> Hello ‘lizvix’ - don’t know who this is - the ‘Hans’ of Übermorgen?
Ahhh — Are you trying to be rude or are you really not aware that Ubermorgen consists not only of one man? I find that quite amusing :D - you are funny man. So to clear that up, I am lizvlx, the lizvlx of Ubermorgen. Why do you use so many words! You are hard for me to understand. Anyway. Let me rephrase & comment (after all we do want to discuss this right): 1. What do you mean the freedom of assembly has been suspended? (Not true in Kenya, Nigeria, Germany, Austria, Italy, Switzerland, USA, - I am only citing countries that are coming to my mind right now) 2. How can you refer to “no particular” country - that is illogical when you are trying to make a point on legal issues which are always decided locally. There is a huuuuge amount of democratic countries on this planet, on all continents. I am quite perplexed that you seem to think that a nice Eurocentric position will explain the Covid rules and changes in let’s say - Taiwan, Uganda or Columbia. 3. Thank you for your answer to question 3 - even tho you really use many many words, but then, that is a male trait that maybe is to be not to made fun of. Are you not concerned that your views on public health might come across as proto-fascist and medically-naive? 4. Data - as much as I appreciate the academic thought on this - btw I usually use a Samsung, which unfortunately just broke down - but there is not A (1) corona app, but there are many. And they vary in their technology. But summa summarum, most are sharing less data then your average datamining gaming app. So from a programmer’s perspective I cannot see anything relevant added to the again huuuuuge data fields of the 21th century. Cheers lizvlx Ps: why are you talking about the weather? I don’t understand the relevance to your above points. >> 1. what do u mean by (mass) gatherings have been suspended? > > I wrote “The freedom of assembly has been suspended.” - under corona rules > virtually anywhere now only limited amounts of people are allowed to > assemble, which in effect means that this basic freedom is suspended. Mass > gatherings still happen, as I explained in some length in the piece, but they > are then in violation of these rules. > >> 2. What countries r u referring to? > > Not any country in particular, but the countries that have or pretend to have > some form of basic ‘democratic’ or civic governance (neoliberal phantasy or > not). Probably we must assume that ‘democratic rights’ are always under > threat / pressure, but with the covid-19 crisis I feel there is a > qualitatively different situation. > >> 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? > > I am writing in the essay about the question of ‘public space’ and the > erosion of ‘publicness’ and ’the public’ not about the politics of the > lockdowns. > > My private opinion, which is outside the scope of this essay, is that in some > initial stage of the pandemic the lockdowns were maybe necessary, given the > overburdened care system, but in essence they are counter-productive. The > virus will not go away, it will stay around like the flu and mutate > regularly. Thus any vaccine will need to be updated regularly and we will > have to get it like the flu shot, or even in a cocktail, probably annually. > > It is necessary to build up a certain measure of biological resistance in the > general population, but this can only be done in a responsible way by > radically extending the care system to protect vulnerable sections of the > population - and the main argument against that is staggering costs - so the > lockdown has been the preferred option. Problem is once you end it the virus > starts circulating like before again, which is what we now see. > > Hoping that a vaccine is the silver bullet is to me exactly that: hope and as > a Russian saying says so beautifully: Hope dies last. > >> 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? > > That is the misconception I’m trying to address with this text. The app seems > not so bad in comparison to all the other data draining techniques from the > social media swamp, or simply from mobile / ‘smart’ phone users (i.e. more or > less all of us, you replied from an iphone and I use that thing as well - > though not for mailing lists..). > > It is the correlation of data from all these apps, the integration into the > operating systems as a default, in combination with the radical expansion of > somatic sensing technologies built into these mobile / wearable devices that > creates an unprecedented level of scrutiny wherever we take these devices, > i.e. that thing formerly designated as ‘public space’, but this condition is > exactly what renders the necessary conditions for publicness null and void. I > find that a troubling situation and I think it needs to be reversed. > >> 5. again, what parts of the world r u thinking of when u wrote this text? > > I answered that question already. > > Enjoy the evening! > (though weather here in NL is terrible at the moment, maybe it is better > wherever you are..?) > > -Eric > > >> CHEERS! LIZ! Vote! >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 06.10.2020, at 13:31, Eric Kluitenberg <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[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 >>> <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/ >>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sars-cov-2/> >>> 2 - See also: http://modesofexistence.org/ <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 >>> <https://www.onlineopen.org/affect-space> >>> (Re-)Designing Affect Space (2017) >>> https://www.onlineopen.org/re-designing-affect-space >>> <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/ >>> <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/ >>> <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/ >>> <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 >>> >>> <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/ >>> >>> <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 >>> <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 >>> <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 >>> <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 >> <http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l> >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org <http://www.nettime.org/> contact: >> [email protected] <mailto:[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 > <http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l> > # archive: http://www.nettime.org <http://www.nettime.org/> contact: > [email protected] <mailto:[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:
