Ola,
Se eu não gostasse de Brasil assim, eu viveria em Amsterdão com certeza
[]'s
Ian
> Outra daquelas conferências em Amsterdam.
> Vou tentar escrever alguma coisa e dar uma
> conferida lá.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Geert Lovink
> Date: Oct 10, 2006 4:53 PM
> Subject: cfp: new network theory (amsterdam, 28-30 juni 2007)
>
>
> FIRST CALL FOR PAPERS
>
> NEW NETWORK THEORY
> International Conference
>
> Location: Amsterdam
> Dates: 28-30 June 2007
>
> Organized by: Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis, Institute of
> Network Cultures (Amsterdam Polytechnic, HvA), and Media Studies,
> University of Amsterdam.
>
> http://www.networkcultures.org/networktheory
>
> New Network Theory, the 2007 ASCA International Conference, organized
> by the Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis (ASCA), the Institute of
> Network Cultures (Amsterdam Polytechnic) and Media Studies at the
> University of Amsterdam, has issued its first call for papers. The
> conference, to be held on Thursday, 28 June to Saturday, 30 June, 2007,
> also includes a public program with renowned speakers.
>
> Significant dates
>
> Deadline for Submission of Paper Abstract (500 words) and Biography
> (100 words): 10 January 2007
>
> Submit to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Acceptance Notification: 1 March 2007
>
> Further inquiries to: Dr. Eloe Kingma, Managing Director, Amsterdam
> School of Cultural Analysis, Oude Turfmarkt 147, Oude Turfmarkt 147,
> 1012 GC, Amsterdam, tel: +31 20 525 3874, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Conference organizers:
>
> Geert Lovink (Institute of Network Cultures/University of Amsterdam)
> Sabine Niederer (Institute of Network Cultures)
> Richard Rogers (University of Amsterdam)
> Jan Simons (University of Amsterdam)
>
> Locations: Pakhuis de Zwijger Media Warehouse (28 June), University of
> Amsterdam (29-30 June)
>
> --\\---
>
> General Introduction: Rethinking Network Cultures
>
> The object of study has shifted from the virtual community and the
> space of flows to the smart mob. When the object of study changes, so
> may the distinctions that dominate, particularly the schism between
> place-based space and place-less space, both organised and given life
> by networks. We would like to exploit the potential of writing
> contemporary network theory that suits and reflects the changes to the
> objects of study that come to define our understandings of network
> culture a post-Castellsian network theory, if you will, that takes
> technical media seriously.
>
> It is time to look for elements that can make up a network theory
> outside of post-modern cultural studies (which marvelled at the
> place-less place) and ethnographic social sciences (which reminded us
> of the ground). What network culture studies needs is a 'language of
> new media,' perhaps even signage, to speak in terms of Lev Manovich;
> what it currently has is a science-centered 'unified network theory,'
> to paraphrase the language of Albert-László Barabási.
>
> Whilst it may come as no surprise to critical Internet scholars, the
> notion that networks are not random but have underlying structures
> remains the key insight for network scientists. Instead of posing new
> questions, the work that follows from that insight often seeks to
> confirm that structure and its accompanying patterns, across more and
> more network-like objects. The question remains which specific
> contribution critical Internet scholars and practitioners can make to
> opening up network thought. Such is the purpose of the network theory
> conference. How must we rethink network culture with a renewed emphasis
> on technical media and social software?
>
> Suggested Topics:
>
> Networking and Social Life
> Social Software and Insider Networks
> Network Policy
> Network Governance / Organised Networks
> Actor-Network Theory and the Assemblage
> Network Knowledge Production
> Networks and Disengagement
> Media Networks
> The Link
> Locative Media and Networks
> Mapping Quests
>
> Other topics may be suggested.
>
> --//--
>
> Prospective Themes and Panels:
>
> Networking and Social Life
>
> 'Networking,' colloquially speaking, continues to be encouraged in our
> professional lives, but no one seems to have thought through how life
> would be guided if we apply network theory to professional 'networking'
> rather literally.
>
> As network scientists' terms and ideas spread, it is of interest to
> speculate about one's social life governed by the power law,
> preferential attachment, hubs, self-organization, swarming and
> cascading effects. To network in a colloquial sense, essentially is to
> connect oneself with a hub. As the hub receives more connections (or
> becomes 'preferentially attached'), the hub may become a
> superconnector, handling a disproportionately large number of
> connections relative to those of the other hubs in the overall network.
> As the network continues to grow through self-organisation, general
> knowledge of the existence of the superconnector may cause swarming
> behaviour.
>
> A superconnector, network science reports, has the greatest
> vulnerabilities, however. If the superconnector cannot handle the
> traffic, the network breaks down. If there's breakdown, with or without
> cascading effects, which determines the extent of the damage, you're on
> your own again. One implication is that one should continue to seek
> fresh hubs (as long as they last), and keep them from becoming
> overheated superconnectors. Hub-seeking behaviour, along with
> superconnector-care, come to guide social life.
>
> Social Software and Insider Networks
>
> What if the social software model, which performs networking in private
> and public spheres simultaneously, came to dominate our social life?
> One could argue that we would witness the spread of insider influence.
> Would networking be the means by which we discuss and effect social
> change, above all else?
>
> Having registered with social software, your friends may write to you,
> asking you to associate yourself with them and their acquaintances in
> an online environment. You cannot see your friends' networks unless you
> join, too, making it something of a secretive realm at first.
> Invitations sent by the software are becoming more explicit about why
> you are invited, and the purpose of social software:
>
> "Since you are a person I trust, I wanted to invite you to join my
> network on LinkedIn. I'm using it to discover inside connections I
> didn't know I had. It's interesting to see the level of access you can
> have with only a few people in your network."
>
> It may be unreasonable to concern oneself with the prospect of everyone
> creating and building insider networks. The democratisation of insider
> influence (social software for all), however, seems contrary to (or
> perhaps helps to explain) the current infatuation with governance and
> transparency.
>
> Network Policy
>
> Moving to the level of social policy, we can ask about the effects of
> network-centric thought put into practice institutionally. We are used
> to the phrase, "it's company policy," as a justification for a
> particular decision that has been taken for you. "It's network policy"
> is a phrase not yet in circulation. What if it were to change our ideas
> about what is 'social'?
>
> Perhaps it was the accessibility of Barabási's Linked (2002) that
> prompted networks to be given to great expectations, ones they may not
> be able to meet and ones that may change our ideas about what is
> 'social.' In Linked, the special case studies and stories that
> connected the small community of social network researchers for so long
> grew beyond the realm of familiarity, dependability and implication.
> Network research was no longer in the business of studying social
> influence only, and usually after the fact.
>
> Before, they asked: how did the Medici family increase its power base
> in Renaissance Florence (strategic marriage); which mid-western doctor
> should be approached by a pharmaceutical company to serve as the broker
> for spreading the word about a new product? With Linked, networks moved
> on to account for many other phenomena, including the spread of disease
> (HIV-AIDS). Since then network thought could very well lead to
> prospective planning; controversial action could be undertaken by
> employing a kind of 'network policy' that would supplant social policy.
>
> Historically, waiting lists in hospitals, for example, were determined
> on the basis of first come, first served, where an extreme emergency
> would call for the queue to be jumped. With a network policy the hubs
> should be served first, as they have a greater chance to spread disease
> than the isolates. They are better networked.
>
> Networked Multitude
>
> Whereas networks hardly played a role in Hardt and Negri's popular book
> Empire (2000), in Multitude (2004) the network form of organisation
> reached centre stage. According to Hardt and Negri, "the multitude must
> be conceived as a network, an open and expansive network in which all
> differences can be expressed freely and equally, a network that
> provides the means of encounter so that we can work and live freely in
> common". Beyond good or evil Hardt and Negri, like the scientists, now
> see networks everywhere we look "military organizations, social
> movements, business formations, migrations patterns, communication
> systems, physiological structures, linguistic relations, neural
> transmitters, and even personal relationships." The multitude authors
> present distributed networks as a general condition. Hardt and Negri:
> "It is not that networks were not around before or that the structure
> of the brain has changed. It is that network has become a common form
> that tends to define our ways of understanding the world and acting in
> it."
>
> After September 11, 2001 the enemy is not a unitary sovereign state,
> but rather a network, Arquilla and Ronfeldt wrote in Networks and
> Netwars (2001). Networks move in to failed states, taking them over,
> allegedly, but without re-establishing the borders. The enemy, in other
> words, has a new, sprawling form. But that particular military insight
> reverberates to the technical media, too. According to planners of the
> war against terrorism the Internet is not well equipped to face up to
> the networked enemy, at least not with its currently protocol. Is the
> end-to-end principle on which the Internet is based increasingly viewed
> as quaint architecture?
>
> Dawn of the Organized Networks
>
> At first glance the concept of 'organised networks' appears oxymoronic.
> In technical terms, all networks are organised. There are founders,
> administrators, moderators and active members who all take up roles.
> Think back to the early work on cybernetics and the 'second order'
> cybernetics of Bateson and others. Networks consist of mobile relations
> whose arrangement at any particular time is shaped by the 'constitutive
> outside' of feedback or noise. The order of networks is made up of a
> continuum of relations governed by interests, passions, effects and
> pragmatic necessities of different actors. The network of relations is
> never static, yet is not to be mistaken for some kind of perpetual
> fluidity. Ephemerality is not a condition to celebrate for those
> wishing to function as political agents. The theory of organised
> networks is to be read as a proposal, a draft, a concept in the process
> of becoming that needs active steering through disagreement and
> collective elaboration. (See the Fibreculture mailing list, discussion
> on organized networks in November/December 2004 and Ned Rossiter's
> upcoming book Organized Net).
>
> Needless to say, organised networks have existed for centuries. Their
> history can and will be written, but where would that bring us? The
> networks we are talking about here are specific in that they are
> situated within technical media. They can be characterised by their
> advanced irrelevance and invisibility for old media and p-in-p (people
> in power). General network theory might be useful for enlightenment
> purposes, but that doesn't answer the issues that new media-based
> social networks face. Does it satisfy to know that molecules and DNA
> patterns also network?
>
> Truism today: there are no networks outside of society. Like all
> human-techno entities, they are infected by power. Networks are ideal
> Foucauldian machines: they undermine power as they produce it. Their
> diagram of power may operate on a range of scales, traversing
> intra-local networks and overlapping with trans-national insurgencies.
> No matter how harmless they seem, networks bring on differences.
> Foucault's dictum: power produces. Translate this to organised networks
> and you get the force of invention. Indeed, translation is the
> condition of invention.
>
> Mediology, as defined by Régis Debray (1996), is the practice of
> invention within the socio-technical system of networks. As a
> collaborative method of immanent critique, mediology assembles a
> multitude of components upon a network of relations as they coalesce
> around situated problems and unleashed passions. In this sense, the
> network constantly escapes attempts of command and control. Such is the
> entropic variability of networks. Network users do not see their circle
> of peers as a sect. Ties are loose, up to the point of breaking up.
> Some would say the user is just a consumer: silent and satisfied, until
> hell breaks loose. The user is the identity of control by other means.
> In this respect, the 'user' is the empty vessel awaiting the spectral
> allure of digital commodity cultures and their promise of 'mobility'
> and 'openness'.
>
> Networking and Disengagement
>
> Networks are everywhere. The challenge for the foreseeable future is to
> create new openings, new possibilities, new temporalities and spaces
> within which life may assert its insistence on an ethical and
> aesthetical existence. Organised networks should be read as a proposal,
> aimed to replace the problematic term 'virtual community'. It should
> put the internal power relations within networks on the agenda and
> break with the invisible workings that made out the consensus era.
> Organised networks are 'clouds' of social relationships in which
> disengagement is pushed to the limit. Community is an idealistic
> construct and suggests bonding and harmony, which often is simply not
> there. The same could be said of the post-9/11 call for 'trust'.
> Networks thrive on diversity and conflict (the notworking), not on
> unity, and this is what community theorists were unable to reflect
> upon. For them disagreement equals a disruption of the 'constructive'
> flow of dialogue. It takes an effort to reflect on distrust as a
> productive principle. Indifference between networks is a main reason
> not to get organised, so this aspect has to be taken seriously.
> Interaction and involvement are idealistic constructs.
>
> Passivity rules. Browsing, watching, reading, waiting, thinking,
> deleting, chatting, skipping and surfing are the default condition of
> online life. Total involvement implies madness to the highest degree.
> What characterizes networks is a shared sense of a potentiality that
> does not have to be realized.
>
> Millions of replies from all to all would cause every network, no
> matter what architecture, to implode. Within every network there is a
> long time of interpassivity, interrupted by outbursts of interactivity.
> Networks foster, and reproduce, loose relationships and it's better
> to face this fact straight into the eye. They are hedonistic machines
> of promiscuous contacts. Networked multitudes create temporary and
> voluntary forms of collaboration that transcend, but not necessary
> disrupt the Age of Disengagement. The concept of organised networks is
> useful to enlist for strategic purposes.
>
> Media Networks
>
> After a decade of 'tactical media', the time has come to scale up the
> operations of radical media practices. We should all well and truly
> have emerged from the retro-fantasy of the benevolent welfare state.
> Networks will never be rewarded and 'embedded' in well-funded
> structures. Just as the modernist avant-garde saw itself punctuating
> the fringes of society, so too have tactical media taken comfort in the
> idea of targeted micro-interventions. Tactical media too often assume
> to reproduce the curious spatio-temporal dynamic and structural logic
> of the modern state and industrial capital: difference and renewal from
> the peripheries. But there's a paradox at work here. Disruptive as
> their actions may often be, tactical media corroborate the temporal
> mode of post-Fordist capital: short-termism. It is retro-garde that
> tactical media in a post-Fordist era continue to operate in terms of
> ephemerality and the logic of 'tactics'. Since the punctuated attack
> model is the dominant condition, tactical media have an affinity with
> that which they seek to oppose. This is why tactical media are treated
> with a kind of benign tolerance. There is a neurotic tendency to
> disappear. Anything that solidifies is lost in the system. The ideal is
> to be little more than a temporary glitch, a brief instance of noise or
> interference. Tactical media set themselves up for exploitation in the
> same manner that 'modders' do in the game industry: they both dispense
> with their knowledge of loopholes in the system for free. They point
> out the problem, and then take off. Capital is delighted, and thanks
> the tactical media outfit or nerd-modder for the home improvement.
>
> The Link
>
> What constitutes linking, and how could we describe its mirror phantom,
> or rather, its shadow? The link as a reference to another informational
> object only comes into being as a conscious act. There is no automated
> process of putting links. And there is no unconscious or subliminal
> linking either. These could all be worthy scientific propositions but
> as of yet they do not exist. Linking is tedious work. It's an effort
> and should be considered 'extra work'. There is no routine in linking.
> It's a precise job that needs constant control. But the opposite of the
> conscious link is not the broken but the absent link. What is the
> lifespan of links and networks?
>
> Locative Media and Networks
>
> The Internet has long been considered as the next step in the process
> of abolition of space and time constraints through media. Wireless and
> mobile media seem to have brought this process further along: people
> and places can be accessed anywhere any time. Paradoxically, the
> mobility of mobile phones, PDA's, portable game consoles, MP3 players
> and other devices have also re-introduced questions of space and place.
> 'Where are you?' is probably the most frequently used opening sentence
> of a mobile phone conversation. Activists, 'flash mobs' and soccer
> hooligans use mobile technologies to coordinate surprise actions at
> specific places and specific times. Mobile technologies have moved
> computer games from the desk-top screen into the streets (e.g., Pack
> Manhattan). Geographical Positioning Systems (GPS) and Geographical
> Information Systems (GIS) have given the term 'navigation' back its old
> meaning: from 'surfing in cyberspace' (remember Netscape Navigator) it
> has re-acquired the meaning 'finding one's way through geographical and
> physical space'. Streets, buildings, objects, animals and people can be
> 'tagged' in order to provide location-based and contextual information
> about their whereabouts, preferences, medical needs, bank accounts,
> sites, businesses, institutions, histories, and sales and discounts.
>
> Cyberspace and the so-called 'real world' converge into what Lev
> Manovich has called 'augmented reality,' and in this 'augmented
> reality' it does matter where you are. Locative media allow people to
> map and share their own cartographies (which implies the dazzling
> theoretical possibility that there are as many maps as there are
> map-makers), but they also allow authorities to keep track of everybody
> and everything. Locative media (in combination with biometric
> technologies) might also give rise to two extreme forms of
> claustrophobia: on the one hand one might ask whether it will be
> possible to ever break out of one's own maps (a new variety of the
> Cartesian question), and on the other hand one might ask whether it
> will be possible to keep out of sight.
>
> --
> FelipeFonseca
> .''`.
> : :' :
> `. `'`
> `- Orgulhoso ser MetaRecicleiro
> http://fff.hipercortex.com
> http://metareciclagem.org
> _______________________________________________
> Lista de discussão da MetaReciclagem
> Envie mensagens para [email protected]
> http://lista.metareciclagem.org
--
.''`.
: :' :
`. `'`
`- Orgulhoso ser MetaRecicleiro
http://manaus.metareciclagem.org/
_______________________________________________
Lista de discussão da MetaReciclagem
Envie mensagens para [email protected]
http://lista.metareciclagem.org
