-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 William Norton wrote: | Isn't trying to find a uniform set of goals a bit contrary to the idea | of free culture? Determining some core ideals is nice, but I certainly | don't think all the chapters need to agree. Depending on the campus, | some people/chapters might advocate for open access while not agreeing | on software patents; some people/chapters might support open source | software but not believe in an expansive fair use; some people/chapters | might be all about remixing culture but not be in favor of net neutrality. | | Nationals shouldn't feel the need to provide guidelines, as much as | highlight what chapters around the country are doing. Let diversity | spur inspiration and there's no need for trying to capture this | ever-chaging movement in specific terms.
I have to disagree. My goal (in engaging with this thread) is not to nail down highly specific goals. But a movement should indeed share a vision. That's basically the definition of a movement: different groups (individuals with different goals) united around one vision (not in a hegemonic way, but in a broad way). I can describe the different groups (the different specific goals) of what I would call the "free culture movement" -- but I have more trouble describing that shared vision. (Wasn't this the topic of Kevin's project to ask people "what does it look like to win"?) | On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Gavin Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED] | <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: | | William Norton wrote: | | Perhaps what 'we' (as a loose knit group who share several | overlapping | | sets of interests) need is more/better communication (face to | face, | | media etc.) and co-operation rather than centralisation or | unification | | under a single banner, phrase or term? | | | | | | I definitely agree with this sentiment. I think we should be | looking to | | tackle each one of these issues individually, without trying to group | | them under a single umbrella. I think it's much more effective if | we as | | a group say we're champions for all these things, and with each issue, | | when people notice that we're involved they will start to get a | sense of | | what "free culture" is about. | | | | In this sense, much like the civil rights movement was not about | | any enumerated list of rights, we can give people more of a sense for | | what we stand for rather than any list of ideas. | | So... how did people identify an issue or group as being part of the | "civil rights movement" if there was no "single umbrella" term? | | There is no harm whatever in having a name that people can identify | with; quite the contrary. The challenge is finding the best balance | between breadth (so the most people are involved) and specificity (so | there is clarity as to the shared vision or goal). | _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | _______________________________________________ | Discuss mailing list | [email protected] | http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss - -- Gavin Baker http://www.gavinbaker.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] The moral principle of revolutions is to instruct, not to destroy. ~ Thomas Paine -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHyF7otLXQdLhFpekRAq4OAJwJ0/GkmFgnIz+inziPI1Wf3WsqugCfZcRY d4b7ynvkIgm/JRpPvdPYrAE= =QcIG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
