b l a s t u l a reblog++

Inside Networked Movements: Interview with Jeffrey Juris by Geert Lovink - Jeffrey Juris wrote an excellent insiders story about the ‘other globalization’ movement. Networking Futures is an anthropological account that starts with the Seattle protests, late 1999, against the WTO and takes the reader to places of protest such as Prague, Barcelona and Genoa. The main thesis of Juris is the shift of radical movements towards the network method as their main form of organization. Juris doesn’t go so far to state that movement as such has been replaced by network(ing). What the network metaphor rather indicates is a shift, away from the centralized party and a renewed emphasis on internationalism. Juris describes networks as an ”merging ideal.” Besides precise descriptions of Barcelona groups, where Jeff Juris did his PhD research with Manuel Castells in 2001-2002, the World Social Forum and Indymedia, Networking Futures particularly looks into a relatively unknown anti-capitalist network, the People’s Global Action. The outcome is a very readable book, filled with group observations and event descriptions, not heavy on theory or strategic discussions or disputes. The email interview below was done while Jeffrey Juris was working in Mexico City where studies the relationship between grassroots media activism and autonomy. He is an Assistant Professor of Anthropology in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Arizona State University.

GL: One way of describing your book is to see it as a case study of Peoples’ Global Action. Would it be fair to see this networked platform as a 21st century expression of an anarcho-trotskyist avant-gardist organization? You seem to struggle with the fact that PGA is so influential, yet unknown. You write about the history of the World Social Forum and its regional variations, but PGA is really what concerns you. Can you explain to us something about your fascination with PGA? Is this what Ned Rossiter calls a networked organization? Do movements these days need such entities in the background?

JJ: I wouldn’t call my book a case study of People’s Global Action (PGA) in a strict sense, but you are right to point to my fascination with this particular network. In many ways I started out wanting to do an ethnographic study of PGA, but as I suggest in my introduction, its highly fluid, shifting dynamics made a conventional case study impossible. A case study requires a relatively fixed object of analysis. With respect to social movement networks this would imply stable nodes of participation, clear membership structures, organizational representation, etc., all of which are absent from PGA. However, this initial methodological conundrum presented two opportunities. On the one hand, it seemed to me that PGA was not unique, but reflected broader dynamics of transnational political activism in an era characterized by new digital technologies, emerging network forms, and the political visions that go along with such transformations. In this sense, PGA was on the cutting edge; it provided a unique opportunity to explore not only the dynamics, but also the strengths and weaknesses of new forms of networked organization among contemporary social movements.

At the same time, PGA also represented a kind of puzzle: I knew it had been at the center of the global days of action that people generally associate with the rise of the global justice movement, yet it was extremely hard to pin down. Participating individuals, collectives, and organizations seemed to come and go, and those who were most active in the process often resolutely denied that they were members or had any official role. Yet, the PGA network still had this kind of power of evocation, and, at least during the early years of my research (say 1999 to 2002), it continued to provide formal and informal spaces of interaction and convergence. In this sense, it seemed to me that figuring out the enigma of PGA could help us better understand the logic of contemporary networked movements more generally. On the other hand, the difficulty of carrying out a traditional ethnographic study of PGA meant I had to shift my focus from PGA as a stable network to the specific practices through which the PGA process is constituted. In other words, my initial methodological dilemma opened up my field of analysis to a whole set of networking practices and politics that were particularly visible within PGA, but could also be detected to varying degrees within more localized networks, such as the Movement for Global Resistance (MRG) in Barcelona, alternative transnational networks such as the World Social Forum (WSF) process, new forms of tactical and alternative media associated with the global justice movement, and within the organization of mass direct actions.

In other words, the focus of my book is really these broader networking practices and logics, although these were particularly visible within the PGA process. Methodologically, then, I situated myself within a specific movement node—MRG in Barcelona, and followed the network connections outward through various network formations, including but not restricted to PGA. However, it is also true that the ethnographic stories I present are largely told from the vantage point of activists associated with PGA. This is because MRG happened to be a co-convener of the PGA network during the time of my research, but also because PGA activists were particularly committed to what I refer to as a network ideal.

In my book I distinguish between two ideal organizational logics: a vertical command logic and a horizontal networking logic, both of which are present to varying degrees, and exist in dynamic tension with respect to one another, within any particular network. Whereas vertical command logics are perhaps more visible within the social forums, PGA reflects a particular commitment to new forms of open, collaborative, and directly democratic organization, thus coming closer to the horizontal networking logics I am most concerned with. In this sense, PGA is definitively NOT a 21st century avant-gardist organization and has been particularly hostile to traditional top-down Marxist/Trotskyist political models and visions. PGA does reflect something an anarchist ethic, although this has more to do with the confluence between networking logics and anarchist organizing principles than any kind of abstract commitment to anarchist politics per se.

Rather than a networked organization, which refers to the way traditional organizations increasingly take on the network form, PGA is closer to an “organized network” in Ned Rossiter’s terms, a new institutional form that is immanent to the logic of the new media (although in this case not restricted to the new media). The network structure of PGA thus provides a transnational space for communication and coordination among activists and collectives. For example, PGA’s hallmarks reflect a commitment to decentralized forms of organization, while the network has no members and no one can speak in its name. Rather than a traditional organization (however networked) with clear membership and vertical chains of command, PGA provides the kind of communicational infrastructure necessary for the rise of contemporary networked social movements. The challenge for PGA and similar networks, given their radical commitment to a horizontal networking logic, has always been sustainability. This is where the social forums, with their greater openness to vertical forms, have been more effective. In this sense, I find PGA much more exciting and politically innovative, but it may be the hybrid institutional forms represented by the social forums that have a more lasting impact.

GL: We’re 3 or 4 years further now. What has changed since you undertook your research? The post 9-11 effect has somewhat leveled off, I guess, but the anti-war movement is also weaker. Is it fair to say that the worldwide ‘Seattle movement’ has weakened, or rather, exhausted itself? Please update us.

JJ: If you mean the visible expressions of movement activity, particularly those associated with confrontational direct actions, then I think it is fair to say the worldwide anti-corporate globalization/anti-capitalist/global justice movement has weakened. But it is not entirely exhausted. As I argue in my book, mass mobilizations are critical tools for generating the visibility and affective solidarity (e.g. emotional energy) required for sustained networking and movement building. However, activists eventually tire and public interest inevitably wanes. In this sense, movements are cyclical and the public moments of visibility necessarily ebb and flow. In terms of the global justice movement, events such as 9-11, or the repression in Genoa, certainly put a damper on the movement, but it would have slowed anyway. That said, mass actions have continued throughout the post- 9-11 period, while the anti-war and global justice movements have largely converged, although more so outside the United States. What we have seen is a shift toward the increasing institutionalization of movement activity combined with a return to “submerged” networking, to borrow a term from Melucci.

If we think about social movements in terms of these less visible, spectacular forms of action, then in many ways, the global justice movement has proven remarkably sustainable. In this sense, global justice activists have continued to organize mass actions, but at regularized intervals (every two years against the G8 Summit, for example, or every four years during the Democratic and Republic National Conventions in the U.S.). The massive 2007 anti-G8 mobilization in Heiligendamm, Germany, which I was able to attend, was a particularly empowering experience for many younger activists. At the same time, the global social forum process has continued to provide a more institutionalized arena for networking and interaction. Although the WSF itself has attracted declining media coverage, tens of thousands people continue to attend the periodic centralized global events (every two years or so), while local and regional forums have expanded in many parts of the world.

For example, the first U.S. Social Forum was held in Atlanta last summer, representing a key moment of convergence for a movement that was particularly weakened by the climate of fear and repression after 9-11. At the same time, countless networks, collectives, and projects that arose in the context of the global justice movement continue to operate outside public view, including local organizing projects and new media-related initiatives such as Indymedia. In sum, if we think about movements as those relatively rare periods of increasingly visible and confrontational direct action, then the global justice movement has perhaps run its course, at least for now. However, if we take into account the submerged, localized, routinized, and increasingly institutionalized (by which I mean the building of new movement institutions, not the existing representative democratic ones), then the movement remains alive and well, perhaps surprisingly vibrant after so many years.

GL: We can’t say that many practice “militant ethnography”. There is a limited interest in media activism but the life inside radical movements is not over studied. In the past decade this was, in part, also due to rampant anti-intellectualism. What is the intellectual life inside social movements like these days? What are the main debates and critical concepts?

JJ: The lack of “militant” ethnographic approaches to life inside radical social movements has to be understood not only with respect to anti-intellectualism among activists, which varies from region to region, but also the dominant academic traditions for studying social movements. For the most part, what many refer to as “social movement theory” has been the province of sociologists and political scientists, many of whom are committed to positivist theory building, using quantitative or qualitative methods, and thus tend to view social movements as “objects” to be studied from the outside. These scholars may support the political goals of the movements they study, but their theory and methods are directed toward other academics, not movements themselves. There has always been a significant counter-tradition, of course, including anthropologists who have used ethnographic methods to study popular movements around the world and a few politically engaged scholars who have gone deep inside the heart of radical movements, such as Barbara Epstein’s study of the U.S. direct action movement during the 1970s and 1980s, “Political Protest and Cultural Revolution,” or George Katsiaficas’ book on German autonomous movements, “The Subversion of Politics.”

Meanwhile, critiques of positivist approaches to social movements have become more frequent within the academy, while the recent push for a more public or activist anthropology and sociology have led to a more conducive environment for “militant” approaches to the study of social movements. At the same time, there has also been a noticeable trend toward self-analysis and critique among activists themselves. In my book I suggest that contemporary social movements are increasingly “self-reflexive,” as evidenced by the countless networks of knowledge production, debate, and exchange among global justice activists, including listserves, Internet forums, radical theory groups, activist research networks, etc. There is still a great deal of anti intellectualism, although as mentioned above, this varies by region. For example, in my experience, activists in the Anglo-speaking world, including the UK and the U.S., tend to be more suspicious of intellectuals, while those in Southern Europe or the Southern Cone of Latin America are more open to abstract theorizing.

There has been a general surge in activist research and radical theory projects linked to the global justice movement over the past decade, many of which have been associated with the social forum process. In this sense, there has been a blurring of the divide between academic and movement-based theorizing as evidenced not only in my own work, but in many other spheres, including the volume edited by Stephven Shukaitis and David Graeber, “Constituent Imagination,” the on-line journal Ephemera, or the newly created movement newspaper Turbulence. In terms of the main debates and critical concepts these vary widely depending on the particular network, region, or project. Given that we are dealing with a “movement of movements” or a “network or networks” the particular issues and ideas of concern to activists are shaped by the specific contexts in which they are embedded. My own work is no exception, as I was particularly influenced by the interest in networks, digital technologies, and new forms of organization among activists in Barcelona. It was through hours of collaborative practice, discussion, and debate that I began to see the network as not only a technical artifact and organizational form, but also a widespread political ideal.

It was fascinating to see how the concept of the network popularized by theorists such as Manuel Castells or Michael Hardt & Antonio Negri had seeped into activist discourse itself. Indeed, by the end of my time in the field the “network” had emerged as one of the key unifying concepts among global justice activists around the world, and many of the movement debates surrounded the pros and cons of network organizing, the divide between the so called “horizontals” and “verticals,” the struggle against informal hierarchies, the role of new technologies, etc. In other words, the theoretical concerns addressed in my book reflect the concepts and debates I encountered in the movement itself. At the same time, the specific theoretical languages and traditions through which these issues have been addressed vary greatly. For example, many Italian activists associated with the occupied social centers, and those influenced by them elsewhere, were particularly influenced by the Italian autonomists and concepts such as the multitude, immaterial labor, and precarity found in the writing of Hardt & Negri and Paolo Virno, among others. Some of the more UK-based radical theory networks have been particularly influenced by Gilles Deleuze as well as Deleuze and Guattari’s notion of the rhizome.

Although some movement pockets in Barcelona were in line with the Italian tradition, many of the Catalan activists I worked with were more familiar with Manuel Castells, and there was a general concern for emerging forms of participatory democracy. To the extent that there have been intellectual debates within the U.S. context, these have tended to revolve around direct democracy, on the one hand, and issues of race, class, and exclusion, on the other. The other critical arena for intellectual discussion and debate within the global justice movement has revolved around the social forum process. Here the key concept has been “open space,” which I view as a reflection of a horizontal networking logic inscribed within the organizational architecture of the forum. Proponents of open space see the forum as a new kind of organization, an arena for dialogue and exchange rather than a unified political actor. Critics argue the open space concept neglects the multiple exclusions generated by any political space, and undermines the ability of the movement to engage in the kind of coordinated actions needed to achieve tangible victories. The open space debate thus incorporates many of the concepts and tensions that are important within the movement, including networks, the rise of a new politics, participatory democracy, and tension between networking and vertical command logics.

Finally, activists have also widely debated alternative models of social change, particularly within and around the forums. Although traditional sectors of the movement are still committed to state-centered strategies of reform or revolution, there has been a keen interest, particularly among younger and more radical activists, in more autonomous forms of transformation based on “changing the world without taking power” to borrow a phrase from John Holloway. These emerging political visions involve a complex mix of traditional anarchism, autonomous Marxism, Deleuzian post-structuralism, and the post-representational logic of organized networks. The intellectual life within many (though not all) parts of the movement continues to thrive, and in many respects represents a far richer and more complex set of ideas and debates than those found within many academic circles.

GL: It is not hard to notice that you left the Italian intellectual influences outside of your writings. One could easily state that the bible of Seattle movement has been Negri/Hardt’s Empire (with Spinoza hovering in the background). No traces of Virno or Berardi either, no Lazzarato, not even an Pasquinelli or Terranova. How come?

JJ: I do address Hardt & Negri’s work, but not so much the others. This is perhaps more of a reflection of my particular approach to theory, as well as my anthropological concern for “staying close to practices,” as Chris Kelty puts it in his recent book on free software, “Two Bits,” than a statement of my affinity (or lack thereof) for Italian theory. Analytically, I take the emergence of distributed networks associated with post-fordist, informational capitalism (as analyzed by Hardt & Negri, Castells, and others) as a starting point, but I specifically examine how network forms are generated in practice and how they relate to network technologies and imaginaries. I use ethnography to generate another series of concepts that are closer to the networking practices I encountered in the field, such as the cultural logic and politics of networking. In this sense, I try to descend from the realm of abstract theorizing about networks, immaterial labor, capitalism, and so forth, to consider the complex micro-political struggles and practices through which concrete network norms and forms are generated in specific contexts, as well as the links between network norms, forms, and technologies more generally. Hardt & Negri are thus in the background, particularly their emphasis on the networked form of contemporary resistance, but I am concerned with a more concrete level.

At the same time, it is true that I am less convinced by the more ontological, Spinozan dimension of Hardt & Negri’s writing, given my emphasis on practices, circulations, and connections- the rise of new political subjectivities certainly, but I’m not so sure about a new historical subject. A second, more contextual reason why the Italian theorists are not more prominent in my book has to do with the fact that the particular Catalan activists I worked with most closely were less influenced by this tradition than theorists such as Manuel Castells, general writing on participatory democracy, or ideas developed through their own grounded networking practices. In this sense, although Empire has indeed been influential within many global justice movement circles, and has had an important impact on my own thinking and writing; it would be a stretch to call it, or any other single book for that matter, the bible of the global justice movement. The movement is too diverse and there are too many political and regional variations. Finally, to be frank, I was not aware of Berardi, Lazzarato, Pasquinelli, or Terranova at the time of writing this book, which is partly due to the specific intellectual and political currents in which I moved. It would be interesting to go back and address some of these theorists now, particularly Terranova’s “Network Culture,” and Ned Rossiter’s recent book, “Organized Networks,” which more deeply engages the Italian tradition.

GL: Do you see the networking practices amongst radical activists as something special? I mean, isn’t it terribly mainstream to use all these technologies? I understand that the network paradigm within the realm of politics is still something new, but as tools there is nothing that creative, or even subversive, about their cultures of use.

JJ: My contention is not that the networking practices I explore in my book are unique to radical activists, but they do form part of an innovative mode of radical political practice that has to be understood in the context of an increasing confluence between network norms, forms, and technologies. It is important to point out that, when I talk about networking practices, I am not only referring to the use of digital technologies, but also to new forms of organizational practice. Activist networking practices are both physical and virtual, and they are frequently associated with emerging political imaginaries. It is precisely the interaction between network technologies, network-based organizational forms, and network-based political norms that characterizes radical activism.

As I point out in Networking Futures, there is nothing particularly liberatory or progressive about networks. As Castells and Hardt & Negri show, decentralized networks are characteristic of post-fordist modes of capital accumulation generally, while terror, crime, military, and police outfits increasingly operate as transnational networks as well (see Luis Fernandez’ fantastic new book about police networks, “Policing Dissent”). What is unique about radical activist networking, however, is not only how such practices are used in the context of mass movements for social, economic, and environmental justice, but also the way radical activists project their egalitarian values- flat hierarchies, horizontal relations, and decentralized coordination, etc.- back onto network technologies and forms themselves. It is this contingent confluence that makes certain activist networking practices radical, not the use of specific kinds of technologies per se.

GL: One could easily write a separate study of Indymedia and the Independent Media Centres, which were erected during all these protest events. You have not gone very deeply into internal Indymedia matters. These days, almost ten years later, Indymedia is not playing an active role anymore, at least not the international English edition. How did it lose its momentum and is there still a need for such news-driven sites?

JJ: Although I do address Indymedia and other forms of collaborative digital networking, it’s true that the main ethnographic focus of my book revolves around broader global justice networks such as MRG in Barcelona or PGA and the WSF process on a transnational scale. Largely for that reason I was not able to provide more in-depth coverage of the fascinating and very important internal debates and dynamics within the Indymedia network. Tish Stringer’s dissertation on the Houston Indymedia collective called, “Move! Guerrilla Media, Collaborative Modes, and the Tactics of Radical Media Making,” comes closest to this kind of analysis. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that Indymedia is not playing an active role anymore. If you mean that the novelty of the network has worn off, that particular collectives are not as active as they once were, or that it is no longer on the cutting edge of technological and/or organizational innovation, you may be right. But if you mean that Indymedia has a lower profile on the web than it used to or that activists no longer read or contribute to the various local and international sites, then I’m not so sure. Indymedia is nearly ten years old and certainly much of its novelty has worn off. At the same time, it continues to fulfill a key role of providing a space for activists to generate and circulate their own news and information, facilitating mobilization and continuing to challenge the divide between author and consumer. There have been heated debates within the network about the need to generate more reliable and higher quality posts, and I think this goal still remains elusive. In this sense, Indymedia remains very good at doing what it was initially set up to do, but it has not advanced much further in terms of pushing the bounds of its grassroots collaborative production process to generate the kind of deeper and more insightful reporting that some might wish for. For example, there had been a proposal to develop a kind of open editing system that would generate more accurate, higher quality posts without the need for a more centralized editorial process, but that proposal has yet to yield any concrete results, as far as I know. If this is what you mean by losing momentum, then I suppose it is true. However, this might be expecting too much. In my experience networks are often good at achieving the specific goals they were established for, but efforts to reprogram them midstream are often extremely difficult. It is generally much easier to simply create a new project or network than try to retool an existing one. In this sense, I would expect that further innovation with respect to alternative, decentralized news production is happening elsewhere. Indymedia thus continues to play a critical role for grassroots activists in many parts of the world, and, in fact, I think it is one of the most important and enduring institutions the global justice movement has left behind. At the same time, I think the desire to see Indymedia become something else, resolve all of its internal tensions, or forever remain at the vanguard of innovation is misplaced. Indymedia will continue to fulfill a key role in terms of creating alternative, self-produced activist news and information, but I think it is important to look elsewhere for new innovations, practices, and strategies. In my own case, I have recently become fascinated with the burgeoning free media scene in Mexico, which includes not only online news sites, but also a rapidly expanding network of Internet/FM radio stations, web-based forums and zines, digital video collectives, free software initiatives, etc. (my current research focuses on the relationship between alternative media, autonomy, and repression in Mexico). Some of the most exciting developments are happening within the free radios, many of which combine FM and Internet broadcasts to reach out to activists on a global scale, while at the same time more deeply engaging local populations outside typical activist circles. Many of these projects combine an open publishing component on the web with live streaming as well as more focused and directed reporting about local issues and wider national and international campaigns.

GL: Your research clearly shows that there is a direct and positive relation between autonomous social movement and network paradigms. However, on the Internet level this is no longer the case as of about five years ago or so. Activists worldwide have lost touch with the whole Web 2.0 wave and they tend to have neither a positive nor a critical attitude toward social networking applications, for example. There does seem to be a productive engagement with free software and perhaps wikis, but not even blogs have been appropriated. How come?

JJ: As I understand the question, you seem to be suggesting that the Internet has progressed over the past few years, but that activists from autonomous-oriented movements are not keeping up. They were once at the forefront of technological innovation, but this is no longer the case. Perhaps, but I’m not sure this is the most productive framework for looking at this, although the more specific question of why or why not certain groups of activists appropriate particular Internet tools is a fascinating one. This is a big question, though, and is also somewhat counter-factual. I can offer a few speculative thoughts based on my research and activist experience, but I suppose the best way to get at this would be to simply ask people why they do or do not use certain web tools. In general, though, if the argument in my book is right that contemporary activism involves an increasing confluence between network norms, forms, and technologies, I would expect that activists would be more likely to use those Internet tools that most closely reflect their political values and most effectively enhance their preferred forms of organization. In this sense, Internet listserves and collaborative on-line forums such as Indymedia facilitate decentralized movement organization and reflect values related to bottom-up organization, grassroots coordination, direct democracy, and the like. These sorts of early Internet tools facilitated movement organization and reflected the values of the movement. The question is whether more recent Internet tools, including social networking and video sharing sites, blogs, and/or wikis also enhance mobilization and reflect activists’ values. If they don’t, I wouldn’t expect activists to appropriate them, and thus would not be worried if activists are somehow not keeping up. In terms of free software and wikis, I think this is one area where, as you rightly point out, radical or autonomous-oriented activists have been deeply engaged. Both free software and wikis precisely reflect the kind of collaborative networking ethic that I explore in my book, and it should come as no surprise that so many radical or autonomous activists see their own struggles reflected in the struggle for free software or that so many contemporary activist collectives and projects use wikis- and the decentralized, collaborative editing process these tools allow. In my view, social networking sites are completely different. While non-governmental organizations, policy reform initiatives (such as those lil’ green mask requests to stop global warming on Facebook), political campaigns (look how many friends Obama has!) have arguably begun to make effective use of sites such as Facebook or MySpace, in my experience this has been less true of more radical movements. My book does have a MySpace site, which is linked to other books, projects, and organizations, and I do belong to an anarchist group on Facebook, but I don’t find much ongoing interaction and coordination on these sites. Many radicals I know use social networking sites in much the same way as other individuals do- to keep up with their friends and maintain interpersonal communication, but (and I might be behind the ball here), they are not as frequently used for collaborative kinds of organizing. It seems to me that not only are social networking sites extremely corporate, they don’t necessarily facilitate the kind of collaborative, directly democratic forms of organization and coordination that tools such as wikis or old-school listserves do. They do a good job of allowing radicals to keep in touch with their friends and broadcast what they are up to, but I don’t think they facilitate networked forms of organization or particularly reflect directly democratic ideals. I would say the same for blogs, which, with perhaps a few exceptions, are generally a personalized, broadcast medium, and thus not necessarily conducive to more collective, distributed norms and forms of organization. On the contrary, I would say video sharing sites such as YouTube (and similar non-commercial endeavors), do enhance decentralized, networked organization and do reflect radical activist values by facilitating the autonomous production and circulation of movement-related images, videos, and documentaries. Consequently, I have found, in my experience, that radical activists have made significant use of video sharing sites. The videos posted on YouTube from the No Borders camp last November in Mexicali/Calexico provide one concrete example. Rather than asking whether activists are keeping up with the latest Internet trends, a more useful question is perhaps whether the latest Internet tools facilitate distributed forms of networked organization and whether they reflect activists’ political ideals. To the extent they do, I would expect activists to enthusiastically take them up. To the extent they don’t, I would expect there to be limited interest beyond the individual level.

GL: The ‘distributed’ form of organization could also be read as just another expression of more individualism, and less commitment. There is a debate right now about ‘organized networks’ and how organization can be strengthened in the age of networks. Do you think this is possible or should we drop the ‘network’ in the first place?

JJ: I would say the distributed network form of organization reflects a particular strategy for balancing individual and collective needs, interests, and desires. Rather than less commitment, it reflects a broader shift toward what the Sociologist Paul Lichterman, in his book “The Search for Political Commitment,” calls “personalized commitment.” That said, it is true that diffuse, flexible activist networks have generally proven more effective at organizing short-term mobilizations and events than the kind of sustainable organizations needed to generate lasting social transformation. There is often a false debate between “movement” or “flexible networks” and “institutionalization,” as if there were only one way to institutionalize. Institutions are generally associated with the kind of centralized, top-down bureaucratic organizations inherited from the industrial age. However, if we see institutions more broadly as simply sustainable networks of social relations along with the organizational and technological infrastructure that makes such relations possible then there are many ways to institutionalize. In this sense, there is no necessary contradiction between sustainable organization and networks. The key is to create new kinds of sustainable institutions that reflect and incorporate the networking logics I explore in my book. For example, what would a political institution look like that is sustainable over time and able to generate more effective coordinated action, yet is still based on directly democratic forms of decision-making, bottom-up participation, decentralized collaboration, etc.? As I understand it this is the crux of what you, Ned Rossiter and others are talking about when you argue for the need to move toward organized networks, at least in the realm of new media. I agree that something similar is needed in the realm of political activism. I think there will always be a role for more flexible, diffuse networks to plan and coordinate specific actions. And there is nothing wrong with letting these networks fizzle out when they are no longer needed (in my experience old networks rarely die, they simply cease to provide a forum for active communication). However, I do think it is important that we build new kinds of networked institutions (contra institutional networks) that reflect the best of what distributed networks have to offer, but are more sustainable over time. At present, I think the social forums, with all their problems, are the best example we have of this new kind of organized network in the realm of political action. As I mentioned above the forums are hybrid organizations, combining vertical and horizontal organizing logics. Many radicals have criticized the social forums precisely because of the participation and influence of traditional reformist institutional actors. However, in my view, it is precisely at the intersection of these different sorts of political and organizational logics, and in the context of the associated conflicts and debates, that new kinds of sustainable hybrid networked institutions will emerge. This is why I have consistently argued over the years that more radical activists should engage the forum, even if from the margins, creating autonomous spaces to interact with the forum process while promoting their more innovative horizontal networking practices. Again, it is through this kind of ongoing interaction and conflict between different organizational logics and practices that new kinds of organized networks will emerge in the political realm. It is no accident that of all the projects, networks, and institutions that have been created by the global justice movement the social forums remain the most active and vibrant, despite, or perhaps precisely because of, the continued critiques. To go back to your first question, PGA remains closest to my heart, but the social forums may ultimately turn out to be a more lasting and influential organized network. One of the more interesting projects I have taken part in over the past few years, the Networked Politics initiative (http://www.networked-politics.info/), has been an effort on the part of activists and engaged scholars to think more deeply about how to develop new forms of politics and institutions that are sustainable yet reflect the kinds of networking logics and practices that were particularly visible in the context of the global justice movement.

GL: You got involved at the right time, and got out to write down your findings at the moment when the ‘other globalization movement’ had somehow lost steam. Do you agree? There is a certain nostalgia for Big Event days, which makes Networking Futures such a fascinating read. Where do you see the movements heading? We can all see that they are not dead, but the urge to continue as if it still were 2001-2002 isn’t there anymore. Is the network form making it more bearable to see movements disappear? You seem to have no problem admitting that “social movements are cyclical phenomena.” What topics and social formation do you see emerging? Would it, for instance, make sense to come up with a radical movement inside the larger context of climate change?

JJ: Yes, I think that’s right. I was extremely fortunate to have gotten involved in the movement when it was becoming publicly visible in Seattle, and then lived through what we might call its peak years from a unique position in Barcelona. I think the movement lost some steam, or at least some of its confrontational spirit, after the repression in Genoa, and then 9-11 obviously had a huge impact, although more so in the United States then elsewhere. Somewhere between 2002 and 2003 I think the social forums began to replace mass actions as the main focus of the movement, which reflected a shift, in my view, toward a more sustainable form of movement activity.

At the same time, there was also a move toward more local forms of organizing rooted in specific communities. To some extent I think the turn away from mass actions and the change in emphasis toward local organizing resulted from the critique of summit hopping that had been around since Seattle (if not before) but became increasingly widespread as the novelty of mass actions began to wear off. At the same time, regardless of any internal movement debates, it is increasingly difficult to pull off successful mass direct actions over time. The sociologist Randal Collins hypothesizes that movements can only maintain their peak levels for about two years, which isn’t too far off in the case of the global justice movement (say late 1999 to mid-2001 or so). In this sense, the shift of emphasis toward the forums and local organizing, although not necessarily conceived in this way, was a strategic response to the cyclical nature of social movements. Mass actions continue of course, but as I pointed out above, even these have become more regularized and routine. The movement has thus traded some of its emotional intensity for greater sustainability. Given this strategic shift, I would say the movement remains surprisingly vibrant. In contrast, as Barbara Epstein has argued, the anti-nuclear energy movement petered out when activists failed to make the shift from mass actions, which began attracting fewer and fewer people and eliciting decreasing media attention, to an alternative strategy. In many ways, the global justice movement is well placed to pick up steam again if and when the next cycle of increasing confrontation comes around again.

The global justice/alternative globalization/anti-capitalist frame is a good one in that it encompasses an array of movements and struggles, while maintaining a focus on systemic interconnections. I think it would be an error to revert back to single issue politics and struggles at this point, as such connections would be obscured and the social, political, and cultural capital of the global justice movement would be squandered.

Rather than organize a radical movement around climate change, for example, it would make more sense to organize around this issue in the context of a global justice frame. This was done to great effect by the European anti-war movement, which was a really a fusion between the anti-war and global justice movements. This connection was never really made in the U.S., partly due to the absence of a national level forum process, and both movements were worse off as a result. In terms of what specific issues I see emerging, that is always a tough call, but I think you are right that global climate change will constitute a key site of struggle over the next few years, as will alternative energy, particularly given the spike in oil prices. At the same time, in light of the current global financial and economic crisis, a broad anti-capitalist critique remains as relevant and important as ever. Moreover, if the history of previous crises provides any indication, we may well see the rise of a global democracy movement to challenge the increasing repression and authoritarian trends in many parts of the world. Whatever new forms of struggle emerge, I think they will be stronger to the extent that they can link themselves to a broader anti-systemic critique such as that represented by the global justice movement.

Jeffrey S. Juris, Networking Futures, The Movements Against Corporate Globalization, Duke University Press, Durham and London, 2008.

Promotional website of the book: http://networkingfutures.com/home.html.

ASU page of Jeffrey Juris: https://sec.was.asu.edu/directory/person/863914

Originally from Networked_Performance by jo

reBlogged on Oct 10, 2008, 9:05PM

Originally by jo from Networked_Performance on October 10, 2008, 11:05pm

Posted under reblog innovation

The Chinese Dream - A society under construction, by DCF, Neville Mars and Adrian Hornsby.

Publisher 010 says: What if you built the whole mass of western europe in 20 years? What if 400 million farmers then moved in? What would it look like? How would it work? Would you be able to go to sleep at night? And if you did, would you dream of somewhere else …?

China is in the midst of breakneck transformation. The last 30 years of astonishing economic growth and political and cultural reform have been driven by the world’s biggest ever urban boom. The new China is now halfway built. Within the next 30 years China will most likely take centre-stage as a global superpower, with hundreds of millions of new urbanites flooding into the rapidly swelling cities. But this process - presenting no less than the construction of a new society - is taking place almost without time to think.

Taking as its starting point the goal announced in China in 2001 to build 400 new cities of 1 million inhabitants each by 2020, or 20 new cities a year for 20 years, the book explores the hopes and hazards of dreaming on such a scale. The question being asked is in fact no less than how to build a new utopia. But is China mortgaging its present for a promised future, and doing so at the same time that current speeds of construction eclipse any real forward planning?

Partly because of the Olympics, publishing houses have been releasing books about China by the dozens, with massive and super fast urbanization appearing to be the most popular subject by far. And who could blame the public for being so fascinated by back covers that repeat again and again figures and facts such as:

‘China is the fourth largest economy in the world. If current growth rate continue, China will outsize the U.S. in the next 20 to 30 years’

‘By 2020 China’s national network of expressways will exceed in length even the American interstate highway system.’

Photo-collage by Martijn De Waal. Bigger version online and inside the book

Some of these publications are genuinely well-researched and carefully written, others feel more like a quick and opportunist job. If you have to get your hand on just one book about urban China, make it this one. It is the result of several years of works by experts who were called to reflect on possible scenarios for urbanization in China in 2020. It is also great ‘value for money’, not just because the price is surprisingly affordable for a book that counts 700 pages but because once you open it you realize that it’s almost a work of art. The typo, graphic design, the photos, the layout, the graphics, every page has been meticulously crafted. And i have photos to prove my claim:

The urban (near) future of China is analyzed under every angle: economics, society, ecology, energy, architecture, urban planning and politics.

Some books about similar subject shun from any mention of China’s political situation. This one doesn’t. It’s not exactly heavy on politics but its authors recognize that, while ‘it’s urbanization not democracy that constitutes the main driver for change in China’, it would be naive to try and draw a clear picture of Chinese cities without taking the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) factor into account.

More importantly, the books holds a mirror to our ‘Western societies”. We’ve arrived at a crossroad where we are forced to stop and look with horror at the shortcomings of the capitalist model, a model that China is embracing fast, steady and avidly. The more i read about China’s frenzy and excesses the more i was remembered of ours. Of course there are many differences: we know of the ‘American dream’ but how much exactly do we know of the ‘Chinese dream’? We might have often read that one of the main goals of China is to create a broad middle class which will, of course, form the least saturated market we can dream of, but are we sure that the Chinese will blindly follow the same models of capitalism as we do? For example will they be willing to embrace our ‘credit-addiction’ and other eco-suicidal habits?

Beijing Boom Tower

I almost forgot to mention my favourite part of the book: the ‘Glossary / From Lipstick to Skyscraper’. Some of the words and expressions relate to urbanization all over the world (archi-scrabble, anyone?). Some are peculiar to China: Chinese immobility, Chinese Moderni$m, Chengdu 1.5, dormitory extrusion, floating village, panda-hugger, Shanghai fever, chiburb, etc.

If 700 pages are not enough, head to BURB.TV, the collaborative research wiki that updates and expands into the larger knowledge of The Chinese Dream. Each article is a topical blog or BURB into which texts, images, and discussion are submitted. The research is produced with visionaries, architects, planners and social scientists invited by the Dynamic City Foundation.

This piece originally appeared on Regine Debatty’s blog, We Make Money, Not Art

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Regine Debatty in Megacities at 9:56 AM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by Regine Debatty


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by Regine Debatty from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog art

by Justine Bayod Espoz

We encourage submissions from members of Worldchanging’s global audience who volunteer to write up their notes from conferences, workshops and other worldchanging happenings they participate in. If you’d like to contribute your own report, please email editor@worldchanging.com.

Global Warming, extreme droughts, desertification and pollution are just a few of the contributing factors to an ever-increasing scarcity of fresh water on our planet that by 2025 could leave billions of people without access to sufficient water.

Although many forward-thinking people, such as those in the Ripple Effect partnership, have begun putting their heads together to create solutions for managing water scarcity, we still have a long way to go to create global awareness and therefore global action.

The 2008 World Expo helped to address this issue of water and sustainable development in visual, creative and attention drawing ways. I attended the even, which took place Saragossa, Spain from June 14 through September 14.

During the 93 days, the Expo pavilions explored timely and increasingly important topics, including:

Water, A Unique Resource - an exploration of how water shortages and privatization of water supplies lead to extreme poverty, increased immigration and civil and political conflict.

Extreme Water – a study of flash flooding, tsunamis and other water related natural disasters, as well as the link between global warming and the increase in sea level and devastating hurricanes.

Shared Water – an exhibition that explains how uncontrolled development can lead to increased flooding, water pollution, unsustainable accumulations of waste, decreases in biodiversity and much more.

Thirst – a pavilion that tackles desertification and how individuals, with the help of simple objects and methods that have been used for centuries, can render contaminated water potable, conserve energy and collect fresh water.

I attended the Expo as a citizen wanting to learn, but also in my professional capacity as a photojournalist. From an artistic standpoint, the grand displays designed to present these issues to an international public were truly impressive. Below you’ll find a series of photos taken of the pavilions, grounds, creative art displays and main points of interest.

The Bridge Pavilion and entrance to the fairgrounds.

Interior of the Bridge Pavilion

Bridge Pavilion opening overlooking the fairgrounds

Shared Water Pavilion

Sub-Saharan Africa Pavilions

Temperate Rain forests and Tropical Jungles Pavilion

Spain Pavilion

Aquarium Interior

Iceberg, a multimedia show about global warming performed every night

The Shared Water Pavilion’s rooftop garden with the Ebro River and Expo fairgrounds in the background

These pavilions and dozens more were visited by 5.6 million people from around the world, significantly less than the projected 7 million. However, those visitors who took the time to read even a fraction of the overwhelming amount of information and statistics on display are sure to have returned home with a new respect for our planet and its most precious resource.

Focusing the World Expo on the water crisis only makes more clear how vital it is that we spread awareness and act quickly to come up with potential solutions to this serious problem. You can read more about the solutions discussed at the Expo’s Water Tribunals, a parallel series of debates that took place around the world, here.

Justine Bayod Espoz is a photojournalist, documentary filmmaker and founder of ToritoMedia, a written, photographic and video content agency based in Madrid, Spain. To contact Justine regarding photographs, writing or any other projects, please email her at lajusta@gmail.com.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Events at 3:28 PM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by WorldChanging Team


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by WorldChanging Team from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment

If I told you that the air in a corporate office building filled with PhD holding climatologist and atmospheric scientists felt positively electrified, you might think I was a little off. But the truth is that during my visit to energy efficiency company 3TIER, I witnessed an office packed with people truly excited and enthusiastic about their daily tasks. I guess it helps to know your work is reshaping the energy future of the world.

3TIER is an international company providing people with the information they need to make smart decisions about renewable energy. They help people, businesses and governments make decision about what renewable energy project (wind, solar, or responsible hydro) would be most efficient and effective for where they’re located. Basically, said founder and CEO Ken Westrick, 3TIER takes information and tries to turn it toward a decision point, which hopefully ends in the investment in renewable energy. (You can read more about the process here.)

I walked down Capitol Hill to their downtown Seattle headquarters the other day to get a behind the scenes look at how they are quickly building a reputation as the world’s go-to source for renewable energy efficiency expertise.

3TIER started building its home on the cutting edge in the late 1990s, when Westrick began to see clearly the coming demand for the newly burgeoning field of renewable energy. He saw how the combining trends of oil depletion, climate change and energy security were creating ripe conditions for a triad of alternatives in solar, hyro and wind power.

“The train was heading toward the cliff,” Westrick said. “You could see this sort of thing coming.”

Although Westrick saw this growth as a powerful force just waiting to be unleashed, not everyone was there quite yet. In 2001, starting a business that combined using the Internet to map renewable energy potential seemed to many like a poor decision, but to Westrick it was a long term vision.

Now, 3TIER conducts business across the globe from their offices in North and Central America as well as in India.

“The thirst for the type of information we provide is out there,” Westrick said. “Governments and investors want to know, ‘where do I put it? What technology do I need to put in? And how do we operate it?”

What’s really interesting is 3TIER’s ability to take answers to questions like this to leaders in developing countries interested in what resources they could be using. 3TIER is working with these countries to help them see what resources they have readily available, which would allow them to leapfrog over dirty, industrial models of obtaining energy straight to clean, abundant, renewable energy.

3TIER gives governments and business of all sizes, and people from all areas of the world the information they need to start the policy or investment conversation. Through their open and free information source, FIRSTLOOK, they are giving everyone the ability to at least think about and check into the possibility of alternative energy.

“We figure out where’s the best place to put renewable energy projects, help you make it much more efficient in it operation,” Westrick said. “The best place to put a turbine isn’t the windiest spot. It’s the place where it’s windiest when you need it most.”

Westrick said that their clients come to 3TIER for different reasons — some believe in climate change, some see this as a wise, money making investment, others see it as a way to achieve energy security or to create jobs.

“We are trying to give folks inspiration for policy, investment and conversation,” Westrick said. “I don’t care why they are getting on board, as long as they are getting on board to recognize that we need to do something about this.”

As I was shuttled through the halls of 3TIER headquarters, meeting people with titles like director of forecasting and solar resource assessment analyst, I realized this was the future: People working together to solve global problems, making a living out of doing what’s right, solving global problems through collaboration, giving it away when it makes sense to, and using state of the art technology to do so.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Business at 3:30 PM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by Sarah Kuck


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by Sarah Kuck from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog environment, reblog innovation

By Erica Lee Schlaikjer

With about 300 million people living below the poverty line in China, microfinance — most commonly defined as small loans for impoverished individuals to help them achieve financial self-sufficiency — is an attractive option.

Wokai.org, “a capital-contributing microfinance intermediary,” is trying to bring money to Chinese entrepreneurs who want to set up their own small businesses, like dumpling shops, fruit and veggie stands and animal husbandry operations.

Wokai, which means “I start” in Chinese, fosters entrepreneurship and fights poverty by raising loan capital online from individual contributors for microfinance institutions (MFIs) in China. Its goal is to expand financial opportunities for the country’s poor (and mostly rural) population. Though its primary goal is fundraising, Wokai also provides “capacity building” for microfinance organizations, which can mean anything from emotional support for first-time borrowers to computer training for loan managers.

When Wokai launches its new website in mid-November, it’s going to be like Facebook, Kiva and Wikipedia combined, says 24-year-old Courtney McColgan, one of the co-founders.

“While we are a fundraising platform, we’re also an information platform, and we’re building a community around China microfinance in the United States,” McColgan says. She started the Internet-based nonprofit in the fall of 2006 with fellow American Casey Wilson. The two met while studying advanced Chinese at Tsinghua University, and since then, they have set up Wokai’s headquarters in Beijing and established three U.S. chapters: Seattle, San Francisco and New York. For now, they’re still recruiting a replenishable stream of interns and volunteers to help raise awareness about microfinance in China, as well as research potential lenders and set fundraising goals.

How does it all work? According to the website,

Wokai partners with local MFIs which identify and screen potential microentrepreneur clients. Selected clients are then posted on the Wokai website through profiles that outline their business ventures and loan request. Contributors browse these profiles, select who and how much to finance, and then transfer money to Wokai through our online payment system. Once funds are transferred, Wokai distributes this loan capital to partner MFIs for allocation to microentrepreneurs. At the end of the loan cycle, partner MFIs collect loan repayments and re-issue loans.

So it’s kind of an online recycler of microfinance loans: your contribution gets used multiple times to help more than one person. The average Wokai loan is about $300, which is usually paid back between six months and one year. McColgan says there is a high success rate of repayment.

Wokai was set up as an “intermediary” because of legal and governmental restrictions in China. As McColgan says, “[MFIs] are not illegal, but they’re not legal,” so they’re not given an official status. In other words, they’re “under the black curtain.” As a result, MFIs cannot mobilize funds through savings deposits and active and capital markets. And grants quickly drain away because of operational inefficiencies and a lack of support after an initial fundraising period. That said, Wokai connects with local “field partners”–based on certain criteria–to allocate the funds to Chinese borrowers.

“Our job is to raise money abroad, bring it in, and funnel it through their system and give contributors the opportunity to see that people can pay loans in China,” McColgan says.

And that’s where the Internet social networking microfinance mash-up concept comes into play. Wokai will be similar to Kiva in that it highlights the individual aspect of microfinance by featuring profiles of both entrepreneurs and lenders to facilitate face-to-face engagement; in other words, it’ll empower users to pick and choose where their money’s going. Also, it’ll be like Facebook because users can network with each other, start discussions and share content. And, finally, it’ll be like Wikipedia because volunteers will edit and translate English content into Chinese in order to create a fully bi-lingual platform, catered to field partners in China, as well as U.S. chapter staff.

Currently, the nonprofit is fundraising for $50,000 to cover operational costs through April, which will include the costs of training, evaluating and coordinating with its field partners in China, as well as paying its staff and rent. To listen to a 5-minute podcast with the co-founders, click here.

Erica Lee Schlaikjer is the founder of ResponsibleChina.com, a blog about environmental sustainability, corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship in Greater China. She is based in Chicago. Email her erica@responsiblechina.com.

Photo credits: Wokai.org

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Socially Responsible Investment at 10:16 AM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by WorldChanging Team


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by WorldChanging Team from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog innovation

Is there value in knowledge for the sake of knowledge? My gut says “of course,” but when the question comes down to dollars and cents – and it does, in the case of funding for arts, science, and other often intangible cultural resources — it’s helpful to have a more practical argument on hand.

I thought about this issue a lot last weekend, when I traveled to North America’s epicenter of livable density to attend a sold-out screening at the Vancouver International Film Festival. The film was The Atom Smashers, a documentary about Illinois-based Fermilab and the international race to discover the Higgs boson. The film was produced by Andrew Suprenant at Chicago-based nonprofit 137 Films (COI: several members of the 137 team are good friends of mine).

The documentary does a thorough job of explaining the heady topic of atomic physics (with the help of smart line-drawing animations) and humanizing the scientists, who take tango lessons, raise kids and nurture dreams of rockstardom when not scrutinizing data in pursuit of the Higgs. The Fermilab physicists work with the Tevatraon, a four-mile ring equipped with high-charged magnets (and a comic-book-worthy name). The Tevatron accelerates infinitely small atomic particles to high speeds and then crashes them into one another so that they break apart, allowing the scientists to peek at what’s inside … and search for anything that they’re not expecting to see. What gives the story its drama is that as the Fermilab scientists are continuing their decades-old search, the CERN laboratory in Switzerland is building and readying its Large Hadron Collider, a particle accelerator that’s bigger, more modern and more powerful than the Tevatron. Once CERN begins to operate the LHC, the Fermilab team admits it’s unlikely they will be able to keep up.

What happens if they find the Higgs? Well, as the theory goes, the Higgs is the missing link that gives clusters of protons, neutrons and electrons the quality of mass … thus enabling life to exist as we know it. So if they find the Higgs, they get to understand one key foundational truth of the universe. And the United States gets to claim that ours was the first nation to know.

But is that enough? The Higgs is not the cure for cancer. It won’t bring clean water to impoverished populations in developing countries. It’s pure understanding for the sake of understanding. And as the story unfolds, it becomes clear that it’s difficult to set a budget for deep knowledge of the universe.

In recent years, the Fermilab physicists have watched their funding drop by hundreds of millions, as science funding in the United States was cut dramatically. In one interview during the film, experimental physicist Sheldon Stone (co-chair of the terminated Fermilab BTeV experiment) is concerned about the future of scientific discovery in general:

“We’ve had colleagues in Australia who are getting a lot of the grad students who used to apply to the U.S. The number of grad student applications to physics to the U.S. is going down dramatically. They’re going to other places in the world. Because other places in the world are investing in science.”

Stone, of course, had a personal interest at stake. But interviewee Natalie Angier, a science journalist for the New York Times, put the topic in a larger context that I think brings it closer to home:

I’ve talked to scientists who said when they were young, back in the 50s and 60s, science was seen as something “ooh, cool!” You know, you were, maybe, OK you were a little geeky, but you were cool! Because there was the space race, there was a lot going on, the future was beckoning, you had these world’s fairs, everyone was so excited — and that’s sort of gone away. And science is not seen as something that’s drawing the best minds. And why should it? Because if you become a scientist in this society, it guarantees you total obscurity!

As directors Monica Long Ross and Clayton Brown told the audience after the screening, the process of making of the film brought together two seemingly different constituencies – scientists and artists. These are groups who constantly have their hand out to donors, governments and institutional funders because their work simply doesn’t often earn enough money on its own. Some art, of course (like the most recent Batman), and some science (like the chemistry keeping my cereal crunchy in milk) earns plenty of dollars. But one question that’s worth asking is, what would the world be like if culture was a free market, and the less practical contributions to these liberal fields simply couldn’t fight hard enough to continue to be produced? And why are scientists — who, in my opinion, are part of our front lines in the most challenging crisis our planet has ever faced — rewarded with so little attention?

The documentary looks at the issue from a national standpoint, homed in primarily on this local story. But it made me think, and it’s worth saying especially in these scary economic times, that this is an important issue to examine and re-examine at the local, regional, national and global levels. What resources are important to us … and what secrets are worth the quest for understanding? It’ll be interesting to see what comes first: an answer to the Higgs theory, or a renewed pride in American science.

The Atom Smashers will be broadcast on the PBS series Independent Lens on November 25. Details here.

Photos courtesy of 137 Films.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Julia Levitt in Features at 5:05 PM)

Originally
from Worldchanging: Bright Green

by Julia Levitt


reBlogged

on Jan 1, 1970, 8:00AM

Originally by Julia Levitt from Worldchanging: Bright Green on January 1, 1970, 9:00am

Posted under reblog innovation

Self Replicating Machine, by Dr Adrian Bowyer and Ed Sells in lab

Good old Turin is currently hosting the third edition of C.STEM. The theme this year is Breeding Objects - Computational Design: from Digital Fabrication to Mass-Customization and while the spotlight is still on generative systems, it is, in many respects, very different from the first edition. This time, the main protagonists are designers, not artists.

Although, i have taken the habit of running swiftly in the opposite direction when i hear the word ‘design,’ i have to admit that the programme this year is remarkable. Especially because it brings that innovative focus i had hoped to see more widely explored in the schedule of the Torino World Design Capital. C.STEM showcases projects anticipating future developments in design process and technologies. What happens when domains such as design, creative coding and digital fabrication meet the new scenarios of mass-customization?

C.STEM conference on Sept. 20th: Where were the ladies?

The exhibition and conference explores the way design is currently re-considered and shaped through the lens of information society and, more generally, new technologies. The work of young designers today involves a crucial paradigm shift: not only do they use the digital tools provided to them but they also invent, modify and produce new instruments themselves.

Dendrite by Nervous Systems (Jessica Eve Rosenkrantz and Jesse Louis-Rosenberg)

Another important characteristic of the new design production involves digital fabrication processes such as laser cutting and 3D printing (a few examples in the posts Rapid Products 1 and 2). The impact of digital fabrication is far from marginal: instead of churning out identical products, objects are created which, while they undeniably belong to the same family, are all different from each other. Beyond the creative process and fabrication, the digital tools and new design processes have also the potential to radically modify the marketing of design products and the way consumers engage with the creation of objects. Two projects presented in the exhibition, Nervous Systems and Fluid Forms (see below), have already been launched on the market and as such, exemplify new business possibilities.

Located in an ex-Methodist church in the center of Turin, the exhibition illustrates what is the state of the art of computational design through a series projects that range from everyday objects you can buy online to sweatshirts weaved with newsfeeds, and a 3D printing machine able to ‘prints’ most of its own components (not the original one but maybe even better, a version fatta in casa by ToDo design studio.)

The list of projects exhibited is online. Here’s just a selection:

Ebru Kurbak and Mahir Yavuz’ NewsKnitter project comments on the manipulation by the media in Turkey. Live data streams of information are used as an unpredictable base for pattern generation. Web-based information is either gathered from the Turkish daily political news or according to a theme that pervades global news. The data is analyzed, filtered and converted into a unique visual pattern for a knitted sweater. The system consists of two different types of software: one receives the content from live feeds while the other converts it into visual patterns, a fully computerized flat knitting machine produces the final output. The pieces of clothing are not for sale right now but the designers are working on that.

Radiolaria by Nervous Systems

The jewelry designed by Jessica Rosenkrantz and Jesse Louis-Rosenberg of Nervous System, on the other hand, is up for grab. The design is both heavily tech-mediated and inspired by organic forms.

Using two custom-made computer applications –one mimics branching dendrites, and the other the movement of particles–the designers generate forms for bracelets, pendants, and earrings.

The Radiolaria line, for example, is named after the plant cells whose structure was a source of inspiration for Buckminster Fuller. Jewelry from the Dendrite collection takes its cue from the aggregate growth of coral. The Dendrite algorithm both controls the aggregation and allows consumers to participate in the design process

1 of 1 studio tissue collection

Way more beautiful in real than on pictures, 1 of 1 design studio creates one-of-a-kind, made to order apparel. For The Tissue Collection, designer Cait Reas worked together with C.E.B. Reas. The artist generated the Tissue images by defining processes and translating them into images with code and software. Cait used a digital textile printing technique to apply the patterns to fabric.

theverymany contributed as consultants for the [C]space pavilion in London

In case you’d worried that this blog is turning into a geeky version of Harper’s Bazaar, i’ll have to mention that the best moment of C.STEM for me was to listen to Marc Fornes from theverymany. It’s the second time i attend one of his talks and i’m still not sure i understand most of what he says but his work is so awesome that it doesn’t really matter.

Aperiodic_vertebrae

His presentation addressed failure. For example, he detailed how the Aperiodic_vertebrae structure that theverymany developed for Generator x - Beyond the Screen (a workshop and exhibition which highlighted the creative potential of digital fabrication and generative systems) in Berlin taught him that while computers facilitate many of the design processes much of the assembly still has to be done by hands. The Berlin version of the Aperiodic Tiling counted some 530 panels and nearly as many connecting components.

One of the many options studied for R&Sie’s Loophole bridge

The core of theverymany approach is therefore to use computer to generate, not just many parts, but a logic between these parts. They applied the concept to the woven pedestrian bridge that Francois Roche from R&Sie is building on the boundaries of Poland and the Czech Republic.

My images from the event.

About the 2006 edition of C.STEM: C.STEM conference, Part 1 and Part 2.

Related entry: Generator x - Beyond the Screen, a workshop and exhibition which highlighted the creative potential of digital fabrication and generative systems.

Originally
from we make money not art

by Regine


reBlogged

Originally by Regine from we make money not art

Posted under reblog art

Long overdue…. A follow-up on media_city Seoul, a media art biennale hosted until November 5, 2008 at the Seoul Museum of Art.

The events aims to reflect on the place that media art has taken into contemporary art. Each in their own way, the works selected for the exhibitions bring a fragment of answer to fundamental questions such as: What is media art? What is different from the conventional art? What changes have been made by that in the field of art? and what influences could come from now?

In order to ensure a broader and more informed coverage of these issues, Park Il-ho, exhibition director, professor at Ewha Womans University and main curator of media_city Seoul surrounded himself with four international curators: Maarten Bertheux from the Stedelijk Museum, independent art curator and critic Raul Zamudio, curator of Tokyo’s National Museum of Modern Art Tohru Matsumoto and art historian and curator Andreas Broeckmann.

I had the opportunity to attend a talk in which Broeckmann shared with the audience his point of view on some of the questions raised by the media art biennale: What can be defined as media art today?

Most of you probably know Andreas Broeckmann as the artistic director of the transmediale festival (2000-2007) and the co-director of the media arts lab TESLA in Berlin (2005-2007). The curator and art historian recently co-chaired the re:place 2007 interdisciplinary science and art history conference and is currently working on the next edition of ISEA which will take place in the Ruhr area (Dortmund, Essen, Duisburg, a. o.) in August 2010.

Below are my (fairly rough) notes from the talk.

Questions such as What does it mean to speak of media art today? or What is the territory of media art today? have given rise to many ongoing discussions and are even the core subject of a couple of exhibitions (such as media_city Seoul). One of these exhibitions closed yesterday at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. Deep Screen - Art in Digital Culture. Proposal for Municipal Art Acquisitions 2008 was organized with the objective of getting a sample of contemporary media artists living in The Netherlands. The Stedelijk plans to select a few artworks from the sample and buy them for its permanent collection. The questions they museum asked right from the start was ‘How can we bring this recent art, with its own aesthetics and thematics into the collection?’

Persijn Broersen and Margit Lukács‘ Hinterland #2 series (exhibited at the Stedelijk)

Broeckmann’s conviction is that in fact not much of it is really new for the Stedelijk. After all, they have been buying such artworks for 40 years now: Fluxus works, videos by Abramovic, Bill Viola, etc. Media art shouldn’t be reduced to technology, some media art pieces are just good examples of conceptual art and have other strong connections with modern and post-modern art.

We are now living a historical time when digital technology is used everywhere everyday. We don’t have to think about it anymore. It just became so natural. Only a tiny minority of people had a mobile phone 10 years ago. Today we all have one. Being connected is easy and that’s the way we expect it to be. Yet people keep seeing media art as something different, a genre which puts a heavy emphasis on technology and when we speak about art, it mostly refers to art creation that uses analog media.

In the past, when technologies were news, artists were engaging with it in a free and often very explorative way. Now that they have mastered the technology the focus is mostly on making good art. Of course some artists are still developing complicated art pieces but we are seeing much more work using easy, hand-on technology.

An important question to raise is: What happens to art when it has reached the phase beyond digital technology novelty? We used to be fascinated by technology and now it is so much part of our life that we don’t have to think about it anymore.

Many people have the feeling that we still describe something when we say ‘media art’. Which role does media art has in contemporary art? Are there particular themes, ideas or fields that media art references?

One of the works shown at media_city Seoul illustrates a possible answers. At first look, Julien Maire’s Exploding Camera is a heap of electronics on a table. The bits and pieces belong to a video camera which, although it was disassembled, is still perfectly functioning. The lens has been taken out. Instead, external light coupled with LEDs and laser produce video images by direct illumination of the camera’s CCD (light sensor). A transparent disc containing photographic positives is placed between the lights and the CCD. The pictures are projected onto the CCD when a light is turned on. Because of the different position of the lights, movement in the same picture can be created. Large lights and the laser create explosions (they trigger a sound that overlays the backing soundtrack).

Exploding Camera Screenshots

The installation was inspired by the murder, two days before the 9/11, of the most credible opponent to the Taliban: Commander Massoud.

Two al-Qaida suicide bombers posing as journalists killed him with an exploding camera at his camp in Afghanistan’s remote Panjshir Valley.

Although the murder is connected with 9/11, it has been almost completely forgotten because of the magnitude of the events a few days later.

The artist wrote: For me, it is as if the destroyed camera used in the attack against Massoud had continued to work and has been filming a war film for the last 6 years.
All of this, as well as the death of the almost mythic figure of Massoud, has lead me to develop the piece ‘the exploding camera’: a kind of destroyed medium able to produce live an experimental historical film reinterpreting the events of the war.

Just like Persijn Broersen and Margit Lukács‘ Hinterland #2 series (exhibited at the Stedelijk but not in Seoul), the work deconstructs the technology of audiovisual media in order to better reflect on the way that it works. This theme is often explored in media art and could therefore constitute an element that contribute to its definition.

Marko Peljhan, Speckr, Linz

An other relevant figure to consider is Marko Peljhan, an artist interested in social and political context of technology. He develops works in the Russian constructivist tradition of the 1920. His art projects deal with with technology and offer the public the opportunity to engage with them and talk about technology, scientific research, military developments, etc. The aesthetics of his work is directly inspired by the aesthetics of science and technology while exposing its dark side, the esoteric and sometimes irrational aspects of modern science.

Hello World by Yunchul Kim

Hello, World!, offers an interesting dialog with mediality by showing the process of the translation from the digital to the analog through copper pipes. The installation, developed by Yunchul Kim, uses acoustic signals to store data. A codified auditory signal (feedback) circulates in a closed system consisting of a computer, a loudspeaker, 246 meters of copper tubing and a microphone. Due to the acoustic delay in the tubing system, it’s possible to save data, whereby the rule is: the longer the copper tubing, the longer the time delay and the greater the memory capacity.

Where is the medium in this work? Is it the computer with the hardware which carries the data file? Or is it the software? The electrical signal?

Driessens & Verstappen, Breed

Erwin Driessens & Maria Verstappen’s Breed (also included in the Stedelijk exhibition) is a fascinating take on the theme of the transition from digital to analog. A computer program uses artificial evolution to grow very detailed bronze sculptures that represent virtual mathematical models. The purpose of each growth is to generate by cell division from a single cell a detailed form that can be materialised. On the basis of selection and mutation a code is gradually developed that best fulfills this “fitness” criterion and thus yields a workable form. The virtual designs become tangible artefacts through 3D printing techniques.

Driessens & Verstappen, Breed

The whole creation process is left in the ‘hands’ of the computer, there is no direct artistic decision. The final result is presented in a very traditional way: the print-out structures are cast in bronze and presented in a glass case.

Breed reflects on the relationship between virtuality and materiality but also the relationship human and machine creativity. Belonging both to the software art genre and the sculpture genre, Breed pushes the boundaries of mediality.

Pierre Bastien

The work of Pierre Bastien which engages mostly with mechanical age looks at the degree zero of media. He uses very basic (wind, voice, fans, etc.) media for human expression in a ‘post-machinic age’ scenario. It doesn’t make much sense to talk about new media art in this context but his work is an artistic expression that uses the most ancient media possible. On the other hand, it can be regarded as media art because of the way it reflects on the mediality of its own materiality (and vice-versa?.)

Electroboutique

Ironic wink from Alexei Shulgin and Aristarkh Chernyshev with their latest artistico-commercial adventure: Electroboutique, a conceptual project that playfully but intelligently reflects on the status of media art as another product of consumer culture. The Russian artists are exhibiting at media_city Seoul Super-i, a pair of goggles that allow visitors to reverse the virtual/real duality by transforming the “real” world around us into a pixelated one in real time.

Today, many electrical and digital technologies are available to artists, they are free to choose which one best fits their work. That didn’t use to be the case. There was a time when these technologies were expensive and not available to the hoi polloi. Nowadays, these technologies have been ‘liberated’. In the past, computers would limit what an artist could do, they were ‘imprisoned’. Today, an artist can decide freely whether it is software or wood that best correspond to their project. This also constitutes a liberation from the idea that the essence of media art is technology.

The Cage, by Tania Ruiz Gutiérrez, tries to re-create the experience of being incarcerated. The projection shows an image of a tiger kept prisoner in a zoo. The image is always the same, yet the tiger moves around his cage. The artist explains that the movement is in fact determined by the relative sizes of tiger and cage, such that his movements are optimized to the only possible path given the tight space available. Given that both the duration and the distance are repeated, one can imagine that in the tiger’s brain there exists a double incarceration, both spatial and temporal. Moreover, the tiger’s path traces over and over the sign of infinity. I would like to make visible the passing of a suspended time and give this installation both a reflexive and hypnotic character.

Pneuma Monoxyd, by Thomas Köner, is a visual metaphor of how time and memory intersect into our mind. The video installation merges in a dark blur surveillance images of a German shopping street and a Balkan marketplace.

These last works show how media art offer us new possibilities to look at the world in a different way.

Mark Hansen’s 2 channel video Other People’s Feelings Are Also My Own No.3 shows the artist in a similar outfit and facial expression as those of the man, woman or child in the picture next to his. The work explores notions of ego, subjectivity and identity but it also looks into the mediality of the human face and how much it can be used as a screen.

Herwig Weiser’s sound sculpture Death Before Disko is a self-absorbed machine, it is a medium that could be qualified as ‘autistic’. It appears to be busy with itself and communicates as little as possible to the outside. ‘Death Before Disko’ uses an online data stream from space observation and translates it into sound and light events. With the proliferation of digital technologies, users have become more and more distant from the physical hardware of their laptop or hi-fi units. ‘Death Before Disko’ aims to return to the foundations of the hardware, and shows how our relationship towards technology is more often emotional than rational.

Broeckmann’s view is that it is getting less and less important to have specific media biennales and festivals. If a ‘media art’ piece is a good art piece it will survive as contemporary art.

Further reading: Deep Screen - Art in Digital Culture. An Introduction by Andreas Broeckmann.

Originally
from we make money not art

by Regine


reBlogged

Originally by Regine from we make money not art

Posted under reblog art

The Internet of Things - Network Notebook Launch :: October 28, 2008; 5:00 pm :: Waag Society, Theatrum Anatomicum, Nieuwmarkt 4, Amsterdam :: Free entrance, send an email to reserveren [at] waag.org if you want to attend.

The Internet of Things is the second issue in the series of Network Notebooks. It’s a critique of ambient technology and the all-seeing network of RFID by Rob van Kranenburg. Rob examines what impact RFID and other systems, will have on our cities and our wider society. He currently works at Waag Society as program leader for the Public Domain and wrote earlier an article about this topic in the Waag magazine and is the co-founder of the DIFR Network. The notebook features an introduction by journalist and writer Sean Dodson.

The launch includes short presentations from Martijn de Waal, Eric Kluitenberg and Denis Jaromil Rojo, and a discussion, led by Geert Lovink.

In Network Notebook #2, titled The Internet of Things, Rob van Kranenburg outlines his vision of the future. He tells of his early encounters with the kind of location-based technologies that will soon become commonplace, and what they may mean for us all. He explores the emergence of the “internet of things”, tracing us through its origins in the mundane back-end world of the international supply chain to the domestic applications that already exist in an embryonic stage. He also explains how the adoption of he technologies of the City Control is not inevitable, nor something that we must kindly accept nor sleepwalk into. In van Kranenburg’s account of the creation of the international network of Bricolabs, he also suggests how each of us can help contribute to building technologies of trust and empower ourselves in the age of mass surveillance and ambient technologies.

Table of Contents:

1. Forward: A tale of two cities Sean Dodson
2. Ambient Intelligence and its promises
3. Ambient Intelligence and its catches
4. Bricolabs
5. How to act

This issue is free available in print and pdf form.
To receive a copy of The Internet of Things send an email to books (at) networkcultures.org.

The Network Notebooks series is edited by Geert Lovink and Sabine Niederer. Network Notebooks #2 is supported by Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and Waag Society.

For Network Notebooks 01 by Rosalind Gill see:  Technobohemians or the new Cybertariat? .

http://networkcultures.org/wpmu/portal/publications/network-notebooks/

Press: Please contact Rob van Kranenburg at Waag Society, email rob (at) waag.org.

Please add yourself to the Frappr map when you ordered ‘The Internet of Things’. This to see in a geographical way were the notebook is spread. Thanks in advance.

Originally
from Networked_Performance

by jo


reBlogged

on Oct 10, 2008, 9:15PM

Originally by jo from Networked_Performance on October 10, 2008, 11:15pm

Posted under reblog art

Performing Presence: From the Live to the Simulated - An international conference :: March, 26-29, 2009 :: Centre for Intermedia, University of Exeter, UK :: CALL FOR PAPERS - Deadline: December 1, 2008.

What creates a sense of presence? the presence of a live performer … the presence of the past … in a memory … in ruined remains … the sense of ‘being there’ in an online community … in a VR or mixed reality environment … Presence is a fundamental yet highly contested aspect of performance, and performance has come to be a key concept in many different fields. Notions of presence hinge on the relationship between the live and mediated, on notions of immediacy, authenticity and originality. Debates over the nature of the actor’s presence have been at the heart of key aspects of theatre practice and theory since the late 1950s and are a vital part of the discourses surrounding avant-garde and postmodern performance. The advent of new media forms, and the increasing integration of contemporary performance and media, has generated new engagements, practices and understandings of presence in performance.

Archaeology is increasingly understood less as the discovery of the past and more in terms of different relationships with what is left of the past. This foregrounds anthropological questions of the performance and construction of the past in memory, narrative, collections (of textual and material sources), archives and systems of documentation, in experiences of place.

In Computer Science, “presence” is a key concept and goal in the construction of Virtual Environments: complex interactive projections that simulate three-dimensional environments and which may include representations of humans (avatars).

Performing Presence: from the live to the simulated will be an international and interdisciplinary forum for the exploration of how exchanges of practices, concepts and methodologies between art, performance and new media practitioners, between academic disciplines and between live, mediated and simulated performance may deepen an understanding of the performance of presence.

CONFIRMED KEYNOTE SPEAKERS*:

• Matt Adams, Blast Theory http://www.blasttheory.co.uk/
• Tim Etchells, Artistic Director, Forced Entertainment http://www.forcedentertainment.com/
• Adrian Heathfield, Professor of Performance ands Visual Culture, Roehampton University http://www.adrianheathfield.com/
• Lynn Hershman-Leeson, media artist http://www.lynnhershman.com/
• Hugo Glendinning, photographer, AHRC Fellow in the Creative and Performing Arts, Centre for Intermedia, University of Exeter http://www.hugoglendinning.com/
• Ken Goldberg, artist, Professor, Industrial Engineering and Operations Research (IEOR), UC Berkeley and Director, Berkeley Centre for New Media http://goldberg.berkeley.edu/index-flash.html
• Mike Pearson, Professor of Performance Studies, University of Wales, Aberystwyth http://www.aber.ac.uk/~psswww/shared/general/pearson.htm and Mike Brookes, artist http://www.mikebrookes.com/
• Paul Sermon, media artist, Professor of Creative Technology, University of Salford http://www.paulsermon.org/
• Michael Shanks, archaeologist, The Omar and Althea Hoskins Professor of Classical Archaeology, Stanford University http://www.stanford.edu/~mshanks/
• Marianne Weems, Artistic Director, The Builders Association http://www.thebuildersassociation.org/
• Krzysztof Wodiczko, artist, Professor of Visual Arts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology http://architecture.mit.edu/people/profiles/prwodicz.html
Keynote presentations will include papers, performative events, performance, as well as real/second life forums.

*Please note all keynotes may be subject to change.
CALL FOR PAPERS: The conference will engage with a wide range of disciplines, art and performance practices, technologies of presence, theory and modes and practices of documentation. Key questions may include:

• What are the chief signifiers of presence?
• How is presence achieved through theatrical performance?
• What makes a memory come alive and live again?
• How are practices of presence connected with senses of self and identity?
• Is presence synonymous with ‘being in the moment’?
• What is the nature of the ‘co-presence’ of audience and performer?
• Does presence imply distance?
• Where does performance practice end and its documentation begin?
• In what tense does documentation take place?
• Can technology produce presence?
• Is presence a form of immersion?
• Is documentation theory or practice?
• What happens when documentation becomes time-based and ephemeral?
• Where does practice end and its documentation begin?
• In what tense does documentation take place?

Proposals for presentations of all kinds are welcome: papers, panel proposals, performative events and performances.

250 word proposals, with any relevant technical requirements, should be submitted to the Linda Dowsett, the Conference Administrator, NO LATER THAN 1st DECEMBER 2008.

Conference registration opens 1st December 2008 and closes 31st January 2009.
Registration fee: £160/£100 (concessions), including all conference events, excluding accommodation.
Please follow this link for a conference registration form.

Performing Presence is managed by Nick Kaye and Gabriella Giannachi of the department of Drama at University of Exeter, the archaeologist Michael Shanks at Stanford University, and Mel Slater, Professor of Virtual Environments at University College, London, and is in receipt of substantial funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).

For any enquiries regarding the conference, proposals or registration please contact Linda Dowsett, Performing Presence Conference Administrator, Department of Drama, Thornlea, New North Road, Exeter, Devon, EX4 4LA, UK.
E-mail: l.m.dowsett@exeter.ac.uk. Telephone : +44 (0)1392 262332.

Performing Presence is the culminating conference of the Arts and Humanities funded interdisciplinary research project, Performing Presence: from the live to the simulated (2005-9). The project is tracked at our major website.

The Exeter Centre for Intermedia is a University Supported Research Centre that promotes advanced transdisciplinary research in performance and the arts through collaborations between artists, academics and scientists from a range of disciplines.

Originally
from Networked_Performance

by jo


reBlogged

on Oct 10, 2008, 9:24PM

Originally by jo from Networked_Performance on October 10, 2008, 11:24pm

Posted under reblog art