For some considerable time now, the practice of developing and creating Free Software has been the centre of attention for studies related to economics, knowledge production, law and the legal and intellectual property framework. However, the practice that constitutes this initiative also means a call to rethink current forms of political action and the in-depth meaning of what we understand by “political”. This constitutes the field that we have called techno-activism. Along these lines we propose a particular reading of the political challenge that is Free Software from the standpoint of Hardt and Negri’s theoretical work (2000) and we put forward various contributions –regarding the organization, agents and the form of political action- which as we consider, poses a crisis for traditional proposals and urges us to renew our way of relating to information and the exercise of government in our current societies.
Have to say Hi! first, and
Just grabbing on to the very interesting order of things, that is, the course or the way of the discourse that produces and reproduces reality for and in this Hardt and Negri Empire. I truly enjoyed reading these lines, but I always ponder, isn’t “everything” already in a sense included in the fields of discourse? In a Foucaltdian (rather harsh) light, is it not possible to see all forms of political activism or agency as mere automatic functions of and responses to the all-inclusive biopolitics, and to reality (re)producing? (I think here about the term “auto-institutive practise” in paragraph 20.)
I like this idea about mediation being very significant for human interaction, “the between”, as you elaborate. So this space (virtual) fosters interactivity, a human-technology-human entity maybe more so than the (dare I say traditional?) human-human interactivity. I will continue to think about this, thank you!
I think also that a question of, and distinction between, technology and techniques would be very interesting to elaborate with, since the very interesting “informational contract” idea that you bring forward includes both actual material technology, and a way of acting on/in/with these technologies to bring about political change. (I especially call on paragraph 30 here, and especially its last sentence… And I hope I get you right! :-))
One final thought: all this multitude of potentially political practises harvested by information and communication technology innovation, like the Free Software, can this not also lead to the question of responsibility? Because who is really responsible? So then, a loss of power becomes our new best friend (again), in the sense that Paul Virilio seems to underscore when he argues that with the speed of new and emerging information and communication technology, democratic institutions is undermined and the democratic principles of representation eradicated.
This is also in line with the implications of digital divide and how the argument of techno-activism leaves many groups of individuals out of the position of acting as political subjects in these fields. Is an act truly global, or in the realm of the concept of globalisation, if only a rather small and technologically enhanced number of people can involve in it? And if technological activities like software modification constitute a political act, people without this knowledge can’t participate, and is therefore, per se, not political subjects. So maybe, one part of (team) Diffraction needs to redress or think also about equality in means??
I welcome this contribution to the journal since it provides us with a very interesting glance at the power of information technopolitics. Callén, López, Domenèch and Tirado link several discourses that I have rarely seen appear in the same line of argument, and I enjoyed reading the article. There are a couple of issues that are triggering my review, and I hope my remarks will be helpful.
Let me start by adressing the abstract/keywords/motto part of the contribtion. The abstract to me does not quite seem to carry the gist of the article. Here, I would like to suggest that something on the information(al) contract be added. Since an open access journal grants webwide access, I am not quite sure if everyone in our wide readership would agree on what ‘our current societies’ are. So I guess that rather than using what seems to me rather ingroup-style, a more abstract description of what makes this group a group might be a way to get rid of this ideological twinge. I would like to suggest that the following additional keywords be considered for inclusion: GNU, politics, Michel Serres, Information(al) Contract, Copyleft. As regards the motto, I am not sure if I grasped the contextualised meaning well enough, so this is rather a question than a suggestion: how do the authors intend to link this call for a (male?) hero to the rest of their argument? Maybe the introduction could saw something about this.
Learning from ideas attributed to ‘big’ names and linking these to creative processes needed for one’s own ideas is regarded as feasible, even unavoidable: however, I think a. also less well known people have very good ideas and it is worth while circulating these, too, b. the more familiar the names, and the more allegedly familiar the ideas referred to, the better it is, it seems to me, to make clear where one wants a periphrasis to end and where one’s own original contribution begins. I have seen this achieved by small remarks at the beginning or at the end of a passage, about why the next step differs from the one before, and I really liked it. Maybe this stylistic trick could be employed here, too.
While I liked the general slant of the narrative as a whole, I think the now closing third part would really make a very good ‘Looking ahead’-kind of passage. In my view of the matter, this article would benefit from having a short real conclusion in its own right (maybe in symmetry with the unnumbered introduction). Within the look and feel of this article, such a restructuring would give the Information(al) Contract the weight it deserves. Contentwise, I think part III could do with a concrete example, maybe Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu and their gang.
My closing remarks deal with language issues and with the referencing. So I would like to ask: why separate web references from other references, with some of them containing links, too, anyway? Furthermore, the referencing is not quite consistent (underline not used throughout; pages not given throughout). Finally, I think the article will benefit from input by a native speaker’s professional language editing.
(Now I am turning to read what the previous reviewer’s had to say
best regards, Claudia Koltzenburg, koltzenburg AT w4w DOT net
First of all, thank you very much, Claudia & Rebecka, for you comments.
Claudia,
In relation to the remark about the abstract and the necessity of name “information(al) contract”, I’m not sure that the final “surprise” should be “revealed” at the beginning.
Anyway, I think that maybe we try to develop too much concepts and ideas for only one paper. As you say, maybe the III part deserves more space and explanation…too much for working as a conclusion, as it does now. In this sense, I agree with you that It might be useful to write a short “really” conclusion instead of proposing one more concept.
Thank you for paying attention in our ethnocentric slant when we talk about “our societies”. It would be much better to specify which societies (occidental, capitalist, technological society, etc…).
Sorry, but I think that I don’t understand your comment related to this sentence: “How do the authors intend to link this call for a (male?) hero to the rest of their argument?” If you could extend it, I would be really grateful.
I agree with you about your comment on big/little names, but I also think that sometimes the use of this “big” names as to do with “big” debates that emerge in a particular moment. I’m sure that it was the case for Hardt & Negri’s book some years ago, when we were working in this research. Debates about Multitude were really intensive not only among academicals, but also in political spaces. What we tried to do was contributing by an onto-political proposal review of these concepts.
Thank you for realising of the references and underlined. Definitely, there are some mistakes.
Rebecka,
When we talked about “auto-institutional practice” we weren’t saying that they were “out” of biopolitics. We tried to characterise with this concept to those political practices that operate by an affirmative way (instead of reactive) and diffract biopolitical rules of life from the inner (as all political practices, as you say). I mean, practices that “spin” biopolitics by taking advantage of their own constitution, as Copyleft make with Law’s propriety. And they are also “auto-institutional” cause they are able to create a new space of life from these “rules” that, at the same time, it can’t be re-appropriated. Therefore, we could think that a different way of life is delimited by/inside this space. That’s why we talk about diffraction and auto-institutional practice. As you can see, Virno is the author who works this concept.
In relation to political subjects and digital device, I would say that when we talk about Information and Communication Technologies we use to generalise and miss the heterogeneity of cultures, knowledges and societies. In fact, it happened to us when we said “our societies”, as Claudia noticed well. In this sense, it’s useful your comment: As it is said, we can’t confuse “the part” with “the whole”. In this sense, talking about technology and the possibilities it brings to politics doesn’t mean that politics can only be conceived as technology. Not at all. But, as we said in other work, although not everybody has internet connection, everybody “is” connected. Just think about Google Earth or any digital data-base. I mean, you don’t need technology for becoming a political subject, but maybe technology is reclaiming some “political” involvement and attention.
Well, thank you very much indeed. It’s a pleasure to be read with so exhaustive and careful attention. Thanks a lot.
Bests,
Blanca
Hi Blanca,
thank you for your question, I will try to explain my question better:
I said: “As regards the motto, I am not sure if I grasped the contextualised meaning well enough, so this is rather a question than a suggestion: how do the authors intend to link this call for a (male?) hero to the rest of their argument?”
and you are wondering about what i meant by this
well, I was puzzled that you take a motto quote in which somebody (never mind who) calls for a hero, or the making of one, and most likely, i guessed, a male one. It took me until the last pages of your paper to guess what this might link to, but I am not sure yet. It strikes me that hierarchical hero-making should go along easily with techno-activism… well, unless the motto is meant ironically, of course? Do you see what i mean? Otherwise, please do not hesitate to ask me for more clarification on this point,
best,
Claudia
koltzenburg AT w4w DOT net
Hey….I would definitely like to discover what some other persons think on the subject…there are quite a few different views and i would definitely like to see some more reviews on this