However, the response to my paper at the recent AoIR conference got me thinking that perhaps it is wrong of me to do so. If I'm going to deconstruct and understand the debate about fear and risk in the digital, and articulate for a more careful and nuanced understanding of it, I should take up my position within the discourse and defend it from within.
When I came across this blogpost about the idea of the risk presented by corporate ownership of digital space, I felt this presented me with the opportunity I needed to jump into the waters. While I don't normally use my piece of the I-Space to engage with others in debates, I felt it was time I started to do so.
Ethan Zuckerman was responding to a blogpost from a fellow Concordia student, Michael Leczner, on this. Ethan says:
He makes the interesting point that, as people start spending more of their time, energy and creativity in these spaces, they're living large pieces of their lives in environments owned by companies that may or may not have their best interests at heart. An important aspect of their life is tied to a specific company, its fortunes and its policies. Michael proposes an open source project to create a community space that's free of some of these encumbrances.
While I definitely welcome the idea of more open source spaces in which to be digital, what I take issue with is the artificial duality and apparent ahistoricity of the arguments put forth.
I have a problem with any aspect of the digital discourse that position life in the digital as being inherently or fundamentally different from life in the corporeal. While I understand that was not the point of their posts, not for Michael nor for Ethan, it is certainly one of the messages that come across.
The idea of living in spaces that are owned by other companies and having important aspects of human life sewn up by corporations is certainly not new or unique to the digital. The dawn of feudalism and the birth of capitalism took care of that. While I embrace the idea of open source, I do not it believe it is the answer to any ills of digital capitalism.
If someone wants to argue for the point of digital life's risks as being a case of the intensification of a phenomenon that's been going on since the 1600s, that is great. I am all for it. But I think it is important to be attentive to the side messages given off when discussing open source or free wireless or what not. The framing of these issues often implies an oppositional disconnect with human experience. These discussions need to be careful that they do not contribute an imaginary panicked discourse that simultaneously mythologizes life in the digital and presents it as a whole new and risky space, effectively therefore disconnecting it from human history.
3 comments:
That's so well said. I'm completely with you on the "ahistoricity is bad" thing. I learned that from reading this book:
Constructing the Self, Constructing America: A Cultural History of Psychotherapy
You're right to highlight that point. I'm not sure how to avoid it in the argument. The one thing I wonder if you're taking into account is that my priority is not trying to give a truthfull account, it's to ellicit action. Two different goals, two different languages as well as different content (and obviously I'm addressing a different audience)
And I don't think that opensource solves all problems, but it has an important role to play in the Balance of Power politics of tech.
thanks for the good criticism!
I think we can elicit action in a rational and realistic way, without resorting to dualistic doomsday or mythic arguments that artificially create fears. In fact, having just recently come out of big business, I can tell you that this mytholigizing/demonizing discourse is a primary reasons why many corporations still reject open source software. Perhaps the way to avoid the dualism then is to position the argument for open source as a way of learning from the mistakes of the past and trying to find a more collaborative and less capitalistically restricted approach to software and net management?
I could try to disagree with you - but I think I wouldn't do a nuanced enough job here. You're right about what you're saying but if we were in person I would arguing that there is a need to make this an emotional and political issue, and not just to dispassionately present the pros vs. cons. But I take your point.
Post a Comment