User:Eleanorg/thesisOutline

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki

Summary

My topic of thesistic exploration will be the tricky border where 'consent' meets 'consensus'. ('consent' = agreement of an individual; 'consensus' = agreement of the group.) The aim is to critique the way that consent is encoded in:

  1. Dominant consensus practices, and thus
  2. Collaboration systems encoding these practices (Eg wikipedia).

The critique will be made using feminist theories of consent. I will argue that:

  1. The rhetoric/ideal of consensus often masks the ambivalence and compromise experienced by the individuals 'giving' consent.
  2. Accepting this ambivalence/not-consensus is ok and beautiful and a powerful ethical position.

Notes & Questions

  • I am concerned that studies of Consent and Consensus are two separate areas. And that if I want to attempt a synthesis, (eg - 'How consensual is consensus?') these two topics alone are enough. Introducing a discussion of collaborative software systems is maybe adding too many ingredients and will make it confused and/or vague.

Outline

With research objects in << >> brackets:

  • Introduction
    • Demise of hierarchical editorial power online raises question of how to edit collaboratively. <<Ludovico on 'atomization of content'; London IMC)
    • 'Consensus' is a popular model used by projects like Wikipedia et al, encoding the popular activist approach to organizing.
    • Question: how consensual are these consensus systems? What is lost in the quest for consensus and who loses out?
    • Argument: interrogating consent at a low level gives tools for evaluating how consensual 'consensus' process are. Feminists give us these tools.
  • Summary of the concepts of 'consent' as opposed to 'consensus'.
    • Trace the the source of 'consensus' process in Western leftwing projects
      • Q: What common sources do consensus evangelists (Wikipedia, Seeds for Change, Movement of Movements etc) draw from? << Historic texts/groups; Seeds for Change interview >>
      • Q: What assumptions does this concept of consensus make about individual consent?
    • Summarize feminist campaigns on consent << Reclaim The Night; Rape Crisis policy >>
      • Argument: interrogating consent at a low level gives tools for evaluating how consensual 'consensus' process are. Feminists give us these tools.
      • Summarize origin & dominance of the 'yes means yes/no means no' slogan. << Historic texts/ campaigns; RTN interview >>
      • Outline correlation of this slogan with the legal definition of consent. << 'The Nature of Consent'; 'Consent to Sexual Relations' >>
      • Introduce contemporary debates questioning this slogan. << 'Yes Means Yes'; Hugo S. >>
  • Consensus in online publishing
    • Introduce the issue of how to curate crowd-sourced content. (DANGER of diversion into filter bubble debate)
      • Hierarchical editorial control being replaced by user curation / collaborative curation.
    • How consensus is encoded in collaborative editing << CHOOSE RL EXAMPLE/s. Possibilities: post-Indymedia projects; Wikipedia >>
      • Describe an example or two of how consensus is used in collaborative editing. (DANGER of becoming a Wikipedia/WikiMedia thesis)
      • Use feminist theories of consent to evaluate how consensual this process is.
  • Proposals for consensual approach to consensus
    • Ambivalence is good
      • Back up with feminist/ direct democracy theory (Q: how/where to include theory on consensus democracy?)

Bibliography

Publishing

Consent

  • Butler, J. (2004) 'Beside Oneself: On the Limits of Sexual Autonomy' in Undoing Gender (London: Routledge).
  • Easton, D. & Liszt, C. A. (1997) The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities (Oregon: Greenery Press).
  • Home Office (2006) If You Don't Get a 'Yes' Before Sex, Who'll Be Your Next Sleeping Partner? [campaign] PDF available at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/consent-campaign/Prison.pdf?view=... (Accessed 1 December 2012).
  • Johnston, J. (2010) 'A History of Consent in Western Thought', in: Miller, G. & Wertheimer, A. (eds.)(2010) The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  • Kleinig, J. (2010) 'The Nature of Consent', in: Miller, G. & Wertheimer, A. (eds.)(2010) The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  • Kramer Bussel, R. (2008) 'Beyond Yes or No: Consent as Sexual Process', in Freidman, J. & Valenti, J. (eds) Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape (California: Seal Press).
  • Miller, G. & Wertheimer, A. (eds.)(2010) The Ethics of Consent: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
  • Millar, Thomas M. (2008) 'Towards a Performance Model of Sex', in Freidman, J. & Valenti, J. (eds) Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape (California: Seal Press).
  • Rape Crisis Scotland (2008) This Is Not an Invitiation to Rape Me [campaign]. Available at: www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk (Accessed 1 December 2012).
(2010) Not Ever [campaign]. Available at: http://www.notever.co.uk (Accessed 1 December 2012).
(2011) Pie Chart Postcard [campaign]. Available at: www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/workspace/uploads/files/chart.pdf (Accessed 1 December 2012).

Consensus

  • Epstein, M. (1996) 'Bare Attention', in: Thoughts Without A Thinker (New York: Basic Books).
  • Hardt, M. & Negri, A. (2004) Multitude: war and democracy in the Age of Empire (New York: Penguin).
  • Seeds for Change (2012a) Consensus Decision Making [online]. Available at: http://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus (Accessed 1 December 2012).
(2012b) Facilitating Meetings: A Short Guide [online]. Available at: http://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/free/shortfacilitation#skills (Accessed 1 December 2012).
Retrieved from "https://pzwiki.wdka.nl/mw-mediadesign/index.php?title=User:Eleanorg/thesisOutline&oldid=40636"