Archive for the 'Theorie' Category

German Media Theory II – Yes we can

Well, sometimes it’s good to be proven wrong. Contrary to my recent rant about the self-induced isolationism of German media studies, some people actually do seem to care about exploring international connections. The conference “Media Theory on the Move. Transatlantic Perspectives on Media and Mediation” (21-23 May in Potsdam, PDF-Programme) brings together a host of interesting people from Germany, the US and other countries in order to “establish a conversation between the different cultures of thinking about media theory”. Sounds Promising.

Geert Lovink has a good summary of the “German Sonderweg” event in Siegen.

Technorati Tags:

German Media Theory: Too shy to admit its own greatness

First thought: „Wow, what a great line-up.“ Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Friedrich Kittler, Geert Lovink, Irmela Schneider, Erhard Schüttpelz and Hartmut Winkler – they will all be at the University of Siegen on April 22.

Second thought: „Wow, what a great nonsense.“ All these brilliant people are actually coming together in order to discuss whether German media studies are on a „Sonderweg“ – a way that somehow sets it apart from media studies in other countries. The most pressing problem German media studies are faced with according to the announcement: Although „scholars all over the world measure themselves against German publications [...] German media scholars have troubles acknowledging their own supremacy.“

Ever since I moved back from Sweden to Germany, the peculiarities of German academia have never ceased to amaze me. Especially the fact that Germany seems to voluntarily shut itself off a lot of the international discussions. Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK, the US, even Austria – they all appear to be engaged in a productive common discourse, but Germany proceeds on largely independent trajectories. Only sometimes, someone decides to translate some text and the discourses are joined for a moment, only to drift off into different directions again.

A good example is Ganaele Langlois’ excellent dissertation “The Technocultural Dimensions of Meaning”, where she develops a „mixed semiotics“ framework inspired by Guattari in order to analyse Amazon and the MediaWiki software. In her argument, she covers a lot of theoretical ground by referring to Kittler and Gumbrecht (and Heidegger), but for the more concrete and up-to-date discussions, she moves on towards Latour, Galloway, Lessig and Manovich – as one would expect in the international discourse.

Obviously, there are plenty of potential points of connection between her argument and current debates in German media studies. It would certainly be interesting to see the fruitful discussions evolving out of such encounters. But what stands in the way for them is simply the lack of English translations of current German texts. Talk about German “supremacy” hardly seems like the right kind of attitude to make these encounters happen. It appears to me that it is not so much the false modesty of German scholars that is at the root of this gap but rather the self-induced isolationism of German academia.

The announcement in its entirety (as my own limping attempt at translating the entwined German academic language):

Without exaggeration the research areas ‘Mediengeschichte’ [media history] and ‘Medientheorie’ [media theory] can be described as idiosyncratic developments of the German ‘Kulturwissenschaften’ [cultural studies]. Therefore, scholars with related interests all over the world measure themselves against German publications. Despite this, there is a persistent belief at German universities that media theory’s ‘Mecca’ just has to be somewhere abroad. For Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht (Stanford University) this inadequate modesty is a display of the effects of, among others, intercultural provincialism. For if German media scholars are already having troubles acknowledging their own supremacy, they would probably consider it outright unthinkable that a research direction that fascinates them does not even exist in many other national academic cultures.

The iconography of the poster is certainly worth a visual culture-inspired study in its own right.

Technorati Tags:

Data Models and Complexes of Subjectivation

Brian Holmes just posted an interesting text on „Guattari’s Schizoanalytic Cartographies“. Since I haven’t read a lot of Guattari, I was surprised to learn that he had quite an elaborated concept of modelling in digital environments. Holmes sums up Guattari’s lecture “Le Capitalisme Mondial Intégré et la révolution moléculaire“ [PDF] from 1981 as follows:

The key concepts of this far-seeing text are modeling and machinic-semiotic integration. The word “modeling” designates the simulation of dynamic systems, typically carried out by the application of strategically formulated computer algorithms to data-inputs gathered by scientists (which can be social scientists, psychologists, market researchers and so on). This kind of modeling has become essential to the planning of what Guattari called “collective facilities,” which increasingly take the form of privately owned consumption environments [...] Since WWII, the primary vector of this uniquely neoliberal form of control has been cybernetic modeling and the construction of interactive environments, or sites of “machinic-semiotic integration,” where the very freedom of the users continually generates the data allowing our progressively fine-tuned entrapment, within custom-built settings that morph and mutate to match the evolution of our already programmed dreams.

Drawing on further texts by Guattari, Holmes also discusses means of moving beyond this kind of territorialised subjectivity – „a cartography of escape routes leading beyond the black holes of neoliberal control, toward the possibility of collective speech.“ The concept of „Fourfold“ he suggests seems rather intricate, but when filled with practical experience it might actually help to pin down the somewhat vague notion of „lines of flight“.

I was glad to see that Holmes’ text connects two issues I have struggled to bring together for a while: The theme of an „ethics of transgression“ I touched upon in an article from 2005 and my current interest in the intersection between modelling and governmentality. This all fits in very well with a discussion I suggested for the upcoming workshop „Modes of Governance in Digitally Networked Environments“, organised by Malte Ziewitz and Christian Pentzold at the Oxford Internet Institute. Here’s my abstract:

“Predictive Consumer Modelling as a Mode of Governance

In July 2008, Google filed a patent application for “Network node ad targeting“, a system that ranks members of an online social network according to their influence within a community. It allows advertisers to place their commercial messages on the profile pages of the most influential members, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the ad campaign. In exchange, the influential members receive a financial incentive and are thus encouraged to strengthen their position within the community.

The patent sheds some light on how the data collected by popular online services – especially search engines – is used in order to devise increasingly sophisticated advertising strategies. A key aspect of these techniques is the construction of models. In order to process the wealth of data that enters the systems, there has to be a formalised means of interpreting the data. This involves specifying which indicators should be parsed and what kind of meaning is ascribed to specific data combinations and frequency distributions. Consumer models can be based on social network data, click streams, search queries, location, etc. Their purpose is to enable the prediction of behaviour by sorting individuals into segments, thereby reducing uncertainty and increasing returns on ad investment.

Considering the current pervasiveness of these advertising techniques, two lines of enquiry should be explored further:

1. How is data turned into information and on whose terms? While some services have begun to provide users with technical means to access and edit their own data, administrators mostly retain control over how larger quantities of data are processed and grouped together. Such asymmetries can be traced on different levels (visibility, accessibility, editability) on different technical layers of the system (database field definition, database entry, model, algorithm). Overall, it can be argued that the strong commercial bias in model construction results in an asymmetric distribution of access and transparency, which in turn inhibits the emergence of alternative epistemological trajectories.

2. What effect do the meaning ascriptions implemented in consumer models have on individual and collective subjectivation processes? If influential community members are primarily addressed as efficient disseminators of commercial messages, how is community, trust and friendship affected? If an information need expressed in a search query is primarily interpreted as a consumption need, how is information gathering and learning affected? Foucault’s concept of governmentality can help to understand the link between (external) control and (internal) conduct involved in the increasingly commercial framing of subjectivation processes.”

Technorati Tags: , , ,