User:Andre Castro/WritingResearch/essay01

Outline

Code as Language

• code as a subset of natural languages

Code performativity

• speech-acts
• code - an unmediated performance

Consent to perform

• examples of our trust in code
• digitalization:
  • reality becomes what fits into the digital representation of reality
  • work value - measured/accountable into 1 and 0
• digital=portable=spreadable - consequences: its range becomes global

Code and the individual

• code shaping our subjectivity
• if not digital stored is not real - human senses and memory devalued
• interpersonal relations changed by social media
• comprehension of the effects of code - hard to assess, since we are immersed in them

Conclusion

• reiterate: [d]ata are thus humanized and subjectivity is computerized
• necessity to program
• educational system disregarding code
• agree: necessity to program

---

Abstract

In this essay I would like to investigate the performativity of code - what it means to say that code is performative. In order to do so I will begin by looking into the cross-relations between code and 'natural' languages. Once this relation is clear I will begin the discussion by referring to performative speech-acts and attempt to gain an understanding of the differences between these and code performative. Further on I will seek to define the conditions which allow code to become performative and give a glimpse of how our world and ourselves are both being transformed by code. The writings of Katherine Hayles, Florian Cramer and Jon McKenzie will constitute the main references for this short investigation. To conclude the essay I will look upon Douglas Roushkoff's vision of a future, where code becomes an instrument of power that we must understood and employ, or else we will be performed upon us, if it does not already do so.

Code as Language

Can the code from which software is build be considered a language? Florian Cramer in his essay Language states that "computer control languages are a formal (and as such rather primitive) subset of common human languages"(Cramer, 2008, p.168). Cramer bases his position on a series of shared characteristics of both sets of languages. One of the the most relevant points in this argument is the fact that common human languages, by being culturally constructed by humans, are as artificial as computer programming languages. Furthermore, high-level computer programming languages stand at an intermediate position, in between computers and humans, which needs to be comprehensible to both; Therefore computer programming languages can never be too far from written language, otherwise it would just become incomprehensible to humans. *

• Note: In order to make the terminology less prone to confusions from here onwards I will refer to computer control languages as code and common languages as English as written and spoken language.

Code performativity

According to Katherine Hayles, in her book My Mother Was a Computer, code exceeds both written and spoken language. "[C]ode that runs on a machine is performative in a much stronger sense than that attributed to language" (Hayles, 2005, p.50). By performative Hayles refers to the capacity of language possesses to act upon the world, to produce what in linguistics is referred to performative speech-acts. Common examples of speech-acts are a judge convicting a person guilty of a crime, or a priest pronouncing a couple husband and wife. Although both cases illustrate situations in which speech-acts result in a radical changes in their actors' lives, that change is actualized only through a system of agreements, which we obey to, otherwise speech-acts would be rendered irrelevant, simply words. Computer code, on-the-other-hand, apart from altering the behavior of the machine in which it runs, has a direct impact upon the world. As Alexander Galloway puts it: "The imperative voice ... attempts to affect through persuasion but has little real material effect. So code is the first language that actually does what it says" (Galloway, 2004, pp: 165-166). Florian Cramer does not go that further in his perspective on code. For Cramer computer code does not have real and material effects on its own, being its range of action circumscribed to the machine; Never-the-less, when placed in a prominent position, that its behavior is taken as always correct and rarely given a close analytical look , such as in the following examples, code is given the means to drastically act upon the world:

"Computer languages become performative only through the social impact of the processes they trigger, specially when their outputs aren't critically checked ... as in the 1987 New York Stock Exchange crash that involved a chain traction of 'sell' recommendations by day trading software" (2008 pp. 170-171).

Code simply bypasses authoritative mediation, it does not need to be validated by a church, a court or a government, it is simply given green-light to perform upon the world in a very direct manner.

Consent to perform

Why do we allow code to act upon reality without questioning it? Why was the software output that led to the 1987 Stock Exchange crash not considered susceptible to errors in very complicated scenarios? Why do we think of the GPS as flawless technology and allow it to navigate us blindly, often leading to surprises when the destination is reached? Or why do most of us do not question Google-search mechanism in determining what information arrives to us at each search?

A possible understanding for the reasons which allow code to occupy such a prominent position in our contemporary world might emerge by looking at Florian Cramer's description of the digitization process and Jon McKenzie's perspective on knowledge in the post-modern world. Cramer's refers to the computer as "a symbolic machine that computes syntactical language and processes alphanumeric symbols; it treats all data - including images and sounds - as textual, that is, chunks of coded symbols" (Cramer, 2008, p.171). In other word, reality, in order to be stored on a computer's hard-disk needs to be encoded into discreet syntactical units constituted by 0s and 1s, information that surpasses the encoding limitations is considered noise and therefore dumped. Jon McKenzie sees a similar encoding process taking place in reference to knowledge: In post-modernity knowledge has become measurable in terms of operational efficiency, which "demands that all knowledge must be translatable by and accountable in the "1"s and "0"s of digital matrices" (McKenzi,2001, p.14). Being this the context in which are in it is not surprising that we have given code permission to perform upon our world. Code has become the referee that determines what information and knowledge is, or in other words what is relevant to encoded and what is accessory and disposable. If code constitutes such a powerful authority, why would we contest its outputs, they will most certainly be correct and devised for our own good.

McKenzie also argues that "the digitalization of discourses and practices enables them to be recorded edited and played back in new and uncanny ways"(p.21). And by discourse I understand not only a aural or visual discourse, but also a written discourse, such as code, which can with great ease be distributed and running on thousands of machines around the world. Once this piece code starts performing, its effects might a reach a scale of unaccountable proportions. It is as if code has becomes the possessed with magic powers that allow it to act upon us no matter where we are.

Code and the individual

So far I have only looked into a global scenario of code's performativity, however code also shapes our own subjectivity, who we are as individual. An interesting example is mentioned by Katherine Hayles (1999, p.47) in relation to virtual reality environments; In these environments, only certain stylized gestures can be encoded and manifested in the virtual environment, one has to move according to this limitations. By repeating this set of gestures frequently, they will surpass those moments in which one is hard-wired to the virtual, and begin to alter our real bodies and behaviors. However, can this example be considered a change in out subjectivity, on who we are? Perhaps, but not on very fundamental level. Matters seem to become complicated when our communication, perception and experience or reality becomes mediated by code, then we are most certainly being changed by code. An example of this would be one's presence at a public event such as concert; as anyone who has attended to a concert in the past 4 years must have noticed, for many of those in the audience, their presence at the event is only validated if one brings home a piece of material evidence, such as a video registered on a mobile-phone, that indicates that he or she were there. One's own ear, eyes and memory are no longer valid ways of registering and reproducing reality. Once again information must be encoded digitally in order to become 'real'. Similar degree of code mediation goes for the ways in which we relate with each-other. Social media such as facebook or dating websites, are among many examples of how our this mediation is taking shape and molding our interpersonal relations.

Code is definitely shaping who we are and how we engage with our surroundings, but it is extremely hard task to assess to what extent are we being changed. Since we are the matter that is being altered, it becomes very hard to pin-point what are the mechanisms in place and how are they shaping us. Perhaps that is the main reason why we accept such changes without much questioning. How can we question what we still do not understand?

Conclusion

Looking back at what has been discussed, seems relevant to reiterate that while code was given consent to act upon the world unmediated, our own experience of reality became heavily mediated by code. Reality itself must allow encryption into digital formats, making possible to store it in our digital archives, preventing them from vanish into the faulty and dusty corners of human memory. As Hayles put it: "[d]ata are thus humanized and subjectivity is computerized" (Hayles, 1999 p.39). Given these facts is not surprising that code has become such influential actor in our world.

Douglas Rushkoff in his book Program or Be Programmed envisions a near-by-future when computing is even more engrained in our society, which according to him will only gives us two options: either write code or allow code to write us. According to Rushkoff computers gave us the possibility to write and make public what we write, never-the-less "the underlying capability of the computer era is actually programming"(Rushkoff, 2011, p.13) and that possibility is not being explored by most of us. Such delegation results in only a few of us being able to comprehend and influence the inner-workings of the bits of code that run our world. "Only by understanding the biases of the media through which we engage with the world can we differentiate between what we intend, and what the machines we're using intend of us - whether they or their programmers even know it"(Rushkoff, 2011, p.21).

I believe that learning to program is an essential skill in our times. It is a tool that not only allow us to get a better understanding of the many code control mechanisms in place, but also that allow us to be creative, to explore new venues and not be restricted to the tools which we are given, being them to create images, work with sound, communicate with our peers, collaborate, publicize our work, etc. It is with great sadness that I see schools and universities, despite all the investment put into giving each student a computer, still afraid to introduce their students to code, restricting it to engineering courses. The consequences of such delegation is that only a small percentage of the population take the power and creative possibilities of code into their hands. It is perhaps time for all of us less-technical folks to also take code and begin to shape it for our own needs and desires.

Bibliography

Cramer, Florian (2008). Language. In: Fuller, M. Software Studies: a Lexicon. London: The MIT Press. 168-174.

Cramer, Florian (2005). Words Made Flesh: Code, Culture, Imagination. Piet Zwart Institute

Galloway, Alexander (2004). Protocol: How Control Exists After Decentralization. Cambridge, MA: MIT-Press.

Hayle, Katherine (2005). My Mother Was a Computer: Digital Subjects and Literary Texts. London: The University of Chicago.

Hayles, Katherine (1999). How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. London:The University of Chicago

Lynch, C.G. (2007). Remembering Black Monday, When Computers Traded Too Many Stocks and Wall Street Crashed. Available: http://www.cio.com/article/147406/Remembering_Black_Monday_When_Computers_Traded_Too_Many_Stocks_and_Wall_Street_Crashed. Last accessed 1st December 2011.

Medić, Darija. (2011) Navigating in the age of magical reproduction. MA. Piet Zwart Institute

McKenzie, Jon (2001). Perform or Else: From Disciple to Performance. New York: Routledge.

Rushkoff, Douglas (2010). Program or Be Programmed: Ten Commands for a Digital Age. New York: OR Books.