Hi Rob & all,
I have rewritten the text posted here last week, a few things were
hanging and not resolved which I needed to deal with...
wishing all well.
marc
Thanks for the link to the P2P (Foundation) conversation between Michel
Bauwens & Geert Lovink.
Lovink's relationship with 'free culture' comes from a micro
perspective, influenced by connections built around an active respect
for the idea, and possibly a personal reliance on particular structures
and frameworks, dedicated in supporting forms of 'official' authority.
This creates a less socially grounded and intuitive understanding of why
people are engaged in such things.
Things cannot always be defined through theory or through 'officially'
culturalized platforms and condoned hierarchies alone. To be truly
engaged, one has to cross over into different elements of being,
connecting and touching - not necessarily because it's part of one's
practice, but because it relates to everyday life and relational
experiences as well. Thankfully, such things can't be (wholly) measured,
packaged made into chewable concepts so easily. Wherever we happen to
stand in the scheme of things, we only possess part of the picture, not
the whole thing.
Yet what this situation communicates to me is, that there those who feel
they know or have a particular perspective of the bigger picture because
of their positions in relation to their privilege, rather than their
actual engagement in a field such as free culture. And what theorists
and officially known individuals want, really does not matter - it's
what people want that matters precisely because they are the users the
community.
"At the moment the amateurs are blocking the careers of entire
generations of young professionals. With this the rich knowledge of
professions is threatened to disappear (for instance those doing
investigative journalism). We have to stop this talent drain and not
create economies that have to live off charity. Free networks should
take themselves more serious. The first step to get there should be to
critically investigate the ‘ideology of the free’. New forms of
production, as you call it, cost money. We need to circulate money so
that it can flow into those circles that have taken up the task to
seriously construct tomorrow’s tools.”
(http://www.digicult.it/digimag/article.asp?id=1148)"
I disagree with the idea that amateurs are the enemy. Free culture is
dictated and driven by many types of amateurs (people) and their very
human behaviours; their input and influences matter just as much as
anyone else’s. This may trouble those who wish to control it. Regarding
the use of the term Professional "...a person who has obtained a degree
in a professional field. The term professional is used more generally to
denote a white collar working person, or a person who performs
commercially in a field typically reserved for hobbyists or amateurs."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional) Since the Internet much has
changed, and recognition of a new type or class of individual has
arrived. What we once knew as 'professional' has moved and expanded away
from a singular perspective, into a more fluid and less static form or
process. This means that new types of people can take control of culture
in ways which incorporate in their behaviours, paradigms that recreate
social contexts according to their actions, via networked connectivities
and infiltration of older orders. This shift is not always positive, but
it is also not always bad. It is a reassembling of different
infrastructures and free culture has played a large part in creating
this change. Perhaps we need alternative ways of appreciating this
shift, with new definitions that work to actively accept this new
reality; a term less defined from an absolutist vision to a realisation
that works to include different levels of understanding beyond
mechanistic and top-down positioning. A more lateral view, to allow
voices of others who have not chosen to fit into the more traditional
role of 'professional', yet at the same time offer just as much a valid
input.
It is not honourable or progressive (or even humane) to 'only' accept
those who have conformed to a particular process and function of being,
when their skills are just as imaginative and effective culturally. Many
of these so called amateurs possess critical skills and awareness of the
world and have theories, which are 'as' relevant as those who hold
official status. If a true representation of this fact is not considered
or not allowed to breath freely, then we need to accept and know that
such stances declare a political reasoning and a desire for a more
conservative world, where division is the method of control to maintain
social order so to keep these 'upstarts' in their place, as an
'unprofessional' and unworthy class.
The other thing is that, critical engagement does not always have to be
defined through specific groups of people. Creating a professional class
may sound like a pretty decent idea to some, but for something to really
have social significance and a cultural life, it needs to be allowed to
live beyond a hermetically sealed vacuum.
Having said all this, I feel that is Geert as an individual does propose
some interesting arguments. What he proposes may not necessarily sit
right, but they address important questions around how and why things
'should' always be free. If we want something to be free, perhaps the
motives and ideas need to be explored more regularly or more deeply,
rather than everyone just accepting and adopting the idea of it as 'a be
all and end all'. It's a bit like accepting democracy without knowing
why its there in the first place - perhaps we just need to remind
ourselves why we have it.
Wishing you well.
marc
_______________________________________________
NetBehaviour mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
