Re: [-empyre-] laws, outlaws golden pirates
On 11/07/11 15:11, marc garrett wrote: Property is no longer defined as object alone, but also as process, a moving set of relations Was _property_ ever defined as object (anywhere else than colloquial, late 20th century Enligsh)? martin -- http://commoning.wordpress.com ...I thought we were an autonomous collective... ___ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
Re: [-empyre-] Piracy at the heart of governing? - Piracy as Business Force
ok, I have some time, as my dublin participation has been cancelled,
one remark about appropriation ...
a naive question, is appropriation/adaptation always bad, even if it is
appropriated by capitalism?
I want to take an example, in the sixties and seventies, many of the new
generations started craving for more integrative and wholistic educational
and medical practices, part of the revolt against mechanistic medicine and
authoritarian education ...
30 years later, these choices are now much more widely available, think for
example about the integration of wholistic medicine in Germany ... the
situation is certainly not ideal, the services are used more by the educated
elite etc... but broadly, they are available; its practitioners have both
'adapted' to the requirements of society, while maintaining a substantial
degree of autonomy in their social practices, which sometimes, as recently
in the UK fighting against state mainstreaming of alternative psychological
practice, requires active defense, ('m not ignoring as serious setbacks such
as the ongoing destruction of public education and the NHS in the UK)
but on the whole, the situation is 'better', in several respects, than it
used to be. What I think of interest here is that whatever our complaints
and gripes are against the prevailing system, we should not be blinded by
the 'enemy', but rather have creatively our own interests at heart, i.e. how
can we maintain maximum autonomy and advance 'our causes and practices' even
in a hostile environment.
The adaptations that totally enslave us, should be rejected, but adaptations
that strengthen us, in minor or major ways, might be beneficial to 'us',
even as it also means an integration in the prevailing order of things.
This general statement out of the way, I think that we have new historical
opportunities to create alternative social practices that can substantially
outcooperate existing models, on substantially new terms and based on the
'hyperproductivity' of social cooperation and peer production, and that we
can use this not just for creating more autonomous practices within the
prevailing system, but actually as premises for overcoming that system.
Nothing in this is 'automatic' or gained in advance, BUT, the possibilities
are sufficiently realistic to rethink our tactics and strategies,
What I generally object to, but I'm not saying it is happening here, are
views and perspectives which describe a system out of which there is no
escape; while we have to be realistic about the strength of the system and
the 'enemies' of autonomy, neither should we denigrate our own agency and
potential,
Michel
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Simon Biggs s.bi...@eca.ac.uk wrote:
Excellent overview Jussi.
You are right, piracy has been a characteristic of UK economic activity for
centuries. At the time when the Spanish were the dominant global economic
power the English relied as much upon its pirates and privateers as its
navy
to steal away Spanish wealth and power. Ultimately England replaced Spain
as
the dominant power. Those pirate tendencies still seem to echo through the
UK and, to some extent, the global economy.
The viral marketing business model you describe (Dubitinsider) is
fascinating and insidious. Perhaps I am an old moralist but this is exactly
the sort of new economic activity that, in my view, is ruining the net. But
I'm not surprised that it exists. There will always be those who seek to
profit from the weaknesses in human nature (there I am being all moral
again).
Best
Simon
On 11/07/2011 08:20, Parikka J. j.pari...@soton.ac.uk wrote:
Hi,
And thanks for the intro as well as to the discussions by everyone
already. It
has been a joy reading, and now thinking where to continue; I think
³appropriation² is one such theme, ³bad/evil² is another one.
Some of the most recent comments by for instance Simon referred already
to the
capturing of such processes, or to quote him: ³The appropriation of
radical
practices by the mainstream². This indeed is one key way to tap into
understanding how the tensions between creativity and value
appropriation,
deviant practices and mainstream, capitalism and its outsides are
working.
Such themes were flagged by Hardt and Negri, and elaborated in several
discussions questioning what is left of creativity and the generic
potentialities of the human for instance after it has become a target
of
governmental policies (UK since 1990s) and neoliberalist discourses (the
precarious, insecure, mobile creative work force at the core of
post-fordist
labour).
What is interesting to note is that this mode of appropriation of
creative
energies is not only happening in the sense of a parasitical capitalism
or
viral capitalism, as I have called in some contexts, like in Digital
Contagions but that capitalism, itself, already, is rotten, anomalous
and
deviant itself. And by this, I do not mean
Re: [-empyre-] laws, outlaws golden pirates
Hi Gabriela all, Great to hear from a 'real' anthropologist on the matter... many work every now and again for corporations, including Coke, beer companies, phone companies and pretty much anything they can get. It reminds me of psychoanalysts working for marketing companies and governments. A situation which has its own dangers, which Ian Curtis Highlighted in his documentary 'The Century of the Self' was broadcast on British Television in 2002. The Freud dynasty is at the heart of this compelling social history. Sigmund Freud, founder of psychoanalysis; Edward Bernays, who invented public relations; Anna Freud, Sigmund's devoted daughter; and present-day PR guru and Sigmund's great grandson, Matthew Freud. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/century_of_the_self.shtml Those of us with actualjobs are in a bind: should we censure these practices? If we do, how do we expect them to make a living applying what they learned? There are many in working environments where they have to compromise their beliefs and ethics, in order to survive. Years ago, a friend of mine, used to work for a local council, and it made him feel a whole lot better when he regularly made anarchist booklets by using their photocopying machine as a part of his usual production. A small example of self-empowerment in a system which one does not necessarily agree with, politically or ethically. We all have to make compromises, what matters is how we decide act when we are caught in a system we do not respect? I really would not advocate typical heroics, in situations of traditional normalization and hegemonic practice as the only way. Every little bit counts. For instance, it may serve one's emotional well being to join groups outside of any system which, as part of its function denies humanist forms of emotional and situational expansion. Fighting the macho way, is not always the best way. Not all forms of power needs to declare itself, showing power off can be detrimental in the wrong environment. We all need to meet others, where we can explore mutual reasonings in ways that expand our depths in rich ways. So, post-modern anthropologists are very often underemployed or even unemployed anthropologists, and neoliberalism shows no signs of haltering or faltering in its evil ways. In regard to our relationship with work, which of course is a form of social engineering. If the idea of work loses its foundation; as in we lose our job, we are then seen as 'job seekers'. A new role is given to us, we are then re-appropriated in terms of 'social worth', which in turn creates a definition of our status. The worth of what we do and who we are, loses its once accepted cache amongst 'official' defaults, unfortunately these readily accepted mechanisms and frameworks are already in place, reflecting not the reality of an individual's 'actual' value to the community and more, but usually in terms of economic worth. Thus other forms of definitions are also set in gear, in accordance to signifiers and values misrepresenting most individuals, with pseudo judgements of others with the façade of 'prestige'; closely related to narcissism. of course, on occasion we meet those who support notions of rationality above situational context. Official protocols demand such values, but may miss out on more deeper, resonances due to an emotional reliance or belief of rationality as an absolute. Another unfortunate stumbling block around ideas of rationality, prestige and status, is how rationality is assumed to be a strong bed fellow to money. Neo-liberalism possesses this advantage, where an immediate respect occurs from those who value top-down forms of power, over less defined or obviously aggressive functions, of human endeavours and interaction. The connection between money thinking and rational thinking is so deeply ingrained in our practical lives that it seems impossible to question it; our practical experience is articulated in one whole school of economic theorists who define economics as the 'science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and means which have alternative uses.' Rationality and Irrationality. The Filthy Lucre. p234. Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytical Meaning of History. Norman O.Brown. So, the idea that money is a rational state of being, is a myth with the reliance of scarcity declares how irrational such acceptance of this behaviour really is... Wishing you well. marc www.furtherfield.org Dear all, I am an anthropologist and would like to differ from what Marc says here, but unfortunately I concur with his description of the general situation. 'Anthropology' has now become 'the anthropology job market', so that it is very difficult to go against whatever neoliberals come up with to expand the power of corporations. Those of us who are older are seen with suspicion by the younger generations who think WE
Re: [-empyre-] pirate modes and forms
Hi Jussi, Hi Magnus just a quick response; I think you point out some important themes that relate to the pirate as a figure of network politics in the same lineage as we used to think of the hacker as such term, or in philosophy, what terms such as the multitude tried to bring out how to think of the politics of the loose conglomerations that are not parties, not traditional groups, not completely unitary These conglomerations are also characteristic of wireless networking communities, which often focus on objectives and strategies in a way that seems less concerned with political alignment as with pragmatic solutions. On the other hand this doesn't necessarily seem to imply consensus politics - disagreements and a kind of ordered chaos appear to also be integral to the whole dynamic of such groups. I've seen similar in some hacker groups, who may be really well organized to focus on getting a project realized, without making any political dimension explicit. There is a lot in the symbolical politics of the pirate and the various directions to which it spreads: from the pirate as the figure outside the law, the critical file sharer, the P2P practitioner, the tinkerer-hero. The etymology of the pirate in relation to experimentation, exploration, is of interest too, when it comes down to mapping some of the imaginaries of the network culture and its politics. Historically, it seems pirates moved between similar enterprises (e.g. from piracy to highway robbery) and rarely enjoyed upward social mobility. Secondly, in plotting imaginaries of the network, is there some commonality to be found between pirate-explorers and anarchist-geographers? And yet, what is perhaps even more important than politics of symbols and figures, relates to political economy; what is the relation of the notion of the pirate to political economy? Perhaps it is the case that in the realm of digital goods, pirate identities are formed through expediency and need (as with the example of underemployed anthropologists). I wonder if this implies individuals responding to subjugating external pressures or acting in a more self-determined way, positively claiming creativity and responsibility. As we have talked about already, it relates to bandwidth and access, to regimes of copyright and DRM, and the alternative economies created through P2P and various communities. In addition, another aspect is raised by Magnus': that of spaces, where people are able to meet, collaborate and practice and where (globally too) this is taking place. Hence, the connection to spatial communities, squatting, rents, space is as important too, as the one dealing with economies of information products. This is what I find particularly interesting about certain P2P projects, which seem to find common cause out of collaborations in both physical and virtual spaces. Linking to this, some interesting theory has come out of the Oekonux mailing list, in particular Stefen Merten's paper 'Gnu/Linux - Milestone on the Way to the GPL-society' (2003). Best wishes, Magnus J __ Dr Jussi Parikka Reader in Media Design Winchester School of Art University of Southampton, UK Http://jussiparikka.net Adjunct Professor of Digital Culture Theory, University of Turku Visiting Fellow at Institute of Media Studies, Humboldt University, Berlin - Spring and Summer 2011 From: empyre-boun...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-boun...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of mag...@ditch.org.uk [mag...@ditch.org.uk] Sent: 11 July 2011 14:34 To: emp...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au Subject: [-empyre-] pirate modes and forms Thanks Jussi for so effectively crystalizing the discussion so far. I have really enjoyed everyone's contributions. As the Hargreaves report makes clear its' conclusions are derived purely from addressing economic criteria and asking only those questions necessary to answering the Prime Minister's 'exam' question of what measures will enhance UK GDP. In terms of other considerations the report would appear to be quite agnostic. Although its conclusions may threaten danger for diverse creative practice, the language of the report is moderate to the point of being anodine. We have wondered about what kind of response is appropriate and in particular, Paolo has mentioned the necessity of extending pirate themes to the wider public, perhaps by crossing outside of defined artistic limits. I wonder whether this necessarily implies a more radical approach? In the discussion we have seen pragmatic strategy given precedence over utopian visions. Political alliances and shape changing identities, so much the preserve of pirates, bucaneers, and privateers of old, might today be quite as well attributed to freelancing cultural practitioners, as to academics and business-marketing practices. So I think the question is highly pertinent, of piracy as political imperative, social compact and
Re: [-empyre-] laws, outlaws golden pirates
Marc, I'll try to tuck some comments into the message: An interesting read, consisting of thoughts reflecting social anxieties of our troubling age. Everything you mention includes the spectre of social engineering, and the most troubling aspect of all this, is how deeply 'comfort' is linked to it all. How a desire (or very human need) to be warm, safe and relating to others is a psychological factor, that tends to incorporate a kind of default of submission or even sacrifice in order to live without fear. Here, I think is where the arts can serve a powerful role. I think, for instance, of John the Savage in Huxley's Brave New World. Look at first, how John is moved by Shakespeare to seek something good beyond mere comfort. And then, thinking about the many discussions I have had with students regarding this book: Do they like John? Does he go too far? Is he pathological? Etc. This little book brings us into a great discussion about whether or not there is value in seeking a good that exists beyond comfort. I also have my students read Burgess' Clockwork Orange, and ask them how far Alex can go to pursue his comfort, to what extent society is right to reform Alex's mind in the way that they do. We think about the extent to which the state itself provides context for Alex's antisocial behavior. And then, of course, there are the deeper questions of human nature or biologically determined behavior. Because all of these things are true: Comfort does matter, personally and collectively. But to what extent must our notions of comfort be sublimated, transformed, and repurposed? To what end can fear be harnessed? And how? By whom? Etc. You mention the word 'Vandalism', which is typically associated with senseless destruction. Where the contemporary notion of it, consists of it meaning private citizens damaging the property of others, generally. Yet, I view vandalism as a two-way process, where people's lives have been vandalized by the state, corporations and privileged elites. And these groups of confidence tricksters have fooled generations of individuals and common people, exploiting human sensibilities and everyday, functional needs, from basic experience right through to consumer orientated desires and use of (now) functional, networked protocols, where behaviours become more a collective noise of data ready for harvesting. I agree with you on vandalism. I think, for instance, of the freeway projects in many US cities (LA in particular), that were used to bulldoze ghettos, and build giant barriers between neighborhoods all for the sake of progress and ease. If that's not vandalism, I don't know what is. And so, within the general economy of destructive acts, I think that ethics and politics are critical. Wanton, unfocused, small scale acts of vandalism are in a sense, instruments of power as much as they are acts of aggression against power. I often go to a Chinese restaurant in my town, a solid working-class customer base, and marvel at the cruelty of the bathroom graffiti. Lots of anti-Mexican slurs, which other patrons respond to with counter-slurs (occasionally, someone edits the graffiti to make it into a positive messages). And then when you think of the role that talk radio plays in capitalizing on and cultivating xenophobia, and connect it to the history of populism in the US, you see that this exploitation is real. The only way through it is to forge solidarity. Which is hard work. It cannot be automated. It must always be personalized and felt. But, the good news is, that relationships are hearty once they are formed. I can see social anthropology, with postmodern thought along with contemporary tools opening up new contexts, for what neo-liberalists wish to see as a pre post socialist age. As in, just like indigenous societies and groups are actively reclaiming much of their own cultural agency and histories before and post the industrial revolution, neo-liberalism will aid this, and then own whatever comes of these processes as 'sourced' recovery and material, for their own marketing revenues. This is not to say, that anthropologists are seeking to please such powers, but we are in a world where information and the study of it is feeding not only those who wish for positive social change, but also helps those who wish to exploit and control others. Thus, mediation becomes more a narrow define via specific protocols under the scheme and management of top-down initiations, allowed not because of the importance, values, political knowledge, or critique of the subject itself, but because it feeds a greater body of power networks that need to consume all, to continue existing. I think that you are right, neo-liberalism lurks like a vulture waiting to harvest the energies of our social desires and turn them into products. I don't know the way around this. But I think that the critical impulse itself, the very motivation, the
