User:Eleanorg/2.1/gradProposal2

Social context: when does yes mean yes?

The questions of how people negotiate consensually, and what it means to do this, have long been a fascination in my work and activism. One context in which discussions of consent are particularly prominent is the feminist struggle against sexual violence, in which I have been active for several years.

This movement makes frequent reference to "consent" as the vital missing ingredient in abusive encounters. (As legal theorists put it, consent works a "moral magic", which makes otherwise impermissable acts permissable)[1]. Much of this discourse focusses on debunking widely-held beliefs about what counts as valid consent. A flyer for a recent Reclaim The Night march (an annual anti-rape protest), for example, shows a placard reading: "It's a dress, not a yes". Alongside the image is a tick-box list of things which may constitute consent (tight clothes, being drunk, flirting...) all of which are dismissed except the last one, "saying yes". The related mantra, "Yes means yes and no means no" remains the most prominent slogan of anti-rape feminists.

This discourse paints a black and white picture: either consent is given, or it is not, and only the most explicit of gestures (saying yes) counts as valid consent. There is a correspondingly detailed discussion of what consent is /not/ [rape crisis scotland campaigns]; however, the question of what we are campaigning /for/ has not been very satisfactorily answered. Ensuring that sexual subjects, as one government campaign put it, "get a 'yes' before sex" appears to be the highest goal of this movement. [rape crisis scotland campaigns]

However, there is a growing awareness within the feminist movement that this heavy focus on consent as "saying yes" may be problematic. An influential article by [1] sums up some of the issues in its title, "The Opposite of Rape is not Consent: The Opposite of Rape is Enthusiasm". This article debunks the claim that "yes means yes", noting the vital distinction between giving consent and actually wanting something. Feminist writers Dossie Easton & Janet Hardy have responded to this problem by re-defining the word "consent" entirely; for them valid consent is not merely permission given but "an active collaboration for the benefit... of all involved." [] So alongside the tactical need to stress the importance of consent, there is a largely unmet need to interrogate more critically what "consent" really means. Only when we have a more nuanced understanding of what it means to negotiate consensually (both its potential and its shortcomings) can we successfully engage with this movement's critics, and propose a model of consensual relations which is both positive and convincing. As legal theorist [2] puts it, the question we must wrestle with is, "does yes really mean yes?".

By chosing this social context I aim to work with people who are already familiar with debates surrounding "consent", in order to facilitate a process of teasing out some of the dilemmas and contradictions that it throws up. I will treat this specific context as a microcosm, with potentially useful contributions to wider debates about how we are to co-exist consensually (ie, democratically) as people. The field of feminist activism is an ideal setting in which to make these links between interpersonal consent and democratic consent more generally, as an activist movement by definition is faced not only with questions of "consent" as discussed above, but with the practical question of how to agree and act together as a movement of many individuals and groups. So, the primary audience and participants in the project will be those active in this feminist community. The secondary audience will be those interested in how the project's processes and outcomes contribute to discussions about consensual relations more broadly.

Relation to previous work

This project continues a practice which self-reflexively analyses the way that groups organize. I take as subject, audience and participants those whose intention is to critique the non-consensual or undemocratic organization of society as it stands, and investigate how these groups organize in practice. In 2010 I set up the online platform Radical X to this end, which facilitates dialogue-based projects within activist communities: precisely those groups wrestling with what it means to consent, how far solidarity should extend, and how we might work together to articulate a shared vision. It has invited both bridge-building between apparently hostile communities (in the conversation and publishing project Play!Fight!, 2010), and highlighting of disagreements between those who seem to share common ground (in the collaborative writing project Open Sauce, 2011). Both these projects used debates about sexual politics as a "way in" to broader questions about how we negotiate the compromises inherent in interpersonal relations and democracy. It was important to both projects that the subject matter was embedded in the process of the projects themselves: a project about a clash of cultures set up and analysed this clash (by, for example, inviting speakers from one community into a physical space organized by another); a project about how fantasies are formed created a tool through which this process could happen and be analyzed (by using an open-access wiki for collaborative writing).

Given the importance of investigating the subject of democratic negotiation /through/ democratic processes, it became problematic that my role as facilitator involved a strong element of hierarchical curation (for example, chosing which texts to include in the end publication of Play!Fight!).

'Open Sauce' (2011, Fig.2) began experimenting with handing over curation to the project's participants. In fact, observing the way in which participants edited each others' work became the most interesting aspect of the project. A developing fascination here was in the power of the editor/curator either to promote or to erase the words of others. I was fascinated by observing how this power is exercised.

My interest in the conflicting desires to echo and to erase others' views was continued in 'The Dissolute Image' (2012, Fig.3), which confronted participants more directly with the question of whether they would enable the distribution of other people's (possibly objectionable) content. An image which had been censored from Facebook was divided into its individual pixels, with each one offered up for 'adoption' on participants' own websites. Only when all 95,000 pixels have been 'adopted' (posted on participants' own sites) will the image fully reappear. The vulnerability of digital files to their need for physical storage was also highlighted in the related project 'Volunteer Hosts' (2012, Fig.4), in which volunteers agreed to store a digital file about their person without knowing in advance what it contained.

This project will bring the above explorations of what it might mean to 'facilitate' or 'transmit' back to the Radical X platform and its concern with sexual politics. Just as the question for feminists is, "is consenting to somthing the same as wanting it?", the question explored in the above projects is, "is hosting or transmitting something the same as endorsing it?". The project will develop processes for collaborative production which look critically at the role of those who transmit, publish or filter the works of others. The theme of "consent" will bring focus to this process, exploring (and embodying) questions such as: what does it mean to agree? What does it mean to endorse? And how far should endorsement of our allies extend?

In order to do this, the project will look for technical models which enable the decentralization of curation/publishing of documents, so that participants can be confronted directly with these questions (rather than having them resolved through centralized curation).

Technical Tools and Context

'The Dissolute Image' and 'Volunteer Hosts' both stressed the reliance of digital documents on those who host or transmit them. This research responds to the wider context in which online publishing has radically changed what it means to publish a cultural object, and what the nature of that object is. No longer singular and stable, networked documents are vulnerable to others with which they are linked. (For example: dynamic websites break when an API is changed; images embedded from other servers can disappear; RSS feeds fill sites with unpredictable external content.) This has brought with it an exciting uncertainty about the status of the singular, autonomous agent (author) who creates and controls a discrete document. I have argued elsewhere that this brings tremendous opportunity for less defensive forms of sociality, while also posing frightening threats to our belief in an autonomous individual self. There are rich links to be made here with the debates about negotiation and consent discussed above, which deal with how and when we draw boundaries between the self and other/s. The field of digital publishing, then, is an ideal technical context and starting-point.

While the 'porous' nature of digital documents has tremendous social potential, the "atomization of content" [Ludovico] which it creates tends currently to serve quite different ends. As Ludovico, Parisier and IMC London point out, the 'devolution' of curatorial power to individual users is currently more likely to create a personalized "filter bubble" than to expose readers to a broad range of challenging content. Those who helped to articulate this problem are turning back to paternalistic curation as a solution (Parisier & ?'s new anti-filter bubble aggregator is "starting out with a heavy focus on curation — finding and sharing the best important stuff that the Internet generates each day"). Others, such as outgoing Indymedia collective IMC London, express the vague and unmet need for "curation from within the sea of content" which is ???"an act of solidarity" ??? [].

What kinds of digital publishing tools could enable such a process of curation which does not resort to paternalism, but is self-aware about its own power to promote or erase the ideas of others?

[outline possible technologies - what & why]

Practical Steps

feminism/Rad x

- Make links w/ communities interested in consent - figure out what exactly i want from these communities * interviews - what is necessary to articulate consent as a concept? * who could players be? * what tools would be useful to them?

publishing

- explain tools already explored: - embedding * an image is pulled from another server * you're not sure what it is in advance if not in control; could change * why relevant: surrendering control to others (Image Ring, Dissolute Image) - scraping * you use a script to search for content on another page & create a local copy for your own use * you have control over what you scrape, often 'taken' w/out site's permission, it also can be dynamic content. * why relevant: you take w/out consent, but you're also vulnerable to the scraped content - tools to explore more: - p2p file sharing * you look for other peers hosting file, more ppl use it the more efficient * why relevant: gets beyond central point of control to negotiation between peers; use of trackers to coordinate instead of curator - research process - transmediale