BANKS+Habits+Talents+neuroses

Do you have more trouble articulating your frame (social theoretical questions) or object? The object. Social theoretical questions motivate me and the object mostly has to keep my interest. Thus, (as will be articulated later on) I find myself describing my object of study as, “A vacant lot and all of the pre-figured planning that goes into it, and what plans individuals have for it. This is also similar to my condom vending machine, but sort of the opposite…” And it goes on for another 20 minutes. I am, essentially, interested in power relations and new forms of horizontally-organized sociotechnical arrangements. I like all of my “field sites” but only because they let me study my questions. That does not mean, however, that anything that lets me think about these social theoretical questions is fair game. I would be bored to death studying a cooperatively owned paper factory (for example) but an open-source community wifi network gets me excited.

 Do you tend to project-hop or to stick to a project, and what explains this? I project hop. Mainly because specific parts of any given project interest me, but then there are tons of areas that I just don’t care about and don’t find interesting. I also start losing my project focus. I might go off on tangents, which may draw me to totally other projects or radically alter the existing one. Again, I’m pursuing the idea of technologies of public space and horizontally organized sociotechnical arrangements. I might start looking at community wireless, but then parts of the affiliated Freedom Square project also start to seem relevant. Both projects provide insights into power dynamics between privileged artists/professionals and

 Do you tend to be more interested in internal dynamics, or external determinations? In the terms laid out by Keller, do you tend to focus so intently on the object of your concern that context falls away (i.e. are you obsessive compulsive, rather than paranoid)? Is your desire is to name, specify and control your object? Is your desire is for figure, its ground your annoyance? Or are you paranoid, context being your focus and obsession? All is signal. Only begrudgingly will you admit that something is noise, outside the scope of your project? Figure is hard to come by. Its ground has captured your attention. Paranoid. I am interested in assemblages, dubious unities, and the local instantiations of what used to be called “Large Technological Systems.” The condom project is not just about developing a technology that provides private prophylactic purchasing. It’s also about global supply chains, intellectual property, and the NGO class.

 What do you do with unusual or counter examples? Are you drawn to “the deviant,” or rather repulsed by it? I feel as though counter-examples should bother me, given my proclivities for searching out context and large questions, but I’m actually very interested by the fly in the ointment.” More than anything I’m interested in others’ efforts to (re) establish boundaries to outsiders and (re) define in-group status. Generally I like it when I observe something that seems like it should go in one direction but ends up going somewhere totally different.

 Do you tend to over-impose logics on the world, or to resist the construction of coherent narratives? I like to separate my thick descriptions from the theoretical analysis so I tend to “resist the construction of coherent narratives.” I never expect a theory to describe the totality of what I see, nor will it give me an all-encompassing explanatory device. I really love reading and thinking about theory, and writing through various established theories, but when it comes to working out or explaining what I see happening in the world I am really trying to use theory sparingly.

 Do you tend to over-generalize, or to hold back from overarching argument? I think I tend to look for generalizable concepts, ideas, or observations within an individual project. That can sometimes lead to over-generalizing. I think I tend to say, “this project is an example of x” but I try to qualify the argument as much as possible.

 Do you like to read interpretations different than your own, or do you tend to feel scooped or intimidated by them? Not totally sure I understand this question. I feel “scooped” sometimes but it is generally not because of a different interpretation but because of a very similar one I might have made. I do feel intimidated, especially when I read a book that’s 20 years older or more and they took 4 years to collect data. I may never get the opportunity to spend that long on a single project.

 Do you tend to change an argument as you flesh it out, or do you tend to make the argument work, no matter what? Yes, I always end up changing an argument or convincing myself out of one theory and into another. Writing helps me distill and collect my thoughts, so sometimes I will write up a discussion and realize I need to alter my approach. This happens so often that I have given up on anything other than very broad and simple outlines.

 Do you tend to think in terms of “this is kind of like” (metaphorically)? Do you hold to examples that “say it all,” leveraging metonymic thinking? Yes I do like to work in metaphors, but only if they illustrate a very abstract point, or they explain an obscure or esoteric idea through a very popular one. Also, because I like to project hop, I will invariably try to draw connections and point out differences between two projects.

 Do you like gaming understanding in this way? Does it frustrate you that your answers often don’t fit easily on either side of the binaries set up by the questions? (Jakobson suggests that over attachment to a simple binary scheme is a “continuity disorder.”) No, I am generally not worried or annoyed when binaries aren’t upheld or “respected.” I think I’ve been thoroughly exposed to enough Donna Haraway and “We Have Never Been Modern” kind of thinking that I’m more on the lookout for objects that embody or display the characteristics of chimeras or cyborgs.