Hi there A few questions- I don’t want to misunderstand yr text....
1. what do u mean by (mass) gatherings have been suspended? 2. What countries r u referring to? 3. do u have an issue with a lockdown per se or is this coz u don’t think the pandemic necessitates such a thing? 4. what specifically doch deem privacy infringing with corona apps as most either collect a lotta less data than Facebook or don’t collect any data on a central server? Which app r u referring to? 5. again, what parts of the world r u thinking of when u wrote this text? CHEERS! LIZ! Vote! Sent from my iPhone > On 06.10.2020, at 13:31, Eric Kluitenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > dear nettimers, please note: > > This for me rather unusually opinionated text has just been published on the > Open! platform. The essay explores the insistent somatic turn in > technologically enabled scrutiny of public spaces and its acceleration in > response to the COVID-19 crisis. It argues that the very core of public space > and the public domain is under threat as it is anonymity that allows a > collection of individuals to transform into 'a public', One of the most vital > corner stones of open and democratic civic governance is thus under imminent > threat. > > An edited and slightly shortened version of this text has been published on > the Open! platform for art, culture and the public domain (September 18, > 2020), and can be found here: https://www.onlineopen.org/the-zombie-public > > –––––––––– > > The Zombie Public > > Or, how to revive ‘the public’ and public space after the pandemic. > > Our media channels have been flooded with projections about possible futures, > with or without ‘the virus’. [1] Not surprising given the unprecedented 2020 > lockdown across large parts of the planet. In both dystopian and utopian > accounts, as well as more level-headed attempts at taking stock and > extrapolating future scenarios, a recurrent motive is the attempt to describe > a possible future in definite terms based on a set of extreme contingencies > that essentially preclude a clear judgement – given the tide of uncertainties > such predictions are up against. Rather than simply writing these accounts > off as nonsensical they should be understood as what they are, ideological > projections that attempt to shape rather than predict possible futures. As > such traditional questions can then be asked: Who is ‘shaping’? Under what > prerogative? In service of which ideological a-priori? Serving which material > (political / economic) interests? > > Any critical reader can fill in this ‘questionnaire’ for themselves, and > answers will undoubtedly overlap and to some extent be predictable. It may, > however, yet be more productive to shift away from these predicted > (contingent) futures altogether and focus instead on that what has already > happened. We can then ask ourselves the question what can be done right now > to thwart the ‘shapers’ endeavours? How can we open up this contingent future > to the public interest, that is to say to that which concerns us all and > which should be subject of an open, critical, and truly public debate, rather > than the object of flawed and illegitimate attempts at social engineering. > Another way of stating the same would be to say, let’s trace the associations > of all the agents involved in determining these contingent futures (human and > non-human), and try to establish the most beneficial forms of living together > in a continuous feedback loop of ‘composing the good common world’ (Latour, > 2004). [2] > > Given the complexity of this question it is clear that such an undertaking > needs to be a collective effort, comprised of an infinite assemblage of > individual actions, not necessarily at all points coherent, nor even > commensurable. Rather, it involves an explication of an unending succession > of ‘matters of concern’ that bring us together exactly because they divide us > (Latour, 2005). As such this essay is not an attempt at (another) > comprehensive analysis. I will focus here on an interrogation of the shifting > spatial dynamics and regimes of urban space, as they pertain in particular to > a specific ‘matter of concern’; the demise of public space and the > zombie-status of ‘the public’ that still tries to inhabit this ‘disassembled’ > space. The shifting spatial dynamics I am referring to have been underway for > a long time, but have been greatly intensified and accelerated by the spread > of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the (state and corporate) policy responses > towards the ‘global pandemic’. > > The shifting spatial dynamics and the potentially lethal effects they have, > amplifying the demise of public space, result from the increasing > entanglement of physical (urban) space, digital networks, and the biological > body, and the ways in which these dynamics are operationalised politically. > In the context of Open! we have already investigated different aspects of > this dynamic in depth, mostly through our successive engagements with the > emerging ‘techno-sensuous spatial order’ of Affect Space.[3] But what must be > emphasised more decidedly here is the increasing shift towards the somatic, > the tendency to bind the biological body ever more tightly into this emerging > spatial order, which also connects this exploration more or less directly to > the current Open! research on touch and feel in the digital age. > > The lockdown in many countries in response to the COVID-19 pandemic might > seem at first to contradict everything that we had so far theorised about > Affect Space. One of our crucial areas of attention had been the increased > densification of urban public spaces as they become overlaid with mobile > media and digital communications and media networks (3G, 4G, 5G). These new > types of urban densities, simultaneously directly embodied and electronically > mediated, produce a constant sense of being overwhelmed by unceasing flows of > information and sensation. This ‘overflow’ (Mackenzie, 2010) privileges > affective relations (in urban space) over more deliberative forms of social > interaction. Such interaction at the affective level is characterised by a > highly non-linear and unpredictable dynamic, we found. But in no way are > these interactions arbitrary. Thus we could understand more of the erratic > collective behaviours we had observed in urban (public) spaces at moments of > grave political and social tension. All these ideas, it seemed, were now > contradicted and apparently declared obsolete by the international lockdown > and the remarkable absence of public protest against it. > > The most recent turn of events, however, has revealed the continued vitality > of Affect Space – its unpredictable but in no way arbitrary non-linear > dynamics that generate the capacity for exponentially growing collective > actions that seem to appear as if ‘out of nowhere’. Fuelled by an urgent > political issue, a divisive, and through that divisiveness, assembling matter > of concern, the affect-driven dynamic of these collective actions quickly > exceeds the original issue at stake – meanwhile drawing in a multitude of > previously unrelated actors. Here, quite obviously, I am referring to the > suffocation of an unarmed (Black-American) citizen by Minneapolis’ police > officers and the subsequent outpouring of anger and frustration, evolving > into a global chain of protest gatherings in (previously locked down) urban > public spaces around systemic racism and police violence. Suddenly not the > dynamics of Affect Space, but the lockdown and social distancing policies > themselves were declared obsolete overnight. > > Still this recent turn of cards does not relay our worries about the demise > of public space as a result of the technologised politics of touch and feel > in urban space. Nor does it account for the sudden transnational > mobilisations, which are even more remarkable than the international lockdown > they transcended, and the initial lack of public contestation. The question > here is if the analysis of Affect Space can help to elucidate some of these > contradictory dynamics? > > What has happened already? > > So, what has already happened? Let’s remind ourselves briefly of what we all > already know. Most important, with the lockdown the freedom of assembly has > been suspended. This freedom has been curtailed by limits on the amount of > people allowed to gather in public space - in the most severe cases down to > 0, but in all cases limited by the scale of open spaces and the regulations > of social distancing that determine how many people can occupy any given open > space legally. Mass gatherings have thus been rendered illegal (what the > recent anti-racist protests showed is that they are not impossible, but they > are in violation of the legal framework). Local regulation is translated into > national laws, and serious concerns have been raised about the supposedly > temporary nature of this often hastily compiled legislation.[4] > > Borders have been closed, also within the European Schengen Zone designed to > enable freedom of movement in and between its signatory states. In general > the response to the looming COVOD-19 pandemic has been a return to the > archaic nation state[5], which is deeply unsuited to deal with a > paradigmatically transnational calamity. > > The most problematic response has been te announcement and deployment of > mobile and wireless tracing technologies that trace every movement of > individuals in public space. The pretext for developing and deploying these > technologies is to enable authorities to trace and isolate contacts of a > contaminated individual to contain spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. While the > effectiveness of this intrusive measure is still very much under debate, what > the technology does is to identify every individual in public space, all > their movements, and their interactions with others. With that anonymity in > public space is eradicated. It is however exactly this anonymity in public > space that allows a collection of individuals to transform into a ‘public’. > What these technologies thus translate into is the abolishment of public > space altogether. > > Open access to public space has always and ever been only one aspect of the > publicness of that space. It is the ability to act collectively, as a > ‘public’, i.e. untraceable as individuals, that constitutes the vital > democratic function of public space. It is exactly this public political > function > that counterbalances the expansion of private, corporate and state control of > the public domain. This vital political function of public space is at the > edge of extinction. > > From Affect Space to Somatic Space > > The concept of Affect Space was first proposed in a long-read essay written > specifically for the Open! platform and published in 2015 (Kluitenberg, > 2015). In this essay the contours of a model were suggested that builds on > three constitutive elements: > > A technological component: Interconnected communication networks, in > particular internet, mobile media and wireless networks perform a crucial > function to mobilise large groups of people around ever changing ‘issues at > stake’. > > An affective component: A recurrent characteristic is the affective > intensity generated and exchanged in these mobilisation / activation > processes in overlapping mediated and urban public spaces — instantiated in > the body of the physical actors at the screens and in the streets. Reasoned > arguments seem to play much less of a role here than affective images, > aphoristic and suggestive slogans and embodied collective rituals. > > A spatial component: The affective intensities generated in the activation > process cannot be shared effectively in disembodied online interactions at > the screen. This lack stimulates the desire for physical encounter, which can > only happen in a physical spatial context — paradigmatically in (urban) > public space, where mobile media then feed the action in the streets > immediately back into the media networks. > > This model was then used as a conceptual starting point for the public > research trajectory Technology / Affect / Space (2016-2017), which resulted > in a series of public gatherings and commissioned essays, including the > follow up long-read essay (Re-)Designing Affect Space, which detailed the > conceptual model of Affect Space based on the findings in our public research > trajectory. > > What we diagnosed at the time was that the increasing densification of urban > spaces, resulting from the massive presence of a great diversity of people, > skills, knowledges, and economic and political functions, intensified by the > growing presence of mobile media and communications devices and dense > wireless communication networks, introduces the principle of an affective > threshold: Once connections in these urban concentration zones exceeded a > critical density the overwhelming sensory exposure produces a shift from > deliberative towards primarily affective relations in public space. > > Crucially, the passing of the affective threshold is not only determined by a > spatial densification, but also by a temporal intensification. Intense > events, protests, calamities, collective shock, violent confrontations > (military, police violence, violent mobs), many distributed in near > real-time, all contribute to an acceleration of communicative exchanges > (post, tweets, live-feeds, text messaging, photo and video sharing, televised > reports) that quickly overwhelm the human capacities for cognitive > processing. Within the new constellation of mobile and wireless media both > production and reception of these messages happen simultaneously on site and > remotely, where all these message streams feed into each other, unleashing an > autocatalytic intensification that can only be felt but no longer qualified. > > Group formation under these conditions determined by the primacy of affect, > tends to coalesce around shared affects rather than around shared > socio-political issues (‘matters of concern’ - Latour, 2005), or shared > beliefs. The density of connections allows for a very rapid activation / > mobilisation of previously unrelated social actors - accounting for the > impression that such massive gatherings, as we have seen over and over again > since at least 2011, and most recently in the mobilisations around the Black > Lives Matter movement, seem to appear ‘out of nowhere’. The dynamic of these > gatherings is indeed highly nonlinear and unpredictable, yet in no way > arbitrary. > > Philosopher Brian Massumi, whose approach to affect informed this research, > observed about this dynamic that there may still be an issue or a specific > event that produces a suspense resulting in a collectively shared affect. The > massive protests in response to the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris > in 2015 are a clear example. The event is experienced collectively based on > the suspension of narrative continuity that the Hebdo attack produced and the > intensity of the attack itself and its mediated representations. However, > what then unfolds from this shared affect, expressed in the Hebdo case in > spontaneous massive public gatherings in several European cities, depends > entirely on the capacities and tendencies with which each individual enters > these collective situations – it unfolds differentially from there. Narrative > coherence or ‘sameness of affect’ does not exist in these situations. There > is only affective difference according to Massumi. He qualifies these > situations as a process of ‘collective individuation’. (Massumi, 2015, > 109-110). As a result the original issue / matter of concern is quickly > surpassed and what remains is the intensity of the collective event (the > shared affect) and its differential unfolding. > > The Somatic Deficit > > It was clear from the outset that this dynamic of affective activation / > mobilisation would not go away with the lockdown that was implemented (with > varying degrees of strictness) across many countries and regions in response > to the COVID-19 outbreak. Particularly not because mediated online > connections became the primary replacement for embodied encounters under the > lockdown conditions of social separation. > > The combination of social separation and density of mediated connections > inevitably produces an affective gap, an experiential lack of physical > connection to the events witnessed on the screen. In our previous research we > observed that there is quite obviously an enormous difference between > witnessing an event, particularly intense events, physically up close or > instead mediated from afar: > > “Both types of experience may be charged with intensity, but the mediated > experience is necessarily characterized by delimitation, a lack of physical > cues or proximity, an absence of participation in full. The more dramatic the > witnessed action, the more anaemic the mediated experience feels. It is this > tension between a charged event witnessed from afar and its intensity > unfolding in the immediacy of embodied space that fuels the desire for > physical encounter.” (Kluitenberg, 2017) > > This experiential and affective gap between the embodied and mediated > experience can be called the Somatic Deficit. The paradoxical situation many > of us, billions in effect worldwide, found ourselves in, mediated up close > and physically distanced, produced a massive collective somatic deficit. Not > the sudden emanation of public protests ignoring and transcending the > lockdown measures came as a surprise, but much rather the long period of > apparent lack of contestation against the rushed measures imposed to curtail > the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 disease it can cause. > However, this delayed response may account for a gradual build up of > intensity, an intensified somatic deficit that could ultimately not be > contained. > > Rather than eliminating the dynamics of Affect Space, the lockdown may well > have laid the foundations for these dynamics to reinstate themselves with > unprecedented vigour. That the new wave of public gatherings in dissent > manifested themselves through massive protests against institutional racism > and police violence towards singled-out ethnic groups – a long overdue > outpouring of collective indignation – might first and foremost have provided > a focal point for the expression of this somatic deficit. The implication to > take from this is that the somatic deficit might henceforth express itself in > and through a variety of ‘matters of concern’ and thus constitute a > continuous factor of political and societal instability, but it also > indicates a potential for change. > > Contact Tracing: Some technologies should simply not be developed > > Though perhaps not exactly in the terms as employed above, it is clear that > authorities around the planet, both in supposedly democratic and more > authoritarian political constellations, are keenly aware of these conditions > and the unsustainable nature of the lockdown measures. We might conceive of > the global lockdowns, slightly tongue-in-cheek as ‘Temporary Strategic Zones’ > with a limited life-span. Therefore new control mechanisms needed to be > implemented under the intense time-pressure exerted by a growing collective > somatic deficit. The extraordinary but not entirely unpredicted conditions of > a rapidly spreading global pandemic provided the tactical momentum (likely > desired for a long time) to push through new legislative and technological > interventions that would otherwise be immediately dismissed under justified > public outrage. > > The inherently authoritarian response to the pandemic has been to increase > the scrutiny of public space in an attempt to create the conditions for a > complete traceability of the actors operating in that (formerly public) > space. It is important to emphasise that the SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 crisis has > not so much ‘created’ these new tendencies in the control and extermination > of public space, as that it has accelerated and intensified a set of existing > tendencies around the scrutiny and control of urban space. > > There has long been a relentless drive to use personal communications media > to trace individual and collective movements in public / urban space - to > render as it were this space entirely transparent. This tendency by now > exceeds by far the mere capture of people’s sentiments and views, or their > movements and associations in (public) space. With the new technological > capabilities of always-on networked devices and new sensor technologies, > combined with machine learning based automated pattern recognition techniques > and high capacity wireless data-networks (5G), the attempt is made to > encapsulate as many as possible somatic markers into this system of > continuous and pervasive surveillance. > > Part of these new wireless and network enabled sensing devices come in > mundane guises: fitness trackers and their immediate link up with online > dashboards where movements, heart rate, temperature, breathing patterns can > be analysed in real-time as well as after the act (usually some sportive > activity or exercise). Smart watches fitted with increasingly sophisticated > sensor technologies as well as optional add-ons that can monitor virtually > every aspect of our bodily functions. Part of this locates itself in the > mundane practices of every day life, while others are linked to inconspicuous > health platforms.[6] With the integration of these technological capabilities > in health apps installed by default in most smartphones these types of > meticulous somatic self-surveillance become pervasive and truly ubiquitous. > > This trend is taken to an altogether other dimension, however, by the > development and deployment of so-called contact tracing apps that monitor > person to person associations and proximities of an a-priori limitless number > of actors (devices / bodies) operating in urban (public) space. While the > apps are introduced as voluntary, using device-based wireless networks > (bluetooth) and anonymised data stored exclusively on the device, there is > absolutely no guarantee that the apps, once tried and tested, be made > mandatory (for instance to be allowed to enter public transport, public > buildings, the workplace, etc.), or that the data are retroactively > de-anonymised. Indeed as a leaked UK government memo published in The > Guardian newspaper of April 13, 2020 revealed, “ministers might be given the > ability to order “de-anonymisation” to identify people from their > smartphones.”[7] > > The partnership of Apple and Google to jointly develop COVID-19 contact > tracing technology emphasises the focus on user privacy, and intends to > certify this by allowing only storage of contact data on the individual > device and not via an online database or platform.[8] This, however, can also > give no guarantee that these companies will not be simply ordered by various > governments in countries where the technology is deployed to make these data > accessible for relevant health and policing authorities. > > Furthermore, once in operation it will become very simple and attractive to > link the contact tracing technology to the somatic sensing technologies > discussed earlier, as both are integrated into the same devices and so-called > eco-systems (combinations of integrated hardware and software). Thus, > textual, auditory, visual and audiovisual exchanges, as well as physical > movements, shared spaces, the number of contact moments with one or more > identified actors, heart rate, breathing patterns, body temperature, blood > pressure, (changes in) galvanic skin resistance, the number of steps taken, > the periods of inactivity, hormonal cycles, respiration levels, and many > other somatic functions can be rendered entirely transparent. Meanwhile > identity can be verified by voice analysis, retina scans, facial recognition, > finger print scans and other bodily markers. > > Once in place all these different data points can be correlated by any > government or authority that is willing to deploy these technologies for such > uses, which is to say by any and all authorities, regardless of their > political signature. The only option to avoid this scenario is not to develop > these technologies and reverse them where they have already been deployed. > The step by Apple and Google to integrate these contact tracing technologies > into their respective operating systems means, however, that they have become > in effect virtually unavoidable for all users of smart phones based on the > iOS and Android platforms, which is the vast majority of citizens in the > more developed economies. > > The proposition that there could be such a thing as a privacy sensitive > tracing app is preposterous. The tracing process facilitated by the > technology, even if applied voluntarily, negates the essence of the very idea > of privacy. The public discourse surrounding these tracing technologies is > entirely disingenuous. It should be made very clear that there is only one > choice: the choice between traceability versus privacy - both notions are > mutually exclusive. > > The extermination of public space results exactly from this drive to render > the actors in that space entirely transparent and traceable - with it the > possibility of entering public space and the public domain anonymously is > eradicated. It is however the very possibility of anonymity in public space > and the public domain that allows a collection of individuals to transform > into ‘a public’. With it any idea of democracy or of open governance is lost > as it depends on collective action that is not reducible to an individual > act. > > Sociologist Noortje Marres has argued concisely in the Open Journal (Marres, > 2006) for the requirement of the public being untraceable, as part of the > investigation into public agency in hybrid space conducted here in 2006: > > Marres: “(..) the agency of the public derives in part from the fact that > this entity is not fully traceable. That is, the force of the public has to > do with the impossibility of knowing its exact potential. And this for the > following reason: when a thing is publicized in the media, whether a person, > an object or an event, this involves the radical multiplication of the > potential relations that this entity can enter into with other things and > people. Thus, when something starts circulating in public media, this brings > along the possibility, and indeed the threat, of an open-ended set of actors > stepping in to support this entity, and to make it strong. The fact that the > public cannot be definitively traced back to a limited number of identifiable > sources is thus crucial to the effectiveness of the public: this is what > endows publics with a dangerous kind of agency. > This also makes it clear why the wish to concretize the public, to boil it > down to the real actors that constitute it, involves a misunderstanding of > the public.” > > The citizen assemblies post-2011, the so-called ‘movement(s) of the squares’ > have demonstrated the importance of physical encounter with the unknown other > as the fundamental ‘basis’ for civic sovereignty and open civic / democratic > politics. It is exactly this principle of not knowing who is assembling that > enables a multiplicity of different people to enter into a new social > relation. The drive for absolute transparency and traceability of public > space and the public domain renders this function impossible. The failure of > the ‘movements of the squares’, their lack of political efficacy, has been > their inability to translate these insights and experiences into effective > forms of civic governance. However, this has in no way invalidated the > importance of such open, impromptu forms of citizen assemblies for > establishing new forms of pluralistic civic governance. > > Another Post-COVID-19 World is Possible > > Finally it is important to emphasise that the problem of traceability of the > (former) public is not technological, and that the problem of the COVID-19 > pandemic (or others that are certain to follow given the excessive human > demographic pressures on this planet), is not medical. Both are political > problems that rely on political choices that need to be made and were > necessary reversed or redirected – with Latour we might say ‘redesigned’ > (Latour, 2008). > > A few necessary and concrete steps can be proposed here: > > 1) All restrictions on the right to freedom of assembly must be suspended as > soon as possible. > > 2) The further development of tracing technologies and their deployment in > public space must be aborted. The technology is too dangerous. Its adverse > effects far outweigh any possible benefit. > > 3) The right to disconnect must be enshrined in law - as a constitutional > right.[9] > > 4) All eventual SARS-CoV-2 / COVID-19 vaccines must reside in the public > domain so that the vaccine(s) can be efficiently reproduced by local > producers and made available to an as broad as possible share of the global > population. > Private actors who may be deemed essential to this efforts can receive a > reasonable retribution for their efforts and investments - the allocation of > which is a political decision (i.e. what is ‘reasonable’ given specific local > conditions?). > > 5) In the absence of a vaccine or effective treatment the capacities of care > systems must be dramatically increased. Testing capacities must be scaled up, > as well as traditional forms of contact tracing by health agencies. > Protective measures for vulnerable sections of the global population must be > radically extended. > > 6) These measures must be sustained for as long as required. The absence of a > vaccine and / or treatment cannot be an excuse for the suspension of > democratic and civil rights and principles, including anonymous acces to > public space and freedom of assembly. > > 7) The primacy of public interest over private interest in political decision > making must be asserted. > > > NOTES: > > 1 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/ > 2 - See also: http://modesofexistence.org/ > 3 - See the two previous long-read essays: > Affect Space - Witnessing the ‘Movement(s) of the Squares’ (2015) > https://www.onlineopen.org/affect-space > (Re-)Designing Affect Space (2017) > https://www.onlineopen.org/re-designing-affect-space > 4 - See the advice of the Netherlands Council of State of June 10, 2020, on > the “Tweede Verzamelspoedwet COVID-19” (Dutch only): > https://www.raadvanstate.nl/adviezen/@121311/w05-20-0168/ > 5 - Also Bruno Latour observed this in his column for Le Monde and Critical > Inquiry “Is This a Dress Rehearsal?” > https://critinq.wordpress.com/2020/03/26/is-this-a-dress-rehearsal/ > 6 - A good example of such health applications are Apple’s HealthKit, > ResearchKit, and CareKit. > See: https://developer.apple.com/health-fitness/ > 7 - The Guardian, April 13, 2020: “NHS coronavirus app: memo discussed giving > ministers power to 'de-anonymise' users “ - > > https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/13/nhs-coronavirus-app-memo-discussed-giving-ministers-power-to-de-anonymise-users > > 8 - Press release, April 10,2020: Apple and Google partner on COVID-19 > contact tracing technology > > https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/04/apple-and-google-partner-on-covid-19-contact-tracing-technology/ > 9 - See also: Howard Rheingold & Eric Kluitenberg (2006): Mindful > Disconnection- Counter powering the Panopticon from the Inside. > https://www.onlineopen.org/mindful-disconnection > > > REFERENCES: > > Kluitenberg, Eric (2015): Affect Space - Witnessing the ‘Movement(s) of the > Squares’, published March 10, 2015 by Open! Platform for Art, Culture, and > the Public Domain: > http://www.onlineopen.org/affect-space > > Kluitenberg, Eric (2017): (Re-) Designing Affect Space, published September > 19, 2017 by Open! Platform for Art, Culture, and the Public Domain: > http://www.onlineopen.org/re-designing-affect-space > > Latour, Bruno (2004): The Politics of Nature, Harvard University Press, > Cambridge, MA. > > Latour Bruno (2005): From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things > Public, in: Latour, Bruno & Weibel, Peter eds. (2005): Making Things Public, > Atmosphere of Democracy, ZKM / MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. > > Latour, Bruno (2008): A Cautious Prometheus ? A Few Steps Toward a Philosophy > of Design: (With Special Attention to Peter Sloterdijk), lecture, in: In > Fiona Hackne, Jonathn Glynne and Viv Minto (editors) Proceedings of the 2008 > Annual International Conference of the Design History Society – Falmouth, 3-6 > September 2009, e-books, Universal Publishers, pp. 2-10. > http://www.bruno-latour.fr/node/69 > > Mackenzie, Adrian (2010): Wirelessness - Radical Empiricism in Network > Cultures, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.). > > Marres, Noortje (2006): Public (Im)potence, in: Kluitenberg, Eric & Seijdel, > Jorinde (eds.) Hybrid Space, Open!, Amsterdam, 2006. > https://onlineopen.org/public-im-potence > > Massumi, Brian (2015): Politics of Affect, Polity, Cambridge (UK) / Maiden > (Mass.). > > Rheingold, Howard & Kluitenberg, Eric (2006): Mindful Disconnection – Counter > powering the Panopticon from the Inside, in: in: Kluitenberg, Eric & Seijdel, > Jorinde (eds.) Hybrid Space, Open!, Amsterdam, 2006. > https://onlineopen.org/mindful-disconnection > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
