The term “open source” encompasses at least four different meanings, which we need to disentangle: People using a program can see and modify how it works.This is a form of agency. People on the internet can study and learn from the source code.This is a form of publishing. People on the internet can download and run the software.This is a form of product distribution. People on the internet can develop the software collectively.This is a form of collaboration.

If you wish to educate a partner in communication, it will be good to provide him with independence from the beginning. A slip box, which has been made according to the suggestions just given can exhibit great independence. There may be equally apt ways to reach this goal. The described reduction to a fixed, but merely formal order of placement and the resulting combination of order and disorder is, however, one of these ways.

El concepto de territorio, como es utilizado por los movimientos que describí antes, es una abreviatura para el sistema de relaciones cuya recreación continua re/crea a su vez la ‘comunidad’ en cuestión.

, los movimientos sociales subalternos practican una doble estrategia: estrategias de localización (basadas en el lugar) para la defensa de sus territorios y culturas; y estrategias de entretejimiento con otras luchas en contra de las condiciones estructurantes compartidas de dominación que hoy podríamos explicar en términos de poder y de agencia distribuidos

Una implicación perspicaz para el diseño del concepto de agencia distribuida es el hecho de que “entre más disperso y en red esté un sistema, más grande y más conectada será su interfaz con la sociedad y más tendrá que ser considerado el lado social de la innovación” (Manzini 2015: 17). Los resultados son sistemas más resilientes y una redefinición del trabajo, las relaciones y el bienestar, muchas veces de manera similar al BV

Los resultados del diseño ontológico modernista y la complejidad de la agencia de lo que nos diseña quizás pueden ser vistos más claramente en las ciudades

Thisindividualisautonomousnotbecauseitisseparateorindependentfromsocietybutasitsproductretainsthecapabilitytoquestionitsowninstitution.Castoriadissaysthatthisnewtypeofbeingiscapableofcallingintoquestiontheverylawsofitsexistenceandhascreatedthepossibilityofbothdeliberationandpoliticalaction.

Theoretically informed sociological analyses of digital life can challenge the often implicit assumptions of those approaches which reinscribe divisions between humans and technologies, online and offline lives, agency and structure, and freedom and control. While these may be old dichotomies for some, they continue to have force and need to be challenged.

To Mills, the imagination was activated according to the structure of society, conceptualization of “the mechanics by which it is changing” (p. 6), and prevailing “varieties” of individuals of the period. Individuals have personal troubles that can be connected with issues of a public matter. The civic imagination has the potential to be activated around deep societal problems, which may involve institutional crises. The civic imagination is closely connected with participation. Castoriadis (1987)diverged from Marx by believing that not all futures were determined by history.Castoriadis believed that society’s future was collectively created and given traction through the imagination. That is, it was only “through the collective agency of the social imaginary that a society is created, given coherence and identity, and also subjected to auto-alterations” (Gaonkar, 2002, p. 7). To Appadurai (1996), the imagination was also intimately related to action because it was only in the service of fulfilling an as-yet unproven goal that we are driven to act.

I do not believe she was necessarily re-treading the intractable sociological debate between "structure and agency." Rather, she was suggesting a sensory-oriented theory of collaborative design rooted in feminism and media studies.

craftwork reappears in the technical imagination of the organization. Lucy Suchman and Randall Trigg (1993), for example, have equated the work of technology development with socially organized craftsmanship: “the craft-ing together of a complex machinery made of heterogeneous materials, mobilized in the service of developing a theory of mind” (p. 144). Here, they build on Latour’s (1986) concept of science as craftwork to describe the work of “crafting machines” that are capable of effectively engaging with humans and participating in social relations (Suchman and Trigg, 1993: 147). In particular, they identify “collaborative craftwork of hands, eyes, and signs” as the unit of analysis built into the organization of production and use.

Critiquing such claims as sensationalist, recent work identifies a problem of demarcation by which people control access to technical agency and who counts as innovative (Irani, 2015; Lindtner, 2015), illuminating differ-ent and multiple hacking histories. Gabriella Coleman (2011), for example, compares the protest movement Anonymous and the whistle-blowing project WikiLeaks to clarify the varying political sensibilities and practices from which hacking develops

Individual agency is the core of do-ocracy, fostered and filtered through projects, objects, and tools in the space itself.

n large part the desire for autonomy alongside warm community relationships can be seen as an extension of what Fred Turner (2008) termed “new communalism.” New communalists emerged alongside the new left and believed in a kind of hive mind while rejecting formalized politics and institutions. Hackerspaces, as a kind of “third space” (Oldenburg, 1997), provided a site for these ideas to expand. Democracy was seen as cumbersome and slow. Do-ocracy provided speed and the freedom to act without consultation.

Interactions through things, and perceptions about their potential, were ways to negotiate between seemingly conflicting imperatives of the individualism and communalism (A. L. Toombs, Bardzell, & Bardzell). Members would deliberately design activities that were incomplete to encourage a playful material improvisation. In these ways, the “material sensibilities” of members were particularly important. Similarly, reading a history of craft into software hacking, Lingel and Regan (2014) found that software hackers identified their work with craft as process, embodiment, and community. These sensitive readings of interactions with stuff seemed to more accurately capture the genre of hackerspaces, more so than action was guided by culture.

This work perceptively suggested that people often don’t arrive at hackerspaces with an identity fully-formed. Tools and projects, as socio-material assemblages, shepherded new arrivals in and helped them understand