User:Eastwood/research writing

Vilém FLUSSER

Talking at the Osnabrück, European Media Art Festival, 1988

POST-HISTORICAL STRUCTURAL TRADITION

Our current form of literacy is no longer sufficient to communicate current concepts concerning our world. To more precisely reflect on our world we are not solely able to explain it with language, neither written or spoken. To understand the world, we are no longer able to rely solely on words, it is necessary to calculate the world.

Vilém Flusser suggests that the only way we are able to reflect on our current existence is through synthetic images. He describes the language of science and mathematics is a visual language of thought through numbers, giving the example of the number two as the representation of a couple or pair. From this he goes on to suggest that the most appropriate tool to facilitate this realisation of synthetic images is through computing. At the time of this interview Flusser claimed that he had not yet seen any examples of this and suggests that we do not know how to yet manipulate the technology.

Flusser explains that before the alphabet images were used to represent the world. Images served to represent non linear mythical thought, a projection of understanding upon the world tied into past present and future. At the invention of the alphabet this non-linear representation of the world gave way to a linear, historically causal and critical method. Now linear, historical thought has been disrupted by a calculative method of thinking, which Flusser likes to call a systemic or structural way of thinking.

Our current revolution can be likened to the revolution that gave us the origin to history. One that returns to a non-linear, image based narrative, that likens to a pre-historical way of thinking. We are now in the process of developing a post-historical structural way of thinking.

Historically the philosophy of image cast a mostly negative opinion of 'the image'. Greek and Jewish (christian) philosophy and thought considered images either only a copy or simulation of thought and so we have been conditioned to distrust images. However now images should be considered articulations of thought, not mere copies by projection or models. Flusser calls for a new conversation around images.

STRUCTURAL v FUNCTIONAL COMPLEXITY

Systems can be considered complex in 2 ways. Systems with structural complexity and systems with functional complexity. Structurally complex systems are ones that are complex in their construction, or operation but not in their interaction or output. Functionally complex systems are systems can be used in many different ways or has a functional nuance without necessarily being structurally complex.

Flusser gives the comparison between TV (structurally complex) and Chess (functionally complex). The television a technologically complex electronic device that decodes data into visual moving image and sound that is broadcast live to the viewer, is very simple to interact with or manipulate within its set parameters. Chess, a game made up of solely physical objects can be played 100 different ways and have many different outcomes.

As things are being designed more structurally complex without being necessarily functionally complex leads us to become intellectually, aesthetically and ethical less active or even able. It is Flussers analysis that it is not the fault of the systems themselves, but rather the responsibility on the users of the systems to find functional complexity in structurally complex systems.

The importance in doing this is because functionally complex systems encourage creative thought (arguably a calculative way to look at our world) whereas structurally complex systems currently allow us to stagnate in thought.

Citizen Lobby

Leif Thomas Olsen

http://meson.press/books/citizen-lobby/

Blurb : The Internet holds endless opportunities for exchange and dialogue and the promise of developing a better democratic model. Day-to-day politics are largely driven by economic lobbies in the interest of what Habermas calls their "generalised particularism", the threat to take jobs and tax revenues elsewhere. Citizens’ influence over politicians is twofold: they are asked for their input in elections, referenda, online consultations and surveys, and citizens can initiate issues where they see political action needed. Yet these “participative forces,” including NGOs, street rallies and charities, regularly fail to reach the ears of elected politicians as effectively as those of well-funded corporate lobbies. Also, this type of voluntary engagement often falls short of presenting the kind of reasoned challenges to the incumbents—by the electorate—that Habermas’ communicative action aimed at.

A more powerful model would therefore organise the efforts of the electorate in a way that both generates those reasoned arguments, which, as Habermas quite correctly pointed out differ from mere opinions, and delivers them to the elected politicians in a manner they can neither refuse nor ignore. This is what the Citizen Lobby intends to do.

The Framework

From Parliamentary democracy to the Citizen Lobby

UN Annual Assembly

Olsen introduces the main concepts of the Citizen Lobby and discusses the shortcomings of democratic systems as they stand today in an Internet Age. in March 2013 the UN held the 128th Annual Assembly and covered "The Use of media, including social media, to enhance citizen engagement and democracy". Clear points were covered across many different methods, or goals to be considered when talking about citizen engagement with the [western] democratic system. A particular focus was on social media and the bridging qualities this has between citizens and their representatives. In this way citizens would not only have a closer relationship with their representative government, but also be able to monitor and contribute directly to the decision making process.

The Lobby

Our current [western] democratic model heavily relies on a lobby. That currently is predominantly controlled by what is considered "corporate citizens" rather than "private citizens". There is a power imbalance between those who can influence governmental actions, and those who cannot. Colin Crouch writes in his book Post-Democracy that current democratic policy development favours economic stability rather than the considerations of its citizens.

Businesses have more actionable/quantifiable losses and gains compared with non-commercial lobbies. A commercially based lobby is far more powerful to invest money into a governmental representative as they can project commercial gain. Likewise they can influence representatives to make policy decisions as there are quantifiable results to the economy which does affect citizens.

Furthermore, the push towards Internet based engagement, is one that also favours the commercial lobby. The concept of "reputation management" in where businesses can voice views and opinions through highly visible, and reputable channels, allows them to engage in policy change through their own citizenship. Where your average blogger, with much the same tools available to them, has far less voice to create change. The access to money and technology, to which the corporate citizen has far better access to "risks hollowing out the democratic aspects of our current political systems". Olsen also points out "that this is not only well known, but also well planned".

Countries with a more recent democratic history also run into the issue of more traditional citizen divides. Political parties that identify on segregating criteria such as racial, religious or tribal clusters, generally favour policy making in consideration to loyalty risks rather than political factors. Euro-Americans consider that this is not a factor in their more developed democracies. However this is absolutely not the case. Where segregation of tribe-like clusters are avoided, other divides are politically identified. Not considering for the moment "anti-immigration" parties, the clusters for developed democracies are those of economic and/or educational basis.

Some of the problems that we face can, to some degree, be resolved with coalitoin style government widely found in South East Asian countries. Citizens feel more represented as there are larger coalitions representing their interests directly. However this segregation can also cause issues as democracy tries to be an inclusive system, incorporating all voters regardless of their "tribe". As mentioned earlier, segregating criteria is making its way into European democracy via anti-immigration parties, and in the US defined by economic segregation, where the right to speculate on fellow citizens' misery (health insurances and foreclosures) is split amongst parties.

Glocal democracy

still to come. Glocal = Global + Local