nettime Peace offer snubbed as Nettime Brouhaha approaches third week
ANYTOWN, U.S. (AP) - In a dramatic move to end the 'Nettime Brouhaha', listmember James Smith today sent a private email rather than publicly continuing the conflict over gender issues, which is now entering its third week. The email, sent to a number of recent contributors, expressed concern that the list was getting bored with this discussion, and he hoped that his offer to take it offline would soon restore order in the troublespot. Smith's close associate, John Citizen, expressed his admiration and relief at the move. It's driving me crazy. They sound just like my wife when she asks me to do the housework. It's like I can never do anything right. I come to the Internet to get away from that stuff. However, representatives of the feminist network who have been making life unbearable for male members over the past 14 days were understood to be unmoved by the offer. A continuation of the brouhaha, which has seen record numbers of women posting to the mailing list, appears likely. One person connected to the feminist network, who did not wish to be named, said that they could not guarantee when or if the brouhaha would end, and denied Smith's version of events. I think 'scared' is a better description than 'bored'. The spokesperson was unrepentant about the carnage, which has seen a longtime contributor, also male, tarred, feathered, crucified, and driven from the list. However, the contributor in question has bravely continued to send his missives to the list via a third party. Smith was especially sickened by men being repeatedly compared to the KKK, a charge that feminists deny. Another longtime contributor to the list was simply baffled by the constant harping and negativity. I don't know what they're talking about. I go to work and my boss is a woman, and she just bought a new car. In fact, there are more women than men in our company, more than ever. So it's a joke to talk about sexism on nettime. If they're real feminists, why aren't they talking about women in Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea. He also defended the original incident. I know of a number of women who have posed as men on nettime. In fact just last week one of them posted under the name of 'Dick'. It's a double-standard. Most listmembers looked forward to returning to their real work of speculating on the future of the Internet. Previous incidents have tended to pass quickly, as the nettime list was not usually seen as a high-profile target for feminist activity, due to its rugged terrain and a recent decline in natural resources. # 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime WayneFUD
On 12/10/2006, at 3:23 AM, Wayne Myers wrote: Suppose Kali Tal were just Sondheim playing. Wayne, There is a nettime history of Alan Sondheim and Kali Tal outside of this particular discussion; there is an Internet outside of nettime where those names have a history, and a world outside of that. Reviewing what I know of those, I would have to say that Alan's sustained engagement with race and gender theory through books and journal articles under the name Kali Tal, while throwing people off the scent by not engaging with these at all under the name Alan Sondheim, would be one of the great literary hoaxes of all time. In fact, given the range of material covered under each nom de plume and what they suggest about each author's capacity to think flexibly, I'd have to say it's technically more possible that Alan Sondheim would be just Kali Tal playing. But you have picked the more likely option: I think of Kali Tal as an author who seems to have an audience and a lot of things to do, and doesn't need to invent sexism on nettime to have something to write about. On the other hand, based on his responses on here, I see Alan Sondheim as having the level of emotional maturity of Alan Sokal (hmmm disarmingly similar) so it wouldn't surprise me as much if he wanted to make a similar joke at the expense of the feminists and politically correct who cause him so much grief. Easier than engaging the issues. Of course, those of us that know neither in real life must take their assertions of their offline identity as merely part of their character in this drama. (If you're uncomfortable with that, I hope you haven't been doing any cybering with anyone called Jennifer.) In my engagement with this argument between the author-functions Alan and Kali, I am addressing the politics of their writings and self- presentation as I read them. Because the impact of their writings doesn't depend on their real identities, and even if they did reveal themselves to be someone different than they told us, how would we believe that? It would just become part of the performance. As in real life, we just take a gut-level reading based on our experience, and see what each character offers us in working out our own politics, and who we want to connect with in our work. x.d On 12/10/2006, at 3:23 AM, Wayne Myers wrote: Suppose Kali Tal were just Sondheim playing. One could see how it might be fun to pose as such a character on nettime, and not all that hard to do. How would that change your reactions to the whole spat? To her arguments? To Sondheim's? -- http://www.dannybutt.net # 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
nettime Re: feminisms
On 12/10/2006, at 5:35 AM, Benjamin Geer wrote: If you like, take my comment as a reflection on one man's experience of the feminist discourse that seemed to be in the air in American universities in the 1980s and 90s, rather than on feminism as a whole Ben, you might find the work of Haraway and other UC Santa Cruz feminst-science-studies work from the 80s and 90s to be fairly male- friendly and closely engaged with the kind of anthropological and sociological questions you're raising. That was the work I cut my theoretical teeth on and it doesn't make the kinds of generalisations that you suggest are characteristic of the field. It's also a very handy toolbox for engaging with political issues in technological capitalism, so it seems appropriate to mention them on this list. Best, Danny # 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime Gender and You
Let's try this another way. Alan, you forwarded a piece called Gender and You to an overwhelmingly male list. If you're that interested in gender, maybe you'd familiarise yourself with a few decades of feminist philosophy and criticism (empirically the largest body of work on gender issues) and try and make a contribution to that field, or even acknowledge that it exists. Instead, you want to have a conversation with a bunch of guys about how you identify with your female characters, and this helps you work through your relationship with Heidegger. You don't have to be Eve Sedgwick to see that one side of the gender divide isn't getting a lot of airtime here. Then, when a woman says as much, you refuse to admit there could be a problem, proving Kali's point. Then you take the very mention of minstrelsy - a completely apt description which is well known in the literature on online identity - to suggest that you've been painted to be a member of the KKK. It's pathetic. You're accusing Kali of essentialism when she can discuss with great detail her experience working with African American people, and changing the way she behaves in response to critique from people who might know something about the issues from their lived experience. In other words, she's specifically saying that if you focus on real conversation with respect, you can build relationships across difference. If you were prepared to do the same, your textual efforts might be better placed to make a difference to the gender dynamics of the list, which would be a hell of a relief. x.d -- http://www.dannybutt.net # 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
Re: nettime Arun Mehta: Unpacking Internet Governance
I know many on this list will be aware of the various technical and factual inaccuracies in Mehta's piece (WiFi vs Bluetooth? a new one on me), even outside of the techno-determinist rhetoric and unhelpful equation of governance==government. Two alternative sources below that I think give a excellent overview of the Internet Governance issues (Peake's is good for the general reader, Drake for people who already have been following some of the dialogue). The issues are *not* mostly about control by ITU - few of the civil society folks most critical of ICANN want to see control handed over to the ITU. Nevertheless the flaws in ICANN's governance are real and significant, as others on nettime have pointed out, and it is *already* implementing law in relation to trademark issues - it's just that the law happens to only reflect that of the national government whose MoU constitutes ICANN as a legal entity in the first place. ICANN continues to pretend that developing countries' governance concerns (or even European concerns, given the serious allegations over ICANN's awarding of the .net contract to Verisign,) are mere rabble rousing and will eventually go away. If they do go away, it might be literally through the establishment of alternative root server systems that will make for some *very* interesting platform competition. Of course, old-schoolers will say that the end-to-end principle should not be compromised, but with growing economic incentives for de-peering in highly developed countries, national firewalls in many developing ones , and ballooning Network Address Translation on eg the GPRS network I'm sending this mail from, I think we should be mindful that there are no principles that can't be thrown out the window if some people can make enough money from doing so. It may not be long before we reflect on the global medium of the Internet with the wistfulness that we might hold for the Geneva Convention. Peake, Adam (2004) Internet governance and the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), Report for Association of Progressive Communications, http://rights.apc.org/documents/governance.pdf Reframing Internet Governance Discourse: Fifteen Baseline Propositions. In, Don MacLean, ed. Internet Governance: A Grand Collaboration New York: United Nations Information and Communication Technology Taskforce, 2004, pp. 122-161 (book at http://www.unicttf.org/perl/documents.pl?id=1392). Also published as a working paper of the Social Science Research Council's Research Network on IT and Governance, 2004. http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/publications/Drake2.pdf Cheers, Danny -- http://www.dannybutt.net weblogs: adventures in cultural politics - http://acp.dannybutt.net digital media - http://digital.dannybutt.net On 4/16/05 8:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A view from New Delhi. Original to the Asiasource mailing list. Fwded with the author's permission. ... # 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and info nettime-l in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
nettime Some notes on visiting Sarai, Delhi, December 2003
Kia ora all
I had hoped to deal with my visit to Sarai in a more substantial way, but
haven't had time and so thought I should just forward something that makes
the the main point.
Danny
The high-tech is an epistemological constraint I want to escape.
That's the secret of hybridisation. The biggest hybridisation is of
course the sexual encounter which you want to escape and at the same
time are seduced by. Yes, epistemologic constraints seduce me because
they are outside of me, while at the same time I want to escape them.
This is how the game of hybridisation in my life goes on.
- Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak in interview with Geert Lovink
http://www.nettime.org/nettime.w3archive/199707/msg00093.html
Freedom... is an inherently diverse concept, which requires consideration
of processes, as well as substantive opportunities.
- Amartya Sen, _Development as Freedom_
The concept of 'manaaki', often translated as hospitality or generosity, is
central to Maori culture. Welcoming, hosting, and feeding visitors is
fundamental to the mana or status of the marae (meeting house and environs)
and its people. The most imposing whakairo (carvings) or spectacular
tukutuku panelling count for little without the 'ringa wera' ('hot hands')
of the aunties in the kitchen - or the men putting down the hangi - who
magically provide for what are sometimes large and unpredictable numbers of
visitors at special occasions.
For Pakeha/Europeans, there are often three stages to the experience of
manaakitanga in the Maori context. The first is an overwhelming sense of
amazement and gratitude. Secondly, it's hard not to notice the contrast
between that generosity and the severe *lack* of generosity evident in white
representations of Maori culture. Thirdly, white culture reveals itself as
somewhat bizarrely constructed of various exclusions and barriers in spite
of its professed 'openness'. [We might suggest that the West has led
development of 'technologies of freedom' that exceed its cultural capacity
to productively use them.]
There are two effects of manaaki that are equally significant. The first is
the 'ethic of care' which is directly embodied in manaakitanga. It simply
reiterates: people are worthwhile and their well-being should be paid
attention to. I'm reminded of a recent presentation by Meaghan Morris, who
noted that her main concern as chair of an academic department was the
*physical* well-being of her staff, who were working themselves to death to
meet institutional demands. This is not in her job description. It is a sad
indictment of our institutional forms that these basic processes are so
often neglected.
The second effect is more subtle, but important: manaaki diffracts the
neutral, unmarked, authoritative positioning that is embedded in colonial
language and culture. For there to be good hosts (tangata whenua - people
of the land), there have to be good guests (manuhiri) - and one has no
choice but to be clear on one's role in any particular situation. These
roles are however not attached to particular people immovably: under marae
protocol, once the manuhiri are welcomed onto the marae and share a meal,
they take on the role of tangata whenua and are expected to assume the
responsibility of manaaki toward any other visitors who will arrive.
Therefore, roles are always *relational*, and no-one speaks from an
unsitutated position (there are also other aspects to Maori tikanga that
contribute to this that remain outside the scope of this piece). The logic
will be familiar to anyone associated with contemporary theories of cultural
identity in the wake of Marxism.
The combined impact of feeling cared for and understanding one's role
contributes to a subjectivity where social structure and individual agency
are not opposed in the same way as the ideology of European individualism.
[This holistic sensibility is embodied in the formal Maori greeting Tena
koe - which literally translates as That's you. At that point of being
greeted, one is recognised as a person - one becomes who one already is -
one speaks from the position that we have no choice but to be who we are.]
I outline (and oversimplify) these processes for a reason, which is to
account for the distinctive nature of conversations I have when attending
hui/conferences etc. in a Maori context compared to European institutions.
The wide-ranging conversations routinely integrate discussion about
theoretical/ontological frameworks and real-life motivations, desires and
possibilities - compared to the bounded, disciplinary dialogues that
constitute much of Pakeha cultural life.
The Sarai New Media Initiative in Delhi (http://www.sarai.net) is the first
non-New Zealand environment I've encountered which facilitates dialogue in
a similarly rewarding way. Sarai in a number of Indian languages means a
place for travellers to rest, or meeting place - perhaps like a mobile
marae. The twin themes of generosity and freedom of movement that
nettime Re: Report: Creative Labour and the role of Intellectual Property
There's a lot to digest in Ned's excellent report on Creative Labour, and I'll be sifting through the correlations between the multitudes and disorganised creative labour for some time. Even if Ned's somewhat cavalier methodological orientation grates a little up against Hall et al's classic introduction to Culture, Media, Language [1] which I'm just re-reading for another project. I'd recommend another look at that work for anyone grappling with the methodological bricolage that seems characteristic of today's intellectual (and creative) labour. I just wanted to follow up briefly on my comments as a respondent to Ned's survey, particularly on the failure of unions to respond adequately to the lived experience of service workers generally and creative industries workers in particular. This isn't, of course, because useful ways of organising labour in this sector are impossible or not needed, but more about to the limitations actually existing unions show in understanding and responding to the distinctive issues facing workers in these fields. In light of Ned's report, it struck me that many unions (in inverted commas to denote the institutional form rather than organised labour as such) share with Hardt/Negri some key limitations to the effectiveness of their project in contemporary capitalism. To put it bluntly, they aren't prepared to listen to anyone who doesn't share their worldview, while capital's lackeys are. Ned notes: The failure of Negri, Lazzarato and others who gather around the concept of immaterial labour is, quite remarkably given their respective intensely political life experiences, a failure to understand the nature of the political. The concept of immaterial labour, in its refusal to locate itself in specific discourse-networks, communications media and material situations, refuses also to address the antagonistic underpinnings of social relations. While the implications of this are not fully played out in Ned's essay, Hardt and Negri's failure to reflexively account for the discourse-network they use strikes me a basic failure to respond to the lessons of structuralism (concepts, codes, languages and aren't neutral) and post-structuralism (if you think your concepts can account for the experiences of those in very different race/gender/class situations you're a: kidding yourself and b: not listening). Someone set me straight if I'm missing something. But it's not really about a failure of their theory as much as the average 16 year old kid would recognise that while they *name-check* feminist, anti-colonial movements etc. their conceptual framework, modes of address and accountabilities (or bibliography, if you're short on time) remain obviously untroubled by those movements. At which point you have to ask whether they're really listening and whether this is the kind of dialogue you want to be in if your accountabilities aren't to people like them. I think anyone connected to various mainstream union movements in Australasia at least (which are based on the British tradition - I'm aware of significantly different dynamics in e.g. Latin America) will recognise similar issues. Capital has transformed, not to become disorganised as Lash and Urry put it, but certainly reflexive, volatile, and protean. Capital's relationship to social structure is affinitive and sort of vampiric, it looks for host subjects and structures in its focus groups and emulates them enough to extract their life force to satisfy its hunger-without-end. (e.g. we get viral marketing - it's constantly mutating) In this environment, Unions are generally reactive and easily characterised as reactionary (cf. how little a worker will describe the fantastic new initiative their union is undertaking compared to some innovative new product or service they're buying). The union that should represent the interests of my colleagues remains monist, masculinist, and mired in a basic inability to simply listen and understand the motivations and experiences of its constituency. Of course, there are numerous exceptions - Louise Tarrant [2a] of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union in Australia is a good example of what we might identify as a new breed of organisers who aren't in the stand by your mates and don't give an inch school (her Miscellaneous portfolio is also instructive about where the action is in organised labour - not in the traditional strongholds that's for sure). What's the point? The point is that people want to see themselves, their languages, their experiences and their culture reflected in the movements/philosophies/dialogues/unions/structures that they take part in. Or more assertive types can perhaps do without that if they get a clear indication that their difference will be respected and taken seriously. This is especially true for creative labourers who are perhaps characterised by their fundamental, reflexive hawking of their social/cultural identity in the marketplace,
