Difference between revisions of "Analysis"

From Eva Weinmayr Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Collectivity, transversal (11.2))
(38 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
  
  
=Intro=
+
=cut-off point=
In this chapter, I revisit the initial concerns that triggered this research in the first place and analyze how these shifted and got redefined through the five practice projects.  
+
In the opening section I identified that... I had seen publishing just a good thing... as an emancipatory thing... giving voice., but then this view becomes complicated by certain things....
 +
 
 +
, how I observe a feminist project,
 +
 
 +
In this chapter, that marks a cut-off point rather than providing a conclusion I will revisit the initial concerns that triggered this research in the first place and analyze how these shifted and got redefined through the five practice projects.  
 
I started from a set of concerns about the emancipatory and political nature of the book. It wasn't the book as a discrete container for radical content alone that was of interest to me but the potentially radical, political and emancipatory ways it is produced (authored, edited, printed, bound), disseminated (circulated, described, cataloged) and read (used) that I wanted to investigate. This is the book's assumed capacity as a conceptual and material means to practically intervene, disrupt and change existing systems of production, distribution, and consumption of knowledge – with an intersectional feminist approach. So the specific focus of this research is not the global or historical claims for the impact of print culture but rather the micro-politics of publishing practices at the intersection of contemporary art, radical education, and institutional analysis.
 
I started from a set of concerns about the emancipatory and political nature of the book. It wasn't the book as a discrete container for radical content alone that was of interest to me but the potentially radical, political and emancipatory ways it is produced (authored, edited, printed, bound), disseminated (circulated, described, cataloged) and read (used) that I wanted to investigate. This is the book's assumed capacity as a conceptual and material means to practically intervene, disrupt and change existing systems of production, distribution, and consumption of knowledge – with an intersectional feminist approach. So the specific focus of this research is not the global or historical claims for the impact of print culture but rather the micro-politics of publishing practices at the intersection of contemporary art, radical education, and institutional analysis.
  
 
Drawing upon Gabriel Tarde's proposition that knowledge is a mode of socialization and "social communication" (1928) – I set out to investigate publication as a social and pedagogical – and as such a political process. I asked what is the relationship between "making" and "making public"? Between experience and articulation? How does the "outside space" (distribution) shape the "inside space" of publication (content) and vice versa? How can publishing create spaces, in the figurative and physical sense, for better mutual understanding and rethinking relations between people?
 
Drawing upon Gabriel Tarde's proposition that knowledge is a mode of socialization and "social communication" (1928) – I set out to investigate publication as a social and pedagogical – and as such a political process. I asked what is the relationship between "making" and "making public"? Between experience and articulation? How does the "outside space" (distribution) shape the "inside space" of publication (content) and vice versa? How can publishing create spaces, in the figurative and physical sense, for better mutual understanding and rethinking relations between people?
  
I asked if I understood publishing as a verb (the process) instead of as a noun (the finished object) could "practice" itself be seen as a form of publishing? So, for example: Is a teaching situation a form of publishing? A workshop, where knowledge is collectively produced and disseminated at the same time? When we think of the collaborative as a situation, scene, process, dynamic, method, or mode, can we frame such a situation as "publishing"? What would that mean for the term "public" that's contained in the word "publishing"? Is publishing necessarily always tied to a document, whether written, a film, a drawing, a photograph? What is a document?
+
More concretely I wanted to explore the ways how institutional pressure (publish or perish) seems to erode practice based on agency, creativity, criticality, experimentation, and collective knowledge making. Publishing (and writing) in institutional or semi-institutional contexts has been arguably reduced from a process of communication, discovery, and exploration, to a system for the assembly of more and more new products.
  
 
Without having necessarily found the answers to the questions or solutions to the problems, the act of searching itself produced some insights. It is the “search” in research. I am borrowing this pun from Jemma Desai, who emphasized  that for her research is a process of searching, open-ended and generative rather than “complete, finished, exhaustive (and exhausting).” <ref name="Desai" />
 
Without having necessarily found the answers to the questions or solutions to the problems, the act of searching itself produced some insights. It is the “search” in research. I am borrowing this pun from Jemma Desai, who emphasized  that for her research is a process of searching, open-ended and generative rather than “complete, finished, exhaustive (and exhausting).” <ref name="Desai" />
  
The searching in this PhD inquiry happened in a myriad of ways. Through working with friends on projects (trying one thing, trying something else, discovering, discarding and trying again from a different angle = practice). By talking through plans and ideas in a joint project, taking decisions,, reflecting how it went (how we are doing this or that  = conversation, evaluation). By organising workshops and being invited to workshops, seminars, lectures (= exchange, presenting and listening). By reading, writing and co-writing texts (= articulating). And by incidental and informal late night conversations with friends.
+
The searching in this PhD inquiry happened in a myriad of ways. Through working with friends on projects (trying one thing, trying something else, discovering, discarding and trying again from a different angle = practice). By talking through plans and ideas in a joint project, taking decisions, reflecting how it went (how we are doing this or that  = conversation, evaluation). By organising workshops and being invited to workshops, seminars, lectures (= exchange, presenting and listening). By reading, writing and co-writing texts (= articulating). And by incidental and informal late-night conversations with friends.
  
The articulation of the shift from the set of questions at the start ‘’via’’ the search and the insights in the practice ‘’towards’’ the re-defining of the initial questions constitutes my research contribution.
+
The articulation of the shift from the set of questions at the start ‘’via’’ the search and the insights through practice and theory ‘’towards’’ the re-defining of the initial questions constitutes my research contribution.  
It is about how the set of concerns shifted and got more intricate and complicated that’s what I want to share with this written part of the thesis, the kappa (Swedish for English: coat, cape)
 
  
To recapitulate the structure of this kappa:
+
As a very summarily statement I can say that my focus shifted more and more to explore the methods and politics of publishing, which is the process of knowledge-making, and knowledge sharing.  
Chapter 04*Summary of Projects and Submitted Material gives an overview of the activities (what I have done, description of the five projects, workshopping, organising, talking, listening, making) and links to the published materials (book chapters, zines, podcasts, interviews) that form part of this submission. Where possible, I linked directly to the sites that hosted these events to give context and show the range of fields and communities in which my work is embedded, both inside and outside academia.  
 
  
Chapters 05-09*Project Pages provides a factual description of the five practice projects: what happened, how, when, with whom and where. It describes the many small steps taken, the interventions and methods applied in each project.
+
Here the focus moved from looking at the finished object (publications) to the ways we make them. This includes organizing strategies, methods of working collectively, negotiating institutional demands, rethinking roles in the process, etc. I came to ask if we understood publishing as a verb (the process) rather than as a noun (the finished object), could practice itself be seen as a form of publication? So, for example: Is a teaching situation a form of publishing? A workshop, where knowledge is collectively produced and disseminated at the same time? When we think of the collaborative as a situation, scene, process, dynamic, method, or mode, can we frame such a situation as "publishing"? What would that mean for the term "public" that's contained in the word "publishing"? Is publishing necessarily always tied to a document, whether written, a film, a drawing, a photograph? What is a document?
  
The purpose of chapter 10*Reflection, Theorisation is to unpack the complexities and contradictions of each of the practice projects through a process of reflection. This is to establish what these five practice experiments did and how they potentially contribute to a critical understanding of the micropolitics at play when we create and share knowledges under institutional conditions. This chapter reflects on the steps and tactics developed within the practices/experiments attempting to “do things differently”. It assesses what I hoped to achieve, what was possible to achieve. It lays out the blockages and contradictions that emerged while wrestling with systems of validation, authorship and ownership, the  the concept of the ”finite" discrete object and thirdly the authority these discrete objects produce.
+
In chapter 02*Survey of the Field, I mapped a broad range of distribution strategies, radical librarianship and discussed the politics of naming and framing, classification and categorization. Basically what is the social life of a book once it leaves the printer.  
  
[More concretely I reflect on the ways how institutional pressure (publish or perish) seems to erode practice based on agency, creativity, criticality, experimentation, and collective knowledge making. Publishing (and writing) in institutional or semi-institutional contexts has been arguably reduced from a process of communication, discovery, and exploration, to a system for the assembly of more and more new products.]
+
In chapter 04*Summary of Projects and Submitted Material I give an overview of the activities that I have carried out (description of the five projects, alongside workshopping, organising, talking, listening, making) and provide short descriptions and links to the published materials (book chapters, zines, podcasts, interviews) that form part of this submission. Where possible, I linked directly to the sites that hosted these events to give context and show the range of fields and communities in which my work is embedded, both inside and outside academia.  
  
 +
Chapters 05-09*Project Pages provides a factual description of the five practice projects: what happened, how, when, with whom and where. It describes the many small steps taken, the interventions and methods applied in each project.
  
In this chapter 11*Analysis, that is marking a cut-off point rather than providing a conclusion I revisit the initial concerns that triggered this research in the first place and analyze how these shifted and got redefined through the five practice projects.
+
The purpose of chapter 10*Reflection, Theorisation is to unpack the complexities and contradictions of each of the practice projects through a process of reflection. This is to establish what these five practice experiments did and how they potentially contribute to a critical understanding of the micropolitics at play when we create and share knowledges under institutional conditions. This chapter reflects on the tactics developed within the practices/experiments by attempting to “do things differently”. It assesses what I hoped to achieve, what was possible to achieve. It lays out the blockages and contradictions that emerged while wrestling with systems of validation, authorship and ownership, the concept of the ”finite" discrete object, and the authority these discrete objects produce.
 
 
The fact that a Ph.D. submission itself constitutes a form of publication that is subjected to the very questions I am addressing with my research turns the authoring, publishing, and sharing of this research into an experiment in its own right. So how can I publish this research without falling into the pitfalls that I address with this research project?
 
 
 
This chapter11*Analysis, is the final chapter that is marking a cut-off point rather than providing a conclusion, I will describe how the initial questions shifted by analyzing the dilemmas and double binds that I have to negotiate when I as an individual (that is subjected to an exam protocol) try to migrate collective work into the institutional context of academia. This concern lurked throughout the research process and intersects with the questions of authorship and ownership, of the fixity of the discrete object, of institutional validation and audit, of openness and enclosure, of individualization, attribution practices and the power dynamics between authorship, authorization and authority, that form the core inquiry throughout the practice projects.  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 +
In this chapter, 11*Analysis, which marks a cut-off point rather than providing a conclusion I revisit the initial concerns that triggered this research in the first place and analyze how these shifted and got redefined through the five practice projects.
  
  
Line 52: Line 51:
 
In section 11.8 I conclude by discussing the experiment of publishing this research in the form of a Mediawiki. Since this Ph.D. submission constitutes a form of publication in itself, I will reflect (i) on the rationale and the decisions that led me to use this open format, (ii) on the dilemmas emerging from this practice in terms of authorship, authorization and authority.
 
In section 11.8 I conclude by discussing the experiment of publishing this research in the form of a Mediawiki. Since this Ph.D. submission constitutes a form of publication in itself, I will reflect (i) on the rationale and the decisions that led me to use this open format, (ii) on the dilemmas emerging from this practice in terms of authorship, authorization and authority.
  
= Collectivity, transversal (11.2)=
+
The fact that a Ph.D. submission itself constitutes a form of publication that is subjected to the very questions I am addressing with my research turns the authoring, publishing, and sharing of this research into an experiment in its own right. So how can I publish this research without falling into the pitfalls that I address with this research project?
  
The starting point of this research was to explore the micropolitics of publishing, the  "blockages," as I called them, for emancipatory, collective knowledge practices. Because most of my practice is collaborative (see the practice projects and their constellations) it is helpful here to revisit the strategies of working collectively and the relationship between the “I” and the “we”. I work collectively, because I like to be and work with other people (on an intuitive level) and because (on a political level) it is a stance against the pervasive neo-liberal demand that trains cultural workers, as Susan Kelly notes, “to operate as hyper-individuals in a competitive and brand-oriented set of institutional and market hierarchies.” <ref name= "Kelly-my idea"/>
+
analyzing the dilemmas and double binds that I have to negotiate when I as an individual (that is subjected to an exam protocol) try to migrate collective work into the institutional context of academia.
  
There is a fine differentiation between collaborative and collective, which is important here. Collaboration means two or more people work towards a specific goal. It does not necessarily mean they are working collectively since each could carry out a discrete task individually that later merges into a common outcome. I learned to understand collectivity as a much more messy process. There is a common idea or plan at the beginning, but the way, the steps, we get there is not known at this point and likewise no specific roles or tasks are attached. There is a trigger or starting point for each project, for example, the Critical Practice conference at Valand Academy mobilized a group of staff and students to form a working group on Feminist Pedagogies that then grew into a long-term project and the event “Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy?”. Or when Peruvian artist Andrea Francke approached me asking for an interview in which she mentioned her research into book piracy in Peru, it was just clicked for both of us that it would be exciting to combine book piracy with the occupation of the Byam Shaw School of Art Library and the Piracy Project was born.
+
= Collectivity (11.2)=
In all projects, the moves are then developed over time in dialogue with each other. I also observed that the motivations, concerns and desires of those involved, (what drives me to commit to this project), are not fully articulated at the beginning. What is articulated is a certain excitement, but what drives those involved only reveals itself gradually, when propositions or steps taken by one of the actors come as a surprise to the others. These are moments of discovery of each other's subjectivities. These moments of recognition reveal where “somebody comes from” (literally and metaphorically) and they expose the unspoken assumptions we sometimes make of each other when working together so closely. I would describe the 5-year collaboration with Andrea as a symbiosis, we became close friends. We often did not need to explain much, because our perception of certain situations and our reactions were similar. But there were moments where they were not. These were moments where the cultural and embodied heritage (coming from a colonial society and sociability, growing up under various dictatorships, settled in London as a Latin American migrant) created a position that was different from mine (growing up in Germany, settled in London as a European migrant). These positionalities, created through different cultural backgrounds and ages,<ref name= "ages"/> make a collective inquiry complex and messy by opening an unexpected range of sites, concerns and questions. I am trying to capture and discuss these sites and concerns for each project individually in chapter 10*Reflection and theorization of projects.
+
Singularity and uniqueness
 +
boxing: against immunisation - radical bodily dialogue
  
This messiness is at the core of collectivity, as I understand it. It means engaging in dialogue or conversation with other knowledges and ways of knowing. (distinction by de Santos) It is a fluid back and forth between the “I” and the “we”. For me, the “we” was the default position (interrupted by the moments of discovery of difference) and this is why it was always a difficult task to decide how we sign the project or single parts of it. [[File:Piracy Project The Showroom PosterReadingRoom.jpg|thumb|400px|Poster: Piracy Project Reading Room, The Showroom , London, 2012. The poster shows no attribution or name]]
+
This research started out to explore the micropolitics of publishing, the  "blockages," as I called them, for emancipatory, collective knowledge practices. The assumption was that working collectively could be a method to oppose the pervasive neo-liberal demand that trains cultural workers, as Susan Kelly notes, “to operate as hyper-individuals in a competitive and brand-oriented set of institutional and market hierarchies.” <ref name= "Kelly-my idea"/>
 +
Most of my practice is collaborative (see the constellations in the practice projects). This is due to the fact I like working with other people and because it is a political stance. But I observed a differentiation between collaborative and collective, which is important here. Collaboration could just mean two or more people are working towards a specific goal. It does not necessarily imply that they are working collectively since each could carry out discrete tasks individually that later merge into a common outcome. I learned to understand collectivity as a much more messy process. There is a common idea or plan at the beginning, but the way, the steps, we get there is not known at this point and likewise no specific roles or tasks are attached. There is a trigger or starting point for each project, for example, the Critical Practice conference at Valand Academy mobilized a group of staff and students to form a working group on Feminist Pedagogies that then grew into a long-term project and the event “Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy?”. Or when Peruvian artist Andrea Francke approached me asking for an interview in which she mentioned her research into book piracy in Peru, it was just clicked for both of us that it would be exciting to combine book piracy with the occupation of the Byam Shaw School of Art Library and the Piracy Project was born.
 +
In all projects, the moves are then developed over time in dialogue with each other. I also observed that the motivations, concerns and desires of those involved, (what drives me to commit to this project), are not fully articulated at the beginning. What is articulated is a certain excitement, but what drives those involved only reveals itself gradually, when propositions or steps taken by one of the actors come as a surprise to the others. These are moments of discovery of each other's positionalities and subjectivities. These moments of recognition reveal where “somebody comes from” (literally and metaphorically) and they expose the unspoken assumptions we sometimes make of each other when working together so closely. I would describe the 5-year collaboration with Andrea as a symbiosis, we became close friends. We often did not need to explain much, because our perception of certain situations and our reactions were similar. But there were moments where they were not. These were moments where Andrea's cultural and embodied heritage (coming from a colonial society and sociability, growing up under various dictatorships, settled in London as a Latin American migrant) created a position that was different from mine (growing up in Germany, settled in London as a European migrant). These positionalities, created through different cultural backgrounds and ages,<ref name= "ages"/> make a collective inquiry complex and messy by opening an unexpected range of sites, concerns and questions. I am trying to capture and discuss these sites and concerns for each project individually in chapter 10*Reflection and theorization of projects.  
 +
[[File:Piracy Project The Showroom PosterReadingRoom.jpg|thumb|200px|Poster: Piracy Project Reading Room, The Showroom, London, 2012. The poster shows no attribution or name]]
 +
[[File:Piracy Project New York Art Book Fair-2011–label lr.jpg|thumb|200px|The Piracy Project, New York Art Book Fair, 2011. The sign reads "The Piracy Project/AND Publishing and Andrea Francke]]
  
We tried all sorts of combinations from "And Publishing in collaboration with Andrea Francke", to "The Piracy Project", to Andrea Francke and Eva Weinmayr. To name this fluid constellation was difficult. This is a small detail, but the question of naming and attribution brings in anxieties of authorship and ownership that constitute a certain constriction to this generous and transversal space of togetherness and dialogue. Gerald Raunig describes transversality in activist practices as
+
This messiness is at the core of collectivity, as I came to understand it. It is a constant back and forth between different knowledges and ways of knowing (distinction by de Sousa Santos). It is a constant back and forth between the "we" and the "I". This messiness poses a challenge since it makes the personal boundaries of each member porous and vulnerable. I can be moved. This process of de-immunization of the proper subject had been at stake, in a very tangible way, in the Boxing and Unboxing project.  
::‘There is no longer any artificially produced subject of articulation; it becomes clear that every name, every linkage, every label has always already been collective and must be newly constructed over and over again. In particular, to the same extent to which transversal collectives are only to be understood as polyvocal groups, transversality is linked with a critique of representation, with a refusal to speak for others, in the name of others, with abandoning identity, with a loss of a unified face, with the subversion of the social pressure to produce faces.
 
  
It has been a key insight that we might achieve moments of collective transversality in activist practices, the ones Susan Kelly describes as practices of creative dissent, but these moments are challenged as soon as we enter regimes of cultural capital (the art world, academia) that are based on individual authorship and merit. {{Interlink|Summary_of_projects_and_submitted_material#Confronting_Authorship.2C_Constructing_Practices_.E2.80.93_How_copyright_destroys_collective_practice_.28book_chapter.29|These mechanisms in relation to authorship, ownership and copyright are discussed in more detail in the book chapter Confronting authorship - Constructing Practices}}
+
It has been a key insight that collective practices, therefore, are not about joining forces to achieve more and better outcomes in a shorter time. Collectivity could be one site where we develop methods of being and working together. A site, where we could unlearn to blindly reproduce predefined roles and hierarchies, a reduction that ultimately reduces again the sum to its parts, i.e. to the possessive individual.
  
I see a convergence here with
+
But it has also been a key insight that the figure of the possessive individual appears again as soon as these collective moments/working together/ dialogues enter in some way institutional regimes of cultural capital (the art world, academia, etc.). Since these regimes are based on (individual) merit and audit the collective body gets split up again into its limbs in form of attributable roles, tasks and achievements, claiming authorship, claiming ownership.  
Western concepts of authorship, de Sousa Santos claims, have "little validity in the epistemologies of the South insofar as, for them, the most relevant knowledges are either immemorial or generated in the social experiences of oppression and the struggles against it. In any case, they are rarely traceable to a single individual.
 
  
alternative ways of knowing
+
>>Example: It's interesting to observe how my role shifted throughout the different projects. Boxing and Unboxing, and the Piracy Project originated through a shared idea and developed with equal stakes from there. In contrast, with Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy it was me who sensed out whether there would be interest to form a working group at the Art Academy. The proposal had so much pull with colleagues, students, and administrators that it turned into a collective project with no predefined roles, besides some organizing. In contrast, with LIO it was different. I invited people to submit books, materials that were important to them to add to the Reading Room collection. Here, due to the exhibition context, I was stuck in the role of the artist-organizer, and I came to "own" the project.
  
What do ‘knowledge’ and ‘discursivity’ mean in these enhanced and performative epistemic cultures? And what consequences does this entail for the way people document, share and disseminate research? Henk Borgdorff
 
  
 +
{{Interlink|Summary_of_projects_and_submitted_material#Confronting_Authorship.2C_Constructing_Practices_.E2.80.93_How_copyright_destroys_collective_practice_.28book_chapter.29|These mechanisms in relation to authorship, ownership and copyright are discussed in more detail in the book chapter Confronting authorship - Constructing Practices}}
  
I might even say that based on my experiences during my collaborations that any context of institutional validation constitutes a blockage to the kind of messy, lively, challenging collective body experience that seems so desirable to me. That has to do with allocated roles and responsibilities. One example is my role in facilitating the Library of Inclusions and Ommissions with which I hoped to start a community library, that could be collectively maintained. But since at the start I acted as a facilitator, even worse, in the role of an artist in the context of a durational exhibition, I "owned" the project. This is very different from the collectivized approaches of infoshops and community libraries I have described in the Survey of the Field. {{Interlink|Survey_of_the_field#A_network_of_relationships:_Infoshops_.281990s_U.K..29| a network of relationships: Infoshops UK 1990s}}
 
  
They are rhetorical knowledges that express themselves in common language and whose arguments are validated inside the community, organization, or movement
 
  
a collective body, romantic collectivity, authorizes itself...
+
=Power politics of the collective=
 +
the omissions in lio.
  
 +
Another insight I gained through the practice complicates a potentially romantic conception of collectivity. That is the power dynamics of the "we" (in contrast to "I"). This power dynamic links to the core question of the micro-politics of authority and validation in this research. The question of who decides who can participate in the "we" and who is left outside poses an ongoing threat to emancipatory and inclusive practices.
  
epistemological of the south... collective struggle.
+
>>Example: In 2014 I was invited to take part in a one-week workshop titled "We not I", convened by Melissa Gordon and Marina Vishmidt. A large group of female cultural practitioners and theorists had been invited to spend a week together with presentations, discussions, talks and workshops.
roles and classification, categories...
+
 
 +
>>Example: Secondly, I need to direct a note of caution towards a romanticization of collective librarianship that is so strongly advocated in my research practice as an alternative to institutional and its potentially biased claim or neutrality and completeness. (see radical librarianship, shadow libraries, etc.) It became clear that a collectivized librarianship is only as good as its librarians are. This kind of librarianship mirrors the interest, positionalities of its librarians jus as in institutional libraries. Take Wikipedia for example, an enzyclopedy that proposes to overcome the limits and biases of knowledge. However, Wikipedia shows a clear bias towards Anglo-American, male topics. Here the collective validates itself and produces a new bias.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
=before, with, and after the document=
 +
 
 +
I started with the understanding that the act of publishing is an instance of temporarily stabilizing knowledge by fixing it into a material and mobile form (paper, ink, screen, code) – an object. As an object, detached from the makers (person), moment (time) and ecologies (context) of its production it can circulate and spread into different regions, contexts, and epochs or in Florian Cramer's words, "the idea of the book is one that can be read in 1, 5, and 100 years time."[1]
 +
 
 +
This finite object property of the book comes with an implicit authority, that I have discussed by investigating the different stages (the creating of content, the material production, the circulation/access, and the reading practice) and sites (the library, knowledge practices at the art academy, sites of institutional audit, sites of commercial/copyright monopolies).
 +
 
 +
This affiliation of stages and sites...
 +
 
 +
I will describe these stages and affiliated sites of my practice in reverse order, i.e from the moment once a publication "is out" to the processes and methods of its making.
 +
 
 +
(I) I asked, in the beginning, "how does the "outside space" of a book (the way it circulates, is described and accessible)  shape the "inside space" (how its content is being read and given meaning) and vice versa?" This question relates to reading practices (making meaning), but also to the sites where access is granted, for example, via the library. The library/repository is a key site in my practice because the library does not treat the book as a commodity. [see book chapter "Library Underground"]
 +
 
 +
Both projects, The Piracy Project and the LIO deal with practices of librarianship with different entry points and different questions. Both practices produced an insight that the library catalog itself is a meaning-making structure. [see cataloging experiments: Piracy Project; methods of cataloging: LIO] Organised, described, and framed through categories and classifications, the catalog is the entry point to the book and the knowledge/experience/content it provides. The various cataloging experiments with the two book collections (the Piracy Project and the LIO) revealed the political nature of cataloging. A discovery that is theorized in the section "Naming and Framing under the disguise of neutrality", where problems of fixity, claimed neutrality and universality in library classifications are discussed. This work with the catalog alongside research into the history of classification and the critical library movement, as well as closely following contemporary radical practices of librarianship and cataloging, [footnote: The Unbound Library Constant, the Decolonial Library, Muntpunt, Brussels, Infrastructural Maneuvres, Amsterdam, MayDay Rooms London] led me to understand the implicit dilemma that each standard and each category valorizes one point of view and silences another. Not naming and just stick to the messiness (of collective practice described above) does not seem a way forward either since descriptors make things tangible and findable, as activist librarian Borreman noted in the 70s when she worked at CIDEC. If we don't describe and catalog these alternative practices they don't exist. xxxx
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
(II)
 +
The fixity and assumed stability as a key property of the book, (also a precondition to be included and cataloged in a library catalog), generated a whole set of questions and attempts to explore the fixity's implications and limitations.
 +
The Piracy Project is expanding this assumed stability of the book by developing strategies to challenge the role of the author and of the authority of the printed book.
 +
But the question that emerged from the practice and really stirred my thinking was whether it was possible to shift the focus from the finished object to the processes of how it is done and what does it do. I asked if we understood publishing as a verb (the process) instead of as a noun (the finished object), could practice itself be seen as a form of publishing?
 +
 
 +
This is a question that tries to address and critique the assumption that a publication is an output. That it is the end product of a process, an output that can be counted, validated, audited and feeds the systems based on a logic of calculation.
 +
 
 +
Instead, I was keen to explore in which ways we can set up processes of publishing that in themselves enable an intersection feminist way of doing things. What, as Christopher Kelty suggests, if we valued not solely the content of utterances that are freely and openly circulated, but also the ways they are uttered? [...] And "who is encouraged to say them and who is encouraged to remain silent?"<ref name="Kelty" /> This requires institutional work and instituting work. An example of this is the work of Let's Mobilize working group at the art academy to organize a "conference" that experiments with modes of meeting, generating and sharing knowledges and ways of knowing in academia.
 +
 
 +
Similarly, the strategies the Feminist Pedagogies workgroup developed for editing, producing and circulating the publication shifted the focus from being "a deliverable" to functioning as a prop. A prop is fundamental different in such as it shifts the value from the object (as an countable and accountable output) to what this object does, to its agency. Moten and Harney describe this shift as "If you pick it up you can move into some new thinking and into a new set of relations, a new way of being together, thinking together. In the end, it's this new way of being and thinking together that's important, not the prop." Through the experimental production and circulation  (collective collating, folding and binding event), and the situating the book's pages as posters spatially inside the building (the academy as a walkable book) this book was situated in and for a specific context.
 +
 
 +
could be seen as a cue for a situated reading practice that I discuss in more detail in the text. As such, they were a means and not an end.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
The question is if we don't focus on the object as the thing, but on what it does, its agency so to speak. The LIO does this, where the focus is what the book did to its reader (that is the person who contributed the book to the library to share this experience with others). Here it is helpful to borrow Fred Moten and Stefano Harney description of the book as a prop. 
 +
"If you pick it up you can move into some new thinking and into a new set of relations, a new way of being together, thinking together. In the end, it's this new way of being and thinking together that's important, not the prop."
 +
 
 +
The strategies the Feminist Pedagogies workgroup developed for publishing the workbook tested the possibilities of the book as a prop. A prop to make the members of the academy meet and talk over the collective compiling and binding work, a prop to introduce the topics of feminist pedagogies into the community of practice at the art academy, a prop for situating the topics right inside the building by turning the academy into a walkable book.
 +
 
 +
The question of "outside space" (distribution) and "inside space" got refined through the collective editing and printing and binding of the "Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy Workbook."
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
How much object, and how much "public" does a process of publishing require? Or to put it differently
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
would shift the way we produce, circulate and read books. I came to ask how the idea of a publication as a finished and finite object 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
become  Practices, situated publishing/collective Reading: example Femped workbook, walkable book.
 +
 
 +
(III) how to not detach the document from its context, the document as a prop rather than an evidential structure. (Piracy Reader/ Femped workbook / shared bibliography Twitter thread) the making, editorial strategies, distribution, collating.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
(IV) sites of knowledge making and sharing: Learning to learn: the art academy: inclusive learning and teaching, Mobilisation.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
 
 +
authorship: against immunisation, possessive individual.
 +
 
 +
citation...
 +
 
 +
the wiki
 +
 
 +
 
 +
The first phase tested with the example of Lets mobilize how knowledge is created in the academy. What are the formats we meet
 +
 
 +
 
 +
Between experience and articulation?  One way of understanding the act of publishing is as an instance of temporarily stabilizing knowledge by fixing it into a material and mobile form (paper, ink, screen, code) – an object. As an object, detached from the makers (person), moment (time) and ecologies (context) of its production it can circulate and spread into different regions, contexts, and epochs or in Florian Cramer's words, "the idea of the book is one that can be read in 1, 5, and 100 years time."[1] It develops a social and intellectual life of its own.
 +
 
 +
=the fixity of the document=
 +
I came to ask if we understood publishing as a verb (the process) rather than as a noun (the finished object), could practice (the doing, the activity) itself be seen as a form of publication? Could, for example, teaching be a form of publication?
 +
In order to come to share my insights about the "verb", I need to first discuss the "noun". What defines a publication and what is a document (in contrast to orality or other ways of knowing)?
 +
 
 +
I have carried out several experiments to expand the normative concept of the book as a finite and authoritative object. The Piracy Project discloses several tactics to challenge the authority of the printed book and as the co-authored essay "The Impermanent Book" demonstrates through digital print, versioning became a method applied by many artists. The Piracy Reader is a good example, that is deliberately published unfinished with the idea that the book grows with its readers.
 +
One property of the stable book is the linearity that brings the binding. With the workbook "Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy this property was undone and the pages posted across the walls of the academy turned the academy building into a walkable book. The sequence was not a predefined given but created by the readers' movement, daily paths through the building.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
These experiments tinker with the material properties and the
 +
 
 +
These experiments to transgress mere representation can perhaps be more
 +
adequately described as practice, rather than production. Practice can result in various forms of “output”, but does not necessarily hinge on its public
 +
distribution and reception to be of value to those, who are engaged in it.
 +
The experimental dissemination of the Let’s Mobilize: What is Feminist
 +
Pedagogy Workbook tries to shift the dominant markers of value from quantity
 +
to quality, from standard distribution to experimental and contextual reception, from meritocracy to meaning. Such practice is situated in the specific practices and experiments of a local community, but not limited to it. The questions
 +
 
 +
the book as a prop. Reading Practices
 +
 
 +
This subtle move puts the temporality of the book’s narrative in dialogue with the reader’s real reading time: It aligns the book’s fictional time of the voyage and our own actual journey through the book by flipping the pages. This trick creates an surprising experience of interdependency between the two temporalities connecting the reading experience to the viewer’s own
 +
situatedness in time and space.
  
 
=roles, naming, classification=
 
=roles, naming, classification=
Line 89: Line 184:
 
experiments with piracy project, lio
 
experiments with piracy project, lio
  
=the document=
+
 
 
Suzanne briet
 
Suzanne briet
 +
 +
=the inside and outside space brought me to a range of sites: reading practices.... organising, framing and cataloguing=
 +
 +
=the book as a prop and not as evidence=
 +
 +
=instigating thinking/ learning=
 +
find out the relationship to somebodies work by pirating it/modyfying it.
 +
 +
=fixity of document = fixity of exhibition practice=
 +
 +
  
 
<span style="color: red>NOT RESOLVED
 
<span style="color: red>NOT RESOLVED

Revision as of 09:23, 1 July 2020

This chapter will change!


cut-off point

In the opening section I identified that... I had seen publishing just a good thing... as an emancipatory thing... giving voice., but then this view becomes complicated by certain things....

, how I observe a feminist project,

In this chapter, that marks a cut-off point rather than providing a conclusion I will revisit the initial concerns that triggered this research in the first place and analyze how these shifted and got redefined through the five practice projects. I started from a set of concerns about the emancipatory and political nature of the book. It wasn't the book as a discrete container for radical content alone that was of interest to me but the potentially radical, political and emancipatory ways it is produced (authored, edited, printed, bound), disseminated (circulated, described, cataloged) and read (used) that I wanted to investigate. This is the book's assumed capacity as a conceptual and material means to practically intervene, disrupt and change existing systems of production, distribution, and consumption of knowledge – with an intersectional feminist approach. So the specific focus of this research is not the global or historical claims for the impact of print culture but rather the micro-politics of publishing practices at the intersection of contemporary art, radical education, and institutional analysis.

Drawing upon Gabriel Tarde's proposition that knowledge is a mode of socialization and "social communication" (1928) – I set out to investigate publication as a social and pedagogical – and as such a political process. I asked what is the relationship between "making" and "making public"? Between experience and articulation? How does the "outside space" (distribution) shape the "inside space" of publication (content) and vice versa? How can publishing create spaces, in the figurative and physical sense, for better mutual understanding and rethinking relations between people?

More concretely I wanted to explore the ways how institutional pressure (publish or perish) seems to erode practice based on agency, creativity, criticality, experimentation, and collective knowledge making. Publishing (and writing) in institutional or semi-institutional contexts has been arguably reduced from a process of communication, discovery, and exploration, to a system for the assembly of more and more new products.

Without having necessarily found the answers to the questions or solutions to the problems, the act of searching itself produced some insights. It is the “search” in research. I am borrowing this pun from Jemma Desai, who emphasized that for her research is a process of searching, open-ended and generative rather than “complete, finished, exhaustive (and exhausting).” [1]

The searching in this PhD inquiry happened in a myriad of ways. Through working with friends on projects (trying one thing, trying something else, discovering, discarding and trying again from a different angle = practice). By talking through plans and ideas in a joint project, taking decisions, reflecting how it went (how we are doing this or that = conversation, evaluation). By organising workshops and being invited to workshops, seminars, lectures (= exchange, presenting and listening). By reading, writing and co-writing texts (= articulating). And by incidental and informal late-night conversations with friends.

The articulation of the shift from the set of questions at the start ‘’via’’ the search and the insights through practice and theory ‘’towards’’ the re-defining of the initial questions constitutes my research contribution.

As a very summarily statement I can say that my focus shifted more and more to explore the methods and politics of publishing, which is the process of knowledge-making, and knowledge sharing.

Here the focus moved from looking at the finished object (publications) to the ways we make them. This includes organizing strategies, methods of working collectively, negotiating institutional demands, rethinking roles in the process, etc. I came to ask if we understood publishing as a verb (the process) rather than as a noun (the finished object), could practice itself be seen as a form of publication? So, for example: Is a teaching situation a form of publishing? A workshop, where knowledge is collectively produced and disseminated at the same time? When we think of the collaborative as a situation, scene, process, dynamic, method, or mode, can we frame such a situation as "publishing"? What would that mean for the term "public" that's contained in the word "publishing"? Is publishing necessarily always tied to a document, whether written, a film, a drawing, a photograph? What is a document?

In chapter 02*Survey of the Field, I mapped a broad range of distribution strategies, radical librarianship and discussed the politics of naming and framing, classification and categorization. Basically what is the social life of a book once it leaves the printer.

In chapter 04*Summary of Projects and Submitted Material I give an overview of the activities that I have carried out (description of the five projects, alongside workshopping, organising, talking, listening, making) and provide short descriptions and links to the published materials (book chapters, zines, podcasts, interviews) that form part of this submission. Where possible, I linked directly to the sites that hosted these events to give context and show the range of fields and communities in which my work is embedded, both inside and outside academia.

Chapters 05-09*Project Pages provides a factual description of the five practice projects: what happened, how, when, with whom and where. It describes the many small steps taken, the interventions and methods applied in each project.

The purpose of chapter 10*Reflection, Theorisation is to unpack the complexities and contradictions of each of the practice projects through a process of reflection. This is to establish what these five practice experiments did and how they potentially contribute to a critical understanding of the micropolitics at play when we create and share knowledges under institutional conditions. This chapter reflects on the tactics developed within the practices/experiments by attempting to “do things differently”. It assesses what I hoped to achieve, what was possible to achieve. It lays out the blockages and contradictions that emerged while wrestling with systems of validation, authorship and ownership, the concept of the ”finite" discrete object, and the authority these discrete objects produce.


In this chapter, 11*Analysis, which marks a cut-off point rather than providing a conclusion I revisit the initial concerns that triggered this research in the first place and analyze how these shifted and got redefined through the five practice projects.


In section 11.2, I reflect on collectivity, the relationship between the "we" and the "I" and what "knowing with" rather than "knowing about" would mean for processes of intersectional feminist publishing and knowledge practices. Here I observe a convergence with decolonial epistemologies, described by Boaventura de Sousa Santos as "Epistemologies of the South" that are grounded in collective struggle.

In section 11.3, I examine the tensions that emerges when intersectional, feminist and decolonial epistemologies (see above) meet "the document". I will discuss the historical debate in Europe of what constitutes a document (Briet, Otlet) and its role in bureaucracy, coloniality, and the Modern European Project (Weber, Maldonado-Torres, de Certeau). Here I will also address again questions of classification and the role of the catalog as a meaning-making device that frames and classifies knowledges (and people) and its implicit biases and dilemmas.

Collectivity and individualization, the document and the catalog cannot be properly addressed without discussing the dimensions of authorship and attribution practices. Section 11.4 and 11.5, therefore, provide a reflection on authorship, however, with conflicting arguments: Section 11.4 looks at authorship (in its historical function) as a measure of censorship and control (Rose, Thoburn) and discusses contemporary approaches of collectivizing/anonymizing authorship to escape systems of individualization, accountability or audit (in the neo-liberal university), or as anarchist technique. Section 11.5, in contrast, argues for the importance to acknowledge "who we are and from where we speak" (Gayatry Spivak, Sara Ahmed, Enrique Dussel). It advocates "situated" authorship, as an emancipatory act, against a history of repressed authorship (exclusion from writing, exclusion from access to publishing, exclusion from recognition when published, exclusion from citation when published, etc.). Without solving this double bind between the "possessive individual" and "situated authorship" I will add another dimension, namely the politics of citation.

Section 11.6. discusses the politics of citation as a form of legitimization and validation and its role in the creation of a canon. In this section, I will showcase the concentration of power, the inequalities and marginalization of global southern epistemological. Here I will reconnect to questions of authorship and ask: what makes knowledge citable? What are the authorial preconditions for a citation? How stable, "published" and fixed needs an utterance to be, that it can be cited or referred to?

Section 11.7 then proposes a more flexible idea of authorship altogether. It asks for a shift of values at the academy, a shift that appraises the ways we are "publishing" as much as what or how much is published. It looks at the interplay between input and output, at teaching as a form of publishing and provides a critique of the existing and narrow understanding of impact at the neo-liberal academy that arguably merely focuses on discretely authored objects based on a logic of calculation.

In section 11.8 I conclude by discussing the experiment of publishing this research in the form of a Mediawiki. Since this Ph.D. submission constitutes a form of publication in itself, I will reflect (i) on the rationale and the decisions that led me to use this open format, (ii) on the dilemmas emerging from this practice in terms of authorship, authorization and authority.

The fact that a Ph.D. submission itself constitutes a form of publication that is subjected to the very questions I am addressing with my research turns the authoring, publishing, and sharing of this research into an experiment in its own right. So how can I publish this research without falling into the pitfalls that I address with this research project?

analyzing the dilemmas and double binds that I have to negotiate when I as an individual (that is subjected to an exam protocol) try to migrate collective work into the institutional context of academia.

Collectivity (11.2)

Singularity and uniqueness boxing: against immunisation - radical bodily dialogue

This research started out to explore the micropolitics of publishing, the "blockages," as I called them, for emancipatory, collective knowledge practices. The assumption was that working collectively could be a method to oppose the pervasive neo-liberal demand that trains cultural workers, as Susan Kelly notes, “to operate as hyper-individuals in a competitive and brand-oriented set of institutional and market hierarchies.” [2] Most of my practice is collaborative (see the constellations in the practice projects). This is due to the fact I like working with other people and because it is a political stance. But I observed a differentiation between collaborative and collective, which is important here. Collaboration could just mean two or more people are working towards a specific goal. It does not necessarily imply that they are working collectively since each could carry out discrete tasks individually that later merge into a common outcome. I learned to understand collectivity as a much more messy process. There is a common idea or plan at the beginning, but the way, the steps, we get there is not known at this point and likewise no specific roles or tasks are attached. There is a trigger or starting point for each project, for example, the Critical Practice conference at Valand Academy mobilized a group of staff and students to form a working group on Feminist Pedagogies that then grew into a long-term project and the event “Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy?”. Or when Peruvian artist Andrea Francke approached me asking for an interview in which she mentioned her research into book piracy in Peru, it was just clicked for both of us that it would be exciting to combine book piracy with the occupation of the Byam Shaw School of Art Library and the Piracy Project was born. In all projects, the moves are then developed over time in dialogue with each other. I also observed that the motivations, concerns and desires of those involved, (what drives me to commit to this project), are not fully articulated at the beginning. What is articulated is a certain excitement, but what drives those involved only reveals itself gradually, when propositions or steps taken by one of the actors come as a surprise to the others. These are moments of discovery of each other's positionalities and subjectivities. These moments of recognition reveal where “somebody comes from” (literally and metaphorically) and they expose the unspoken assumptions we sometimes make of each other when working together so closely. I would describe the 5-year collaboration with Andrea as a symbiosis, we became close friends. We often did not need to explain much, because our perception of certain situations and our reactions were similar. But there were moments where they were not. These were moments where Andrea's cultural and embodied heritage (coming from a colonial society and sociability, growing up under various dictatorships, settled in London as a Latin American migrant) created a position that was different from mine (growing up in Germany, settled in London as a European migrant). These positionalities, created through different cultural backgrounds and ages,[3] make a collective inquiry complex and messy by opening an unexpected range of sites, concerns and questions. I am trying to capture and discuss these sites and concerns for each project individually in chapter 10*Reflection and theorization of projects.

Poster: Piracy Project Reading Room, The Showroom, London, 2012. The poster shows no attribution or name
The Piracy Project, New York Art Book Fair, 2011. The sign reads "The Piracy Project/AND Publishing and Andrea Francke

This messiness is at the core of collectivity, as I came to understand it. It is a constant back and forth between different knowledges and ways of knowing (distinction by de Sousa Santos). It is a constant back and forth between the "we" and the "I". This messiness poses a challenge since it makes the personal boundaries of each member porous and vulnerable. I can be moved. This process of de-immunization of the proper subject had been at stake, in a very tangible way, in the Boxing and Unboxing project.

It has been a key insight that collective practices, therefore, are not about joining forces to achieve more and better outcomes in a shorter time. Collectivity could be one site where we develop methods of being and working together. A site, where we could unlearn to blindly reproduce predefined roles and hierarchies, a reduction that ultimately reduces again the sum to its parts, i.e. to the possessive individual.

But it has also been a key insight that the figure of the possessive individual appears again as soon as these collective moments/working together/ dialogues enter in some way institutional regimes of cultural capital (the art world, academia, etc.). Since these regimes are based on (individual) merit and audit the collective body gets split up again into its limbs in form of attributable roles, tasks and achievements, claiming authorship, claiming ownership.

>>Example: It's interesting to observe how my role shifted throughout the different projects. Boxing and Unboxing, and the Piracy Project originated through a shared idea and developed with equal stakes from there. In contrast, with Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy it was me who sensed out whether there would be interest to form a working group at the Art Academy. The proposal had so much pull with colleagues, students, and administrators that it turned into a collective project with no predefined roles, besides some organizing. In contrast, with LIO it was different. I invited people to submit books, materials that were important to them to add to the Reading Room collection. Here, due to the exhibition context, I was stuck in the role of the artist-organizer, and I came to "own" the project.


⟶  These mechanisms in relation to authorship, ownership and copyright are discussed in more detail in the book chapter Confronting authorship - Constructing Practices


Power politics of the collective

the omissions in lio.

Another insight I gained through the practice complicates a potentially romantic conception of collectivity. That is the power dynamics of the "we" (in contrast to "I"). This power dynamic links to the core question of the micro-politics of authority and validation in this research. The question of who decides who can participate in the "we" and who is left outside poses an ongoing threat to emancipatory and inclusive practices.

>>Example: In 2014 I was invited to take part in a one-week workshop titled "We not I", convened by Melissa Gordon and Marina Vishmidt. A large group of female cultural practitioners and theorists had been invited to spend a week together with presentations, discussions, talks and workshops.

>>Example: Secondly, I need to direct a note of caution towards a romanticization of collective librarianship that is so strongly advocated in my research practice as an alternative to institutional and its potentially biased claim or neutrality and completeness. (see radical librarianship, shadow libraries, etc.) It became clear that a collectivized librarianship is only as good as its librarians are. This kind of librarianship mirrors the interest, positionalities of its librarians jus as in institutional libraries. Take Wikipedia for example, an enzyclopedy that proposes to overcome the limits and biases of knowledge. However, Wikipedia shows a clear bias towards Anglo-American, male topics. Here the collective validates itself and produces a new bias.


before, with, and after the document

I started with the understanding that the act of publishing is an instance of temporarily stabilizing knowledge by fixing it into a material and mobile form (paper, ink, screen, code) – an object. As an object, detached from the makers (person), moment (time) and ecologies (context) of its production it can circulate and spread into different regions, contexts, and epochs or in Florian Cramer's words, "the idea of the book is one that can be read in 1, 5, and 100 years time."[1]

This finite object property of the book comes with an implicit authority, that I have discussed by investigating the different stages (the creating of content, the material production, the circulation/access, and the reading practice) and sites (the library, knowledge practices at the art academy, sites of institutional audit, sites of commercial/copyright monopolies).

This affiliation of stages and sites...

I will describe these stages and affiliated sites of my practice in reverse order, i.e from the moment once a publication "is out" to the processes and methods of its making.

(I) I asked, in the beginning, "how does the "outside space" of a book (the way it circulates, is described and accessible) shape the "inside space" (how its content is being read and given meaning) and vice versa?" This question relates to reading practices (making meaning), but also to the sites where access is granted, for example, via the library. The library/repository is a key site in my practice because the library does not treat the book as a commodity. [see book chapter "Library Underground"]

Both projects, The Piracy Project and the LIO deal with practices of librarianship with different entry points and different questions. Both practices produced an insight that the library catalog itself is a meaning-making structure. [see cataloging experiments: Piracy Project; methods of cataloging: LIO] Organised, described, and framed through categories and classifications, the catalog is the entry point to the book and the knowledge/experience/content it provides. The various cataloging experiments with the two book collections (the Piracy Project and the LIO) revealed the political nature of cataloging. A discovery that is theorized in the section "Naming and Framing under the disguise of neutrality", where problems of fixity, claimed neutrality and universality in library classifications are discussed. This work with the catalog alongside research into the history of classification and the critical library movement, as well as closely following contemporary radical practices of librarianship and cataloging, [footnote: The Unbound Library Constant, the Decolonial Library, Muntpunt, Brussels, Infrastructural Maneuvres, Amsterdam, MayDay Rooms London] led me to understand the implicit dilemma that each standard and each category valorizes one point of view and silences another. Not naming and just stick to the messiness (of collective practice described above) does not seem a way forward either since descriptors make things tangible and findable, as activist librarian Borreman noted in the 70s when she worked at CIDEC. If we don't describe and catalog these alternative practices they don't exist. xxxx


(II) The fixity and assumed stability as a key property of the book, (also a precondition to be included and cataloged in a library catalog), generated a whole set of questions and attempts to explore the fixity's implications and limitations. The Piracy Project is expanding this assumed stability of the book by developing strategies to challenge the role of the author and of the authority of the printed book. But the question that emerged from the practice and really stirred my thinking was whether it was possible to shift the focus from the finished object to the processes of how it is done and what does it do. I asked if we understood publishing as a verb (the process) instead of as a noun (the finished object), could practice itself be seen as a form of publishing?

This is a question that tries to address and critique the assumption that a publication is an output. That it is the end product of a process, an output that can be counted, validated, audited and feeds the systems based on a logic of calculation.

Instead, I was keen to explore in which ways we can set up processes of publishing that in themselves enable an intersection feminist way of doing things. What, as Christopher Kelty suggests, if we valued not solely the content of utterances that are freely and openly circulated, but also the ways they are uttered? [...] And "who is encouraged to say them and who is encouraged to remain silent?"[4] This requires institutional work and instituting work. An example of this is the work of Let's Mobilize working group at the art academy to organize a "conference" that experiments with modes of meeting, generating and sharing knowledges and ways of knowing in academia.

Similarly, the strategies the Feminist Pedagogies workgroup developed for editing, producing and circulating the publication shifted the focus from being "a deliverable" to functioning as a prop. A prop is fundamental different in such as it shifts the value from the object (as an countable and accountable output) to what this object does, to its agency. Moten and Harney describe this shift as "If you pick it up you can move into some new thinking and into a new set of relations, a new way of being together, thinking together. In the end, it's this new way of being and thinking together that's important, not the prop." Through the experimental production and circulation (collective collating, folding and binding event), and the situating the book's pages as posters spatially inside the building (the academy as a walkable book) this book was situated in and for a specific context.

could be seen as a cue for a situated reading practice that I discuss in more detail in the text. As such, they were a means and not an end.


The question is if we don't focus on the object as the thing, but on what it does, its agency so to speak. The LIO does this, where the focus is what the book did to its reader (that is the person who contributed the book to the library to share this experience with others). Here it is helpful to borrow Fred Moten and Stefano Harney description of the book as a prop. "If you pick it up you can move into some new thinking and into a new set of relations, a new way of being together, thinking together. In the end, it's this new way of being and thinking together that's important, not the prop."

The strategies the Feminist Pedagogies workgroup developed for publishing the workbook tested the possibilities of the book as a prop. A prop to make the members of the academy meet and talk over the collective compiling and binding work, a prop to introduce the topics of feminist pedagogies into the community of practice at the art academy, a prop for situating the topics right inside the building by turning the academy into a walkable book.

The question of "outside space" (distribution) and "inside space" got refined through the collective editing and printing and binding of the "Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy Workbook."


How much object, and how much "public" does a process of publishing require? Or to put it differently


would shift the way we produce, circulate and read books. I came to ask how the idea of a publication as a finished and finite object


become  Practices, situated publishing/collective Reading: example Femped workbook, walkable book.

(III) how to not detach the document from its context, the document as a prop rather than an evidential structure. (Piracy Reader/ Femped workbook / shared bibliography Twitter thread) the making, editorial strategies, distribution, collating.


(IV) sites of knowledge making and sharing: Learning to learn: the art academy: inclusive learning and teaching, Mobilisation.


authorship: against immunisation, possessive individual.

citation...

the wiki


The first phase tested with the example of Lets mobilize how knowledge is created in the academy. What are the formats we meet


Between experience and articulation? One way of understanding the act of publishing is as an instance of temporarily stabilizing knowledge by fixing it into a material and mobile form (paper, ink, screen, code) – an object. As an object, detached from the makers (person), moment (time) and ecologies (context) of its production it can circulate and spread into different regions, contexts, and epochs or in Florian Cramer's words, "the idea of the book is one that can be read in 1, 5, and 100 years time."[1] It develops a social and intellectual life of its own.

the fixity of the document

I came to ask if we understood publishing as a verb (the process) rather than as a noun (the finished object), could practice (the doing, the activity) itself be seen as a form of publication? Could, for example, teaching be a form of publication? In order to come to share my insights about the "verb", I need to first discuss the "noun". What defines a publication and what is a document (in contrast to orality or other ways of knowing)?

I have carried out several experiments to expand the normative concept of the book as a finite and authoritative object. The Piracy Project discloses several tactics to challenge the authority of the printed book and as the co-authored essay "The Impermanent Book" demonstrates through digital print, versioning became a method applied by many artists. The Piracy Reader is a good example, that is deliberately published unfinished with the idea that the book grows with its readers. One property of the stable book is the linearity that brings the binding. With the workbook "Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy this property was undone and the pages posted across the walls of the academy turned the academy building into a walkable book. The sequence was not a predefined given but created by the readers' movement, daily paths through the building.


These experiments tinker with the material properties and the

These experiments to transgress mere representation can perhaps be more adequately described as practice, rather than production. Practice can result in various forms of “output”, but does not necessarily hinge on its public distribution and reception to be of value to those, who are engaged in it. The experimental dissemination of the Let’s Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy Workbook tries to shift the dominant markers of value from quantity to quality, from standard distribution to experimental and contextual reception, from meritocracy to meaning. Such practice is situated in the specific practices and experiments of a local community, but not limited to it. The questions

the book as a prop. Reading Practices

This subtle move puts the temporality of the book’s narrative in dialogue with the reader’s real reading time: It aligns the book’s fictional time of the voyage and our own actual journey through the book by flipping the pages. This trick creates an surprising experience of interdependency between the two temporalities connecting the reading experience to the viewer’s own situatedness in time and space.

roles, naming, classification

do I refer to the people cited here as.... the catalog... meaning making structure... experiments with piracy project, lio


Suzanne briet

the inside and outside space brought me to a range of sites: reading practices.... organising, framing and cataloguing

the book as a prop and not as evidence

instigating thinking/ learning

find out the relationship to somebodies work by pirating it/modyfying it.

fixity of document = fixity of exhibition practice

NOT RESOLVED My initial curiosity to dig into the micro-politics of contemporary publishing, and to lay out the tensions and blockages for an intersectional feminist publishing practice led me repeatedly to questions of attribution practices, and to concerns around authorship and ownership. More concretely, through my practice I experienced repeatedly that the actual moment of learning, researching, doing stuff produced excitement and joy, but the moment where this practiced had to be formalized, roles attributed for any kind of institutional regime (author, artist, cultural capital) these moments of transversality and openness were lost. Even worse, the anticipation to produce something that feeds into institutional systems validation produced blockages, hierarchies, and competition. (Susan Kelly footnote: “[t]rained to operate as hyper-individuals in a competitive and brand-oriented set of institutional and market hierarchies.” (Kelly, 2013, page 53) Suddenly, that what has become a momentary collective body is split, once again, into possessive individuals.

Bibliographical practices are a minefield in this respect. The colophon determines who is credited (and for which role in the process) and these attributions get reproduced throughout. They appear as metadata in catalogs, research repositories, archives, and libraries. [see appendix: thoughts on the colophon] (Rosemary: MayDayRooms/archive for social movement: "We hardly have the "author" field filled in")

In both projects, the LIO and the Piracy Project, questions around the politics of classifying, describing, and cataloging emerged and led to experiments in which ways each project's catalog constitutes itself a meaning-making structure. This, in turn, led me to research the history, concepts and implicit dilemmas and biases of classification studying critical analyses of classification methods and widespread standards (Dewey Decimal (DDC) and Library of Congress) from intersectional feminist, queer, and decolonial perspectives (Ranganathan, Leigh Star, Bowker, Drabinski, Berman, Olson, Knowlton, Senior). [see presentation in Bern, see twitter presentation Köln, see research day Valand 2029] This interest also led me to connect and think with to projects, that develop cataloging practices that interrogate these biases and rigidities. (MDR, Infrastructural Maneuovres, Constant: Unbound Library). This research is published in the chapter Appendix "Perspectives and framing under the disguise of neutrality http://wiki.evaweinmayr.com/index.php/Reflection,_theorisation_of_projects#Perspectives_and_framing_under_the_disguise_of_neutrality

FROM HERE: OLD STUFF

How to de-monumentalize "monumental knowledge"?

In this chapter, I will distill a range of topics and questions that emerged from the five practice projects and from the lectures, workshops, and conversations I was involved in. I have described the practice projects individually in the respective project pages and have outlined their methods, their contexts, their aims, and contradictions in the chapter "Reflection, theorization of submitted projects." ⟶  see project: Library of Inclusions and Omission ⟶  see project: The Piracy Project ⟶  see project: Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy ⟶  see project: Boxing and Unboxing

This part revisits the initial research goal of this Ph.D. It analyzes how the inquiry has shifted in the process of reflecting, writing, and thinking through the initially formulated topic. More concretely, I will investigate the politics of writing a single-authored Ph.D. submission on my practice-based research that was carried out to some extent collectively. That means I will explore the implicit contradictions and challenges of this research approach leading to a broader exploration of the seemingly coercive reciprocity between authorship, authorization, and authority – the question of how knowledge proliferates and how it is legitimized. Who is acknowledged as an author, by whom, and for what reason? Speechbubble.png

Rosalie–eva phd 2020-04-17 17-09-18.jpg

Annotated by RS

Decolonial activists and theorists have contributed much to understand how the project of colonial modernity has produced "an epistemicide," as social theorist and legal scholar Boaventura de Sousa Santos claims. By failing to acknowledge "other kinds of knowledges than those produced by modern science" as valid, "the modern ecologies of knowledge brought about a massive epistemicide, that is the destruction of an immense variety of ways of knowing that prevail mainly on the other side of the abyssal line—in the colonial societies and sociabilities."[5]

In my inquiry, the decolonial represents the broad field of emergent collective struggles that all, in different ways and entry points, try to understand and counter some of the oppressive effects of the Modern Project, of coloniality. My use of the term "decolonial" relates to the concept of coloniality, as Nelson Maldonado-Torres's coins it:

Coloniality is different from colonialism. Colonialism denotes a political and economic relation in which the sovereignty of a nation or a people rests on the power of another nation, which makes such nation an empire. Coloniality, instead, refers to long-standing patterns of power that emerged as a result of colonialism, but that define culture, labor, intersubjective relations, and knowledge production well beyond the strict limits of colonial administrations. Thus, coloniality survives colonialism.[6]

That means that decolonization does not concern political independence alone, but also recognizing, learning from, and reinstating the very knowledge practices, that have been oppressed or extinguished by modernity. These practices, termed by de Sousa Santos "Epistemologies of the South," are fundamentally different since they are grounded in a "knowing with" rather than a "knowing about." Hence, they counter some of the basic assumptions of modernity, namely the "distinction between subject and object, the knower and the known" as well as universalism – as a specificity of Western modernity – that does not recognize a condition as depending on any specific social, cultural, or political context, as de Sousa declares. He calls this process "demonumentalizing monumental knowledge."[7]

I see these portrayed knowledge struggles as a marker and context for my practice projects that experiment, each in different ways, with unsettling the dominant assumptions of what is regarded as valid knowledge in Western modernity, its formats, materials, and modes of operation. My/our methodological experiments and innovations aim at fostering different kinds of knowledge and try out the possibilities for the co-creation of knowledge in "demonumentalized" cognitive contexts.

⟶  see chapter: Reflection, theorization of projects The practice-based research, described in the section "Reflection, theorization" does this in a hands-on way. Think of "Boxing and Unboxing," that proposes a radical bodily dialogue to transgress boundaries of the possessive individual, or the Library of Inclusions and Omissions, that proposes an alternative to normative practices of classification. Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy? rethinks the dominant assumptions of how knowledge is being produced in the university, and the Piracy Project challenges Western assumptions of authorship and ownership. Western concepts of authorship, de Sousa Santos claims, have "little validity in the epistemologies of the South insofar as, for them, the most relevant knowledges are either immemorial or generated in the social experiences of oppression and the struggles against it. In any case, they are rarely traceable to a single individual."[8] Individual authorship, however, plays a major role when it comes to authoring a Ph.D. This constitutes a major contradiction. Therefore, I will, in the following, think through what is the role of authorship in knowledge practices and how does it relate to authorization and authority. I will do this by analyzing the methods I am using to write this kappa, by revisiting the emergence of authorship in the early modern era, and by examining the function of authorship in the institutional systems of evaluation in the global North.

Politics of Citation

Femped Reader: citing by making the contexts and sites visible... no overall design, but a series of sites and locations and contexts. Give them more autonomy.


In a seminar during the first year of my Ph.D. studies, a thought-provoking and seemingly innocent question was put to us: "Which material do you access for your research? What sources do you consult? And where do you find things?" In a slightly buccaneering way, one of my peers responded: "In a phone call with my mum." It made us burst with laughter, because of the apparent discrepancy between the formalized and established academic knowledge formation mechanism versus the informal and unpredictable learning methods rooted in friends, allies, and family. The three questions pointed at the politics of citation. They raised the possibility for us to call on the plan voices, sources, and other forms of utterances that are not recognized within the existing academic canon.

Throughout my research practice, these two poles – the informal knowledge stock of "my mum" and the institutionally authorized canon of the colonial modern project, that Boaventura de Sousa Santos terms “monumental knowledge” – continue to constitute an ongoing field of tension.[9] Neither academia nor my mum’s knowledge is meant to be painted here as a monolithic regime. They merely serve as markers to examine the field in between, the interactions and multiple power relations, reinforcements, convergent oppressions, violence, and exclusions that can occur within the spectrum of knowledge practices.

The practice projects, since they are collaborative, develop in a dialogue. I use dialogue here in the Deleuzian sense, as the ability to "populate" and "be populated by others." [10] References and connections, therefore, emerge from "doing together" and "thinking with." They are situated and contingent, and they are movements. Gilles Deleuze and Claire Parnet conceptualize these moments:

You encounter movements, ideas, events, entities. All these things have proper names, but the proper name does not designate a person or a subject. It designates a zigzag, something which passes or happens between the two.[11]

But how to reference a zigzag? How do you cite or refer to knowledges that are in flux, oral, not "authored" or published? How would you potentially reference a situation, an encounter, an environment? (Donna Haraway, Wendy Chun) What counts as a citable "publication"? What counts as citable at all? Academic Style Guides give an idea of how to reference personal communication, etc. [12], but I am asking a much more fundamental question. I learned from Femke Snelting that Donna Haraway refers in her text "Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin"[13] to anthropologist Marilyn Strathern's study of Melanesian's sociality.[14] Haraway acknowledges the Melanesians first (the culture, the society, the individuals) and secondly Marilyn Strathern's study. This is a groundbreaking move because one cannot "cite" a sociality in a (narrow) Western framework of authorship.

In Western academia, citational ecologies are tightly connected to regimes of authorship, a discussion that will unfold over the following sections. Of course, citational structures operate not the same way in different disciplines. But it is important to register that there are politics at play, since citing can be, according to Sara Ahmed, a "rather successful reproductive technology, a way of reproducing the world around certain bodies."[15]

During a conference held at Valand Academy to mark the 150th anniversary of art education in Gothenburg - the keynote speaker happened to reference in his contribution exclusively well-known and acknowledged white Western male authors, artists, and theorists. I am referring to this situation, not to call out the individual but rather to name the particular instance, to account for it, and to see whether it is generalizable.[16] The problem is that citational structures can construct a disciplinary cosmos that excludes all sort of other bodies and knowledges, a cosmos in which other bodies do not exist Speechbubble.png

Rosalie-eva phd 38-lres.jpg

Annotated by RS

, as Ahmed reports an incident in her academic life:

I was once asked to contribute to a sociology course, for example, and found that all the core readings were by male writers. I pointed this out and the course convener implied that “that” was simply a reflection of the history of the discipline. Well: this is a very selective history! The reproduction of a discipline can be the reproduction of these techniques of selection, ways of making certain bodies and thematics core to the discipline, and others, not even part.[15]

⟶  see interview with Sarah Kember: Rethinking where the thinking happens Citing can also be seen as a strategic and/or necessary approach to claim a space in academia. The mechanism is simple and tempting. You put yourself in relation to and into proximity to validated voices, hoping that your own writing might get similar mainstay recognition. You first map the field. You demonstrate that you are knowledgeable about the established authorities in the discipline, and then you craft your contribution in relation to them. You reference, you cite the orthodoxy in order to be taken seriously. This bears the danger that you inherit and reproduce this tradition Speechbubble.png

... and as it turns out, reflecting on my own citational practice throughout the different sections, I am not freed from this risk. In the section "reflection, theorization of submitted projects" I situate myself within a large and varied community of practice that is in formation and in motion. Consequently, these references are direct, often encountered through personal relationships, in conversations, workshops, or discussions. While the references in this section here, due to being rather theoretical, tend to be found through reading. As sources here serve mostly published books that already have received some validation within their respective disciplines.

Annotated by EW

or "you cite yourself into an academic existence."[17]

"Women too, people of color too, might cite white men: to be you have to be in relation to white men (to twist a Fanonian point). Not to cite white men is not to exist, or at least not to exist within this or that field."[17]

Sara Kember calls such reproductive structures "a boys' citation club" and even toyed in the planning phase of a new and more experimental university press in the UK, with ideas to introduce a female citation policy.[18]

A connected, though a slightly different problem is evidenced in a recent conversation with my colleague and friend, who started a Ph.D. in art history at a UK based University a few years ago. She had been advised by her supervisor to omit a major part of her references and replace them with sources from recognized “high-profile” journals published by high-ranking universities in order to guarantee academic rigor and to not corrupt the validity of her own writing. In this case, a disciplinary canon is created which is arguably exclusively based on “high-profile” and institutionally validated sources that exclude inevitably those that are not yet institutionally legitimized.[19]

The other side of the coin is the growing prestige and concentration of power that comes with such “citation clubs” [Thomas Kuhn] that aim to keep the channels narrow. These hegemonic and exclusionary practices have been decried often but also empirically tested and found confirmed.

In a recent study called "Publication, Power, Patronage," Chad Wellmon and Andrew Piper reveal the inequalities of scholarly publishing in terms of institutional diversity and gender equality. Conducting quantitative analysis, they studied four leading US-based humanities journals between 1970 and 2015 (Critical Inquiry, New Literary History, PMLA, Representations). They found that gender equality had only slightly improved (39,4% of articles published by female authors between 2012-2015). However, the concentration of power in the hands of prestige universities had even increased: authors with a Ph.D. from just two elite universities alone, Yale and Harvard, accounted for twenty percent of all articles published in the studied journals.[20]

These concentrations of power of universities that compete for prestige are complemented by "oligopolistic tendencies within the academic publishing industry."[21] A 2018 study by Knowledge Gap, a collective of researchers studying the underrepresentation of Global South academic knowledge in the global publishing system,[22] presents disproportionate ownership of academic journals and papers in natural and the social sciences by the top five academic publishers (Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor Francis and Sage). They cite a study by Lavier et al. suggesting that the top five publishers accounted for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013.[23] This concentration of power puts not only economic pressure on independent academic presses, but it also, as the researchers argue,

poses an increasing pressure on global south scholarship in order to join the discourse and participate "to adapt to the Western forms of scholarship and an increasing allure for global south journals in joining a global north publisher. Joining a global north publisher, in particular, serves as a form of academic neocolonialism, as the global north firm will have a direct influence upon the policies of such journals; while the adoption of western forms of scholarship merely enhances the hegemonic effect of global north academia."

As the researchers point out, this "adds new layers of marginality to global southern epistemologies."[21] These findings reveal a conflict between the university’s unbiased ideals in knowledge practices and these tendencies in scholarly publishing practices. A conflict that has been addressed by many scholars and recent initiatives that come up with new publishing models paying more attention to inequalities, ethics, and care.[24]

⟶  see chapter: Survey of the field: Open Source: Feminist Technologies: Constant (Brussels)

But there is another argument brought forward by independent artistic research initiatives that determinedly hold a distance to academic knowledge practices. Critiquing academia's centralizing force, they point to the financial power, to the authority of validation academia exerts. In the conversation "Thinking Together," Femke Snelting, currently artistic director of Constant in Brussels, asks:

What does it mean for research when the only place to be granted validation is a place which is built on individual authorship, on a certain type of hierarchy, on a certain tradition of research, a language-based understanding of articulation? [...] But what is really different with the work we can do at Constant is that we can do collective work. It is not about finding an exception – like one of the three places in the world where a collective Ph.D. would be possible, no it is a fundamental principle. This type of work cannot happen in the kind of institutions that constitute academia. At the same time, it is very frustrating not to be in the same financial position. Academic budgets are incredible compared to what we work with. But still, it would not make any sense to move what we do into a university environment. We would lose all the qualities of it.[25]

⟶  see interview with Femke Snelting: Thinking Together Femke describes the mode Constant does research work as "undisciplined" or as "otherwise disciplined" and critiques that any research being carried out at university has to go through disciplining processes. She contends, even if "otherwise disciplined" research or teaching could be potentially carried out at a later stage, one has first to go through the "disciplining" steps of validation to arrive at this more senior position that allows for more freedom. The tendency, she claims, shows that in a couple of years, no artistic researcher or practitioner who doesn't own a Ph.D. won't be able to continue to teach or do research at the art academy, due to the lack of the certificate. This is a deeply troubling development, that makes the trench between "disciplined and "otherwise disciplined" research wider and wider.[26]

The transversal and the document

What also emerged in the practice projects was a growing insight, that collective and transversal practices seem to face blockages when these practices or their resulting objects enter circulation connected to someone's own cultural or academic capital and career. The Library of Inclusions of Omissions is a good example. It is conceived as a "community library" as well – at least to some extent – as an art project. However, it falls short of being able to mobilize what a collective, non-institutionally affiliated project might have been able to achieve, namely a collectively sustained project. Instigating a supposedly joint project and situating it at the same time in the economies of cultural capital (by framing it as art) seems to pose a fundamental conflict. I "owned" the project, and others contributed.

Here, the variables of credit, attribution, authorship, intellectual property, or even just the framing of a project as "art" seem to create an equation that leaves none, or only a contested space for collective agency, an agency that is by definition always unstable, contingent, precarious and unpredictable.

Working collectively is not necessarily geared towards a fixed outcome, such as achieving a goal better or quicker just because forces are joined. Neither stands collectivity here for a romantic or harmonic idea of togetherness. Collectivity implies social encounters, facing each other's subjectivities, diversities, agreements, and disagreements. It can be a transversal moment, a moment of dialogue, negotiation, of learning to transgress one's horizon and boundaries. Artist and activist Susan Kelly describes transversality as

a conceptual tool to open hitherto closed logics and hierarchies and to experiment with relations of interdependency in order to produce new assemblages and alliances. […] [It is a tool to experiment with] different forms of (collective) subjectivity that break down oppositions between the individual and the group.[27]

Now, while we might achieve experiences of transversality in our collective practices, during the moments of speaking and listening, of "doing" stuff together, tensions arise, when we freeze such moments and turn them into documents. Speechbubble.png

Rosalie-eva phd 45-lres.jpg

Annotated by RS

I will expand on this point by coming back to Suzanne Briet's provocation already mentioned in the "Setting" chapter of this thesis. A scholar in documentalist practices, Briet proposes that an antelope running in the Savannah in East Africa is considered a wild animal, while a wild antelope captured, brought to Europe - to be exhibited in the zoo, caged, described, measured, and classified is being turned into a document.[28] ⟶  see section: Perspectives and framing under the disguise of neutrality

What constitutes a document has been the topic of a vivid scholarly debate in the early 20th century across disciplines such as sociology, ethnography, anthropology, and media and communication studies. Michael Buckland provides a great ride through the struggles to come up with a satisfactory definition. "Any expression of human thought" was one common definition, but one could not agree whether a document should be limited to texts, let alone printed texts.[29] Paul Otlet extended the definition of "document" in his "Traité de documentation" (1934) by claiming that "graphic and written records are representations of ideas or objects." And even the objects themselves can be regarded as "documents" if one is informed by observation of them.[29] According to Otlet, this includes "natural objects, artifacts, objects bearing traces of human activity (such as archaeological finds), explanatory models, educational games, and works of art.[30] [31]

What everybody seemed to agree on was that documents are epistemic objects. As Lisa Gitelman shows, the term document comes from the Latin root "docere," "to teach," "to show" or "to cause to know." Gitelman defines documents as "evidential structures, recognizable sites, and subjects of interpretation across the disciplines and beyond."[32] But most importantly, they have been described as "artifacts of modern knowledge."[33] Sociologists since Max Weber have considered documents as crucial technological elements of bureaucratic organization.[34] Since documents administer knowledge in a material form, they play a crucial role in colonial epistemic modernity. The stability and reliability of documents create value for the bureaucratic organization and therefore excise other kinds of knowledge that are based in orality, in common experience, in lived collectivity.

"Thus one can read above the portals of modernity such inscriptions as "Here, to work is to write," or "Here only what is written is understood." Such is the internal law of that which has constituted itself as "Western."[35]

De Certeau describes how the oral and temporal experience of sociability and discourse has been overwritten by "forms of transport," by a practice (writing) that was seen as more legitimate than "doing" whether in science, politics, or the classroom.[36] He likens the blank page to a "space of its own [that] delimits a place of production for the subject. It is a place where the ambiguities of the world have been exorcised." He calls the blank page a

Cartesian move of making a distinction that initiates, along with a place of writing, the mastery (and isolation) of a subject confronted by an object. In front of his blank page, every child is already put in the position of the industrialist, the urban planner, or the Cartesian philosopher - the position of having to manage a space that is his own and distinct from all others and in which he can exercise his own will.[36]

Exactly because documents can strip away context, because they draw their legitimization and authority from their permanence, transferability, facelessness and because they can be combined and organized in a number of different ways they have become a tool of social control in the name of transparency and accountability, claims anthropologist Annelise Riles.[37]

⟶  see Piracy Project: Queering the authority of the printed book It is important to note that university reformers – from the eighteenth up to the twenty-first century – have celebrated the act of publication as a measure to correct bulging concentrations of power and unsustainable systems of patronage that were prevailing in the early modern university. They simply saw publication as an efficient vehicle to bring more transparency and objectivity into systems and networks of power patronage based on familial status, inheritance or personal connections.[38] Wellmon observes:

In the light of being published, the value of a scholar's work was visible to all because it was subject to more public and, therefore, so went the reasoning, more rational standards. Published writing could be accounted for, whereas charismatic teaching or speaking was more difficult to evaluate and compare. [...] The authority of printed writing lay in its capacity to circulate more freely, unencumbered by the idiosyncrasies of the local and peculiar.[20]

Published texts, according to Simon Shaffer and Steve Shapin, constituted "a virtual witness that was agreed to be reliable."[39] I will discuss this shift from the local, peculiar, subjective (and elitist) knowledge standards to rational, objective, and democratic knowledge availability and benchmarking in the section "From Outputs to Inputs" below. For now, it is helpful to note that we can observe friction between the emancipatory agency of publishing (against systems of patronage) and its limiting effect when the authoring of so-called "outputs," is more valued than an event-based, experimental knowledge practice, such as charismatic teaching for example. It is not necessarily the act of publishing that endangers and restricts feminist, transversal, and decolonial knowledge practices, instead it is the privileging of measurable outputs in tandem with a narrow understanding of authorship, as I will claim in the following.

A more flexible idea of authorship altogether

The method that I choose to write and disseminate the kappa of this thesis is an experiment to develop epistemic methods that could potentially operate as "de-monumentalizing" in de Sousa Santos's perspective. The text presented so far describes a set of long-term collaborative practices. The chapter "Reflections, theorization of projects" discloses the method, the context, the rationale, and the aim of each project – i.e., why and how the individual actors or collaborating teams approached their practice and how projects developed over time. Inevitably, this goes along with a personal framing process in that I pick a certain way to describe collaborative work from a subjective perspective. Because I am "authorized" by a research institution (salary, research employment, etc.) to "author" this thesis, there is a danger that my sole framing could historicize and cement these dialogical, intersubjective, unstable and contingent collective practices.

The Mediawiki I chose as a format and tool for writing this thesis is, therefore, an experiment in which way other voices could be invited to adding different perspectives and disagreements and how several layers of commentary could be inserted.[40] I inevitably make individual decisions or Baradian "cuts," in that I set the structure of this text.[41] However, by inviting my collaborators and peers who have a stake in our shared collaborative practice, to add to this wiki, I multiply the number of those being able to make cuts and to make these cuts differently. Hence, I am looking for authorial strategies in which ways I can invoke the "I" and not merely reproduce the authorial structures that I critique.

Perhaps what I am trying to develop here could be termed "transversal authorship," one that is not grounded in the autonomy of the blank page, and the distinction between subject and object, as de Certeau suggests. Of course, that leads me on slippery ground, since a Ph.D. thesis is expected to be an authoritative act of analysis born from individual and "autonomous" authorship. The syllabus of doctoral education is very clear on this point. It uses the word "autonomously" nine times. [42]

So what I am trying to develop with this wiki experiment is a more flexible idea of authorship altogether, since apparently, not all utterances are intrinsically tied to the genius and property.

⟶  see essay: The Impermanent Book, co-authored by Andrea Frankcke, Eva Weinmayr

I have conducted a range of co-authoring experiments. One instance is the text "The Impermanent Book," which consolidates the two authors into seemingly one voice. Here the authors' dialogue during the process - when the writing was knocked into shape by mutual revisions, critical comments, by adding and removing parts to clarify our claims and positions - is not visible to the reader. In this example, the text comes across in a unison voice.

⟶  see introduction to: Borrowing, Poaching, Plagiarising, Pirating, Stealing, Gleaning, Referencing, Leaking, Copying, Imitating, Adapting, Faking, Paraphrasing, Quoting, Reproducing, Using, Counterfeiting, Repeating, Translating, Cloning, co-authored by Andrea Frankcke, Eva Weinmayr

In the introduction to "Borrowing, Poaching, Plagiarising…" Andrea and I used the form of written dialogue that allowed us to present disagreements without consolidating the authors' stances and different positionalities into one uniform voice. As a printed conversation, where one picks up on or responds to the other, it is always visible who says what.

⟶  see multilayered commentary experiment: "Revisiting Let's Mobilize" by Rose Borthwick, MC Coble, Andreas Engman, Eva Weinmayr The third experiment is a densely woven piece of multilayered commentary that lets the different viewpoints and experiences of the contributing authors stand for themselves. Commentary on commentary spins a nested fabric that allows connecting observations, frustrations, hopes, and desires of the contributing authors. Such nonlinear literary experiments have been employed for instance by Pierre Bayle's "Historical and Critical Dictionary" causing major disruptions in the understanding of authoritative texts at the time (1737), and Arno Schmitt's Zettel's Dream (1970) using it as a literary device to create several parallel narratives on one page. The Feminist Mobilization working group wrote this piece and revisited the glossary published in the workbook one year earlier. Because we were working so closely together, this method of multilayered commentary allowed us to reflect on the jointly organized mobilization event without needing to agree. This might come close to what Jean Luc Nancy describes as "[b]eing with, being together and even being 'united' are precisely not a matter of being 'one.'"[43].

While we are investing considerable effort to find modes of collectivity in the forming and sharing of knowledge, we live with a crucial tension and incommensurability within our dominant systems of credit and recognition. As media scholar Kathleen Fitzpatrick observes:

[H]owever much we might reject individualism as part and parcel of the humanist, positivist ways of the past, our working lives—on campus and off—are overdetermined by it. […] Always, always, in the hidden unconscious of the profession, there is competition: for positions, for resources, for acclaim. And the drive to compete […] bleeds out into all areas of the ways we work, even when we're working together. The competitive individualism that the academy cultivates makes all of us painfully aware that even our most collaborative efforts will be assessed individually, with the result that even those fields whose advancement depends most on team-based efforts are required to develop careful guidelines for establishing credit and priority.[44]

The question seems here to shift from the "how" we can work transversally and collectively, to "whether" we can afford it as long as we operate under strictly meritocratic systems of governance and audit, based on identifiable authorship.

It doesn't matter who is speaking

A short insert here is needed to recap, that historically the attribution of identifiable authorship has not always been such a dominant facet within writing and publishing. Mark Rose provides an excellent historical inquiry into how the concept of authorship developed in Europe due to the spread of the book printing business thanks to Johannes Gutenberg's invention of the movable type printing press.[45]

Two forces came into play with the printing press. Firstly, as Mark Rose shows, in the early modern period, one tended to "think of texts as actions, valuing them for what they could do."[46] This triggered the request for accountability and a system of control and surveillance: an accountable author name was needed.

Secondly, a later development saw texts as "aesthetic objects." Here an individual "someone" was needed, a creator that came to be attached to notions of originality, genius, and therefore property. Many scholars have explored this relationship, often concerning intellectual property and copyright.[47] I will not further delve into the intellectual property discussion at this point, but I have analyzed its effects on artistic practice by examining three artistic interventions: Richard Prince, Cady Noland, and The Piracy Project discussed in the text "Confronting Authorship - Constructing Practices, How copyright destroys collective practice." ⟶  see book chapter: Confronting authorship - constructing practices, How copyright destroys collective practice Picking up Rose's first point, I will focus on how the attribution of authorship historically was related to systems of control and surveillance.

The world of early book printing in Europe was strictly regulated. In Venice in the 15th-century, printers needed permission (imprimatur) to print a title. This secured the exclusive right for a certain amount of time for printers to recuperate expenses and acted at the same time as a means of censorship. In 1543 a censorship law in Venice reaffirmed the need for an imprimatur and prescribed harsh penalties for those who published without one."[48] The Venetian system was adopted in many European states. In England, booksellers, printers, and authors needed to apply for "printing privileges" for each title that was in work. Via the guild, the so-called Stationers Company, the English crown was in control of what was deemed okay to be published and circulated. Through a royal charter (1557), the crown granted the guild a monopoly on printing. Only members of the guild were permitted to print, and it was there where the printing monopolies were being held.

Interestingly, according to Rose, "the primary interest of the state in granting this monopoly was not, however, the securing of stationers' property rights, but the establishment of a more effective system for governmental surveillance of the press."[49] This assumed need for control and censorship, according to Rose, derived from the perceived agency and authority of printed works. Exactly because printed books were assigned more authority than oral utterances, the legislation of mandatory attribution of a printer's or author's name was put in place in the name of accountability.

A range of tactics has been tested to escape authorship-related prosecution in oppressive regimes. One recent example, forming part of the Piracy Project, exercises the "I am Spartacus" strategy. After the release of an unpublished manuscript, "000Kitap, Dokunan Yanar," presenting links between the Gulen movement and the Turkish police forces, the author, independent journalist Ahmet Şik and his colleague Nedim Sener, were imprisoned before the book could be published. The banned manuscript had been posted on the Internet and got downloaded over a hundred thousand times.[50] During his time in jail, facing charges of terrorism, a printed copy of the book circulated attributing authorship to 127 names listed on the back cover. Here the dispersal of signature becomes a tactic for free speech in oppressive regimes.

Another example is using collective pseudonyms, a tactic applied by the "Anonymous" hacker movement, where identifiable roles and identities are refused in favor of anonymity and pseudonym.[51]

Or take, thirdly, "Luther Blisset," "Karen Eliot," "Monty Cantsin," or the Neoist movement that unfolded in Canada, North America, and Europe in the late 1970s.[52] who selected one joint signature name for multiple identities and authors who publish, perform and exhibit under this multiple-use name. It is a strategy that has been adopted by many radical and cultural groups to protect their anonymity.[53]

Interestingly these joint pseudonym practices also constitute an implicit critique of the construction of the "possessive individual," a concept coined by McPherson and discussed in the reflection on Boxing and Unboxing.⟶  see chapter Reflection: Against immunization and the figure of the proper The collective pseudonym could be seen as a construction of a "multiple single." The individual and the collective are no longer placed in a dichotomous relation, as each individual is a product of collective relations.[54] Luther Blissett, for example, at times understood themselves to be an articulation of a "communal being."[55] While anonymity and conceptualizations of "communal being," as I have shown, can have a tactical value in confronting the individuating apparatus at play in textual media and publishing, there is a different consideration, which complicates the argument – this time from a feminist and de-colonial perspective.

It does matter who is speaking: a feminist, de-colonial perspective

The pseudonym practices concerned with anonymity in the 80s and 90s are based to some extent on Roland Barthes' seminal critique of the author-function. For him neither the author's personality nor his/her history or empirical body, is in focus, instead "it is language which speaks, not the author; to write is [...] to reach that point where only language acts, 'performs,' and not 'me'".[56] Barthes' influential claim about the "Death of the Author" proposes to shift the agency of a text from the author to the reader, from intention to interpretation or in Barthes' words: from "writerly texts" to "readerly texts."[57]

Likewise, Michel Foucault proposes in 'What is an Author?' the effacement of the writing subject's individual characteristics: "The mark of the writer is reduced to nothing more than the singularity of his absence; he must assume the role of the dead man in the game of writing."[58] The author function for Foucault "does not refer purely and simply to a real individual"[59] Foucault claims that the author function is to create discourse, and for this discourse to proliferate, it is not essential who wrote this text. [footnote: his anonymous interview with Le Monde?]

Sara Ahmed rightly retorts to this: "If the relationship between the author-function and a 'real individual' does not take the form of pure and simple reference, then what form does it take? How does the individual or empirical writing subject participate in the institution of authorship?"[60] What Ahmed picks up here with "empirical writing subject" is Foucault's tendency towards a certain universalism expressed as "indifference":

All discourses, whatever their status, form, value, and whatever the treatment to which they will be subjected, would then develop the anonymity of a murmur. We would no longer hear the questions that have been rehashed for so long: "Who is the real author? Who really spoke? Is it really he and not someone else? With what authenticity or originality? And what part of his deepest self did he express in his discourse?" Instead, there would be other questions like these: "What are the modes of existence of this discourse? Where has it been used, how can it circulate, and who can appropriate it for himself? What are the places in it where there is room for possible subjects?" And behind all these questions, we would hear hardly anything but the stirring of an indifference: "What difference does it make who is speaking?"[61]

I would argue with Sara Ahmed, "that the 'who' does make a difference, not in the form of an ontology of the individual, but as a marker of a specific location from which the subject writes."[62] Foucault's critique of authorship certainly helps to politicize authorship, but it leans at the same time towards a (Western) universalism.

From a feminist and postcolonial perspective, the detachment of writing from the empirical body is problematic. Ahmed points out that

the universalism of the masculine perspective relies precisely on being disembodied, on lacking the contingency of a body. A feminist perspective would surely emphasize the implication of writing in embodiment, in order to re-historicize this supposed universalism, to locate it, and to expose the violence of its contingency and particularity (by declaring some-body wrote this text, by asking which body wrote this text).[63]

Gayatri Spivak, for example, insists on marking the positionality of a speaking subject to account for the often unacknowledged eurocentrism of western philosophy. [More here. Spivak, 'Can the Subaltern Speak?', pp. 271–313.]

I have conflicting arguments here, that seem incommensurable.Speechbubble.png

Rosalie–eva phd 2020-04-18 12-20-41.jpg

Annotated by RS

On the one hand, I argue for the disbanding of the dichotomy between the individual and the collective; on the other, I recognize the importance of acknowledging the situated empirical subject.

This clash is not limited to conceptual deliberation. On various occasions, when workshopping topics around authorship people who did not grow up in the Western hemisphere challenged the problematization of attributing authorship. On the contrary, they fiercely advocated for the prominent appearance of their name attributed to their work. It comes without question since as migrants they had already been overlooked and the declaring of authorship, at least to a certain extent, helps to gain some sort of acknowledgment. This raises the question of who can actually afford to renounce this cultural capital, not only in a monetary sense but in terms of being visible and claiming space. We need to acknowledge this double-bind in order to be able to invent modes of being and working together that recognize the problematic of the possessive individual and at the same time acknowledge the difference of the' who' that writes. Then we might be able to move on from the question "how can we get rid of the author" to inventing processes of subjectivation that we want to support and instigate.

⟶  see presentation: Experimental Publishing #1, Critique, Intervention, SpeculationAcknowledging a double bind is a straddle. It takes lots of energy and creates turmoil. It calls for experiments. For me, experiments happen, when I am stuck, and the struggle to get out of this stuckness often results in an experiment. In my practice, therefore, experiments are connected to a particular problem in a specific context and time. They try to find approaches to act in a situation when the available or conventional modes of doing things don't work anymore. Implicit in practical experimenting is a potential failure, or the need to adjust. Nonetheless, experiments are a force to not getting stuck between "pure positions," as George Lipsitz proposes.[64] As an experiment, I will propose an entirely different understanding of authorship.

From Output to Input: contingent, contextual

To create a more flexible understanding of authorship altogether, I suggest looking at the etymology of the term "author." The Latin term "auctor" derives from "augere" translated into to increase, to augment. In the mid 14th century an "auctor," "autour," "autor" was somebody "who causes to grow, a promoter, producer, father, progenitor,[65] an instigator, maker, doer –– a responsible person, or a teacher, a person that invents or causes something."[66]

The author, as an organizer or facilitator, as an instigator or teacher, as somebody who "causes something." Have you in your teaching practice ever considered being an "author"? It's kind of beautiful. It expands the concept of an authored object, a so-called "output" that is bound to a tangible and fixed form. An understanding of authorial practice as instigator would be fundamentally collective and in motion. Authorship here would be seen as an intentional act alongside an act of care.

This seems complicated in our institutional environments of New Public Management, which measures the "impact" of authorial practice according to a logic of calculation: "How many books, how many articles, how many papers, how many citations? "If you are being cited, you have an impact." (See discussion around citation above.)

These current politics of metrification have been criticized by many scholars in the Humanities and Science as too restricted and not fully capturing the impact of research. The argument goes that only a limited set of academic journals are considered as a source for citation statistics. Therefore some scholars engaged in an arguably progressive step towards opening up the range of sources to be evaluated and counted. Therefore "Altmetric" was coined. It is a company that developed an algorithm measuring a broad spectrum of "web reactions" to publications by calculating the "attention score" on social networks such as Facebook, microblogging services such as Twitter, video platforms such as YouTube, as well as international and national media outlets.[67] However, I would claim, that even such attempts to open up the restrictive system of what is seen as an output, they still adhere to a logic of mere calculation.

In contrast, what does it then mean for an author to be included in the syllabus, in a course reading? What if knowledge proliferates (and develop impact) in discussion with 20 young people, who think through and build upon your proposals? Here, "the syllabus might become the site of a more textured story about collegiality, community, equity, quality, and openness."[68] This kind of "citation" never makes it into the monitoring technology of Google Scholar, for example. It is never captured by the algorithms compiling the citation index that counts the click rates and downloads of your article as evidence of your impact.

⟶  see project: Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy? The urgent question to ask is how can we rethink impact and consider all the "not measurable practices," such as teaching, mentoring, practices that care about how we actually meet in higher education institutions to create knowledge. These practices form the always assumed foundation of academic culture but are often not acknowledged in the way outputs are. The organizing of the three-day feminist Mobilization is an excellent example of this. The labor here went into fundamentally rethinking how we meet, which bodies, and how bodies are in one room together. How can we set the temporal, spatial, and material aspects of such encounters to exchange and create knowledges? How can we listen to each other? How can we disagree respectfully? It was enormous work to organize the Mobilization, the working group acted for longer than one year, but when it came to the institutional research evaluation, despite having published the Workbook, the institution had no adequate evaluation parameters, and it did score very low in research points.[69]Speechbubble.png

Rosalie-eva phd 39-lres.jpg

Annotated by RS

On the other hand, we can observe an energetic take-up of all the work invested in the project. The published workbook has been used as course literature for teaching at our art academy, as well as others. It found its way in many international libraries and has been read and discussed in Feminist Reading Groups. The international circulation of the book resulted in a range of invitations to academic and non-academic events across Europe. Likewise, we see more awareness amongst colleagues and students to not consistently reference white male Eurocentric or North-American references and artworks in teaching. We see student initiatives that explore self-organized modes of collective teaching and learning within the academy. This is undoubtedly not all starting with the Feminist Mobilization. The Mobilization was just one "mobilizing" activity amongst many others that try to reform our academic life on a personal, social, and structural level. Still, the institution has no official criteria in its evaluation framework to acknowledge and value such non-measurable inputs.

Because of this mismatch, how "impact" is interpreted, many academic activists have proposed to redefine our understanding of "impact" and shift the instituted taxonomy of values dominating our institutions. [70]

⟶  see Reflection: The Let's Mobilize Workbook: contextual, contingentCristopher Long, for example, states that "higher education has a culture problem that is at once historical, structural and interpersonal" and asks "what, if we shifted the focus from "what can be measured" to "what we most value"?" [71] What would that mean for publishing practices? What, if we valued and gave formal merit to the processes and ways of how we publish. If we assessed how inclusive are our tools and protocols? How open, enabling, and diverse are our knowledge practices? What, as Christopher Kelty suggests, if we valued not solely the content of utterances that are freely and openly circulated, but also the ways they are uttered? [...] And "who is encouraged to say them and who is encouraged to remain silent?"[4]

In such a scenario, we wouldn't have "outputs," instead, we'd have "inputs".Speechbubble.png

Rosalie–eva phd 2020-04-18 11-17-01.jpg

Annotated by RS

But what exactly does "input" imply? It means I put something into something. For example, I put yeast in the dough to make the dough rise. Input has a concrete agency within a specific context or community. The particular modes of production and circulation of the Let's Mobilize: What is Feminist Pedagogy? Workbook constitute an attempt to treat publication as input rather than an output.


Milieu: Compost. Feeding, digesting, excreting

The until now, much-used dichotomy of "input and output" is, however, somewhat limited. This is for two reasons. First, it takes its clue from regimes of validation with their citational economies that come up with this kind of terminology in the first place: the distinct and measurable output and citation as a quantifiable unit. Therefore the concept of input is merely able to counter this thinking within its limits. Second, in and out are spatial concepts, and, one could say, territorial concept. It points to walls and doors, inside and outside. Where are knowledge practices located?

But this binary seems too simplistic. If we imagined knowledge practices not to be housed in a university building, but in a compost pile, we might be able to imagine a different ecology. One that turns the directional forces of "in and out" into a multi-directional thicket of turning over and over again, or in Karen Barad's words

We might imagine re-turning as a multiplicity of processes, such as the kinds earthworms revel in while helping to make compost or otherwise being busy at work and at play: turning the soil over and over – ingesting and excreting it, tunneling through it, burrowing, all means of aerating the soil, allowing oxygen in, opening it up and breathing new life into it.[72]

This kind of decentralizing ecology Barad describes here (to illustrate her theory of diffraction)[73] could help to rethink authorship as well as citational ecologies as distributed in economies of feeding, digesting, excreting, and transforming. Authorship here is decentralized since a multiplicity of agents are at work to create this nutrient-rich milieu.

Femke Snelting explains that such decentralizing practices could, for example, entail open-source and resource sharing, licenses that permit re-use, or documentation of practice. "When you produce knowledge, whatever kind, you can do it in a way, so that not just the one who owns the space, can walk away with it." It is about response-ability.Speechbubble.png

Rosalie–eva phd 2020-04-18 12-21-22.jpg

Annotated by RS

Referring to Donna Haraway, Femke reflects on Constant's collective research practice:

How can you make situations and obligations and objects in the world that can allow for a response? So for me, responsibility connects to things like publishing your sources. This sounds maybe a bit direct. But it's a way to be responsible with your materials that allows people to figure out their own ways and also run with it – in ways that you might not have foreseen. So this is a simple way of how response-ability could work. Or, for example, using free software tools. That's a way to include choices made for how things come into the world. These are tools that in themselves are response-able with their sources.[26]

What is interesting with Femke's feminist interpretation of "response-ability" is that it implies a two-way interaction, it has a strong dialogic force. It is not "making this patriarchal move of making the one responsible over the other. And that's a significant move."[26]

Authorship, authorization, authority: remarks on the collaborative wiki

Choosing the format of a wiki that operates as a production and dissemination platform at the same time is in itself an experiment. It generates a non-linear form of writing and reading. It offers different points to enter, and it can link to its outside. It can embed multimedia, like sound, recorded voices, and moving images, and can, in this way, mitigate the strictness and potential "monumentality" of academic writing and reading.

As a co-authoring platform, it is conceptually connected with the core of my inquiry around the coercive relationship between authorship, authorization, and authority. It could potentially create some productive friction with the standard parameters of Ph.D. examination based on individual performance. If this "wiki experiment" gets legitimized by the university, it could potentially introduce a method of inquiry and disclosure that establishes an openly collaborative and dialogical knowledge formation.

However, there is a caveat. I will be awarded a Ph.D. title, but others have helped me to achieve it. Even if I credit all the contributors to this wiki alongside all collaborators in the practice projects, by definition, there can be only one name which earns a Ph.D. ⟶  see appendix: Thoughts on the colophon As a doctoral researcher, I am authorized by the University of Gothenburg to conduct this research as part of an artistic research framework. This affiliation comes with a position of privilege, such as five-year employment, a monthly salary, and hence financial security and headspace, allowing me to commit fully. This authorization stands in stark contrast to most of my past, current, and potential future collaborators' situation, who often live on precarious short term teaching contracts. Interestingly, I would not hesitate to ask for help, ideas, and critique in an activist, artist context outside institutional ecologies, where other economies of exchange prevail. (Graham-Gibson)

What was/is haunting me throughout working on this Ph.D. submission is exactly this unequal structural setting and the threat that this arrangement comes close to an extractive process. I pricked up my ears in conversations I had, watercooler chats, whenever I could "capture" interesting thoughts, evidence, or references, that I could bake into "my" Ph.D. Here the "zigzag" I describe above seems to have turned into an arrow at times. I also asked people for interviews and conversations. (Sarah Kember, Ann Butler, Mick Wilson, Femke Snelting, Jess Baines, Andrea Francke, Rosalie Schweiker) and learned from questions I was asked on panels or in public conversations and interviews (Janneke Adema, Cornelia Sollfrank, Jinglun Zhu, Agustina Andreoletti, Mabel Tapia) This list is much longer and is gathered in the chapter "Summary of submitted material".⟶  Summary of submitted material: Published - Fixed ⟶  Summary of submitted material: Discursive – Unfixed But to list these generous and non-strategic moments of exchange, of thinking together, as part of a Ph.D. submission, seem, in the worst case, to turn them into some kind of trophy.

With the wiki, I hope to feed the trophy back into the compost pile, to the earthworms and bacteria. When I was discussing the exchange economy of academic and "undisciplined" research, with Femke Snelting, who decidedly keeps her research practice at a distance to academic environments, she pointed towards a certain kind of redistribution taking place.

The fact that you are writing on a wiki for me is significant. Because it means not just me, but others will be reading this. And this means it is not going to be locked up in only one environment. So I know whatever I contribute is going to be part of that larger pool, it flows back to the field and is, therefore, in some way resisting this centralizing force [of academia]. And this why I can think with you without feeling abused. [26]

Another form of redistribution could be seen in me providing a service, a service of thinking, connecting different fields, and the work of archiving. The laborious task of sharing bibliographies and sources as well as compiling all the images, posters, documents – ephemera that got dispersed and almost lost over time. Since they are now available online, these "archives" can be useful "to show and tell." (Remember – Lisa Gitelman's definition of the document function?) The reflections, insights, and connections which this kappa offers can be challenged and built upon. In the best case, this thesis has become response-able.


Notes Analysis

  1. Desais two-year embodied research into white supremacy in cultural institutions in the UK (BFI/ BC / ICO and more) and her experiences of being "managed, mentored and championed by white 'feminists'", has been a huge inspiration to writing this kappa. As an autoethnographic approach it is different from my practice-led research method, but the way she locates herself and the "search" and writes from within and for a community has confronted my partially disembodied stance as a white European feminist. Her 164-page piece is published, openly accessible as a Google doc, and publicized on Twitter. Jemma Desai, "This work isn't for us", March 2020, https://twitter.com/jemjemdesi/status/1272161302107099138
  2. Susan Kelly, ‘“But that was my idea!” Problems of Authorship and Validation in Contemporary Practices of Creative Dissent’, Parallax 19.2 (2013), 53–69, page 53, https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2013.778496. Download pdf
  3. For example, Rosalie and I had this moment of surprise, (Rosalie Schweiker is a close collaborator in a range of projects, AND Publishing and Boxing and Unboxing), when we discovered that I am a couple of years older than her mother. I had never reflected on our age difference. I knew she was much younger, but this discovery turned our friendship into a matter of intergenerational collaboration.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Christopher Kelty, "Recursive Publics and Open Access" in Guerrilla Open Access, edited by Memory of the World, Coventry, Post Office Press, Rope Press and Memory of the World, 2018. Download pamphlet: https://hcommons.org/deposits/objects/hc:19826/datastreams/CONTENT/content
  5. For de Sousa Santos, "the South" is not a geographical location, but the place of the utterance of the oppressed. Similarly, "the North" represents the economic and intellectual hegemony of Eurocentrism. Both are divided by the "abyssal line." See Boaventura de Sousa Santos, The End of the Cognitive Empire - the coming of age of epistemologies of the south, Durham and London, Duke University Press, 2018.
  6. Nelson Maldonado-Torres, "On the Coloniality of Being: Contributions to the Development of a Concept." Cultural Studies 21 (2–3), 2007, page 243.
  7. According to De Sousa Santos, the epistemic practices produced by modernity rest on a set of basic assumptions that form the pillars of "monumental knowledge." They are:
    • the absolute priority of science as rigorous knowledge;
    • rigor, conceived of as determination;
    • universalism, conceived of as a specificity of Western modernity, referring to any entity or condition the validity of which does not depend on any specific social, cultural, or political context;
    • truth conceived of as the representation of reality;
    • a distinction between subject and object, the knower and the known;
    • nature as res Extensa;
    • linear time;
    • the progress of science via the disciplines and specialization;
    • social and political neutrality as a condition of objectivity.
    in Boaventura de Sousa Santos, The End of the Cognitive Empire - the coming of age of epistemologies of the south, Durham and London, Duke University Press, 2018, page 6.
  8. De Sousa Santos explains: "Underlying such knowledges, there are always new or ancient collective experiences. Knowledges erupt, often in surprising ways, in moments of action or reflection, moments that are particularly tense because of the risks and challenges at stake. Or they are collective memories (tacit, latent knowledges) that far precede the contexts of life and struggle of the present time." De Sousa Santos, The End of the Cognitive Empire, page 54.
  9. Sarah Ahmed suggests: "If we catalogued incidents like this we would end up with a very long list. What a list. We need a catalogue. Becoming wife: unbecoming professor, academic, intellectual, human being. As I pointed out in my conclusion to On Being Included (2012), to catalogue these incidents is not a melancholic task. To account for experiences of not being given residence (to be dislodged from a category is to be dislodged from a world) is not yet another sad political lesson, a lesson of what we have had to give up in order to keep going. We learn from being dislodged about lodges. We come to know so much about institutional life because of these failures of residence: the categories in which we are immersed as forms of life become explicit when you do not quite inhabit them." Sarah Ahmed "White Men," Feminist Killjoys, 11 Apr 2014. https://feministkilljoys.com/2014/11/04/white-men/
  10. See Gilles Deleuze and Claire Parnet, Dialogues II, New York, Columbia University Press, 1987, page 9.
  11. Ibid., page 6.
  12. It is interesting that the manual for the Chicago style guide for citation actually includes "Personal Communications" that potentially could actually include a phone call. Though I am doubtful it would accept a phone call from my mum. Hammersly Library at Western Oregon University suggests in their “Style Guide on Citation of Personal Communication: "Citations of personal communications should always omit any personal data (email address, cell phone number, etc.). Personal communications are typically also left out of the bibliography. Instead, include resource information in the footnote or in-text if using author-date. Hammersly Library, Western Oregon University
  13. Donna Haraway, "Anthropocene, Capitalocene, Plantationocene, Chthulucene: Making Kin", in Environmental Humanities 6, 2015, page 161.
  14. Marilyn Strathern, The Gender of the Gift, Problems with Women and Problems with Society in Melanesia, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1988. Strathern's study shows the limitations of Western epistemologies, since as she claims, Western concepts of fundamentally gendered personhood, the distinction between commodities and gifts, the relation between individual and society are inadequate concepts for a genuine understanding of sociality in Melanesia. According to the Western model of thought, persons own themselves, their minds, (gendered bodies, actions, and the products of their labor. (John Locke, MacPherson - possessive individualism, etc.), a concept that does not exist in Melanesian thought. Strathern's analysis is so important since it challenges the universal applicability of categories central to social science and "reveals the fictions and hegemonic ethnocentrism in our anthropological representations of the "other," and questions to view the world from a perspective different than our own." See also Deborah Gewertz's review in Social/Cultural anthropology, date unknown, page 797.
  15. 15.0 15.1 Sara Ahmed, "Making Feminist Points", Feminist Killjoys, 13 Sep 2013. https://feministkilljoys.com/2013/09/11/making-feminist-points/ [accessed Dec 2018]
  16. For me and many of my colleagues this was the trigger to start and fundamentally rethink the formats and references of our learning, teaching and research practice at our art academy. It was the starting point of the Feminist Mobilization working group.
  17. 17.0 17.1 Sara Ahmed, "White Men", Feminist Killjoys, 11 Apr 2014. https://feministkilljoys.com/2014/11/04/white-men/
  18. For example, one of the starting ideas during the planning period of the press consisted of potentially introducing a female citation policy. This plan, eventually, could for legal reasons not be implemented as a policy. See Sara Kember and Eva Weinmayr, Rethinking where the thinking happens, London, AND Publishing, 2016.
  19. To use this anecdote from my immediate context to prove a claim might appear problematic since it is potentially not generalizable. But it serves here as a marker. I could just neglect it as "a piece of bad supervision advice." But Feminist literary scholar Jane Gallop has shown in her work "Anecdotal theory," in which ways "anecdotes are a window onto reality." She argues that all theory is bound up with stories and asks theorists to pay attention to the "trivial," quotidian narratives that theory all too often represses." There is an interesting tension to the contestations of authority I raise in other parts of this inquiry. The anecdote with its “I was there” aspect of anecdotal knowledge brings with it the force of an authority and the undoing of that authority in equal measure. In Natalie S. Loveless's words, "While anecdote traffics in the authority of the personal witness, its undoing emerges in its lack of verification — the singularity of that witness." See Natalie S. Loveless, "Reading with Knots: On Jane Gallop’s Anecdotal Theory," Berfrois, 3 May 2012. https://www.berfrois.com/2012/05/jane-gallop-becoming-a-feminist/[accessed 15 April 2020] See also Jane Gallop, Anecdotal Theory, Durham, Duke University Press Books, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822384021.
  20. 20.0 20.1 Wellmon, Chad and Piper, Andrew "Publication, Power, Patronage: On Inequality and Academic Publishing", Critical Inquiry, 21 Jul 2017. https://criticalinquiry.uchicago.edu/publication_power_and_patronage_on_inequality_and_academic_publishing/ [accessed 30 Jul 2017]
  21. 21.0 21.1 Alejandro Posada, George Chen, "Inequality in Knowledge Production: The Integration of Academic Infrastructure by Big Publishers", in ELPUB 2018, Jun 2018, Toronto, Canada, page 2. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01816707.
  22. Knowledge GAP is a volunteer ran research collective investigating the underrepresentation of Global South academic knowledge in the global publishing system and the various mechanisms through which such structures of inequality and exclusion are produced and reproduced in paradigms of openness. See "The Geopolitics of Open," Radical Open Access and the Ethics of Care, Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Coventry University, 2018. http://radicaloa.disruptivemedia.org.uk/conferences/roa2/the-geopolitics-of-open/.
  23. V. Larivière; S. Haustein; P. Mongeon, “The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era.” Plos One, 10(6), 2015. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502 2015. Cited in Posada, Chen, "Inequality of Knowledge Production," page 2.
  24. These models are mostly open access or a mix between print and digital. They include non-commercial research repositories and mostly university-affiliated presses. A selection of the ones known to me teamed up in a consortium: Radical Open Access-Building Horizontal Alliances. http://radicaloa.disruptivemedia.org.uk/.
  25. See "Research as Thinking Together," a research conversation between Femke Snelting and Eva Weinmayr on Jitsi during lockdown, conducted on 24 and 25 March 2020 on Jitsi, prepared and supported by an open-source writing pad, a server, and a wifi provider. [transcription still in work]
  26. 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 See "Research as Thinking Together," a research conversation between Femke Snelting and Eva Weinmayr on Jitsi during lockdown, conducted on 24 and 25 March 2020, prepared and supported by an open-source Etherpad, a server, and a wifi provider.
  27. Susan Kelly, "The Transversal and the Invisible: How do You Really Make a Work of Art that Is not a Work of Art?", Transversal 1, 2005. http://eipcp.net/transversal/0303/kelly/en. See also Gerald Raunig’s description of transversal activist practice: "There is no longer any artificially produced subject of articulation; it becomes clear that every name, every linkage, every label has always already been collective and must be newly constructed over and over again. In particular, to the same extent to which transversal collectives are only to be understood as polyvocal groups, transversality is linked with a critique of representation, with a refusal to speak for others, in the name of others, with abandoning identity, with a loss of a unified face, with the subversion of the social pressure to produce faces." Gerald Raunig, "Transversal Multitudes", Transversal 9, 2002. http://eipcp.net/transversal/0303/raunig/en
  28. Suzanne Briet, Qu'est-ce que la documentation? Bibliothèque Nationale de France, EDIT, Paris, 1951. English edition, translated and edited by Ronald E. Day and Laurent Martinet with Hermina G. B. Anghelescu, Lanham, Maryland, Scarecrow Press, 2006. Find pdf here: https://monoskop.org/log/?p=11894.
  29. 29.0 29.1 Michael Buckland, “What is a Document,” in Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Sept 1997, page 805.
  30. Paul Otlet, Traité de documentation, Brussels: Editiones Mundaneum, 1934, page 217. (Reprinted in 1989, Liége: Centre de Lecture Publique Communauté Francaise), Also: Paul Otlet, International organization and dissemination of knowledge: Selected essays (FID 684), Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1990, pp. 152, 197. See also: Arroyo, J. M, Izquierdo, "La organizacion documental del conocimiento," Madrid: Tecnidoc, 1995.
  31. A technical definition that was developed by the International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation, an agency of the League of Nations in collaboration with Union Francais des Organismes de Documentation states: "Document: Any source of information, in material form, capable of being used for reference or study or as an authority. Examples: manuscripts, printed matter, illustrations, diagrams, museum specimens, etc." in Buckland, “What is a Document,” page 805.
  32. Lisa Gitelman, Paper Knowledge, Toward A Media History Of Documents, Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2014.
  33. Documents, Artifacts of Modern Knowledge, edited by Annelise Riles, The University of Michigan Press, 2006
  34. Max Weber, "Bureaucracy", in On Charisma and Institution Building, Chicago, Chicago University Press, 1968, pp. 66-77.
  35. Michel de Certeau, A Practice of Everyday Life, Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1984, page 134.
  36. 36.0 36.1 Ibid.
  37. See Riles, Documents, Artifacts of Modern Knowledge, pp. 6 and 9. See also Carlo Ginzburg, Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989 and On Record: Files and Dossiers in American Life, edited by Stanton Wheeler, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 1969.
  38. As Wellmon and Piper point out, "universities were often closely associated with high-status families that used their contacts with kings, princes, and government officials to exercise influence over appointments and advancements. Universities in Gießen, Marburg, and Tübingen remained under the influence of such familial networks well into the nineteenth century", passing on faculty chairs within familial or other personal networks. See Wellmon, Chad and Piper, Andrew "Publication, Power, Patronage: On Inequality and Academic Publishing," Critical Inquiry, 21 Jul 2017, [accessed 30 July 2017]
  39. Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life, Princeton University Press, 2011, page 60.
  40. Media wiki is a software...
  41. See Karen Barad, "Nature's Queer Performativity", Kvinder, KØN & Forskning 46, 1-2, 2012, page 46; and Sarah Kember and Joanna Zylinska, Life after New Media - Mediation as a Vital Process, Cambridge MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012.
  42. Revisiting the syllabus for doctoral education at Gothenburg University, I find the contested paradigms of monumental knowledge nested in the rules and regulations document of the university. As a feature required for the award of a Ph.D. degree, the syllabus talks about "intellectual autonomy," "disciplinary rectitude," "to independently and autonomously pursue artistic research." The word "autonomously" appears no less than nine times in the document. "Doctoral Education Ph.D. syllabus," Gothenburg University, 2015. http://wiki.evaweinmayr.com/images/3/36/General-syllabus-PhD_in_Artistic-Practice.pdf
  43. Jean-Luc Nancy, Being Singular Plural, translated by Robert D. Richardson and Anne E. O’Byrne, Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 2000, page 154.
  44. I am quoting from the published draft version: Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Generous Thinking The University and the Public Good, chapter "Critique and Competition," Humanities Commons, 2018. https://generousthinking.hcommons.org/. Fitzpatrick’s working method with writing this book presents an interesting approach to scholarly publishing. She published the draft of her book online on Humanities Commons, inviting readers to comment. Based on these responses, what one could call a process of open peer review, she revised the initial draft for publication with John Hopkins University Press. While one could say this is some form of collective authorship, the now published title carries her individual name. The final print version is Generous Thinking - A Radical Approach to Saving the University, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019.
  45. Mark Rose, Authors and Owners, The Invention of Copyright, Cambridge, MA and London, Harvard University Press, 1993.
  46. Mark Rose, Authors and Owners, The Invention of Copyright, Cambridge, MA and London, Harvard University Press, 1993, page 13.
  47. Rose Authors and Owners, page 11.
  48. The preamble to the Stationers' Company charter reads: "Know ye that we, considering and manifestly perceiving that certain seditious and heretical books rhymes and treatises are daily published and printed by divers scandalous malicious schismatical and heretical persons, not only moving our subjects and leiges to sedition and disobedience against us, our crown and dignity, but also to renew and move very great and detestable heresies against the faith and sound catholic doctrine of Holy Mother Church, and wishing to provide a suitable remedy in this behalf.” (Arber 1:xxviii), quoted by Rose, Authors and Owners, page 12.
  49. See Jenna Krajeski, "000Kitap: The book that is scandalizing Istanbul", in The New Yorker, 1 Dec 2011. https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/000kitap-the-book-that-is-scandalizing-istanbul
  50. Anonymous started on 4chan, an online imageboard where users post anonymously. "The posts on 4chan have no names or any identifiable markers attached to them. The only thing you are able to judge a post by is its content and nothing else." Gabriella Coleman, Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous, London and New York, Verso, 2014, page 47. See also John Cunningham, “Clandestinity and Appearance,” Mute, 8 Jul 2010. http:// www.metamute.org/editorial/articles/clandestinity-and-appearance.
  51. "Luther Blissett" is a multiple-use name that was informally adopted and shared by hundreds of artists and activists across Europe and the Americas since the 1990s. The pseudonym first appeared in Bologna, Italy, in mid-1994, when a number of cultural activists began using it for staging a series of urban and media pranks and to experiment with new forms of authorship and identity. "Karen Eliot" is a "name that refers to an individual human being who can be anyone. The name is fixed, the people using it aren’t. The purpose of many different people using the same name is to create a situation for which no one, in particular, is responsible and to practically examine western philosophical notions of identity, individuality, originality, value and truth.” [...] Anyone can become Karen Eliot simply by adopting the name, but they are only Karen Eliot for the period in which they adopt the name. “When one becomes Karen Eliot one’s previous existence consists of the acts other people have undertaken using the name. Karen Eliot was not born, s/he was materialized from social forces, constructed as a means of entering the shifting terrain that circumscribes the ‘individual’ and society.” Lousia Döderlein in "16 Minds – Karen Eliot and Second Life". http://www.inenart.eu/?p=12244. See also Nicholas Thoburn’s research into the political agency of anonymous authorship. Nicholas Thoburn, Anti-Book, On the Art and Politics of Radical Publishing, Minneapolis and London, University of Minnesota Press, 2016. pp. 168–223.
  52. We see these tactics used by underground movements across the political spectrum, from the radical left, anarchist as well as more recently by the far-right. See "Infiltration," Florian Cramer and Stewart Home, and Tatiana Bazzichelli at Disruption Network Lab #14, Berlin, 27 Sep 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBSLrwTdJzs&t=3738s; See also Maik Fielitz and Nick Thurston (eds.), Post-Digital Cultures of the Far-Right - Online Actions and Offline Consequences in Europe and the US, Bielefeld, transcript-Verlag, 2019.
  53. Thoburn, "Anti-book", page 179.
  54. Nicholas Thoburn points here towards Marx's thinking about "communal being" in "On the Jewish Question." Thoburn refers to Marx's conceptualization of a political sociality of the communal or the common. "The bourgeois individual of the modern state — the 'citizen,' the subject of the 'rights of man,' the 'possessive individual' as we know it since C. B. MacPherson — is premised on an opposition between individual and social existence." Thoburn, "Anti-book", page 178.
  55. Roland Barthes, "The Death of the Author", in Image Music Text, London, Fontana Paperbacks, 1990, page 143.
  56. Roland Barthes, S/Z, translated by Richard Howard, New York, Hill and Wang, 1974.
  57. Michel Foucault, "What is an Author?", in Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism, Josue V. Harari (ed.), London, Methuen, 1980, page 143.
  58. Foucault, "What is an Author?", page 153.
  59. Sara Ahmed, Differences That Matter, Feminist Theory and Postmodernism, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, page 124.
  60. Foucault, "What is an Author?", page 160.
  61. Sara Ahmed, Differences That Matter, page 125.
  62. Ibid. page 123.
  63. George Lipsitz says “Living with contradictions is difficult, and, especially for intellectuals and artists employed in academic institutions, the inability to speak honestly and openly about contradictory consciousness can lead to a destructive desire for “pure” political positions, to militant posturing and internecine battles with one another that ultimately have more to do with individual subjectivities and self-images than with disciplined collective struggle for resources and power.” George Lipsitz, “Academic Politics and Social Change,” Cultural Studies and Political Theory, edited by Jodi Dean, Cornell University Press, 2000, page 80.
  64. Please see Mario Biagioli's excellent discussion of the analogies between author and fathers/progenitors grounded in patriarchy. His article "Plagiarism, Kinship and Slavery" provides an analysis of plagiarism, not as a violation of intellectual property but of the kinship relationships between the author and his work. Tracing back early historical instances where plagiarism was perceived (by the one who is being plagiarized) as the loss of the ownership (sic) of a child: "the author as the lawful and caring father of the work/progeny; the injury that the loss of the work inflicts on the author not just as biological father but as paterfamilias; and the ‘death’ of the work (to the author and to the world) resulting from the premature severance of its nurturing relation with the author/father. [...] The author is not simply deprived of an object of property but ‘loses control’ of the child, with a subsequent reduction of his personhood." Marion Biagioli, "Plagiarism, Kinship and Slavery", Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 31(2/3), 2014, pp. 65–91, page 67.
  65. See Hensleigh Wedgwood, English Etymology, London, Trübner & Co, 1872, page 32. Walter W. Skeat, Oxford Concise Dictionary of English Etymology, 1882. Republished by Forgotten Books, London, 2013, page 32. And for a more detailed discussion: https://www.etymonline.com/word/author [accessed 2 Sept 2019].
  66. Altmetric is a service, that through an algorithm measures a wide spectrum of “web reactions” to publications monitoring the “attention score” on social networks such as Facebook, microblogging services such as Twitter, video platforms such as YouTube, as well as international and national media outlets. Based on an undisclosed algorithm, the Altmetric score is visualized in the form of so-called "badges" that quantify responses to and interactions with published material. Altmetric states: "Thousands of conversations about scholarly content happen online every day. Altmetric tracks a range of sources to capture and collate this activity, helping you to monitor and report on the attention surrounding the work you care about." https://www.altmetric.com/
  67. Christopher P. Long, "Toxicity, Metrics and Academic Life," in Human Metrics, Metrics Noir, edited by Meeson Press, Eileen Joy, Martina Frantzen, Cristopher P. Long, Coventry: Postoffice Press, 2018, published on the occasion of the Radical Open Access II – The Ethics of Care conference taking place 26-27 June 2018 at the Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Coventry University. Download open access pamphlet
  68. The steering document of Gothenburg University laying out the point system for artistic research lists:
    Book (or equivalent), published by national or international publishers > 5 points
    Artistic work (peer reviewd) > 5 points
    Article, peer-reviewed (scientific / artistic) > 3 points
    Conference contribution (scientific / artistic) peer reviewed > 2 points
    Article (scientific / artistic) > 1 point
    Research Summary > 1 point
    Chapter in book (or equivalent), published by national or international publisher. Also editorial for book > 1 point
    Artistic work > 1 point
  69. Since more and more academics understand that "higher education has a culture problem" (Christopher Long), we see some initiatives to rethink research evaluation, for example, Humane Metrics Initiative at Michigan University. They propose to evaluate scholarship according to five criteria that are central to all humanities and social science disciplines: "equity, openness, collegiality, quality, and community." This includes recognizing the importance of developing dense networks of reciprocal mentoring, or more traditional mentoring through which senior scholars nurture the success of their junior colleagues. See Christopher P. Long, "Toxicity, Metrics and Academic Life," Human Metrics, Metrics Noir, edited by Meeson Press, Eileen Joy, Martina Frantzen, Cristopher P. Long, Coventry, Postoffice Press, 2018. Published on the occasion of the Radical Open Access II – The Ethics of Care conference taking place June 26-27, 2018 at the Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Coventry University. Download open access pamphlet
  70. Ibid.
  71. Karen Barad, "Diffracting Diffraction: Cutting Together-Apart", in Parallax, 20:3, 2014, pp. 168-187. DOI: 10.1080/13534645.2014.927623.
  72. Barad explains, "It might seem a bit odd to enlist an organic metaphor to talk about diffraction, an optical phenomenon that might seem lifeless. But diffraction is not only a lively affair but one that troubles dichotomies, including some of the most sedimented and stabilized/stabilizing binaries, such as organic/ inorganic and animate/inanimate. Indeed, the quantum understanding of diffraction troubles the very notion of dichotomy – cutting into two – as a singular act of absolute differentiation, fracturing this from that, now from then." Ibid.