Costelloe-KuehnMemo13


 * < aims ||< questions ||< data collection ||< emerging arguments ||< literatures ||
 * < generate new knowledge about radical movements that have largely been ignored by "social movements" studies (at least the SM theory in sociology that I am familiar with).

explore and articulate visions of alternative futures and contemporary experiments in new forms of collectivity with social scientific/STS conceptual-theoretical toolkit. ||< what are the double-binds presented by the "state" to anarchist-inspired movements or movements for "radical democracy?" (what is the role of anarchistic ethics and practices in alternative/progressive media production?)

note: while I am interested in "anarchistic" theory and experiments in practice, it could be a politico-scholarly dangerous move (funding, tenure, etc...). perhaps i should use a variant of "democracy" instead (radical democracy (Laclau & Mouffe), Appadurai's "deep democracy," etc.). ||< literature review on "anarchistic" movements (especially the "global justice movement" (with focus on environmental justice) and Independent Media Centers, in the last decade or so).

lit. review on anarchistic theory (the classics, "post-anarchists" like Day, anthropologists like Graeber).

interviews with tactical, alternative, community media activists. in semi-structured settings, try to draw out their strategies and thoughts on the double-binds presented by the state. ||< We do not live in a "post-state" world. "The state," however, cannot entirely be separated from powerful multinational corporations and global organizations. Some would even argue that many "democracies" actually fit more closely with Mussolini's definition of fascism. Anarchistic movements envision a world where alternative forms of collectivity render both the state and large corporations relatively "irrelevant" and powerless. They are "anti-" state and large corporations because they believe they are key producers of violence (both "direct" - in the case of wars and "police actions" - and less so (as in the grossly uneven exposure to risk and reward distributed through the shared environment). Yet anarchistic movements and individuals still often engage in what could be called "harm reduction" strategies that involve collaboration and co-existence with the state (various branches of the government and state-funded organizations) and corporations (buying video cameras, laptops, etc. necessary for the production of alternative and tactical media.

Contrary to popular conceptions, many anarchistic actors do not strive for a single and sudden "revolution" (although periods may certainly be marked by both ruptures and continuities) in which a "utopia" is reached once and for all. Rather they are interested in creating alternatives now (building new forms "in the shell of the old") that may gradually sap away power from the state and large corporations. Thy see democracy as "impossible" in the sense that it is an imaginary that, to approach it, requires an ethics of continual, ongoing struggle. ||< Some of Derrida's late work helps to re-articulate anarchistic visions of (im)possible democracies (future anterior, unpredictable "la democratie a-venir," differance, impossibility, etc.). Agamben's"coming community" is useful, especially when pluralized (communit//ies//) by Day. Deleuze's rhizome is a resource for developing new imaginaries of non-hierarchical, collaborative organization and thinking. Many other poststructuralists can be put in interesting conversation with anarchistic theory and practice.

Day provides a useful review of classic anarchist texts (which I have little familiarity with) in relation to what he calls the "newest social movements," including tactical/alternative media activists.

Fortun's chapter on "anarchism and it's disconents" is extremely useful and largely inspired this aim and question. ||
 * < this aim differs somewhat from the 1st in that it is more focused on actual empirically-understandable national contexts, as opposed to imaginaries of "the state" in general terms.

above, I am interested more in the rather "grand" theorizing of activists. here, i want to understand how two very different (and similar) contexts (shaped my government, law, "cultures," etc.) - namely India and the U.S. - constrain and enable different forms of collectivity and practice (tactical media/environmental justice). ||< how do particular, situated positions in power-structures "create" new forms of resistance?

in what ways do the interactions between nation-states and social movements shape local practices - "local strategies for making sense, making names, making stories" (Traweek, Border Crossings, 446)?

(how does the national policy context constrain and enable particular orientations and forms of "alternative" media?)

What is the "media ecology" of these national contexts? ||< internet research on wide array of tactical media/environmental justice organizations and their practices and styles.

interviews with tactical media/environmental justice activists and perhaps also policy-makers, mainstream journalists...

representations of alternative media in mainstream media of the U.S. and India.

representations of U.S. alternative media in the Hindu: [|example]. Compares the two national contexts and alternative media scenes and profiles Democracy Now!'s coverage of "Indian" issues. "Offbeat programmes that are relevant are still out of reach in India." ||< India has a huge number of NGOs involved in environmental justice initiatives. Increasingly, there is also a rising alternative media sector. There may now be an emerging Indian media activism sector with similarities to the emerging environmental movements of the 80s and 90s.

Interestingly, alternative media sometimes receives quite a "charitable reading" from staff writers at the Hindu, "India's National Newspaper." [|Example.] This article highlights the ways in which mainstream journalists have also been negatively effected by shifts in the media structure and policy: "Editors and working journalists were the victims in the process and they found themselves unable to fight back in the absence of strong trade unions, she said." I have rarely seen any coverage of alternative media in the U.S.'s big newspapers.

Critiques of the mainstream media that I have found published in the mainstream media often are limited to the ways in which the mainstream media serve elites and don't tell the "real" truth or portray the "real" India. Perhaps alternative media projects could highlight their "strong objectivity" instead of engaging in the old notions of "journalistic objectivity" - terms of the debate often set by institutionalized, corporate, mainstream media.

In the U.S., GW Bush's administration and actions may have been a huge impetus for tactical media activism. It will be interesting to see how tactical media, environmental justice, and "progressive" movements generally respond to the election of Obama.

Although there has been increasing consolidation in ownership and control of the ("old") media in both the U.S. and India, "new" media (distributed over the internet and made with relatively cheap and available mobile technologies) has provided "parallel" opportunities that are not largely affected by deregulation and consolidation of "the" media. But "new" media leaves many people out. It may enable middle-class activists and further marginalize those without access to computers, the internet, their own personal equipment, etc. For this reason community-media centers (which are highly affected by law, consolidation, funding, etc.) still play an important role in creating and maintaining more democratic flows of information.

"But with indigenous radio still caught between the devil of government control over news and current affairs, and the deep sea of popular entertainment programming on private FM channels, such offbeat programmes are at present accessible in the country only through the Internet (//www.democracynow.org//) (Joseph, in the Hindu). ||< read literature on media/ICTs and social movements (especially those engaged in environmental justice/global justice) in India and the U.S.

lit. on environmental justice and information flows, strategies, technologies. ||
 * < Generate new knowledge about the "newest social movements" (Day) and the complexities inherent in their interaction with structural and institutional factors. This focus on "large" factors cannot entirely be separated from fine-grained ethnographic analysis of the emic articulations, material practices and enunciatory communities that emerge in relation to these double-binds. ||< besides (or in interaction with) the state, what institutions, discourses, formations of expertise, etc. present the most influential double-binds to the newest social movements, and in what ways?

how do tactical media producers negotiate double-binds of dominant discourses on "objectivity," "bias," and (journalistic?) "expertise?"

how do activists negotiate the double bind of "preaching to the choir?" in many struggles, it is important to focus energy on strengthening ties, deepening commitment, generating expertise, organizing internally, etc. but it is also often crucial to enroll new members, shift public opinion, foster alliances (sometimes with "the enemy"), etc.

What are the promises and pitfalls of "non-hegemonic" strategies that "run in parallel" to dominant institutions and structures?

These questions about journalistic objectivity and bias seem like an easy (obvious, anyway) entry point into studying "alternative media," but they might pull me away a bit from my interests in ICTs used by activist groups for information sharing, networking, community building, etc. where "validity" is not such an issue. ||< discourse analysis of tactical media "texts" (news pieces, public artworks, web 2.0 projects like hacked cartographies, etc.)

analysis of critiques of legitimacy of "alternative" media and their responses.

interviews: alt. media people, their critics (journalists? journalism schools?) ||< Certainly the view of indymedia as "biased" is a powerful factor. Even "progressives" that I have talked to seem to discount indymedia as more passion than "fact." Indymedia producers can respond in different ways. Should/do they question fundamental notions of objectivity and bias? If they do they could open themselves up to accusations of "relativism." But they can also point out the "bias" of the mainstream media and help their "readers" read better. STS might help in negotiating this double-bind, and could itself be changed in the encounter.

The fact that people watch something like 5 hours of TV a day on average in the U.S. may make it difficult for them to "hear" media with different aesthetics and forms. They can attemp to "ape" mainstream aesthetics, but they usually partly also develop a more DIY feel - which is sometimes appropriated by the mainstream media. ||< Social movements lit. (primarily sociology?) and contrast with Day's concept of the "hegemony of hegemony" and his mapping of the "newest social movements" that are experimenting with non-hegemonic strategies and forms of collectivity. Could they been seen as "experimental" (vs. testing) systems in Rheinberger's sense?

Neoliberal literature on the changing status of the state. ||
 * < generate new knowledge about strategies contesting dominant discourses or developing alternative discourses that run in parallel.

learn about the knowledge-production and circulation practices of social movements. ||< how do "dominant" discourses interact with "counter-" or "parallel" accounts in different media? what are the most effective forms of counter-hegemonic discourse?

neoliberalism is one important discourse I would like to look into, but also more "local" discourses that seem to most forcefully structure practices and subjectivities in particular cases. ||< discourse analysis

interviews

but how to measure "most effective?" ||< strategies:

a) contest the dominant discourses "on their own terms"

b) attempt to shift the terms of the debate

c) develop alternative discourses that work in parallel. ||< "metanarrative" concept from that book we read in policy studies...

foucault's work on discourses (and scattered paragraphs on resistance)

kuhn's "paradigm," accretion of anomalies, then revolutions. updates: lakatos, pickering (mangle of practice). ||
 * < Better understand attempts at mediated "education," including effects for educators and students. ||< How can manipulations of symbols provide a cognitive and practical approach to helping people understand various hidden ideologies (i.e. neoliberalism) and at the same time subvert them?

How are theory and practice intertwined in critical media literacy education? How does CML edu. compare and contrast with "educational" tactical media "spectacles?" Can these spectacles be successfully in going beyond "preaching to the choir?" ||< interviews with "teachers" and "students" of media literacy.

interviews with "educators" that engage with the public through tactical media projects. ||< "be the media" workshops teach people (often children) "critical media literacy" while/through giving them the tools and expertise required to produce their own media. the "literacy" skills gained are remarkably similar to those taught in advanced research methods classes on discourse analysis. teaching people the general skills to deconstructively "read" dominant discourses may be as important as directly challenging them.

There are limits to "symbolic" strategies. But work with symbols cannot entirely be separated from material grids and horizons. "Imaginaries" and the technical/material contexts of action are intertwined. ||< look into feminist notions of "praxis."

paolo freire's participatory, emancipatory education.

critiques of "participation" (see Ron Eglash's recommendations).

Haraway's "material-semiotic" and Pickering's "mangle." || Harvey's "a brief history of neoliberalism," stuff on the global justice movement (Graeber, Day). || Day Deleuze Agamben Derrida ||
 * < I want to understand the double-binds presented by neoliberalism - a forceful, powerful discourse that shapes lives and is a matter of "life and death," as Haraway has recently argued. ||< How does alternative media production, and community-based initiatives more generally, play into and contest neoliberal discourses and practices? ||<  ||< It will be interesting to see how neoliberalism is affected by recent politico-economic changes in the U.S. and throughout the world: the bailouts, global economic crisis, Obama. ||< Ong's "neoliberalism as exception,"
 * < i want to study contemporary, emergent, experimental forms of collectivity that may prefigure a radically different form of social organization on a larger scale - or perhaps resist "scaling up" and may point to the importance of localism. ||< does overcoming the "hegemony of hegemony" open up new possibilities for social change and "radical democracy?" ||<  ||< I think Day's articulation of the possibilities and necessity of developing "non-hegemonic" practices should be "tempered" with the concept of double-binds. The aftermath of Bhopal illustrates how the state sometimes needs to be negotiated with as a matter of life & death. ||< Gramsci
 * < i want to understand contemporary technological "tactics" ("repertoires of contention") and the factors that constrain or enable their "success." ||< what are the roles of "media" or "ICTs" in social movements? what new strategies and tactics are enabled by the rapid circulation of information, globally? is it changing collaboration? ||< compare across a few different issues, briefly.

focus on environmental justice movement. ||<  ||< Charles Tilly: "repertoires of contention" developed in book "regimes and repertoires."

Castells Network Society (second book?) on environmental activism and ICTs. || STS democracy theory (Sclove, Feenburg, etc.) ||
 * <  ||< how can the "politics" of technologies be flipped by their "appropriation" (i.e. hardware meant for consumption flipped to transmit independent media by italian telestreet producers: consumption --> production) ||<   ||<   ||< Ron Eglash (ed) Appropriating Technology ||
 * <  ||< how can excluded groups be included? (how can the process and products of "alternative" media democratize technoscience?) ||<   ||<   ||< the digital divide
 * < I want to add in the problematics of "translation" to some otherwise very promising and interesting theories, like the Multitude. ||< what is lost, and gained, in "translation" of technoscientific information for "non-experts?" ||<  ||<   ||< Derrida in "living on": (im)possibility of translation, also Limited Inc. and impossibility of saturating a context.

Hardt & Negri's Multitude. || End of Agamben's "fear of small things," in which he talks about "grassroots globalization." Hardt & Negri's Multitude. Brian Holmes: geopolitics & geopoetics. ||
 * <  ||< "what cultural insights can be revealed through observing a culture's aesthetic values?" (Hahn, T., 50) (i.e. "DIY" aesthetics / "punk" philosophy and stance re: commodification, "transparent production" aesthetics vs. "slick" or "flashy" presentation / self-deconstructive authority vs. technological sublime & "shock & awe.") ||< discourse analysis of alt. media. also draw on theory from critical media literacy. ||<   ||<   ||
 * < The diversity of "causes" and approaches on the "Left" is marvelous in many ways, but it may also be important to develop possible ways of prioritizing and articulating ways to live together. ||< what are the common threads in "progressive" practices, projects, networks? (the media reform movement (i.e. net neutrality) has brought together both "conservative" and "liberal" groups. "alternative" media production uses "alternative" media to inspire hate. is my focus on "progressives" missing a big part of the picture? see "the blog paper" comparing the "enabling" features between left and right wing blogs) ||<  ||<   ||<   ||
 * <  ||< (how does the promise of new ICTs for progressive networking hold up against its commodification and cooptation?) (what are the possibilities and limits of "new" media (Indymedia networks, Web 2.0, blogs, youtube, facebook, etc.) in contrast to (and in combination with) "old" media forms (radio, cable, print, satellite, film, documentary, etc.)?) ||<   ||< I'm not sure "cooptation" is the most useful way to think about the "non-political" uses of Web 2.0 technologies. Aesthetic choices do seem to be "appropriated" by the mainstream media. ||<   ||
 * <  ||< how have emergent new media technologies changed the goals and practices of media reform movement/tactical media producers? are struggles over the sociotechnical configurations of "old" media still important, given the proliferation of "free" media on the internet? ||<   ||<   ||<   ||
 * I want to learn more about "transnational activist [advocacy?] networks" (Keck & Sikkink). ||  ||   ||   || Keck and Sikkink