na vez más nos enfrentamos a uno de los temas claves de este libro: ¿puede el diseño desprenderse de su arraigo en las prácticas modernistas de insostenibilidad y desfuturización y reorientarse hacia otros compromisos, prácticas, narrativas y enacciones ontológicas? Más aún, ¿puede el diseño formar parte del conjunto de herramientas para la transición hacia el pluriverso? ¿Qué tiene eso que ver con el diseño de herramientas, interacciones, contextos y lenguajes de manera que cumpla con el principio de todo diseño ontológico relacional de cambiar la forma como tratamos con nosotros mismos, las cosas y los seres para que la futurización sea posible

Por otro lado, el matriarcado no se define por el predominio de las mujeres sobre los hombres sino por toda una concepción diferente de la vida que no se basa en la dominación y las jerarquías y que respeta el tejido relacional de la vida. Por eso se puede decir que en el principio de todas las culturas estaba la madre (en última instancia, la Madre Tierra), es decir, la relación, como aún sucede en muchos pueblos indígenas que conservan prácticas matriarcales. Progresivamente, sin embargo, los hombres socavaron este fundamento de la vida en su intento por usurpar el poder de las mujeres y crear vida a través de lo que von Werholf llama ‘alquimia patriarcal’.

Hay dos posibilidades: o ir hacia arriba [dentro de la modernidad] o ir hacia afuera, subir o salir, reformar la situación o revolucionarla [...] hacia una alternativa a la modernidad y no de la modernidad. Pero sabemos que en todo el mundo este es el mayor tabú de todos: ¡dejar atrás lo que se llama civilización Occidental! —porque significa dejar atrás el patriarcado. Esta ruptura es casi inimaginable en cualquier lugar, excepto en los mundos indígenas (

os modos matrísticos de ser persisten en las culturas contemporáneas a pesar de la forma patriarcal imperante. Sobreviven, por ejemplo, aunque de manera parcial y contradictoria, en las relaciones entre la madre y los hijos, en las relaciones de amor, en la ciencia y en la democracia. De importancia crucial en esta concepción, es el reconocimiento de que la base de la existencia biológica es el acto de emocionar, y que la coexistencia social está basada en el amor, antes de cualquier modo de apropiación y conflicto. Las sociedades patriarcales modernas no entienden que el emocionar, no la razón o la economía, constituye la historia humana porque nuestros deseos determinan los tipos de mundo que creamos.

Virilio, también atento a las herramientas y las máquinas, enumera ‘la parodia del progreso del conocimiento’ que inicia en el quattrocento italiano y produce una ideología (patriarcal) de la “fuga de la humanidad de su carácter incompleto, de su descontento con ser uno mismo” que nos impide vivir en el lugar y nos atrapa con “simuladores de proximidad” (2002: 38), como la web. Virilio no escatima palabras de enojo para diagnosticar la situación; para él nos enfrentamos a un “estado suicida global” basado en el progreso darwinista, las tecnocracias y la guerra sin fin. Véase Virilio (1997, 2012)

Esto sólo se puede lograr trabajando contra la corriente de los cuatro fundamentos principales de la visión patriarcal moderna: los imperios, los establecimientos eclesiásticos, el Estado nación y las corporaciones.

Hay un amplio acuerdo, sin embargo, como señala la feminista Aymara Julieta Paredes (2012) en el sentido de que la humanidad aprendió a dominar en el cuerpo de la mujer. Por eso es necesario analizar la interrelación de los múltiples patriarcados existentes, desde los autóctonos hasta los modernos.

el mundo-aldea (mundos comunales), con su ontología de género dual (basada en dualidades complementarias, no dualismos de pares independientes), organizada a partir de relaciones de reciprocidad, y el mundo-Estado, con su ontología dualista, que progresivamente ocupa los mundos comunales con sus lógicas binarias y a través de la constitución de una esfera pública dominada por el hombre y otra esfera privada femenina, crecientemente subordinada.

Un proceso ininterrumpido de reconstrucción convivencial es posible a condición de que el cuerpo social proteja el poder de las personas y de las colectividades para modificar y renovar sus estilos de vida, sus herramientas, su ambiente; dicho de otra forma, su poder para dar a la realidad un rostro nuevo [...] Estamos hablando de una sociedad que diversifica los modos de producción. Poner límites a la producción industrial tiene, para nosotros, el objetivo de liberar el futuro [...] Una sociedad congelada sería tan insoportable para el hombre como la sociedad de la aceleración: entre las dos se sitúa la sociedad de la innovación convivencial

Esta posición ética implica una racionalidad técnica alternativa; como veremos, resuena con el énfasis de los movimientos sociales en la ancestralidad como base para la autonomía y de los diseñadores de transición en la futuralidad, o creación de futuros que tengan futuro, como principio fundamental del diseñ

. Las herramientas de convivencia, como Illich señalará, tendrán que ser eficaces en el fomento de la autonomía creativa de las personas, la equidad social y el bienestar, incluyendo el control colectivo sobre la energía y el trabajo. Esto significa que las herramientas tienen que ser sujeto de un proceso político de un nuevo tipo.

La sociedad convivencial descansará sobre contratos sociales que garanticen a cada uno el mayor y más libre acceso a las herramientas de la comunidad, con la condición de no lesionar una igual libertad de acceso al otro [...] Una pluralidad de herramientas limitadas y de organizaciones convivenciales estimulará una diversidad de modos de vida, que tendría más en cuenta la memoria, es decir la herencia del pasado o la invención, es decir la creación

La concentración de poder, energía y conocimientos técnicos en las burocracias (el Estado) dio lugar a la institucionalización de estas herramientas e hizo posible un estricto sistema de control tanto sobre la producción como sobre la destrucción. Illich llamó a este proceso ‘instrumentación’ y mostró cómo destruyó, sistemáticamente, los modos conviviales de vivir. El resultado fue una sociedad mega-instrumental incrustada en múltiples sistemas complejos que limitan la capacidad de las personas para vivir una vida digna.

Además de su sentido clarividente, lo que las hace particularmente apropiadas para pensar en las transiciones, tienen el valor adicional de encarnar una imaginación de diseño disidente.

¿Los nuevos diseñadores podrían ser considerados como activistas de transición? Si así fuera tendrían que caminar de la mano con quienes están protegiendo y redefiniendo el bienestar, los proyectos de vida, los territorios, las economías locales y las comunidades en todo el mundo. Estos son los emisarios de la transición hacia formas plurales de hacer el mundo.

La inspiración para esta propuesta viene de la idea de que la autonomía es la característica más fundamental de lo vivo; en la jerga de Maturana y Varela, que explico en los capítulos 3 y 6, la autonomía es la clave de la autopoiesis o auto-creación de los sistemas vivos. Esta idea servirá de ancla parcial para proponer una práctica particular y una forma de pensar sobre la relación entre el diseño, la política y la vida, que llamaré ‘diseño autónomo’.

El punto de partida es, de nuevo, aparentemente sencillo: que cada comunidad practica el diseño de sí misma. Este fue, puede argumentarse, el caso en las comunidades tradicionales (que producían las normas con las que vivían sus vidas, en gran medida de forma endógena) y lo es, todavía en muchas comunidades, tanto en el Sur Global como en el Norte Global, que abordan el diseño de sí mismas frente a las manifestaciones de las crisis, cada vez más profundas, y la inescapable mediación tecno-económica de sus mundos.

El diseño ontológico surge de una observación aparentemente simple: que al diseñar herramientas (objetos, estructuras, políticas, sistemas expertos, discursos, incluso narrativas) estamos creando formas de ser. Una idea clave en este sentido es lo que Anne Marie Willis ha llamado “el doble movimiento de diseño ontológico” (2006), a saber, la toma de conciencia de que diseñamos nuestro mundo y que, al hacerlo, nuestro mundo nos diseña —en pocas palabras, que el diseño diseña—

La crítica de los dualismos (mente/cuerpo; yo/otro, sujeto/objeto, naturaleza/cultura, materia/espíritu, etcétera) está surgiendo en varios dominios teóricos, intelectuales y activistas, no solo de la academia. La convergencia de estas tendencias está fomentando la aparición de un campo ontológico-político que cuestiona estos dualismos de forma novedosa, yendo más allá de ellos. El surgimiento multisituado de ese campo está haciendo progresivamente perceptible —teórica y políticamente— una gama de alternativas, crecientemente conceptualizada en términos de la noción de ‘relacionalidad’. Este concepto ofrece una manera diferente, y necesaria, de reconsiderar la vida y el mundo y un nuevo fundamento potencial para el diseño.

Sin embargo, las reflexiones sobre el diseño por parte de sus teóricos y practicantes en la última década,

Sin duda, gran parte de lo que actualmente se llama diseño, implica el uso intensivo de recursos y gran destrucción social y material; el diseño es fundamental para las estructuras de insostenibilidad que mantienen el llamado mundo moderno contemporáneo.

Finalmente, como siempre, a los músicos, por mantener vivo el pluriverso: a las músicas encantadas de Malí y Senegal en África, el continente que nos dio el ritmo que habita en el corazón de toda vida; la música de marimba del Pacífico colombiano; y todas las vibrantes músicas de la diáspora que, día y noche, mantienen tantos mundos en movimiento con la sensación ineluctable de que todavía hay mucho en la vida que se resiste a la ontología de devastación y muerte, que se ha vuelto omnipresente con el llamado progreso de la globalización neoliberal

el diseño y la diferencia tienen que ver con la creación de la forma. Se trata de la morfogénesis, en el sentido amplio de la palabra;

“el profundo placer experimentado por la/el diseñador/a en el florecimiento o desenvolvimiento de conjunciones y efectos materiales felices, y en el reconocimiento encarnado de lo que es tanto adecuado como transformador en relación al contexto material en cuestión”

mi principal preocupación es con la diferencia y cómo es invisibilizada, rearticulada en discursos que no le son propios, o normalizada. Este ha sido el ‘problema central’ que ha resonado en toda mi vida intelectual, en gran parte, de manera intuitiva. También tiene que ver con ‘vivir sin miedo con y dentro de la diferencia’, como señalan las feministas del Sur Global con frecuencia (e.g., Trinh 1989; Milczarek-Desai 2002; Lugones 2010a), es decir, con la práctica ética y política de la alteridad, que implica una profunda preocupación por la justicia social, la igualdad radical de todos los mundos y seres y la no jerarquía entre ellos.

Para decirlo de otra manera, toda creación es colectiva y relacional; involucra autores histórica y epistemológicamente situados (nunca ‘individuos’, siempre personas en redes de relaciones). Esta relacionalidad ineluctable es ahora reconocida por los diseñadores en la era del “diseño, cuando todo el mundo diseña”, como sugiere el atractivo título del libro más reciente de Ezio Manzini (2015).

Hice hincapié en ‘creación’ porque el trabajo intelectual, como el diseño, tiene que ver con el hacer. En la escritura hay una dimensión encarnada, a menudo ignorada, casi una tactilidad y una fenomenología de la escritura que participa más

el metarrelato del ‘razonamiento abstracto’ del conocimiento ignora una característica muy importante de la producción de conocimiento que el pensamiento de diseño no olvida: el hecho de que la creación es siempre emergente, en los dos sentidos del término, es decir, auto-organizada y ‘alter-organizada’. Este último calificativo significa que el académico/diseñador también establece elementos y toma decisiones que permiten que la dinámica de auto-organización despegue y haga su trabajo.

ecología política, que sigue siendo uno de mis principales campos de interés —a menudo definido como el estudio de las interconexiones entre cultura, naturaleza, y poder

el llamado ‘subdesarrollo’ de Asia, África y América Latina era, en realidad, una compleja invención discursiva que tuvo lugar a principios de la segunda postguerra y cuyas consecuencias todavía estamos viviendo. Hoy diría que el desarrollo ha sido uno de los experimentos sociales más funestos de los últimos setenta años —un gran diseño que se convirtió en pesadilla—.

Hoy diríamos (ontológicamente) que las políticas públicas y la planificación del desarrollo, así como gran parte de lo que se denomina diseño, son tecnologías políticas fundamentales de la modernidad y elementos clave en la constitución moderna de un solo mundo globalizado.

Las obras de Goodwin y de Maturana y Varela sobre auto-organización, autopoiesis y complejidad siguen influyendo mi acercamiento al diseño, como será evidente en este libro. Este trasfondo de ingeniería y sistemas es el primer hilo en la genealogía de mis preocupaciones sobre diseño.

Estos son los principales temas del libro, entonces: las transiciones culturales y ecológicas, el enfoque ontológico del diseño, el diseño para las transiciones y la relación entre la autonomía, el diseño y la activación política de las lógicas relacionales y comunales que están en el centro de las transiciones.

si la humanidad quiere enfrentar, eficazmente, las crisis interrelacionadas del clima, los alimentos, la energía, la pobreza y los significados. El libro se basa en la creencia de que este potencial es real, como sugieren algunas tendencias en la profesión del diseño, en particular por parte de un pequeño pero creciente subgrupo de diseñadores que está dedicado al proyecto de ‘diseño para las transiciones’. Algunos de esos diseñadores afirman que la crisis no exige menos que la reinvención de lo humano.

co. El diseño es ontológico porque cada objeto, herramienta, servicio o, incluso, narrativa en los que está involucrado, crea formas particulares de ser, saber y hacer

n objetivo principal del libro es preguntar si el diseño en realidad puede contribuir a la realización de las formas comunales de autonomía que subyacen a esos proyectos de vida; esto quiere decir que uno de los principales objetivos del libro es colocar la autonomía, de acuerdo con la definición de las comunidades de base movilizadas en América Latina, firmemente en el ámbito del diseño.

which confirms that actors who receive preferred standing and are able to stabilize their appearances across the media environment over time tend to be considered trustworthy. Interestingly enough, this relationship also operates the other way round. Media representatives consider CCC members as legitimate voices and provide them access to their outlets owing to their regular interaction with institutional poli-tics

More and more people make use of and relate their daily activities to media in one way or another. At the same time legislators, politicians, judges and other actors with decisive power related to policy-making and the law are in need of advice, con-sulting and grounded recommendations

. First, as has been underlined above, one needs to take into account both actors’ inward oriented and outward oriented communicative practices. In addition, it is understood that media representation today goes far beyond coverage by mainstream media as it relies on actors’ multi-layered media ensemble. Second, instead of arguing for a straightforward causal correlation between ‘media attention’ and social standing, this research reveals a more eclectic process: a spiral of legitimation that is based on the relation between the organization’s internal communicative figuration and the communicative figuration related to the public discourse around the political qualities of contemporary media technologies and infrastructures

. Skill, effort and practice are regarded necessary elements in the process by which an actor becomes taken-for-granted (Bourdieu 2000). Accordingly, legitimacy is not simply out there for the asking, but has to be created as well as exploited by actors who seek to gain legitimation.

The Club’s media ensemble and interactions with rel-evant actors perpetuate each other and co-determine the Club’s abil-ity to politicize media technologies and infrastructures. The dynamic at hand that best describes this process will be referred to as a spiral of legitimation.According to Mark Suchman, legitimacy is practically the basis of poli-tics as it addresses the forces ‘that constrain, construct, and empower organizational actors

the CCC’s internal communicative figuration not only enables the Club to execute direct digital action in the form of hacking, but also allows the hacker organization to communicate with a diversity of relevant actors (including the larger public) in coherent ways. In the case of the CCC, the relations between hacking and the communicative figuration within the Club are best understood as interlocking arrangements (Kubitschko 2015). These, as will be argued below, have wider consequences for the Chaos Computer Club’s standing as a political actor

Similarly, the Club is not aiming for visibility at any price; which can be seen in the fact that it does not make use of Facebook or many other capital oriented and data hungry infrastructures.

actors increasingly invest human, technological and financial resources in ‘“being the media” instead of hating it’ (Cammaerts 2012: 125). The CCC is no exception in this regard. over the past two decades, Club members have initiated a reg-ular radio show (Chaosradio), podcasts (e.g. CRE and Alternativlos), accounts on both popular and alternative online platforms such as Twitter, Quitter and personal blogs, to name some of the more promi-nent examples. Instead of abandoning outward oriented channels such as the Chaosradio show or the Datenschleuder magazine, the Club inte-grates its ‘trans-media’ (Costanza-Chock 2014) efforts into a ‘media manifold’ (Couldry 2012), where one communicative practice does not necessarily substitute for the other, but plays a part in the Club’s overall media ensemble.

Right from the start the Club had close affiliations with the then newly founded alternative tageszeitung (‘daily newspaper’), commonly referred to as taz, one of the Club’s co-founders (Wau Holland) being a column-ist during the mid-1980s. In addition, the hacker organization has pub-lished its own Datenschleuder magazine since 1984 (still ongoing) and was very active in enlarging bulletin boards systems (BBS) in Germany throughout the 1980s. Consequently, the Club’s media ensemble relied on practices related to analogue and digital media and comprised both coverage by and access to news outlets

Richard Ericson and his colleagues (1989) make a useful distinc-tion between media access and media coverage. By access, they mean the news space, time and context to reasonably represent one’s own perspec-tive, whereas coverage entails news space and time but not necessarily the context for favourable representations (Ericson etal. 1989: 5). This distinction is vital because it demonstrates that media access—as with access to all kinds of resources at institutional levels—remains a politi-cal question (Freedman 2014). While media coverage simply denotes the amount and prominence of attention and visibility a group receives, media access indicates that an actor has a particular standing and is treated as an actor with a serious voice in the media

t from day one the Club complemented its hacks with outward-oriented com-munication aimed to make the hackers’ findings comprehensible and its political demands visible to the largest possible public. The Btx hack itself, for example, would not have been overly effectual if news media had not picked up the story. As news media reported widely on the hack and were largely in support of the hackers’ criticism, the hack gained an event character. Following the Btx hack, the CCC was recognized as a collective actor that had something relevant to say about the communi-cation and information landscape in Germany. The CCC was invited to speak on the main television news magazine of public broadcaster ZDF, the advice of Club members was frequently sought by national newspa-pers, they were asked by corporations to speak on data security and were requested by the newly established Green Party to write a report on the Party’s potential use of networked computing. one of the important details here is that instead of only being the subject of media coverage, the CCC had the opportunity to communicate its point of view to differ-ent audiences

a lower number of partici-pating members also meant a lower number of differing opinions; which, in turn, enabled the group to keep the frames of relevance more focused and to make decisions in a timely manner. Accordingly, performing direct digital action in the form of hacking was directly related to com-municative practices, as they later played an important role in relation to organizing, coordinating and executing the Club’s political project

Pads were an advancement on wikis, for example, as they brought different technological affordances together and ena-bled CCC members to act interlinked, multi-locally, and time-efficient. Depending on the particular need of the group, different communica-tive practices that formed layers of exclusivity fluently merged from one application to another. While the use of particular tools such as IRC and Pads was creating and underlining organizational structures, this was not only done for reasons of secrecy or exclusivity. The fact that only a selected number of individuals were involved in particular activities and included in exclusive communicative practices was to a large degree also down to practicality. Considering the growing size of the CCC, the Club’s activities and internal organization would be simply unmanage-able without the discussed practices

, IRC was a much more restricted channel: it allowed longer-term, active and trusted mem-bers to communicate amongst each other and to form small groups that shared valuable information. Being able to communicate with each other through online systems such as IRC allowed the CCC to create different layers of exclusivity in which members could communicate one to one and amongst a selected few. These layers permitted the hackers to solve most of the issues related to keeping up boundaries between internal and external communication. Likewise, these layers formed and deepened existing organizational structures within the Club by creating exclusive communication environments for the sake of executing political work in more dynamic and secretive ways.More recently, the spectrum of these tools has, of course, increased beyond IRC.

During that time, the CCC was publicly affiliated with illegal hacks that, amongst other things, involved the Soviet Union’s KGB (the Committee for State Security) and hacking into NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) computer systems. As internal communication soured, accusations got out of hand and dis-putes amongst core members led to controversies that almost saw the Club’s dissolution. After reorganizing and re-establishing its own iden-tity over the coming year

Similarly, the desire to communicate and collaborate and to coordinate activities within and beyond the Club’s boundaries through decentral-ized infrastructures was the driving force behind the hackers’ efforts to establish these networks

overall, the character of the CCC was defined by the objective to form a collective of politically motivated technologists that would not only do things with technology but also act upon i

day is a digital rights and civil society organization whose members have advised all major political parties in Germany over the past years, have written expert reports for the German constitutional court on six occasions and have been invited to be part of governmental committees. organization, in the context of this framework, is not understood as a static phenom-enon, but as a ‘discursive construction’ (Fairhurst and Putnam 2004) produced through an ongoing process of ‘organized sense makin

en together, recent theoriza-tion and research highlights the ever more substantial role hackers play for contemporary social and political arrangements. overall, it can be said that recent investigations of hacker cultures bring forward a multi-layered and revealing characterization of hackers by looking closely at who they are, what they do and why they do it, instead of preserving ste-reotypes or proclaiming generalizations. It is this latter conceptual posi-tioning of hackers, hacking and hacktivism that this research is drawing on and aims to expand by adapting a figurational approach

. Tim Jordan (2013) characterizes hacktivism as an explicitly political form of computing. Leah Lievrouw (2011) pictures hacking as ‘alternative computing’ to describe a range of activities that focus on constructive political, social and cultural purposes

In other words, with the increasing relevance of practices related to media technologies and infra-structures for social arrangements in general, and for political engage-ments in particular, media technologies and infrastructures increasingly become sites of political struggle in their own right (Kubitschko 2017). It is in this context that scholarly interest in ‘hacker cultures’—owing to the diversity of hacker collectives the plural is essential—has grown considerably in the past decade. While governmental institutions and mainstream media often use ‘hacking’ as an umbrella term for com-puter-related crime, these depictions are contrasted with insightful research that highlights hackers’ interaction with contemporary political landscapes.

By employing the concept of communicative figuration—actor constellations, communicative practices and their frames of relevance—the chapter elaborates how the CCC communicatively constructs media technol-ogies and infrastructures as a political category in its own right

concrete entities such as civil society organizations and on the role media technologies and infrastructures play in political engagements other than protest and mobilization (see Karpf 2012). Recent studies on hackers and hacking—understood as one particular set of contemporary political engagement—are no exception in this regard, as they tend to focus on contentious and globally networked forms of activism (Coleman 2014)

la información que estaba en el archivo PDF,

La información contenida en esta web está protegida por licencias de Creative Commons. Eso quiere decir que se puede compartir libremente, siempre y cuando se dé el crédito apropiado, no se modifique la información y no se explote comercialmente.

As a developer familiar with Smalltalk I would myself describe it, in terms of its basic structure of entelechies and messages, as metabolically oriented, if I was forced to include orientation in the description

Makingrightsclaimsinorbysayinganddoing‘I,we,theyhavearightto’isnotfoundedinisolationorasifitsprangfromnowhere:citizensubjectsareoftenordinaryratherthanheroicsubjectswhohavestruggledtoarticulate,claim,andmaketheserightsthroughmultipleandoverlappinglegalorders.Thedisappearanceorabsenceofthefigureofacitizenthatwehaveinheritedandwhocanmakeclaimsto‘I,we,theyhavearightto’isnotsimplyapoliticsoftradition:itisalsoapoliticsofacitizentocome.

Tothinkthatdigitalrightsincyberspacecanbeguaranteedandsecuredbyinscriptionincharters,declarations,andmanifestosofrightsistoneglectthatthedailyenactmentofrightsisanecessarybutnotsufficientguarantee.Conversely,tothinkthatthedailyenactmentofrightsincyberspaceistheguaranteeoffreedomistoneglectthatwithoutinscription,enactmentwouldnothaveitsperformativeforce.Beingdigitalcitizensrequiresstagingscenesofdissensusbyactingassubjectsthatdonothavetherightsthattheydoandhavetherightsthattheyshould.Themosteffectiveguaranteeofrightsisboththeirinscription(citation,repetition,anditerationindeclarations)andenactment(resignificationthroughacts).

Thismaynotbestatedexplicitly,butthediscourseoninscribingdigitalrightsashumanrightsininternationalhumanrightslawoftenassumesthattheforceofsuchlawswillguaranteethatindividuals,states,corporations,andotherbodieswillperformthem.Thisassumptionfailstorecognizethathowpeopleexperiencebeingdigitalcitizensandhowtheyperformrightsbybringingthemintobeingthroughenactingthemselvesarethegroundsonwhichrightswillbeguaranteed.Howpeopleexperienceperformingrightsisthekeytounderstandinghowtheyinhabitthatspaceofrightsanddevelopapoliticalsubjectivitynecessarytomakingrightsclaims‘I,we,theyhavearightto’.Withoutsuchunderstandingandwithoutdevelopingconceptsandmethodsappropriatetosuchanunderstanding,mosteffortstoinscriberights,weareafraid,wouldremaininadequate,forthesewouldberightswithoutpoliticalsubjects.Conversely,thesamecanbesaidforthosewhoassumethattheenactmentofrights,ofimaginativelyandperformativelybringingrightsintobeing,wouldguaranteetheirinscription.Withoutunderstandingthelegalityofclaimsandtheirscopeorsubstance,suchenactmentswouldremaininadequate,too.Withouttheforceoflaw,thiswouldamounttosubjectswithoutpoliticalrights.Itisthatspacebetweeninscriptionandenactmentthatprovidescluestounderstandinghowdigitalcitizensareemergingaspoliticalsubjectsofoureraandthosewhosepoliticssidewitheitherinscriptionorenactmentaresomewhatmissingthesignificanceofthatrelation.

First,itisundecidablewhetheranactisindeedcapableofproducingasubjectthatitnames.Forthatreason,withoutguarantees,itmustbedoneregardlessofitsactualeffects,fortheeffectsofcitationanditerationareasmuchaboutbringingthepoliticalsubjectthusnamedintobeingasaboutmakinganattempttoremindourselvesthat‘I,we,theyhavearightto’mustbeperformed.Second,withoutnamingthepoliticalsubject,withoutcitinganditeratingyetagainthat‘I,we,theyhavearightto’,itseventualeffectwillnotbeaccomplished,thatis,bringingtheforceoflawintobeing.

Rather,andthisisDerrida’sintervention,theactbringsthepeople,itspoliticalsubject,intobeingthroughtheact.Thepeopleadeclarationnamesdonotexist.Derridawrites,‘[People]donotexistasanentity,itdoesnotexist,beforethisdeclaration,notassuch.Ifitgivesbirthtoitself,asfreeandindependentsubject,aspossiblesigner,thiscanholdonlyintheactofthesignature.Thesignatureinventsthesigner.’

Weareconcernedthatthedividebetweentheenactmentandinscriptionofdigitalrightsremainsdangerouslyopen.Thosewhoseattempttoinscriberightsinlawworkwiththeassumptionthattheirenactmentwillfollowtheirinscription.Thosewhoseactsenactdigitalrightsworkwiththeconvictionthattheirinscriptionwillfollowtheirenactment.WithRancière,wecansaythattheirinscriptionisapreludetotheirenactmentwhiletheirenactmentinspirestheirinscription.Thosewhoaremakingdigitalrightsclaimsinsayingsomething(inscription)areonaseparatebutnecessarilyrelatedpathfromthosewhoaremakingdigitalrightsclaimsbysayingsomething(enactment).Letusconsidermorecloselymakingrightsclaimsinsayingsomethingandbysayingsomething.

Byadvancingthefigureofthecitizenthatwehaveinherited,aren’tweriskingusing‘Western’concepts?Thisis,ofcourse,alegitimateobjectionandrequiresaresponse.Whenweuse‘we’asthesubjectwhoisinheritingthefigureofthecitizensubject,wehaveinmindabroaderconceptionthanaEuropeanorEuro-Americanconception.AlthoughwegiveseeminglyEuropeanandAmericanevents—1689,1776,1789,1835,1945—foritsformation,itdependsonhowweunderstandthoseeventsthatmakesthembelongtoEuropeanorworldhistories.Clearly,itisbeyondthetaskofthisbooktoaddressthatissue.Ourargumenthereisthatbills,charters,declarations,andmanifestosoughttonotonlyenactuniversalprinciplesbutalsorequireregionalenactments.Theremustbeareflexivesensitivityabout

Othersmaydismissthesebills,charters,declarations,andmanifestosfortheirlackoflegalorevenperformativeforce.Theymayarguethatregardlessofsuchdeclarations,orevenperhapsinthefaceofthem,statesandcorporationscontinuetocolonizecyberspaceandplaysovereigntygames.TheymayarguethatitisnolongerjuststatessuchasChina,whichpioneeredfilteringandblocking(euphemisticallycalledtheGreatFirewall),butalsoahugerange,includingtheUnitedKingdom,UnitedStates,andEuropeanstatesthatareengagedinthisbattleforcontrol.Moreover,thisisnotastrugglebetweenstatesandtheircitizensbutastruggleinvolvingthecollusionandcomplicityofespeciallyAmericancorporationsinvariousrolesasserviceprovidersorconsultantsforfiltering,blocking,andcensoring.[75]Thesecriticismshaveconsiderablemerits.

On5July2012,theUNHumanRightsCouncilalsoadoptedaresolutiononthepromotion,protection,andenjoymentofhumanrightsontheInternet,affirmingthathumanrightsapplytobothonlineandofflineactivities.

JeffJarvisproposedthatanybillofrightsshouldinclude,‘Wehavetherighttoconnect.Wehavetherighttospeak.Wehavetherighttospeakinourlanguages.Wehavetherighttoassemble.Wehavetherighttoact.Wehavetherighttocontrolourdata.Wehavetherighttoourownidentity.Whatispublicisapublicgood.TheInternetshallbebuiltandoperatedopenly.’

Thecharterincludesnineteenrightsandonesetofduties,whichareimportanttooutline

Themostimportantprinciplesthatevincedigitalrightsinvolvedfiverights:connectivity,access,capacity,security,governance,equity,anddiversity.[54]Thedocumentdoesnotspecifydigitalrightsassuch,butimportantlyitrecognizesthatwhatwasthencalled‘theinformationsociety’constitutesaninternationalresourceandthatthiscallsforinternationalresponsibility.Insubsequentinitiativesanddeclarations,thesefiverightshavebecomebuildingblocksofclaimingdigitalrights.

TheUnitedNationsWorldSummitontheInformationSociety(WSIS),heldinDecember2003inGeneva,iswidelyrecognizedasa‘constitutionforcyberspace.’[52]TheimportanceofWSISisthatitdrawsitsimaginaryforcefromtheUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(1948)andinstitutesparallelsbetweenthoserightsanddigitalrights.[53]Theorganizationofthesummitandthedeclarationofitsprinciplesweretheresultsofyearsofwork.Itssixty-sevenprincipleshavemoreclausesthanmanyconstitutionsinclude.Itisanambitiousdocument,anditsfirstprincipleaffirm

Thissensibilityisalsoakeytounderstandinghowthesedeclarationsarecumulativelybringingapoliticalsubject,asyetunnamed,intobeing.

However,therelationofethicstopoliticsinsummoningapoliticalsubject—thoughithasnotbeenexpressedthisway—hasbeenanimportantelementacrossallofthesedeclarations.Sowearegoingtomentionafewalmostarbitrarily,andthenwewillbegintodifferentiatethem.WithDerrida,wewillthenseehowwecaninterprettheirimaginaryandperformativeforceinsummoningapoliticalsubjectasyetwithoutaname.

Itisreallyimportanttoconsiderthemasspeechactsandaskwhatclaimstheybringintobeinginorbymakingdeclarationsaboutrights.ItiseasytodismissthesedeclarationsthattheInternethasoccasioned,buttheyalsobegexamination.Somedismissthemfortheirostensibleineffectiveness,butthisisunderstoodintermsofconstativeratherthanperformativeeffects.Thequestionwe’dratheraskiswhat,ifany,imaginaryandperformativeifnotlegalforcedotheyhave?

Rancièrecallsbringingthesetwoaspectsofrightstogetherasdissensus.Itisdissensusratherthanconsensusbecausepoliticsisalwaysacontestationoverwhoiscountedandwhatcounts.ForRancière,apoliticalsubjectinvolvesthecapacityforstagingsuchscenesofdissensus.Thus,‘politicalsubjectsarenotdefinitecollectivities.Theyaresurplusnames,namesthatsetoutaquestionoradisputeaboutwhoisincludedintheircount.’

Remarkably,thepublicimageofhackershasaninverserelationshiptotheiracts.

Itisalsotemptingtointerpretthem

Wewanttoreadtheemergenceandtransformationsofthedigitalrightsmovementfromtheperspectiveofdigitalactsasoneofthenecessaryelementsformakingdigitalrightsclaims.Whethertheseactscumulativelyconstituteadigitalrightsmovementcomparabletoothersocialmovementswillconcernscholarsintheforeseeablefuture,andwecannotaddressthatquestionhere.Instead,wewanttogatherfromdisparateanddisperseddigitalactstherecognitionofadimlyemergingfigureasthesubjectofdigitalrights.Itistheemergenceofthisspecificpoliticalsubjectivityarounddigitalrightsandtheclaimsthroughwhichithasemerged—andtheopeningsandclosingsithasinstigated—thatformsthecentralquestionofthisbook.

Twodecadeslater,CAE’sviewon‘electroniccivildisobedience’seemsbothprescientandnaïve

CriticalArtEnsemble(CAE)

Whoisthesubjectofthesedigitalrights?Sinceweareinterestedintheprocessesthroughwhichtheserightsareenactedratherthantheirsubstance,ourquestionof‘who’concernsthatofpoliticalsubjectivitythroughtheInternet.[4]Aswehaveexpresseditinvariousways,‘who’doesnotcorrespondtoanalreadyformedpoliticalsubjectbutafigure:Howisapoliticalsubjectbeingconstitutedasaclaimantofdigitalrights?Wehaveillustratedthroughoutthisbookthatdigitalactstraversemultiplenationalbordersandlegalorders.Yetmakingrightsclaimsthattraversebordersisoftenaddressedthroughsovereignregionalornationallegalordersandtheirparticularunderstandingofrights.

Threerights—expression,access,andprivacy—haveemergedasthemostoftendebateddigitalrights.Tothese,opennessandinnovationhaverecentlybeenadded.Alltogether,thesefiverightshavecometoconstitutedigitalrightsincyberspace.

Witnessing,hacking,andcommoningarethreedigitalactsthathavebecomepossibleoverthepastfewyearsandhavecreatedopeningsforbeingdigitalcitizensinorbymakingrightsclaims.Theresignificationofexistingortheintroductionofnewconventionsmadetheseactspossible:Bitcoin,copyleft,CreativeCommons,Digg,GitHub,GNN,GNU,WikiLeaks,andmanyothers.Nodoubtsomeoftheseconventionswillbereplacedordisplacedbyothers.Somewillbecomedefunct.Somewillperhapspersistasatestamenttothedigitalcommons.Therewillcertainlybenewconventions.Whatenduresistheperformativeforcethathasgoneintomakingtheseopeningspossible.IfweunderstandcyberspaceasaspaceofrelationsbetweenandamongbodiesactingthroughtheInternet,witnessing,hacking,andcommoningresignifyorinventconventionsandmakepossibletheemergenceofnewwaysofbeingcitizensubjectsincyberspace.

Arguingthatthedebate(orbattle)overcopyrightinthe1990swasbeingincreasinglypolarizedinto‘allrightsreserved’versus‘norightsreserved’extremes,LessigandhiscolleaguesfoundedtheCreativeCommonsconventionin2002toenabledigitalcreatorstomaintaincertainrightsfortheirintellectuallabourwhileprovidingitsdisseminationandcirculation.[75]Whileithasitscritics(whoarguethatitreproducestheflawsofcopyrightlaws),CreativeCommonsisaningeniousconventionthatruptures(resignifiesradically)acopyrightconventionandprovidesvariousactionsbywhichacreatorisabletospecifyrightsthatshewantstoretain

Iftherewereawaytobypassexistingfinancialinstitutionsandachieveperson-to-personpayments,itwouldbeamoreradicalinventionthantheinventionofmoney.Bitcoinnotonlyresignifiesanonymity,extensity,traceability,andvelocityofadigitalactbutalsorupturestheexistingmonopolyovertransactionsheldbyfinancialinstitutions.Theinterestingaspectofthesystemisthatitrequireskeepingalltransactionsonapublicledgersincethisistheonlywaytomaintainproofofitswork.Yetalthoughalltransactionsarepublic,thepartiesinthesetransactionsremainanonymous,representedonlybypublicencryptionkeys

Sotheproblemthatcopyleftsolvedwashowtoprovidefreesoftwarebutmaintainitsfreedom.TheideaofcopyleftbecamethefoundationofageneralpubliclicenceknownasGPLandspurredglobalfreesoftwareandopen-sourcesoftwaremovements.

Whilemuchofthefocusonthedigitalcommonshasfocusedonitasthecauseofintellectualcopyrightproblems,arguablyitistheotherwayaround:digitalcommonsaroseasachallengetothisconcentrationandusurpationofcreativeproduction.Howrapidlythisconcentrationhappenedoverthreedecadesandhowthedigitalcommonsemergedasachallengetothisoligopolisticsystemisasignificantaspectofunderstandingactsofcommoning.

Yetthedigitalcommons—theriseofaninternationalmovementtocreate,contribute,share,anddistributedigitalobjects—isamorefundamentalchallengethanareactiontothemorerecentrestrictionsofcopyrightlaw.Thechallengeisagainsttherelentlessdrivetoconvertknowledgeintocapitaloverthepasttwocenturies

Copyrightderivesitslegalforcefromlawsthatprotectexclusiverightstoandcontrolofintellectualproperty.EvenifitsoriginscanbetracedtoearlymodernEurope(sixteenthtoeighteenthcenturies),itismoderninthesensethattheformationofintellectualproperty—thatis,theconversionofcreativeproductssuchaswords,data,images,andsoundintopropertyforexchange—isaresultoftheaccumulationofcapitalinmodernsocieties.

ThevirtueofhacktivismisthatitremindsusthatactivismontheInternetandthepoliticalcyberspacethatitcreatessharealineagewithespeciallythesocialstrugglesagainstracism,misogyny,inequality,exploitation,xenophobia,homophobia,andotherformsofoppressionandinjusticethatdefinedthetwentiethcentury.

Atanyrate,thisbringsustothesecondgroupwementionedearlier:hacktivists.Thetermisnotanelegantone,andithashadalimitedtraction,probablyforthatreason.Butitintroducesavitaldistinctionintermsofunderstandingtheeffectsofwhathackersdoinorbysayingsomethingandthusdoingsomethingwithcode.JordanandTaylorcapturedthisvitaldifferencebydesignatinghacktivistsasrebelswithacauseandyetposingthisstatementwithaquestionmarktoindicatethattheeffectsarenotstraightforwardtointerpret.

Whataretheeffectsofdigitalactsofhacking?Whatconventionsdotheseactsbreak?Whatconventionsdotheseactsresignify?Theyareasbroadastherearetypesofhackers

Levydrewamorenuancedandpanoramicviewofhackersyetstillpracticallyreproducedtheclandestineimage.Critiquingthisimage,TimJordanandPaulTaylorarguethatvariousclassesofhackersemergedovertimeandneedtobedistinguished.

whatdifferentiateshackersfromprogrammersisthatinorbysayingsomethingthroughcode,hackerschallenge,ifnotsubvert,conventionsinwhichtheyfindthemselves.Hackersarethosewhoseactssubvertconventionsgoverningthemselvesanddigitalcitizens.Colemanrecognizesthat‘manyhackersarecitizensofliberaldemocracies,andhavedrawnonthetypesofaccessibleliberaltropes—notablyfreespeech—asameanstoconceptualizetheirtechnicalpracticeandsecurenovelpoliticalclaims.’ButgiventheextensityoftheInternet,whilethisstatementmayhavebeentrueinthepast,itwouldbehardtosubstantiatetodaythathackersareonlycitizensofliberaldemocracies,meaningtheyarelegalholdersofcitizenshipstatusinliberaldemocraticstates.

OneaspectofhackerculturethatColemanhighlightsistheslogan‘codeisspeech’.[46]CodeisindeedthelanguageoftheInternet.Butisitspeech?FollowingAustin,wearguethatthroughspeechactswedosomethinginorbysayingsomething.Similarly,wewouldarguethatprogrammersaredoingsomethinginorbycodingsomething.Yet,toarticulatethismoreprecisely,codeisnotspeech:itisalanguageinorbywhichspeechactsareperformed.Justasinhumanlanguages,thedecisivethingsherearenotonlythelinguisticconventionsthatanimatespeechactsbutalsothesocialconventionsthattheybringabout

Colemanarguesthatbymostlycircumventingcopyrightlawswiththeircommitmenttothefreecirculationofintellectualproperty,hackerscontradicttheexistingliberalconceptionofintellectualpropertyastherighttoexcludeandcontrol.Yetbyadvancingvaluesofcivillibertiesandpromotingindividualautonomyand,aboveall,acommitmenttofreespeech,hackersarethemostardentpromotersofliberalvalues.Thus,forColeman,hackersoccupybothacentralandmarginal—wemightsayaparadoxical—placewithintheliberaltradition.

Thestoriesthathavebeentoldabouthackersmakeitdifficulttoresignifythissubjectofpowerafresh.Sincethe1980s,theimageofhackershasdominatedfictionalandsemifictionalworldsofwritingandfilmmaking.Ourfocushere,though,istogetagripontheopeningsthat‘actsofhacking’havecreated.

Forus,probablythemostpertinentdistinctionisbetweenprogrammersandhackers.Inorbysayingsomethingincodeperformsbothillocutionaryandperlocutionaryacts.

Asweaffirminchapter2,wethinkthatthecitizensubjectisnottheexclusivepropertyofthenation-state.Onthecontrary,thenation-statemayhavebecomealiabilityforupholdingthesubjectofpowerwehaveinherited.AsAllanwrites,manyoftheissuesthatcitizenjournalismraisesare‘setagainstthebackdropofincidentsaroundtheglobewherethenation-state’sideologicalappropriationofcitizenship—fromoutrightattacksonitslegitimacytothesteadyerosionofitsprotections,typically(andironically)inthenameofnationalsecurity—hasmadejournalismasastruggleover“therighttobearwitness”.’[39]Citizenwitnessingisanongoingandcrucialaspectofdemocraticcitizenship.TheInternet,bycreatingopeningsfordigitalcitizens,hasmadecitizenwitnessinganindispensablepartofapoliticalimaginary.Thisisnotwithoutitsdangersandperils(co-optation,assimilation,infiltration,taming,blocking,filtering,andsoon),butthat’swhatalsomakesitasiteofpoliticalstruggles.

TheethicaldimensionbecomesevenclearerwhenAssangesays,‘Thosewhoarerepeatedlypassiveinthefaceofinjusticesoonfindtheircharactercorrodedintoservility.’[33]Toputitinourwords,citizensubjects,preciselybecauseoftheircapacitytojudge,arenotmerelyobedient(orservile)butalsosubversive.Thisisbecausesubmissiontoconventionsrequiresusingjudgementonthetermsofsubmission.Althoughthecitizensubjectsubmitstoconventions,becauseofthiscapacity,thecallofsubversiontoruptureaconventionalwaysretainsitsforce.Assangeclearlyappealsheretoanaspectofjournalisticethics—bearingwitness—butheresignifiesitpoliticallybyidentifyingitasacalltoact.ThedebateoverwhetherWikiLeaksisaplatformforjournalismorwhistle-blowingoverlooksthatitprimarilyenableswitnessing—thattheworldmayknow(differently).Itisoftenarguedthatsuchwhistle-blowingexposesclassifiedsecretsandendangerstheintelligenceworkofthestate.Butwhatwhistle-blowingexposesisthattherearethosewhofinditintolerabletowitnessabusesandmisusesofauthorityandnotsharethem.Ifbankersdeceive,soldiersmassacre,agenciessnoop,anddiplomatslie,citizenshavetherighttoknowthat.Citizenshavearighttoknowwhatstateandcorporateauthoritiesaredoingin,andoftenwith,theirname.WikiLeaksandwhistle-blowingingeneralareessentiallyclaimingthisrighttoknow.

Ifthat’sthecase,wequestionwhetherthereshouldbeadifferentlabelforcuratorsandaggregatorsfortworeasons.Aswehaveargued,digitalactsinvolvedoingsomethingthroughvariousactionsnotconfinedtolanguagebutincludingimagesandsoundsaswellasthecoding,linking,andclassifyingofcontent.Second,theseactionsresignifyquestionsofanonymity,extensity,traceability,andvelocity.Theyenablethedisseminationofnewswithanonymityatalmostinstantaneousspeedthroughnumerousnetworks,andtheyleavetracesalongtheway.Asweshallnowargue,thisisindeedadistinctlycyberspaceenactmentofcitizenwitnessing

AsGoodeillustrateswhenhecallsthisactivitymetajournalism,manyactionsontheInternetinvolvesubjectstagging,aggregating,redirecting,liking,ranking,rating,andrepostingnewsitemsproducedbycitizenjournalists.[28]Theseactionsbywhichpeoplesubmittoconventionsarehowthesubject,thecitizenjournalist,isenacted.

differentplatformsproducedifferentsociotechnicalarrangements—rules,norms,procedures,protocols,code,andalgorithms—inordertocreateaneffectivepresentationfortheirusers.Thesearrangements,orwhatwecallconventions,accomplishnotonlyasenseoffairnessbutalsostronghierarchiesthroughwhichnewsisproduced.[19]Thereisnoreasontobelievethattheseplatformsfeatureflathierarchiesorsmoothspacesofdialogue;rather,theyarehierarchicalandstriated.Theissuesofstatusandgatekeepingareasprominentintheseplatformsastheyareelsewhere.

‘citizenjournalismunderstandspeopleashavingpoliticalroles,interestsandrelationships,andasactivelyinterestedinsharingnewstheydeemrelevant.Itunderstands,orperhapsintuits,thataknee-jerkdefinitionofallformsofjournalismasacquiringanddistributinginformationmissesthepoint.’

BoletteBlaagaard,forexample,arguesthatthecontributionofcitizenjournalismhasbeentochallengetheostensibleobjectivityofprofessionaljournalism.[4]Shearguesthatincreatingajournalisticobjectivity,professionaljournalismportrayedaknowingsubjectthatisdetached,unemotional,neutral,unbiased,andindependent.Bycontrast,citizenjournalism’scontributionhasbeentodemonstratethatpassionate,attached,affective,andbiasedyetfairreportingcanresultfromjournalisticsubjectivity

Fromourperspective,participationisasubmissive(thoughnotobedient)actinorbywhichacitizensubjectperformsaclaim.Thereoughttobesomethingbroaderthanconnectingittojournalismalonetocharacterizeactsbywhichcitizensproduceknowledgeaboutevents.Moreover,theassociationoftheterm‘citizen’withthisrathersubmissiveparticipationoverlookstheradicalpotentialofthefigureofthecitizensubjectasanagentofsubmissionandsubversionandthussubjectofpower

thismomentsignalledthattheInternetwaslooseningthegripofprofessionaljournalismontheproductionanddisseminationofnewsandtruthtelling.Sincethen,muchhasbeenwrittenonwhetherthisisindeedthecaseorwhetherprofessionaljournalismhasnowconsolidateditsgrip.Butthereisnodoubtthathoweveritisdefined—alternativejournalism,citizen’smedia,citizenjournalism,democraticmedia,andradicalmedia—somethingnewisafootinjournalistictruthtellingandknowledgeproductionthroughcyberspace.

Tobesure,eachofthesecitizensubjectsexistedbeforecyberspace.Thetraditionsofcommunitynewspapersentirelyrunbycitizenjournalists,protestsanddemonstrationsorganizedbycitizenactivists,andthecooperativemovementsofcitizenproducersareprominentexamples.However,eachofthesehasbeenresignifiedthroughcyberspace.TheriseandimpactofWikiLeaksandwhistle-blowingasformsofcitizenjournalismhavedramaticallyalteredthepoliticsofknowledgeandtherighttoknow.TheemergenceofhackerculturesandmovementssuchasAnonymoushasdramaticallytransformedthemeaningandfunctionofprotest.TheemergenceofWikipediahasspectacularlyupstagedthesubjectsandagentsofknowledgeproductionanddissemination.

‘takethecurrenttechnologicallandscapeasgiven.’[75]Instead,shecallsformechanismsthatpreserve‘roomfortheactsoftacticalevasionandsituatedcreativity’thatallowcitizensubjectsto‘tinker,repurpose,andadapt’andpush‘againstthosestructures,sometimesconformingtothemandsometimesfindingwaystoworkaroundthem.’[76]CitingJonathanZittrain,Cohennoteshisprincipleofthe‘generativity’oftechnologies,whichreferstothecapacityofatechnologytoallowitsuserstotinker,revise,andmakenewthingsthatwereneveranticipatedbytheirdesigners

Whiletherecertainlyarebigdifferencesintherelationsofpowerbetweencitizensubjectsandplatformowners,actionscananddoexceedtheaffordancesoftheirconventions.Itisinrelationtothenormalizingtendenciesofcyberspace—fromthosethatformattheactionsthatmakeupparticipating,connecting,andsharingtothoseoffilteringandtracking—thattensionsariseandcitizensubjectsengageintheplayofobedience,submission,andsubversion.

whileeachoftheseconventionsembodiessimilaractions,fromreportingfunctionstoconsentingtocookies,thekindsofcitizensubjectstheycultivatearenothomogeneousanduniversalbutfragmented,multiple,andagonistic

inHabboHotelcontrolismodulatedwherenewactionsareconstantlybeingincorporated,aninventivepowerthatisworkingbyinclusion,asFoucaultillustrated,and‘whoseeffectwillbegreaterthanthesumofitscomponentparts’,asDeleuzeargued.

Thatis,notwithstandingwhatwehavestatedaboveinregardtonormalization,itiswrongtoconfinetheconsequencesofplatformstotheactionsoftheirdesignersandtechnologies;instead,theirperformativeforcespringsfromtheactionsofcitizensubjects.

Ratherthanaself-regulatingcommunityaspromotedbytheowners,theresearchersconcludethatthesiteadvancesanimaginaryofthe‘modelcitizen’builtonexpectationsthatsubjectsinternalizerulesbyengaginginself-surveillanceandself-policing,andwhentheseself-regulatorymechanismsfail,subjectsaredisciplinedbymoderators(e.g.,sanctioned,expelled,orbanned)

‘themorepredictableresultwouldbeagradualdesertificationoftheculturallifeofindividualsnolongerabletoencounterwhatisunusual,unexpected,andsurprising.’[61]Ratherthanindividualizedbubbles,sharingsegregatessocialnetworkusersintoculturalbubblesofpreferences,products,andknowledge

Whileitmaysoundcontradictory,evenpersonalizationisanormalizingaction.Thepersonalizedprofilesor‘filterbubbles’generatedbyplatformssuchasGoogleandFacebookoperateonstandardizedalgorithms;whilethepredictionsabout‘whoyouareandwhatyou’lldoandwantnext’maybeuniquefordifferentsubjects,theyareuniqueonlyinlinewiththerulesofthealgorithm.

consentdoesnotmeancitizensubjectscontroltheirindividualdigitaltracesorcaneverfullybeawareofwhattheirconsentunleashes.Unknownarethedispersedsiteswheretheirtracesmaytravelorbeaggregatedandthepurposesforwhichtheymaybeanalysed.Thecirculationofdigitaltracesisextensive,andratherthanregulating,consentinvolvestheregularizing,authorizing,andnormalizingofthetrackingandcirculationofthedigitaltracesofcitizensubjects

Weusecookiestoprovideyouwithabetterservice.Carryonbrowsingifyou’rehappywiththis,orfindouthowtomanagecookies.’

However,evenwhenconsensuallyinstalled,usersrarelyunderstandhowspywareworksandoftenforgetaboutitspresence.[50]Cookiesarethemostpervasiveform.Theyarebitsofdatastoredondevicesandsenttobrowsersbywebsitesthatarevisitedorthroughtechniqueslike‘devicefingerprinting’,whichenableswatchingsubjectswhodeleteordonotstorecookies.[51]Theyareusednotonlyformonitoringdigitalactionsbutalsofortrackingpreferredlanguage,login,andotherpersonalsettingssuchassearchpreferencesandfortargetingadvertisingandtrackingnumbersofvisitstosites.[52]Digitaltracespickedupbycookieshavealsobeenrepurposedbysecurityagencies,suchastheNSA’sutilizationofGoogle’sadvertisingcookiestotracktargets.

afocusontheanticipatoryandthefuturesuchthatmoreemphasisisgiventopredicting,intervening,andmanagingconsequencesratherthanunderstandingcauses;andthemoreeasyandsuccessfuladoptionandadaptionofdatatodifferentfieldswithlittlerisk

Thatis,ratherthanasimplequestionofchoiceorexchangeeconomy,citizensubjectsarecaughtbetweenthedemandstoparticipateandconnect—andallthereasonsandvaluestheyattachtothis—andtheinterests,imperatives,andtrade-offsconfiguredbyplatformowners.Butitwouldbewrongtoreducethistomerelytheinterestofplatformowners,whichareonlyoneelementinthemake-upofconventionssuchasbrowsing.Theconventionsofsocialnetworkinginevitablyembodythesocialandculturalnorms,rules,andcustomsofwhichcitizensubjectsareapartandtakepart

Thesedigitaltracesareoftenreferredtoasbigdataandarepopularlydiscussedasaresource,arawmaterialwithqualitiestobeminedandcapitalized,thenewoiltobetappedtospureconomies.Throughavarietyofpracticesofvaluation,corporationsnotonlyexploitthedigitaltracesoftheircustomerstomaximizetheiroperationsbutalsosellthosetracestoothers.Forthatreason,citizensubjectswhouseplatformssuchasGooglearesometimesreferredtonotasitscustomersbutasitsproduct.

atrendthatshecallsa‘modernexampleofatragedyofthecommons.’[33]Justasintheclassicversion,subjectswhoprotecttheirdatacontinuetoreapthecollectivebenefits(suchasinmedicine)ofdataleftinthecommons,yetthosebenefitsarethreatenedandwilldegenerateasdatasubjectsoptout.Othersstrikeadifferentwarning,arguingthattheanonymizationofidentityleadstocrowdbehaviourandsubjectstakinglessresponsibilityforwhattheysayanddoandincreasesthelikelihoodoftheirmisbehaving.[34]Boththeargumentsforandagainstanonymizationasasolutionpresumethatwhatisatissueisprotectingthe‘datadoubles’ofcitizensubjects.

Numerousformsofanonymizationalsoexist,suchasthosethatinvolveexpostfactoremovalofmetadata,whichgovernmentsorbusinessesdowhensharingdatawiththirdparties.Thisisdistinctfromanonymity,whichinvolvesactionsthatavoididentificationbyusingpseudonymsorencryptionsuchasPGP(PrettyGoodPrivacy).Theseactionsperformtherighttoactwithoutbeingidentified.

Onlywhentrackinginvolvesdatafying(theprocessofrenderinganaction,attribute,orathingintoaquantifiedanddigitalform)canitbedigitallyanalysed.

digitaltracesalsogetcirculatedandrepurposedandinthisregardhavesociallivesbeyondthefeedbackloopsoftheirplatforms.[28]Thus,notonlyistrackingincipienttothefunctioningofspecificconventions,butthedatageneratedhasextensitysuchthatitcantravelbeyondandbetweenconventions.

Bynotonlyciting,repeating,anditeratingbutalsoresignifying,citizensubjectscan,andasweshallseeinchapter6indeeddo,breakconventionsandtakeresponsibility.Criticssuchasthosecitedaboveoftenslipintodeterministandstructuralistaccountsoftheworkingsofplatformsbyinferringthatusersaredeceivedandunwittinglysubmittotheresultsofsearchqueries,newsfeeds,ortrendsandthattheseareforces‘shaping’themandsocieties.

TarletonGillespiearguesthattensionsbetweenusersandthedesignersoftheTwitteralgorithmarepartoflargerstakesinthe‘politicsofrepresentation.’Itisatensionunderscoredbyaconflictbetweenpeople’swilltoknowandbevisibletoothersandTwitter’simperativetodrawnewusersintonewconversations.Butsignificantly,Gillespienotesthatsuchalgorithmsnotonlyarebasedonassumptionsabouttheimageofapublictheyseektorepresentbutalsohelpconstructpublicsinthatimage.Thesamecouldbesaidofotherplatforms

Inthisinstance,criticsprotestedthatTwitterwasinvolvedincensoringpoliticalcontent,butothershaveshownthatthecomplexalgorithmsoftheplatformorganizeandfiltercontentinwaysoftenbeyondtheintentionsoftheirdesigners.Ratherthanasimplemeasureofpopularity,thealgorithmisbasedonacombinationoffactors,andthosethatTwitterhasrevealedincludeidentifyingtopicsthatareenjoyingasurgeinaparticularway,suchaswhethertheuseofatermisspiking(acceleratingrapidlyratherthangradually),whetherusersofatermformatightsingleclusterorcutacrossmultipleclusters,whethertweetsareuniqueormostlyretweetsofthesamepost,andwhetherthetermhaspreviouslytrended

filterbubblessortandnarrowtheknowledgecitizensubjectsaccessandseparatethemintoindividualizeduniverseswheretherulesoftheirformationareinvisible.

SomescholarshavechallengedthesortingeffectsoftheGooglesearchenginetohighlightthatitsoperation(1)isbasedondecisionsinscribedintoalgorithmsthatfavouranddiscriminatecontent,(2)issubjecttopersonalization,localization,andselection,and(3)threatensprivacy

platformssuchasGoogleandFacebookthatoperatelike‘predictionengines’by‘constantlycreatingandrefiningatheoryofwhoyouareandwhatyou’lldoandwantnext’basedonwhatyouhavedoneandwantedbefore

Whileblockingisoftengivenmoreattention,ofgreaterconcernishowsortingorganizesaccesstoknowledgeinmoreperniciousways.‘Googling’hasbecomearegularizedactionforfindingknowledgeinwaysthatareoftentakenforgrantedornotproblematizedbutsopervasiveanddominantthatthesearchenginehasgivenrisetotheterm‘googlization.’ThetermiscoinedtosuggestthatGoogleaffectseverything

Cohenreferstoblockingas‘architecturesofcontrol’and‘regimesofauthorization’thatareauthoritarianinthegenericsensethattheyfavourcompliantobediencetoauthority.[11]Ratherthanexperiencingrules—whichneednotbeexplainedordisclosed—shearguesthatusersexperiencetheireffects,whichconsistofpossibilitiesforactionthatnetworkscreate.Sowhileconcernsaboutthesurveillanceandcollectionofdigitaltracesaremostcontroversial(discussedbelow),thetransparencyofnetworkprocessesandhowaccesstoknowledgeisbeingfilteredarelessvisibleandcontrollable.Filteringalsooccursthroughtheauthorizationsattachedtocontentanddevices

Questionsremain.Whywasthereafilterinthefirstplace?Whowasbeingprotected?Byhavingunblockedtheresultofourquery,shouldwehavefeltreliefthatouractivitywasnotcriminal?HowwouldwehavereactedhadtheBritishLibrarycontinuedtoblockaccesstoBanksy’swebsite?

decisionsonretaining,filtering,monitoring,andsharinginformationaredispersedandhavepoliticaleffectsforcitizensacrossjurisdictions.Ratherthanbeinghierarchicallyorganized,discretesystems,technologiesandpracticesaredecentredanddispersedacrossnumerouscentresofcalculation.

AseriesofglobalstudiesbytheOpenNetInitiative(ONI)hasdocumentedhowstates—especiallyintheGlobalNorth—arecreatingbordersincyberspacebybuildingfirewallsatkey‘Internetchokepoints,

Threeactsexpressmoststronglytheplayofobedience,submission,andsubversionthatcitizensubjectsengageintheconstitutionofclosings:filtering,wherecitizensubjectssubmittoregulateandprotectthemselvesoragreetobeprotectedbyauthorities,trackingwherecitizensubjectsenterintogamesofevasion,andnormalizingwherethewaysofbeingcitizensubjectsincyberspaceareiterativelymodulatedtowardsdesiredendsbyprivateandpublicauthorities.

EvgenyMorozov,forexample,arguesthatopennessisconfiguredbypoliticalchoicesandinrelationtospecific‘digitaltechnologies’andthatthosechoicesshouldbebothresistedandpoliticallydebated.Butlikethemisfiresofcriticswenotedattheendofchapter4,controlisgivenovertohowdigitaltechnologiesareconfiguredwithoutaccountingforhowpeopleactthroughtheInternet,theconventionstheyrepeat,iterate,cite,orresignify,andtheperformativeforceoftheirengagements

Soifopennessisanimaginarythatcallsuponcitizensubjectstoparticipate,thenclosingsseektofurtherconfiguretheactionsthroughwhichparticipationisdone.Butthisisneversettled.Thetworemainintension.

Thatthesedemandshaveemergedinthespanofonlyafewyearsatteststowhatwecallthe‘closings’ofcyberspace.ThesedemandsandtheirclosingsareeffectsofthewayinwhichactingthroughtheInternethasresignifiedquestionsofvelocity,extensity,anonymity,andtraceability.Velocitycallsforregularandongoingvigilanceaboutrapidlychangingtechnologies,protocols,practices,platforms,andrulesaboutbeingdigital;extensitycallsforawarenessofwhereandtowhomdigitalactionsreach;anonymitycallsforlimitingandprotectingexposureandbeingcautiousaboutthepresumedidentitiesofothers;andtraceabilitycallsformanaginghowactionsaretracked,analysed,manipulated,andsortedbyunknownothersandforunknowablepurposes.Allofthesedemandsspringnotfromparticipating,connecting,andsharingalonebuttherelationsbetweenandamongbodiesactingthroughtheInternet,whichismadeupofconventionsconfiguredbytheactionsofdispersedanddistributedauthorities.Itistotheseconfiguringactions,whichwecalltheclosingsofcyberspace,thatweturntointhenextchapter,withafocusonfiltering,tracking,andnormalizing.

subjectsofpowerincyberspacehavecomeintobeingthroughtheaccumulationofrepetitiveactions,throughtheirtakingupandembeddingofconventionsintheireverydaylivesinhomes,workplaces,andpublicspaces.Itisthroughtheactsofparticipating,connecting,andsharingthatthesehavebecomedemandsandlearnedrepertoiresthatarenotseparatefrombutindeliblyshapedbyandshapingofsubjects.

JonathanFranzenaccusesAmazonofturningliterarycultureintoshallowformsofsocialengagementconsistingof‘yakkersandtweetersandbraggers’andTwitterasthe‘ultimateirresponsiblemedium.’[89]Thesemisfiresproduceatleasttwoinfelicities.First,inadvertentlytheyendupascribingmorepowertosuchcorporationsasAmazonorGooglethantheyactuallyhave.WhilemuchattentionisgiventotheautomatedandcomputationalaspectsofGoogle,theworkingsofthesearchengineareunstableandrelyonthedistributed,heterogeneous,anddynamicactionsofnotonlyalgorithmsbutalsoengineers,operators,webmasters,andusers.[90]Second,theyascribelesspowertopeoplethantheyactuallyhave.WhiletherulesofGoogle’salgorithmandfunctionssuchasautocompleteareatightlyheldsecret,Google’soperationisshapedandmediatedbythesearch-and-findbehavioursofcitizensubjects

Cyberspaceisthuslikeotherspacesthatdemandsecuringoneselfthroughmaterialsandtechnologiesbutalsothroughhabits,norms,andprotocols

Opennessinrelationtosharingthushasmultiplemeaningsandisamatterofpoliticalcontestationthatbeliesthepositiveformulationsofitasafoundingimaginaryofcyberspace.Ontheonehand,itmeansmakinggovernmentstransparent,democratizingknowledge,collaboratingandco-producing,andimprovingwell-beingbutontheother,exposing,makingvisible,andopeningupsubjectstovariousknownandunknownpracticesandinterventions.[76]Alongwithparticipatingandconnecting,sharinggeneratesthesetensions,especiallyinrelationtowhatisoftenreducedtoasquestionsofprivacy.Thistensionthatopennessgeneratesincreasinglycreatesadditionaldemandsthatcitizenssecurethemselvesfromandberesponsibleforthepotentialandevenunknowableconsequencesoftheirdigitalconduct.

Popularlyknownasthe‘quantifiedself’,datatracesproduceacompulsiontonotonlyself-trackbutsharethisdatasothatsubjectscanmonitorthemselvesinrelationtoothersbutalsocontributetoresearchon,forexample,healthconditions.Ironically,whilegovernmentprogrammesforsharinghealthdatahavebeenscuppered,thesharingofhealthinformationthroughprivateorganizationssuchas23andMe(DNAprofilingofmorethan700,000members)andPatientsLikeMe(healthconditionsofmorethan250,000members)areproliferatingandpromotingdatasharingforthepublicgoodofadvancingmedicine.[62]Governmentsandcorporationsalikecalluponcitizensubjectstosharedataaboutthemselvesasanactofcommongood.Throughdisciplinarymethodstheycompelcitizensubjectstoconstitutethemselvesasdatasubjectsratherthanmakingrightsclaimsabouttheownershipofdatathattheyproduce.

Butherethesharingofgovernmentdataisalsodirectedatcommercialbodiestowardsstimulatingamarketofapplications,platforms,andanalyticsaswellastoinnovateservices,contributetoaworldwidegovernmentdatamarket,andstimulategreaterprivate-sectorprovisionofpublicservices

Sharingexpertiseisalsotheethosofhackingevents,whicharenotonlyforumsorganizedbyandforactivistsbutnowcommonlybygovernmentsandcorporations.Thesamecanbesaidofactionsthatinvolvecollectiveproblemsolvingasmodesofsharingone’slabour,skills,anddatathroughinitiativessuchasthecitizenscienceprojectsofZooniverseor,incontrast,Amazon’sMechanicalTurk.[55]However,likeotherone-to-manysharingplatforms,thesearealsoorganizedondifferentprinciples.GalaxyZooandsimilarformsofcitizenscienceinvolvedonationsofvoluntarylabourforusuallybroaderpublicgoodsandobjectives.

Actsofconnectingrespondtoacallingthatpersistseveninlightofthetraceabilityofdigitalactionsandconcernsaboutprivacy.Thosewhoaremakingrightsclaimstoprivacyanddataownershiparebyfaroutnumberedbythosewhocontinuetosharedatawithoutconcern.Thatadatatraceisamaterialthatcanbemined,shared,analysed,andacteduponbynumerouspeoplemakestheimaginaryofopennessvulnerabletooftenunknownorunforeseeableacts.Butdigitaltracesalsointroduceanothertension.Anothercalling,thatofsharingdigitalcontentandtraces,isademandthatevokestheimaginaryofopennessfundamentaltotheveryarchitectureofsharedresourcesandgifteconomythatformedtheonce-dominantlogicofcyberspace

VanDijckconcludesthatdespitetheseandotherconstraintsonagencyandparticipating,optingoutofsocialmediaisdifficult,especiallyifbeingdigitallyliterateandmaintainingacriticalstanceinrelationtocontemporarycultureareofvalue.[51]Franklinechoesthisinherstancethatsuchpropositionssee‘unplugging’as‘simplyatechnical

Toputitbluntly,fromourperspective,popularcriticshavebecometooconcernedaboutcyberspacecreatingobedientsubjectstopowerratherthanunderstandingthatcyberspaceiscreatingsubmissivesubjectsofpowerwhoarepotentiallycapableofsubversion.

Or,aswewouldputit,actingthroughtheInternetandmakingconnectionswithothersdoesnotreplace,displace,orsupplantotherwaysofactinginsocialorculturalspacesinwhichweareembedded.

thechangethatsocialmediahasintroducedfromcommunity-oriented‘connectedness’toplatform-andowner-configured‘connectivity.’[41]WiththeintroductionofWeb2.0,shearguesthatconnectivitycaptureshowsocialityhasbecometechnologicallymediatedthroughcommercialplatformsthatorganizeandmanageinteraction.

Inrelationtoteens,danahboydarguesthatsocialmediaenablesthemnotonlytoparticipatebuttohelpcreate‘networkedpublics’,whichare‘constructs’throughwhichteensconnectandimaginethemselvesaspartofacommunitythatisnotindependentfrombutverymuchconnectedtotheirrelationsin‘real’space.

Howcanthecallingtoparticipatethatwehaveidentifiedproducedigitalcitizenswhoseactsexceedtheirintentions?Toputitdifferently,atensionexistsbetweenthewaysinwhichthefigureofthedigitalcitizenisconceivedinhegemonicimaginariesandlegaldiscoursesandhowsheisperformativelycomingintobeingthroughactionsthatequiphertobeacitizeninwaysthatarenotacknowledgedoralwaysintended.

Forexample,whatresourcesofcyberspacedodigitallyequippedsubjectshavetheauthorizationtoaccessasaresultoftheworkingsofsearchalgorithmsandfiltersortheprotocolsthatgovernandnormalizetheretention,storage,sharing,anddiscoverabilityofinformation?[36]Iflegalityandimaginaryconfigurethecitizenasasubjectofpowerandplacedemandsonhertoparticipatedigitally(submission),whatwefindinterestinghereandinrelationtohowwehaveunderstoodbeingdigitalcitizensistheperformativityofparticipatingthatprovidesaglimpseofthecitizenasalsoapotentialsubjectofsubversion.How,forexample,doesparticipatinggiverisetosubversiveactions,suchasthoseofcriticalcitizenscience?[37]Or,asMatthewFullerandAndrewGoffeyputit,howdoinjunctionssuchasGoogle’s‘Don’tbeevil’maximbeliethepropensitiesthatareactivatedbyrelativelyunstablesociotechnicalarrangementsthataregenerativeof‘unintendedorsecondaryeffects’?

the‘actofhangingoutonline[wasfoundtohave]enormouspotentialforcreatingthecivicnetworksthatsupportreal-worldpoliticalengagement.’

Nevertheless,manystudieshavefoundlittleevidencethatsociallyandeconomicallydisadvantagedgroupparticipationincreaseswhenpoliticsisconductedthroughtheInternet,whetherinwaysthatmimicofflineforms,suchaspetitions,ornewones,suchassocialmedia

Despitetheirdifferences,theydogenerallyshareanimaginaryofcitizensubjectsasalreadyformedassubjectsofsubmission,wheretheirparticipationisamatterofaccess,skills,andusage.Itisanimaginaryofacitizenasasubjectwhoisoftensubmissive(ifnotobedient)andisactiveonlyinwaysrecognizedbygovernmentpoliciesandprogrammes.Alleffortsareaimedatdiscipliningsubjectsalongdigitalinclusionscalesthroughactionsthatinvolveaccess,skills,motivation,andtrust.Itisthroughrepetitionthattheseactionsbecomeembodiedandthroughwhichcitizensubjectsbecomegovernable.Digitalinclusionthusplacesdemandsonthecitizensubjecttouptaketheseactions,tobeskilledandtooled,andtolearnandbecomeknowledgeableandcompetentinlookingafterherselfandgoverninghersocialneeds

‘equipthewholecountrywiththeskills,motivation,andtrusttogoonline,bedigitallycapableandtomakethemostoftheinternet....Ifwesucceed,by2020everyonewhocanbedigitallycapable,willbe.’

Mossbergeretal.,forexample,understanddigitalcitizenshipastheabilitytofullyparticipateinsocietyonline,whichrequiresregularaccesstotheInternet,withadequatedevicesandspeeds,technologicalskillsandcompetence,andinformationliteracy.[21]Equippingthusincludesnotonlyhardware,suchasinstallingcomputersinclassroomsandlibrariesandexpandinghigh-speedbroadbandservices,butalsodevelopingskillsandcapabilitiesthroughtrainingcoursesincomputing,coding,andprogramming

Theempoweringpossibilitiesofaccessingandworkingwithdataalsounderpin‘opengovernmentdata’programmes.Opennessisextendedtomakinggovernmenttransparentthroughapublicrighttodataandfreedomtoinformation,aversionthatisalsoadvancedbycivicorganizationssuchasmySociety.[19]Thesecallforthanimaginaryofcitizensasdataanalystsequippedwiththeskillsnecessarytoanalysetheircommercialtransactionsandthusmakebetterdecisionsortoanalysethetransactionsofgovernmentsandthusholdthemtoaccount.

Becomingadigitalcitizeninvolvesrespondingtocallingswhereparticipatingisoneofthem.Participatingdemandsspecificactionsofskillingandtoolingthatcitizensneedtoundertaketoequipthemselves.

ForHalfordandSavage,whetherliberatingordividing,cyberspace(orwhattheyrefertoasthe‘Web’)isalwaysconsideredasanalreadygivenspace,anditssubjectsareseparate,independent,andpreformedratherthanperformed.Ratherthanassumingthat‘pre-formedsocialgroups“use”(ordon’tuse)technologies’,theyidentifya‘morecomplexprocessofmutualinteractionandstabilisation’wheredigitaltechnologiesarenotseparatedfromsocialprocessesbutinsteadinvolvedinconstitutingsubjectsindiverseandpervasiveways.[16]Inotherwords,theyadvancethattheWebisnotindependentfromtheactionsofsubjects.

‘A“digitaldivide”isneveronlydigital;itsconsequencesplayoutwhereverpoliticalandeconomicdecisionsaremadeandwherevertheirresultsarefelt.’

Inequalityisexpressedasleadingtotwodivisions:betweenthosewhodoanddonothaveaccessandbetweenthosewhodoordonotcontributetocontentorleavedigitaltraces.

Wefocusonthreeactsthatsymbolizeparticularlywellthedemandsforopenness—participating,connecting,andsharing.Theseactsarenotallinclusive;therearecertainlyotheracts,buttheycoverwhatwesuggestarekeydigitalactsandtheirenablingdigitalactions

Ifwefocusoncallingsandtheactionstheymobilizeandhowtheymakeactspossible,wealsoshiftourfocusfromafreedomversuscontroldichotomytotheplayofobedience,submission,andsubversion.Thisisaplayconfiguredbytheforcesoflegality,performativity,andimaginarywhichcalluponsubjectstobeopenandresponsibleandthroughwhichmostlygovernmentalbutalsocommercialandnongovernmentalauthoritiestrytomaintaintheirgripontheconductofthosewhoaretheirsubjects.

Itisoftenforgottenthatthecitizensubjectisnotmerelyanintentionalagentofconductbutalsoaproductofcallingsthatmobilizethatconduct

WeagreewithCohenontheseeminglyparadoxicalrelationbetweenimaginariesofopenness(copyleft,commons)andclosedness(copyright,privacy)andtheirconnectiontoinformationfreedomandcontrol.Sheisrighttoarguethatthisparadoxcannotberesolvedinlegaltheoryfortwomainreasons.First,freedomandcontrolarenotseparatebutrequireeachother,andhowthisplaysoutinvolvescalibrationwithinspecificsituatedpractices.[6]Second,andrelatedly,legaltheorydependsonaconceptionofabstractliberalautonomousselvesratherthansubjectsthatemergefromthecreative,embodied,andmaterialpracticesofsituatedandnetworkedindividuals

Today,beingopenhasbecomeademandonorganizationsandindividualstoshareeverythingfromsoftwareandpublicationstodataaboutthemselves.Fromopendata,opengovernment,opensociety

Wecannotsimplyassumethatbeingadigitalcitizenalreadymeanssomething,suchastheabilitytoparticipate,andthenlookforwhoseconductconformstothismeaning.Rather,digitalactsarerefashioning,inventing,andmakingupcitizensubjectsthroughtheplayofobedience,submission,andsubversion

Beingdigitalcitizensisnotsimplytheabilitytoparticipate.[2]Wediscussedinchapter1howJonKatzdescribedanethosofsharing,exchange,knowledge,andopennessinthe1990s.Today,thesehavebecomecallingstoperformourselvesincyberspacethroughactionssuchaspetitioning,posting,andblogging.Theseactionsrepeatedlycalluponcitizensubjectsofcyberspace,andherewewanttoaddresstheirlegal,performative,andimaginaryforce.

Tounderstanddigitalactswehavetounderstandspeechactsorspeechthatacts.Thespeechthatactsmeansnotonlythatinorbysayingsomethingwearedoingsomethingbutalsothatinorbydoingsomethingwearesayingsomething.ItisinthissensethatwehaveargueddigitalactsaredifferentfromspeechactsonlyinsofarastheconventionstheyrepeatanditerateandconventionsthattheyresignifyareconventionsthataremadepossiblethroughtheInternet.Ultimately,digitalactsresignifyquestionsofanonymity,extensity,traceability,andvelocityinpoliticalways.

Toputitsimply,whiledigitalactstraverseborders,digitalrightsdonot.Thisiswherewebelievethinkingaboutdigitalactsintermsoftheirlegality,performativity,andimaginaryiscrucialsincethereareinternationalandtransnationalspacesinwhichdigitalrightsarebeingclaimedthatifnotyetlegallyinforceareneverthelessemergingperformativelyandimaginatively.Yet,arguably,someemergingtransnationalandinternationallawsgoverningcyberspaceinturnarehavinganeffectonnationallegislations.Toputitdifferently,theclassicalargumentabouttherelationshipbetweenhumanrightsandcitizenshiprights,thattheformerarenormsandonlythelattercarrytheforceoflaw,isnotahelpfulstartingpoint.

Theimportantthingistoseparateacts(locutionary,illocutionary

Itiswellnighimpossibletomakedigitalutteranceswithoutatrace;onthecontrary,oftentheforceofadigitalspeechactdrawsitsstrengthfromthetracesthatitleaves.Aswesaidinchapter2,eachofthesequestionsraisedbydigitalactscanarguablybefoundinothertechnologiesofspeechacts—thetelegraph,megaphone,radio,andtelephonecometomindimmediately.Butitiswhentakentogetherthatwethinkdigitalactsresignifythesequestionsandcombinetomakethemdistinctfromspeechacts,intermsofboththeconventionsbywhichtheybecomepossibleandtheeffectsthattheyproduce.

Digitalactswillnoteliminatedistance(weunderstanddistancehereasnotmerelyquantitativebutalsoaqualitativemetric),butthespeedwithwhichdigitalactscanreverberateisphenomenal.

‘codeistheonlylanguagethatisexecutable.’[49]‘So[forGalloway]codeisthefirstlanguagethatactuallydoeswhatitsays—itisamachineforconvertingmeaningintoaction.’[50]WithAustin(andWittgenstein),thisconclusioncomesasamajorsurprisetous.Aswehavearguedinthischapter,forAustin(andWittgenstein)languageisanactivity,andinorbysayingsomethinginlanguagewedosomethingwithit—weact.Toputitdifferently,languageisexecutable.[51]Thereisnouniquenesstocodeinthatregard,althoughwhilecodeislikelanguage,itisdifferent.WethinkthatdifferenceistobesoughtinitseffectsandtheconventionsitcreatesthroughtheInternetratherthaninitsostensibleuniquenature

ForGalloway,‘now,protocolsreferspecificallytostandardsgoverningtheimplementationofspecifictechnologies.Liketheirdiplomaticpredecessors,computerprotocolsestablishtheessentialpointsnecessarytoenactanagreed-uponstandardofaction.’

ThepremiseofthisbookisthatthecitizensubjectactingthroughtheInternetisthedigitalcitizenandthatthisisanewsubjectofpoliticswhoalsoactsthroughnewconventionsthatnotonlyinvolvedoingthingswithwordsbutdoingwordswiththings.

Ifcallingssummoncitizensubjects,theyalsoprovokeopeningsandclosingsformakingrightsclaims.Weconsideropeningsasthosepossibilitiesthatcreatenewwaysofsayinganddoingrights.Openingsarethosepossibilitiesthatenabletheperformanceofpreviouslyunimaginedorunarticulatedexperiencesofwaysofbeingcitizensubjects,aresignificationofbeingspeakingandactingbeings.Openingsarepossibilitiesthroughwhichcitizensubjectscomeintobeing.Closings,bycontrast,contractandreducepossibilitiesofbecomingcitizensubjects

Whatwemeanbythisisthatasaclaim,theutterance‘havearightto’placesdemandsontheothertoactinaparticularway.

Thisindividualisautonomousnotbecauseitisseparateorindependentfromsocietybutasitsproductretainsthecapabilitytoquestionitsowninstitution.Castoriadissaysthatthisnewtypeofbeingiscapableofcallingintoquestiontheverylawsofitsexistenceandhascreatedthepossibilityofbothdeliberationandpoliticalaction.

Theseareimaginariesnotbecausetheyfailtocorrespondtoconcreteandspecificexperiencesorthingsbutbecausetheyrequireactsofimagination.Theyaresocialbecausetheyareinstitutedandmaintainedbyimpersonalandanonymouscollectives.Beingbothsocialandimaginary,theseinstitutesocietyascoherentandunifiedyetalwaysincoherentandfragmented.Howeachsocietydealswiththistensionconstitutesitspolitics

Tounderstandcitizensubjectswhomakerightsclaimsbysayinganddoing‘I,we,theyhavearightto’,wearemovingfromthefirstpersontothesecondandthethird,fromtheindividualtothecollective.Weneedtoconsidertwoadditionalforcesthatmakeactspossible.Thetwoforcesaretheforceofthelawandtheforceoftheimaginary.

Onthecontrary,citizensubjectsperformativelycomeintobeinginorbytheactofsayinganddoingsomething—whetherthroughwords,images,orotherthings—andthroughperformingthecontradictionsinherentinbecomingcitizens.

ThisistheprincipalreasonwhyweneedtoinvestigatenotonlythingsdoneinorbyspeakingthroughtheInternetbutalsothingssaidinorbydoingthingsthroughtheInternet.

‘Theforceoftheperformativeisthusnotinheritedfrompriorusage,butissuesforthpreciselyfromitsbreakwithanyandallpriorusage.Thatbreak,thatforceofrupture,istheforceoftheperformative,beyondallquestionoftruthormeaning.’[22]Forpoliticalsubjectivity,‘performativitycanworkinpreciselysuchcounter-hegemonicways.Thatmomentinwhichaspeechactwithoutpriorauthorizationneverthelessassumesauthorizationinthecourseofitsperformancemayanticipateandinstatealteredcontextsforitsfuturereception.’[23]Toconceiveruptureasasystemicortotalupheavalwouldbefutile.Rather,ruptureisamomentwherethefuturebreaksthroughintothepresent.[24]Itisthatmomentwhereitbecomespossibletodosomethingdifferentinorbysayingsomethingdifferent.

Thekeyissueinspeechactsbecomeswhether,andifsotowhatextent,whatissayableanddoablefollowsorexceedssocialconventionsthatgovernasituation.

"If you go to Europe, politicians don't matter. The people making the decisions in Europe are bankers," he said. "The technicians of finance are making the decisions there. It has very little to do with democracy or the will of the people. And we are hostage to that because we like our iPhones."

The acclaimed and bestselling novelist, who denies himself access to the internet when writing, was talking at the Hay festival in Cartagena, Colombia. "Maybe nobody will care about printed books 50 years from now, but I do. When I read a book, I'm handling a specific object in a specific time and place. The fact that when I take the book off the shelf it still says the same thing – that's reassuring," said Franzen