The Presupposition That We All Want Social Change

In Clay Shirky's "Cognitive Surplus" TED talk he uses Dean Kamen's (who is the creator of the Segway) argument that "free cultures get what they celebrate" to promote his concept of cognitive surplus (that free time away from consumption activities, e.g., watching television, can be extremely important to producing civic value). Shirky argues that if we can reward those who use cognitive surplus to create civic value, social change will follow. As someone who has only viewed this talk by Shirky (i.e., I haven't read his book) I find myself gravitating to such aphorisms. Yet, terms like "freedom" are becoming more and more hollow these day, at least to me. 

I find that speakers/writers/designers often drop the "F" bomb (freedom) in the hopes of inhabiting and taking control of a habitus--one in which this particular word ("F" word) holds a great weight--when in reality they are hoping to invest that habitus with new values that he or she already holds. In other words, the social change she or he wants is one that already privileges him or her. What would happen if this social change actually led to a loss of privilege on his or her part, but led to greater accessibility to social agency for the majority? Another way of looking at this is do we presuppose that "free" cultures celebrate freedom, say, over consumption? What comes first, the appreciated civic value (which may not have anything to do with freedom) or the habitus that produced it? Maybe this is a rhetorical question. Because if a free culture celebrates labor exploitation, then according to Shirky and Kamen, that's what they'll get. Should we reward these productions of civic virtue? What do we mean by social change? Is equality, civil rights, etc. always presupposed? To some conservative ideologies, these terms have taken on pejorative values. What then?

We see in Meggs' book A History of Design that technologies of design and writing coupled with accessibility and the public's ability to use and create with these technologies definitely has led to social change, historically. But depending on the given culture using these technologies, these social changes can also create oppressive power relations, even in "free" societies. Through exploitation of labor, collusion, etc., a corporation founded on neoliberal philosophies can limit the freedoms of its employees every bit as much as a government can its citizens. Granted the ability for a corporation to exercise this power is contingent upon the current economic standing of the society it participates in, though as we can see in our current economic crisis, governments can quickly lose influence during economic crisis, too.     

Tharon Howard recognizes this potential for social change as well in Design to Thrive, though seems to see it more critically (and understands how complex "social change" can be) than Meggs or Shirky (at least from what I've read to this point of them). Paralleling, to some degree, Shirky's story of Ushahida, Howard recognizes this potential for change, but warns against blindly presupposing "good" as the only effect. I'm quoting at length here:

"Social networks and online communities have the potential to effect economic, political, and social changes far beyond the expectations of their designers, and that kind of "success" can ironically threaten the sustainability of a community. When social media begin to impact larger institutions, such as the election of government officials, intellectual property law, religious institutions, educational settings, and other established institutions of literate cultures, then a battle for control ensues." (Lines 4728+, Kindle Version)

Again from Howard: "By analogy then, one of the issues that community managers and social network designers need to monitor carefully in the future is what will happen to us as more and more governments recognize the power of social media? . . . we need to be considering how we will respond when states [and I would add corporations] attempt to turn us into their agents in order to maintain control of their citizens [employees] who happen to be using our networks or communities to challenge the status quo." (Lines 5009+, his emphasis)

So not only does Howard question that only inherent good stems from social change, but he also posits the problematic consequences of potential power relations when those in control become aware of the production of civic virtues that will potentially lead to social change. No doubt, he presents an image of societies and cultures whose values and loyalties are tested more than ever. Where do/will we stand and how prepared will we be when values that currently appear consistent with one another are juxtaposed and in need of adjudication?

Reading and Writing a Storytelling Culture

It seems as if the class has hit some of the key points right on the head thus far (in our blog posts and other discussions) that Tharon wants us to consider. The path from the notion of the death of the author evolving into the death of the producer, then into the awareness of a multiplicity of producers in a not-so-linear rhetorical situation have definitely culminated (at least to some degree in this writer's eyes) with Denning's and Lessig's works, respectively.

After last week's lecture I started realizing that I have been reading many of the works we have read to this point within, perhaps, the lens of a vulgar Marxist. In other words, I have been learning, from the readings, ways to evaluate the world, its cultures, and its cultures' images, particularly to look for the (often economic) power relations at work in the various forms of digital text we've been investigating. This, so that I might understand how my (and others') subjectivities, along with our supposedly "natural" dispositions comprising those subject positions, are being interpellated by systemic social structures. This has not been completely deliberate. I don't consider myself a vulgar Marxist, e.g., I don't adhere to a notion of ideology as "false consciousness" or believe there is an immanent "correct consciousness," yet I believe to some extent, perhaps from my period of time as an English Major, that I've been trained to look at all texts in a way similar to this. In the most simplistic terms, hegemony=bad, criticism=good, is how my own orientation has been at work. The problem with this terministic screen, if you will, however, is that it is anti-production (except regarding producing critique, of course). 

So when Tharon challenged us on Tuesday to start thinking of ways to interpellate our audiences with our projects, to produce formations of habitus (socialization on multiple levels, even, perhaps, below a discursive consciousness) in our audience, it kind of shook me. It reeked of the manipulation that I have been trained to decry. And yet if there is no "correct consciousness," per se, but rather the rhetorical pull of our own ideologically-weighted biases, why not view our productive capabilities within a counter-hegemonic perspective, or even just an "everything's an argument" perspective (if the hegemony word is too much for the moment)? This was a perfect position in my education to be introduced to Stephen Denning and Lawrence Lessig.

I'll start with Denning. To begin with, let it be said that my own insecurities about interpellating audiences, etc. don't just stem from a (post)Marxist reaction to power relations, but also my own confidence (or lack of it) in my own digital production skill set. This is one of the reasons Denning's Squirrel Inc.: A Fable of Leadership Through Storytelling speaks to me. Rather than arguing that the construction of one's audience's habitus is done through complex acts of subversion and sublation (not to mention, talent and knowledge of up-to-date technologies), Denning argues that it is done through storytelling. He doesn't use terms like habitus, but he is essentially getting at the same thing, even if through a corporate (again, I squirm) analogy about squirrels. Let me just quote some key moments from Denning's text that I've found important and helpful in establishing a new found motivation for what we are doing in 805. Some will speak for themselves, others I will comment on. Then I'll move onto Lessig. Watch, in particular, for the interpellative motives at work in the art of storytelling.

caveat: I don't have page numbers, as I read Denning's text with my Kindle.

"Storytelling is . . . at the center of everything we do in public and private life."

"The conventional wisdom that transformational change can be catalyzed by giving people a reason to change reflects a confidence in pure reason that is as touching as it is deluded."

"A springboard story enables listeners to visualize from a story about change in one context the ideas and actions involved in implementing such a change in an analogous context. In this way the change becomes the listeners' idea."

"Talking about the listeners' problems is one way of getting their attention." This is beyond user-experience, though, which just caters to the audience. This is using the audience's terms as a point of departure in which to begin interpellating habitus. Then . . .

"The object of the storyteller is to enable the listeners to discover the truth for themselves."

"Isn't this a trick on the listeners? It's really my idea, and I'm tricking them into thinking it's their own idea?" "Not really. It's up to the listener whether to invent a new story for themselves. They're not being deceived. The story they tell themselves really is their own story, not your story. Each listener imagines a slightly different story, depending on her own situation." I'm not sure about the bartender's response in this last quote, it sounds a bit like hedging, if you ask me. I'll take it, but I'd have preferred a Bakhtinian response about dialogism--that no one's text is really his or her own, but is always informed (even constructed) by encounters with past works.

Nevertheless, these passages lead me directly to Lessig. Lessig is concerned with the art of remixing and is particularly engaged in a politic to perpetuate what he calls Read/Write ("RW") culture. By RW culture he means a culture that allows the remixing of "original" artistic creations for the production of new ideas and expression. This is in contrast, to a degree, with Read/Only ("RO") culture, or culture that disallows such mixing through strict copyright laws. Lessig argues for the preservation of both cultures, but is most critical of the opposition against RW. Some great examples of RW cultural productions that Lessig mentions can be found here, here, and here. All three (referenced in pages 71-76) are really quite good. Click on "Audiovisual Art" and then "Read My Lips" on the last example. 

Lessig's work parallels Denning's to a degree regarding the notion of how the real power comes in getting one's audience to believe the ideas are theirs--for what better way to do this than for the audience to take part in the telling of the story? He discusses this in terms of blogging (59),for example, where giving an audience a voice shifts power relations to such a degree that the author (blogger, in this case) will never write the same. Not only does the writer become hyper-aware of the the interpretation of her texts, but may even come to appreciate and benefit from criticisms of them. Lessig's anecdote (storytelling) of Judge Posner's anger about being "surrounded by sycophants" (66) I felt to be especially powerful. 

Where Lessig departs form Denning is that he is not afraid to state that hierarchical power relations still lie exist in a Read/Write culture, or a storytelling culture where the audience participates. A brave passage where he contrasts RO and RW: "One [RO] emphasizes learning. The other [RW] emphasizes learning by speaking. One preserves its integrity. The other teaches integrity. One emphasizes hierarchy. The other hides hierarchy" (87-88, my emphasis). 

And yet, Lessig is still promoting a culture with a very active RW element. Remember my comments at the beginning of this blog? Just in writing this I am already becoming more comfortable with the idea of becoming a producer of habitus. 

There, I said it. Now let's do it.

Help! My Blog is Writing Itself! (What, too soon?)

The discussions that followed Glen's last post (and probably this week's as well) seem strangely ominous in hindsight. It seems all too easy to move from last week's discussion over the poststructuralist notion of the interpellated and unstable subject within digital modes of information and into the fear within the 1990s of the loss of control of the author/producer. Hmmm . . . did someone actually put this reading list together with some sort of successive thought in mind?  

Anyway, control of the text seemed to be a dominant theme in this week's readings, as it should be leading to the production of our first project, web sites, etc. Half-following Nancy Kaplan, who in Chapter One of Evolving Perspectives on Computers and Composition Studies juxtaposed the pervading theories of technological and social determinism, Patricia Sullivan chose the path of the former in "Taking Control of the Page." Or perhaps I should say it (technological determinism) chose her. 

I can't help but wonder how these texts (e.g., Sullivan's, for now) were read and used (since we're talking about the user) when first published. From the future they read as creating (sustaining?) a great fear that this absolute control over a text (or image)--something that poststructuralists and others who never associated themselves with such terminology have been critical of for a while now (as Sturken and Cartwright are smart to point out)--would somehow create a major paradigm shift. And to be fair, no doubt there has been a paradigm shift of sorts because of the new technologies and continual wider access to them. Really, I'm not sure why I read "the fear" in Sullivan's text, in particular. Perhaps it is the use of adjectives like "dark" to describe technology taking over an ill-prepared writer's text right from under his or her fingers. And while I am sure these new publishing technologies have changed the industry, I question whether this absolute authorial control (or at least responsibility for the control) has actually taken place to the extent she feared. For example, to those of us (RCIDers teaching 103) who were fortunate enough to take part in the presentation of the chosen Clemson 103 textbook and handbook by the author and co. (and I do mean "company"), I ask, was the presentation under the control of just one person? For me it felt very corporate (including the well-tanned bureaucrat in tow), not that that is necessarily a bad thing. Or maybe there is more to this social determinism thing than we think.

Nevertheless, for all my politicking about how we should pay more attention to Continental philosophy and others, I must admit, sadly, that a text like Jesse James Garrett's The Elements of User Experience may do more for the acceptance of the sense of the death of the author (or "producer" as Sturken and Cartwright posit) in the pedagogue, the marketer, the web site designer, etc. than a whole host of critical theory books every will.

One of the coolest things about what Garrett's doing--albeit in a much more sterile way than the many thought-provoking images Sturken and Cartwright analyze)--is he is promoting the notion that the creation of a text with a stable meaning whose interpretation should always go back to the intention of the author, should be forgotten, or at least is ill-perceived. Focusing on the concept of user experience as the key to strong and effective web design, I daresay, should change how one thinks about communication, rhetoric, and audience control of a text, in general—whether hip to postmodernism or not. (I do have concerns about this knowledge seemingly (mythically) being produced within and for a capitalist ideology, but that's for another discussion.)

Again, this is getting so wordy for a blog, IMHO. Let me quickly show you what I meant above by placing Garrett’s name with critical theorists. The following quotes and ideas come from Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright’s Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture, and yet could they be applied to Garrett’s description of user experience?

“Reading and interpreting images is one way that we, as viewers, contribute to the process of assigning value to the culture in which we live” (46).

“The viewer or consumer has emerged as the locus of creative production" (89).

Sure, a few words here and there could be shifted around, but there are a lot of similarities going on here, and from very different camps. Food for thought?

Lastly, I want to throw some questions at/to you all. Though I thoroughly enjoyed Sturken and Cartwright’s theoretical approach to deciphering visual media, I took(take) issue with their word choice(s). Does anyone else have issues with the constant “re” in everything? Reproduction, representation, etc. I know they are appropriating this from Stuart Hall (whom I admire greatly), but I ask, is there no more room for productions and presentations anymore? Or are they thrown out with the death of the producer? Maybe it is just a matter of language? Doesn’t the “re” in everything allude to an original somewhere that they would argue never existed? Or if it did exist, is it in the form of social and cultural processes that are in actuality overdetermined in meaning, and thus unstable as well? In this case shouldn't ideology have a "re" in it? Is all just parody to them, or pastiche? It seems to be pastiche, in the postmodern/postmarxist tradition; however, if all is pastiche, wouldn’t everything be representation, and therefore, nothing be? Perhaps they explained this and I missed it, but the term sounds so Platonic. I’m riffing off of last week again, to some extent, but any thoughts on the word play? Next time I promise not to end with questions.