify the airline by looking at the logoonthetailfinastheplanewouldpassbyourwindow 3 minutes after takeoff. We talkedonHamradioandCitizensBand;listenedtothe police communicate on the Police Bandandeavesdroppedonlocalareaconversationsleaked from cordless telephones. We hadaccess to many streams. One day my father

soldhisvastcollectionofLPstobuycurtainmaterial for our new home in Bandra, butnotbeforehehadrecordedthemontometaltape. People continued to flock to him forthismusic,whichhewouldcopyatamodestprice with liner notes and indexes neatlywrittenoneachtape.WhenIwasseven,theAsian games came to New Delhi and colortransmission arrived in India. Imports wereheavilyrestrictedinthosedays,butforashorttimecolorTV’swereallowedtobebrought,if theyweregiftedbysomeoneabroad.TV’scametoBombayinlargeconsignmentsduringthis ‘gift economy’, and were soon followedby VCR’s. Official import duties were at245%of thecost,mostelectronicswere stillrestrictedandsmugglersweretheharbingersof information and entertainment, bringingin not just hardware but bootleg video of adazzlingvariety fromallover theworld.ForRs. 10/- from our neighborhood lendinglibrary,wecouldchoosewhatwewanted toseeandcopywhatwewantedtokeep.Evenaudio was recorded onto VHS tape usingPCM(pulsecodemodulation),givingbetterqualitysound(asthetapewasthicker)and6hoursofrecordingona180-minutetape.

Then came liberalization, the STAR was

WIC TVShaina Anand

In the name of a preserving Indian culture (and the minister of culture) came IPRS raids (Indian Performing Rights Society). Local DJ’s who made a living making assorted tapes for clients were raided and shutdown.

8�

born,andwithitthecableTVcottageindustry.Some locals started a network; I rememberbeing up on the roof watching them catchan early bundle of coax cable being flungfrom the neighboring terrace. Cablevision’stransmission was erratic and Prime Sportswasona low frequency, irritatingmy fatherwhoboughta satellite receiver fromTaiwanforUSD50andanantennaforRs.1500/-andset up his own dish on the building terrace.Thisworkedforsometimetillonestormydaythedishflewofftheterraceandcrash-landedinto the compound. We were back to cablethenextmorning,andsawthatnowwehadalotmorethanthefiveStarChannels:wehadnotjusttheBBC,butCNNtoo.

Almost the entire graduating class frommyfilmandvideoproductioncourse(whichI did alongside regular college) joined TVcompanies;somewerestartupsrunningfromsmall hotel rooms in Juhu. Our cable guyran a couple of his own channels too. Oneshowed a constant stream of Hindi movies,musical programs, and sometimes localfestivitiesandDandiya Raasmarathonsfromgymkhanasintheneighborhood.BBCWorldServiceradiowouldbeonabluescreenevenwhen transmission or cable was down. Weevenhadatext-onlychanneladvertisinglocalservices, everything from information onmehendi classes and private tuitions to lostpetsandemergencybloodrequirementswasflashed periodically, while the latest musicplayedinthebackground.Irememberstayingonstandby fora family inKhar thatneededB-negativeblood.WhenIcalled,theysaiditwasn’tsourgentanymore,astheyhadfoundafewpeoplealready.Cableoperatorswereinbigbusinessandterritorialwarshadalreadybegun. The cable guy changed often, butthecablesand thenetwork,howeverhastilyplaced,havesurvivedtilltoday.ThiswasthetimewhenShivSenahadvirtualcontroloverthecity.Therewasachannel(stillis)owned

by the Hindujas called IN Mumbai whichwascontrolledbySenagoons.Soon,throughmight, they captured and consolidated thecable operation of most of North Bombay.Ourcableoperatornowcollected for ‘them’.I remember watching an important cricketmatchwhereattheendofeachover,2minutesofadswere‘telejammed’out,tobereplacedbyalongfilmtrailerforAgni Sakshi,aBollywoodmovie starring Nana Patekar and ManishaKoirala;producedbyaBindaThackeray.Overand over and over again, playing well intomatchtime.TheSanghParivarthink-tankhadalreadyprovedtheirmasteryoftacticalmediastrategy:VHPpropagandaVHStapesinourletter boxes, VCDs inside magazines, flyers,electoral databases, and now tele-jamming.Itwas1995.Bombayhadbeenrecentlyburntwithstatecomplicity.EverystartupchannelinBombay had collapsed, except IN, Murdochhad bought all of STAR and Zee and Hehad jointly ventured into SitiCable- a cabledistribution service. An NRI had inventedhotmail.Istoppedwatchingcricketforever.

InthenameofapreservingIndianculture(andtheministerofculture)cameIPRSraids(Indian Performing Rights Society). LocalDJ’s who made a living making assortedtapes for clients were raided and shutdown.Allplay-listsandlyricsatconcertshadtobecleared before performance, and you had tosay ‘Vande Mataram’ before you began tosing Rage Against the Machines’ “Killing inthename...”Wewentnuclearandthentowar.Barkha Dutt got embedded into Kargil andKargil camehome.Sodid ‘K’ serials.Seattlehappened, Indymedia was born. Sarai waslaunchedwithareadercalledPublic Domain.9/11 happened. Enron collapsed. There waspogrom in Gujarat. A World Social Forumin Mumbai. More ‘K’ serials. And moreconferences.

What would it be like then, if RussellMarkethaditsownTVchannel?

�0

In November 2004, I was asked to do aworkshopattheSrishtiSchoolofArt,Designand Technology, Bangalore as part of their‘new-media semester’. Having abandoned ascholarship and dropped out of a Film andMedia art MFA program in Philadelphiasoon after acquiring film and video skills,I looked forward to making some sort ofpedagogicinterventionintothenavel-gazingdomain of an art student. They would haveto learnrequisitevideo-makingskillson thejob,andtheir jobwastoofferthoseserviceswithasmiletothepeopleofRussellMarket,Shivaji Nagar. A media ‘utopia’ was createdin the microcosm of the enclosed market,and a fluid and visible process of makinga TV channel for the market was set intomotion. The various unions were presentedwith a ‘manifesto’ and permission to shoot

and telecast was granted. Over the nextfortnightfootagewasgeneratedonsiteinthemarketdocumentingthisconcertedcollisionbetween‘insiders’and‘outsiders’.Confrontingthecontentbylearningtoedit,ledtorangeofserializedprogramming:portraitures,poetry,singing, dances and remixes, film spoofs,talentshows,anessayandphotographyfilm,shortfeatures,time-lapse,montages,promosfor live events and programming, signatureanimationsandtunes.Rustle TVwastelecastfor threedays insidethemarket.12TVsetsand a two-way projection were cabled toreceive feed from two desks; a G3, an old‘Shaadi’ analog video mixer and modulatorfunctioned as control room and studio.Programming was expanded to include live

events such as checkers tournaments, quizcompetitions, talk shows and open stage.Videobecamethecanvas,containerandthesite fora feedbackmechanismof20daysofsharedmemoriesandexperiences.

We had run into Mubarak in RussellMarket. He worked for Lokesh, who wasa local cable operator. We had struck agenerous deal. They would cable the TVs iftheygottokeepthe1500metresofcoaxthatwouldbeused.RustleTVhadbeenarunawayhitatRussellMarket.Intheend,themarkethadonegrouse,itwasfuninthemarketbutthey wished that the films show outside totheworldaswell.Lokeshtoohadfoundourideaofcablingthemarketabsurd,“Whynotjust show it on my channel to all of ShivajiNagar?”

�hy C�ty �V? BackinBangalorealmostayearlaterand

remembering Lokesh’s offer, we found ourway to his front office after doing a coupleof loops between Chandi Chowk and ElginTalkies.Lokeshagreed rightaway toairourprogramming,andevensuggestedwegivehimpromos for the ‘channel’ a week in advance.HewouldinserttheminbetweenprimetimemoviesonhisownchannelwhichhadaloyalviewershipasitshowedthelatestHindiandTamil movies. “If its local programming,everyonewillwatch.”

World Information City Tele Vision orWIC TV would telecast programming to3000 homes in Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore

�1

independent of, but parallel to the WorldInformationConference,between6-10pmonLokesh’swidelywatched‘channelnumber2’.

It was postured as ‘protest act’, aninterventionintoanalternativeinternationalconference on information; in keeping withcurrenttrendsofhostingparallelcelebratoryevents:

IfWEFhasaWSFandtheWSFinIndiahad MR (Mumbai Resistance) then if WSIShad a WIC, the WIC in India would haveWICTV!

Beyond the tongue-in-cheek renegademoorings of the project that implicatedthe conference and its setting in Bangalore,WICityTVs intentwastogo localandpulloutwardsfromtheconference,itsthemesandparticipants. This was in one way complicitwith the conference. WI City TV was oneof the small ‘art projects’ curated as part ofWorld Information City Exhibition, a sideeventoftheconference.

A week prior to the conference, an openstudio was set up in the terrace room ofLawyers Collective in Tasker Town, 500metres from Lokesh Control room in theheartofShivajiNagar.IthadbeengiventousonthegoodfaithofALF.ChitrarKarKhana’sbeatupoldP-4andtwodual-processorP-4sdonated by Srishti and a mixed bag of DVcameras, including one belonging to AyishaAbraham curator for the exhibition and asmallonelentfromWaagSocietyformedthehardware resources for our studio. Sleepingmattresses and bamboo mats were found inthebackroom.Nowweneededacrew.

From Bombay came Gaurav Chandelya,a young aspiring filmmaker who ofteneditedwithmeandSanjayBhangar,ayoungand wired individual with a myriad past ofindymedia (mis)deeds and demeanors. Paul

Keller from Waag Society volunteered andsaid he would spend as much time as hecould in the studio. The next day Sravanthi,a literaturestudent fromSt. JosephsCollegeand Jayshree Reddy and Priti Prakash, freshstudentsenrolledinadocumentarydiplomacourse showed up. We were short on bothman power and skilled labor, the crew wassmallandonlyGauravandIhadexperiencein consummating the process from conceptto edit. The rest of the greenhorns wouldhavetodeveloponthefly.

The ‘chaorganization’ had begun. Thecrew was to generate programming for the‘channel’. Content would have to be aboutShivaji Nagar or other parts of Bangaloreand would celebrate, excavate or commenton informal economies and media andinformation politics. The day crunched toincludelongdiscussionsandreadingsand101labs on rules and techniques of engagementwith the public and camera. And promosneededtobemadesoon:

The winning entries from the WorldInformationPosterCampaignweregoingupallover theCity.Primehoardingspaceshadbeenrentedout,onthestretchfromQueensRoadtoShivajiNagarBusStation;theouteredgeofthespectrumofourcablereach.Bangopposite the Bus Station, recessed betweena cluster of small hoardings offering DTP,internet,STD,languagetranslationandmatchmakingfacilitiesontheleftandatempleontheright,anewhoardingwasbeingpainted;a late addition, we were told. Someone hadraisedobjectiontothefactthatthecallfortheBangalorepostercampaigncompetitionhadbeenopentoonlyEUcitizens.AsavefacelateeditioncallhadbeensentouttoIndians,andthiswasthewinningentrybyanNIDstudentcalledVasuDixit.

The background was chalky pink, thestencilingwasskinny.Overthecourseofthe

��

day,we filmed theposter reveal itself:A for(pictureof )Apple,Bfor(pictureof )ball,©for(pictureofscrawnycat.)Andapunchline:TheRightCopy.Wedidn’tfullygetitandwedecidedthatotherswouldn’teither.Theworkneeded interpretation or else kindergartenkids would think it cool to copy alphabetsfromtheirfriend’sbooks.

Apromowasborn:

EX� DAY Sh�vaj� Nagar B��� Stat��nPan to hoarding being painted; the background pink, one lone guy on the scaffolding. Voice over girl # 1: What’s going on here? Lets look... Voice over girl # 2. What’s to see, they are painting another hoarding. Come on, let’s go shopping. Montage of makeshift shops near the bus station, Close ups of clothes and wares in fake and obscure brands; A tape recorded ad plays in the background. “China bazaar, aapke kidmat ke leeya… for your services, China Bazaar. Voice over girl # 1 Wow, you get everything here…Voice over girl # 2: Come on, it’s getting late. Lets go back to the station. Montage ends. Long Shot of finished hoarding/cut to Mid shot of

hoarding. Voice over girl # 1 A for appleVoice over girl # 2 B for ball….what the © for? A cheeky boys voice from the distance: C for copy cat! Voice over girl # 1 Oh… this is the copyright symbol… we see on everything these days…Voice over girl # 2 Copyright? What does that mean… ?Voice over girl # 2 That means we can copy everything! Copyright symbol floats over montage of books, cassettes and clothing on the street. Music begins. Copyright symbol turns into flash animation of cat, whose whiskers and smile move out to form WI©ITY TV. A VCD cover is inserted into a Xerox machine and a copy shoots out. So do words: World, Information, City, TV.

Voice over: World Information City TV, For Shivaji Nagar only. Coming soon, November 15th -19th on this channel.

Programming had begun. Sanjay andSravanthi chose National Market/ Majesticareaastheirbeat.OnDay1oftheirfirstshootever, they encountered an agitated group ofshop owners near Burma Bazaar, who drewtheir attention to a demolished wall. Theentire bazaar, a 3 storey building, built only15yearsagoandingoodconditionwasgoingtobetorndowntomakewayforamallandthis sudden demolition was another threattactic, saidanagitated shopowner. JayshreeandPreetiwentoffontheirvirginshootandfilmed the entire process of making customcarnumberplateswithvinylstickersataDTPfacility:‘WhyCityTV420’founditswayintoanotherpromoonShivajiNagarthatGauraveditedbeforehewentoff toanoldbuildingnear Russell Market called Picture House,whichhousedahundredyearhistoryofphotostudios.Paulkeptusalivebybringingincoffee,Ayisha would replenish drinking water, andLawrence lentushismother’s electrickettleand cellphone. Food was a repetitive diet ofidlisanddosasfromSanman.

Stories were emerging. Sravanthi andSanjay went back to Burma Bazaar and

��

National Market and spoke with more shopownerswhohadbeengivenevictionnotices.

Whethertheywantedtoornot,theywouldbeforcedtovacate;a‘compensationpackage’wouldbegiventothem.Thechiefminister’ssonwasrumoredtohaveboughtthebazaar.They also ventured to National Market, thegrey electronics and black DVD haven withtheir camera to talk with shop owners andget someambient shots. JayshreeandPreetihaddecided to spend theentireweekend inShivajiNagar’sdensewarrensthatcomprisedthe Gujri market, Bangalore’s oldest marketfor junk and recycled automobile parts andanoldstill thriving, lucrativegreyandblackeconomy.Gauravmadeashort;aportraitofan old photo studio at Picture House whichhadbeenreborninthe‘digitalmoment’.

Thefilmshowsdocumentationofayounggirl and her father showing up at the photoshopwithanurgentrequestforaphotographneeded for her madrasa education. Thephrase ‘new technology’ was cited 9 timesas the proprietor articulated the process-posing, shooting, transferring from cameratodesktop,cropping,colorcorrecting, tilingand printing- “without any developing”.Gauravplannedtogobacktoothershopsinthebuildingandserializeepisodestoincludethe range of photographic techniques andfacilities;someveryold,stillavailableinthatbuilding.

Paul, in his anxiety to document thehoardings and posters plastered all overShivajiNagar,felloffhisbicycleandbrokehiscamera.Itseemedfixablethough.WecalledinformationandgottheaddressforaCanonAuthorized Service Center in Malleswaram.Itwasalmostclosingtimewhenwegotthere;theirofficewaslocatedonthefirstfloorofaresidentialbuilding,aCanonhoardinghungon the façade and on the door, legitimizingthepresenceofa ‘frontoffice’.Thesecretarygreetedusandtookusbackdown,throughasmallalleywayintoanotherbuilding,a ‘backoffice’.Epsonsignageadornedthewalls.ThetechnicianinformedPaulthatthewholebodypart would need to be replaced, the camerawould have to be sent to Delhi just for theestimate and that alone would take a week.Healsohintedthatitcouldbe‘fixed’,butleftthespacebetweenhisauthorizedserviceandhislegitimateserviceinabeyance…;wewererecordingthisinteraction.

WeproceededtoMajesticBusstop,totheinternational market of goods and services.Fromthevoice-overinthefilmwelearnthatPaul knew about this market from a DVDbootlegger in Amsterdam from whom hehadprocuredacopyofMaqbool(Bollywoodadaptation of Macbeth) even before itsrelease. Sales shops in most arcades hadshuttersdown,probablybecausethecopshadleakedout informationabouta routineraid;part of their ‘protection’ plan that comes atahigh‘weekly’cost.InBajajarcadeweweredirected toa small stall,whoseshelveswerecrowdedwithcamerapartsandcameras.Wehad an illuminating conversation with theproprietor,whorepairednotjustfilmcamerasbut digital video and still ones. He said helearnedhisskillsataservicecenterinDubai,andhisbrotherwhostilllivedthereupdatedhisdirectoryofmanuals,keepinghisserviceup-to-date.Thecameracouldberepaired,hesaid.ItwouldcostRs250/-andtakeacouple

��

ofhours.Butitwouldn’tbedonetodayashehadalotofpendingorderstofinish.

Likethevoice-overofthefilmtellsus,“Paulneeded his camera today. How else wouldhe take pictures of the conference? Situatedin a tiny lane between National Market andBajaj Market, Paul met his ‘angel’, Ajith, theeponymousproprietoroftherepairshopsaidthejobwouldtalk15minutesandwouldcosta ‘simple amount.’ “You won’t get the spareparts here and there wont be any ‘finishing’,butitwillwork.”Heheatedthedentedmetalonacandleannealingittoitsoriginalshapeand fixed the push button with super glue.He spent almost 45 minutes working on itand gave the camera a thorough check upbefore handing it back to us. “We call thisKaamChalao”,hesaid.MakeDo.ItcostPaultwohundredrupees.(euro3.33)PaulthankedAjith and told him that in Amsterdam, thiswouldhavetaken4weeksandalotofmoney.Whilewewereleaving,Ajithplacedabookinmyfreehand,“Igiveyouagift”.ItwasalittletractprintedsomewhereinAfrica:Why you must be born again.

ThenextdayPaulre-enactedthemissingpartsofthestory.Thepartsbeforehiscameracame crashing to the ground. Gaurav shothimbikingdownQueensroadat full speed,pausing to take photographs of cows, wallsignsandGood Questionposters (awinningentry of the original poster campaign) that

wereplasteredintheElginTalkiesLane.ThefakedbikefallwasunconvincingasPaulwaswaryofdroppinghiscameraagain.Paul’sFall(the born again camera), had a descriptivevoice-over which I had written and Gauravhad recorded ina smoothone take.Hewasintroducedasaquirkyandlovableforeigner,whohadcome fromAmsterdam’ssocietyofoldandnewmediafortheWorldInformationConference.

FourofSebastianLütgert’sGood Questionposters,whichweremutecolorblocksintheShivaji Nagar landscape were localized andtranslated, situating very everyday acts likeXeroxingpagesoftexts,burningCDstosharemusic, buying a ‘number 2’ VCD for yourchildren; buying a computer but not payingforsoftware,astransgressions,misdemeanorsand crimes in the face of a newer regimewith stricter IP laws for the IT city.

Sravanthi went to ALF to get her factsstraightened; Jagdeesh who works onissues pertaining to PAP (Project AffectedPeople), grounded the realities for her andplaced the demolitions in the larger contextof ‘development’ and within the largermachineries of corrupt states. She alsomapped the demolitions and the temporaryclosure or sealing of roads and entrancesinto the area that had led to less traffic ofcustomers.

��

Jayshree and Priti were back after aneducating weekend in the labyrinth of junkandstolenpartsconversingwithmanyGujriowners and workers. They even arrangeda roundtable meet at the Gujri MarketMembers Association. “We talked witheveryonefor long”, theysaid.“Onlythendidwe shoot people at work and we were evenshown photographs of the market from 100years ago.” This from the two girls whosefootage from their first camera exerciseonly a few days ago had been rigorouslyquestioned during group crit session anddeemed ‘erasable’,astheyhadbeenfoundtoappropriateajournalisticfervor.

Moreover, in the enthusiasm of ‘makingapromo’, theyhadgoneontoplantingtheir“WhyCityTV420”numberplateinvariouslocations around Shivaji Nagar, pushcarts,flower sellers and even over the body of asleepingman.

Wehad2daysworthofprogrammingtoedit.Hoursoffootagetobegleaned,digitizedand then cut. Gaurav and I were stretchedbetween the three computers and gettingthemediaonthemachinesandteachingthebasicsofeditingwasexhausting;carvingfilmsoutwouldtakeages,nosleepandmorethan2editors.Forawhile,italmostseemedlikewewerescrewed.Thenaspartoftheprocess-ordivine intervention - into the studio walkedVasuDixit,SoorajRavindranandChinmaye,students from NID eager to volunteer andrepletewitheditingskills.

Vasu Dixit nailed in on the digitized,scripted and storyboarded timeline of Paul’sFall and raced it to a smooth finish at theend of which was added a music video thatPaul made by mounting a camera on hisbike, which he set to the cover-super-hitBollywood version of ‘It’s the time to disco.’Sooraj took on the Gujri film which wasn’teasy at first, as Jayshree and Priti havingimmersedthemselvesinconversationsattheGujri were now keen to edit their presenceout and instead make an analytical ‘talkingbytes’ kind of cut, where people and placeswouldberemoved fromtheirmooringsandtheir speech re-structured in new syntax.Their digitized list had short clips comingfromnowhereandcuttingoffmidsentence.We went back to the tapes and watchedthemagain.Along24-houreditwithSoorajandtheyhadanupfront,dry,irreverentand

�6

revelatory45minute filmonShivajiNagar’soldest and most (notoriously) famous GujriMarket.

Chinmaye, came in for one night andhelpededitMall Practice,Sravanthi’stopicalandrelevant filmonthepassingawayofyetanotherBazaar.Gaurav,nowfreetoroamaswe had more editing support, disappearedintoElginTalkiesforalong12-hourshootingshift He watched the B grade Hindi rerunsbydayandTamilflicksatnight.ElginTalkiesisyetanotheroldtreasurehiddenundertheveneerofShivajiNagar’sperceivedgrime.

Older than cinema itself, Elgin used tobe a play house first. The proprietor Mr.Krishnamurthi still has a brittle yellowednotebook, a journey through the historyof cinema; a log of every movie that playedfrom1907onwards,(Bangalorewasthefirstcity in India to be electrified) including thedirector,countryoforigin,datesofrunandavaluablesectionfor‘remarks’.Itchroniclestheexportofsilentcinema,Hollywood’sgrowingpredominance, the coming of the talkies,includingIndia’sfirstAlamAra,andcensoredentertainmentduringthewar…Elginstillusescarbon arc projectors and is run by a loyalstaff who have grown up as Elgin has aged.Gauravspentthreedaysinside,documentingthecinema’s24-hourclockfrommundanetomagicalandthenspentawholenighteditingit.

Kahani Elgin ki(Elgin’sCinemaScope,theuntold story) almost personifies the space;onethatisanoldfamiliarbosomformeninShivaji Nagar who throng into the light anddarkness for her company and even to justdrink and sleep in her trusting arms whereall is an escape with the world. As Khan,who was ‘adopted by the theatre’ and runsthe space says, “When you pay Rs 100/- fora ticket, you have to sit with respect. Here,for15rupees, theycome,eat, smoke,drink,watchtenminutesofamovie,gotosleeporgetupanddance.Youwon’tfindsuchfacilitiesandsafetyanywhereelseinallofBangalore”.“AmitabhBachhandoesn’trunhere;that’sforCity#1.

Here,itsMithunandSanjayDutt”.Untoldstoryistoldinpartsbypartsbythecaretakers,theprojectionistandZameer,thecaretaker’ssoninchargeofchangingposters.ThereisadetailedaccountofZameer’scommemorationof Sanjay Dutt movies and posters and hismassivefanfollowinginthe‘BlackPalia’area.

The film also featured two songs; andinfrarednightvisualsofthecrowddancingtoaraunchytuneinaTamilflickandGovindaandKimiKatkarinDancerasthemagicandspecial effect of cinema leaked out into thefaçadeandstreetduringAshokSukumaransChanges of StateelectricalinstallationatElgin,alsopartoftheWorldInformationExhibition.

�7

As a one-year anniversary of Rustle TV,wealsopackagedatwo-hour‘BestofRussellTV’special,completingthecircleofhowwegot here in the first place. 20 sets of doubleCDs were dispersed in Russell Market tospread thenews that theywouldbe telecastoncableTV.

Sanjay in the mean time had beenscouring all of Shivaji Nagar looking for itsdigital ecology. He documented numerouscybercafes, DTPs, language translationfacilities, photo studios, video studios,VCD makers, computer classes, softwareprogramming classes, call center trainingcourses.Hesoughta long interviewwithaninstructoratacomputerclass,whosuccinctlygaveademographicbackgroundofcomputerusage, ownership and literacy. He citedexamples of schools and IT colleges makinguse of non-legal software; this was not justinevitable,butnecessaryhesaid, so that thetechnologycouldspreadhomewardsat leastfor students who could afford computers. Abrilliant moment was when he spoke aboutthediehard spiritof thehacker, “Nowadaysyou even have hardware locks for software,butwhatisalock?Nothing.

It’s only a code, and someone creates itorcracks it”.Another interviewwaswithanownerofacybercafe,whoatfirstsaidthathedidn’t supportpiracyanddidn’t allow illegal

downloadsorpornsurfinginhiscafé.Whenasked about the software on his computers,he said “to be honest, it’s pirated.” Sanjayalsointerviewedaradiojockeyandmusicianwho sourced all his music and movies fromnational market. In his own words, “Whywouldyouwanttogoanywhereelse,whenacopy what you want is available at NationalMarket for1/10 theprice. If they really andtrulywanttohaveananti-piracydrive, theywillhavetoarrestallofBangalore”.

Shooting at National Market had irkedsome of the DVD sellers. There had beenmore ‘unforeseen’ crackdowns, ‘protection’came at a high price and in any case, whywould they trustus?More importantly,whydid we need that footage? We only askedourselvesthisquestionwhenwewerestoppedfromshooting.

Perhaps piracy needed advocacy atconferences and academic gatherings, andwhere empirical data needed to be infusedwith lusciousexamplesandvisuals fromtheeveryday. Why exactly would we need tomake a film on it? In India, software, audioandmoviecopyingandpiracyweresoinnatetoourpsyche,suchawayofeverydaylifethatwe’dtakenthemforgranted;forgottenaboutthe spirit and it’s linking to a larger worldview.

The need for such a film then wasphilosophical and Sanjay went off to meetLawrence Liang, former Shivaji Nagar Boy,and renegade IP law-breaker. He cameback with a 45-minute intellectual propertyprimerof sorts inHindi shoton the flattestbackground ever and with a rather oddframe-Sanjay’sfirsttripodshoot.Lawrence’s‘lecture’wouldformthebackboneofthefilm,theblanksectionleftoftheframewouldplayas his visual aid, alter ego, parallel movieand ‘PIP’ channel, with a will of its own.

�8

AgleaningofALF’sIPRdatabaseandmediacompilationsoncopyright,aselectionofclipsfromSanjaysotherinterviews,andabankofvisualsfromShivajiNagar,Forummall,SilverJubileeParkroad,ITPL,andanother24-houredit session with Sooraj , on the last day ofthe conference completed ‘Copyright This’,a potent speedball of a movie; a fast paced,visually provoking sideways but local viewon media and technology history, piracy, IP,censorship and the continuum of culturethrough copying and sharing. There is evenkaraokeremixofaremixofaremixthrownin for the pure interactive visual pleasure ofBollywoodcinema-featuringHelenvs.Truthhurtsvs.LataMangeshkar.

Twelve total days of communal workingwith shift-changing sustenance sleep, anendurance for which grew more and morewith time. The loop between our studio atTasker Town, Shivaji Nagar Bus Station,

RussellMarket,PoliceStation,GujriandElginTalkies, was roughly the ambit of Lokesh’scable network spectrum. Shivaji Nagar stillhas small cable operators some serving 250households. Lokesh is one of the bigger‘daddy’s’ who had a consolidated networkof operators, ever-shrinking or growing, thetotalreachsomewherearound3500homes.

His collection of fees is not uniform,depending entirely on the ‘income levels’,andthepercentorcuthecollectsfromsomesmaller operators, none of which was fixed;even allegiance changes time and again.Added to that an undisclosed fee for ‘policeprotection.’Lokeshhadspokenatlengthaboutthe precarious state of small and mediumsizedcableoperator,especiallytheprospectsofafutureinthefaceofMSOmonopolyandbullying,CAS,andaneventualstrangulationofcablenetworksinthefacetoDTH(direct-to-home). The territorial fight for survivingslivers of spheres of influence ensured thatlocal cable operators would always be incompetitionwitheachotherrendering theircollective bargaining and demanding powerunorganized and ineffective as it was neverstrong to begin with. The latest cog in thewheelwastheintroductionofentertainmenttax,whichtheMSOshadevaded,sayingtheywere service providers, leaving it to fall oncable operators, who in turn would have toincrease monthly fees yet again, eventuallyenticinghomeownerstolookat‘other’viableoptionsthatcouldbedirectlyprovidedbytheMSO’sthemselves.

LokeshhadalsotoldusaboutalocalUrduchannel for Bangalore, ‘Suroor TV’, a ‘freeto air’ channel that a young entrepreneurhad run from his home. One morning, weasked Lokesh to invite Kashif Haq to meetwith us. They both ended up having a verytransparent and candid conversation withus about the messy workarounds they had

��

negotiatedinordertotelecast‘SuroorTV’inShivajiNagar,hometo the largestUrduand‘Deccani’ speaking population in Bangalore.Suroor TV had run out of Kashif ’s familyhome in COX town, which had functionedas set, editing studio and control room andhadbeensustainedmostlybymembersofthefamily and a close knit group of actors andtechniciansfromthearea.Inorderto‘air’hehadbeenpayingamonthlycarrierfeeofonelakh to SitiCable, the now fully Zee ownedMSO. Lokesh, however got his signal fromHathway.

ItwascrucialthatKashiftelecasttohomesis Lokesh’s network as they comprised histargetUrduandDecannispeakingaudience.For this, Kashif had to pay a fee to a localoperator who got Suroor TV via SitiCable(a rival of Lokesh’s who operated from abuildingnearourstudio inTaskerTown) todemodulate it and send it to Lokesh. To dothis,Kashifhadtoprovideforthe700metresofCoax.

Itwasworth it all, asSuroorTVwasondemand and very popular in Shivaji Nagar.Its popularity led to its demise as SitiCablepulleditoffair.SuroorTVeventuallycloseddown under pressure form market forces asthere was little chance of an independent,lowbudgetchannel flourishingdespiteoforbecauseofitssuccessandgrowingviewership.

The documentation of this conversationbetween ‘an independent content providerandalocalcableoperatorfromShivajiNagar’formed the framework fora talk show,Now talking TVthatwasshotat‘SuroorTV’studioin front of a live audience. Safina Fazai, 22yearoldsisterofKashiHaqandchiefeditorofSuroorTVhelpeduseditandauthor theVCD that would play at the talk show andfeature clips that would lend themselves toanopendiscussion.Lokesh’sfacewasblurredoutonhisrequestashewasexposinghimselfto his local audience thereby risking troublefromhisownMSO,Hathaway.

Kashif and Safina were joined by Lokeshandtwomoresmallcableoperatorsfromhisnetwork. Conference speakers Jawahar Raja,who had done extensive research on MSO’smonopolies in New Delhi, ShuddhabrataSengupta and Lawrence Liang were invitedtopartakeintheconversationthatwouldbeaireduncensoredonWICTV the followingevening.Theywerejoinedbyaliveaudiencecomprising of other participants from theconferenceandSuroorTVsupporters.

Thestudio,amediumsizedroomonthefirst floor of Kashif ’s house had a series ofbackdrops on curtain wire that were onceused for Suroors various programming. Wechoseabackdropoflargenewspapersstapledtogetherinacollagethathadbeenusedforadailynewsanalysisprogram thatused tobe

100

hosted by Kashif ’s father, a highly informedindividualwhohadworkedforDoorDarshanforover25years.HeusedtoreadandanalyzedailynewsfromEnglish,KannadaandUrdunewspapersandelucidateandlocalizethem,often inviting in other speakers. The cableoperators sat with the backs facing cameraandtheinvitedmembersfacedtheaudience.The pre-recorded clips played on a TV in acorner. Sajid, a colleague at Suroor TV didthe online edit on a portable analog mixerthatwassendingthefeedtoaPC’scapturedthe stream. The ‘talk’ lasted 75 minutes.The invited speakers were elevated by the‘SuroorTV’storyandinvitedKashiftospeakat their conference the next day. This madeushappy;wehadnot just ‘pushedout’ fromthe conference, but pushed in as well. Wealso aired a Best of Suroor TV special thenextdaybeforethetelecastofthetalkshow.Kashifreceivedseveralcallsthenextdayfromviewers who thought that Suroor TV wasbackonair.

HerearesomeexcerptsfromthetalkshowNowtalkingTV:

Clip #1 plays from VCD menu: Gate-keepersofinformation:

KASHIF:Forinformation,therearegate-keepers, who have bought over top officialsandthegovernment. InBangalore, therearethreemajorcableoperators.

CABLE OPERATOR: The MSOs arecapturingeverything.Theyhaveamonopoly.Nobodyelsecansurvive.

KASHIF: They are InCable, SitiCable,Hathway. InCable belongs to… Rahejas orHindujas?

CABLEOPERATOR:Hindujas.KASHIF:Hinduja.Bigconstruction firm.

Hathwayis?CABLEOPERATOR:HathwayisRahejas.

Alsobigconstructionfirm.

KASHIF: And SitiCable is SubhashChandra’s who also owns Zee. When I wasstarting Suroor TV- according to the TRAI,MSO’sweresupposedtocarrymysignalfreeofcost.Theyshouldnotchargeapennyfromme since this was a free to air channel. Butsincetheyhavethepower,theyalldemandedacarrierfee.

KASHIF: At that time SitiCable gave usthelowestoffer.Iwaspayingthemamonthlycarrierfeeof1lakhrupees.IthoughtIwillpayitfor6monthstooseewhatthedemandformy channel was. The SitiCable people werealso very devious. They carried my signalfor twomonths, thenwhenmychannelwashittingitspeak,they’dcutit.

CABLE OPERATOR: They began bycutting itonSaturdaysandSundays.SuroorTVwasbecomingverypopular.

KASHIF: Definitely, because it wasindependentmedia.

CABLE OPERATOR: For three monthsthatchannelairedandcustomerswerehappy.When Suroor was cut, customers actuallystopped paying me. They said, “Restart thatchannel,andwewillclearyourdues.”

EndofVideoclip.

KASHIF:(toliveaudienceandpanel)So,whatdoyouhavetosayaboutit?How

canachannellikemine,intoday’satmosphere,intoday’seconomy,survive?

JAWAHAR: The problem is not only inBangalore. It is in other cities as well. Wework in Delhi. We faced the same problemwithMSO’sthere.Theyhaveatwo-prongedstrategy.Firstly,theywillkeepincreasingthecoststhatyouhavetobear,andontheotherhand,notallowyoutooperateonany level.They have the same strategy in all cities.This strategy iseasy for them,because theirmonopolyisgrowing.

KASHIF: The cable operators that arethere are neither here nor there. We arebroadcasters,butwearenotregulatedbythe

101

Information and Broadcasting ministry. WecomeunderTRAI.Hereisthelatestcopyoftheregulation.Ifyousee,itclearlystatesherethatTRAIwillprovideonrequestthesignalsoffreetoairchannelsonnon-discriminatoryterms to all distributors of TV channelsor agents within 30 days. But This CableRegulationAct,1995–thisdoesnothing.Itisaverycowardlylaw.Itdoesn’tstatewhatyoucando,orwhatpowersyouhave.Itdoesnotspecifyhowyoucantakelegalactionifthereissomethingwronghappeningtoyou.Thereisnoneofthat.IhavenoideawhattheStatewasthinking.

They have only given guidelines, on thispaperbuttherearenorulesandregulations.There is no law. Why is that? So to registermyself I have to go to the GPO. Even whenthesepeople(cableoperators)needtoregisterthemselves, they go to the GPO. And Weget a license. Why is that? How many cableoperatorsdowehave?

CABLE OPERATOR: There are 2000 inBangalore.

LAWRENCE:IfyouseethehistoryofthisAct – Cable Television Network RegulationAct,1995,thiswasapanicAct.Thescenariowas such that there was no law to governcable television at the time. Cable operatorswere flourishing in the cities and smalltowns.. At this time there were two majorpressures. One was by copyright holderswhowereafraidthattheirworkswerebeingairedbytheseoperators,andthesecondwasthat theanxietyovercensorship– that theyare showing a blue film here, etc. The Statehad lost control over what people saw. Thislegislation was passed in a panic situationand there was no clarity at that point. TheresponseoftheStateisalwaysofaregulatorynature.Itisneverafacilitativelogic.Andthemind-setofthelogicoflicensingandcontrolgot fixed onto cable TV. Because there areso many controls on small cable operators,

itbecomeseasyforlargeMSOs.Historically,that was the problem with this panic Act.It went into a regulatory mode instead ofa facilitativeone. If at that time therewas alittlediscussiononthepossibleroleofcableoperators and local culture, perhaps thelegislationwouldhavebeendifferent.Whenpeople think about their cable supply, veryrarely do they think about where it comesfromandwhatthestructuresbehinditare.Itsimportant for the viewer to be aware aboutthe impact of this monopoly structure. YouaretryingtorunthisUrduchannelthatcanairyourlocalculture.Youwillfacemaximumopposition, because today’s globalizationscenarioisbuiltuponinformationmonopoly.Localcontentisnevershown.Onecoca-colaadvertisementiscirculatedallovertheWorldinalocalenvironmentandthatiscalled‘localculture’. So, if you want to make a strategy,youwillhavetoraiseviewersupport.

SHUDDHA: I will take Lawrence’s pointfurther, in another direction.. Firstly, let mesay– I really like thenameSuroorTV. It isa lovely name. Because the ‘pleasure’ onegets from conversation between two people– those who know Urdu will know themeaningofSuroor.Weareallinthe‘Suroor’that we all should meet, talk, share ideas…And according to me, your channel was avery important part of this process, in theunfolding of this drama of people talking toeachother.Thisalsohasastrongrelationshiptotherighttothefreedomofspeech.Inanycity, or locality, if people meet up, whetherthey are friends, or family, or members ofthe same locality and they want to sharetheir views with the World, any mechanismthatstopsthemfromdoingthis isablowtothe freedom of speech. And according tome, in our society, there are repeated blowsof this kind. And as these blows increase,societybecomesmoreandmorecowardly.Itbecomes, cowardand indifferent.Because if

10�

thereisn’tthefreedomofspeak,thereisn’tthefreedomtolisteneither.Andsocietiessilencebecomesadangerousthing.

JAWAHAR:Before1997,whenthereusedtobeadiscussiononcensorship,itusedtobeaboutthegovt.Thegovt.gaveyoutherighttosaysomethingornot.Butnowthesituationis such that the Govt. hold on things hasbecomeless,itsnowitsmediacompaniesandtherearejust2-3-4ofthemwhodecidewhocansaywhattowhoandhow.

LAWRENCE:Thethingaboutcableisthatitisnotlikeotherindustries,wherethegovt.hadabigroletoplayandtherewerestringentlaws.WhencablewasstartinginIndia,itwasdue to the effort by local cable operators. ItwasonlybecauseofthisthatMSOs,etc.couldenterthemarket.

CABLEOPERATOR:Wemadetheeffortsand they are reaping the benefits of thoseefforts.

LAWRENCE:Absolutely.SHUDDHA:Becauseyoubuiltthebase.CABLE OPERATOR: We built the base,

wemade the investment.Andnow theyaremakingtheprofits.

SHUDDHA: Can you explain, this 700metresofCoaxthatyouweresaying…

KASHIF:See,whathappenedwasthatmysignalwasgoingthroughCitiCable.ButthesecableoperatorsallhadHathway.SohowcouldI give them my signal? I took one wire thatcouldgofromtheCitiCableoperatorstotheseoperators.Itwas700metreslong.AndIlinkedthem and demodulated the signal. I had totakepermissionforthisfromCitiCable.Theygave it. So after demodulating, I was givingthesignaltothem.Therewassuchademandthat theyagreed toairacompetitor’s signal.Butthatwirewascutaftertwomonths.

KASHIF:Thepublicwasupset.WegavethemthenumbersoftheMSO’sandtoldthemtomake theirdemands to them.Customer’scalled and asked why Suroor TV was notcoming any more. There were thousands of

calls like that coming everyday. The MSOsaidthatifyoucalldemandingSuroorTV,wewillshutQTValso.(QTVisaPakistaniUrduchannel.) The customer gets afraid to speakanymorethen.

CABLE OPERATOR: Now there is onlyoneUrduchannelrunning–QTv.Iftheyshutthatalso,therewillbeaproblem.Theyshutall theotherUrduchannels.EvenSaudiwascut.Onecustomercameandroughedmeupand asked me why I cut the Saudi channel.They MSO’s cut this channel during themonthofRamzaan,sopeoplewereangrybuttherewasnothingwecoulddo.Ifthepublichadknowledgeaboutthesethings,theycouldgototheConsumerCourtandmakeacase.

KASHIF:Wedidallthis.Wewenttotherootoftheproblemandexplainedittopeople.Wehadpetitions.ButMSO’sareverystrong.They have a very strong political influence.Ordinarypeoplecannotfightthem.

CABLE OPERATOR: Suroor TV was alocalchannelwhosepopularitywasincreasing.Generally, when a channel’s popularity isincreasing,weairit.ButHathway,SitiCable,etc,theydon’tconsultorask.Theydon’taskwhetherwewantthischannelornot.Whetherpeopleinourlocalitieswouldhaveaninterestfor this or not. A channel just released, forexampleToonDisney,byZee-theydon’ttellusthecostorwhattherateissothatwecandecidewhetherwewantthischannelornot.Ifitisprofitableforthem,theyswitchonthatchannelandwehavetomakethepayment.Insucha situation, thepublichasno freedom.The public wants channels like Suroor TV,buttheydonotprovidethesechannels.Theyairwhateverisprofitableforthem,evenifthepublicdoesnotwant itanddoesnot like it,theyimposeitonpeople.

CABLE OPERATOR: If you see, there issomethingcalledPrimeBandinCable.PrimeBand, mid-Band and UHF. Now what thesepeopleshoulddoisputthechannelsthatthepublic wants most in the Prime Band, but

10�

theydonotdothis.NowwhattheyaredoingisthattheyairthechannelswhichpaythemmoneytobeputonPrimeBand.Forexample,AajTakwillpaythemsomemoney,andthenif Aaj Tak gives money, NDTV won’t be farbehind. They also give cash and get put onPrime Band. So now Prime Band is full ofonly news channels and cartoon networks.(laughter)

SHUDDHA: The issue that you raise isveryinteresting.BecausethequestionisthatthepublicwantstowatchSuroorTV,buttheMSOwantstoairchannelsthatareprofitableto them. For example we had a spate of ‘K’serials, we still do. Then reality TV, nowcartoon channels. If you ask any televisionproducer behind these shows, they will tellyou they are created because the publicwantsthem.Butwhatyouaresayingpaintsadifferentpicture.Youaresayingthatthepublicalsowants towatchSuroorTV.Thismeansthat in deciding television programming,public interest does not figure. And there issomething else involved. Through cartoonnetwork, you can advertise toys. Throughnews channels, you can propagate a certainpoliticalviewandtypeofadvertising.Throughsportschannels,youcangetadvertising.So,you will see that when this 1995 judgementcameout,peoplethoughtthatifthespectrumwentbeyondtheambitoflaw,thentherewillbe diversity. We thought that the differentcolors of the rainbow could be expressed. If50homesinalocalityeachwantedtowatchadifferentshow,theycould.Thatdiversitywillperhapscome.Buttheoppositehashappened.Channels have cloned each other. There aretwosportschannelsthatbothshowthesamething.Sothatrainbowthatcouldhavebeen,never got formed. So my question to you isthatwhenyou startedSuroorTV,youmusthave had an idea of who your audience isand what they wanted. You must have hadsomecalculationandsomerelationshipwiththat public. Otherwise you would not have

invested so much capital and labour. So, Iwould like toknowmoreabout thatpicturethatyouhaveofyouraudience.

KASHIF:See,Idon’twanttoknowwhatishappeninginAmerica.Iwanttoknowwhatmyneighboriseating.Thisisourmentality.

SHUDDHA: Or we might want to knowboth.

KASHIF: But you are more interestedin your neighbor because you can go to hishousetoeat.Youcan’tgopayavisittoBush.

SHUDDHA: And you shouldn’t, even.(Laughter)

KASHIF: So, when we started, our mainaimwastopromoteawarenessamongstourpeople.Therewasnomediahere.HerethereisalargeMuslimpopulationof16-17lakhs,13lakhsaccordingtothecensus.Govt.policies,agendas, etc. were not reaching this area atallandwefoundoutthattherewasthisneedtoknowinoursociety.So,wethoughtabouthow to bring about an awakening in thesepeople,whenrightnowtheyknownothing.

SHUDDHA: And you were seeing ademandforthis.

KASHIF: There was a strong demandcoming from the public. We have an Urdupress. But how many people can read andwriteUrdu?Sowecollectedourselves.Peoplewanted to see their own taste and actorsand poems from their own localities. Wecalculated all this and realized that there isdefinitelyaneedforthisamongstthepeople.Even for local-level leadership to develop.And we thought about this, and this wasthebestkindofmedia todobecause itwasalternative media. So we conducted surveysandfoundoutthatsomepeopleareinterestedinQawwalis,someinpoetry,someinIslamicreligious talks. Lots of Sardars told us thatthey had migrated from Pakistan and thattheirculturewasdifferentandtheygottoseeno programming relevant to their culture.People’sculturewasnotbeingrepresented.

SAFINA: Each individual wishes to

10�

spend a moment in his own environment.For example, if I am seeing Suroor TV, oranychannel,Iwillchangeit.ButifIfindoutthatsomethingisbeingairedaboutmylocalculture, I will be very happy and definitelywatch it, because I will understand what isgoing on and I will do it. So information istransmittedthemosttopeople,notwhenit’sinEnglishbutinalanguagethattheydonotunderstand.

SHUDDHA: Even the Hindi that comesonTVthesedaysIdonotunderstandatall.

KASHIF:WhatwekeptinmindhereistousethetypeofUrduthatiscommonlyspokeninSouthIndia.Because,foraregularperson,itisnotpossibletounderstandhigh-standardLucknowi Urdu. He will only understand ifwespeakinthelocalDeccanidialect.

WIC TV crew: Gaurav Chandelya, Sanjay Bhangar, Sooraj Ravindran, Jayshree Reddy, Priti Prakash, Vasu Dixit, Paul Keller, Shaina Anand.

DH Lokesh, (Sugandha cable vision), Lawyers Collective, Kashif Haq and Safina Fazai (suroor TV) Lawrence Liang and Alternative Law Forum. Srishti School of Art, Design and Technology. Benjamin Solly and Rajan. Ashok Sukumaran, Namita Malhotra and last but not the least Ayisha Abraham for warmth and care.

Chitrakarkhana.net (image workshop/artist food) is a non-funded fully independent unit for experimental media. It was initiated by Shaina Anand, filmmaker and media artist.

ProgrammingfromWICTVwastelecastto 3000 homes in Shivaji Nagar fromNovember17th-20th.Themodestproductionbudget given to the exhibiting artist, in thiscase Shaina Anand/ChitraKarkhana, wasusedtoprovideirregularmealsforthecrew.Wehadoneaddedcostforarentedcamera.Thecrewworkedasvolunteerswithout talkof pay. At the end, Alternative Law Forumgaveeachofthemthesamehonorariumthathadbeensetforvolunteersattheconference.

The films can be downloaded fromchitrakarkhana.net/whycitytv.htm.

World-Information City:a Photographic Review

10�

Above: Good Questions, series of posters by Sebastian Lütgert (Berlin) hanging in the streets. On the right page: ‘The right copy?’ mural painting by Vasu Dixit opposite Shivaji Nager bus station (photos by Paul Keller).

106

107

108

Good Questions, series of posters by Sebastian Lütgert (Berlin) plastered all over Bangalore during the World Information City event (photos by Paul Keller).

10�

110

111

‘Delinquents’ by Ulrike Brückner (Berlin): Portraits of ‘delinquents’ accused of digital crimes point at the twofold character of intellectual and cultural property on Whitefield Road in Bangalore (photo by Paul Keller).

11�

11�

Photo above: street scene with mural painting in progress (photo by Paul Keller). On the right: Solomon Benjamin during the ‘Cities within Cities’ tour (above) and banners between the trees in Bangalore (photos by Kiran Jonnalagadda).

11�

11�

WIC TV: In the office of a local cable operator and the studio of Kasheef ’s Urdu language channel (inserts). Photos by Paul Keller.

116

117

This page: detail of the facade of the ‘elgin talkies’ cinema hall (photo by Ashok Sukumaran). Next page: watching WIC TV at A1 auto consultants on Elgin Road in Shavji Nager (photo by Paul Keller).

118

11�

1�0

1�1

Open Networks

1��

1��

“Openness is one of the key founding principles and characteristics of the Internet. The open nature of the Internet is part of its uniqueness, and its importance as a tool to advance human development. Internet users trade ideas and information and build on both, thus increasing the wealth of knowledge for everyone”. - Internet Governance Forum, Athens, November

2006

The spread of Internet culture over theglobeof thepastdecadehas leadtoawiderand deeper understanding of ‘networkarchitecture’. But what do we know aboutnetworks? Network theories have beenaroundmuchlonger,circulatinginsidesocialpsychology or management studies. It isquestionable how many of us had much ofa critical understanding of its importancepriortothe90s,letaloneknewbacktheninwhatdomaintoimplementsuchknowledge.The issuehowopenorclosednetworksare,or should be, only came up after a while.Openness can be discussed as a (liberal)principle. As an intention it is the dogmaof our times, a paradigm that can counton a wide consensus. It can also be seenas a pragmatist concept aimed to createsustainablestructuresthatcanlastovertimeonce the first excitement of networking hasfadedaway.

Thequestionraisedinthissectionishowacriticaltheoryofopennetworkscouldlooklike. What happens once we’ve passed thepoint of good intentions that openness is

thebetterwaytogo?Whoarethelosersandgainersofthisconcept?Isitpossibletobreakthroughthemantrathatopennessinitselfisa good thing? It is not enough to, time andagain,pointour fingersatevilgovernments,from China to the US and corporations likeMicrosoft. Going beyond these politicalgestures, it’s an easy job to deconstruct the‘open networks’ concept as an ideology andshow itshiddenbordercontrol systems.Weallknowthecarnavalesqueparadeoffiguressuchasthetrollandthespammer,theaccessgeek, the moderator as benevolent dictator,and,not to forget, theworthy librarian.Thechildrenofpost-structurismhaveall learnedto be on the lookout. It is not hard to readthecelebrationsofinclusionasarhetoricthathides actual existing exclusion mechanisms.Indeed, all too often enlightenment projectshaveblatantlyrefusedtolookintotheirdarksides,withdisastrousconsequencesforhumankindandblindnessandfanaticismofsomeofopenadvocatesfitsintothistradition.

To conclude: open is never open, in thesamewayasclosedisneverclosed.Nomatterhow important these reflective remarks arewehavetoask:isthatallthereis?

What energies are at play if we lookat the fierceness of some of the free andopen evangelists? The louder free softwareadvocates and wireless activists emphasizethe absolute openness of their platforms,and refuse to respond to critics, the more

Introduction to Open Networks Power and Politics of Good IntentionsGeert Lovink

1��

suspicious we can be. It is not hard to sumup the complaints. Open Access only existsfor those who made it to the machine andare literate enough to login. The freedomof free software is only for those who havethe technical skills to write computer code.Opennetworksarecarefullyguardedagainstdissent. And so on. The weakness of thesetruisms is that is the disempowering aspectof such cynical knowledge. What startsas careful (self ) observation and healthysuspicioncaneasilydeteriorateintopopulismand indifference. In the same way we couldsaythatitisrelevanttoputthefreesoftware/open source issue on the table in a countrylike India. What some classify as irrelevantbecause of the widespread ‘pirate culture’mayaswellbeseenasagermforanewformof economic production that goes beyondglobally enforced copyright and ‘intellectualproperty’ models. It is another discussionaltogether whether the ‘open networks’philosophyhasgot inherentpost-capitalisticcharacteristics. Whereas the production ofopen source code in India is still at the lowend,thisshouldnotshyusawayfromputtingontheagendaasopenaccesstodocuments,proceduresand,indeed,softwareremainsanuncomfortabledemand.

Whereasitisgoodtoknowthattheworldis not perfect, it remains questionable todismiss all intentions, the bad ones becausetheyareevilandthegoodonesbecausetheywill inevitably end up creating new Gulags.The open network as a design to organizesocial and cultural life is not exactly utopia.It is a messy project that understood thehard lessonsof the20thcenturies.Howcanproposals be developed and refined that donotpresentthemselvestotheoutsideworldasidealistic.Thereisincreasedtalkof‘necessaryexclusion’andthisis,again,atruism,asthereisnoabsoluteopenness.

However,itstillremainsapoliticalprojecttodeconstructthelibertarianagendasofthefree and open gurus that celebrate CreativeCommonswhilemakingfortunesbehindtheback of the same users with hardware andtelecom that we all have to pay for in hardcurrencies.

In his 2004 book Protocol AlexanderGalloway asks how control exists after itsdecentralization.Whathappenswhenpoweris no longer visible or stable? A similarmovement we should make with the open-closed dichotomy. We have to start trainingourselvestolearnhowtoallocatepowerwithinopen systems. It is also important to moveawayfrommoralstandthatopenisgoodandclosedisbad.Wecomeclosertoaworkabletruthifweseeopennetworksasdistributedsystems.Opendoesn’tmeanchaotic,letalonedemocratic. What we should investigate is‘protocological openness’. How can we readopenness as a new power modality and notmerelyasan idealisticposturethat isboundtofail?

1��

Thenice thingabouthealthclubs isthat you never have to be embarrassedaboutwhatyoulooklike.Noonelooksgood, that’s the reasoneveryone’s therein the first place. Nor is fabulous clothingnecessary, for everyone is sweating like apig and is actually so soaked after twentyminutesthateventhehippestoutfithaslostallglamour.Inaddition,inaerobicsoneissobusy trying to execute the correct step anddancemovements,thearmandlegexercises,the ab and butt exercises, which requireonetoconstantly lookinthemirror–AmIraising my elbows high enough? Is my backstraight? Is my knee above my foot? Is mystomachstill tightened?–Thatonecouldn’tcarelesshowtherestoftheclasslooksorisdressed.Moreoverthetempooftheexercises,unlikeinbodybuilding,istoofasttoscrutinizeeach other. People scarcely say hello as theyenter thegymandmustwait a fewminutesfor the instructor to arrive. And you don’ttouch each other at all. Conversation is notonly impossible owing to the volume of thepounding music; there is nothing to say,besidesperhapstheoccasionalgroan.

Theonlyotherthingoneconcentratesonbesides doing the exercises correctly is howone’sbodyreactstothem.Ifyourwholebodystarts to tingle, you‘re breathing too fast. Ifyour stomach muscles start to burn, keepgoing. But don’t take it too far: safety first.Afterafewweeksyoudiscoverwhat’ssogreataboutsomeexercisesandafteramonthortwo

your body begins intensely enjoying all theworkingout.Yougetmoreandmoreenergybecause your metabolism has been raised,but not too much, as it would with cardio.Sagging bellies and spare tires disappearslowlybutsurely,andmusclesthatwereoncesolidlydevelopedcomebacksurprisinglyfast.Abdominalexercisesmayhurt,butassoonasyoustopdoingthemandtakeadeepbreathitgoesaway,andthenexttimeit’snotasbad.Takingaclassfromadifferentinstructoronceinawhileisagoodidea,foreachonehashisor her specialties and reaches parts of thebodytowhichotherspaynoattention.

De La�ettr�e

“The human body is a machine which winds its own springs. It is the living image of perpetual movement,” - Julien Offray De Lamettrie in L’homme-machine

(1748)

The bit about perpetual movementsoundstoogoodtobetrue,anditis,for,DeLamettriecontinues,ifyouputnofuelintoit,thiscontinuouslytickingclockstops,“thesoulpines away, goes mad, and dies exhausted.”To keep the machinery running, it must berepeatedly supplied with matter and energy,whereas a perpetual motion machine needsonlyonepushtokeepmovingforcenturies.Toomuchfuelisnotgoodforthemechanism

Ludwig von Bertalanffy’s and the Birth of Open Systems Arjen Mulder

In scientific books, writers describe the process of evolution, from the Big Bang all the way to the destruction of the universe in 15 billion years or so, as if they had personally witnessed it.

1�6

either, for this gives it digestive problemsand these lead to malicious behavior: “InSwitzerlandwehadabailiffbythenameofM.SteignerdeWittighofen.Whenhe fastedhewasamostuprightandevenamostindulgentjudge,butwoetotheunfortunatemanwhomhefoundontheculprit’sbenchafterhehadhadalargedinner!Hewascapableofsendingthe innocent like the guilty to the gallows.We think we are, and in fact we are, goodmen,onlyaswearegayorbrave;everythingdependsonthewayourmachineisrunning.”

The human being is a machine that issusceptible to moods – unlike any othermachine.

This fact does not prompt De Lamettrieto the conclusion that his metaphor mightnot be any good, but leads him to a moreimportantinsight:“[T]hediversestatesofthesoul arealwayscorrelativewith thoseof thebody.”Thisstatementisimportantbecauseitsays loudly and clearly that René Descartes’statement “I think, therefore I am” is false.Todemonstratethis,DeLamettriesetaboutwriting his treatise. Precisely because thesoulisdependentuponthebody,thehumanbodycanbecalledanautomaton,amachine:it cannot claim a divine spark or othersupernatural extra. De Lamettrie: “[M]an isbutananimal,oracollectionofspringswhichwindeachotherup,withoutbeingabletotellat what point in this human circle, naturehas begun? If these springs differ amongthemselves, these differences consist only intheirpositionandintheirdegreesofstrength,andneverintheirnature.”Inthiscontext,thesoulisthecentralspringinthemachine:that,butnothingmore.

De��carte��Descartessawthingsdifferently.WhereDe

Lamettrieisawriterwhodelightsinknockingdownothers’certaintieswithouteverraisinghis own for discussion, Descartes depicts

himself inDiscours de la méthode (1637)assomeonewhohasarrivedat thedevastatinginsight that everything he knows is built onquicksand, includinghis self-knowledge.Hisdoubtextendssofarthatheisabletoconvincehimselfonlyafterextensiveinvestigationandprofound thought that he actually exists,ratherthanbeingamerefigmentofsomeoneelse’s imagination. He accepts his existenceonlywhenitoccurstohimthatifhedoubtseverything,itisstillhimwhoisdoubting,andno one else. Thus, “I think, therefore I am.”Anyoneelsewouldsay:Iam,thereforeIthink(anddomuchmorebesides).Descartes’geniusliespreciselyinthisremarkableinversion.Itisnot a case of a hilarious error in reasoning,as De Lamettrie tries to show, but rather atragic truth, a youngman’s touchinganswertothecatastrophicrevelationthatallpreviousknowledgeisfalseandtheensuingrealizationthatanyknowledgeabouthispurposeinliferemainstobediscovered–byhim.

Descartes describes how it took him tenyearsoftraveltolaythefirstunwaveringstonefortheedificeofthisnewknowledge:

“Then, examining closely what I was, and seeing that I could imagine that I had no body and that there was no world or place where I was, I could not imagine that I did not exist at all. […] Therefore I realized that I was a substance whose essence, or nature, is nothing but thought, and which, in order to exist, needs no place to exist nor any other material thing.”

Inshort,“evenifIdidnothaveabody,mysoulwouldcontinuetobeallthatitis.”

In Descartes’ new thought, only thoughtitself actually exists, and the rest of realitycan be thought away. Thinking is done bythe soul, and my soul is therefore the onlything Iknow for certainmust exist inorderfor me to be here (and I am here, for I amhaving this thought). De Lamettrie ridiculesthe idea that the soul exists separately fromthebodyinhisanecdoteaboutJudgeSteigner

1�7

von Wittighofen and in a number of otherexamplesoftheeffectsonthesoulofcoffee,opium, sex and so on. For De Lamettrie,thesoulisnotasubstancebutaneffectofamechanicallyfunctioningbody.

This somewhat obvious critique ignoresthe fact that Descartes is actually sayingsomethingremarkableinhispropositionofasoulthatcanexistwithoutabody.Thatis,hewrites thathe is able topretend thathehasno body, the world does not exist and he isnowhere.Trytoimaginethat.

The young René Descartes set out todevise a method with which he could thinkhimself out of the disorder in his head, andthat in the science of his time, and couldachievecertaintyaboutwhohewasandwhatheknew.Hebasedthismethodonfourrules.First,hewouldneveracceptanything,hedidnothimselfclearlyseethetruthof.Second,hewouldbeginbydividingeveryproblemintoasmanypartsasprovednecessaryforsolvingit.Third,hewouldcomposehisargumentationsinanorderlyway,beginningwiththesimplestthings and then ascending step by step tothemostcomplexquestions.Andfourth,hewould write out the individual steps in hisreasoningsocompletelythathecouldforgetnothing.Thesefourrulesstillformthebasisandtouchstoneforallscientificargument.

The first real truth Descartes arriveat using this method was the surprisinginsight that he existed, separately frombody,worldandplace.Howdidhediscoverthis? By imagining himself without a body,a surrounding world or ground beneath hisfeet. Itwashiscapacity for imagination thatrevealedtohimthetruthofhisfirstoriginalthought:inhismindhecouldthinkeverythingaway, except himself as the imaginer of thefantastic nothing in which he somehowcontinuedexisting.The truthof thought,orthe existence of the soul, can be discoveredonlywith thehelpof the imagination. ‘Soul’

is another word for imagination. ThoughDescartesappointedhimselfthechampionofscientifically responsible, logical thought, heproveswithhisveryfirstoriginalthoughttobethechampionofimagination.

The fact that Descartes could find alogical foundation for truth only in his ownimaginationdidnotleadhimtothinkthathisoriginal I-think-therefore-I-am idea mightalsohavebeenaphantasm.Onthecontrary,fromithecreatedthepositionoutsidespaceand time from which the scientific gaze hasstudiedallearthlyphenomenaeversince,byanalyzingthemdowntothesmallestbuildingblocks according to Descartes’ method,logically reconstructing them, and publiclydescribing them in a testable way. In thenaturalsciences,thebeliefinaspiritthatcanmovethroughspaceandtimeindependentlyof a body has continued to exist up to thepresentday.

In scientific books, writers describe theprocessofevolution,fromtheBigBangalltheway to thedestructionof theuniverse in15billion years or so, as if they had personallywitnessedit.Thescientist’ssoulmovesfreelythrough the eons, observing fascinatingphenomena: supernovas, planets forming,primitiveorganismscreatinganoxygen-richatmosphere,Cambrianexplosions,dinosaurs,cometscrashingtoearth,mammalsevolvingand humanoid apes moving onto thesavannah,worldwarsandspacetravel,uptothesungoingoutandourMilkyWayfallingto the center of the universe. The scientistbrings us an eyewitness account of all thesethrilling moments. The same happens withthescientificpropositionthateveryeventintheuniverse, life included,canultimatelybereduced tophysical andchemicalprocesses:in this ‘reductionism’ the scientist’s soulmovesmerrily fromthemacro to themicrolevel,seeinginthelivingcellonlyphysicaland

1�8

chemical changes taking place, and nothingmore.

Thescientist’sgazeisnotboundtohisbody,his world or his place in it. Every scientificstatement is equally true for everybody,everywhere,ineveryworld(naturallawshavebeen valid everywhere in the universe eversincethefirstattosecondoftheBigBang).Theclassicalnaturalsciencesdonotdescribetheworldinwhichweexist,bodiesandall,butanimaginaryworld,ormoreprecisely,theidealstateoftheworldasregardedbyanabsoluteobserver. Isaac Newton in Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (1687)treatsspaceandtime,distanceandduration,mass and velocity as quantities that existindependently of our sensory impressions –quantitiesthatareonlyknowabletothemind.In practice, when measured every physicalconstantturnsouttovarysomewhataroundan average, which is the only ‘constant’. Buthow can we know that these variations arethe consequence of ‘measurement error’ ifwecannevertakeanabsolutemeasurementand thus can measure only measurementerror? Nothing in the embodied universe isunchanging,noteventhespeedoflight.Theclassical natural sciences, however, did notconcernthemselveswiththisfact;theyweremoreinterestedintheabstractpurposeoftheworldthanintheconcreteworlditself.

AfterhisI-think-therefore-I-amdiscoveryDescartes immediately constructed anargument to show that God was the onlyperfect being, existing in an otherwiseimperfectuniverse.Itwastheoverturetotheidealismofthenaturalsciences.Thefactthattheworlddoesnotfollownaturallawsprecisely,butonlyapproximately,isashortcomingnotofthosenaturallawsbutoftheworld,justasitisnotGod’sfaultthattheworldisimperfect,eventhoughhecreatedit.Truthandcertaintyexist only in His domain, not in that of ourearthly fumblings. Instead of being made

modestbythisrealization,Descartesbecameoverconfident:hethought, thereforehewas,and this meant that everything that did notthinkwasnot.Animals,forexample,didnotthink: they were incapable of constructingmeaningful sentences, and therefore had noimmortalsouls,unlikeus.Thesamewastrueofblackpeople,crazypeople,plants,rocks...

With this thought, scientific rationality’stransformation of reality was well and trulyunder way: nothing in the world had a soulany longer except human beings, and theyhadbeengiventheirsoulsbyGod.ThestepDe Lamettrie, otherwise full of admirationforhispredecessorDescartes,tookafterthatwas that he made clear that human beings,too,weresoullesscreatures:theirsoulswereessentially no different than their willies.We experience wonderful things with them–butdivinetheyarenot.Thesoulisjustasearthly, as any other organic effect. Humanbeingsareanimals,andanimalsaremachines.AccordingtoDeLamettrie,thisinsightmadeone “wise, just, tranquil about his fate, andthereforehappy.”

Toreturntothepresent: if thesoultrulysprings from the body, just as the variousorgans spring from the identical cells of theyoungembryo,and if itcan thusbedirectlymanipulatedbythebody,thenthegymisanexcellent example of a place where peoplego to maintain their souls. “A healthy mindinahealthybody” isamoralisticexpressionof the empirical fact that exercising one’sbodyrefreshesone’smind.Exercisemakesuslike ourselves and our fellow human beingsmore;webecomemorehonest;our interestgrows in the solutions others have foundfor the specific limitations and possibilitiesof their bodies; our feeling is refined; ourrespectforwhatsurroundsusbecomespurer,our compassion greater, our outlook morecharitable.Lifebecomesmorereal.Memorybrings forth images we have not thought of

1��

forages,butwhichmakeuswhatweare.Ah,love!

Bychasingthebloodthroughthebody,wenotonlyhelpourstiffmusclestorelax,wegiveour imaginations new energy. And then thephilosophicalproblemofwhetherthebodyisamachineisquicklysolved.Unlikemachines,thebodycanrepairand improve itself,or itcan destroy and neglect itself. The choice isyours. The body is a wonderful entity thatis continuously fallingapartbutat the sametimetirelesslybusyrebuildingitselfagain.

L����g v�n Berta�anffyThe first person to recognize this, in

the late 1920s, was the Austrian biologistLudwig von Bertalanffy (1901–1972). Toclarify his insight, Von Bertalanffy calledthe body – every body, human, plant andanimal–a‘system’.Forhim,asystemwasanyentitywhosecoherencewastheresultoftheinteraction between the parts. Potatoes in aburlapsackdonotformasystem,sincetheyowetheircoherencetoanexternalforce,thesack.Buteachindividualpotatointhesackisasystem,forapotatoderivesitssolidityandstructurenotfromthepeelarounditbutfromtheinteractionbetweenthecellsitismadeupof,ofwhichthepeelalsoconsists.

Von Bertalanffy specified, though, thatlivingorganismswere‘opensystems’:systemsthat maintain their coherence by constantlytaking in matter and energy from theenvironmentanddischargingwastematerialsinto it. Machines, by contrast, are closedsystems:theyprocessmatterandenergyandgiveoffproductsandwaste,buttheydonotusethatmatterandenergytobuildthemselvesup. The coherence of the closed system ofthemachine ismaintainedbyamechanic;asystem manager – another machine, ratherthanthemachineitself.Anopensystemdoespreciselytheopposite.

InProblems of Life (1952),VonBertalanffy

describesthecharacteristicsofsystems.Everysystemalwaysnaturallystrivesforequilibrium.Closed systems tend toward a static andstable equilibrium; open systems maintainan unstable, dynamic one. Closed systemsobey the second law of thermodynamics,whichsaysthatspontaneousreactionsalwaysoccurinthedirectionofthegreatestentropy.This means that closed systems always dotheirbesttodecayintodust,foracollectionof separate particles that can all be thesame temperature exists in an unchangingequilibrium,a final state inwhichorderwillneveragainspontaneouslyarise.

Open systems are always actively busydisturbingtheequilibriumtheyhavemanagedto achieve. They do this because it allowsthem to release the energy with which theypreserve themselves and keep themselvesalive.Theymustalsotakeupnewenergyandmatter from theenvironmentover andoverin order to replenish that used up in theirmaintenance,orelsetheirequilibriumwillbetoogreatlydisturbedandtheywilldie.Atreetakesinenergy(sunlight)andmatter(oxygenand soil minerals) and combines them intosugarsandproteins,thematerialsoutofwhichit ismade.Thetreegivesoffcarbondioxideanddropsleavesinordertogetridofitswasteproducts.Wehumanstakeinenergystoredinplantmoleculesbyintroducingthemintoourbodiesintheformoffood,eitherdirectlyorinaroundaboutwaythroughanimals.Livingbodies are open systems. When we die, oursystems close, and “Dust thou art, and untodustthoushaltreturn”comestrue.

Von Bertalanffy said, “Living things donot just exist; they happen.” In the case ofthe machine, we can differentiate betweena structure and its function. The structureof two axes connected to each other with atotaloffourwheelsattached,hasthefunctionof making a car move. When the car does

1�0

not move, the structure does not becomeweaker,andwhenthecardoesmove, this isnotbeneficialtothestructure’sstrengthandflexibility (rather, the opposite is true). In alivingsystem,nonetheless,nodistinctioncanbemadebetweenstructureandfunction,forthey arise together and in interaction. As alegisused,itfunctionsbetter–forexample,moving more elegantly – and because itfunctions better, its structure becomesstronger,moreflexibleand‘healthier.’

Theleg’sbones,muscles,tendons,nerves,blood vessels and skin are permanentlybeing dismantled and reconstructed, butthis occurs relatively slowly (it takes sevenyears to replace all a body’s cells, althoughreplacing those of the intestinal wall takesjusttwodays).Whenasetoflegsisusedforwalking,variousconstructiveanddestructiveprocesses takeplace in itsmuscles, tendons,nerves,bloodvesselsandsoon(anincreasedsupplyofoxygen-richblood, theproductionofnewmusclefibers,theremovalofbutyricacid and oxygen-poor blood, and so on). Alegasawhole isa ‘structure’, for it isa slowprocess that takes a long time; walking is a‘function’,foritisarapidprocessthatlastsbutashorttime.Therapidprocessofthefunctioninfluences the slowprocessof the structure.Thiscannotbesaidofamachine.

Livingsystemsareconstructedaccordingto a hierarchy of subsystems that rangefrom relatively simple to highly complex.The individual cells of a body are systems,for they maintain themselves by means ofinteraction between their organelles. Thetissuesofwhichthesecellsareapartarealsosystems, as are the organs into which thetissues organize themselves, as is the entirebody of which the organs are a part. Andbodies,too,organizethemselvesintosystems:vegetations, ecosystems, societies, cultures,traditions.Inthetransitiontomorecomplex

levels of organization, the larger systemalwaystakesonnewcharacteristics,onesthatcannotbepredictedfromthecharacteristicsof thesubsystemsoutofwhich thewhole isconstructed.

Thus our bodies are capable of walking,which is not true of the individual musclesout of which our legs are constructed; theycan only contract and relax. The ‘emergent’characteristics of complex systems are thereason the science of biology exists. Thecharacteristics of living systems cannotbe reduced to the physical and chemicalprocessesthattakeplaceatthelowestlevelofcomplexity:theycomprisealevelofrealityinthemselves. Nor can the characteristics of asocialsystembetracedbacktothebiologicalcharacteristicsofthepeoplewhomakeupthatsociallife.Tounderstandsomething,wemustinterpret it on its own level of complexity,nowhereelse.

Subsystemsdeterminethefunctioningofalargersystemjustasmuchasthelargersystemdetermines how its subsystems function.Thus,whenyougetastomachache,youshouldlookforthecausenotonlyinyoursubsystems(suchasthestomachwallreleasingtoomuchacid), but also in the systems of which youyourself are a subsystem (for example, yourjob).Livingsystemshavethreecharacteristicsthatcannotbefoundinun-livingordeadones.First,theyhaveametabolism,throughwhichthey maintain themselves by continuouslyproducing themselves. Second, they possesstheabilitytoreceivestimulifromtheoutsideworld and incorporate them into their ownstructure and corresponding function. Andthird, theyarecapableofchangingshape:ofgrowth, development, adulthood, maturity,old age, wisdom. What is exceptional aboutopen, living systems is that they reach thesamefinalstatealongmanydifferentroutes,whileclosedonesalwaysreachthefinalstate

1�1

alongthesameroute(disorder,death).

Innaturetherearenoaccidentalprocessesand outcomes, no chance evolutions anddevelopments: there are only dynamic,fluctuatingequilibria,andthesearebiology’sobjectsofstudy.Ifthesolepointofevolutionwassurvival,thenonlymicrobeswouldexistonearth,thesameonesthatwerepresentintheprimevalsoupfourbillionyearsago:theyweresurvivingjustfinebackthen.Everythingthatlivesneverthelessshowsaninclinationtoform ever more, ever different connectionsandevermorecomplexsystems.Whyisthis?

Everyindividualisacomplexanddynamicsystem. Do not, therefore, reduce him orher toone trait, for example skincolor, sex,age or mental capacity. See the cloud ofconnections that is maintained by everyperson.Peoplebecomemachinesonlywhenyoutreatthemlikemachines,asinput-outputunits,asstructuresforwhichyoucanclickoncertain functions and suppress others. VonBertalanffy’s Robots, Men and Minds (1967)isonelongcomplaintagainstthepsychologyand psycho-technology of his time, asapplied,forexample,intheadvertisingworld,which was searching for stimuli that couldbe administered in order to elicit reactionsinpeoplesuchasimpulsebuying,feelingsoffear and certain voting behavior. If insteadyou treat people as complex systems withaninherentdrivetodevelopthemselvesandmake themselves ever more complex, yougive them the chance to create souls withinthemselves, completely on their own power,atany levelofcomplexity.For this iswhatasoul is: the extra you get when a relativelysimple system connects itself to a systemof greater complexity, which still maintainsits coherence through interaction betweenthe parts it is made up of. What all thescienceshave incommon,according toVonBertalanffy, is not that they can ultimately

reduce everything that happens on earthand in the cosmos to physical and chemicalprocesses, but that they study relationships,systems whose building blocks organize anorderoftheirown.

In the biological worldview, everythinghas a soul once again. Everything that lives,everythingthatisanopensystem,everythingthatdestroysitself inordertobuilditselfupagain,everythingthatbuildsitselfupinorderto become more complex, has a soul – notfromadivinespark,noran‘élanvital’,noranyothercosmicforcethatbreatheslifeintodeadstructuresfromtheoutside,butasoulitgivestoitselfthroughitsowndrivetobecomemoreandmorecomplicated,andbyconqueringallthe resulting difficulties by becoming evenmore complex, even more difficult. Everysystem seeks to become a subsystem of alarger, more complex system. To this end, itsearches for like-mindedsystems, fora jointrhythm: itseekstobeaskedtodance.Everylivingsystemseekstobecomeameanstoanendbywhich itcantranscend itself.Stayingthesameisnotanoption,unlessonewishesto allow oneself to spontaneously lapse intodisorder.

And if one can find no larger unit ofwhichtobecomeapart–ifthereisnolargerentitytowhichonecanprovideone’suniquecontribution – then one must invent suchanentity:thisiswhytheimaginationcanbecalled theone true soul (animalsare said tobewithoutimaginations).Thesoulisthepartofus–theeffect,thefunction,theemergenttrait – that allows us to understand thateverythingwearemadeupofissimplerthanweare.Butitisalsothethinginusthatmakesuslongtobepartofawholewhoseorderis,asyet,beyondus.Thesoulisthesurplusthatseekstobemore.

1��

Reference��Bertalanffy,Ludwigvon,Problems of Life,

NewYork1952.—, Robots, Men and Minds, New York

1967.Davidson, Mark, Uncommon Sense: The

Life and Thought of Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1�01–1�7�), Father of General Systems Theory, LosAngeles1983.

Arjen Mulder

Arjen Mulder is an Amsterdam-based media theorist who has taught at various art schools in the Netherlands and Belgium, and works with V2_ in Rotterdam. He has published six collections of essays in the Dutch language and co-wrote Book for the Electronic Arts with Maaike Post. In 2004 he published Understanding Media Theory: Language, Image, Sound, Behavior. The piece on Bertalanfy was first published in Joke Brouwer, Arjen Mulder (ed.) Feelings are Always Local (V2_/NAi Publishers).

Descartes,René,Discours de la méthode,Leiden1637.

De Lamettrie, Julien Offray, L’homme-machine,Leiden1748.

Newton, Isaac, Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica, London, 1687; F.Cajori(ed.),Sir Isaac Newton’s Mathematical Principals of Natural Philosophy and His System of the World,Berkeley1934.

1��

Viv closes the large book. For some time now she has been turning the pages in silence as Draeger watches, entranced by the flow of faces. “So,” she says smiling. Draeger starts, his head coming up. “I still don’t understand what happened,” he says after a moment.

“Maybe that’s because it’s still happening,” Viv says.- Ken Kesey, Sometimes a Great Notion1

Sometimes a Great Notion,the1964novelbyKenKesey,isaboutsomuchmorethantheStamperfamilyandtherivalriesandbetrayalsthatcharacterizeamillstrikeinasmalllumbertownontheOregoncoast.Sometimes a Great Notionisabookthattouchedmeprofoundlyin my youth and comes back to haunt menow, like the crisscrossed thoughts of thecentralcharactersandtheuniqueformofthenovel,wherenocharacterisleftaloneintheirthoughts or narrative for any one moment.Rather, the characters in this novel existin a realm where all notions and thoughts,great or small, are highly intertwined; in aseemingly wide-open, non-linear, thought-space, where each character possesses theabilitytointerjecttheirthoughtsintothoseoftheothers,albeit(inparentheses).

Reading this book in the 1980s, in mylate-teens, I was exasperated by the formof the novel, finding it difficult to wrap myhead around a first-person narrative told byall the central characters in the first-person;which in addition to thought interjections(in parentheses), also allowed first-person

narrators to engage in multiple strainsof thought through the use of italics andCAPITALletters.Itallseemedlikemaximumdisorder to me. Indeed, Sometimes a Great Notionwasaheadof itstime,wellahead.Soahead, that in the mid-80s, some 20 yearsafter its publication, such non-linear formstillappearedcompletelyalientoa17year-oldwhohadspenthisyouthreadingChoose Your Own Adventure Novels, playingearlyPONGand ATARI, and mastering BASIC on hisAPPLE IIE,evenregularlyloggingontoBBS’througha1,�00 baudmodem.Yetstill,suchawide-open, non-linear thought-space was asforeigntomethenasthetermcyberneticsistoKesey’sclassicnow;letalonehowahippienovel with a place in the pantheon of 60s-flower-power-acid-trip-odyssey literaturecould be a reflection of the implications ofidentification and control in isolated andopensystems.

ItismyargumentthatSometimes a Great Notion provided a glimpse of the future in1964,actingasaharbingerofthingstocome,namely the internet and the blogosphere.The tendency in this novel to disorder—itscrisscrossingnarrativeformanditsembraceof multiple strains of thought and varyingfirst-person narration—is characteristic ofmovements in all isolated systems; towardsmaximum-disorder—and more specifically

Sometimes a Great Notion: a Reflection on Cybernetics, Isolated Systems and Open BeingsKenneth C. Werbin

The more life is mechanized, the more we must place the weight of our belief in the non-isolated parts of the isolated world; in the openness of other human beings and our interactions with each other—that’s Wiener’s message.

1��

entropy. The more these characters findthemselveslostinamiasmaofdenselywoventhoughts, the less open they are to eachother as human beings. Indeed, as much asthe internet and the blogosphere appear tobe ‘open’ spaces with infinite possibilities,wemustalwaysbeaware that theyhave thecapacitytobequitetheopposite;vastisolated(andisolating)mechanizedsystems,whichinaddition to facilitating powerful operationsof identification and control, also obfuscateoptimism, progress and order by alienatingpeoplefromeachother,fromtheirtendencytobeopenintheeverydayworld.Inthisway,the internet (like the blogosphere, and open systems theory in general) is only sometimes a great notion.

Like many of his contemporaries,includingTimothyLeary,StewartBrand,andNeilCassidy,KenKeseyhadbeenturned onto cybernetics and notions of open systemsinhisMerryPranksterqueststoexperimentwith alternate social forms and realitiesin thought, practice and pharmaceutical.Norbert Wiener was a cult-hero to thesehippies, and his 1948 treatise, Cybernetics: or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine�,wastheontologyfor their acid trips.Butwhere theacid tripsand back-to-nature communes ultimatelyproved to be dead ends, regulated throughlaw and capitalism respectively, cyberneticsas ontology remained, evolved and grew,provingtobe thegreatest legacy leftbehindbythisgeneration,whocametofullyembraceandpassdown ‘open’systemsapproachesasthepre-eminentwaysofdoingandbeing inapost-industrialandincreasinglyglobalizingworld.Inmanyways,the60shadafinalscore;thenaturalistsandtheirbacktoearthnotionslost; while the computer hippies with their‘open’systemsapproachwon.

Cybernetics, like Sometimes a Great Notion, comes back to haunt me too. I first

studied cybernetics as a graduate studentin educational technology, engaging itstechniquestomodelsocialorganizationsanddesign human learning interventions andperformance-based technologies before andthroughthesplinteringof theneweconomyin the late90s.Cyberneticswasa livelihoodandprofessionforme,andtheideaof‘open’systemswasfundamentaltomyvocation;thekey to the design of efficient and effectivelearning solutions and organizations.AlthoughIknewthat theSystematic Design of Instruction�initsrootsandatitscorewasan invention of the US military, I put littlemind to considering the profundity of theconnections between ‘open’ systems designand identification and control at this time,despiteonceevenunknowinglyinterviewingforapositiondesigninglearningsolutionsforsailorsonnuclearsubmarines!“How’dyaliketohave thehighestsecurityclearance in theland, Ken? How’d ya feel about working onanuclearsubmarine?”,aSouthernerdrawledat me in a warehouse on the outskirts ofPhiladelphia back in 1998. Once I deducedwhat business this consulting firm wasreally involved in, I sabotaged the interviewby suggesting that a Russian constructivistapproach might be more appropriate to thedesignoflearningsolutionsthanthemilitarydeveloped,triedandtruetechniquesinvolvingthe Systematic Design of Instruction. Theywerenotimpressedandsummarilyendedtheinterview.Afterall, Iwasadvocating for theman(sic) overthemachine;humanitybeforemechanizedprocesses.

But still, at this time, I considered thistobenothingmore thananoddbrushwiththe military-industrial complex, choosing toignorethebroader,socialimplicationsof‘open’systems design and its inherent possibilitiesfor dehumanizing isolation, identification,control and critical entropy. Indeed, it wasonly when I returned to academia for PhD

1��

studies, fully extracting myself from ‘open’systems design as vocation, and partiallyextracting myself from such ontology, that Itoocametoseethat‘open’ systems are really ‘isolated’ systems, where the tendency is tomaximum disorder for those inside them.Indeed,cybernetics is also only sometimes a great notion.

NorbertWienerwas firstand foremostapatriotic American, an MIT professor, whoappliedhistremendousintellecttoquestionsof artillery and ballistics during WWI, andultimately solved the biggest impedimenttothedefeatof theNazis inWWII;namely,howtotrackandtargetamovingairplaneinthe sky so as to shoot it down before it hasa chance to strike. It was in such a climateof uncertainty and dire consequence, whereunlockingthekeytoidentificationandcontrol(inthewide-openskies)waspreeminent,thatNorbert Wiener came to apply cyberneticsand notions of isolated feedback systems tomilitary-basedproblems.

Despite the seemingly wide-open natureof the sky, Wiener recognized that like theuniverse, the sky, and more specifically apilotinsymbiosiswiththeirplaneinthesky,were in fact isolated systems, that despitetending towards maximum disorder couldthrough mechanized processes be probedfor recognizable and predictable patterns—the basis of identification, control andcommunication in animals and machines.Indeed,where isolatedsystemsdobynaturetendtowardsmaximumdisorder—entropy—they can nonetheless be controlled byuncoveringandhoninginonregularitiesandpatterns,whichcanbemanipulatedthroughfeedback operations. This theory provedto be invaluable to the military-industrialcomplex, providing a series of underlyingmathematical operations that solved a widevariety of identification and control issues

inweapons,securityandsurveillancedesignanddevelopment.

Howdid suchaman, and sucha theory,seemingly anathema to the ways of flowerpower, become a cult hero to hippies likeKesey, providing ontological justification fortheirsocialandartisticexperiments?

Our view of society differs from the ideal of society which is held by many Fascists, Strong Men in Business, and Government. Similar men of ambition for power are not entirely unknown in scientific and educational institutions. Such people prefer an organization in which all orders come from above and none return. The human beings under them have been reduced to the level of effectors for a supposedly higher nervous organism. I wish to devote this book to a protest against this inhuman use of human beings; for in my mind, any use of human beings in which less is demanded of him than his full status is a degradation and a waste. It is a degradation to chain a human being to an oar and use him as a source of power…Those who suffer from a power complex find the mechanization of man a simple way to realize their ambitions. I say, that this easy path to power is in fact not only a rejection of everything that I consider to be of moral worth in the human race, but also a rejection of our now very tenuous opportunities for a considerable period of human survival.- Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human

Beings (1st Edition)4

Following WWII and the victory by theAllied Forces, the USA began to embraceitsnewlydefinedroleasworldsuperpower,and quickly, cybernetics hatched from itsmilitaryshell,takingholdasasocialstrategyaimed at preserving worldwide hegemony.While WWII adoption of cybernetics wasto military ends, post-war, the philosophyquicklyextendedtoquestionsofsocialorder,leading toa seriesof initiatives spearheadedbytheUSgovernmentaimedat ‘connecting’people globally in the hopes of eliminating‘authoritarian personalities’ and racism5.Simplyput,theideawasthatthemore‘open’and ‘connected’ people could be—the more

1�6

opportunity they had to share their storiesand experience in a vast but nonethelessisolated mechanized system—the lessinclined they would be to take extreme,‘authoritarian’ positions of hate; and ofcourse, if they did, they could be tracked.In thisway,cyberneticshad thepotential topromote a kind of worldwide panopticism,wherehateandracismcouldbekeptincheckthroughan‘open’globalawarenessheretoforeunimagined.

Thegospelofcyberneticswasevangelizedto social and hard sciences through a seriesofinitiativesincludingtheMacyconferencesin Chicago in the mid 1940s, which wereinitially attended by cybernetic and socialscienceluminariesincludingNorbertWiener,Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead, JohannvonNeumann,HeinzvonFoersterandKurtLewin,aswellastheCIA.Theseconferencesultimatelygaverisetoaseriesof‘open’socialexperiments including the LSD experimentsat Harvard, Ken Kesey and the MerryPranksters’acid-tripodysseys,andultimately,ARPANETthepredecessortotheinternet6.Inthisway,bythetimecyberneticscametothehippies,anewlanguageof‘open’,auto-poetic,self-organizing systems was taking root andfinding more and more applications in boththehardandsocialsciences.Fromcognitiveand computer science to neurobiology,anthropology and education, a discourseof openness and connection had begun tousurptheovertonesofcybernetics’military-industrial legacy, effectively obfuscatingcritiquesofthehumanalienationinherentinenveloping life in isolated feedback systemsforthepurposesofidentificationandcontrol.And it is precisely this transformation ofcybernetics that ultimately came to hauntNorbert Wiener, who withdrew from futureMacy gatherings, and subsequently pennedthe1steditionofThe Human Use of Human Beingsin1950.

In this work, Wiener invests significanttime in considering and warning againstthe social consequences and the possiblede-humanizing effects of mass adoption offeedback systems as social order, arguingthat the ‘mechanization of man’ through‘isolated systems’ is the simplest and easiestpath to power. Recognizing that isolatedsystemsappliedas socialorderallowpeoplewith ambitions for power to craft socialorganizations where orders come from thetop and go down unquestioned, WienerwroteTheHuman Use of Human Beingsasaprotestandwarningagainstthedehumanizingpossibilitiesinherentinsuchpracticeandthedireimplicationsofidentification,controlandpowerinisolatedsystemstohumansurvival.Indeed, enveloping a country, the world, orall of humanity in an isolated, mechanizedfeedbacksystemcouldprovidetheincunabulafor a new global totalitarianism, wherethe tendency is to maximum disorder, butfor those who wield the technologies thatconstituteidentificationandcontrol.

Critical tohiswarning is therelationshipbetween progress and entropy, between theopennessofhumanbeingsand the isolationof machines. Indeed, for Wiener, it is onlyin thenon-isolatedpartsof isolatedsystemsthat optimism is to be found: In human beings, who are inherently open, existing asislands in a vast but isolated sea of entropy,theuniverse;andwhodefythisgreatestofallentropybydisplayinguniqueinstincts,traits,andtendenciestowardsorder,optimismandprogress—openness. But where openness ismarked by order, optimism and progress,andistherealmofhumanity,itisnotagiven,as disorder, pessimism and isolation are thehallmarksofentropy,andthepredispositionofmoleculesinisolatedsystems.

In‘TheDreamMachine’MichaelWaldrop7sketchesoutthehistoryofinformationtheory

1�7

anditsdirecttiestophysicists’understandingof entropy, recounting the renownedcomputing mathematician Johann vonNeumann’s insistence to Claude Shannon,the father of ‘Information Theory’, thatinformation and entropy were quite simply,one in the same. The story has it that vonNeumann in a heated debate with Shannoninsisted that ‘Information’ inhis ‘Theory’bere-named‘Entropy’.Firstly,because“…[your]formula for the information content of amessage [is] mathematically identical to thephysicist’s formula for entropy,” but moreimportantly, because “most people don’tknow what entropy really is, and if you usethe word entropy in an argument, you willwineverytime!” ,vonNeumannpedanticallyintonedtoShannon8.

Despite such stuffy and alienatingoffhandedness, his point was valid andShannon considered it as such. In physics,entropy is understood as an indicator ofthe randomness of molecules in an isolatedsystem; and randomness, according tothe 2nd law of thermodynamics, alwaysincreases, never decreases. In otherwords, an isolated system will always tendtowards maximum disorder—the greatesthomogeneityknown—andthemorerandomsomething isat themolecular level, the ‘lessinformation’wehaveaboutthearrangementof themolecules.Entropy is, in this respect,‘missing information’, that which Shannon’stheoryportendedtoelaborate.

Since early literacy we have indeed beenengaged in a never-ending battle to managenever-ebbing flows of information, orentropy, as von Neumann insisted it to be.Theearliestwritingswere listsofdebitsandcreditsowed,listsofevents,andlexicallistsofconcepts,whichrepresentveryearlyattemptsat bringing order to, and decreasing theentropy of life through isolated systems andmechanized processes aimed at organizing

knowledge and society. And where suchsystems do provide unparalleled efficiencyand effectiveness, they also produce theeffects of endlessly new, and increasinglydisorderedquestionsandthoughtsofallkinds,particularlyforthosewhoselivesareorderedby them.Butdespitebeingcharacterizedbysuchinherentinternaldisorder,whenprobedforregularitiesandpatterns,isolatedsystemscanhighlightallkindsof‘missinginformation’for those who wield the books; ultimatelysubjecting people to increasingly invasiveforms of identification, control and power.Indeed,identification,controlandpowerareachievedwiththereductionofhumanbeingstotrackableentitiesinisolatedsystems9.

Anditispreciselythispotentialforisolatedsystems to reduce people to quantifiablecogs in a wheel that makes the 2nd law ofthermodynamics, for Wiener, more than acornerstoneofphysicalscience,butalsoadirewarningthatlifecanbeisolatedandsubjectedto intense identificationandcontrol,despiteaneverydayexistencethatmostexperienceasdisorderandentropy.Thedangerofisolatedsystemsassocialsystemsisanobfuscationofthewide-openpossibilitiesandlightinherentin human beings, who despite existing ina miasma of ever-intertwining thoughts,notionsandentropyfindoptimism,progressand order in our openness to each other.In this respect, human beings are the onlyinherently open systems, and the danger isthat the isolated systems in which we live(fromtheuniverse,totheinternet,toscienceingeneral)haveanaturalpropensitytomoveus towards maximum disorder, making itdifficult to see our openness and humanitythroughthedenseisolation.

The question of whether to interpret the second law of thermodynamics pessimistically or without gloomy consequence depends on the importance we give to the universe at large, on the one hand, and to the islands of locally decreasing entropy we find in it, on the other.

1�8

Remember that we ourselves constitute such an island of decreasing entropy, and that we live among other such islands.

Norbert Wiener—The Human Use of Human Beings(1stEdition)10

For although we are embedded inisolated systems where communication andinformationflowfreelyandendlesslytowardsentropy, we are nonetheless in constantfeedback with those around us; capable ofcritiquing,makingdecisions,imaginingotherpossibilities, acting, learning and growingtogether.Far from being isolated automatons, it is our continual, critical interaction with our environment and those around us, and the optimism and progress we see in each other, that makes us open. Butthatisnottosay that openness, progress, and optimismareagiven.Placingtheweightofourbeliefsin humanity over and above our isolatedmechanized systems is a choice, and suchpractices and fundamental beliefs must befostered and maintained, and their demisemustbeguardedagainstvigilantly.Themorelife is mechanized, the more we must placethe weight of our belief in the non-isolatedparts of isolated systems—in each other’sopenness.

Inmanyways,Sometimes a Great Notion,the internet and the blogosphere are allnothingmorethanreflectionsofthegrandestofallisolatedsystems,theuniverse;andlikeallisolatedsystemstheyarealltendingtowardsmaximumdisorder—entropy.InSometimes a Great Notion, themoreonereads,themoredisordered the pages become; disorientationabounds as the thoughts become sodensely interwoven that it is impossible tosee anything beyond a morass of looselyconnected thoughts. With each interjectionthat appears in (parentheses), and each andeverynewstrainofthoughtthatmanifestsinitalics and CAPITALS, we are farther fromthecharacters,andtheyarefartherfromeach

other,fromthehumanityeachandeveryoneembodies.Withsomanyversionsofsomanystories, and no one talking or listening, justinterjectingthoughts,noonevisioncanholdanyone together; not of the mill, not of theunion,notofthefamily,norhumanity.

Andisitreallyanydifferentontheinternetorintheblogosphere?Withsomanyversionsof so many stories, and so many highlyintertwined tales and hyperlinked positions,howareweevertoseethehumanitythroughthe entropy? How are we ever to be on thesamepage?

Ashumanbeings,existingasislandsinaseaofentropy,wedohavechoices,andwedohaveinstincts to order, optimism and progress—openness. But for some, the vastness of themechanizedseameansdrowning;entropy isinertia and critical disengagement, there issimplytoomuchinformationandevenmoremissing information swelling in deeper anddeeperwaters.Howtokeepone’sheadabove?They simply sink, drowning in isolation.Where some choose to sail in autopilot,relyingonmachinestosettheircourse,withincreasinglysophisticatednavigationtoolslike‘rankinglists’andRSSfeedstoascribevaluetotheswellinginternetandblogosphere,fullyembracing the isolation of the mechanizedworld11. And still some choose to transformtheentropyintoprogress,harnessingitintheirday-to-day existence together; privilegingcriticalthoughtandhumaninteractionintheascriptionofvalue;negotiatingandorderingexistence in face-to-face reality; opening to each other.

For there is always a sanctuary more, a door that can never be forced, whatever the force, a last inviolable stronghold that can never be taken, whatever the attack; your vote can be taken, your name, your innards, even your life, but that last stronghold can only be surrendered. And to surrender it for any reason other than love is to surrender love.

KenKesey—Sometimes A Great Notion1�

1��

The more life is mechanized, the morewemustplacetheweightofourbeliefinthenon-isolated parts of the isolated world; intheopennessofotherhumanbeingsandourinteractionswitheachother—that’sWiener’smessage. And this warning was not lost onKen Kesey, for it is a similar lesson that thecentral characters in Sometimes a Great Notion come to learn, only transcendingtheirbitterrivalriesandbetrayals,oncetheyfinally come to see beyond the disorderand isolation of their multiple, crisscrossedstrains of thought; finally honing in on, andplacing weight, emphasis, belief and love ineach other’s presence, fully opening to oneanother’s humanity. For in the end, Kesey’scharacters do transcend the disorder oftheir entropic thought-space, finally talkingtoeachother,outsideof their isolation, inabackandforthdialoguethatisthesolerealmofthenon-isolatedpartsofisolatedsystems;open human beings engaged and interacting in the here and now. And it is only withthis recognition that Kesey restores orderto the novel; the CAPITALS, italics and(parentheses)arenomore;thecharactersarefinallyopentoeachother.

(AreWE?)

Reference��1 Kesey, Ken. 1964. Sometimes a Great

Notion.NewYork:BantamBooks8thPrinting(TheVikingPressInc.),p.598

2 Wiener, Norbert. 1994. Cybernetics: Control and communication in the human and the machine. Cambridge, Mass.: MITPress.

3 Dick,WalterandLouCarey.1978.The systematic design of instruction. Glenview,Ill.:Scott,Foresman.

4 Wiener,Norbert.1950.The human use of human beings; cybernetics and society.Boston:HoughtonMifflin,p.15-6

5 LutzDammbeck’sdepthfuldocumentary,“The Net: The Unabomber, LSD and the

Internet” (2006 – Other Cinema Release)tracesthehistoricaltiesbetweencybernetics,theMacyconferencesandthelinksbetweenCIA sponsored mind-control experiments,theInternetandTheodorAdorno’s1950studyonracisminAmerica.(Adorno,TheodorW.1950. The Authoritarian personality. NewYork:Harper.)

6 Contrary to many accounts of theimpetus fortheAdvancedResearchProjectsAgencyNetwork(theinternet’spredecessor)stemmingfromafearofnucleardisaster,LutzDammbeck’sdocumentary,andspecificallyhisinterviewswiththeformerheadofARPAnet,Robert Taylor (1965-69, also founder andmanagerofXeroxPARC’sComputerScienceLaboratory1970-83),makeastrongcasefortheideaofan‘open’,highly-connected,global,mechanizedsystemtoencouragethesharingof information and a world without hate asthefundamentalgoalbehindtheadventoftheinternet’spredecessor.

7 Waldrop,M.Mitchell.2001.The dream machine : J. C. R. Licklider and the revolution that made computing personal. New York:Viking.

8 Ibid.p.819 Werbin,KennethC.2007(Forthcoming

PhDDissertation).The List Serves: Bare Life in Cybernetic Order. Montreal: ConcordiaUniversity.

10Wiener,Norbert.1950.The human use of human beings; cybernetics and society.Boston,:HoughtonMifflin.p.25

11 Lovink,GeertandKennethC.Werbin.2006(Forthcoming).“CritiqueofRankingandListing:AnEmailExchange.”inTECHNICITY,editedbyL.ArmandandA.Bradley.Prague:LitterariaPragensia.

12Kesey, Ken. 1964. Sometimes a Great Notion.NewYork:BantamBooks8thPrinting(TheVikingPressInc.),p.594

© All rights reserved Kenneth C. Werbin, 2006

1�0

Biography Kenneth C. Werbin

Descending from a long-line of Marxist thinkers and activists, Montreal-based Kenneth C. Werbin works as a Doctoral Researcher in the Department of Communication Studies at Concordia University. His nearly finished dissertation, The List Serves: Bare Life in Cybernetic Order, probes questions of list culture; arguing that the Third Reich’s engagement of a conjunction of early Hollerith/IBM computing technology, listing practices, and discourses of surveillance, identification and control, represents the first cybernetic feedback system for maintaining social order around bare life; and investigating how this conjunction continues to resonate and reverberate in today’s increasingly cybernetic order. Also a part-time lecturer, Kenneth participates as a moderator for the University of the Streets Public Dialogue Series in Montreal, coordinating a discussion series on ‘Technology, Culture and Power’. Kenneth is also a student researcher with the Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking (http://www.cracin.ca) where he is investigating the ‘third-spaces’ that emerge around Canadian-government sponsored community-networking initiatives.

1�1

Inrecentdecades,theprimaryconflictbetweenorganizationaldesignshasbeenbetween hierarchies and networks: anasymmetrical war. In the future we arelikelytoexperienceageneralshiftdownwardintoanewbilateralorganizationalconflict–networksfightingnetworks.JohnArquillaandDavidRonfeldt,tworesearchersattheRANDCorporationwhohavewrittenextensivelyonthe hierarchy-network conflict, offer a fewpropositionsforthinkingaboutfuturepolicy:

· Hierarchieshaveadifficulttimefightingnetworks.[...]

· Ittakesnetworkstofightnetworks.[...]· Whoevermastersthenetworkformfirst

andbestwillgainmajoradvantages1.

But what is an actually existing exampleof networks fighting networks? We oftenpoint to the agile, flexible American SpecialForcesfightingtheelusivecellsofAl-Qaeda,or email worms exploiting weaknesses innetworked software, or the paper airplanesof theZapatistas’ ‘air force’ fightingamediawar with the guerrilla marketing campaignsof the multinationals, or SARS exploitingglobaltransportationnetworks.Networksofcontrol have invaded contemporary life tosuchahighdegree–intheformofubiquitoussurveillance, biological informatization andothertechniques–thattheirpreponderance,their hegemony, cannot help but bring intoexistenceintra-diagrammaticconflict.

The question then remains: what

happens when “the powers that be” actuallyevolve into networked power, creating asinisternewsymmetry?Ifwecanimagineforasecondthatthishasalreadyhappened–tovarying degrees in varying locations – doesthatmean that theLefthas lost its strategicfoothold?

Rhet�r�c�� �f Free���While tactically valuable in the fight

against proprietary software, open sourceis ultimately flawed as a political program.Open source focuses on code in isolation.It fetishizes all the wrong things: language,originality, source, the past, status. To focuson inert, isolated code is to ignore code inits context, in its social relation, in its realexperience,oractualdynamicrelationswithother code and other machines. Debuggingnever happens through reading the sourcecode, only through running the program.Better than open source would be openruntime,whichwouldprizealltheopposites:open articulation, open iterability, openpractice,openbecoming.

But this is also misleading and basedin a rhetoric around the relative opennessand closedness of a technological system.That rhetoric goes something like this:technologicalsystemscaneitherbeclosedoropen.Closedsystemsaregenerallycreatedbyeithercommercialorstateinterests–courts

In Defiance of Existence: Notes on Networks, Control and Life FormsAlexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker

In computer networks, science professionals have, over the years, drafted hundreds of protocols to govern email, web pages, and so on, plus many other standards for technologies rarely seen by human eyes.

1��

regulatetechnology,companiescontroltheirproprietary technologies in themarketplace,andsoon.Opensystems,ontheotherhand,are generally associated with the public andwith freedom and political transparency.GeertLovinkcontrasts“closedsystemsbasedonprofit throughcontrolandscarcity”with“open, innovative standards situated in thepublic domain”2. Later, in his elucidation ofManuel Castells, he writes of the opposite,a “freedom hardwired into code”3. This getsto the heart of the freedom rhetoric. If it’shardwired, is it still freedom? Instead ofguaranteeingfreedom,theactof‘hardwiring’suggestsalimitationonfreedom.AndinfactthatispreciselythecaseontheInternet,wherestrict universal standards of communicationhavebeen rolledoutmorewidely andmorequicklythaninanyothermediumthroughouthistory.LawrenceLessigandmanyothersrelyheavilyonthisrhetoricoffreedom.

Wesuggestthatthisoppositionbetweenclosed and open is flawed. It unwittinglyperpetuates one of today’s most insidiouspoliticalmyths:thatthestateandcapitalarethe two sole instigators of control. Insteadof the open/closed opposition, we suggestthe pairing physical/social. The so-calledopenlogicsofcontrol,thoseassociatedwith(non-proprietary) computer code or withthe Internet protocols, operate primarilyusing a physical model of control. Forexample, protocols interact with each otherby physically altering and amending lowerprotocologicalobjects(IPprefixesitsheaderonto a TCP data object, which prefixes itsheader onto an HTTP object, and so on).But on the other hand, the so-called closedlogics of state and commercial controloperate primarily using a social model ofcontrol.For,example,Microsoft’scommercialprowess is renewedvia the social activityofmarketexchange.Or,tociteanotherexample,DigitalRightsManagementlicensesestablisha social relationship between producers and

consumers, a social relationship backed upbyspecificlegalrealities(DMCA).Viewedinthisway,wefinditself-evidentthatphysicalcontrol(i.e.protocol)isaspowerfulassocialcontrol,ifnotmoreso.Thus,wehopetoshowthatifthetopicathandisoneofcontrol,thenthe monikers of ‘open’ and ‘closed’ simplyfurther confuse the issue. Instead we wouldlike to speak in terms of “alternatives ofcontrol”,wherebythecontrollinglogicofboth‘open’and‘closed’systemsisbroughtoutintothelightofday.

Fee�back v��. �nteract��n �In the twentieth century there came to

pass an evolution in the nature of two-waycommunication within mass media. Thisevolutionistypifiedbytwomodels:feedbackand interaction. The first model consistsof what Beniger calls the mass feedbacktechnologies:

“Market research (the idea first appeared as ‘commercial research’ in 1911), including questionnaire surveys of magazine readership, the Audit Bureau of Circulation (1914), house-to-house interviewing (1916), attitudinal and opinion surveys (a U.S. bibliography lists nearly three thousand by 1928), a Census of Distribution (1929), large-scale statistical sampling theory (1930), indices of retail sales (1933), A. C. Nielsen’s audimeter monitoring of broadcast audiences (1935), and statistical-sample surveys like the Gallup Poll (1936)”4.

These technologies establish two-way communications; however, here, asin the media they hope to analyze, thecommunication loop is not symmetrical.Information flows in one direction, fromthe viewing public to the institutions ofmonitoring.

Contrastthiswiththeentirelydifferenttechnique of two-way communicationthat is called interaction. As a technology,interaction does not simply meansymmetrical communication between two

1��

parties. Instead, we use ‘interaction’ to refertoanentiresystemofcommunicativepeers:whatPaulBarancalleda‘distributednetwork’of communication. We can offer here a listof interactive communications technologiesto complement Beniger’s list of feedbacktechnologiesabove:

· Paul Baran’s description of distributedcommunications(1964)

· RecombinantDNAand thepracticeofgene-splicing(1973)

· TheARPANET’smandatoryrollovertotheTCP/IPprotocolsuite(1983)

· Emerging infectious diseases (1980-present)

· TheGnutellasearchprotocol(2000)

Thus, interaction happens in aninformatic medium whenever there existsa broad network of communicative pairs ormultiples,andinwhicheachcommunicativepeer is able physically to affect the other. Itdoesn’t happen in mass media like cinemaor television because the audience isstructurallyunable toachieveasymmetricalrelationship of communication with theapparatus (no matter how loudly one yellsback at the screen). Interaction happens inthetechnologyofgene-splicingbecausebothsidesareabletophysicallychangethesystem:the scientist changes the physical system byinsertingageneticsequence;whileDNAistheinformatic code that teleonomically governsthe development of physical life. Interactionhappens in the Internet protocols for thesame reason: protocols interact with eachother by physically altering and prependinglesserprotocologicalglobs.

Fee�back v��. �nteract��n ��As models for two-way communication,

feedback and interaction also correspond totwo different models of control. Feedbackcorresponds to the cybernetic model of

control, where, although communicationoccurs bidirectionally between two parties,one party is always the controlling oneand the other the controlled. A thermostatcontrols temperature, not the other wayaround.Massmedialiketelevisionandradiofollow this model. Interaction, on the otherhand, corresponds to a networked model ofcontrol, where decision-making proceedsmultilaterallyandsimultaneously.

Many today say that new mediatechnologies are ushering in a new era ofenhanced freedom and that technologiesof control are waning. We say, on thecontrary, that double the communicationleadstodoublethecontrol.Sinceinteractivetechnologies such as the Internet are basedonmultidirectionalratherthanunidirectionalcommand and control, we expect to seean exponential increase in the potentialfor exploitation and control through suchtechniques as monitoring, surveillance,biometrics, and gene therapy. At least theunidirectionalmediaofthepastwereignoringhalf the loop.At least televisiondidn’tknowif the home audience was watching or not.Today’s media have closed the loop. Theyphysically require the maintained, constant,continuous interaction of users. This is thepolitical tragedy of interactivity. We are“treadingwaterinthepoolofliquidpower,”asCriticalArtEnsembleonceputit5.

Pr�t�c��, C�ntr��, an� L�fe F�r���Theprincipleofpoliticalcontrolwesuggest

ismosthelpful for thinkingaboutbiologicalandinformaticnetworksis‘protocol,’aword,which is derived from computer science,but resonates in the life sciences as well.Protocol abounds in techno-culture. It isa totalizing control apparatus that guidesboth the technical and political formationof computer networks, biological systemsand other media. Put simply, protocols areall the conventional rules and standards

1��

that govern relationships within networks.Quite often these relationships come in theform of communication between two ormore computers, but ‘relationships withinnetworks’ can also refer to purely biologicalprocesses,asinthesystemicphenomenonofgeneexpression.Thus,by‘networks’wereferto any system of interrelationality, whetherbiologicalorinformatic,organicorinorganic,technicalornatural–withtheultimategoalofundoing thepolar restrictivenessof thesepairings.

In computer networks, science

professionals have, over the years, draftedhundreds of protocols to govern email, webpages,andsoon,plusmanyotherstandardsfor technologies rarely seen by human eyes.The first protocols for computer networkswere written in 1969 by Steve Crocker andothers. If networks are the structures thatconnectpeople, thenprotocolsare therulesthat make sure the connections actuallywork.Fromthelargetechnologicaldiscourseof white papers, memos, and manuals, wecanderivesomeof thebasicqualitiesof theapparatusoforganizationwhichweherecallprotocol:

· Protocolfacilitatesrelationshipsbetweeninterconnected, but autonomous,entities;

· Protocol’s virtues include robustness,contingency, interoperability, flexibility,andheterogeneity;

· A goal of protocol is to accommodateeverything, no matter what source ordestination, no matter what originarydefinitionoridentity;

· Whileprotocolisuniversal, it isalwaysachievedthroughnegotiation(meaningthatinthefutureprotocolcanandwillbedifferent);

· Protocol is a system for maintainingorganizationandcontrolinnetworks.

In many current political discussions,networks are seen as the new paradigm ofsocialandpoliticalorganization.Thereasonisthatnetworksexhibitasetofpropertiesthatdistinguishes them from more centralizedpowerstructures.Thesepropertiesareoftentakentobemerelyabstract,formalaspectsofthenetwork–whichisitselfcharacterizedasakindofmeta-structure.Weseethisin‘popscience’ books discussing complexity andnetwork science, as well as in the politicaldiscourseof‘netwars’andsoforth.Whatweendupwithisametaphysicsofnetworks.Thenetwork,then,appearsasauniversalsignifierofpoliticalresistance,beitinChiapas,Seattle,orGeneva,oronline.Whatwequestionisnotthe network concept itself, for, as a numberof network examples show, they can indeedbeeffectivemodesofpoliticalstruggle.Whatwe do question is the undue and exclusivereliance on the metaphysics of the network,asifthisa-historicalconceptlegitimizesitselfmerelybyexisting.

P���t�ca� An��a���Aristotle’sfamousformulationof“manas

apoliticalanimal”takesonnewmeaningsinlight of contemporary studies of biologicalself-organization. For Aristotle, the humanbeing was first a living being, with theadditionalcapacityforpoliticalbeing.Inthissense, biology becomes the presuppositionforpolitics,justasthehumanbeing’sanimalbeing serves as the basis for its politicalbeing.Butnotall animalsarealike.Deleuzedistinguishesthreetypesofanimals:domesticpets (Freudian, anthropomorphized Wolf-Man),animalsinnature(theisolatedspecies,thelonewolf ),andpacks(multiplicities).Itisthis last type of animal – the pack – whichprovides the most direct counterpoint toAristotle’s formulation, and which leads usto pose a question: If the human being is apoliticalanimal,aretherealsoanimalpolitics?Ethnologistsandentomologistswouldsayyes.

1��

The ant colony and the insect swarm havelongbeenusedinsciencefictionandhorroras metaphors for the opposite of Western,liberal democracy. Even the language usedin biology still retains the remnants ofsovereignty:thequeenbee,thedrone.What,then,dowemakeoftheoriesofbiocomplexityand swarm intelligence, which suggest thatthereisno‘queen’butonlyasetoflocalizedinteractionswhichself-organizeintoawholeswarm or colony? Is the ‘multitude’ a typeof animalmultiplicity?Such probes seem tosuggest that Aristotle based his formulationonthewrongkindsofanimals.“Youcan’tbeone wolf,” of course. “You’re always eight ornine,sixorseven6.”

Eugene Thacker and Alexander R. Galloway are authors of essays and books, including Biomedia, Gaming, The Global Genome, and Protocol. They are also producers in the medium and work with the Biotech Hobbyist collective and the Radical Software Group.

Reference��1 Arquilla & Ronfeldt, Networks and

Netwars, p. 15, emphasis removed from original.

2 Geert Lovink, My First Recession(Rotterdam:V2_,2003),p.14.

3 Ibid.,p.47.4 Beniger,The Control Revolution,p.205 Critical Art Ensemble, The Electronic

Disturbance(NewYork:Autonomedia,1994),p.12.

6 Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus (Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1987),p.29

1�6

Can the freedom inherent in “freeandopensourcesoftware”(FOSS)fostergreater freedom in society, includingfor people who are not expert usersof computers or do not have access tothematall?It is importanttostressthat‘freedom’ in the context FOSS is a legalconcept, with a clearly defined and limitedmeaning.Softwareissaidtobefree(oropensource), when the user has the irrevocableright to run, distribute and modify thesoftware according to his or her intentions.Iftheseconditionsaregiven,softwareisfree,even if it forces the users up a (too) steeplearningcurve,ordoesnotprovideessentialfunctionality.Freedom,then,doesnotmeanusefulness.Itcancomeoutof it,but itdoesnothaveto.Whilethereismuchopensourcesoftwarethatisgreat,thereisalsomuchthatis terrible. This last statement, of course,applies also toproprietary software, yet, thedifferencesbetweenthetwoareneverthelessveryconsequential.

�ran��parencyFrom these rights defining FOSS, two

things emerge which are important in thepresentcontext:transparencyanddistributeddevelopment. The first is mandatory, thesecond is a mere possibility, but one thatis realized often. In order to make the rightto modify software practicable, the sourcecode of the software – that is the code aswritten by programmers, rather than justthe ones and zeros read by the machine

– needs to be accessible. This means that askilledprogrammercanreadtheentirecodebase of the program and thus see exactlythe functionality built into it. In effect,it’s impossible, or very difficult, to hidesomething.Knowingthatfunctionalitywhichallows, for example, back door access, orspyingonusers,canbeseenbyanyonewhoknows how to look, the temptation to putsuch features into the software in the firstplacewillbemuchsmaller.Thus,freesoftwarefunctions on the very foundations of ourtechnically-enabled societies, the software,isopentoongoing,publicscrutiny.Thiscanbe likened to the archives of parliaments orcourts, where citizens can go and see whattheofficialshavebeendoing.Evenifonlyfewmightactuallygothere,knowingthatrecordsare available to everyone interested alreadymakesabigdifference,because,soonerorlater,someone will go and look. In free software,the archives, so to speak, are heavily used,because the source code is scrutinized notjustbyinvestigativejournalistsorhistorians,butalsobyeveryonewhocontributestothedevelopment of the software, which can bedozens, hundreds, or thousands of people,dependingontheparticularproject.Thus,ineffect, open source software is probably the

Open Source, Open Society?Felix Stalder

The situation is different in developing countries where knowledge is more abundant than money. Open source software, because it is much cheaper, allows more people to use the amplifying power computers. Here, however, open source software has to compete with pirated commercial software, which is also very cheap, if not free of costs.

1�7

mosttransparent,accessiblebodyofcomplextechnology ever created, even if the vastmajorityofpeopleinpracticedon’tknowhowtoreadit.

D���tr�b�te� �eve��p�entThe second feature of open source

software,distributeddevelopment,buildsonthisinimportantways.Becauseeveryonecanaccessthesourcecodeandmakechangestohis or her liking, but cannot, in virtually allcases, develop a program alone (advancedprograms are far too large and complex forthat), developers tend to collaborate, whichis supported by a range of custom-built,internet-based tools, which can be used atlittle,orno,coststotheindividualdeveloper.Thusmostopensourcesoftwareistheresultof a collaborative effort of different peoplewho each pursue diverging personal andcollectiveagendaswhenparticipating inthisprocess.

By ‘agenda’ I mean simply someone’sreason(s) todoa certain thing.Someof thereasonstoengageinopensourcedevelopmentare peer recognition, efficiency, aestheticpleasure,financialgainoraparticularsocial/political belief. Proprietary software is alsodeveloped by a number of different people,who arguably work on it for many differentpersonal reasons (being paid is but one ofthem). However, there is – and this is thedifference to the open source process – asingledominantcollectiveagenda:theagendaof the company that owns the software andhirestheprogrammers.Forapubliclytradedcompany,thisagendahastobetomaximizevalue for its shareholders. At the end of theday,thissinglecollectiveagendaoverridesallothers.

The combination of a single agenda thatliesoutsideofthesoftwareitselfandopaquesource code makes it easy to put features

into the software that are controversial, orevenunpopular,butserve theagendawhichdominates the developmental process. IfMicrosoft (orSun,orOracle,orApple,or...)reaches the conclusion that its interests arebestservedbyworkingagainsttheusers,thenthe necessary work will be implemented bytheprogrammers,nomatteriftheypersonallybelief this to be a good thing or not. Theexamples for such behavior range from thebanal – low quality software released withgreathypeinordertoconformtoamarketingschedule – to the politically unacceptable,such as back doors which allow securityagencies to access computers without theirowner’s consent or even knowledge. Bothproblematic examples reflect overarchingagendasofthecommercialcompanies,whichare unchecked, and cannot be checked, byoutside developers or users. Open sourcesoftware is very unlikely to contain suchhiddenfeatures.Notonlybecauseitisopen,hencethefeatureswouldbevisibletoliterateusers, but also because the agendas of thepeople working on the development of thesoftware are very diverse. It would, mostlikely, be impossible to get an agreement ofsuchfeatures,or, theywouldcausesomuchdiscussion, that theywereno longerhidden.Even more important is that in the opensource development there is no mechanismbywhichsomeonecouldforcesomeoneelseto adopt something against his or her ownpersonal conviction, no matter what theseconvictions are. Given the impossibility ofimposinganoverarchingagendaitisunlikelythat there will be features embedded in thecode that clearly promote any particularnon-technicalgoal,suchasgatheringdataformarketing purposes, or improving relationstogovernmentagenciesthroughsecretdeals.

Doesthismatter?Itdoes.Softwareneedstobecleanand itneedsbeaccessible tothefull range of social actors. Computers and

1�8

software can be thought of as amplifiers.Theyamplifytheuser’sagendabygivingheraccesstomeansof,say,communicationthatshewouldnothaveotherwise.Butcomputersand software also amplify the agendas oftheirmakers.Forexample,thesoftwarethatenables people to listen to music onlineallowsmillionsofuserstolistentowhateverthey personally find worth listening to.The software amplifies their power to gainaccess to recorded sounds. On the otherhand,theseplayersalsopromotetheagendaof their developers. In case of open sourcedevelopers,theoverallagenda(thatonwhichalldeveloperscanagree)istodevelopthebestplayer.

Commercialsoftware,ontheotherhand,the overall agenda is to make money. Thereare many ways of doing that, apart fromcreatinggoodsoftware.Oneistocollectdataabout what the users are doing and sendingthat secretly back to a central server whereit can be aggregated and acted upon to thebenefitofthecompany.Therearenumerouscases of software that has just done that. Insuch cases, we can say that now millionsof users are amplifying the agenda of thedeveloping company, creating an imbalancethat is not in their own interest. Trackingmusic usage might be a benign thing, butimagine the same functionality built intoa word processor. Open source softwarereducesthisimbalance.Thevariousagendasof the developers cancel out one another astheymeetonarelativelyrestrictedcommonground: the development of technicallysuperior software. Consequently, opensourcesoftwareempowers theuservis-à-visthedeveloper for the simple reason that thenon-technicalmotivationsofeachindividualdeveloper become less important, becausethey are checked by others, who cannot beassumedtosharethesemotivations.Checkedfrom a wide ranges of angles, the software

becomesnotonlymorestable,butalsomorecleanorneutral.

Paradoxically, this political neutralityis a radical political feature in a contextwhere software that is biased towards thedeveloper is the normality. Software needstobecheap.Whilecleansoftwareaddressesthe imbalance of amplifying power betweenthe developer and the users, cheap softwareallowsmoresocialgroupstousethatpowerthansimplythosewithmoney.Atthecentersoftechnologicaldevelopmentthisisnotsuchan important point because the connectionbetween knowledge and money is moredirect.Thesituationisdifferentindevelopingcountrieswhereknowledgeismoreabundantthanmoney.Opensourcesoftware,becauseit is much cheaper, allows more peopleto use the amplifying power computers.Here, however, open source softwarehas tocompete with pirated commercial software,whichisalsoverycheap,ifnotfreeofcosts.But the costs factor is, perhaps, not eventhe main issue here. Commercial software,even if pirated and hence free of costs, isstill software developed with a commercialagenda, dividing people in developers andusers,sellersandconsumers,andsoon,andnot addressing any need that cannot be fitintothisframework.Hence,non-commercialcommunication will never be provided bycommercial software, except to aggregatepeopletoselltheirattentiontoadvertisers.

Thus, open source allows one to createsoftware outside the domain and theimperative of the market. In effect, opensource software is a high-tech product thatis developed outside of capitalism, neitherreflecting buying power of clients, nor in-house commands of managers. It is notanti-capitalist in any political sense, ratherit is a-capitalist. Now, there is considerabledebate whether it should be likened to pre-

1��

competitivecollaboration(asinbasicresearch)thusstandsinthechainofdevelopmentbeforecapitalism,or,if,infact,itrepresentssomenewformofpost-capitalistproduction.Giventheheavy involvement of major publicly-tradedcompanies (suchas IBM)whichare,by law,requiredtoputthefinancialinterestsoftheirshareholdersaboveallotherinterests,Iwouldbe hesitant to claim the latter. Nevertheless,withinopensource,theboundariesbetweenfor-profit and not-for-profit are becomingblurry,whichatleastgivesthepossibility,andweseeevidenceofthis,ofstrengtheningthenon-commercial sector by catering to theirparticular needs regardless whether theseconstituteaprofitablemarketornot.Ifonly,bygivingNGOsandothernon-market,non-publicactorspowerfultoolsattheirdisposal,effectivelylevelingtheplayingfieldinregardsto communication, between the rich andpoor,largeandsmallorganizations.Andthis,Ithink,willalsobenefitawiderangeofpeopleirrespectiveoftheircomputerliteracy.

(Thistextisanupdate,inOctober2006,ofatalkoriginallygiveninNovember1999).

Felix Stalder <felix@openflows.org>, Toronto Nov 1999, Vienna, Oct 2006

Biography Felix Stalder

Felix Stalder teaches media economy at the University of Applied Sciences and Art Zürich and works as an indepedent author and organizer in Vienna. He’s interested in how digital media affect social landscapes, both in physcial and in knowledge spaces. His work is acessible via http://felix.openflows.com

1�0

H���t�ry �f Gang��

Boss Tweed: You killed an elected official? Bill: Who elected him? Boss Tweed: You don’t know what you’ve done to yourself. Bill: [taps his glass eye with a knife] I know your works. You are neither cold nor hot. So because you are lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth. You can build your filthy world without me.

Gangs of New York is, at least in part, a tale of passage from the pre-constituted to the constituted, through the straits of the Five Points: from the fluid violence personified by William Cutting, leader of the city’s Nativist gangs, to the measured violence of the State. The film culminates with the Draft Riots of 1863, in which Abraham Lincoln sent several regiments to control the thousands of rioters in the city. The military suppressed the mob, but not before approximately a hundred civilians were killed, hundreds more injured and numerous buildings, including homes, ransacked or destroyed. At the film’s close the violence of the likes of Bill the Butcher is transposed–forcefully, of course–into the hands of State. Gang rule is ended in New York as the ‘filthy world’ of representative politics takes its place.

But the gangs never quite leave when the State comes to town – most of the rest of Scorsese’s work exhibits considerable enjoyment of this fact. It’s only in fictions

that gangs are ever really stamped out as a category. In the harshest political regimes, in prisons, dictatorships, political parties, churches, the gang-form persists – thrives, even.

The Italian state of the 70s and the 80s faced serious threats on two fronts: terrorism and the mafia. On the left, the Brigate Rosse had by the early 80s been decimated by State institutions, politicians and the security forces, who waged ‘an out-and-out war’ against the BR’s threat to the stability of their regime. Once the organization’s structure and goals were disclosed to the State, a subsequent wave of arrests dismantled the group almost completely.

In distinct contrast, the struggle of theItalian state against the mafia continues tothis day. As historian Judith Chubb pointsout, this struggle has been characterized by“a strikingly lower level of commitment notonly in terms of men and means but, mostimportantly, in terms of political support”.The reason for this, Chubb argues, is the‘distinctive nature’ of the mafia, and itsrelationshiptopoliticalpowerandinstitutions.Where left-wing organizations tend toconstitutethemselvesas‘external’,an‘enemy’

On the Plane of the Para-Constituted: Towards a Grammar of Gang PowerJamie King

The mafia survives, according to Chubb and other commentators, because it has developed a network of ties throughout the social strata, allowing its interests to penetrate deeply into the institutions that would prosecute its members.

1�1

to dominant elites but also removed fromordinary people, the relationship the mafiatakes topowerandpeople isquitedifferent.The mafia succeeds in “penetrating deeplyintotheveryinstitutionswhicharesupposedto be fighting it.It isthis presence of themafiawithintheverystructureoftheItalianstatewhichrendersitamuchmoreinsidiousandultimatelyamuchmoredangerousthreattodemocraticinstitutionsthanwasthemoreopenly subversive but morevulnerable andexposedphenomenonofleft-wingterrorism”.

The mafia survives, according to Chubband other commentators, because it hasdeveloped a network of ties throughoutthe social strata, allowing its interests topenetrate deeply into the institutions thatwouldprosecute itsmembers. Indeed, somesay,itdoesnotmakesensetoconsidermafiaanorganizationintheordinarysense.Rather,mafia is “the sum of activities of individualsgroups whose mode of behavior [...] definesthemasMafioso”; there isnomafia “centralheadquarters coordinating the activitiesofa far-flung criminal empire”, but rather “afundamentalidentity in the values, in thegoals pursued, and in the socialfunctionsperformed by each mafia boss and hissubordinatesineachlocalsetting”.

Although the single mafia family or cosca is strongly centralized, this takes the form of a series of dyadic relationships between the capo-mafia and each of the individual members. The mafia as a whole is thus seen as a complex of social networks, held together by traditional bonds of honor, kinship and ‘instrumental friendship’.

In the first part of this essay, Openness and Its Discontents, originally written for Mute magazine in 2004, I was attempting to answer some specific problems. I had been very involved in what was then simultaneously

calling and refusing to call itself the ‘anti-capitalist’ or ‘anti-globalization’ movement, and had noted, like many, the intense excitement and expectation accruing around ideas about organization–networkedness, horizontality, openness and so forth. We in the social movements, we told others, and ourselves were ‘open’; we used all the virtues of networked organization to our advantage, and we didn’t need ‘their’ closedness, just as we didn’t need ‘their’ proprietary attitudes.

I knew that this was not the completetruth,andthatitdidn’tevenbegintospecifysufficiently the complex ‘mixed economy’of open and/or networked and closed and/or hierarchical organization that was beingdeployed in organizing events such as theanti-G8 summits in Genoa and Geneva. Ibelieved, and still do, that a relatively smallnumber of individuals took a good dealof responsibility for the ideas, motifs andorganizational strategies that defined thisperiodofengagement.

Openness and Its Discontents was intended as a first investigation into the ‘gang’-like structures that lurk beneath the ‘idea of openness’. I argued there was a real crisis of organization in the social movements, as they were then understood. Beneath the ‘distributed, horizontal’ form that was already being hailed as the true shape of the anti-capitalist movements, what I termed ‘supernodes’ or ‘crypto-hierarchies’ were discovered everywhere. I grounded this assertion on my own first-hand observations, but also found useful an essay by Jo Freeman, The Tyranny of Structurelessness. Originating from the experiences of the 60s feminist liberation movement, the essay argues that informal structures can be treacherous, since they can function as a ‘smoke screen’ for tacit – and what would today be called ‘emergent’– forms of power. “As long as the

1��

structure of the group is informal”, Freeman writes, “the rules of how decisions are made are known only to a few, and awareness of power is limited to those who know the rules”.

Ours was a “tyranny of networkedness”, not a tyranny of structurelessness, but of course her observations were perfectly pertinent.

In the same essay, I briefly mentioned a open letter by Jacques Camatte, On Organizations, written in 1969 to explain why revolutionaries had to reject the form of political parties and groups. For Camatte at this point, the whole social fabric ‘under capital’ seemed based on competition between organizations and ‘rackets’, with the state as “a gang mediating between different gangs”. I think Camatte’s proposition is very clear: the gang is the basic form of contemporary organization – even with those working towards what is today loosely defined as ‘social change’. This is because the conditions of living ‘under capital’ are adverse to other formations: individuals cluster into gangs because of the pressures of an aggressive and competitive external environment, says Camatte. They seek solace in ‘strong leaders’ because they cannot think for themselves; they fear exclusion (that is, what is ‘outside’ the gang – violence, loneliness and so on). In short, their weakness in the context of their environment compels them into gang-like relationships with others.

Thus,writesCamatte,

“Capitalism is the triumph of the organization, and the form the organization takes, is the gang. This is the triumph of fascism. In the United States the racket is found at all levels of society. It’s the same in USSR. The theory of hierarchical bureaucratic capitalism, in the formal sense, is an absurdity, since the gang is an informal organism”.

Thus, the gang is not the exception, but the rule – and there are today very

visible examples manifesting themselves within State, like the US Neoconservatives. Constituted power is everywhere in crisis, revealing (indeed, making little secret of ) the gangs and cabals that have always existed behind it. Transversal, para-constituted social processes are seen more and more to be the rule of real power, articulating themselves increasingly clearly in the chaos of modern institutions and civil society. This is, I realize (contrary to what Hardt and Negri write in Empire), which is that the new world order represents a new form of imperial sovereignty “composed of a series of national and supranational organisms united under a single logic of rule”. The ‘absurdity’, Camatte is right to point out, is our constant acceptance of the facile delineations of organization with which we are presented and with which we present ourselves (government, party, movement and so on). At every level, the real existence of the gang-like structures that define the operations of any organ makes a mockery of its public manifestos and systems of representation.

CamatteandGuattariagreeonthis:thereexist unchecked (‘transversal’ or ‘gang-like’)social processes that corrupt or rupturehierarchicalformslikethePartyortheclinic.The disillusioned party man Camatte seesthis corruption in fairly apocalyptic terms;the post-party proto-Deleuze-Guattarian.Guattariseesinitthepossibilityofdestroying“deathly organizational reproduction” ininstitutions.

What if Camatte is right about gangs being the basic form of contemporary life, right about their inevitability, and lengths they will go to hide themselves in organizations in many cases, but wrong about their inherently totalitarian or fascist nature? What if, as a once Marxist-Leninist theoretician who saw a Communist Party as a necessary stage

1��

towards revolution, Camatte was naturally inclined to view negatively the gang-like structures that he observed disrupting his once-beloved party? What if Camatte is right that conditions ‘under capital’ force us into gang-like structures, but wrong in insisting that these are necessarily themselves vile or violent?

Whatifthegangcanberehabilitatedasapoliticalform?

�ran��ver��a��ty‘Transversality’ is a description of social

processes originating with Felix Guattari at La Borde clinic in the 60s. It relates immediately to the nature of the group within the psychiatric institution. Guattari, in two papers Le Transfert (The Transfer) and Introduction à la therapie institutionnelle (Introduction to institutional psychotherapy), argues that people make their subjectivities at the level of social groups–producing a ‘subjective unity of the group’ inconsistent with what might be called their ‘institutional identity’ as it takes shape in, for example, the workplace. This ‘transversal’ ideal would be achieved in hospitals when there was “a maximum of communication among different levels and, above all, in different meanings...” Guattari reconfigured his clinic along similar lines to the Socialist Patients Collective (SPK), noting that the analyst/analysand and doctor/patient binaries ignored and/or denied the constant non-hierarchical, social processes underlying them. In the clinic’s reconfiguration, such processes were actively calculated into the therapeutic process. “Broadly speaking”, writes Susan Kelly, “Guattari used the term transversality as a conceptual tool to open hitherto closed logics and hierarchies and to experiment with relations of interdependency in order to produce new ‘assemblages’ and subjectivities. In his activist work, Guattari used transversality as a critique and a rupture

with inherited forms of political organization such as ‘the party’ ”.

Later theorists of transversality like Bryan Reynolds tend to pose transversal social processes as ‘dissident movements’ against the official discourses of the repressive (Althusserian) state. Where State is seen as operating a cohesive set of structures producing a subjective consistency, transversal processes are carriers for transgressive and subversive experience. In fact, transversal territory is a ‘mechanism for experiential alterity’, which enables ‘enunciation’, and ‘amplification of transition states’. In his essay The Devil’s House, or worse: Transversal Power and Anti-theatrical Discourse in Early Modern England, Reynolds contends that transversal processes can subvert official state machinery thoroughly, posing “a real threat to all organizational social structures”–and that these processes cannot be permanently recuperated.

Likewise,theoristssuchasGeraldRaunighave seen transversality as subversive in thecontemporary context: “As the precariouspracticesoftheNo-bordernetwork,thebordercampsandcaravansworktoovercomenationalframeworks,theirtransversallinesalsobreakthrough the hermetic of particularist partialpublic spheres and exclusive subcultures[...] a multitude of temporary alliances, asa productive concatenation of what neverfits together smoothly, what is constantlyin friction and impelled by this friction orcaused to evaporate again”. Transversality isin such terms “a new, a-hierarchical praxisof networking, which has been developingincreasingly clear contours since Seattle,GötenborgandGenovaintheheterogeneousprotestagainsteconomicglobalization”.

It is no good, of course, trying to make this sort of complete equivalence between

1��

networks and transversality. Rather, the development of the form of the network post ‘61 (as described embryonically in Leonard Kleinrock, Information Flow in Large Communication Nets (1961); J.C.R. Licklider & W. Clark, On-Line Man Computer Communication (1962); Paul Baran, RAND: On Distributed Communications Networks (1964)) produces a new informational scene, one which ultimately gives rise to the massive increase in transversal communication that Guattari was looking for. Paul N. Edwards, The Closed World is amongst those theorizing an epochal shift from the ‘grand systems theories’ of the Cold War to what he calls ‘network discourses’–a loosely defined cluster of technologies and social architectures including ‘the internet’, ‘corporate supply chain management’, ‘military ‘net war’’ and ‘social software’, ‘six degrees of separation’, and ‘thousands of other formulas and formulations of the node-link architecture of the post-Cold War, post-post-modern world’. While this is also a bit fuzzy, it’s clear Edwards thinks networked structures are now the dominant structures of the West. Along these lines, as I wrote in Mute magazine after 9/11, networkedness is now seen as the shape of the ‘post-Fordist’ world economy, with its ‘fluid’ work in the ‘factory without walls’, ‘just-in-time’ delivery and ‘transnational outsourcing’.

The military, also, wants to be networked, having for some years been turning over the idea that a distributed, non-hierarchical communications system could give the armed forces enough of the adaptability and speed evinced by anti-globalization and ‘terror’ groups to achieve what is unblinkingly called ‘full spectrum dominance’. Military strategists argue that terrorist cells’ use of non-hierarchical, ‘distributed’ command structures helps them produce sturdy and flexible organizations. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has called al-Qaeda “a

dispersed enemy who basically is operating on a <peer-to-peer> system, at a very low level”.

So ‘networked’ is the shape of terror, it is a shape the US military wants and as numerous commentators say, it is the shape of the social movements. It happens too, to be the shape that some in business want. In a foreword to the Demos report Disorganization: Why Future Organizations must ‘Loosen Up’, Orange UK’s Vice-President of Business Solutions preaches network organization:

“You may feel uncomfortable with the idea if you actually run an organization, but [...] we have to ‘let go’, or ‘disorganise’. Otherwise the employees that we all need, the brightest and the best, will gravitate to more open, more flexible set-ups that fit their values and respond to their aspirations. This will present some real dilemmas”.

Everywhere,wemightsay,peoplearelessandlessconvincedoftheefficacyandrelevanceoftop-downorganizationsandmoreandmoreconvincedofthepotencyofnetworkedactorsworking transversally to, (i.e., not ‘within’,butneither ‘outside’) them.Andyetwehaveto cope with the fact that the global ‘co-efficientoftransversality’has,viathenetwork,increased beyond all possible imaginationsincethe60sandyettherevolutionaryeffectapparentlyexpectedbyGuattarihasfailedtohappen.Infactonemightforcefullyargue,asAnustupBasuhas,thatnetworkeddistributionof information is today key in creating the‘informatic affinities’ on whose resonancesocialorderisproduced(hegivesasexamplesthetwo‘disparatepropositions’–“Saddamtheevil one, and 9/11, the horrible crime”–thatgave in key nation states public consensusfor the invasion of Iraq). In this reading,the explosive propagation of transversalityin the last half decade has served only toradicallypotentiatemassification,towardsthefascist peak, ‘extinguish[ing] pluralities, and

1��

replac[ing]themwithamonologueofpowerthat saturates space with, and only with, theimmanentwillofthedictator’.Thisisbecauseinformaticexchangesdonothingbutreplicatethemega-utterancesofadistributeddictator:‘fascism becomes a political reality whenknowledgebasedexchangesbetweenentitiesof intelligencegiveway toa technologismofinformatics’.

All of us who have argued for the liberating or radical potentials of various information technologies have to contend with the fact that the production of consensus for war has continued with disturbing efficacy at the same time that producing and distributing media technologies have been ceded more and more into the hands of the general population. It is safe to say this: “just because many disruptive or radical practices are transversal, it is evident not all transversal processes are disruptive or radical. A little transversal disruption in the corporation, after all, can be a new business model’.

AsOliverMarchartpointsout:“The problem with a term like

transversality is that it acts as though it were already the answer to this question, whereas it [...] actually [only] raises the question of the form of organization. This is at the root of all the problems: networking can be wonderfully evoked, but how can it be organized? In the works we would feel compelled by theory fashion to consult, namely by Deleuze/Guattari and Negri/Hardt, we do not find a single answer to the question of the form of organization: with the aged hippies Deleuze and Guattari, transversals proliferate in quasi natural abundance (which is why Deleuze/Guattari especially liked to use botanical and geological metaphors) and do not need to be organized. The case is similar with Hardt and Negri, even though their bestseller Empire is generally (mis-) understood as an answer”.

M��t�t��eIt’s hard to go further without invoking the

name that has been at the center of so much dispute in contemporary political discourse: multitude. The term in its recent apparition is a placeholder and banner for an attempt to break with representative politics, ditching the Ciceronian axiom that only when unified into a people can the multitude become a political agent (such as a ‘commonwealth’). Michael Hardt and Toni Negri claim the multitude is now a political quantity in its own right. According to them, their multitude is the only basis today for ‘political action aimed at transformation and liberation’, conceived as ‘all those who work under the rule of capital and thus potentially as the class of those who refuse the rule of capital’. It is a multiplicity, a plane of singularities, an open set of relations, which is not homogeneous or identical with itself and bears an indistinct, inclusive relation to those outside of it. The people, in contrast, tend toward identity and homogeneity internally while posing its difference from and excluding what remains outside of it. Whereas the multitude is an inconclusive constituent relation, the people are a constituted synthesis that is prepared for sovereignty. The people provide a single will and action that is independent of and often in conflict with the various wills and actions of the multitude. Every nation must make the multitude into people.

Previously, in other words, the multitude was seen as the raw material of the political: now it is supposed to become the political. Though no-one, as Oliver Marchart writes, really knows how:

“With Hardt and Negri there is a secret automatism that turns this ‘mass intelligence’ into a political subject with no further ado. Yet no one knows how that should work in reality. How isolated immaterial workers are linked and thus organized into a political force is not even investigated

1�6

and conceptualized, but only celebrated with the poetic concept of the multitude”.

Hardt and Negri indeed write as if theyknowtheformulathatwilltransmutethebasemetalofmultitudeintopoliticalgold,butdon’tdeigntoutterit.Natureconstructsindividuals,theysay,andthen, throughcooperation, “aninfinitenumberofsingularitiesarecomposedasproductiveessence”producing“amultitudeof [‘unmediated’] cooperating singularities”.This ‘cooperation’ isakindofvoodoo,notapolitical proposal. The original question hasalways been how the multitude can becomea political agent, and mere exhortations to‘cooperate’!notonlyfailtoanswerit,butareinfinitely more asinine and annoying thanthesolutionsof the ‘bourgeois’ theorists likeHobbes,Rousseauandtherest.

We know the multitude appears transversally – coevally with State/Capital/Empire – but as hip as that might sound, it’s nothing Hobbes didn’t realize right from the beginning. The multitude always was both what gave rise to sovereign power and what remained during and after it. Malcolm Bill, The Limits of Multitude is quite right to point out that what is called ‘multitude’ by Hardt and Negri is in fact precisely what Hobbes calls a faction:

“A crowd of citizens, united either by agreements with each other or by the power of one man, without authority from the holder or holders of sovereign power. A faction is like a commonwealth within the commonwealth; for just as a commonwealth comes into being by men’s union in a natural state, so a faction comes into being by a new union of citizens”.

Hobbes notes quite sagely that these ‘like-minded’ factions have a tendency to cast themselves as ‘the people’. In my view, the ‘multitude’ of Hardt and Negri is a just such a faction, calling itself the multitude.

Multitude is a quite bizarre attempt to bring into being the world’s largest faction, largely by tautological insistence on its existence. But the greatest weakness of Multitude as a political proposition is the treacherous errors in identity in its basic formulation. While Hardt and Negri narrate an epic struggle between the generative, plural forces of immanence and the recuperative, singular forces of transcendence, they themselves never escape the production of a singular from the many, with distinct and singular qualities they are not afraid to enumerate. Their multitude is not the people, but singularities acting in ‘networked concert’ united by ‘the common’, by the highly interesting but highly problematic term ‘general intellect’. Thus, at various moments, we swoop from heights of theory to bizarrely trite statements like ‘The White Overalls [were] leaders in the movements of the multitude’. Not only is the multitude defiantly singular here, but it is capable of being ‘led’, like a sheep, by a specific cohort with whom Toni Negri was personally familiar.

BlunderslikethesepointtothedangerofHardtandNegri’sargument:thepossibilityoftheassumptionofanidentityofwill,purposeand subject in a self-ruling multitude thatdoesn’texist.

AsSlavojZizekwrites:“What one does and should expect is a description of the notional structure of this qualitative jump, of the passage from the multitudes RESISTING the One of sovereign Power to the multitudes directly RULING themselves. Leaving the notional structure of this passage in a darkness elucidated only by vague homologies and examples from the movements of resistance cannot but raise the anxious suspicion that this self-transparent direct rule of everyone over everyone, this democracy tout court, will coincide with its opposite”.

In this light, Hardt and Negri’s call for

1�7

a ‘new science’ of democracy – a kind of‘networkconstitution’–isparticularlyurgent,if only to insist on plurality and multiplicityrather than the ‘one’of themultitudewhichkeeps rearing its head in their work. Thekeyproblemtoanswerhereposed,again,byOliverMarchart:

“Whereas the party form was oriented along the ‘party line’ according to the model of unity, today the counterproposal consists of the celebration of the multitude along no line at all: now there are only countless little dots left. This means that every individual is their own favorite party, knows everything best themselves and operates politically à la carte, composing their own personal party line from the offerings ranging from Amnesty International to Tute Bianche”.

In the ‘faction’ feared by Hobbes, it is possible we find a way forward. A (not the) multitude of people acting transversally to (not outside) State, commonwealth, and other institutions (and factions) not necessarily against any of them but according to their own ideas. This is what I mean here by ‘gang’. The network-form makes it possible for such gangs to unite not only territorially but to cluster transversally, around practices, ideas and goals. In my view these sorts of groups are what Brian Holmes is observing when he writes that:

“What I see in reality, over the last few years, is [...] relatively small and ‘consistent’ groups mesh[ing] temporarily into larger and pretty chaotic formations, then dissolv[ing] back into their consistent groups [...] it’s possible to imagine that the networked paradigm [...] could unleash political formations other than a party seeking the creation of a state. The thing is to achieve enough intermeshing to formulate powerful statements–and then back them up with strikes, demonstrations and so on”.

Here, something which is really just a grammatical mess (multitude) becomes something, which is bound by qualities we

can lay hands on: node/faction/gang.

C��nt�e���� L�tt�e D�t��Marchart’s ‘countless little dots’ objection

only seems strong, if one ignores the real organizational novelties behind the manifestations and appearances that have characterized the last years of political activity and generated so much excitement amongst theorists of organization. The ‘countless little dots’ keep bringing themselves together en masse, temporarily, without clear lines of command. Each dot does not appear to believe it knows best, but in fact seems able to share knowledge and skills with others quite effectively. How does this happen? What is producing this ‘spooky’ cooperation between our ‘countless little dots’?

Rejecting the idea that emergent, distributed control has real meaning in social organization, my contention is that it is gangs, small groups working both in institutions and transversally to institutions, who produce these temporary binding ideas and motifs – not to mention the network infrastructures – that allow others to temporarily align with, affix to or network with them. In other words, there is no single binding force at work, a sort of ‘radical invisible hand’, but rather an array of purposes, identities and projects that produce singularities. What has changed, with the mode of information described in, for example, Bell’s The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, 1976; Toffler’s Third Wave, 1991; Jameson’s Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, 1991, is that singularities become much more extensive and powerful taking on a distinct, commanding and actualizing power. In the influential view of Manuel Castells, what is most important about this phase is a de-coupling of the circuits of information and production: in the industrial mode, information organizes the mobilization

1�8

of labor and production, as well as the exploitation of energy; in the informational mode it is said to mobilize the generation of new knowledge. In my view what is crucial, is this: as individuals (‘dots’) we now command, often completely unconsciously, entire chains of automated production, interlocked with machines and code, other individuals, institutions, and globally distributed infrastructure. Even as tiny as we must become, we are capable of issuing commands, and initiating processes, that can move the world.

In this context elements of singular will become ‘generalized’ for a while: ideas and identities take form, are conveyed transversally through on- and offline networks, and function qua singularities as binding motifs for gangs. Quite naturally anyone looking at the multitude, which thus gathers, may perceive a temporary binding motif as the ‘we’, the combined will. This, as has been amply demonstrated, is where the problems begin. Compared to the internet, social networks are much more fluid, since they have no necessary relation to any particular physical resources. Though certain ideas, motifs and purposes may become central for a period; in social networks, they need not persist; indeed, they may be rather incidental to the binding action itself. For example, one often had the feeling, at the contra-G8 gatherings in Genova, Geneva and so on, that ‘No to G8’ had less to do with the gathering, than experimenting with all sorts of new ideas about organization, tactics, ecology, economy and so on. ‘No to G8’ was the binding motif, in other words, that produced a gathering ‘demonstrations against the G8’. It is wrong in kind to ask from where the ‘command’ to gather issued. Rather we would draw a ‘semantic map’ of the temporary binding ideas at this point, which would include Zapatista, Attac,

Empire, White Overalls, Disobedients, People’s Global Action and so on. We would then look at how these ideas articulated themselves, through which technologies and individuals, and in what contexts – as much as it is possible to say – they took on meaning and ‘bore fruit’. Lastly, we could examine how the binding occurred, looking both at the infrastructure for physical and informatic conveyance and the qualities of the scene at which the gathering takes place.

Inthecontextofthisinformaticmoment,wehavetoconsiderthecapacityofindividualsto create [conjure] immaterial, informaticentities and the capacity of these entities tocreatesubjectiveresonancesandaffinities.

In the informatic mode, software radially extends the capacity to create, calculate, analyze, produce, and enact. A single piece of software, running on its owner’s computer or on a foreign server, may allow a user to produce an operation in the world that would otherwise have been impossible or prohibitively expensive. Yet the software (and the operation) may multiply endlessly, and, by its nature, undergo extensive permutations as it does so. It adapts to the needs of new constituencies and mutates randomly, or suggests new uses, and produces new constituencies in doing so. We see this, playing out rapidly in the case of Free Software, whose license and culture make for easy re-use, alteration and re-combination of code. There a skilled programmer may make use of base libraries and ready-mades to construct new code, much more swiftly than she may write it herself. Thus – at least in the field of free co-operation, ingenuity actualizes itself intensely, able to draw on resources in increasing abundance. A dot grabs a computer, describes its desire. The idea multiplies this and that way, and binds other dots, in small groups. They begin to

1��

discuss, and produce other ideas, other desires, that they describe, and these bind... and so on. No one remembers the first dot’s name, and it forgets it ever described its idea in the first place.

An interlocutor will obviously say: but this is always how things have been. Yes: but now there is increasingly extensive of production of singularities and increasing intensity to their binding power. The circuits between individual, singularity, gang and crowd are becoming the defining ones. Borne on the network, they increasingly burn through and are visible behind the old facades of constituted power, which can no longer constrain the gangs that exist right inside it.

First attempt to delineate a gang grammar, distinguishing between internality and externality – and focusing on what Galloway and Thacker call the conveyances between gangs; a ‘network of factions’ can be much more than warring chaos. Conveyance is the chief concern of the series of memorandums written by Joseph Licklider at MIT in August 1962, part of a discussion of his Galactic Network concept, a globally interconnected set of systems through which everyone could quickly access data and programs from any site. “Consider”, Licklider wrote in a memo of April 25th, 1963:

“the situation in which several different centers are netted together, each center being highly individualistic and having its own special language and its own special way of doing things. It is not desirable or even necessary for all the centers to agree upon some language or, at least, upon some conventions for asking such questions as ‘What language do you speak?’ At this extreme, the problem is essentially the one discussed by science fiction writers: “How do you get communications started among totally uncorrelated sapient beings?””

To be networked, Licklider saw,

incompatible mainframe computers had tomediate their differences. These commentsofLicklider’s in factdescribe theconceptualsuperstructureofanetworking,requiringnotthat all machines speak the same language,butthatthereshouldberuleswhichmediateand machines to process these rules.Licklider’s conceptual work at ARPA, inwhichheconceivedthisidea,waseventuallyto underpin a network that would facilitatetoday’sinternet.Hisconcernwithconnectingthe unconnectable, with interfacing alienmachines,maytranslatewellintoabasicganggrammar.

Licklider’s model which follows closelythe American Constitution form, in whichsociety is conceived as a set of individualsunited around an agreed constitution, andin which separate agents within the socialbodyareabletoacteffectivelyasagroup,butretain their discrete ‘highly individualistic’identitiesas‘equals’,or‘peers’insociety.Thetask of the Constitution was to provide forstable existence of and interaction betweenthe States whilst protecting against theemergence of a totalized, central powerstructurefearedbymanyAmericans,notjusthard line anti-federalists. A strong centralgovernmentcouldmeantop-downpowerofthe kind that had been wielded by England,which was precisely what the Americanpeople had won freedom from in theDeclarationofIndependence;aConstitutioncouldmeannewtaxationpowersinthehandsof a national government that would proveto be ‘as unqualified by the restraints of thestatesas[England’s]Parliament[...]hadbeenby the colonial assemblies’. This attempt atprovisionagainst any singlepointof controlarisingintheUnitedStateshasbeenseenbymanyasthemostsignificantprovisionoftheConstitution. “The dialectic was very muchbetween the creation of a federal, nationalpowersystemthatwouldpreserveindividual

160

libertiesandnationalpoliticalstability”,writesBerardBailyn,

“and one which would not put in place the kind of centralized regime that could be productive of tyranny. Discussion focused on the fear of centralized power and [was] rooted in the belief that free states are fragile and degenerate easily into tyrannies unless vigilantly protected by a free, knowledgeable, and uncorrupted electorate working through institutions that balance and distribute rather than concentrate power [... the colonists’] ideas were critical of, and challenging to the legal authority they had lived under”.

TheConstitution’sformulatorsattemptedtopreventpowerbeingheldbyasinglegroupor individual in two key ways: Articles I, IIand III provide for three independent, andindeed contending, centers of governance –theexecutive,thelegislativeandthejudiciary,which operate directly on individuals, notjust on states. Article IV, meanwhile, setsout the ways in which citizens interact withgovernmentonbothafederal(national)andstate (local) level. S.E. Finer points to thisas the most original of all the Constitutioninnovations.TheAmericancitizenhasadualrole: one with their state, and one with thefederal government, direct and unmediatedbythatofthestate.Together,theseprovisionsweremeanttosolvetheproblemofcreatinga ‘more perfect union’ of the states withoutsetting the conditions for tyranny. On theonehand, federalpower isdivided,betweenthePresident,theCongressandtheSupremeCourt. On the other, the individual, at thesame time as accepting the authority of thefederalgovernmentretainsherresponsibilitiesandrightsunderthejurisdictionofherstate.Localized governance is not superseded bycentralpower,andthecentralpowerisitselfdividedandseparated.

AswiththeConstitution,Licklider’smodelattemptsanarchitectureofcooperationrather

thanoneofauthoritariancontrol.Thenamewhichwouldeventuallybegiventotherulesofmediationhefirstsuggestedwas‘protocols’,a term otherwise, and rather tellingly,employed to describe diplomatic relations,butwhichhere refers toa ‘strictly technical’process, “by which any node can speak as apeertoanyothernode,aslongasitobeystherules”.PeterSaluscontendstheuseofthetermoriginated in a conversation between SteveCrockerandJonPostel,whohadthoughtofitintermsofdiplomatsexchanginghandshakesand information. ‘Transmission ControlProtocol/internetProtocol’(TCP/IP),wastheinternetworking protocol then devised andtheonethatsurvivestothisdayasthebasisof the internet. Its three core concepts arecriticalhere:

1.Each discrete network within theinternet has to stand on its own. Itshould not be necessary to make anyinternal changes toanetwork inordertoconnectanyofittotheinternet.

2.‘Routers’and‘gateways’,originallycalled‘black boxes’, are used to connect thenetworks. Originally no informationwas retained by the gateways aboutthe individual flows of packets passingthrough them, thereby keeping themsimpleandavoidingfailures.

3.There should be no global control ofoperations.

Inthisschema,eachinternalnetwork,justlikeeachinternalmachinewithintheoriginalARPANET, retains its own discrete identitywhilstbeingpartofanetworkedwhole:thatidentity does not have to be ceded in orderto become part of the internet. There is nocentral point of control, and no single placeatwhichadisruptionwouldcausethewholenetworktomalfunction.

Can we export this basic structure to a

161

ganggrammar?Tosomeextent,oncewehavedispensed with the ontological ‘problem’ ofthe big multitude, and think instead aboutlittlemultitudes,gangs/factions/nodesboundby singularities. We can begin to imaginetheminimalcompactthat,liketheprotocolswhich structure mediation of difference fortheinternet,canprovideforinternetworkingbetweengroupsworkingtransversallyinandthroughotherinstitutionsandeachother.Wemayconsiderwhatmediatingstructures(foritisclearHardtandNegriarelargelyignorantofhowimportantself-mediationhasbecometo the socialmovements)wewouldneed toprocessourconnectionsanddisconnections,as gangs coming together for specificpurposes, moments or tasks, and splittingagain.Someofusmayagreetofightcentersof control, encouraging small groups andindividualstotaketheirownidentitiesratherthan creeping into the ready-mades theyfind around them. A “fantastically complexcomposition of different kinds of imperfectmicro-solidarities” was how Brian Holmesoncedescribedthesocialmovementstome,andIbelieveaganggrammarisagoodwayofunderstandinganddescribingthat.

At the level of node analysis, we mayconsider what gangs do (what functionsthey have); the resources and knowledgethey contain; how many links they have toother organisations and gangs; what qualityandstrengthanddurability these linkshave;the power of a gang in relation to othergangsand its capacity tocontrolothers; thesecurity or secrecy level; its geographic andtopographic location, and so forth. We canexpress clustering, groups of nodes that aretightlylinkedtogether.Orwemaychoosetorepresentnoneofthesethings:whatiscrucialis that, quite simply, gangs exist inevitablyin every organizational structure, whateveritstopology.Butweareonlyfreetotheorizegangspositivelywhenweknowtheyarethere,

andfactorthisintotheworkwedo.The attempts of People’s Global Action

(PGA) to organize around networked distribution have so far failed, in my view, because its ‘hallmarks’ have been too little focused on protocol or rules of engagement between groups and, pace Hardt and Negri, too much focused on producing statements of attitude and ideological orientation (e.g., ‘rejection of capitalism, all trade agreements’; ‘rejection of religious fundamentalism’, ‘a confrontational attitude’ and so on). While PGA rejects the representative mode, it has not examined seriously enough the guiding principles of internetworking between cooperating groups beyond vague statements of ‘horizontality’, ‘anti-hierarchy’ and so forth. And yet this is precisely what must happen, if we want to step beyond the current impasse. “We want to ask the [...] question, how could we win?” the publication Turbulence announced recently. ‘Indeed, what does it actually mean to win?’ When there is no ‘we’ to ask the question, and no ‘they’ to answer it, then something will have been won.

What we are learning, as informationtechnologists, is the power of dis- and re-aggregation.Eachmoleculeof socialactivitymust make itself ready for attachmentto others, prepare for purposes it cannotimagine.Wecanrefuse,ofcourse,becauseasaganggrammarsuggests,wecanbeviolentlydifferent. But others’ uses of us are beyondour imagination, and indeed beyond theirs:we should not imagine we always knowbest. “Only connect”, E.M Forster said; “wemayadd, ‘anddisconnect.’This isa time forbecomingtiny”.

In 2003, during a discussion on the Free Co-operation mailing list, Brian Holmes told me about a bulletin written by Felix Guattari for La Borde clinic, called Where does group psychotherapy begin:

16�

Here, he talks about something theyestablished, a ‘Basic Therapeutic Unit’(BTU), which is like an artificial family ina way (artificial, so without all the frozenunconscious roles). It’s small enough forpeople to have to respond, and so it givesthem a chance to develop what he calls‘subjective consistency’. He says: “Supposeyou’re in a crowd, for example, defending abarricadeagainstthecops.Ifyoudon’tknowthepeopleyoucanalwaysjustsplit.Ifyou’rewithyourBTU,it’scompletelydifferent.Thenitcouldhaveallkindsofconsequenceslater:people will say this or that... Speech doesn’tslip away. It’s about promises made, wagersmet, transactions concluded.... With theBTU,everybody’sthepsychoanalystinturn....Speech circulates in a recognizable field, afinite but open field, which has, let’s say, acertainsubjectiveconsistency”.

‘Subjective consistency’ is not a theoretical problem in the gang, because if a member doesn’t feel it, they leave. It is not so clear what happens if one disagrees with Hardt and Negri’s multitude. Probably it never comes into being. As nodes, gangs, factions, we know our own reasons for taking part in a network, with whom we interact and why, and in what modalities. Our motivations, aspirations, emotions, passions and ideas — which intimately affect the way a network develops — are nonetheless unrepresentable at a macro level. While we have occasion now to consider protocols, conveyances and so on, we also have to enjoy the immediate passions that impel all our activities. What we learn from Cosa Nostra: transversal power, built on lines of affective relations, is robust. It crosses institutions and organs of power; it protects us and infects others. Perhaps we come together for the strength of an idea, or for friendship, for some ‘purpose’. But in whatever instance, like-mindedness is crucial. I share like-mind on some key ideas with two or three of the gangs in which I

work. While I am highly uncomfortable with people like Negri and Hardt telling me about my identity with a global multitude, who I know very well do not share all my experiences, I am very comfortable with each instance of like-mindedness I experience in tiny gangs. Indeed, this like-mindedness is pleasurable; I would be lost without it.

The comments in ‘Give up Activism’ in the pamphlet Reflections on June 18th, produced ‘as an open-access collection’ of contributions on the politics behind the events that occurred in the City of London on June 18, 1���, resonate with me here:

“The role of the activist creates a separation between ends and means: self-sacrifice means creating a division between the revolution as love and joy in the future, but duty and routine now. The world view of activism is dominated by guilt and duty because the activist is not fighting for herself but for a separate cause: ‘All causes are equally inhuman’.”

As an activist you have to deny yourowndesiresbecauseyourpoliticalactivityisdefined such that these things do not countas ‘politics’. You put ‘politics’ in a separateboxtotherestofyourlife–it’slikeajob...youdo ‘politics’ 9-5 and then go home and dosomethingelse[...].

Self-sacrificing politicos stunt their ownlivesandtheirownwilltolive–thisgeneratesbitterness and an antipathy to life which isthen turned outwards to wither everythingelse. They are “great despisers of life... thepartisansofabsoluteself-sacrifice...theirlivestwistedbytheirmonstrous[sic]asceticism”.

This might be a bit tough, but anyonewho’sbeeninvolvedinthesocialmovementswillknowthekindofactivistsreferredtohere.Manywillpreferandseekoutthewarmthofpersonal relationships, within their gangs,

16�

not in identities whose imperatives we can’tunderstand, with occluded leaders, andwhose‘will’canneverbeours(ifitcanevenbetheirs.)Clearlyonecannotclaim‘warmth’and ‘love’ as radical qualities any more thanonecanclaim ‘transversality’,but it is ironicthatcorporateworkplacesarebecomingmoreandmorelikeplaypenswhile‘radicalactivism’becomes more and more the workhouse. Agang can be slack. It has no truck with theimperativesoftheprofessionalglobalactivist.

“Thenoveltyof thecomingpolitics”, saysGiorgioAgamen,“isthatitwillnolongerbeastruggle for theconquestorcontrolof theState, but a struggle between the State andthenon-State(humanity),aninsurmountabledisjunctionbetweenwhateversingularityandtheStateorganization”.

This has nothing to do with the simple affirmation of the social in opposition to the State that has often found expression in the protest movement of recent years. Whatever singularities cannot form a societas, because they do not possess any identity to vindicate nor any bond of belonging for which to seek recognition. In the final instance the State can recognize any claim for identity–even that of a State identity within the State (the recent history of relations between the State and terrorism is an eloquent confirmation of this fact). What the State cannot tolerate in any way, however, is that the singularities form a community without affirming an identity; the humans co-belong without any representable conditions of belonging...

Gangs are the ‘whatever singularities’

that Agamben proposes, which can bind and have binding power, can grow and shrink but which never merge. This refusal is the one and important way in which they are in common but never one. Quite certainly this is the relation Hardt and Negri were trying to

express in Multitude, and these first few notes towards a ‘gang grammar’ are an attempt to understand how a ‘para-constituted’ power works. Much more, of course, remains to be done.

B�b���graphyBernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of

the American RevolutionS.E. Finer, The History of Government

From The Earliest Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

Thomad Hobbes, De Cive [1642], translated and edited by Richard Tuck and Michael Silverthorne as On the Citizen, Cambridge 1998

Thomas Hobbes,The Elements of Law, Natural and Politic [1650] 21.11, ed. J. C. A. Gaskin, Oxford 1994

Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude, (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), p. 267.

Peter H. Salus, Casting the Net: from ARPANET to internet and Beyond... (Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1995)

E����ay�� an� art�c�e��GiveUpActivism’,inDo Or Die9,1999,p.

160-166.Availableat<http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no9/activism.htm>

AnustupBasu,‘BombsandBytes’,inMute magazine,12January2004

Jamie King, ‘Tales of the Interconnected:the propagation of conspiracy on UsenetNews’,1998,unpublished.

Joseph R. Licklider, ‘Man-ComputerSymbiosis’, in IEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, vol. HFE-1, March1960,p.4-11.ReprintedinInMemoriamJCRLicklider, Digital Equipment CorporationSystemsResearchCenter,7August1990.

Oliver Marchart, ‘The Crossed Place OfThePoliticalParty’,inRepublic Art,September2002,<www.republicart.net>

Mike Newnham, ‘Foreword’, in Paul

16�

Miller and Paul Skidmore, Disorganisation: Why Future Organisations must ‘Loosen Up’, London: Demos, 2004, p. 9.Available at: <http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Disorganisation.pdf>

Bruce Sterling, ‘Short History of theinternet’,The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, February 1993, via <http://www.eff.org/pub/Publications/Bruce Sterling/FSFcolumns/>

SlavojZizek,‘ObjetaasInherentLimittoCapitalism: on Michael Hardt and AntonioNegri’ (http://www.lacan.com/zizmultitude.htm)

Jamie King

Dr. J. J. King (jamie@jamie.com) is a writer, lecturer and agitator living in London’s East End. Jamie is Creative Director of Shiftspace (www.shiftspace.cc), a social software consultancy and development company, an editor at Mute Magazine (www.metamute.org), and a lecturer on the MA in Digital Media programme at Ravensbourne College (maidm.com).

16�

What does the recent news of aWikipedia CEO who is also a lawyer, an‘oversight’ function that makes hiddenrevisions to Wikipedia, and the threat oftheDebianProjectseveringitsrelationshipwith its legallycharterednon-profithaveincommon?Theserecenteventsdemonstratethat open communities with a formal legalstandingareaconflictedbeast.

The sociologist Max Weber (Wikipedia,2006) made an important observationof how leadership often shifts from acharismatic leader to a more bureaucraticformofgovernanceasacommunitymatures1;Wikipedia is no exception. An interestingquestion in the Wikipedia case is to whatextent can the shift occur while decision-making remains in the open, within sightand control of the larger community? ThedelegationofpowerfromJimboWalestotheMediationandArbitrationcommittees isanexampleofwhatWebercalled‘routinization’.Bothofthesecommitteesareopen.However,inmattersof law,maintainingopenness is adifficulttask.AsWikipediahasgrowninsizeand repute the likelihood of the Wikipediabeing subject to legal action has similarlygrown. The tension between openness andcloseness in such a community is no betterdemonstrated than by the WP:Office action(Wikipedia,2006).

On the Wikipedia one is expected todiscuss the editing of an article with fellow

contributors.Argumentsaremadeintheopenwithreferencetopublicpolicies.However,forthosewithaproprietaryinterest,thisprocessof reasoneddiscussioncanbecircumventedviaacallorlettertothe‘Wikipediaoffice’,andsometimes,rightfullyso.WhatobligationdidSeigenthaler2,someonecompletelyunfamiliarwith Wikis have to edit the Wikipedia inordertoremovethelibelousclaimthathewasimplicatedintheassassinationofaKennedy?None.AsJimmyWales3wrote,“Theproblemweareseeing,againandagain,isthisattitudethat some poor victim of a biased rant inWikipediaoughttonotgetpissedandtakeusuponourofferof‘anyonecanedit’butshouldrather immerse themselves in our arcaneinternal culture until they understand therightwaytogetthingsdone”.

However, unfortunately, the officemechanismcanbeabusedbythosepushinganon-encyclopedicpointofview(POV);suchaspromoting(orcensoringnegativeviewsof )acommercialproduct.Ifsuchpeoplecan’twintheir arguments on the merits of notabilityand neutrality, having their lawyer call theofficemightpromptanoffice intervention --suchasblankingordeletingthecontentiousarticlewhichshouldthenbelabeledwiththeWP:Officetag.

Open Communities and Closed LawJoseph M. Reagle Jr.

Yet, in an amusing and sad irony WP:Office soon became a red flag to those who dislike this intervention or otherwise like to make trouble for Wikipedia (e.g. copying sensitive or contentious materials off Wikipedia to continue to cause trouble).

166

Something like WP:Office is anunfortunate though (probably) necessarymechanism whereby reasoned discussionis excepted so as to avoid legal problems.Yet, inanamusingandsad ironyWP:Officesoonbecameared flag to thosewhodislikethis intervention or otherwise like to maketrouble for Wikipedia (e.g. copying sensitiveor contentious materials off Wikipedia tocontinue to cause trouble). Whereas officeactionswere intendedtoquicklyandquietlyremove a potential liability, they became aflash-point. This led to the genuinely sadcase in which office actions were takenwithout being labeled as such and a ‘good-faith’ administrator was desysopped andblockedindefinitely,becausehehadrevertedthe hidden landmine of an unlabeled officeaction. (Fortunately, his response4 was anexemplar of Wikipedia tact and his positionwassoonrestored).

Recently, the realities of this tensionbetweenopencollaborationand legalactionare indicated by two announcements: theappointmenttoaCEOposition5whowillalsoact as general counsel, and the deploymentof a ‘oversight’ (revision hiding) feature(Wikipedia,2006)whichpermitsedits tobehidden from an article’s history page. Legalthreatsareclearlyatoppriority.

EdgarSchein6arguesthatorganizationsareshapedbythecrisesthey face in interactionwiththeexternalenvironmentandhowthoseevents are internally integrated within theorganization. This integration is not alwayssmoothorsuccessful,particularlyforanopencommunity.AnotherexampleofthishasbeentherecentdisputeintheDebianGNU/Linuxdistribution project. In a thread entitledWho can make binding legal agreements7,the Debian community came into conflictwiththeSPIBoard,it’sownlegallychartered‘umbrella’!CanSPIpre-emptDebiandecisionmakingprocesses?CanDebiandecisionsfoist

liability upon SPI it is unwilling to accept?These are difficult decisions when we lacka legally robust and safe means of the opencollaboration that Wikipedia and Debianrepresent. This has lead Larry Sanger8 toargue that Collaborative Free Works ShouldBe Protected by the Law; a proposal thatdeservesseriousconsideration.

Reference��1 Mommsen, W.J. (1992). The political

and social theory of Max Weber: collected essays.UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago.P.42

2 Seigenthaler,J.(2005).AfalseWikipedia‘biography’. USA Today. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm>.

3 Wales,J.(2006).Re: should not be written by an interested party.wikien-l.<http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?i=4458EF10.9060705@wikia.com>.

4 Moeller,E.(2006).IndefiniteblockanddesysoppingbyUser:Danny.wikien-l.

5 Foundation, W. (2006). Resolution CEO. Retrieved on June 9, 2006 15:59 UTCfrom <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution_CEO>.

6 Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership.JohnWhiley&Sons,SanFrancisco,3rdedition.

7 Goerzen, J. (2006). Who can make binding legal agreements. RetrievedonJune6, 2006 from <http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/06/msg00256.html>

8 Sanger,L.(2005).Why collaborative free works should be protected by the law.Slashdot.RetrievedonDecember7,2005.

167

Joseph Reagle

Joseph Reagle is a Doctoral Fellow at NYU’s Culture and Communication Department where he studies collaborative cultures, specifically the Wikipedia. For seven years he was a Research Engineer at the MIT Lab for Computer Science where he has served as a Working Group Chair and Author within the joint IETF/W3C XML Signature, XML Encryption and Platform for Privacy Preferences (P3P) activities. Additionally, he has worked as a Policy Analyst addressing privacy, content-selection/free-speech, and intellectual rights, including the development and maintenance of W3C’s privacy and intellectual rights policies (i.e., copyright/trademark licenses and patent analysis).

Mr. Reagle has a Computer Science degree from UMBC and a Masters from MIT’s Technology and Policy Program, where he was a Research Assistant at the Research Program on Communication Policy. Joseph has been a Resident Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at the Harvard Law School where he wrote and lectured about social protocols, Web-data schema design and contract law, computer agents and legal agency, and Internet culture and democratic/anarchist principles. He’s also worked on short consulting projects for Open Market (electronic commerce protocols), McCann-Erickson (Internet and interactive media), and go-Digital (Internet gambling).

168

Howwouldculturebecreatedifartistswerenotlockedintoromanticnotionsofindividual authorship and the associateddrivetocontroltheresultsoftheirlabourwasnotenforcedthrougheverexpandingcopyrights? What if cultural productionwas organized via principles of free access,collaborative creation and open adaptabilityofworks?Assuch,thepracticesofacollectiveand transformative culture are not entirelynew. They were characteristic for (oral) folkcultures prior to their transformation intomass culture by the respective industriesduring the twentieth century, and ascounter-currents – the numerous avant-garde movements (dada, situationism, mailart, neoism, plagiarism, plunderphonics,etc.) which re-invented, radicalized andtechnologicallyup-gradedvariousaspectsofthose.Yet,over the lastdecade, these issues–ofopenandcollaborativepractices–havetaken on an entirely new sense of urgency.Generally, the ease with which digitalinformation can be globally distributed andmanipulatedbyaverylargenumberofpeoplemakes free distribution and free adaptationtechnicallypossibleandamatterofeverydaypractice. Everyone with a computer alreadyuses,inonewayortheother,thecopy&pastefunction built into all editors. This is whatcomputers are about: copying, manipulatingand storing information. With access to theinternet, people are able to sample a widerangeof sources andmake theirownworksavailabletopotentiallylargeaudiences.

Morespecifically,thefreeandopensourcesoftware(FOSS)movementhasshownthatitis possible to create advanced informationalgoodsbasedonjusttheseprinciples.Theyareenshrined as four freedoms in the GeneralPublicLicense(GPL),thelegalandnormativebasisofmuchofthismovement.Theseare,itisworthrepeating:freedomtouseaworkforanypurpose, freedomtochange it, freedomtodistributeexactcopiesof it, and freedomto distribute transformed copies. Thesefreedoms are made practicable through theobligationtoprovidethenecessaryresources;for software, this is the human-readablesource code (rather than just the machine-readablebinaries,consistingofnothingthanones and zeros). After close to two decadesof FOSS development it has become clearthat itembodiesanewmodeofproduction,that is, a new type of social organizationunderpinningthecreationofaclassofgoods.To stress that thismodeofproductiondoesnot need to be limited to FOSS, YochaiBenkler has called it ‘commons-based peerproduction’2 meaning that the resourcesfor production e.g. the source code are notprivately owned and traded in markets, butmanagedasacommons,opentoallmembersofacommunitymadeupofvolunteers(thosewhoaccepttheconditionsoftheGPL).

On the Differences between Open Source and Open Culture1 Felix Stalder

What makes a work of art a good work of art? How can we reliably judge the ability of one artist as comparable and superior over that of another? These are intractable questions that most people, even art critics, try to avoid, for very good reasons.

16�

It is perhaps not surprising that sucha ‘really existing utopia’ has had a strongattraction forculturalproducerswhose livesare made difficult by having to conformeithertothedemandsoftheculture/creativeindustries, or the traditional art markets.Thus over the last couple of years, we haveseenanexplosionofself-declared ‘openness’in virtually all fields of cultural production,trying,inonewayortheother,toemulatetheFOSSstyleofproduction,usuallyunderstoodasegalitarianandcollaborativeproduction.

However, despite all the excitement, theresultshavebeen,well,rathermeagre.Thereareplentyofcollaborativeplatforms,waitingtobeused.Thosethatareusedoftenproducematerial so idiosyncratic that they are ofrelevance only to the communities creatingthem,barely reachingbeyondself-containedislands,alwaysatthebrinkofcollapsingintodefactoclosedclubsofthelike-minded.Thereis only one example that springs to mindof something that has reached the size andimpact comparable to major FOSS projects:Wikipedia,thefreeonlineencyclopedia.

The exceptional status of Wikipediasuggests that the FOSS model is not easilytransferable to other domains of culturalproduction3.Rather, it seemstosuggest thatthere are conditions which are specific tosoftware development. For example, mostsoftware development is highly modular,meaningmanypeoplecanworkinparallelonself-containedaspectswithlittlecoordinationbetweenthem.Allthatisnecessaryistoagreeoncertainstandards(tomakesurethevariousmodulesarecompatible)andaloosely-defineddirection for the development. This givesthe individual contributors a high degree ofautonomy,withoutdilutingtheoverallqualityof theemergentresult.This,ofcourse,doesnot apply to literary texts, films, or music,where the demands for overall coherence

are very different. It’s not surprising, then,that we still have not seen, and I wouldsuspectwillneversee,anopensourcenovel4.Anotherimportantaspectinwhichsoftwaredevelopment differs from most culturalproductionisitseconomicstructure.Aroundthree quarters of professional programmers(meaningpeoplewhoarepaidtowritecode)work for companies that use software butdo not sell it5. Commodity software (à laMicrosoft)hasalwaysbeenonlyasmallaspectofallsoftwarethatisproducedandtheoverallsector has always been oriented towardsprovidingservices.Hence,it’seasytoimaginean industryprovidinganeconomicbasis forlong-term FOSS development. And suchan industry is emerging rapidly. Of course,artists, for very good reasons, are reluctanttoacceptaservicemodel forceduponthemunder the label creative industry6, leavingthemdependentoneitherthetraditionalartmarket or the limited commissions handedoutbypublicandprivatefoundations.Therearenumerousotheraspectsthatdifferentiatethe problem of software development fromotherdomainsofimmaterialproduction.I’vesketched them elsewhere7. In the context ofself-directedculturalorartisticprojects,oneissue seems to pose particular difficulty foropenprojects:qualitycontrol.

�hat’�� G���, An� �h� ��� Better?Whatmakesaworkofartagoodworkof

art?Howcanwereliablyjudgetheabilityofoneartistascomparableandsuperioroverthatofanother?Theseareintractablequestionsthatmostpeople,evenartcritics,trytoavoid,forverygoodreasons.Throughoutthetwentiethcentury,thedefinitionofartasbeenexpandedcontinuouslytothedegreethatithasbecomeself-referential(àla“artiswhatartistsdo”,or“artiswhatisshowninartinstitutions”).Asaneffectoftheensuinguncertainty,aestheticjudgements are more than ever uncertainandthereforesubjectivized,andtherangeof

170

aestheticpreferences is extremelywide.Thedifferences among genres, even if they canseem to be minuscule to outsiders, tend tobeverysignificantfortheoneswhocare.Theresultisthatthenumberofpeoplewhosharea sense of what makes a cultural producthigh-quality is usually very small. Except, ofcourse,iftheproductissupportedbymassivemarketing campaigns, that artificially inflatethis richness of opinion into mass markets.Thus cultural communities are eitherhighly fragmented or commodified, makingcollaboration either exceedingly difficult orillegal.

In software, this is different. It is usuallynot so difficult to determine what a goodprogram is and what not, because there arewidelyacceptedcriteriawhichareobjectivelymeasurable. Does a program run withoutcrashing?Doesitdocertainthingsthatothersdon’t?Howfastisit?Howmuchmemorydoesituse?Howmanylinesofcodearenecessaryforaparticular feature?But it’snot just thattechnicalquestionsare‘objective’andculturalones are ‘subjective’. In order to be able toseriously contribute to a FOSS project (andtherefore earn status and influence withinthecommunity)oneneedstoacquireaveryhigh degree of proficiency in programming,which can only be gained through a deepimmersion in the culture of engineering,eitherthroughformaleducation,orinformallearning.Eitherway,theresultistheadoptionofavast,sharedculture,whichisglobal,toasignificantdegree.Itisthissharedcultureofengineeringwhichmakescertainmeasurableaspectsofaprogramthedefiningones.Faster,for example, is always better. While there isa slow foodmovement, extolling thevirtuesoftraditionalcookingoverfastfood,thereisno slow computing movement. Even thosesubcultureswhichdedicatethemselvestooldplatforms try to max them out (make themrunasfastaspossible).

This is not to say that there are nodeep disagreements in the programmingcommunity that cannot be reconciled byreferencestoobjectivemeasurements.Thereare plenty of them, usually concerning thevirtues or vices of particular programminglanguages, or fundamental questions ofsoftwarearchitecture(forexample,withintheFOSS world, the never-ending debate overthemonolithicLinuxkernelversustheGNUmicrokernel). However, these differencesin opinion are so fundamental that thecommunities which are built around themcan still be large enough to find the criticalmassofcontributorsforinterestingprojects.

However, the objectifying and solutions-oriented character of a widely sharedengineering culture is not the only reasonwhy the assessment of quality in softwareis not such a quarrelsome problem. Atleast as important is the fact that the tools/information necessary to assess quality arealso widely available. Indeed, software is,at least in some aspects, a self-referentialproblem. It can be solved by reference toothersoftwareanddeterminedwithinclosedenvironments. A skilled programmer hasall the tools toexaminesomeoneelse’scodeon his/her computer. This is still not aneasytask–bugfixingisdifficult–butsinceeveryprogrammerhasallthetoolsathis/herdisposal, itcanbemadeeasierbyincreasingthe number of programmers looking atproblems. The more people search for theproblem, the more likely someone will findit,because,theoretically,eachofthemcouldfind it. This is what Eric Raymond meanswhenheargues that “givenenougheyeballs,allbugsareshallow”.

Asaresult,itispossibletogainarelativelyunproblematic consensus about which codeis of high quality, and which is not, and,byextension,toestablishahierarchy,orpeckingorder,amongprogrammers.

171

This is not so terribly different from thepeer-review in science. People look at eachother’s work and decide what is good andwhatisnot.Thedifferenceliesinwhatittakestobecomeapeer.ForFOSS,allyouneedtohavearethenecessaryskills(hardtomaster,of course, but available to the dedicated)and a standard computer with an internetconnection.Notmuchof ahurdle for thosewho care. Now, it’s the quality of the code,assessablebyeveryone,thatshowsifyouareapeerornot.Insciencewhatyouoftenneedis not just the necessary skills, but often avast infrastructure (laboratories, machinery,access to archives and libraries, assistants,funding, etc.) to make use of those skills.This expensive infrastructure is usually onlyaccessible toemployeesof large institutions,and in order to get employed, you need therightcredentials.Thus, in science,peersareestablished by a mixture of credentials andpositions,becausewithoutthose,youcannotseriously assess the publications of otherresearchers, for example, by repeating theirexperiments.

If peer-review is so essential to establishquality control, and yet it’s difficult toestablish reliably who a peer is, the projectruns into troubles. The current difficultiesof Wikipedia are instructive in this case.Wikipedia is an attempt to create an onlineencyclopedia,writtenentirelybyusers,whichcanexceedtherangeandqualityofthemostreputabletraditionalreferenceworks.Injustfiveyears,hundredsof thousandsof articlesin dozens of languages have been written,andinquiteafewcases,thesearticlesareofveryhighquality.Intermsofmodularityandeconomicstructure,Wikipediaisverysimilarto software development. This is one of thereasons why the open source approach hasworkedsowell.AnotherreasonforitssuccessisthattheWikipediacommunityhasmanagedtocreateawidelysharedunderstandingabout

whatagoodarticleshouldlooklike(it’scalledthe‘neutralpointofview’,NPOV)8.Thisgivesa formalbase-line (disputedperspectivesona subject should be presented side-by-side,rather than reconciled) in order to assessarticles. However, these criteria are onlyformal. It says nothing about whether theseperspectivesarefactuallycorrectorinaccordwithrelevantsources.

ThebasicmechanismofqualitycontrolinWikipediaistheideathatasmorepeoplereadaparticulararticlemistakeswillbefoundandcorrected. So, over time, articles improve inquality, asymptotically reaching the state oftheart.Givenenougheyeballs,allerrorsareshallow. However, practice has shown thatthisdoesn’tnecessarilyneedtobethecase.Itholdsmoreorlesstrueforformalaspects,likespellingandgrammar,whichcanbeassessedsimply by reading the article. However, intermsoftheactualcontent,thismodelclearlyshowsitslimits.Often,theactualfactsarenoteasytocomeby,andarenotavailableonline.Rather,inordertogetthefact,youneedaccesstospecializedresourcesthatfewpeoplehave.Ifsuchfactsarethenincludedandcontradictcommon knowledge, the chances are thattheygetcorrectedasmistakesbypeoplewhothink theyknowsomethingabout the topic,but whose knowledge is actually shallow.This is less of a problem in very specializedanduncontroversialareas(suchasthenaturalsciences9) that are primarily of interest tospecialists but a serious problem in areas ofmoregeneralknowledge. It shows thatevenfor functional works, the addition of morepeopledoesnotnecessarilyhelp to improvethe quality – even if these people are well-intentioned – because most of them do nothavethenecessaryinformationtoassessthequality.

Wikipediaiscaughtintheproblemthatitdoesnotwanttorestricttherightsofaverage

17�

users in favour of experts, but, rejectingformalcredentials,itdoesnothaveareliableway to assess expertise e.g. the number ofentries, or other statistical measures, showdevotion, but not expertise. But given thefact that one cannot simply ‘run’ an articletocheckif itcontainsabug, it is impossibleto validate the quality of the content of anarticlesimplybyreadingitcarefully.Inorderto do that, one needs access to the relevantaspectsoftheexternalrealityandthisaccessisoftennotavailable.Butbecausethereisnodirectwaytorecognizeexpertise,Wikipediaisopen toall,hoping for safety innumbers.Given the highly modular structure and thefactual nature of the project, supported bythe NPOV editorial guidelines, the projecthas thrived tremendously. Paradoxically, thelimitationofitsmethodbeginsonlytoshowafterithasbecomesosuccessfulthatitsclaimto supersede other authoritative referenceworkshastobetakenseriously10.

Culturalprojects,then,facetwoproblems.If they are of an ‘expressive’ type, then thecommunitiesthatagreeonqualitystandardsaresosmallthatcollaborationtendstobemoreclub-likethanopensource.Eveniftheworksarefunctional,likeWikipedia,thechallengeofdeterminingwhoisanexpertwithoutrelyingon conventional credentials is significant.Currently, the problem is side-stepped byreverting to simplistic egalitarianism, or, asI would call it, undifferentiated openness.Everyone can have a say and the mosttenacioussurvive.

Un��fferent�ate� Openne����

The openness in open source is oftenmisunderstood as egalitarian collaboration.However,FOSSisprimarilyopeninthesensethatanyonecanappropriate theresults,anddowiththemwhateverheorshewants(withinthelegal/normativeframeworksetoutbythelicense).Thisiswhatthecommons,ashared

resource, is about: Free appropriation. Noteveryone can contribute. Everyone is free,indeed, to propose a contribution, but thepeoplewhoruntheprojectareequallyfreetorejectthecontributionoutright.Opensourceprojects,intheiractualorganization,arenotegalitarianandnoteveryoneiswelcome.Thecoretaskofmanagingacommonsistoensurenotjusttheproductionofresources,butalsotoprevent itsdegradationfromtheadditionoflowqualitymaterial.

OrganizationallythekeyaspectsofFOSSprojects are that participation is voluntaryand – what is often forgotten – that theyare tightly structured. Intuitively, this mightseem like a contradiction, but in practice itisnot.Participation isvoluntary inadoublesense. On the one hand, people decide forthemselves if theywant tocontribute.Tasksare never assigned, but people volunteerto take responsibility. On the other hand, ifcontributorsarenothappywiththeproject’sdevelopment, they can take all the project’sresources (mainly, the source code) andreorganize it differently. Nevertheless, allprojects have a leader, or a small group ofleaders,whodetermine theoveralldirectionoftheprojectsandwhichcontributionsfromthe community are included in the nextversion, and which are rejected. However,because of the doubly voluntary nature, theprojectleadersneedtobeveryresponsivetothecommunity,otherwisethecommunitycaneasilygetridofthem(whichiscalled‘forkingtheproject’).Theleaderhasnootherclaimforhis(anditseemstobealwaysaman)positionthantobeofservicetothecommunity.OpenSourcetheoristEricS.Raymondhascalledthisabenevolentdictatorship11.Moreaccurately,itiscalledtheresultofavoluntaryhierarchyin which authority flows from responsibility(ratherthanfromthepowertocoerce)12.

Thus,theFOSSworldisnotademocracy,

17�

whereeveryonehasavote,butameritocracy,wheretheprovenexperts–thosewhoknowbetter than others what they are doing anddoitreliablyandresponsibly–runtheshow.The hierarchical nature of the organizationdirectly mirrors this meritocracy. The verygood programmers end up on top, theuntalented ones either drop out voluntarily,or, if they get too distracting, are kickedout. Most often, this is not an acrimoniousprocess, because in coding, it’s relativelyeasy to recognize expertise, for the reasonsmentioned earlier. No fancy degrees arenecessary.YoucanliterallybeateenagerinasmalltowninNorwayandberecognizedasaverytalentedprogrammer13.Oftenit’sagoodstrategy to let other people solve problemsmore quickly than one could oneself, sinceusually their definition of the problem andthe solution is very similar to one’s own.Thus, accepting the hierarchical natureof such projects is easy. It is usually verytransparent and explicit. The project leaderisnotjustarecognizedcrack,butalsohastoleadtheprojectinawaythatkeepseveryonereasonablyhappy.Thehierarchy,voluntaryasitmaybe, createsnumerousmechanismsoforganizationalclosure,whichallowsaprojecttoremainfocusedandlimitsthenoise/signalratioofcommunicationtoaproductivelevel.

Without an easy way to recognizeexpertise, it is very hard to build suchvoluntaryhierarchiesbasedonatransparentmeritocracy,orotherfiltersthatincreasefocusandmanagethebalancebetweenwelcomingpeoplewhocanreallycontributeandkeepingoutthosewhodonot.

Wikipedia illustrates the difficulties ofreachingacertainlevelofqualityonthebasisofundifferentiatedopenness.

‘Expressive’ cultural projects face evengreater hurdles, because the assessment ofquality is so personal that, on the level of

production,collaborationrarelygoesbeyonda very small group, say a band, or a smallcollectiveofwriters,suchasWu-Ming.

Open C��t�re Bey�n� Open S��rceThis does not mean that FOSS cannot

be taken as a model for open culturalproduction in other fields. However, whatseems to be the really relevant part is notso much the collaborative productionaspects, but the freedom of appropriationaspect and the new model of authorship,centering around community involvementrather than individual autonomy. TheGPL, and other such licenses, like CreativeCommons, are very good instruments toenshrine these basic freedoms. These willcreate the pool of material in which a new,digital, transformative culture can grow.And indeedweare seeing theemergenceofsuch resource pools. One example is Flickr.com,arapidlygrowingrepositoryof images,tagged and searchable, contributed entirelyby users. While this is not a commons in alegal sense (the images inFlickr.comremainintheownershipoftheauthor),nor,really,inintention,thefactthattheresourceasawholeis searchable (through user-defined imagetags) does create a de-facto commons. Thecollaboration here is very limited, restrictedtocontributing individualworks toa sharedframework that makes it easily accessible toothers. There is no common project, andcollaboration between users is minimal, butit still can be understood as ‘open culture’becauseitmakestheresourcesofproduction,theimages,widelyavailable.Theproductionofnewcultural artefacts remains, as always,in the hands of individuals or small groups,but the material they work with is not onlytheirowninnervision,honedasautonomouscreators,butalsootherpeople’swork,madeavailableinresourcepools.

Atthispoint,thisisentirelyunspectacular.

17�

Butbyrestrictingopennesstothecreationofa pool of relatively basic resource material,rather than complex artistic productions,issuesofqualitycontrolandtheorganizationof collaboration, with all the necessarydifficulties of coordination in the absenceof clear markers of quality, are sidestepped.Nevertheless, over time, I think that suchde-facto commons can contribute to a slowtransformationofculturefromacollectionofdiscrete,stableandownableobjects,createdby autonomous, possessive individuals,to ongoing adaptations, translations andretellingswithinrelevantcontexts.Perhapsoutofthis,anewsenseofauthorshipwillemerge,and new communities in which certaincriteria of quality are widely accepted (akinto ‘community standards’). Only once thishappens,Ithink,reallycollaborativemodesofartisticproductioncanbedeveloped,similartowhatwehaveseeninFOSS.

However,ifthishappensatall,itwillbeaverylong-termprocess.

Reference��1 ThankstoArminMedoschforcomments

onadraftversion.2 Yochai Benkler, Coase’s Penguin, or,

LinuxandTheNatureoftheFirm,Yale Law Journal, No. 112, 2002, http://www.benkler.com.

3 Unless technically restricted, informa-tional goods are perfectly copyable anddistributable for free. This makes themsufficiently distinct from material goods toconstitute an ontologically different class ofobjects,evenifthetransferbetweenthetwo,say printing a digital text on paper, is oftennotdifficult.

4 Even for non-fiction books, this hasnot worked out so far, with the possibleexceptionofeducational textbooks,agenrecharacterized by the most unimaginativewriting.

5 http://opensource.org/advocacy/jobs.html6 The classic study still is Angela

McRobbie’sBritish Fashion Design: Rag Trade or Image Industry?,Routledge,London,1988.

7 SeemyessayOne Size Doesn’t Fit AllinOpenCulturesandtheNatureofNetworks,Futura publikacije, Novi Sad, 2005. http://felix.openflows.org/html/kuda_book.htmlforanoverviewofthesedifferences.

8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. This issue isindependent of the problem of peopledeliberatelyinsertingfalseinformationjustforthefunofit(orformorestrategicreasons).

9 See Nature 438, 15 December 2005,pp 900-901, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html.

10Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sangersthinks that these limitationsaresodramaticthat he is preparing, with the help of $10millionfunding,tostartanotherfreereferencework,DigitalUniverse,but this timeedited,oratleastsupervised,byexperts.Seehttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/19/sanger_onlinepedia_with_experts/

11Eric S. Raymond, ‘The Cathedral andthe Bazaar’ in First Monday Volume 3, No.3, 1988. http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_3/raymond/ (all further quotes ofRaymond are from the same article, unlessotherwisenoted).

12Forthebestanalysisof thegovernancesystems of FOSS projects, see StevenWeber,The Success of Open Source,HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,MA,2004.

13JonJohanson,whogainedinternationalfame as the person who wrote the code tocracktheDRMsystemonDVDs,andmanyothers subsequently, lived at the time inHarstad,Norway

Towards a Culture of Open Networkshttp://www.opencultures.net

Waag Society, Amsterdam, The Netherlandshttp://www.waag.org

Sarai, Delhi, Indiahttp://www.sarai.net