John Ryan MFA Media Design Practices [Lab Track] Thesis Projects & Paper http://thesis.johndryan.me
Declarations of Interdependence Experiments in Networked Interdividualism
JOHN RYAN MFA Media Design Practices [Lab Track] Thesis Projects & Paper http://thesis.johndryan.me
DECLARATIONS OF INTERDEPENDENCE Experiments in Networked Interdividualism
STATEMENT PROJECTS
1 7
CLUSTER AS NODE YOUBY.US QUORUM BROWSING MULTI-PERSONAL COMPUTING SHARED-SELF COMMUNICATION PANOPTICAM MEDIATED MIRROR CROWDSOURCED ALPHA PORTRAITS
PAPER
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
27
1 | INTRODUCTION 2 | INDIVIDUALISM 3 | THE STRATEGIES OF INDIVIDUALISM INHERENT IN THE SOCIAL WEB 4 | TACTICS: BEYOND AN INDIVIDUAL ISTIC SOCIAL WEB 5 | CONCLUSION ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
29 31 35 43 49 51
Since Hobbes’ Leviathan, Locke’s Second Treatise, and Smith’s Wealth of Nations, the individual (her self-interest, self-ownership, and self-agency) has been embedded unquestioningly as the node-level building block of the systems we inhabit: interfaces, networks, nations… The Internet was to usher in a new era — disrupting boundaries at every scale from the Westphalian state to the Lockean Self — and creating utopian conditions for a cybernetic post-individualism: collective consciousness, the global brain. Instead, the contemporary Internet is an ideological Frankenstein: globally-connected collectivism awkwardly fused with neoliberal individualism. We are more interconnected than ever before but our interactions and experiences are discretely individual: radically tailored and meticulously bespoke. This interdividualism places the individual at the centre of a new economy of information, where personal data and self-expression become currency, and market-practices are applied to social relations. The self/citizen/user/agent is repositioned as the pivotal hub in their customised version of the network, which overlaps and interconnects with other network instances, providing every node with a perspective of connectedness that is centred around the individual.
STATEMENT
1
This ubiquitous foregrounding of the I, anecdotally captured in Apple’s product-naming (iPod, iPhone, iLife, etc.), is present at every level of the network stack, from social profile to selfish interface to solipsistic device. Steve Job’s Leviathan sees the sovereign consumer reigning over their own personalised reality; a representation of the ‘social’ that uniquely serves their specific tastes and desires. Challenging User-Centered Design’s assumption that agency must always lie with the individual, my work speculates as to how networked devices, interfaces and systems might be designed with alternative ideological foundations. Incorporating collaborative, collective, and self-effacing interactions, a series of projects (injected at various points across the network stack) counteract, disrupt, and offer alternatives to a technologicallyembedded individualism.
2
3
NETWORK (LOGIC)
NETWORK (NODE)
NETWORK (CONNECTIVITY)
INTERFACE
DEVICE
INTERACTION
PLACE
A series of experiments, prototypes, and systems designed and implemented across the network stack.
PROJECTS 6
7
How might a social network be designed to remove individual representation completely? What might it be like to only be represented in collective form; where the smallest node of the network is a merged group of individuals; a collective entity? This project explores these ideas through graphical mockups of ‘cluster’ profiles across a number of real and fictional networks.
CLUSTER AS NODE 8
9
YouBy.Us is a wiki social network. It inverts the model of existing platforms in which a user’s profile and postings are authored and curated by the individual themselves to present a particular image, YouBy.Us allows your social circle to create and edit your profile, but restricts you from having any direct input. It is a social media platform in which your friends—not you—author your profile. “Discover your crowdsourced self… Let the network define you.” Contribute at www.youby.us
YOUBY.US 10
11
This series of investigations seeks to disrupt the selfish interface of the web browser. What happens when our private browsing experiences are shared with others, or when we need to physically gather a group together to access the web? One Quorum Browsing project is a website that requires a critical mass of viewers from the same location to access it simultaneously before it becomes accessible. The individual act of interacting with a site in a browser is made collective (and social) by requiring the recruitment of others to access the site at the same time— and in the same place—as you. Try the live prototype at: wewewe.johndryan.me Another of these projects disrupts the cursor as an icon of self-agency and individual control.Instead, it provides an experience of others’ interactions through a shared cursor that every connected user collectively controls to complete a shared task.
QUORUM BROWSING 12
13
The screen, the mobile device, the personal computer, the network node: the devices that mediate our interactions are individualising by their very nature. What alternatives, or tactical repurposing, might allow-for, encourage or demand collaborative interactions? This series of prototypes each incorporate affordances that require collaboration. The Multi-User Keyboard requires two or three users to begin using the computer. Personal++ Computer is a small application which disables individual computer use. Running in the background, it deactivates the screen unless it can identify a minimum of two users in front of the computer’s webcam.
MULTI-PERSONAL COMPUTING 14
15
How might self-effacing and identity-merging communication technologies alter the ways in which we communicate one-to-one online? This prototype integrates Arturo Castro and Kyle McDonald’s OpenFrameworks Face Substitution algorithms with Skype to create video communication that substitutes your face with the other person’s in real time.
SHARED-SELF COMMUNICATION 16
17
Much of contemporary social media is about sharing the unique perspective of the individual with a collective audience. This life-streaming makes the individual’s everyday, mundane experiences shared and accessible. Panopticam plays out this trend to an extreme. The prototype continually shares a 360° view of the wearer’s surroundings to a custom version of Google’s Street View, allowing for interactive, real-time browsing.
PANOPTICAM 18
19
If a mirror is the classic interface for experiencing your own presence, what would a technologically-mediated mirror be like that doesn’t let you see your own face? This is a prototype of such a mirror. A Microsoft Kinect camera tracks the movement of users’ heads, and a Processing sketch turns the mirror that is perpendicular to them, obscuring their reflection. The prototype works with multiple users, allowing them to see other faces, but never their own.
MEDIATED MIRROR 20
21
This interactive piece plays out the Self-foregrounding dynamics of the social web in a physical installation. An over head camera tracks visitors as they walk through the exhibition space, looking for groups and identifying the individual who is at the focus of that group. Once identified, a second camera captures their face and begins to draw a large portrait on a sheet of paper hanging on the wall, behind a grand frame. Once complete, the portrait only remains for a moment before the system identifies another individual and scrolls the previous portrait out of view to begin the next drawing.
CROWDSOURCED ALPHA PORTRAITS 22
23
Paper 26
27
Like other tools before it, the Internet reflects the ideological conditions it has developed within. The strategies of the corporately owned social web 2.0 1, which have come to dominate the contemporary Internet, promote a very particular understanding of the Individual, one that heavily promotes the ideals of Western Individualism and Neoliberal Consumerism. This ideological Individualism is embedded deeply within these systems and technologies, designed into their format and function through User-Centered Design methodologies, rigid standardised presences, and adopted marketpractices applied to relational interactions that commodify the individual. These are strategies, as described by de Certeau (1984), used by institutions and power structures to “produce, tabulate, and impose” this ideological understanding of the individual. 2 I believe that Design can encourage and enable a kind of individuality beyond possessive Western Individualism. My work explores tactical approaches that “use, manipulate, and divert” the particular Individualism imposed on us strategically in these networked social spaces. Using tactics that I will refer to as diffusion and multiplexing, I endeavour to move towards a more collective understanding of the social web. As networked life expands beyond the screen into objects and places, I believe that it is crucial to explore tactical design that counteracts, disrupts, and offers alternatives to this technologically-embedded individualism.
1 Web 2.0 is a term that has been in use since approximately 2000 to describe web sites and technologies that go beyond the ‘static’ pages of the earlier web. It implies more usergenerated content and social relations, which enable interactions beyond passive viewing. 2 It is interesting to note how, in the history of the Web, a shift can be perceived from the tactical to the strategic. The presence and communication of a minority of early-adopters in weblogs, chat rooms and IRC networks—means of communicating and forming community that were initially run and owned by the individuals using them (primarily hackers, technologists and academics)—was predominantly tactical. What once was tactical is now strategic; this social and collective use of the web, which has now become mainstream in Web 2.0, takes place almost entirely within the standardised presences of corporately-owned social networks.
1 | INTRODUCTION 28
29
Individualism is “a mode of life in which the individual pursues his own ends or follows out his own ideas.” (Oxford English Dictionary) This ethical egoism (that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest) is a key element in the Western capitalist cultural systems. Modern philosophy, emerging during the Enlightenment, sought to distinguish the individual from society, particularly in the work of key thinkers such as Hobbes and Locke. The freedom to understand one’s own reality, determine one’s own future and decide about one’s own beliefs, brought a liberation from existing religious, class, and other social categories. Individualism was central to the emerging dominant economic system of capitalism—a key reason why it has become so fundamental. Political scientist, C. B. Macpherson (1962) identified this as “possessive” individualism, defined as “those deeply internalized habits of thinking and feeling” whereby we view “everything around [us] primarily as actual or potential commercial property.” (Coleman, 2012) Macpherson’s individual understands themselves, their skills, and those of others as a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market. At the core of possessive individualism lies an insatiable thirst for selfish consumption, which is considered central to human nature. This possessive individualism emerged in an aggressive form with the rise of neoliberal economic policies, following the abandonment of Keynesian policies in the 1970s and 80s (those which advocated more government intervention in the markets). Neoliberal policies seek to increase the role of the private-sector in society through opening markets, deregulating trade, and privatising public service. Neoliberalism understands individual economic freedom as central; reducing government interference in the economy paves the way for the individual
2 | INDIVIDUALISM 30
31
to sustain themselves, and ultimately prosper, in the marketplace. Essentially, the belief is that if each person is given the ‘freedom’ to take control of their lives and prosper, they will do so.
“Neoliberalism… proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade.” (Harvey, 2007, p 2)
At both economic and ideological levels, neoliberalism has profoundly impacted capitalist Western culture. Beyond simply a set of economic policies, it is particularly evident as a broader worldview in attitudes towards the individual and society. Margaret Thatcher famously declared that there was, “no such thing as society, only individual men and women”. (Harvey, p 23) Individualism, private property and personal responsibility for oneself take precedence over social solidarity. We see a subtle shift from the role of the individual as citizen (contributing to and responsible for a society around them) to the role of the individual as consumer (free to earn and buy the life that they desire). Accompanying this, is the subtle logic that individual rights take precedence over individual responsibilities. This rise in individualism contrasts sharply with the reality of our increasing reliance on the global community. Independent living, at least at a material level, is nearly impossible in today’s world, and yet the facade of personal material independence is perhaps more prevalent than ever before. In response to this curious contrast, between the modern trend towards individualism and our increasing reliance on the global community, there is a neoliberal conception of this global connectedness: one which understands and encourages interconnection and interdependence in respect to the market.
As a cultural phenomenon, neoliberalism creates a tendency for the individual to apply the values of the marketplace to all spheres of life, including the social and cultural.
“In personal ethics, the general neoliberal vision is that every human being is an entrepreneur managing their own life, and should act as such.” (Treanor, 2005) In this everything-entrepreneurship, pursuing and expressing individuality is encouraged, insofar as it can be expressed through purchasing power. I am my own person, and I can do whatever I want; I express this through capitalising whenever and however possible, thus providing myself with the liberty to purchase whatever I want in life. In this way, an individualistic understanding of one’s identity, and the importance of the financial conditions to obtain and consume the building blocks of this desired identity, becomes central to sustaining the neoliberal economic system.
“Neoliberal ideology does not produce its subjects by interpolating them into symbolically anchored identities (structured according to conventions of gender, race, work, and national citizenship). Instead, it enjoins subjects to develop our creative potential and cultivate our individuality. Communicative capitalism’s circuits of entertainment and consumption supply the ever new experiences and accessories we use to perform this self-fashioning — I must be fit! I must be stylish! I must realize my dreams. I must because I can— everyone wins. If I don’t, not only am I a loser but I am not a person at all. I am not part of everyone.” (Dean, 2009, p 66) It is this individualism that is not only encouraged, but I believe embedded, within the social networking systems of the contemporary Internet.
“Increasingly, neoliberalism af firms technology’s fantasy of wholeness to tell us who “we” are in a global sense. We are those connected to each other through exchange, the exchange of commodities as well as of contributions. On the Internet, we are free to buy anything from anywhere at any time.” (Dean, 2009, p 56)
32
33
“The design of software builds the ideology into those actions that are the easiest to perform on the software designs that are becoming ubiquitous.” (Lanier, 2010, p 47) The contemporary Internet has become dominated by the presence of social networks. These networks, also referred to as social media, exist as online services or sites that facilitate social interrelations among individuals in networks of varying scales. Predominantly, they feature discrete nodes which represent each individual (e.g. a profile) accompanied by various services which join these nodes as social connections, most often around the ‘sharing’ of text, links and other media. They are predominantly web-based tools, but increasingly exist as mobile applications as well. The social networking landscape is dominated by corporate giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google. The presence of these social networks could be understood as an attempt to fill the gap between “a seductive but alienating possessive individualism on the one hand and the desire for a meaningful collective life on the other.” (Harvey, 2007, p 69) Fundamentally however, these social networking services are individual-centred; they place the individual user at the centre of their own bespoke reality. Why the individual and not the collective? Surely the collective is of primary importance in any understanding of the social. Should the social be limited to a world that revolves around the self?
3 | THE STRATEGIES OF INDIVIDUALISM INHERENT IN THE SOCIAL WEB
The faux social of these networks serves to shape the individual into a more ideal candidate for serving and fuelling the market. At the same time, the network is profiting from their presence. This explicit redefining of the social into that which is consumed by the individual lies at the heart of the strategies of the social networks.
34
35
Strategies, as theorised by de Certeau, manipulate power relationships through their creation of “a place that can be delimited as its own and serve as the base from which relations with an exteriority composed of targets… (customers… [etc.]) can be managed.” (de Certeau, 1984, p 37) These new social spaces are literal abstractions that schematise relationships, implementing strategic network architectures in code that translate these organic structures to the strict, defined, and imposed schemas of the web, which can then be leveraged, controlled, and directed by those in power. The strategies at play include commodification of the individual, User-Centred Design, and creating a myth of freedom whilst enforcing standardised presences.
The free-market self who inhabits the social network, constructing and expressing themselves there, is constantly offered, through advertising, the opportunity to purchase a better self, upgrade their identity, and accessorise their lifestyle with select, relevant consumer products:
“The consumer figures the possibility of enjoyment promised by neoliberalism. Consumption provides the terrain within which my identity, my lifestyle, can be constructed, purchased, and made over. Yet consumption is more than a terrain—the consumer is commanded to enjoy, compelled by the impossible demand to do more, be more, have more, change more.” (Dean, 2009, 67) I consume, therefore I am.
COMMODIFICATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL How is the value of the individual emphasised and interpreted through social networking sites? The individual point of view, although it would seem to lie at the centre of this new social space, is not a priority of the inherent ideology; it is a means to an end. The true value of the individual lies not in their contribution, but in their market value. Although the apparent purpose of these tools may be expressed as social connection, empowering the individual through the ability to communicate, these institutions are first answerable to their shareholders and investors. The line connecting each node in the social network is the (financial) bottom line.
“Since the companies that create social media platforms make money from having as many users as possible visit them (they do so by serving ads, by selling data about usage to other companies, by selling add-on services, and so on), they have a direct interest in having users pour as much of their lives into these platforms as possible.” (Manovich, 2009, p 325) As Manovich describes, these networks are funded commercially, primarily through advertising and selling collated user information. The individual is commodified, literally, as their data is analysed and packaged for advertisers. Earlier in Web history, bloggers began to use advertising to make money from their selfgenerated content; in the social media model, the network makes money from user-generated content.
36
But there is a further commodification of the individual being promoted in these social spaces: these networks enable and encourage a form of possessive individualism which sees the individual literally adopting marketing strategies for themselves. The consumption and commodification of the individual that Macpherson describes is evident in the kind of ‘self-expression’ that social networks perpetuate. The social network self strives to be seen as concurrently unique and conforming; they self-market themselves in a supply-and-demand fashion. They see more value in themselves as they are increasingly consumed. Within the social network, everything becomes a marketing tool for the self, exemplifying the demands of neoliberalism for “flexible, self-starting subjects willing to convert all of life into capital.” (Horning, 2012) The social network strategically fosters an understanding of the individual rooted in consumption. It redefines—and redesigns—the social around an individualistic economy which understands the self as the ultimate commodity:
“In using social media, we become fatally aware of how we can sell ourselves and thus intensify self-marketing practices. We put ourselves forward as a brand in order to register in these commercially oriented, quantification-driven systems.” (Horning, 2012) Moreover, this understanding of the individual is cleverly designed to perpetuate itself. In the attention economy of the social network, if you are not garnering enough attention, then you need to invest more of yourself to earn the attention you deserve. Literal financial investment is even possible, in the case of Facebook’s sponsored posts which allow the user to pay to have their content more prominently featured.
37
I am consumed, therefore I am.
A CRITIQUE OF USER-CENTRED DESIGN The individuals of the web, no matter what the context, are predominantly referred to as ‘users’: implying they are putting the web to use. In these social networks, the term users persists, pointing towards this expectation for the functional and productive. Users are present to produce and consume. The further, and more fundamental, reason behind the use of the term user, and not audience as in old media, is the strategic dominance of individualism. User-Centred Design, the design approach behind many of these services, places the needs and desires of end-users at the centre of the design process. Initially popularised by Donald Norman, this design approach has become central to much contemporary design thinking, particularly interaction design for technology and the web. User-Centred Design centers the design around the user, creating a bespoke world that positions them at its core.1 Here we can see this ideological individualism designed into the very fabric of the systems, technologies and interfaces of social networking. By centring me in my own customised reality, these user-centred services encourage me to select the friend or network that will give the response desired at any given moment. Again, we see the entrepreneurial neoliberal approach: strategic investments in the relational ‘market’ to get the best possible returns. Furthermore, it implies that the user is always right, and, as Woods suggests, “assumes that what individual consumers want will benefit the whole system” (2012).
1 Woods (2012) describes Joseph Weizenbaum’s computer program, ELIZA, which conversed with patients to diagnose medical conditions. It did so via screen-based questions in everyday language that were so convincing participants assumed they were talking to a human being. “Weizenbaum’s experiment is that educated people become very susceptible to suggestion, once they are placed at the centre of their emotional universe.” Could perhaps this centring of the user in the interactions of the social network be interpreted as a strategy to make them more susceptible to suggestions, coercion, and control?
38
In fact, one can curate the community around oneself to be sheltered entirely from anyone with a differing hobby, world-view, or perspective. Such curated communities can reinforce particular expressions of self, forming groups that embody the demographic divisions that define them. Varnelis describes such curated communities as “telecocoons”:
“Given the vast number of possible clusters one can associate with, it becomes easy to find a comfortable niche with people just like oneself, among other individuals whose views merely reinforce one’s own. If the Internet is hardly responsible for this condition, it still can exacerbate it, giving us the illusion that we are connecting with others.” (Varnelis, 2008, p157) Social networking provides an experience of the collective, of the social, that gives the individual ultimate curatorial control. This technological narcissism might be better described as solipsistic rather than social.
“Narcissism is a symptomatic trait of self-identity in the phase of modernity. Consumer capitalism perpetuates the flawed project of self-love which encourages individualism and discourages ‘giving to others’.” (Giddens, 1991, p 173)
THE FREEDOM MYTH OF STANDARDISED PRESENCES “Web 2.0 designs actively demand that people define themselves downward.” (Lanier 2010) The results of User-Centred Design can mask the conforming nature of social networks. The user is given the illusion of being in control, being at the centre, choosing how they use the service; this all serves to mask the ways in which these tools are using us, the user. There is a false freedom in these networks, that doesn’t allow a free individuality, but uses the strategy of consumeristic individualism to enforce conformity. Lanier (2010) describes social networks, such as Facebook, as “standardized presences.” Individuals have control over how they present themselves, but only to the extent that the structures of the system itself allows. The social network’s design to
39
create a fixed format for self-expression reduces people to abstractions. In a literal sense, people become objects; a computer term referring to a particular instance of data in a common format, but referenced by a unique identifier. In these networks, we are represented by such code objects. On this machine level, the ideologicallycontrolled individualism is inherent in the formats, data structures and system architectures of these networks. Facebook’s multiple—choice identities, demographic database fields and ubiquitous ‘Status Update’ textboxes can be interpreted as equivalent to Foucault’s enclosures that mould and—even more so—Deleuze’s controls that modulate people into data ‘dividuals’.
“The numerical language of control is made of codes that mark access to information, or reject it. We no longer find ourselves dealing with the mass/ individual pair. Individuals have become ‘dividuals,’ and masses, samples, data, markets, or ‘banks…’ The disciplinary man was a discontinuous producer of energy, but the man of control is undulatory, in orbit, in a continuous network.” (Deleuze, 1992, p 5)
of conformity. The social becomes not a medium for individual expression, but an engine for assimilation; an ironic assimilation which is fuelled by emphasising the individual. This entire process has not been forced upon us; we have consented entirely throughout.
“For Deleuze, the data gathered on us through the new technologies did not necessarily manifest our irreducible uniqueness. Rather, the very way that the data can be gathered about us and then used for and against us marks us as dividuals… For Deleuze, such technologies indicate that we as discrete selves are not in-divisible entities; on the contrary, we can be divided and subdivided endlessly.” (Williams, 2005) In this way, through being provided with tools designed to enable expressions of our individual uniqueness, we are conformed: stripped of individuality and agency. I am unique and in control, therefore I am… not.
Galloway (2004), discussing Deleuze’s societies of control, explicitly describes computer protocols as “mechanisms of contemporary control” in so far as they “encode appropriate behaviour in advance” (Dean, 2009, p 185). These computational “codes, techniques, and arrangements… distribute and manage” the individual within the social network. Particularly with the ideological focus I previously outlined, we can understand the system from a Deleuzian perspective as transforming us into dividuals by breaking us down to our base component data elements, before recompiling us into ‘useful’ demographic groups for economic purposes.
“The ‘dividual’ —a physically embodied human subject that is endlessly divisible and reducible to data representations via the modern technologies of control, like computer-based systems.” (Williams, 2005) The particular ideological individualism that is promoted and encouraged, enables this dissolution of the self to constituent elements, to be reformed not as individuals but as demographics, ones in which we are powerless. In this way, the ideological individualism of these networks has a normalising effect. The standardised presences of social networks transform individuality into a mode
40
41
“In a world where we post the majority of our personal data online, and states and corporations wield invasive tools to collect and market the rest, there is something profoundly hopeful in… effacement of the self… [It] enables participants to practice a kind of individuality beyond… possessive individualism.” (Coleman, 2012) In the context of the dominant individualistic ideology of the social web, I am primarily interested in exploring tactics for the “effacement of the self”, designing technologically-mediated social experiences and spaces that offer alternatives to these self-centric interactions. My work seeks to disrupt the user from their role as such, defamiliarising the individualism of User-Centered Design and offering alternatives for contemporary connected social spaces. In response to the faux social of such social networks, how might other technological expressions or experiences of the collective provide an alternative to the possessive individualism of neoliberalism? De Certeau (1984, p 37) defines “tactics” as ways to artfully “use, manipulate, and divert” the cultural products and spaces imposed by an external power. He describes tactics that trace “indeterminate trajectories that are apparently meaningless, since they do not cohere with the constructed, written, and prefabricated space through which they move.” (1984, p35) The city, which cannot be tactically reshaped through physical reorganisation, can be adapted to one’s needs by choosing how to move through it. In contrast, network architecture and the format of web-connected client devices allows for a certain amount of adapting and restructuring of its constituent elements. In the context of the web, these social spaces can be broken down into multiple elements to be rebuilt and reshaped, through both endorsed methods—APIs (application programming interfaces), metadata, web feeds and similar protocols—and non-endorsed approaches—hacks, browser overrides, and html scraping.
4 | TACTICS: BEYOND AN INDIVIDUALISTIC SOCIAL WEB
What are the collective tactics that might be deployed within these individualfocussed strategies? I will outline two tactical approaches, which can be understood
42
43
as alternative models for design, that leverage the structure and protocols of these social spaces to subvert, adapt and offer alternative ways to inhabit them. They are built on two conceptions of the Self: diffusion and multiplexing. In interactions that obscure the Individual, either amidst their own data fragments, or amidst the collective, there lies the potential to encourage and enable an alternative approach.
DIFFUSION: EMBRACING THE FRAGMENTED DIVIDUAL Diffusion sees the fragmented individual dispersed across the network: embracing the Deleuzian, subdivided dividual as a means to render the individual “unmappable.” Staying within the defined boundaries of the social network, this approach designs tools and techniques that aim to hide or obscure the individual, or liberate the user from market-oriented consumerism. By welcoming this dissolution of the individual into multiple data elements, we subvert the strategic datagathering systems that mark us as dividuals. Ben Grosser’s Demetricator1 explicitly seeks to remove one important element in the market ideology of Facebook through removing the metrics constantly displayed to the user that “measure and present our social value and activity, enumerating friends, likes, comments, and more.” It is a web browser add-on that hides these metrics: ‘36 people like this’ becomes ‘people like this’ and ‘having 105 friends’ becomes simply ‘having friends.’
“Demetricator invites Facebook’s users to try the system without the numbers, to see how their experience is changed by their absence. With this work I aim to disrupt the prescribed sociality these metrics produce, enabling a network society that isn’t dependent on quantification.” (Grosser, 2012) I developed a similar project shortly before discovering Grosser’s work which also uses javascript within the browser to affect Facebook’s interface. Facebook Anonify 2 aims to disassociate the post and data fragments from the Individuals who posted them by removing all profile photographs and replacing all user’s name with their numeric user id. 1
http://bengrosser.com/projects/facebook-demetricator/
2
http://blog.johndryan.me/post/34657898214/facebook-anonify
44
MULTIPLEXING THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE COLLECTIVE Multiplexing is a technical term used in telecommunications and computer networks that “enable[s] (a line) to carry several signals simultaneously” (Oxford English Dictionary) by combining multiple signals into one over a shared medium. I see multiplexing as a useful metaphor for collective experience that transcends the individual. Collective rituals have a rich history spanning many cultures—musical gatherings, protest crowds, religious congregations, collective storytelling—and can provide alternative models for this multiplexing of the self in the social. Such rituals offer communal, egalitarian, and immersive models for designing collective experiences. I see an opportunity for an experience of the networked individual that is completely engulfed within the collective. In my work, I seek to create technologically-mediated social spaces that interface with the collective; multiplexing the individual in collective experiences and entities which see the collective node take precedence over the individual. A pertinent example lies in the nomadic resistant model of hacker culture, which Galloway (2004) describes. These tactical collective entities, such as Anonymous exist inside the strategic, standardised presences of the web’s protocols, social networks and communication channels. Individuals coalesce around a specific action or problem under the Anonymous banner creating a resistance that originates from many different places. Once complete, the collective dissolves. Numerous designers and artists have also engaged with ways of representing and interacting with the Internet in a more collectivising way. Listening Post by Mark Hansen and Ben Rubin, is one such example. It is an installation that pulls text fragments containing the phrase “I am…” from thousands of chat rooms in real time. These extracts are then displayed on a suspended grid of over 200 small liquid-crystal displays, while at the same time being read by a computer-generated voice. It offers an interesting contrast between the literal individualism of these “I am” conversational extracts and the collective experience of engaging with them all simultaneously. Its format offers both a dissolution of the text from its author and original context, along with multiplexing it into a coherent collective whole.
45
“At a stroke Listening Post fulfils the promise of most Internet-based art, affecting a simultaneous collapse and expansion of time and space with implications ranging from notions of private and public space to individual thought and its role in group dynamics.” (Eleey, 2003) What Listening Post doesn’t offer is any interaction that enables the viewer themselves to contribute to or participate in the collective. PRIZM 1 was a project I undertook to create a multiplexed self in a way that was built directly on user input. PRIZM’s interface takes a selection of personal information through a custom interface which includes a magnetic card swipe (for Driver’s License and other card information), a camera with facial recognition, a custom fingerprint scanner (webcam and threshold image-processing) and a keyboard for text data entry. Over the course of the project’s exhibition, data was collected from visitors. A second screen alongside the input interface displayed continually generated collective identities from the submitted data. The project fell short in the ‘language’ of identity systems that I chose to use. The ID cards, fingerprints and other identity systems in this project, are obviously more associated with strategic systems of power and control rather than a more tactical experience of collective identity. Moving forward, my current work endeavours to link the experience of the collective in Listening Post with the more interactive participation for the user that I was aiming for in PRIZM.
In trying to achieve a dissolution into a group that is not negative, I am primarily interested in the experience of the self in this collective setting. How can you interface as an individual through an interaction with the collective in which you lose yourself? Removing the individualistic self, what is it like to experience the shared or collective self? What freedom or escape might be possible from the agendas I’ve previously outlined? I’m interested in what the experience of connectedness might feel like, mediated through these technological interfaces. Freud uses the term “oceanic feeling” in an attempt to define the psychological feeling of religion. A person experiences this emotion when they have a sense of being continuous with the rest of the universe. He describes it as “a feeling of an indissoluble bond, of being one with the external world as a whole.” (1930) He theorises that this experience of being connected beyond the self, is “a vestige of infantile consciousness prior to the time when the infant begins to distinguish himself from his human and non-human environment” (Roberts); a time before the self has formed for the infant. Might it be possible to experience something similar when interacting in a subversive, augmented reality that inhibits you from perceiving yourself—perhaps enabling moments of bypassing the limits of the self? In designing tactical interactions that enable diffusion or multiplexing of the individual, I am interested in creating such experiences that might enable individuals to feel this “oceanic” connectedness with the collective.
THE EXPERIENCE OF LOSING ONESELF IN THE CROWD One might ask, with this sacrificing of capability to perceive or represent oneself directly, why would anyone want to participate in such a system? Would an individual limit themselves to experience the collective? I think there is evidence in current systems for this limiting of self to partake in something. On Facebook, for example, you actively choose to sacrifice particular liberties (i.e. privacy, control) to be part of a larger collective experience. The user also, as previously discussed, limits how they are represented to the format and structures of Facebook. 1
46
http://blog.johndryan.me/post/38054215831/prizm
47
I believe that designing tactical responses to the strategic individualism of the contemporary web is of particular importance as the dominant networks expand beyond the screen into the objects surrounding us and the spaces we inhabit.
“Objects and places are the next targets for aggregation into the digital network. As networks increasingly pervade the nooks and crannies of physical space through portable objects and place-based infrastructure, we now have opportunities for an always-on sense of networked connectivity, and a layering of presence in various physical and online places.” (Ito, 2008, p 12) As the Internet moves beyond Web 2.0, towards the Internet of Things—which sees objects and places embedded with networked computing technology—there lies the opportunity to either more deeply embed this technological individualism 1, or to offer alternatives. As the social moves into shared objects and spaces, there is exciting potential in interactions that are not limited to my device and your device, my screen and your screen; the possibility of an alternative social of truly collective, collaborative networked objects and spaces.
1 The current trends amongst the initial wave of such Internet of Things devices have indeed inherited this individualism. Wearable computing in particular, with products such as Google Glass, the Nike Fuel Band, and Biostamps (flexible circuitry stuck to the skin like temporary tattoos), take the User-Centred consumer-electronic device a step further. Providing selftracking and self-quantification, the neoliberal entrepreneur’s dream of realtime marketanalysis is now available, not just for their social lives, but now also for their body’s own inputs, outputs and performance.
5 | CONCLUSION 48
49
COLEMAN, G. (2012) OUR WEIRDNESS IS FREE. MAY, 9. Coleman is an anthropologist who researches hackers and digital activism. This paper explores the history, logic and ethos behind Anonymous, the hacktivist group. Her insight and theories about the group have been most useful in exploring an example of a networked collective, consisting of multiple individuals, that is decentralised, leaderless and has anonymous ‘membership’. In particular she identities Anonymous’s agenda to counter the possessive capitalist individualism predominant on the web.
DE CERTEAU, M. (1984) THE PRACTICE OF EVERYDAY LIFE. BERKELEY: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. De Certeau’s important text examines how mass culture is individualised as we make it our own. Of particular relevance to this paper is his distinction between what he identifies as strategies and tactics. He defines strategies as the methods and structures used by institutions to impose power, whereas tactics are the ways in which individuals negotiate these structures, adapting them and making them “habitable.” I understand this as particularly applicable when considering the strictly defined and controlled architecture of social networks, from the individualising schemas to the interface itself, and the ways in which we can—and do—negotiate these to make them our own.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 50
51
DEAN, J. (2009) DEMOCRACY AND OTHER NEOLIBERAL FANTASIES: COMMUNICATIVE CAPITALISM AND LEFT POLITICS. DURHAM, NC: DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS BOOKS. Dean assesses a number of ideologies and trends in contemporary political culture, but the chapters on technology and its relationship with neoliberalism were particularly applicable to my research. She coins the phrase “communicative capitalism” to describe what she sees as a mix of consumerism and the privileging of the individual over the collective that has become predominant in social media and other similar spheres.
DELEUZE, G. (1992) POSTSCRIPT ON THE SOCIETIES OF CONTROL. OCTOBER, 59 P.3-7. Deleuze describes a transition from Foucault’s “disciplinary societies” to what he calls “societies of control.” In discussing the technologies of continuous control, he describes the concept of the “dividual”—the human individual now reduced and divided endlessly into data representations by computer-based systems. Rather than individual, the constituent data of the deconstructed dividual is what is of value in this contemporary capitalism. Deleuze’s dividual is exemplified in the datamining agendas of social networks.
FREUD, S. (1930) CIVILISATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS. LONDON. Freud examines the tensions between the individual and society, examining the contrasting forces of freedom and conformity. Early on, he uses the term “oceanic feeling” in an attempt to define the psychological feeling of religion. A person experiences this emotion when they have a sense of being continuous with the rest of the universe. He describes it as “a feeling of an indissoluble bond, of being one with the external world as a whole.” (1930) He theorises that this experience of being connected beyond the self, is “a vestige of infantile consciousness prior to the time when the infant begins to distinguish himself from his human and nonhuman environment” (Roberts); a time before the self has formed for the infant. In terms of the experience design of my work, I use this concept to ask how something
52
similar might be experienced when interacting in a subversive, augmented reality that inhibits you from perceiving yourself—perhaps enabling moments of bypassing the limits of the self?
GALLOWAY, A. (2004) PROTOCOL: HOW CONTROL EXISTS AFTER DECENTRALIZATION. CAMBRIDGE, MA: THE MIT PRESS. Although Galloway focusses on the technical description of the architecture present in the network, he uses this as the basis to discuss its political and ideological ramifications. He argues that control, and not freedom, lies at the heart of the Internet’s development and structure—particularly as embodies in the protocols that make the network possible. He goes on to describe the various cultures and communities that have developed around, and in response to, the nature of these protocols.
GROSSER, B. (2012) DEMETRICATOR. [ONLINE] AVAILABLE AT: HTTP://BENGROSSER.COM/ PROJECTS/FACEBOOK-DEMETRICATOR/ [ACCESSED: 7 JAN 2013]. Ben Grosser’s Demetricator explicitly seeks to remove one important element in the market ideology of Facebook through removing the metrics constantly displayed to the user that “measure and present our social value and activity, enumerating friends, likes, comments, and more.” It is a web browser add-on that hides these metrics: ‘36 people like this’ becomes ‘people like this’ and ‘having 105 friends’ becomes simply ‘having friends.’ “Demetricator invites Facebook’s users to try the system without the numbers, to see how their experience is changed by their absence. With this work I aim to disrupt the prescribed sociality these metrics produce, enabling a network society that isn’t dependent on quantification.” (Grosser, 2012)
53
HANSEN, M. AND RUBIN, B. (2001) LISTENING POST. I use this artwork as an example of work that seeks to represent and interact with the Internet in a more collectivising way. It is an installation that pulls text fragments mentioning the phrase “I am…” from thousands of chat rooms in real time. These extracts are then displayed on a suspended grid of over 200 small liquid-crystal displays, while at the same time being read by a computer-generated voice. It offers an interesting contrast between the literal individualism of these “I am” conversational extracts and the collective experience of engaging with them all simultaneously. Its format offers both a dissolution of the text from its author and original context, along with multiplexing it into a coherent collective whole.
HARVEY, D. (2005) A BRIEF HISTORY OF NEOLIBERALISM. OXFORD: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS. Harvey’s book served as a historical and ideological overview of neoliberalism, “the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action.” His writing provided historical context and identified key concepts which I have applied to the social media realm.
HORNING, R. (2012) HI HATERS!. THE NEW INQUIRY, AVAILABLE AT: HTTP:// THENEWINQUIRY.COM/ESSAYS/HI-HATERS [ACCESSED: 30 NOV 2012]. Horning’s opinion piece covers the social-media-fuelled trends of micro fame, selfmarketing, and self-surveillance. He draws links between them and neoliberalism, which served as starting points for some of my writing on the commodification of the individual.
54
ITO, M. (2008) INTRODUCTION. IN: VARNELIS, K. EDS. (2008) NETWORKED PUBLICS. 1ST ED. CAMBRIDGE, MA: THE MIT PRESS, P.1-14. See Varnelis, K. below.
LANIER, J. (2011) YOU ARE NOT A GADGET: A MANIFESTO. NEW YORK: VINTAGE. Lanier, a computer scientist and pioneer of early digital media, critiques the role of digital design and its influence on society, particularly as embodied in the ideals of Web 2.0. He offers a counter-argument to my central thesis, suggesting that in social media we see an elevation of the “wisdom of the crowd,” collectivism and the hive mind, over the “importance and uniqueness of the individual voice.”
MACPHERSON, C.B. (1962) THE POLITICAL THEORY OF POSSESSIVE INDIVIDUALISM. OXFORD: CLARENDON PRESS. Macpherson’s possessive individualism is defined as “those deeply internalized habits of thinking and feeling” whereby we view “everything around [us] primarily as actual or potential commercial property.” He examines how this kind of individualism functions in the work of philosophers including Hobbes and Locke, and as a result pervades in the influence of liberalism from that point on. Macpherson’s individual understands themselves, their skills, and those of others as a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market. At the core of possessive individualism lies an insatiable thirst for selfish consumption, which is considered central to human nature.
55
MANOVICH, L. (2009) THE PRACTICE OF EVERYDAY (MEDIA) LIFE: FROM MASS CONSUMPTION TO MASS CULTURAL PRODUCTION?. CRITICAL INQUIRY, 35 (2), P.319-331.
VARNELIS, K. (2008) CONCLUSION: THE MEANING OF NETWORK CULTURE. IN: VARNELIS, K. EDS. (2008) NETWORKED PUBLICS. 1ST ED. CAMBRIDGE, MA: THE MIT PRESS, P.145-163.
Discussing “the explosion of user-created media content on the web” that he understands as the move “from media to social media,” Manovich examines user-generated content by applying de Certeau’s distinction “between strategies used by institutions and power structures and tactics used by modern subjects in their everyday lives.” He discusses the changes that have taken places since de Certeau published his work, suggesting that “strategies and tactics are now often closely linked in an interactive relationship, and often their features are reversed.” Because the strategies of social media are increasingly flexible (e.g. allowing greater user customisation), Manovich interprets this as appearing more like tactics. I disagree, interpreting this as a strategy for encouraging greater subjection to control.
Reflecting on the influence of the network and information technology, Varnelis edits in this book a series of essays on what he calls “network culture.” In this closing essay, he examines evidence for, and the affect of, network culture in various areas of contemporary life. In examining the subject of networked culture, he critiques a naive understanding of a nodal distributed model. Instead he offers his conception of “telecocoons,” which is particularly useful: “Instead of whole individuals, we are constituted in multiple micro-publics, inhabitants of simultaneously overlapping telecocoons, sharing telepresence with intimates in whom we are in near-constant touch, members of… clustered demographic units.” (Varnelis)
TREANOR, P. (2005) NEOLIBERALISM: ORIGINS, THEORY, DEFINITION. [ONLINE] AVAILABLE AT: HTTP://WEB.INTER.NL.NET/ USERS/PAUL.TREANOR/NEOLIBERALISM. HTML [ACCESSED: 1 JAN 2013]. Treanor offers a broad definition and overview of neoliberalism, examining its origins in liberalism from the late 18th century, its application to the market in free trade, and neoliberalism’s desire to expand beyond the market in every action, becoming more than an economic structure—closer to a philosophy.
56
WILLIAMS, R. (2005) POLITICS AND SELF IN THE AGE OF DIGITAL RE(PRO)DUCIBILITY. FAST CAPITALISM, 1 (1), AVAILABLE AT: HTTP://WWW.UTA.EDU/HUMA/AGGER/ FASTCAPITALISM/1_1/WILLIAMS.HTML [ACCESSED: 30 NOV. 2012]. Williams discusses the influence of “globalizing capitalism and liberal-democratic policies” on Western concepts of the self. He problematises the individuality of the self, asking “how distinctly and utterly “individual” is the self?” Consumer corporations and liberal-democratic governments hail the Individual as their rallying cry, but Williams questions “how autonomous, sacrosanct, and centered is the individual when autonomy is defined as choosing from pre-selected political or consumer choices” as defined by these same groups. In examining the relationship between technology and society, he heavily references and builds on Deleuze’s concept of the “dividual” along with the Frankfurt School’s applications of cultural Marxist theory.
57
WOODS, J. (2012) WHY USER-CENTERED DESIGN IS NOT ENOUGH. [ONLINE] AVAILABLE AT: HTTP://WWW.CORE77.COM/BLOG/ ARTICLES/WHY_USER-CENTERED_DESIGN_ IS_NOT_ENOUGH_BY_JOHN_WOOD_23465.ASP [ACCESSED: 2 JAN 2013]. Woods’ critique of User-Centered Design questions how useful humanism and person-centred consumerism is as underlying philosophies for design. He suggests that they have lead us towards a design that is narcissistic and solipsistic. He suggests the adoption of richer, multi-approach models for design that might allow us to “innovate at a more strategic, self-reflexive level.”
58
59
