Home
Special thanks go to Brooke Knight, Helen Thorington and Jo-Anne Green for their generous hospitality and, of course, to all the panelists for such insightful conversation. Stay tuned for the archived video.
For anyone interested, our discussion will be webcast live and then archived on the Floating Points web site.
I'm also looking forward to some calm and quiet, so I've decided not to bring my laptop. This means I won't be checking my email anytime between tomorrow and Saturday, so if anyone needs anything it's probably best to ask now.
David Morley, 2003. What's Home Got To Do With It? : Contradictory dynamics in the domestication of technology and the dislocation of domesticity, European Journal of Cultural Studies 6(4): 435-458.
In Colour Associations, Galton provides anecdotal evidence for each of the figures below. For example:

He also describes the synaesthetics:
And if you're a social history of science geek, it's amazing again. Galton's theory and methodology are thoroughly explained: from the variety of human nature ("the instincts and faculties of different men and races differ in a variety of ways almost as profoundly as those of animals in different cages of the Zoological Gardens") to statistical methods ("the possibility of doing this is based on the constancy and continuity with which objects of the same species are found to vary"), composite portraiture ("the effect is to bring into evidence all the traits in which there is agreement, and to leave but a ghost of a trace of individual peculiarities") and its description, and the observed order of events ("the conditions that direct the order of the whole of the living world around us, are marked by their persistence in improving the birthright of successive generations").
Charles Stivale provides an excellent summary in English, although L'Abécédaire often reminds me more of a bestiary than a primer.
In A Thousand Plateaus' Treatise on Nomadology (also), we learn that "it is false to define the nomad by movement" - and that movement should be distinguished from speed - but the implications are perhaps made clearer when he and Parnet discuss V comme voyage :
Read Democratizing Innovation by Eric Von Hippel, MIT Press, 2005
Also:
Centre for the Study of Invention and Social Process, Department of Sociology, Goldsmiths College
Hmm. Maybe now I can stop having these ridiculous discussions with myself about missing the Motörhead show in town next week while I moderate the final Floating Points panel in Boston.
And if I could stop thinking about Motörhead long enough to stop laughing, I might actually be able to listen to Jon Udell narrate the evolution of Wikipedia's awesome Heavy metal umlaut page.
My dissertation also calls on Bakhtin's position on ethics, but what really appeals to me here is Biella's focus on the "labour" of ethics and the understanding that an ethical life (however one defines it) is constant hard work. A codified set of universal rules or guidelines may have the best of intentions, but emerges already crippled in its ability to negotiate everyday risks and adapt to changing circumstances. As she points out, crisis is particularly fruitful for engaging others and renewing our ethics but, in times of crisis, people "sometimes cling too literally to codified norms" and action can too easily be supplanted by abstraction.
Bringing this back into technological terms, I remember that technologies have rarely, if ever, emerged as anticipated or predicted--and so establishing ethical guidelines for technologies that don't actually exist seems particularly dangerous to me.
Update (later) - Prompted by recent comments I thought I should mention that when I wrote this I wasn't thinking of, or referring to, Adam Greenfield's ethical guidelines for ubicomp. And actually, now that I do think about them, he raises some interesting points and I'd really like to see more discussion about what might constitute an ethics for pervasive computing. Especially given Bakhtin's reservations.
"The fallacy is to think that social networks are just made up of people." Yes, exactly!! This is related to my recent gripes about a tendency towards modelling people in functional, essential or systemic terms. You know, very machinic. And in part it's a problem connected to the use of discrete and singular categories. For example: social interaction is only about people, systems are only about (open or closed) systemic relations, etc.
The post I linked above gives a nice overview of 'object-centred sociality' or what Karin Knorr Cetina calls 'objectual practice'. He's interested in 'socio-material networks', or just 'activities' or 'practices' instead of social networks. I get that--I also focus a lot on practice or what we do rather than what we think. And I see a lot of what we do having little or nothing to do with functionality or systems.
But here's where I get really interested. In the post Jyri writes "in my experience, developers intuitively 'get' the object-centered sociality way of thinking about social life". Oh, I want to know more! I've had many conversations with programmers about these perspectives on sociality, and I've more often than not heard the coder exclaim "Of course! Like object-oriented programming!" Um, well, only sort-of.
Now Russ Beattie was totally impressed by Jyri's post, and what he says reminds me of conversations I've had with my friends Bob and Diego. And I think they really do get it - or more specifically they get that some things we do just aren't amenable to code. They get that when it comes to people, code is limiting but not determining. I also think that most, if not all, people take for granted that we're linked together through things. And I'm interested in what constitutes these things and how they connect--because it is in those definitions and relations that code takes shape.
For different social and cultural takes, Adrian Mackenzie has done some really interesting work on software and sociality, and my students liked Steve Graham's discussions of the software-sorted society. And now there's also a growing body of design and innovation studies: Jyri's PhD sounds fascinating, as does Alex Wilkie's doctoral project.
Paolo Freire was pretty hardcore but I like him.
Searching For Paulo Freire: Classnotes For My Students by Amardo Rodriguez
Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing: The Paradox of Critical Pedagogy by Becky Flores
As I've written before, I think the animist take is a bit off, but I do think there is much to be gleaned from more nuanced understandings of anthropomorphism and delegation - and how they relate to morality. But really, I just want to know more about how he is defining and using "network" and "system" - and how that impacts relations between people and technology.
(via)
The rhetoric here is amazing and I edge closer and closer to believing that "human-centred computing" is nothing more than marketing. Exactly what human values are being celebrated when the goal is for users to understand even less about how computers are working for, around, and against us?


Merci Tobias!
via 21f
Le Révolution tranquille - Quiet Revolution - in Québéc fascinates me not primarily because of its (interesting enough) politics, but because profound social changes occurred in public and private - at the level of the everyday - without violence and only in a short time. I also read somewhere that as new identities and practices became possible, there was a sort of creative outpouring in music, theatre, literature, art, film, cuisine. I like this connection between revolution and sensual expression.
And where hackability plays to some, re-mix plays to others:
© Copyright Anne Galloway 2001-2008. This web site's content is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Some rights reserved. Powered by Blogger and hosted by Dreamhost.