Digitize this Book!

Electronic MediationsKatherine Hayles, Mark Poster, and Samuel Weber, Series Editors

24 DigitizeThisBook!ThePoliticsofNewMedia,orWhyWeNeedOpenAccessNow Gary Hall

23 DigitizingRace:VisualCulturesoftheInternet Lisa Nakamura

22 SmallTech:TheCultureofDigitalTools Byron Hawk, David M. Rieder, and Ollie Oviedo, Editors

21 TheExploit:ATheoryofNetworks Alexander R. Galloway and Eugene Thacker

20 DatabaseAesthetics Victoria Vesna, Editor

19 CyberspacesofEverydayLife Mark Nunes

18 Gaming:EssaysonAlgorithmicCulture Alexander R. Galloway

17 AvatarsofStory Marie-Laure Ryan

16 WirelessWritingintheAgeofMarconi Timothy C. Campbell

15 ElectronicMonuments Gregory L. Ulmer

14 LaraCroft:CyberHeroine Astrid Deuber-Mankowsky

13 TheSoulsofCyberfolk:PosthumanismasVernacularTheory Thomas Foster

12 DéjàVu:AberrationsofCulturalMemory Peter Krapp

11 Biomedia Eugene Thacker

10 AvatarBodies:ATantraforPosthumanism Ann Weinstone

9 Connected,orWhatItMeanstoLiveintheNetworkSociety Steven Shaviro

8 CognitiveFictions Joseph Tabbi

7 CyberingDemocracy:PublicSpaceandtheInternet Diana Saco

6 Writings Vilém Flusser

5 BodiesinTechnology Don Ihde

4 Cyberculture Pierre Lévy

3 What’stheMatterwiththeInternet? Mark Poster

2 HighTechne:ArtandTechnologyfromtheMachineAesthetictothePosthuman R. L. Rutsky

1 DigitalSensations:Space,Identity,andEmbodimentinVirtualReality Ken Hillis

Digitize This Book!ThePoliticsofNewMedia,

orWhyWeNeedOpenAccessNow

gary hall

Electronic Mediations 24

UniversityofMinnesotaPressMinneapolis • London

Earlierversionsofsomeofthematerialinthisbookhavebeenpreviouslypublishedas“TheCulturalStudiese-ArchiveProject(OriginalPirateCopy),”Culture Machine5(2003);“DigitizeThis,”Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies26,no.1( January–March2004);and“IT,Again:HowtoBuildanEthicalVirtualInstitution,”inExperimenting: Essays with Samuel Weber,eds.SimonMorganWorthamandGaryHall(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2007).

Copyright2008bytheRegentsoftheUniversityofMinnesota

ProducedbyWilsted&TaylorPublishingServicesCopyeditingbyNancyEvansDesignandcompositionbyYvonneTsang

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recording,orotherwise,withoutthepriorwrittenpermissionofthepublisher.

PublishedbytheUniversityofMinnesotaPress111ThirdAvenueSouth,Suite290Minneapolis,MN55401-2520http://www.upress.umn.edu

library of congress cataloging-in-publication data

Hall,Gary,1962–Digitizethisbook!:thepoliticsofnewmedia,orwhyweneedopenaccessnow/GaryHall.p.cm.—(Electronicmediations;24)Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.isbn978-0-8166-4870-2(acid-freepaper)—isbn978-0-8166-4871-9(pbk.:acid-freepaper)1.Openaccesspublishing.2.Scholarlyelectronicpublishing.3.Communicationinlearningandscholarship—Technologicalinnovations.4.Internet—Politicalaspects.I.Title.Z286.O63H352008070.5´7973—dc222008011042

PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmericaonacid-freepaper

TheUniversityofMinnesotaisanequal-opportunityeducatorandemployer.

15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents

Acknowledgments vii

Introduction AnotherUniversityIsPossible 1

Metadata I NotesonCreatingCriticalComputerMedia 19

i. internethiCs

1 WhyAllAcademicResearchandScholarshipShouldBeMadeAvailableinOnlineOpenAccessArchives—Now! 39

2 JudgmentandResponsibilityintheWikipediaEra 55

Metadata II PrintThis! 80

3 IT,Again;or,HowtoBuildanEthicalInstitution 88

ii. hyperpolit iCs

4 AntipoliticsandtheInternet 105

Metadata III TheSpecificityofNewMedia 151

5 HyperCyberDemocracy 167

Conclusion Next-GenerationCulturalStudies? 187

Metadata IV TheSingularityofNewMedia 208

Notes 217

Bibliography 271

Index 292

vii

aCknowleDgments

I’mgoingtokeepthisshortandsimple.Alotofpeoplehaveprovidedmewithhelpandsupportofonekindoranotherduringthewritingofthisbook.Amongthem,I’despeciallyliketothankDougArmato,DaveBoothroyd,PaulBowman,ClareBirchall,TimothyClark,JeremyGilbert,HenryGiroux,SteveGreen,LawrenceGrossberg, IanHall,Sigi Jöttkandt, Kembrew McLeod, Angela McRobbie, David Ottina,PaulPatton,MarkPoster,NinaSellars,StevenShaviro,Stelarc,SandyThatcher,JoannaZylinska.

ThisoneisforIan(theoriginaldigitizer).

1

introDuCtion

Another University Is Possible

University-Generated Media

Whatkindofuniversityisdesirable,orevenpossible,intheageofdig-italreproduction:CDs,DVDs,cellphones,computers,laptops,print-ers,theWorldWideWeb,theInternet,e-mails,textandpicturemes-sages,e-books,open-sourceandfreesoftware,blogs,Google,MP3files,BitTorrent,podcasts,Bluetooth,Wikipedia,MySpace,Facebook,Flickr,YouTube,SecondLife,Kindle,andsoon?1Itisanunderstatementtosay that many of the changes introduced in the university in recentyearshavemetwithafairlyunfavorableresponsefrombothacademicsandnonacademicsalike.2Thesechangesinclude:

• The establishment of an internal market within higher educa-tion,asdifferentinstitutions,andevendifferentcourseswithinthesameinstitutions,areforcedtocompetenationallyandinter-nationallyforlimitedresourcesintermsoffaculty,staff,students,funding,andmore

•The increase in student numbers, as well as faculty adminis-trative,bureaucratic,andmanagerialresponsibilitiesandwork-loads

•The further concentration of research in a small number ofolder,prestigious(somewouldsaymoreconservative),“research-intensive” institutions: Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Oxford, Cam-bridge,Melbourne,andsoforth3

•Thedecliningsecurityofuniversityemploymentviatheincreasein fixed-term and hourly paid contracts—something which,alongsidetheconcentrationofresearchinfewerinstitutions, isturningmanyacademicsinto“precarious”and“semi-precarious”proletarianizedlaborers,oftenforcedtoworkforfreebothwithin

introDuCtion2

andwithouttheinstitutioninordertocarryoutthekindofre-searchthatinterestsandexcitesthem

•Theintroductionofahostofmicromanagementpracticessuchasaudits,inspections,monitoring,leaguetables,andperformance-relatedpay,alldesignedtoensureeconomicefficiencyand“valueformoney”4

•The lack of support for, and in some instances eradication of,departments,disciplines,andareasofstudythathaveaspartoftheirtraditionthecritiqueofcapitalism,or(evenworse)thatarenoteasilycommerciallyexploitable:culturalstudies,Englishlit-erature,philosophy,medievalhistory,andsoon

•Theconversionofstudentsintocustomers,notleastbycoercingthemtoexerciseconsumerchoiceoverthecostandplaceoftheireducation5

•The use of students—who need either to pay off the debts in-curredduringtheirtimeincollegebytakingoutloans,ortoatleasttokeeptheirdebtstoaminimum—asareliablesourceofcheaplaborforotherpartsoftheeconomy

Yet for all the introduction and subsequent pushing through ofthesereforms,andtheveryrealsenseofdisappointmentandfrustra-tionthathasonoccasionbeenengenderedbywhatwemightcallthis“neoliberalturn”inhighereducation,Iamconvincedthattheuniver-sityremainsworthdefending.6Infact,itisprecisely because ofthesedevel-opmentsthatIwanttoreaffirmacommitmentonmyparttotheideaoftheuniversity:notonlybecause“thereisnothingoutsidetheuniver-sity,”7butalsobecause,ifuniversitiesaretocontinuetobecapableoffunctioning“albeitinconditionsofadversity...asplacesofdissent”(althoughuniversitiesareofcoursenottheonlysuchplaces),thenweneedtodefendthem,insomeformatleast(McRobbie2000,219).

Theproblemis,ifwedisagreewiththewayinwhichtheforcesofcapitalistfree-marketeconomicsareincreasinglytransforminghighereducationintoanextensionofbusiness,andatthesametimedonotwishtoproposeareturntothekindofpaternalisticandclass-boundideasassociatedwithF.R.Leavis(1943),MatthewArnold(1868),andJohnHenryCardinalNewman(1858) thatpreviouslydominatedtheuniversity—ideasthatviewitintermsofaneliteculturaltrainingandreproductionofanationalculture,withallthehierarchiesandexclu-sionsarounddifferencesofclass,race,gender,ethnicity,andsoforth

introDuCtion 3

that those terms imply—then how do we want the university to be?Moreover,howisitpossibletodefendtheuniversitywithoutappearingtoadvocateoneofthesetwomodels?

Thisisanextremelyimportantquestion—allthemoresoconsider-ingthattheinabilitytoarticulateaneffectivealternativevisionforthefuture,foralltheircriticismsandcomplaintsinthemedia,higheredu-cationpress,andscholarlyresearchliterature,appearstohaveleftthemajorityofacademicsandinstitutionswithveryfewoptionsforresist-ingorevenredirectingsuchchanges(otherthansaying“no”fromtimetotime).

So how do we want the university to be?Weneedtoexploreandexperimentwiththisquestionifweareto

challengewhatBillReadings(1996)somemorablycharacterizedastheUniversityofExcellence.Itisthisquestion—howisitpossibletodefendtheuniversity,andtodosowithoutadvocatingoneoftheabovetwomodels?—that I have been creatively exploring and experimentingwithinmyworkforsometimenow.Obviously,Ihavenotbeenabletoexperimentwithnewformsofacademicinstitutionsbyestablishingmyownuniversity,myown“counter-institution,”asitwere.(EvenifIhadaccesstothekindoffundingrequired,whichIdonot,thegovernmentwouldbeunlikelytogivemeaccreditation.)WhatIhavebeenabletodoishelpsetupsomesmaller,“minor,”experimentalprojects;projectsthatmayenableustomakeaninstitutionallypragmatic,“tacticaluseofthespaceoftheuniversity,”andsobegintothinkoftheinstitutiondif-ferentlyandotherwise(Readings1996,18).8

Oneoftheseuniversity-generatedmediaprojectsisCulture Machine.Culture Machineisanumbrellatermforaseriesofexperimentsincul-tureandtheory.AtthemomentitincludestheCulture Machineopen-access(OA)electronicjournalofculturalstudiesandculturaltheoryIco-foundedandco-edit.9Anothermorerecentprojecthas involvedsetting up the first (to my knowledge) open-access archive for cul-tural studies and cultural theory: the Cultural Studies e-Archive, orCSeARCH.10(Byopenaccess,Imeanaccessthatisdigital,online,andfreeofchargetothoseabletoconnecttotheInternet,withouthavingtopaysubscriptionseithertopublishorto[payper]view,initspurestform,anyway.Thisinturnmeansfreetouploadtoanddownloadfrom,read,print,reproduceanddistributecopies,andalsofreeofmostli-censingandcopyrightrestrictions.)11Devisedandconstructedbymy-selfandSteveGreen,andlaunchedinMarch2006,theaimofCSeARCH

introDuCtion4

istoprovideculturalstudieswithsomethinglikeanequivalenttothearXiv.orgE-PrintArchive,theopen-accessarchiveforphysicscurrentlylocatedatCornellUniversityintheUnitedStates.12Thisbookconsti-tutes,atleastinpart,anattempttothinkthroughsomeofthepotentialimplications of ongoing experiments with open-access publishing ofthiskind:implicationsfortheinstitutionoftheuniversity,butalsoforculturalstudies,forscholarlywritingandresearch,andforourideasofethics,politics,andculture.13(IwillsaymorelaterinthisbookabouttheimportanceoffocusingonprojectswithwhichIaminvolvedwhenItalkaboutthespecificityandsingularityofnewmedia.)

From Knowledge Economy to Academic Gift EconomyThe digital reproduction and publication of academic research andscholarshipinopen-accessjournalsandarchivesisparticularlyinterest-inginthecontextoftheparadigmaticshiftsthatarecurrentlytakingplacewithinhighereducation.Asisnowwellknown,governmentsallovertheworldhavecometoregardthemanagementofknowledgeandinformationasincreasinglyimportant.Whereaspreviouslyeconomieswereunderstoodasbeingdrivenbythemanufactureofgoodsandserv-ices,thesedaysitisknowledgeanditssuccessfulcommercialexploita-tionbybusinessthatisoftenheldasthekeytoasociety’ssuccessandfutureeconomicprosperity.JosephStiglitz,aNobelPrizewinnerforeconomics and ex-senior vice president and chief economist at theWorldBank,describesthesituationasfollows:“Knowledgeandinfor-mation isbeingproduced today like cars and steelwereproducedahundredyearsago.Those,likeBillGates,whoknowhowtoproduceknowledgeandinformationbetterthanothersreaptherewards,justasthosewhoknewhow toproducecars and steel ahundred years agobecamethemagnatesofthatera”(Stiglitz1999,n.p.).AsStiglitz’srefer-ence to Bill Gates indicates, new or emerging media is perceived asplayingavitalpartinthedevelopmentofwhathascometobeknownasthe“knowledgeeconomy,”helpingtotransformtraditionalmodesofproduction,consumption,anddistribution,andcreatingintheirplacenewtypesoffirms,products,andmarketsbasedonthecommodifica-tionandcommunicationofknowledgeandinformation.Universitiesandacademicsarealsoassignedanimportantroleinthisvisionofso-ciety:bothinproducingeconomically“useful”knowledgeandresearch,whichcanthenbecommerciallyexploitedthroughtheestablishmentoflinkswithbusinessandindustry;andineducatingandtrainingthe

introDuCtion 5

moreflexible,constantlycreative,imaginative,anddynamicentrepre-neuriallaborforceofhighlyskilled“knowledgeworkers”or“immate-riallaborers”thatthisneweconomyrequires.14

Butthedigitalreproductionandpublicationofacademicresearchisalsoworthexploringinthecontextofthedebateonthecurrentstateofacademiabecause,asMichaelHardtandAntonioNegrimakeclear,if knowledge, information, and “communication [have] increasinglybecomethefabricofproduction,andiflinguisticco-operationhasin-creasinglybecome the structureofproductivecorporeality, then thecontroloverlinguisticsenseandmeaningandthenetworksofcommu-nication becomes an ever more central issue for political struggle”(HardtandNegri2000,404).Inshort,informationandcommunica-tionhavebecomeaprincipal terrain throughwhichpower relationsareestablishedtoday.15Somehaveevengonesofarastoarguethat,whereasinthepast“thefactorywasaparadigmaticsiteofstrugglebe-tweenworkersandcapitalists,”todayit is theuniversitythat isa“keyspaceofconflict,wheretheownershipofknowledge,thereproductionofthelabourforce,andthecreationofsocialandculturalstratifica-tionsareallatstake”(edu-factorycollective2007).Certainly,oneoftheprincipalreasonsIaminterestedinthedigitalreproductionandpub-licationofscholarshipandresearchisbecausethisisonearenawheresomeacademicshavechallengedtheforcesofneoliberal free-marketeconomicsinareasonablyeffectivemanner(evenifthishasnotalwaysbeenasaresultofconsciousorovertlyradicalpoliticalintentionsontheirpart).Letmeexplain.

Earlier I listed a few of the elements of the “neoliberal turn” inhighereducation,wherebyuniversitiesareactingas if theywere for-profitbusinessesratherthannot-for-profitinstitutionsservingthepub-licinterest.However,thismarketizationandmanagerializationoftheuniversityhasalsobeenaccompaniedbyaradicalchangeintheworldofacademicpublishing.

Open AccessThesystemofhighereducationthatoperatesinmanycountriestodayhas seen an expansion of the student population accompanied by adeclineinthenumberofbooksprovidedperstudentbyinstitutionallibraries.Sharpreductionsinpublicfundingforuniversitiestogetherwiththegrowingconcentrationofacademicpublishingwithinprofit-driventransnationalmediaconglomerateshavecombinedtocreatea

introDuCtion�

situationinwhichitisincreasinglydifficultforlibrariestobeabletoaffordtostockbooks,andforstudentstobeabletoaffordtopurchasethem.ToprovideanexamplefromtheUnitedStates,whereasprevi-ouslytheUniversityofCaliforniawouldhaveboughtacopyofapar-ticularbookforeachofitseightcampuses—UCLA,Berkeley,Irvine,etc.—in2002 itmadeadecision topurchaseonlyonecopy to shareacrossallofthem(Phillips2002,18).Theresponseofmanyacademicpublishershasbeen tocutbackdrasticallyon their listsand tocon-centrate on producing readers and introductions for the relativelylargeundergraduatecorecourses.Consequently,althoughnowmorebooksthaneverarebeingpublishedbyuniversityandtradepresses—certainlyintheUnitedKingdom,wherethenumberofnewvolumespublishedin2005was206,000(Bowker2006)—agreatmanyacademictitlesaremerelyrepeatingandrepackagingoldideasandmaterial.Allofwhichmeansitisgettingharderandharderforjuniormembersofthe profession to publish the kind of research-led books and mono-graphsthatoftenenablethemtosecuretheirfirstfull-timeposition,letaloneestablishareputationfororiginalityofthought.Yetitisnotjustthoseintheearlystagesoftheircareers—whoseinstitutionsareinef-fectnowlettingdecisionsconcerninghiring,tenure,andpromotionbemadeforthembyscholarlypressesonprimarilyeconomicgrounds—whoshouldbeconcerned.Thecurrent stateofacademicpublishingmakesitdifficultfornearlyeveryone(apartfromafew“stars”)inthosefieldswherethefull-lengthbookisthemostvaluedmodeofpublica-tiontocontinuetoproducecertainkindsofresearch:researchthatisintellectuallyambitious,challenging,evenifattimesdifficultandtime-consumingtoread,andthatisthereforenotalwaysparticularlyacces-sible and student friendly. If publishers cannot sell such research insufficient amounts, theyare increasinglymaking thedecisionnot topublishitatall,andtofocustheireffortsonproductsthataremorefi-nanciallyprofitableinstead.Asaresult,notonlyarethecareersofagenerationofyoungerscholarsindangerofbeingdamaged,butalsothewholeofacademia risksbeing intellectually impoverished,as re-searchthatbreaksnewgroundanddevelopsnewinsightsandunder-standingisrejectedforpublication,andhencedissemination,infavorofpublicationsthatconcentrateonintroducingorcollectingtheworkofpreviousgenerations.

ThissituationisnotlikelytobealteredbytheGoogleBookSearchproject first announced in December 2004. Google’s plan is to scan

introDuCtion �

digitally the books of a significant number of major research librar-ies—including(atthetimeofwriting)thoseatHarvardUniversity,Ox-fordUniversity,PrincetonUniversity,StanfordUniversity,theNewYorkPublicLibrary,theUniversityofMichigan,theUniversityofCalifornia,theUniversityofWisconsin–Madison,theUniversityofTexasatAustin,theUniversityofVirginia,theUniversityComplutenseofMadrid,theNationalLibraryofCatalonia,theBavarianStateLibrary,theUniver-sity Library of Lausanne, the University of Mysore, the University ofGhent,andKeioUniversity—andmaketheircontentsavailableonlineforfulltextsearches.Theaimistoeventuallyproducea“universalvir-tuallibrary”ofavailableknowledgetorivalthatconstructedatAlexan-driaaround300b.c.,whichat thetimewasestimatedtocontainbe-tween30and70percentofallknownbooks.However,atpresentGoogleismakingavailableonlythosebooksthatareoutofcopyrightandinthe public domain, or for which their publishers/copyright holdershavegivenpermission;forthosestillwithincopyright,iftheirpublish-ersorauthorshave joinedGoogle’sPartnerProgram, thenanythingfromafewsamplepagestotheentirebookmaybeavailable,otherwiseGooglewill showonlysnippets.ButevenifGooglewere intendingtomakeallofthetextstheyaredigitizingavailableforfreeintheiren-tirety, abook stillhas tobepublishedfirst in ink-on-paper form forGoogle to digitize it. This in turn means that, more often than notthesedays,abookstillhastobecapableofgeneratingafinancialprofitforitsinitialpublisherbeforeitcanappearaspartoftheGoogleBookSearchProject.16

Anumberofscholarshaverespondedtothegrowingcorporatiza-tion of both the academic book and journal markets by developingopen-accessarchivesofelectronicallyreproducedacademicresearch.Successfulrepositoriesofresearchpapershavebeeninoperationforsometimenowat,amongotherplaces,CornellUniversity(arXiv.org)intheUnitedStatesandtheUniversityofSouthampton(Cogprints)intheUnitedKingdom.17Infact,manyuniversitiesnowadaysprovideop-portunities for staff to publish their research electronically via localrepositories,18andtoaccessotherstoresheldbyinstitutionsparticipat-ingintheOpenArchivesInitiative(OAI)andtheScholarlyPublishingandAcademicResourcesCoalition(SPARC),aprojectdesignedtore-ducethecostofpublishedresearchworkandbypasscommercialpub-lishers of increasingly expensive journals, whether printed or elec-tronic.19 These digital archives furnish academics with a means of

introDuCtion�

publishingtheirresearch,andmakingitwidelyavailableimmediatelyuponcompletiontoanyonewhocanaccessit,regardlessofhowmuchparticular publishers decide to charge for their books and journals,andhowmuchindividualinstitutionsandlibrariescanaffordtopayforthem.Accordingly,thesearchives,togetherwithopen-accesselectronicjournals,20areperceivedasofferingasolutiontomanyoftheproblemscurrentlyconfrontingscholarsasaresultofthedeclineinstatefund-ingforhighereducationandtheincreasinglymarket-andprofit-drivennatureoftheacademicpublishingindustry.Theydosobyprovidinganalternativemodelforthesharingandexchangeofknowledgetothataffordedbycapitalistneoliberalism:oneinwhichparticipantsareabletogiveandreceiveinformationatcomparativelylittlecost;andinwhichdecisions over the publication and distribution of research can bemade,notbythemarketonthebasisofatext’sabilitytomakeafinan-cialprofitforitsauthororpublisher,butaccordingtoothercriteria,notleastitsintellectual value and quality.

Open Access + : Or, What’s Next for Open Access?Theramificationsof“digitization”—especially thepossibilityofmak-ingalltheresearchliteratureopenaccessandthusavailableatverylowcost to researchers, teachers, students, and the public, on a globalscale—havebeenhotlydebatedwithinscientific,technical,andmedi-cal circles. Over the years vigorous discussions have taken place inhigh-profileorganssuchasNature,Science,American Scientist,The Times Higher Education SupplementandevenThe Guardian.21Forsome(andthisisunderstandablyanattractiveroutetotake,strategicallyorotherwise,whenapplying forpublic funding), theopen-accessapproach ispre-sentedasprovidingvalueformoneyfortaxpayersbyensuringtheydonothavetopaytwiceforthesamepieceofresearch:onceforacademicstocarryout theresearch;andthena secondtimetoaccess it in theformofjournalsubscriptionsorbookcoverprices.22Forothersthereisa certain amount of concern and anxiety over whether open-accesspublishingcanbesustainedasabusinessmodel,andespeciallyoverhowacademicstandardsof“quality”canbemaintainedinthetransi-tiontothedigitalmodeofreproduction.Stillothersseeopenaccessasameansofdemocratizingknowledgeandresearchbymakingnotjustjournal,books,anddatabases,butalsothecomputingtechnologythatisrequiredtodevelopandsupportthem,availabletothosewhocannotaffordtoinvestinsuchresourcesthemselves.JohnWillinskyrefersto

introDuCtion �

thisas“theaccessprinciple”:“namely,thatacommitment to the value and quality of research carries with it a responsibility to extend the circulation of this work as far as possible, and ideally to all who are interested in it and all who might profit by it”(2006,5[emphasisinoriginal]).Fromthisstandpoint,open access has consequences not just for academics and academia:ithaspotentialbenefitsforthepublicandindeeddemocraticsocietiesatlarge.

ForStevanHarnad,forexample,whohaslongbeenoneofthemostvocal proponents of open-access archiving, the digitization and self-archivingoftherefereedresearchliteraturewillmake:

Theentirefull-textrefereedcorpusonlineOneveryresearcher’sdesktop,everywhere24hoursadayAllpaperscitation-interlinkedFullysearchable,navigable,retrievableForfree,forall,forever(2001/2003,n.p.)

Theideathatisbeingpromotedhereisforeverydigitalrepositorytojoin up as part of the Open Archives Initiative, which is described(somewhatproblematicallyinmyview)asbeingineffectone“global,”“virtualarchive”of jointly searchableacademicwork.Thisglobalar-chive would then provide anyone, at any networked desktop, with“seamless” access to what are called e-prints across the whole of thenetwork(seeHarnad2001/2003,n.p.).23Byallowingeasyaccesstore-searchandpublicationsinthisway—notjustforacademics,research-ers, teachers, and students, but for editors, publishers, consultants,policyanalysts,investigativereporters,unionorganizers,NGOs,politi-calactivists, andprotestgroups, too,even thegeneralpublic—openaccessbecomesameansforthefreeandfairdistributionandexchangeofknowledgeandinformationonaworldwidescale.

Inmanywaystheabovetakeonthefreeandfairexchangeofknowl-edge is as radical as the majority of works on open access get. Norshouldthesignificanceofthispositionbeunderestimated.Proposinga model for challenging the “complacent and comfortable habits ofscholarlypublishing”(Willinsky2006,xiii),onewiththepotentialtohaveapublicanddemocraticimpactthatstretchesfarbeyondthecon-finesoftheacademy,andwhichevencomesrepletewithawholephi-losophyastohowtotransformtheinstitutionsofacademicpublishing

introDuCtion10

andresearchlibrariesonaneconomicbasis,isobviouslynomeanfeat.24Still,thefactremainsthattherapidlyincreasingprocessofdigitizingtheacademicresearchliteraturetendstoberegardedforthemostpartashavingmerelyaprostheticeffectontheperformanceofourexistingdisciplinesand“paper”formsofpublication.Itisunderstoodlargelyintermsofprovidinganincreaseintheamountofmaterialthatcanbestored,thenumberofpeoplewhohaveaccesstoit,thepotentialimpactofthatmaterial,therangeofdistribution,theeaseofinformationre-trieval,reductionsinstaffing,productionandreproductioncostsandsoforth.Theargumentthenusuallyfocusesonwhetherdifferentas-pectsofthistransformationcanbeconsideredtobea“good”ora“bad”thing.DavidJ.Solomon(2006),forinstance,takingashiscasestudytheopenaccessjournalMedical Education Onlinehefoundedandedits,emphasizeshowasystemformanagingthepeer-reviewprocessofanopen-accessjournalcanbealmostcompletelyautomatedusingtheIn-ternet,thussignificantlyreducingthecostsandeffortinvolved.Withinthescientific,technical,andmedicalfieldsespecially,whichiswherethesedebateshavefeaturedmostprominently,25 therehasbeenrela-tivelylittlerigorousordetailedconsiderationofthewayinwhichdigitaltexts—withtheirlackof“fixity”(Eisenstein1979),stability,andperma-nencerelativetotimeandplace,theirunderminingoftheboundariesseparatingauthors,editors,producers,users,consumers,humansandmachines,andtheirabilitytoincorporatesound(MP3,WMA)andstillandmovingimages(JPEG,MPEG,streamingvideo)—containthepo-tential,notmerely toremediateoldermediaforms,andthusdeliverapreexistingandmore-or-lessunchangedcontent,albeitinanewway,butto transform fundamentally that content, and with it our relationship to knowledge.26Neitherhastherebeenmuchdiscussionoftheradicalethi-calandpoliticalquestionsdigitizationraisesforacademicandinstitu-tionalauthorityandlegitimacy.Aswellasadvocatingforopenaccesstothescholarlyresearchliterature,then,this book is attempting to explore and experiment with some of these latter, potentially even more uncomfortable issues and questions.

Thatsaid,IwanttomakeitquiteclearthatwhateverproblemsandweaknessesImaylocateintheideasofthosewhohavetriedtoprovideaphilosophyfortheopen-accesspublicationofscholarlyresearchlit-erature, it is not my intention in this book to decry the accomplish-mentsofPaulGinsparg(whofoundedthearXiv.orgE-PrintArchive),StevanHarnad,Jean-ClaudeGuédon,PeterSuber,JohnWillinsky,or

introDuCtion 11

anyoftheotherswhohaveadvocatedlongandhardontheissue.Icon-sidertheirachievements ingeneratinginterestandsupportforopenaccess,not leastatgovernmentaland institutional levels,whileoftencountering entrenched corporate and commercial interests, to havebeenimmense.AsIsaidearlier,oneofmyreasonsforwritingthisbookiscertainlytoadvocateforopenaccesstobeadoptedmoreextensively,particularlyinthehumanities.

Thus,Ihavefocusedheremainlyontheconsequencesforacademicbook publishing of the neoliberal marketization and managerializa-tionoftheuniversity,andthepotentialimpactopenaccess,andpar-ticularlyopen-accessarchives,canhaveonthis.Sinceopenaccesshasbeentakenupanddebatedmostextensivelyintheso-calledexactsci-ences,mostwritingonthesubjecthaspresenteditasasolutiontotheriseinpricesandextremelyhighcostofscientific,technical,andmedi-cal(STM)journals.Theadoptionofthisparticularstancetowardopenaccess can be partly explained by the fact that prestigious, interna-tional,peer-reviewedjournalsarethemostvaluedmodeofpublicationinthesciences.EvenJohnWillinsky,whoisaprofessorofliteracyandtechnology,perceivestheissuepredominantlythroughanSTMlens,asitwere,depictingtheopen-accessmovementinhisbookThe Access Prin-cipleasaresponsetotwo“conflictingcurrentevents”:

Thefirstoftheseeventsisasteadyescalationinjournalprices,withtherateneatlysummarizedbyPeterSuber(2004)...as“fourtimesfaster thaninflationfornearly twodecades.”Thesecondevent istheadventoftheInternetanddigitalpublishing,whichinadecadehastransformedhowreadersaccess journalsandcreatedaviablealternativetoapublishingmodelthat,asaresultofthefirstevent,wasotherwiserenderingmoreandmoreoftheliteratureaffordabletofewerandfewerinstitutions.(Willinsky2006,xiii)

Willinskythusarguesforopenaccessintermsthatareeitherspecifictothesciences—asheadmits(147),themajorityofhisexamples,PloS Biol-ogy, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Nature, Kenya Medical Re-searchInstitute(KEMRI),BioMedCentral,andsoon,aredrawnfromthesciencesandtoalesserextentthesocialsciences(althoughVirginiaWoolf, Samuel Johnson, and JacquesDerridaall get amention)—orquitegeneral,withoutgoingintoanyrealdetailwhenitcomestocon-sideringthemanydifferencesthatexistbetweenthevariousfieldsand

introDuCtion12

disciplinesthatmakeuptheacademy.SinceIammoreconcernedinDigitize This Book!withthepotentialimpactofopenaccessonthehu-manities,however,Ihaveconcentratedonchangestotheworldofaca-demic book publishing and the promise offered by open access ar-chives. Ihavedone sobecause in thehumanities—andespecially inthoseareasinwhichIwork:culturalstudies,continentalphilosophy,Englishliterature,mediastudies,newmediastudies—itisbookspub-lished by respected international presses, rather than journals, thatarethemostvaluedandprestigiousmodeofpublication,functioningasthemaincriteriafortenureandpromotion.Andunlikeopen-accessjournals,open-accessarchivescanincludebooks.27Therefore,inargu-ingfortheacceptanceofopenaccessinthehumanities,itseemstheef-fectivetacticistoapproachtheissuefromthismorebook-andarchive-orientedangle.

YetpragmaticdecisionsabouttheobjectofstudyarenottheonlythingthatisalittledifferentandevennovelabouttheargumentIammaking here. Digitize This Book! also arises from my concern that anumberofextremelyimportantethicalandpoliticalquestionsthatarebeingraisedbydigitizationconcerningourrelationshiptoknowledge,andconcerningacademicand institutionalauthorityand legitimacy,are,atbest,beingtakenforgrantedandtreatedcomparativelysuperfi-ciallyandlightly,and,atworst,marginalizedorevenignoredbyarXiv.org,Harnad,Willinsky,andothers.Myargumentinthisbookisthatitis imperativetoaddressissuesofknowledgeanditsauthorityandle-gitimacyinthecontextofdigitization;andthatdoingsowillenableustoseethattheethicalandpoliticalconsequencesofopen-accesspub-lishingextendfarbeyond,andinexcessof,thoseanticipatedandin-tendedbythemajorityofpeoplewhohavewrittenaboutthissubjecttodate.

Cultural Studies in the Age of Its Digital ReproducibilityLetmestayforamomentwithmyconcernthatanumberofextremelyimportantethicalandpoliticalquestionsthatarebeingraisedaboutourrelationshiptoknowledge,andaboutacademicandinstitutionalauthorityand legitimacybydigitization,arebeing takenforgrantedandtreated“complacentlyandcomfortably”bymostofthosewhohavechampionedopenaccess todate.Significantly, therehassofarbeenrelativelylittleexplicitresearchcarriedoutonthepotentialimpactofdigitalreproduction,publication,andarchivizationeitheronorbycul-

introDuCtion 13

tural studies—asdistinct fromproducinganalysesofdigitalculture,cyberspace,virtualreality,techno-science,the“knowledgeeconomy,”“immateriallabor,”biotechnology,theInternet,networkedconnectiv-ity,or“Web2.0”conductedfromaculturalstudiesperspective.Granted,muchofwhatIwanttosayinthisbookregardingdigitizationismoreorlessapplicabletootherfields.Still,culturalstudieshasforsometimenowarguablybeenthemeansbywhichtheuniversitythinksaboutit-self—becauseofthefield’sconcernforanti-andinterdisciplinarity,itsself-reflexiverelationtoculture,theeveryday,andtheother(seenintermsofsexualityorgender,raceorethnicity,etc.);itstraditionofen-gagingwiththenew,thedifferent,themarginal,theexcluded,andtheunusualaswellasapparentlyuseless,trivial,andunimportantformsofknowledge;itswillingnesstobe“adventurous”and“ambitious”andtouse“continental theory” to innovate“outsidethescholarly tradition”(McRobbie2000,214);anditsawarenessoftheaporiaofauthorityatthe heart of academic legitimacy (Rifkin 2003, 104–5). Indeed, cul-turalstudieshasformanyreplacedphilosophyandliterarystudiesinthisrespect,at least intheUnitedKingdomandtheUnitedStates.28Culturalstudiesthereforeappearstoofferaprivilegedmodeofaccesstoquestionsofknowledge,ethics,politics,andtheuniversityinawaythat,forexample,thesciences(whichhavehadopen-accesse-printar-chivesforquitesometime),andevenliterarystudiesandphilosophy,do not.29 Admittedly, as Caroline Bassett notes, “within writing thatexplores techno-culture ... an increasingly influential body of workthat finds its roots in medium theory and media philosophy has re-jectedcultural studiesmoreor lessentirely” in favorof theGermanmedia theory of Friedrich Kittler, Niklas Luhmann, and BernhardSiegert,thephilosophyofGillesDeleuzeandFélixGuattari,andthecyberneticsandinformationtheoryofClaudeShannonandNorbertWiener(Bassett2006,221).Nevertheless (anddespite the fact that Iwanttodrawonsomeofthisworkhere,too,particularlythatassociatedwith“netcriticism”andtacticalmedia),culturalstudiesformecontin-uestoprovideavaluablemeansof,andspacefor,inventivelyreflectingon and affirmatively engaging with practices, policies, and issuesconcerningtheuniversity,academicauthority,andinstitutionallegiti-macyaswellastheconsequencesofdigitizationforourrelationshiptoknowledge.

Atthesametime,inthinkingaboutthefutureoftheuniversity,Iwant to supplementmycultural studiesapproachbydrawingon the

introDuCtion14

thought of Jacques Derrida and, to varying degrees and extents, anumberofotherwriterswhohavebeeninfluencedbyhiswork,inpar-ticularSamuelWeber,BillReadings,BernardStiegler,ErnestoLaclau,andChantalMouffe.Iwanttoprovidethistheoreticalsupplementforanumberofreasons.

First,becausetheintersectionofphilosophyandliteratureassoci-atedwithDerridaand“deconstruction”isoneoftheplaceswhereques-tionsofethicshavebeenthoughtaboutmostrigorously.Toalargede-greethishasbeencarriedoutundertheinfluenceofDerrida’sreadingofthephilosophyofEmmanuelLevinas(whichisinturnindebtedtoEdmundHusserl’sphenomenologyandhisviewofconsciousnessasanintentionalitythatisalwayssituatedinconnectiontoobjectsoutsideofitself).Derrida,followingLevinas,definesethicsnotaccordingtotra-ditionalmoralphilosophy,with itspredefinedcodesandnorms,butratherasaninfiniteandaporeticresponsibilitytoan“unconditionalhospitality”totheother(2000,147).Culturalstudies,bycontrast,al-thoughitcaresdeeplyabout“theother”andputsissuesofrespect,re-sponsibility,anddifferencefirmlyonitsagenda,hasrarelyaddressedthequestionofethicsexplicitly.Thishasbeenevidentinitssometimestooquickconceptualizationofwhoits“other”is,aswellasinculturalstudies’promotionorevencelebrationofdifferenceattheexpenseoftheinterrogationoftheontologicalconditionsofthisdifference(seeZylinska2005).

Second,becausedeconstruction isoneof theplaceswhereques-tions of politics have been thought about most rigorously, too. Eventhoughculturalstudieshasnearlyalwaysdefineditselfasexplicitlypo-litical, ithas, inrecentyearsespecially,toooftenleftthequestionofpoliticsunaddressed(G.Hall2002).Ratherthanendeavoringtomakearesponsibledecisionthatwouldremainopentothespecificandcon-tingent demands of each singular conjunction of the “here” and“now”—preciselythekindofopennessthatonecouldargueresultedinthe singular, “original”workand ideas that led to theemergenceofculturalstudies inthefirstplace—culturalstudieshastendedtofet-ishize the politics associated with its “founding” thinkers (RaymondWilliams,StuartHall,theBirminghamSchool,andsoforth),theirfol-lowers and interpreters, and its established canon of texts. In otherwords,ithasfrequentlymadedecisionsregardingitspoliticsandwhat“thepoliticalthingtodo”isbaseduponandderivedfromconceptionsofpoliticsandthepoliticalthatwerefirstproducedandestablishedin

introDuCtion 15

averydifferenthistoricalmomentandsocialandculturalconjuncture.Thisfetishizationhasenabledculturalstudiestomakeseeminglyend-lessproclamationsaboutwhatpolitics isand isnot(it isaboutactionandconsensusandengagingwiththeoftenunpleasantrealitiesoftheworldaroundus,but is notaboutthinkingtoomuchaboutwhatcul-turalstudies,orethics,orpoliticsis—thatisboringanddetractsfromtherealtaskinhand).Ithasalsoledtomoralisticcondemnationsofotherformsofandpossibilitiesforpoliticsonthisbasis,without(andindeedperhapspreciselytoavoid)openingitselftothe“realantago-nism and dissent”—including that over ideas of what politics is andwhatitmeanstobepolitical—thatDerridaandothersshowisneces-saryforpolitics.30

Third,becausehavinglearnedfromDerridathenecessityofthink-ingabouttheuniversity(seeDerrida1983;1990;1992a;1992b;2001c;2002a;2004),SamuelWeberandBillReadingsespeciallyareamongthemostimportantandinfluentialofrecentwritersontheauthorityandlegitimacyofthecontemporaryinstitution.

Fourth,becausethekindofanalysisofethics,politics,andthein-stitutionalstructuresofacademicdiscoursetheyandDerridahavepro-videdoverthecourseofthelasttwentyyearsandmorehastendedtobedismissed,overlooked,oratbestkeptwithinspecificlimitsbyculturalstudies.Oneofthereasonsforthisisthatsuchtheoreticalmeta-orself-reflectionisoftenconsideredtooabstract,conceptual,andnaivelyelit-ist,tooboundupwiththeveryvaluesoftheuniversityculturalstudiesissupposedtoplaceinquestion,andthereforeastakingawayfromtheproperbusinessofculturalstudies,whichconcernsunderstandingandengaginginthestruggleoverpractical,material,social,political,andeconomicissuesintheworldthatliesbeyondtheinstitution.Anotherreasonisthatdeconstructionisalsomistakenlypresentedaspartofthe“linguisticturn”thatwastakeninthehumanitiesandsocialsciencesinthelatterhalfofthetwentiethcentury,aturnthatwenowhavetomoveonfromtoward“thematerial”and“thereal.”

The above four points are in many ways interconnected. For in-stance,aswehaveseen,oneofculturalstudies’most influentialanddeeplycherishedbeliefsistheideathat,ifculturalstudiesistohaveanysortofpoliticsworthyofthename,itneedstobecommittedtosocial,historical, andpoliticalmovementswider than itself.Fromthisposi-tion,inordertobepoliticalandtodo politics,thoseofuswithinculturalstudieswhoworkinuniversitiesneedtobeattemptingtoforgehege-

introDuCtion1�

moniclinkswithsocialmovements,struggles,andforces“outside”theuniversity.Onlybydoingso,itisclaimed,onlybymovingbeyondtheinstitutionalizinganddiscipliningeffectsoftheuniversity,canculturalstudieshopetoachievethesortofpoliticalimpactonbothsocietyandtheuniversityitseeks.31

Culturalstudies’somewhatmoralisticinsistenceonengagingwiththeharshrealitiesoftheworldaroundusandassociatedsuspicionoftheinstitutionassomethingthatthreatenstotameanddisciplineitsotherwiseradicalpoliticalpotential(henceculturalstudies’concernwithinter-andanti-disciplinarity,marginalizedandexcludedformsofknowledge,andsoforth)hasledittopaycomparativelylittleattentiontotheuniversityingeneral,andthedigitalreproductionofacademicscholarshipinparticular.Inthisrespect,culturalstudieshasnotalwaysbeenaspoliticalasitthinks.Becauseoftheemphasisthat,asaresultofitsdesiretobepoliticallycommitted,culturalstudieshasplacedontheimportanceofexaminingandengagingwith“realworld,”pragmatic,empirical,ethnographic,andexperientialissues—war,poverty,immi-gration,theenvironment,climatechange,theIsrael/Palestineconflict,theeffectsofHurricaneKatrina,andsoon—manyofthoseinculturalstudieshavespentrelativelylittletimeexaminingandengagingwiththe“realworld”pragmatic,empirical,ethnographic,andexperientialcontextoftheirownsituation,whichmoreoftenthannotinvolvestheuniversity. As Alan O’Shea and TedStriphas acknowledged in 1998,“forallthevigorousdebate”thathastakenplacewithinculturalstudiesoverthequestionofinstitutionalization,“littleattentionhasbeenpaidtoitsowninstitutionalpractices,”oritsown“existinginstitutionaliza-tions,”forthatmatter(O’Shea1998,513;Striphas1998,453).Theab-senceofworkonthedigitizationofculturalstudiesscholarshipwouldbeonecontemporaryinstanceofthis;therelativelackofculturalstud-ieswritingontheacademicpublishingindustry—ofwhichStriphas’sownresearchisanobviousexception—another(Striphas2002,2003;StriphasandMcLeod2006).32Instead,thepolitico-institutionalforcesthathavedeterminedmuchoftheworkthathasbeencarriedoutinculturalstudieshavetoooftenremainedunexamined,preciselyinfa-voroffocusingonwhatever“ourcurrentworldcrisis”isperceivedtobeatanyparticulartime.Theyhavethereforebeenlefttoshapeandcon-trolaculturalstudiesthathasoftenproceededtoact,inthisrespectatleast,inaless-than-responsibleethicalandpoliticalfashion.

That said, thereare signs that thingshavebeguntochange toa

introDuCtion 1�

certainextent.Followingtheincreasingcorporatizationoftheuniver-sitythatoccurredinthe1990sandearly2000s,andoftenworking,ifnotunderthedirectinfluenceofBillReadings’sThe University in Ruins(1996)andtherenewedinterestintheideaoftheuniversitygeneratedbythatbook,thencertainlyinitswake,anumberofpeopleassociatedwithcultural studieshave turnedtheirattentionto the institution inrecentyears.33Yetevenhereculturalstudieshastended(albeitindiffer-ent ways and to differing extents) to persist in placing at least twosignificantlimitsonitsownotherwiseimportantthinkingoftheuni-versity.

On theonehand, cultural studieshas in themaincontinued toadheretoconceptionsofpoliticsandthepoliticalthataredecidedac-cordingtothemostobviousandeasy-to-identifysignsandlabels.Tobepoliticalfromthispointofviewisstillverymuchtobeconcernedwithleftpolitics,withhegemonic struggle,with forgingconnectionswithsocial,historical, andpoliticalmovementsexternal to theuniversity,withengagingwithpragmatic,empirical,ethnographic,andexperien-tialissuesandtheirarticulationwithbroaderstructures,processes,andformations,andsoon.Soevenwhenculturalstudieshasturneditsat-tention toward the university—as with its longer-standing history ofworkoneducationandpedagogy34oritsmorerecentanalysesoftheneoliberalcorporatizationandmanagerializationoftheinstitution—thishasmostoftenbeen justifiedasanattempttoenable it tomovebeyondsuchdiscipliningandinstitutionalizing—andnowcorporatiz-ingandmanagerializing—effects, and toconnectwith “realpeople”outsidetheuniversity,andthuswithculturalstudies’largerdemocraticpolitical project proper. The problem with this approach is that itrepresentsarefusaltomakearesponsibledecisionastowhat“thepo-liticalthing”istodointhehereandnowofthecontemporaryconjunc-ture.Indeed,Iwouldarguethatpositionsofthiskindinvolveresortingtoprecisely thekindof fetishization ofpolitics Idescribedabove. Itisafetishizationwhere,asSlavoj Ž iž ekpointsoutinconnectionwiththeconceptof“interpassivity”orfalseactivity,“youthinkyouareac-tive, while your true position, as embodied in the fetish, is passive”(1997,21).

Ontheotherhand,thisfetishizationofpoliticsanditsplacementinatranscendentalpositionwherethelastthingthatisraisedinallthisdiscussionofpoliticsis the question of politics,hasatthesametimeoftenresultedinculturalstudiescontinuingto,atbest,downplayandkeep

introDuCtion1�

withinspecificlimits,andatworstmarginalizeandevenremainblindto,othermeans,spaces,andresourcesforpoliticsandforbeingpoliti-cal.Inparticular,ithasledtotheoverlookingor“forgetting”ofposi-tions thatmaynot subscribe to cultural studies’melancholia for thepoliticsofapastera,andthatthereforecannotnecessarilyberecog-nizedaccordingtothemostcommon-sense,taken-for-grantedlabels.Includedinthisaremanypoliticalresourcesthatareassociatedwiththeuniversity,suchasthekindofanalysisofvariousaspectsofthein-stitutionalforces,practices,andstructuresofacademicdiscoursethathas been providedbydeconstruction.35Consequently, while culturalstudiesmayonoccasionhavedirectlyorindirectlydrawnontheinflu-enceofanumberofthinkersassociatedwithDerrida’sphilosophyinrecentyears(Readingsespecially),atleastenoughtofocusmoreontheuniversity, ithas tendedtodosoverymuchon itsownterms.Whileculturalstudieshasincorporatedthoseaspectsofthisphilosophythatitcanincludeinitsalreadyestablishedpoliticalproject,thoseelementsthatmighthavefundamentallychallengedculturalstudies,andforcedit to radically rethink itspolitics andethics,haveby and largebeenmarginalized or ignored. Cultural studies has deradicalized decon-struction,inotherwords,ratherthanbeingopentothepossibilitythatdeconstructionmightradicalizeit.

ThisisanotherreasonIwanttodrawonthinkerssuchasDerrida,Weber,Readings,Stiegler,Laclau,andMouffeinthisbook.Theirworkonethics,politics,andthecontemporaryacademicinstitutionanditsrelation to emerging media technologies can help me shift culturalstudiesbeyondsomeofthelimitsthelatterhassettoitsownimportantworkonandintheuniversity.Indeed,ifDerridamakesarighttophi-losophycrucialtothefutureoftheuniversityandthehumanitieswithinit,Iwouldarguethatculturalstudies,sinceithasreplacedphilosophyasameansofthinkingtheuniversity,isnowjustasvitalinthisrespect,ifnotmoreso.Admittedly,ifculturalstudiesistorespondresponsiblyanddojusticetothisrole,wemayhavetobecapableofimaginingandinventingnewformsofculturalstudies—whatwemightcallculturalstudies2.0or,farbetter,next-generationculturalstudies.Creatingop-portunitiesfordoingso,however,ispartlywhatthisbookisabout.

1�

Metadata I

Notes on Creating Critical Computer Media

Metadata(Greek: meta- + Latin: data “information”), literally “data about data,” is information that describes another set of data. A common example is a library catalog card, which contains data about the contents and location of a book: It is data about the data in the book referred to by the card. . . . Another important type of data about data is the link or relationship between data. . . . Since metadata is also data, it is possible to have metadata of metadata—“meta-metadata.”

Metadata that is embedded with content is calledembedded metadata. A data repository typically stores the metadatadetached from the data.

—Wikipedia, 2006d

A Pragmatic Institution?Another way of thinking about this book is that it concerns some of the stories and narratives we tell ourselves about new or emerging media.1 Obviously, digitization—the conversion of media that previously existed in analogue forms (books, newspapers, films, and so forth) into digital data that can be dealt with by computers as a series of numbers in a binary system—is central to a lot of new media technology. But I am also arguing for the importance, within this, of paying attention not just to the specificity, but also the singularity of new media.2 Which is why I am working through a specific instance—or example or case study, to use social science terminology (which is not, however, without problems, as we shall see below)—in this book.

By commenting on these stories, I am of course producing yet an-other narrative, rearranging the discursive networks to tell a different

metaData i20

story, one that is woven through a number of nodal points, including capitalist free-market neoliberal economics, the “knowledge economy,” “deconstructive pragmatics,” paper-centrism, the “crisis in tenure and publishing,” the “academic gift economy,” the institution of the university, academic legitimacy, authority, disciplinarity, judgment, knowledge, cognition, ethics, politics, tactical media, and post-politics. Not that the narrative I am constructing with this book is necessarily better or more true; but it is at least a story that is more attuned to questions of ethics, politics, and academic and institutional authority and legitimacy—ques-tions that, as I shall demonstrate, have always been an important part of discourses around new media. In the process, I am creatively experi-menting with the work of writers such as Jacques Derrida, Samuel We-ber, and Bernard Stiegler who are operating at the intersection of phi-losophy and literature associated with deconstruction. These writers, in one way or another, have long been thinkers of ethics, politics, the uni-versity, media, and technology (if not necessarily in the most obvious or conventional of fashions). However, they are also thinkers of narrative and text, and as such are highly attentive to the “materiality” of lan-guage, too (even if some of them have not always paid as much atten-tion to specific forms and practices of new media as they might).3

Given my mention of deconstruction, it is no doubt worth clarifying that I am not trying to present my interest in open-access digital publish-ing as an affirmative, creative, practical response on my part to the kind of criticisms that have been leveled at both cultural studies and the thought of Jacques Derrida in recent years. The argument is by now fa-miliar: that cultural studies and deconstruction have in their different ways both been too theoretical, too philosophical, too transcendental and self-reflexive, too concerned with language and linguistics and pro-ducing texts critiquing other texts rather than dealing with concrete, practical, real life, material issues.4 Following this line of thought, what-ever problems and weaknesses Digitize This Book! may identify in the ideas of those who have tried to give the movement toward the open- access publication of the scholarly research literature a philosophy, the Cultural Studies e-Archive could be positioned as an actual, pragmatic, “deconstructive” institution, constructed using the Internet, the World Wide Web, HomeSite, Adobe Photoshop, VBScript, JavaScript, Micro-soft SQL Server and Microsoft Windows 2000 Server, and operating within the specific material and economic context of the contemporary university and late capitalism.5 As such, it could be presented as provid-

metaData i 21

ing one way of answering the question that is often raised around the relation of Derrida’s philosophy to the university: “How might it help launch practical initiatives for institutional transformation, taking shape in the gaps, margins, or spaces ‘in-between’ the contemporary situation of the university?”� At the same time it could also be seen to serve as a practical, pragmatic response on my part to the kind of calls that have regularly been made over the last twenty years or so for cultural studies to move away from the “high theory” that dominated the field in the 1��0s and early 1��0s, and return to material reality and the sort of politically engaged commitments that are regarded as lying at its roots.

Yet, for me, there are a number of question marks that would need to be placed against any attempt to portray either Digitize This Book! or the CSeARCH open-access archive in this fashion. It is some of these I want to draw attention to now.

The Prosumer Revolution Will Not Take PlaceThe first issue I want to draw attention to concerns the way in which ideas of this kind rest on certain notions of production and consumption that a lot of new media may actually be involved in challenging. To be sure, such arguments hold a certain attraction for many academics work-ing on new media. This is because scholars can be positioned in this scenario as moving from thinking to doing, and with it from negativity to positivity, criticism to affirmation. Instead of offering yet more theoretical critiques of digital culture, net critics are able to depict themselves as having taken the mode of production into their own hands in order to actually create new media: in the form of photographic essays, digital films, CD-ROMs, personal homepages, weblogs, wikis, MySpace and Facebook pages, Second Life presentations, podcasts, even pieces of “critical software.”�

Now, as I say, making a move of this kind from critique to creation is an extremely common fantasy among academics, and those working in media studies in particular. Yet they are not alone in thinking in this way. The notion that digital technology enables people to shift from pas-sivity to activity, to the point where producers and consumers are one and the same, is actually fairly common in contemporary culture. No-where can we see this more clearly than with idea of the “prosumer.” The story here is as follows. Previously, society was structured in terms of two more or less separate and distinct groups. On the one hand there were the professional producers, who could create, copy, and distribute me-

metaData i22

dia and cultural objects such as books, films, and TV programs. On the other there were the domestic consumers who could not. They could only use the media and cultural objects created for them by the professional producers; and they could only do so relatively passively. They could not reproduce, copy, alter or circulate them, or change them into something new, at least on a large scale. At the most they could only do so with regard to their own individually purchased and owned copies. The de-velopment of “prosumer” technologies changed all this. Originating in the video industries, these are technologies of a high enough technical standard to be able to produce work that can be recorded, broadcast, and distributed at a professional level, yet at the same time they are cheap enough to be affordable to most amateur consumers. The result is that now the consumer no longer needs to occupy a predominantly pas-sive relation to media and cultural objects. They, too, can not only con-sume such objects, but also actively create, reproduce, copy, change, and circulate them on something approaching a mass-produced, profes-sional scale in the guise of the prosumer. In their book New Media, Martin Lister et al. provide a number of examples of prosumer technolo-gies which they present as having led to the breaking down of the “pro-fessional/amateur category” and of “the distinction between producer and consumer.” These include digital video cameras (whereas once “‘broadcast standard’ cameras and editing equipment would . . . cost around £50,000 for a standard Betacam and Avid set up,” equipment that is “‘broadcast acceptable’” can now be acquired for a “tenth of that figure”), the apparatus of music production and the Web site homepage, to which we could these days also add the blog, vblog, and podcast (“anyone with an online account can now potentially publish”) (Lister et al. 2003, 33). Interestingly enough, however, given our con-cern here with scholarly production and creation, they cite as “the ulti-mate figure of media ‘prosumer’ technology” the personal computer. “It is a technology of distribution, of consumption, as well as a technology of production. We use it to look at and listen to other people’s media products, as well as to produce our own, from ripping CD compilations to editing videotape, mixing music or publishing websites” (Lister et al. 2003, 34).

The issue around ideas of this kind for me is not that digital technol-ogy does not enable a good many people, including academics, to be-come involved in creating media and cultural texts in this way. It does. Indeed, as I made clear earlier (and will proceed to say more about in

metaData i 23

chapter 2), whereas up until now scholars and researchers have given their work away for free to publishers who publish it only to then charge other academics fees to access it, either in the form of the cover price on books and CD-ROMs, or the cost of subscribing to journals and online databases, one of the things that is interesting and important about open-access journals, and particularly archives, is the way they provide academics with an opportunity to take control of the means of produc-tion and reproduction and publish their research themselves, using just personal computers and broadband Internet connections. In so doing, they are able to cut out the middlewomen and middlemen of the publish-ing industry, and in the process make their work readily available to all those who wish to access it—if not entirely for free, then certainly at a much reduced cost. My problem with the concept of the prosumer in-stead concerns the way in which it maintains and reinforces certain no-tions of production and consumption—even as it claims these distinctions are being “broken down”—that I would argue new media have helped to undo. For far from blurring these categories, the whole idea of the prosumer depends for its very existence on quite fixed, and somewhat unsophisticated conceptions of “production” and “consumption,” as well as the relation between them. After all, production and consumption can be brought together like this in the guise of the prosumer only if they are positioned as having somehow been separate and distinct in the first place—which they generally are in narratives of this kind. As a range of cultural studies thinkers have insisted for some time now, however, pro-duction and consumption are much more complicated and less stable concepts than a lot of erstwhile cultural analysis has seemed to allow. Meaghan Morris wrote way back in 1��� that “in an era of deindustri-alisation and increasing integration of markets and circuits alike, the problem of theorising relations between production and consumption (or thinking ‘production’ at all) is considerably more complex than is allowed by the reduction of the effort to do so” to what are for Morris already “anachronistic terms” (1���, 24). If this was the case in 1���, it is even more so today in the era of the “knowledge economy” and what Phil Graham has termed “hypercapitalism”:

In a technologically mediated global economy, the largest sector of which produces abstract financial instruments designed to be contin-ually exchanged but never “consumed,” questions about precisely what is being produced and consumed, and by whom, become

metaData i24

quite difficult to answer. A knowledge economy implies that the pro-duction of particular mental predispositions has become a central focus for globalised productive processes. In a system with such a singular and abstract focus, production, consumption, and circula-tion become an inseparable whole, and “value creation” becomes an immediate, continuous process that unites the formerly separa-ble spheres of production, consumption, and circulation (Barlow 1���).

Thus there can be no distinct analytical usefulness in separating these spheres within hypercapitalist political economy because the boundaries—conceptual, physical, and temporal—between them are dissolved by new media’s ubiquity; by the work habits engen-dered by new media; and by the mass, and more importantly, the immediacy of hypercapitalist exchanges. (Graham 2002b, �)

The problem of theorizing relations between production and consump-tion, and even thinking “production” and “consumption,” is rendered even more complicated by the manner in which, as Hardt and Negri show, the dominant form of labor today—what they refer to as “biopoliti-cal production” and “immaterial labor,” by which they mean precisely that which creates “immaterial projects, including ideas, images, affects, and relationships”—involves not just the “production of material goods in a strictly economic sense.” It “also touches on and produces all facets of social life, economic, cultural, and political” including life itself (that is, the production of consumers themselves) (2004, xvi).

The Digital DialecticAll of this relates to a second problem I want to draw attention to regard-ing any positioning of open access, and CSeARCH in particular, as en- abling the philosophy of Jacques Derrida or Samuel Weber, or myself, to be moved away from a concern with producing a theoretical critique (or even a theoretical “critique of a critique”) of texts and on to practical, creative, material production. This has to do with the way in which ideas of this kind set new media theory up in a relation of contrast to new media practice.

Dichotomous relations between theory and practice can be found in many accounts of new media. Even those deemed most radical and theoretically sophisticated are frequently based on what Peter Lunenfeld

metaData i 25

has termed “the digital dialectic.” Lunenfeld’s eponymous book is struc-tured around just such a series of tensions: between the “real and the ideal,” the “body and the machine,” the “medium and the message” and the “world and the screen” (2001a). The central dialectic for him, how-ever, is that between theory and practice, Lunenfeld defining the digital dialectic precisely as “grounding the insights of theory in the constraints of practice” (Lunenfeld 2001b, xv):

A critical theory of technological media will always be in inherent conflict with the practice of creating these very media. For if theory demands from its objects a certain stability, theory is itself free to break the tethers of its objects, to create a hermetically (and herme-neutically) sealed world unto itself. The pressures of the market and the innovations of the laboratory combine to make stability impos-sible within the practice of digital media, however. Yet both the market and the technologies themselves are bound by a series of constraints that theoretical texts can elide with fuzzy forecasting and the bromides about the future. The digital dialectic offers a way to talk about computer media that is open to the sophisticated method-ologies of theory without ignoring the nuts and bolts or, better yet, the bits and bytes of their production. To repeat, the digital dialectic goes beyond examining what is happening to our visual and intel-lectual cultures as the computer recodes technologies, media, and art forms; it grounds the insights of theory in the constraints of prac-tice. (Lunenfeld 2001b, xviii–xix)

Lunenfeld is far from alone in seeing computer media in these terms. Geert Lovink states in the introduction to Dark Fiber, his book of “prac-tice-driven Internet theory,” or what he calls “‘net criticism’” (2003, 1�), that throughout his study the key axiomatic as far as he is concerned resides “in the feedback between theory and practice.” “The emerging discipline of Internet studies, if it wants to be innovative, has to be en-riched with a critical involvement in both technical, user-related matters and content matters,” Lovink writes, before proceeding himself to quote from Lunenfeld on the “digital dialectic” (2003, �).

Now I can perfectly understand why digital artists, designers, pro-grammers, hackers, hacktervists, and others involved in writing their own software and creating their own computer programs might, when it

metaData i2�

comes to the study and understanding of new media, want to place more emphasis on practice. And of course the concept of the “digital dialec-tic,” in which practice is given “equal weighting” to theory, allows them to do just this. I can also see a number of other advantages to treating open access in this fashion. Among them is the way such an approach aligns itself with the current interesting and at times quite useful impetus in certain strands of new media criticism to move away from the broad, hyperbolic, “the future is now” theories that for many characterized so much of the field in the mid-1��0s, and toward the development of a more focused, detailed, and specific analysis of media objects, plat-forms (cell phones, MP3 players, Personal Navigation Devices), and software (compilers, program text editors, operating systems, applica-tion programs—Windows Media Player, VideoLAN Client, MPlayer, and so on). N. Katherine Hayles argues along these lines in her 2002 book, Writing Machines: “We are near the beginning of a theory of media-specific analysis in literary studies,” she writes. “Many people . . . are now . . . moving from print-orientated perspectives to frameworks that implicitly require the comparison of electronic textuality and print to clarify the specificities of each” (2002, 10�).� It is an approach that takes far more account of the specific materiality of new media (even though it may see that materiality as an “emergent property” [Hayles 2002, 33]), and that engages with media technologies, as Matthew Fuller puts it, not on the “basis of a category or class of objects” but rather with “specific instances of that class” (Fuller 2003, 1�).

In this respect I believe it is important that Digitize This Book! takes as part of its focus a subject drawn from my own, “personal,” “practical” experience as a new media writer, editor, publisher, and open-access archivist. Not least because this enables me to respond to Jeffrey Sconce’s point that “so much of the writing on new media [is] concerned with other writing on new media rather than new media itself” (2003, 1��); and also to Mark Poster’s criticisms of Derrida’s own account of new media technologies, and virtual reality especially, in Specters of Marx (Derrida 1��4a). For Poster, despite sensing the “need to account for differential materialities of the media,” Derrida “tends to preserve the philosopher’s taste for the general over the cultural analyst’s penchant for the particular,” providing “strings of hyphenated terms, ‘tele-technol-ogy’ or ‘techno-scientifico-economico-media,’ that vaguely point in a direction without guiding the virtual traveller in any particular direction” (Poster 2001a, 140–41). Certainly, one of the main criticisms anyone

metaData i 2�

dealing with the impact of digital technology risks facing nowadays is that he or she is talking about some rather vague and general possible future consequences of new media, without examining particular mate-rial instances of digital culture in detail; or, in this case, without pointing to what a digital cultural studies (as opposed to yet another cultural stud-ies analysis of the digital) or a digital institution might actually look like, what forms it could actually take.

Still, even though I am sympathetic to some strategic uses of the argu-ment concerning practice and the need to explore and engage with it in the study of new media, I want to make it quite clear that this book should not be taken as:

1. A case study—since that would imply I already have my theory of new media worked out and decided in advance, and that I am merely using open-access publishing and archiving, and with them CSeARCH and Digitize This Book!, as a means of illustrating this theory. Any such new philosophy of new media would fail to remain open to the singularity either of CSeARCH, or of Digitize This Book!, or to the affective performativity of their functioning. In other words, such a “case study approach” would take little or no account of the way in which, as I argue in this book, the ethics and politics of open-access publishing and archiving do not simply come prepackaged, but have to be creatively produced and invented by their users in the process of actually using them.�

2. A form of digital dialecticism—at least of the kind Peter Lunenfeld refers to, where a focus on analyzing how these “media are cre-ated and work” is utilized to avoid the danger of slipping into some theoretical fantasy land, where the focus is on “the implica-tions of technologies (especially where something could go),” rather than the “technologies themselves” (2001b, xix).

For me, thinking about new media and open access raises a number of issues and problems for the concept of the digital dialectic.

The Street Life of ComputersOne particular concern I have is that an emphasis on practice almost invariably results in a lack of rigorous attention being paid to the theory that underpins and helps to shape approaches to new media. The digital

metaData i2�

dialectic as described by Lunenfeld, Lovink, and others is no exception to this. In fact, this idea, that theory should be positioned in a dialectical relation to practice, is itself a classical theoretical idea. Granted, it may well be suggested that a lot of attention is being paid to theory in the digital dialectic. Yet while it may appear as if theory is being assigned an equal role and status in the relationship with practice here, it is actu-ally being kept within certain limits. For one of the things theory fre-quently does, in some of its guises at least, is bring into question notions of practice, and indeed theory, as well as any simplistic conceptions of the dialectical relation between them. So it is only by marginalizing or ignoring this important aspect of theory that an attempt to combine new media theory with new media practice in this fashion can be made.

Whether it is immersed in the cultural and media theory of Guy Debord, Vilém Flusser, Michel de Certeau, Marshall McLuhan, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, Michel Foucault, Jean Baudrillard, Donna J. Haraway, Paul Virilio, Friedrich Kittler, and others or not, a dialectical approach to net criticism is, in effect, a way of positioning theory, if not in terms of what Homi Bhabha referred to as the “damaging and self-defeating” notion that has often and elsewhere afflicted it—that is, that theory is “necessarily the elite language of the socially and culturally privileged” (1��4, 1�)—then certainly as a potential threat to, or distrac-tion from, the real job of “net criticism.” The real job, as we have seen, tends to be very much “grounded in the constraints of practice” and present itself as “practice driven.” As a result, the concept of practice continues to function as something of a fetish, similar to the way politics, activism, and “the street” do in other media and cultural studies–related discourses (see Bowman 200�b; Dean 2005), where it is important to talk about being practical, about engaging with those who make policy decisions, about getting involved with political activists, relating to the kids on the street, and so on, because all this is held as having to do with actual, concrete, political materiality. So talking about practice feels, you know . . . well, really real.

Of course, when it comes to much new media criticism, the dialecti-cal nature of their relation means that theory is to all intents and pur-poses assigned a place where it should be able to help us think through some of these ideas regarding practice, or at least act as a brake on and counterbalance to this fetishistic tendency. In order for practice to take place and even exist as “practice” at all in this dialectical sense, how-ever, it is necessary for theory’s capacity to rigorously interrogate ac-

metaData i 2�

cepted ideas of theory and practice, as well as the dialectic between them, to be placed within specific limits. Which means that, despite the manner in which it is apparently positioned in the digital dialectic, theory can never be taken on board sufficiently to bring such fundamental no-tions of the identity, role, place, and purpose of new media practice into question. As a result, for all that the dialectical nature of their relation means that each side is supposed to be capable of interrogating the other, there is still the very real danger of conveying the impression that to be involved with the actual specifics of creating with computer media —with software production, programming, coding, and so on—is some-how more material, more political, more real; that it, too, is to be in-volved with action, with “concrete-reality,” with a “street-knowledge of the net,” as it were.

We Have Never Been PracticalEfforts to set up new media theory and practice in a dialectical relation by attempting to integrate some of the concerns of each—“the sophisti-cated methodologies of theory” together with “the bits and bytes” of computer media production, as Lunenfeld puts it—also risk underestimat-ing the degree to which each position is already implicated in the other so that they do not represent contrasting options in the first place. I am thinking, not so much of the by now more or less banal point that there can be no pre-given or essentialist opposition between theory and prac-tice, as theory is already being placed in a supplementary relation to practice here; that it is only by opposing him or herself to the new media theorist that the digital dialectician can establish and define him or her-self as different.10 The reason new media theory and practice do not represent contrasting options for me has more to do with the way in which each side in this relation contains, and is made up of, many ele-ments that are otherwise described as belonging to the other. What I mean by this is not just that a lot of new media theory has already been concerned with the hard-edged “materiality” of particular instances of digital technology—although I would argue that it has. I am also refer-ring to the performative aspect of many so-called theoretical texts. I have in mind not just the writing of such texts but also the publishing, market-ing, selling, and reviewing of them. Such supposedly “theoretical” texts, I would maintain, are capable of functioning as singular, active, affec-tive, affirmative, “practical” events, gestures, and interventions into the here-and-now space of history, culture, and the institution of the univer-

metaData i30

sity. Moreover, this is the case not just with regard to works reproduced in the digital medium, but also with regard to those in ink-on-paper form. (One need only think of many of the works of Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze, and Félix Guattari to see that. In this respect it is a shame that some of those who are advocating for more attention to be paid to spe-cific “material” forms of new media do not also pay more attention to specific “material” forms of theory.)

By the same token, new media practice is not something that exists outside of and that comes only after the moment of theorization. Nor is practice something that comes before theory, something that the latter then merely provides an explanation of. There can be no new media practice without theory. In a sense new media practice has never been “practical”: not only because the practices of new media production—the work of coders, programmers, designers of human-computer inter-faces, and so on—are invariably informed and underpinned by theory and theoretical investments of some sort, whether consciously or not, dialectically or not (so there is no easy distinction that can be made be-tween theory and practice); but also because the practical—along with other sociopolitical referents such as the people, the activist, the street, the community, the multitude—is constructed in and through theory, through strategies of writing, textuality, language, and discourse. New media practice, then, has always been a matter of theory.

I mention all this not to suggest that new media theory and practice are the same: they of course have their different operational qualities, modalities, expository purposes, and effects.11 Nor do I want to simply repeat the “post-structuralist” cliché that practice, production, and the material are not pre-given and do not exist outside of language and the text in some essential, naturalistic sense. I am mentioning it rather to emphasize the manner in which the fact that new media practice has never been simply practical requires us to undo and reconceive the rela-tion between “writing on new media” and “new media practice,” not least to take account of the force and effect of new media theory as a productive discourse: one that creates and defines (rather than simply reflects) the practical, and simultaneously renders it available as an arti-cle or aim for practice.

This is a significant point. Unless it is understood, and the complexity of the relation between theory and practice and what is meant by prac-tice—and theory, for that matter—is thought through accordingly, there is every likelihood of producing rather uninteresting, confused, and con-

metaData i 31

tradictory theoretical and/or practical work. One of the places where this can indeed be seen to be the case is precisely with the fetishization of practice within a lot of recent new media studies. Here, the emphasis on practice, on doing something active, creative, affirmative, or prag-matic, frequently prevents “something” active, creative, affirmative, or pragmatic from “really” happening, from actually taking place. Too of-ten the technology acts merely as a screen onto which the fantasy of action, of doing something practical and having an effect, is projected.12

In fact, I would suggest that, of the two, far from being something that needs to be kept within certain limits, it is actually theory that is capable of being the more effective (and affective) practically—at least to the degree that it is more likely to take into account the metaphysical ideas and philosophical beliefs that affect the operation and development of “net criticism” (including the fetishization of theory in turn), and thus less susceptible to being blindly shaped and controlled by them.

I want to develop a similar case for the emphasis within new media criticism that is often placed on supporting and valuing “amateur prac-tice.” This is something Critical Art Ensemble (CAE) do, for instance, in their account of tactical media (with which Geert Lovink is also associ-ated, and which I discuss in more detail in chapter 4). Amateur practice is important to Critical Art Ensemble because, for them, “amateurs have the ability to see through the dominant paradigms, are freer to recom-bine elements of paradigms thought long dead, and can apply everyday life experience to their deliberations. Most importantly, however, ama-teurs are not invested in institutionalized systems of knowledge produc-tion and policy construction, and hence do not have irresistible forces guiding the outcome of their process such as maintaining a place in the funding hierarchy, or maintaining prestige-capital” (Critical Art Ensem-ble 2001, �). Now, while I would go along with much of CAE’s stress on adopting a critical approach to dominant paradigms and institutional-ized systems of knowledge, there is a danger with this kind of privileging of amateurism of slipping over into a lack of rigor, and of tactical media activists remaining unwittingly trapped in the very discourses they are trying to elude (as we shall see in chapter 4). This is because the attempt to be “freer” from such forces by situating ourselves outside professions and institutions can lead to us being recuperated by them without being aware of it—not least in terms of the “specialisms” that are often associ-ated with the practices of tactical activism and CAE. As I pointed out in my Introduction, this suspicion of the institution as something that threat-

metaData i32

ens to tame and discipline the otherwise radical political potential of a given discourse or practice too often results in insufficient attention being paid to institutions in general and the university in particular. Yet the university is one of the main sites for the professionalization of critical discourses and media practice;13 and the university is also where many tactical media activists find employment from time to time, something that, as Andreas Broeckmann acknowledges, is “no doubt necessary for creating a sustainable practice and infrastructures” (Garcia and Lovink 2001, n.p.). Furthermore, as Peggy Kamuf points out, “the call to ‘leave the university behind’ like this also abandons this institution as itself an important site for direct political action and intervention” (2004, n.p.).14 Certainly, my concern is that the emphasis on practice that is such a characteristic feature of the thought of those who situate their work in terms of the digital dialectic will result in downplaying (and at worst marginalizing and even remaining blind to) other means and resources for practice and for being political, both inside and outside the univer-sity—including those creative experiments and innovations in thinking and writing that often take place in, or are placed under the name of, theory, and that may not be regarded as either practical or political so long as the latter are to be recognized only with the help of the most obvious signs and labels.15

The Creative Industries IdeologyRegardless of whether it is combined in a dialectical relationship with theory or not, then, we should be wary of assuming that, because it ap-pears to be more active, affirmative, creative, pragmatic, material, or real—new media practice is per se a more effective, radical, and subver-sive thing to do than, say, writing an academic journal article or publish-ing an ink-on-paper book. Indeed, I offer what initially might sound like a rather odd and counterintuitive hypothesis: that practice can often be quite conservative. I say this because, as the university becomes more and more commercially oriented, far from challenging capitalist free-market neoliberalism and its emphasis on instrumentalism, on vocational-ism, and on being useful to business and industry, being “practical” and “practice driven” often goes along with the discourses of the new econ-omy and their regular attacks on philosophy and cultural studies alike for being too critical and for not being useful or vocational enough. As Clare Birchall and I have shown elsewhere, universities have been placed under increasing pressure to attract financial support from exter-

metaData i 33

nal sources other than public funding. As a result, they have had to de-vote large amounts of time and attention to addressing practical ques-tions and achieving instrumental outcomes of a kind that do not always sit easily with more “theoretical,” less goal-oriented research. In particu-lar, academics have been encouraged to deliver research that serves the neoliberal economy: research that is considered economically and so-cially productive, that is accessible and useful to a wider audience out-side the university, and that is thus potentially supportable and fundable, not just by government and the research councils, but also by those in business, industry, the media, charities, and policy institutes. What is more, this state of affairs has affected not just those more obviously prac-tical areas of study and research that are most explicitly associated with the knowledge economy: business, management, science, technology, computing engineering, and so on. There has been a related effect within the arts and humanities as well, as academics specializing in hu-manist discourses involved with creativity and invention now find them-selves in favor with research councils, university managers, and students-as-paying-customers alike.1� This is not simply a one-way street, where those aspects of the arts and humanities deemed important and useful in the global economy are extracted and incorporated into more commer-cially profitable areas of study. Terry Flew writes of “a feedback loop in operation, where discourses identified as having their origins in the arts have filtered through to business, and now returned to artistic and cul-tural practice through the concept of the ‘creative industries,’ where art-ists are increasingly expected to view themselves as cultural entrepre-neurs [‘involuntary entrepreneurs,’ as others have described it], managing their creative talents, personal lives and professional identities in ways that maximise their capacity to achieve financial gain, personal satisfac-tion and have fun” (Flew 2004, 2; quoted in Hall and Birchall 200�a, �).1� This approach has been dubbed by Danny Butt and Ned Rossiter as “the Queensland ideology” with regard to the situation in Australia, owing to the emphasis placed on the vocational preparation of students for employment in the cultural and creative industries by the Creative Industries Faculty at Queensland’s University of Technology in particular. And it has been criticized accordingly: for its “lack of critical attention to the new economic regimes underpinning the contemporary cultural field,” as well as to problems of “uneven development, Intellectual Prop-erty Regimes, and the capacity,” or lack of it, “for universities to compete effectively with corporations.” “By failing to attend to broader social and

metaData i34

economic contexts,” Butt and Rossiter write, “the Queensland Ideology has hitched the value of academic labour to the value of the market . . . with little leverage to shape the overall forces determining cultural pro-duction” (2002).1�

Digital DeconstructionI should emphasize that, for all my suspicion of the current fetishization of practice and emphasis on the “creative industries” and “creative econ-omy,” I am not suggesting that those of us who are interested in new media should not try to “do practice,” or get personally involved in mak-ing digital films, online journals, personal homepages, weblogs, vblogs, wikis, podcasts, and open-access repositories, or in analyzing particular Web browsers, search engines, open-source code, communication pro-tocols, file structures and so on, and that we should just “do theory” in-stead and speculate over the future implications of digital media in a manner that remains free from the constraints produced by the “pres-sures of the market and the innovations of the laboratory.” Nor, for all my emphasis on the philosophy of Jacques Derrida, am I implying that what we really need to do is just work on some transcendental or meta level. I am certainly not advocating that the need to think and to be as theoretically rigorous as possible should be used as an excuse for a failure to pay attention to the “nuts and bolts” of new media production. We still have to be “practical.” After all, in setting up the Cultural Studies e-Archive I have been involved in the creative production of what for some could be termed a pragmatic, political institution, constructed us-ing digital technology and invented and designed to take an affirmative ethical and political position with regard to academic publishing and the institution of the university.

My point—which is a multiple one—is rather that:

1. There are many more forms of engaging with new media than theory and/or practice (even if this proposition might initially sound counterintuitive or absurd).

2. Many of the effects of these different forms are likely to be ren-dered invisible if they are to be recognized only in terms of “the-ory,” “practice,” or some dialectical combination of, or relation between, the two.

3. If our understanding and analysis of new media is to be effec-tive, we need to be able to “do” both theory and practice, while

metaData i 35

simultaneously challenging any simple differentiation between them (which is perhaps not too far off from what I am doing with this book and CSeARCH).

So, as I say, I am not arguing against practice, or against getting involved in creating with computer media; nor am I saying that “theory” cannot learn from “practice,” or that practice cannot lead us to new ways of thinking and theorizing. What I am trying to emphasize is that, for “Internet theory,” or “new media studies” (or whatever you want to call it) to be “practically” effective, it also has to be capable of placing such conceptions of practice at risk: of questioning and critiquing and experimenting with them. We need to refuse to place a limit on theory and its questioning of practice and ask: What is meant by theory and practice here? In particular, as far as the kind of emphasis on practice that is common in new media circles is concerned, we need to ask: What is practice? Is practice self-identical? Is practice always and everywhere the same?1�

Reformatting the PoliticalI want to conclude this introductory section by noting a number of final problems concerning the idea that open-access publishing and archiv-ing makes it possible for me to move my “deconstructive” philosophy away from a concern with producing a “critique of a critique” of texts and on to practical, positive, material production—in this case of a prag-matic, political institution, constructed using HomeSite, Adobe Photo- shop, VBScript, and JavaScript, and designed to facilitate the creation of a “global information commons,” a new, revitalized form of public sphere, or an academic “high-tech gift economy” (see chapter 4).

One further difficulty with this position is that it risks implying that other forms of deconstruction (those apart from mine that do not involve the creation of a material/virtual institution) are just a negative form of transcendental critique, which is far from the case. There is also a related danger of suggesting that, in contrast to what I am doing here, other forms of deconstruction are not concerned with the institution. Yet decon-struction, for Derrida at any rate, is a constant taking of an affirmative position, with regard to the institution especially (Derrida 1��2a).

A still further problem with adopting an approach of this kind is that to argue that open access is political in this explicit, a priori way, would be to give the impression that it is so simply because it conforms to some

metaData i3�

already established and easily recognized criteria of what it is to be political. As Richard Barbrook writes with regard to the music business, however, as far as digital culture is concerned, what appears to be the most political thing to do is not always necessarily the case:

The music business has long prided itself in its skill at spotting the latest trends and its ability to make money out of the most subversive forms of youth subculture. Back in the 1��0s, the hippie generation had called for political revolution—and broke almost every aesthetic and social taboo. Yet the music industry was still able to profit from its cultural creativity. Compared to their predecessors, the ambitions of the Napster generation seemed much more modest: sharing cool tunes over the Net. Ironically, it was this apparently apolitical youth subculture which—for the first time—confronted the music industry with an impossible demand. Everything is permitted within the won-derful world of pop with only one exception: free music. (2002, n.p.)

In other words, politics would be reduced to just the rolling out of a political plan, project, or program that is already known and decided upon in advance. As such, little or no account would, or could, be taken here of the possibility that politics on the Internet—like digital texts them-selves (at least as I describe the possibilities in chapters 2 and 3)—may be different, new, innovative, exceptional, surprising; or of the way in which (as we shall see in chapters 4 and 5 and in my Conclusion), the net has the potential to change the very nature of politics and how we understand it, especially its current “modern” basis on notions of citizen-ship, the public sphere, and democracy. There would be no responsible or ethical opening to the future, the unknown, uncertain, unseen, and unexpected (as I describe it in chapters 2 and 3), at least in terms of any understanding of Internet politics. Instead, to take this approach would imply that what politics is, what it means to be political, is already more or less known—whereas deconstruction, very much like the Internet for Mark Poster, is rather “hyperpoliticizing” (as we shall see in chapters 4 and 5 and my Conclusion): “Politicization never ceases because unde-cidability continues to inhabit the decision” (Mouffe 1���, 13�).

i . internethiCs

3�

1

Why All Academic Research and Scholarship Should Be Made Available in Online Open Access Archives—Now!

In2000,forthefirsttimeinoveradecade—somesayforthefirsttimeever—worldwidesalesofmusiccompactdiscs(CDs)fell.Thedeclinecontinued the following year. The sale of CD singles in the UnitedStates,forexample,droppedbyalmost40percentin2000,andfellafurther10percentin2001(Harmon2002).1Forawhile,onlyFranceandGreatBritainbuckedthisglobaldownwardtrend, in the latter’scasepartlythankstothehugesuccessofartistssuchasRobbieWilliamsandDido(rememberher?).YetwiththevalueofUnitedKingdommu-sicshipmentsdroppingby3.7percentto£1.2billionin2002,eventhepreviouslybuoyantBritishmarketsoonwentintodecline(Cassy2003,22).2Thisleftmanymusicindustrychiefsfranticallyscrabblingforex-planations. Among the most popular put forward were the slowingdownoftheworldeconomy,theincreaseinpopularityofCD“rewrit-ers,” which enable individuals to make their own CDs, the fact thatmostpeoplehadbythenlongsincereplacedtheiroldvinylrecordingswithcompactdiscversions,andthepreferenceamongyoungpeopletospendtheirmoneyonringtonesfortheirmobilephonesinstead.Buttherewasanotherexplanation,onewithfarmoreprofoundpotentialconsequencesforthemusicindustry:Napster.

Software Communism?NapsterwasoriginallyasoftwaretoolforsharingMP3files.3Itwaswrit-tenin1999byathennineteen-year-oldstudent,ShawnFanning,andwasgivenitstitleafterhisnicknameatschool—hehadshort,verytight,curlyhair.SpeciallydesignedfortheWeb,MP3filesallowuserstomakefreedigitalcopiesoftheirvinylandCDcollectionstoaveryhighstand-

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle40

ardofsoundquality.AtfirstMP3representedmerelyatechnologicalupdate on home cassette taping and the associated debates of the1970s.MP3isopenstandard,withoutcopyrightprotection.Thatmakesithardformusiccompaniestopreventpeoplefromcopyinganddis-tributingtheirproductswithoutpayingforthemfirst.Initially,thebigdifferencebetweenhometapingandMP3layintheeaseandscalewithwhichthecopiedrecordingscouldbeshared. Inmarkedcontrast tocassettes,MP3filescanbetransmittedfromusertouserovertheInter-net,storedontheircomputerharddrives,andthenplayedbackeitherontheircomputersorMP3players.IntheearlydaysofMP3thiswasnotseenastoomuchofaproblem.Thatisbecause,aswithhometaping,peopletendedtoexchangethesefilesmainlyonanindividualbasis:amongfamily,friends,andworkcolleagues.UntilNapster,thatis.Nap-stertransformedthesituationbyorganizingtheprocessofexchange,simultaneously increasing, vastly, the amount of recorded materialavailable.Theprocessworksasfollows.WhenapersonlogsontoNap-ster,thesoftwarereadstheharddiskofhisorhercomputerformusicfilesandaddsthemtoitscentraldirectory.AllanyonelookingforfreemusicthenhastodoissearchNapster’sdirectoryfortheartistsorsongstheywantanddownloadthemfromthere.

Nowwhenitcomesto“musicpiracy”—or“softwarecommunism,”assomeprefertoseeit—Napsterisprettyoldhatthesedays.Ihavebe-gunwithNapsterbecause it isreferencedasthe“first”and“ground-breaking”phenomenoninmostaccountsoffile-sharing.4SuccessfullysuedforviolationofcopyrightinJuly2000,Napsterhaslongsincebeenforcedtoremoveallcopyrightedfilesfromitsdatabase.Inlate2000,inan attempt to reinvent itself as a legitimate business, Napster evensignedadealwithBertelsmann,oneoftheworld’sleadingmusicandentertainmentcompanies(who,togetherwithUniversalMusic,theRe-cording Industry Association of America [RIAA], Sony Music, AOLTimeWarner,andEMI,originallyfiledthelawsuitagainstNapster),toaccesstheirmusiccatalogue,andsubsequentlyproceededtooperateonamonthlysubscriptionbasis.Ithasnotbeenparticularlysuccessfulinthisrespect,however.Accordingtoonereport,whereasin“thesum-mer of 2000, the peer-to-peer music company had more than 67mregisteredusersswappingfilesfreeofcharge—aninternetphenome-non,”byMay2001itwasonthevergeofbankruptcyuntiltheBertels-mannmediaconglomeratesteppedin,itssubsequent“transitionfromafreeservicetoasubscriptionmodel”causinguserstoabandoniten

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle 41

masse(AbrahamsandHarding2002).Napster’ssitedidindeedclosedown for a while. Then in November 2003 a version of Napster wasrelaunchedbyRoxio,whohadinitiallyboughtNapster’sunsuccessfullegal competitor, Pressplay. In 2002 Roxio also bought the Napsterbrandname,amovethatsubsequentlyenabledthemtorebrandandrelaunchtheunsuccessfulPressplayasthemorecompetitiveand“net-cred”Napster.

Butthestorydoesnotend,orevenbegin,withNapster.AsNapsterwas struggling through the courts, Grokster (which was itself closeddowninNovember2005),Kazaa(subsequentlysuedandforcedtoop-erateonamorelegitimate,legalbasis),Gnutella,eDonkey,FastTrack,eMule,BitTorrentandarangeofotherunauthorizedfreemusicdown-loadsitesandfile-sharingnetworks,applications,andprotocolsalltookitsplaceontheInternet.5Allofwhichhasledtoawholeseriesofargu-ments and disputes. Do Napster, eDonkey, FastTrack, Gnutella, andothersprovideamodelforrevolutionizingthemusicindustry?Oraretheyexamplesofthegeneralfailureofsomuchdigitalculturetoes-capebigmedia’spowerofincorporationforanysignificantlengthoftime? Witness the establishment by companies such as Apple, HMV,andVirginofWebsitesforlegaldigitalmusicdownloads(i.e.,iTunes,HMVDigital, andVirginDigital),where, for a relatively lowprice—whichalwaysseemscheapuntiloneremembersthatthecostofrepro-ductionisnexttonothing—musicloverscanchoosefromthousandsofavailableonlinetracksanddownloadthemdirectlyontotheircomput-ersandportablemediaplayers,suchasAppleiPodsorCreativeZens,withouteverhavingtosetfootinarecordstore.6SalesofdownloadedtracksarenowevenallowedtocountalongsiderecordandCDsalesinthecharts’rankingofthemostpopularmusic.Moreover,recentyearshaveseenthedevelopmentof“Web2.0,”“LiveWeb”or“socialnetwork-ing” sites—MySpace and Facebook are perhaps still the most well-known in the United States and United Kingdom—where musicianscanpromote,distribute,andevenselltheirmusicdirecttotheirfans,oftenbypassingthebigmusiccompaniesaltogether.7TheArcticMon-keys,GnarlsBarkley,andLilyAllenaretheartistsmostfrequentlycitedashavingcometosuccessinthisway—althoughithastobesaidalotofpeopleregard this ideaasyetmorehypepromotedby therecordcompanies.8

Butlet’sholdoffwiththeusualdebatesaroundNapster,peer-to-peerfilesharingandWeb2.0forthemoment(thoughIreturntothem

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle42

inchapter4)andplayagameofsciencefictioninstead.Let’simaginethatatsomepointinthenottoodistantfutureitisgoingtobepossibleto have an academic equivalent to Napster, eDonkey, Gnutella, Fast-Track,andBitTorrent.

Academic Publishing 2.0?AsIimaginethemajorityofthosewhohaverecentlyeithertaughtorstudiedinauniversitywillbeonlytooaware,thesystemofhigheredu-cationthatoperatesinmanycountriestodayisoneinwhichanexpan-sionofstudentnumbershasgonehandinhandwithadeclineinthenumberofbooksperstudentthatareprovidedbyuniversityandcol-legelibraries.Severecutsinfunding,broughtaboutbytheattemptsofsuccessivegovernmentstocompeteintheglobalmarketplacebyreduc-ing their statebudgetdeficits throughdecreases inpublic spending,not leastonhighereducation,haveproduceda situation inwhich itis increasinglydifficult for libraries toafford tostockbooks,andforstudentstobeabletobuythem.Notjustteachingandlearninghavebeenaffected.Buildingacareer,evensimplysurvivingasanacademic,istodaymorethaneverdependentonpublications.Yetasbothinsti-tutions and students have found it harder and harder to purchasetexts,thetraditionalmarketforthescholarlybookhasbeensubstan-tially eroded.This fact, togetherwith theacquisitionandmergerofmany publishing houses by transnational media conglomerates whofrequentlyexpecttheirpublishingdivisionstooperateaccordingtothesamekindofprofitmarginsasotherareasoftheirbusiness(suchasmusic,film,andtelevision),9hasledanumberofpublishersofacademictexts tocutbacksharplyontheircommissions. Insomeareas,manypublishershavedecidedtofocusonintroductionsandreadersfortherelativelylarge(andsomoreprofitablefortheirshareholders)first-yearundergraduate“corecourse”markets,andhardlyproducebooks forsecond-andthird-yearstudents,letaloneresearchmonographsoreveneditedcollectionsoforiginalscholarshipaimedatpostgraduatesandotherresearchers,atall.SobadhasthesituationbecomeintheUnitedStatesthatinMay2002StephenGreenblatt,presidentoftheModernLanguageAssociation(MLA),producedanopenlettercallingfor“Ac-tiononProblemsinScholarlyBookPublishing”:

[O]ver the course of the last few decades, most departments oflanguageand literaturehavecometodemandthat junior faculty

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle 43

membersproduce,asaconditionforbeingseriouslyconsideredforpromotiontotenure,afull-lengthscholarlybookpublishedbyarep-utablepress....Theimmediateproblem,however,isthatuniversitypresses,whichinthepastbroughtoutthevastmajorityofscholarlybooks,arecuttingbackonthepublicationofworksinsomeareasoflanguageandliterature.Indeed,wearetoldthatcertainpresseshaveeliminatededitorialpositionsinourdisciplines....

Somejuniorfacultymemberswhowillbereviewedfortenureinthisacademicyear ...findthemselves inamaddeningdoublebind. They face a challenge—under inflexible time constraintsand with very high stakes—that many of them may be unable tomeetsuccessfully,nomatterhowstrongorserious theirscholarlyachievement, because academic presses simply cannot afford topublishtheirbooks....

Weareconcernedbecausepeoplewhohavespentyearsofpro-fessionaltraining—ourstudents,ourcolleagues—areatrisk.Theircareersareinjeopardy,andhighereducationstandstolose,oratleast severely todamage,agenerationofyoungscholars.(Green-blatt2002)

Ofcourse,suchproblemshavebeenoffsetto a degreebytheseeminglyendlessstreamofnewjournalsthatarebeingcreatedtomeetthede-mandfromacademicsforevermore“researchimpact,”ResearchAs-sessmentExercise(RAE),andResearchQualityFramework(RQF)sub-mittablepublishingopportunities.The International Journal of Cultural Studies,theEuropean Journal of Cultural Studies,Cultural Studies<=>Critical Methodologies,theJournal of Visual Culture,theJournal of Consumer Cul-ture,andCrime, Media, Culturearejustsomeofthetitlesthathaveap-peared in the cultural studiesfield in recent years fromSagealone.Still,ashortageoffundsproducedbydecreasingbudgetsandtherap-idlyincreasingcostsofscientific,technical,andmedicaljournalshasmeantthat,farfromexpandingthenumberofperiodicalstheytake,manyuniversitylibrariesareunabletosustaintheircurrentholdings.Soevenifauthorsdomanagetogetpublishedinoneoftheseorgans,thechancesofanyonehavingaccesstotheirwork,letalonereadingit,arenotnecessarilygrowing;indeed,accordingtosometheyarebecom-ingslimmerallthetime.10(Asanacademiconeregularlyhearsrumorsthattheaveragereadershipforajournalarticleis,frighteninglyenough,somewherebetween just three and seven readers.)The fact that the

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle44

majorbookchainsareincreasinglyreluctanttostockacademictitles—journalsespecially,butalsobooks—onlyexacerbatesthesituation,asdoesthefactthatmoreandmoreindependentbookstoresareclosingbecauseofcompetition fromAmazon.comatoneendof themarketandthelikesof(intheUnitedKingdom)Tescos,Asda,andWaterstonesattheother,withevenbranchesofthelattershuttingupshoponuni-versitycampuses(includingGoldsmiths,Brunel,andRoyalHollowayinLondon)in2006.

But,asIsay,let’splayagameofsciencefictionandimagineforamoment:Whatwoulditbelikeifitwerepossibletohaveanacademicequivalent to the peer-to-peer file sharing practices associated withNapster,eMule,andBitTorrent,somethingdealingwithwrittentextsrather than music? What would the consequences be for the way inwhich scholarly research is conceived, communicated, acquired, ex-changed,practiced,andunderstood?

Foronething,afreeacademictextdownload(andupload)siteofthiskindwouldprovideawayaroundsomeoftheproblemscreatedbythekindofrestrictivecopyrightregulationsthatenablethepublishingindustrytolimitthenumberofphotocopiedtexts(andthepercentageofthosetexts)universitylecturerscangivetotheirstudents(Iwillcometothelegalitiesofallthisinamoment).Academicscouldprovidetheirclasseswithasmanycopiesofbooksandjournalarticlesastheyliked,simplybysupplyingstudentswithanaddresswheretheycanfindthemonthenetanddownloadthemforfree.By“splicinganddicing”fromother texts, tutors couldevenput theirownreaders together in thisfashion,andensurethattheyareconstructedtosuittheexactrequire-ments of their specific courses (rather than having to rely on thosehugedoorstoppersthatareproducedbyotherpeoplewiththeirowncoursesinmind,andwhichneverquiteseemtodothejob),whilesi-multaneouslymeetingthedemandforprepackagedmaterialcreated“partlybecauseofstudentpovertyandpartlybecauseoftheriseofthestudentas customer” (Midgley2002,15).Most importantofall,per-haps, at least as far asmanyof thoseworking in thehumanities areconcerned(where,incontrasttothe“hard”or“exact”sciences,moreimportancetendstobeattachedtowritingacademicmonographsthanto publishing in peer-reviewed journals), academics and researcherswouldno longerneedtoworryaboutwhethertheirnextprojectwasgoing toappeal toapublisheras something thatcouldbemarketedandsold.Theycouldforgetaboutthis,secureintheknowledgethatas

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle 45

soonastheyhavefinishedslavingovertheirtextitcanbemadereadilyavailable—toanyone,anywhereintheworld(provided,ofcourse,thatthatpersonhasacomputerandaccesstotheInternet).Whatismore,theirtextcanremainavailableforaslongastheywish—sotheyneveragainneedtosuffertheindignityofhavingtheirworkgooutofprintafteronlyeighteenmonthsbecausetheirpublisheronlybroughtoutahardbackbookversion,whichcost£50/$US99apieceandwhich fewpeopleexceptinstitutionallibrariescouldaffordtopurchase.11

Knowledgedroppers of the World Unite!NowIrealizethatatthispointsomepeoplemaybethinking:“Yeah,yeah,morecyberbabble!”DespitewhatIsaidearlieraboutsciencefiction,however,thisisallnotasfar-fetchedandutopianasitsounds.Therearealreadyanumberof“freetext,”open-accesssitessimilartothisinop-erationontheInternet.Perhapsthebest-knownandmostinfluentialoftheseisthearXiv.orgE-PrintArchive,whichwasfoundedin1991byPaulGinspargandoriginallybasedattheLosAlamosNationalLabora-torybeforemovingtoCornellUniversityinDecember2001.12Initiallyestablishedforhigh-energyphysics—althoughithassinceexpandedtoencompassotherareasofphysics,aswellasmathematics,computersci-ence,andquantitativebiology—thisarchivehadbyAugust2006car-riedmorethan379,940submissions,depositsofafurther54,000peryear,andwasreceiving270,000connectionsdailyatfourteenmirroredsitesworldwide.ThearXiv.orgE-PrintArchiveworksasfollows.When-evera scholar inoneof thefieldscoveredby thearchive isabout tosubmitapapertoarefereedscholarlyjournalforpublication,heorshesendswhatiscalledapreprintcopytoarXiv.org.Thisself-archivedpre-printisthenmadeavailabletoanyresearcher,scholar,orstudentwhowantsit,withoutcharge.Allthereaderhastodoisdownloadthefilefromthearchive.

Nordoescopyrightpresentaproblem.Onewayinwhichthee-printarchivingsystemisabletoavoidfallingfoulofcopyrightagreementswhere necessary (that is, where the publisher’s policy or copyrightagreementdoesnotalreadyallowthearchivingofthefinalversionofthetextinanopen-accessrepository),isbymeansofwhatiscalledthe“Harnad/Oppenheimpreprintandcorrigendastrategy”(seeHarnad2001/2003),asanarticleinThe Times Higher Education Supplementveri-fiedsometimeago:

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle4�

First theauthorpostsapre-printofhisorherpaperontheweb.Thentheysubmitthepapertoarefereedjournal.Theauthormakesamendmentsinlightofreferees’andeditors’comments,thensignsthepublisher’scopyrightagreement. ...Theauthorthenpostsanoteontothewebpre-print,pointingoutwhereareasofcorrectionmightneedtobemade,ineffectturningthepre-printintoaver-sionofthedraftrefereedpaper.[Accordingtotheauthorsofthisstrategy],“[i]fthesestepsarefollowed,theauthorhasdonenoth-ingwrong,hasbrokennolawandhasnotsignedacontractheorsheshouldnothavesigned.”(Patel2000,12;seealsoOppenheim2001,2004)13

Thislastpoint—thattheauthorisnotdoinganythingillegalbypub-lishingopenaccessinthisfashion—isimportant,asithighlightsoneofthe major differences between the open-access archiving of e-printsand the original Napster, and thus provides a means of overcomingwhatis,potentially,amajorhurdletomakingsuchafreeacademictextdownloadsitearealpossibility(insteadofamerescience-fictionfan-tasy).14 Afterall,Napsterwassuedbecauseitinfringedupontherightsofmusiccompaniesandmusicianstoownandprofitfromtheirmusic.15Archivingacademictextselectronicallyinthemannerdescribedabove,however, isnot illegalbecauseof thespecificway inwhichacademiaworks.UnlikeSony,theMotionPictureAssociationofAmerica,16Me-tallica,Sting,Eminem,BritneySpears,Madonna,orevenmostauthorsof other forms of writing (novels, plays, screenplays, newspaper andmagazinearticles,computerprograms...),academicstendnottobetooconcernedaboutgettingpaidafeefor,orreceivingroyaltiesfromtheirresearchpublications.(They’reinthewrongbusinessiftheyare.)AsStevanHarnad,oneof thecoauthorsof theHarnad/Oppenheimpreprintandcorrigendastrategy,andhimselfavociferousadvocateofthee-printarchivingsystem,hasemphasized,themainpriorityofmostacademicsistohavetheirresearchreadbyasmanypeopleaspossible,inthehope,notonlyofreceivinggreaterlevelsoffeedbackandrecog-nition for their work, and thus an enhanced reputation, but also ofhavingthebiggestpossibleimpactonfutureresearch,andperhapsevensociety.Sotheyareperfectlywillingtoineffectgive their work away for freetoanyonewhocanbringthisabout.Infact,thisisoftenhowaca-demicsderivetheirincome—from“howmuchtheyareread,cited,andbuilt-uponbyotherresearchers”—asthistendstolead,eitherdirectly

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle 4�

orindirectly,togreaterreputationandrecognition,andthusemploy-ment,careeradvancement(includingtenure),salaryincreases,jobof-fers,promotions, speaker fees, consultancies, theawardingofgrantsandfunding,andsoon(Harnad2001/2003).Oneofthethingsthatmakes e-print archiving (often referred to as “self-archiving” or the“greenroad”toopenaccess)andopen-accesspublishingingeneral soattractivetomanyacademicauthorsisthereforepreciselytheextenttowhich,byrenderingtheirworkeasilyavailabletoallthosewhocanac-cessit—ratherthanrestrictingaccessmerelytothosewhocanaffordtopayforit—theycanmakereachingarelativelylargeaudienceaveryrealpossibility.17Figuresvariouslysuggestthatresearchpublishedopenac-cessissomewherebetweentwoandfourtimesmorelikelytobereadandcitedthanifitisjustpublishedinink-on-paperform.18Soopenac-cessisgoodfortheresearcher.Butitisalsogoodforinstitutions,espe-ciallyintheeraoftheRAE(intheUnitedKingdom—soontobecomethe REF, or Research Excellence Framework) and the RQF (in Aus-tralia),sinceithelpstoraisestaffprofiles,reputations,andindicatorsofesteem.

Toprovideanexampleofwhatisachievable,evenonasmallscale,mostculturalstudiesjournals,evenquitewell-establishedones,havecircula-tions of only 400–600 copies internationally.19 Compare this to thefactthatCulture Machine,theopen-accessonlinejournalIcofoundedandcoedit,wasabletoachieveacirculationof6,500(atleast10timesthetypicalamount)inthefirsttenmonthsofitsexistencealone,andonly threeyears later(2001–2002)wasreceivingasmanyas375,000hitsperannum,whichworksoutat somewherebetween40,000and50,000individualaccesses,orapproximately4,000readersamonthonaverage.20

Norshouldthoseauthorswhodowanttoprofitdirectlyfromtheirworkautomaticallydismiss thepotentialbenefitsofopen-access self-archiving.AstudyofwritersbyTheSocietyofAuthorsafewyearsagofoundthatmosthadtosupplementtheirverylowannualearningswithotherformsofworkandthat“onlyahandfulofwritersearnthehugeadvanceswhichtakeupsomanycolumninchesinthepress.Indeed,inwriting,fivepercentearnonaverageover£75,000and‘threequartersofmembersearnedlessthanthenationalaveragewage;andtwo-thirdslessthanhalftheaveragewageandonehalflessthantheminimumwage’”(McRobbie2002,111;quotingPool2000).Thisisbackedupby

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle4�

a2007studyfortheAuthors’LicensingandCollectingSociety(ALCS)by the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management atBournemouthUniversity.They found that theaverageauthor in theUnitedKingdomearnsone-thirdlessthanthenationalaveragewage,that“typicalearningsofaBritishprofessionalwriteraged25–34areonly£5,000perannum,”andthat“only20%ofwritersearnalltheirincomefromwriting”(2007).Sotheargumentthatwritersoffor-profittextsrisklosingmoney,ornotmakingitall,byarchivingtheirworkandmaking itopenaccessdoesnot reallyapply.Unfortunately,mostau-thorssimplyhavelittleornomoneytolose.Likeacademics,manyofthem,too,couldgainfromtheincreaseinpotentialreadersandexpo-surethatopenaccessbrings.

Digitize This!By now the impact that an open-access repository similar to that atCornell, or to the Cogprints archive that has been put together forcognitivepsychologyattheUniversityofSouthamptonbyStevanHar-nad, could potentially have on cultural studies is, I hope, becomingclear.21AfewyearsagoCulture Machinedecidedtoestablishjustsuchaculturalstudiesopen-accessrepository—theCulturalStudiese-Archive(CSeARCH)—tocreateaspacewhereresearchinthefieldcanbepub-lished,disseminated,andaccessedforfree.

LaunchedinMarch2006,CSeARCHenablesthoseinthefieldto,amongotherthings:

•Publish their research, and therefore make their research findings widely available, immediately upon completion—beforeitappearsineitherjournalorbookform(whichcantakebetweenninemonthsandtwo years from submission of the final manuscript, sometimeslonger);evenbeforeithasgonethroughthepeer-reviewprocessif they choose, as that can also take a considerable amount oftime.

•Expand the size of their readership(andhencepotentiallyboththeamountoffeedbackandrecognitiontheyreceiveandthesizeoftheirreputation)—anincreasingnumberofstudiessuggestthatresearchpublishedasopenaccessismuchmorelikelytobereadandcitedthanifitispublishedinink-on-paperformonly.

•Attach a record of all the various stages of the research they wish to record—frompre-refereeing,throughsuccessiverevisions,tothesubmit-

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle 4�

ted,refereed,edited,andjournal/publisher-certifiedpublishedversions,includinganysubsequentlycorrected,revised,orother-wiseupdateddrafts.AsKathleenFitzpatrickquiterightlyputsit:

Itmakesnosenseforelectronictextstomimicprintbybecom-ingfixed;electronictextsshouldbefreetocontinuetogrowanddevelopover time,but thatchangeshouldsomehowbemarkedwithinthetext,madevisibletoreaders.Inthisfash-ion,byenablinganauthortocontinueworkingonatextevenafteritspublication,butbymakingthehistoryofchangestothat textavailable, theprocessofanargument’sgrowthandchangecouldbecomepartofthetextitself.Thiswouldenable,inconjunctionwithcommentingtechnologies,theprocessesofacademicpublishingtoberadicallychanged,allowingau-thorstogetnewmaterialintocirculationmuchsooner.Schol-ars would no longer be at the mercy of the often appallingtime-lagsbetweenatext’ssubmissionandacceptance,andbe-tweenacceptanceandpublication.Instead,articlesandmono-graphs couldbeposted relatively early in their life-spans, aspre-printsorevensubmissions—perhapswithsomeindicationofthatstatus—andthenthedebateanddiscussionthattheyproduce, and the shifts in the author’s thinking that result,couldtakeplaceintheopen,aspartoftheprocessoftheworkitself.(Fitzpatrick2006a,n.p.)

•Link to underlying, background, and related research—featured onblogs,wikis,andonindividualandinstitutionalWebpages.

•Make their work available to anyone who can access it—andnotjusttothosewhocanaffordtopaytoreaditviajournalsubscriptions,bookcoverprices,interlibraryloans,photocopyingorthecostofaccessingonlinedatabasesandsoforth.Thisiscrucialtowhatisoftendesignated“thedevelopingworld.”Tohaveyourresearchrecognizedaslegitimate,youneedtobeabletosituateitinthecontextofotherresearchthatisperceivedasimportant.Thisre-quiresaccesstothatresearch,whichinturnrequiresmoney.Ifyouaregoingtowriteaboutpowerorbiopolitics, forexample,thenanunderstandingoftheworkofMichelFoucaultwouldberegardedbymany(notleastamongthempeer-reviewers)ases-sential.ButtoacquirethisknowledgeoftenrequiresFoucault’swritings tohavebeen translated intoa languageyoucanread,

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle50

andforyourinstitutionorlibrarytobeabletoaffordtopurchasethosetextsifyoucannotdosoyourself.YetasSolomonempha-sizes,“inthedevelopingworld,whichincludesapproximately80percentoftheworld’spopulation,evenmodestchargesforaccessorpublicationcanbebeyond theeconomicmeansof librariesandindividualswhowishtoaccessthematerialorwhowishtopublishtheirmaterial”(2006,n.p.).Theopen-accessapproachtoscholarly publishing is important not just for the developingworld,however,or for those insmallerandlesswealthy institu-tions,orforthosewhoarenotattachedtoinstitutionsatall.AsStevanHarnadpointsout,obviously“[r]esearchersindevelopingcountriesandatthelessaffluentuniversitiesandresearchinstitu-tionsofdevelopedcountrieswillbenefitevenmorefrombarrier-freeaccesstotheresearchliteraturethanwillthebetter-offinsti-tutions,butitisinstructivetoremindourselvesthateventhemostaffluentinstitutionallibrariescannotaffordmostoftherefereedjournals! None have access to more than a small subset of theentireannualcorpus”(Harnad2001/2003,n.p.).

•Make their work easily accessible, from (almost) any desktop, in any home, university, library, or school, twenty-four hours a day—whencomment-ingonwhatvaluenewtechnologiesenableproviders toaddtocontentJohnThompsonputsitlikethis:

Intraditionalsystemsofcontentprovision,accesstocontentis generally governed by certain spatial and temporal con-straints—librariesandbookstores,forinstance,arelocatedinspecificplacesandareopenforcertainhoursoftheday.Butcontentdeliveredinanonlineenvironmentisnolongergov-ernedbytheseconstraints: inprincipleit isavailabletwenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, to anyone who has asuitable internet (or intranet)connection. ...Thepersonalcomputer,locatedinaplaceorplaceswhichareconvenienttotheenduser,becomesthegatewaytoapotentiallyvastbodyofcontentwhichcanbeaccessedeasily,quickly,andatanytimeofthedayornight.(Thompson2005,318–19)

•Provide their audience, including fellow writers and researchers, post-graduate and undergraduate students, and the general public, with as many copies of their texts as they need—simply by supplying theirreaderswiththeURLaddresswheretheycanfindthemonthe

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle 51

netanddownloadthemforfreeorprintthemoffiftheyprefer.(Soitdoesn’tmatterhowmanypapercopiesofyourpublicationsyour institutional library can afford to buy—ten, five, one, ornone—studentswillstillbeabletoaccessandreadthetextsyouassignthem.)

• Link their teaching more closely to their research—this can be doneagainsimplyby including therelevantreferencesandURLad-dressesinlectures,teachingmaterials,lecturehandouts,andaspartofonlineteachingresources.

•Advertise and promote their texts for free—allauthorsneedtodoissend out the relevant URLs by e-mail. This enables individualwriters tobe farmoreaccurate andprecisewhen targetinganaudiencefortheirworksthanhasotherwisegenerallybeenthecase.Forinstance,theycansenddetailsdirectlytothosepeopleand groups whom they know will be interested: students, col-leagues,peers,andsoforth.

•Potentially increase reading figures, feedback, impact, and even sales of their paper publications—ratherthandetractingfromsales,asmanycommercialpublishersfear,publishingontheWebfrequentlyin-creasessalesofpapercopies,asthe(nowex)chairmanofFaberandFaber,MatthewEvans,acknowledgedinaconferenceaddress(2002).ThispointisalsoacceptedbyPenguin,thepublishersofLawrenceLessig’sFree Culture(2004).Penguinhasmadethisbookavailableonlineforfreetoprovetheir—andLessig’s—case.22

•Publish books and journals that have too small a potential readership or too long a “tail” in sales terms to make them cost effective for a “paper” publisher to take on—becausetheyareperceivedasbeingtoodif-ficult,advanced,specialized,obscure,esoteric,oravant-garde,orbecausetheyarewritteninaminoritylanguageoremergefromacultureorsubculturethathasarelativelysmallpopulation.

•Make their research “permanently” available—so authors no longerneedconcernthemselveswiththethoughtthattheirworkmaygooutofprintorbecomeotherwiseunavailable.23

•Republish texts that are rare, or forgotten, or out of print—andthisap-pliestojournalarticlesaswellasfull-lengthbooks.

•Revise and update their publications whenever they wish—soauthorsneednolongerbeanxiousabouttheirworkgoingoutofdate.

•Distribute their texts to an extremely wide (if not necessarily “global”) au-dience—ratherthanreachingmerelythespecificaudiencestheir

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle52

publishersthinktheycanmarketandselltheirworkto—inthecaseofculturalstudies,oftenprimarilytheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,andAustralia.Asapostingtothenettimelistconcern-inganotherfreeelectronicpublishingventure,theGlobalTextProject,24emphasizedwithregardtotextbooks(andCSeARCHisopentotextbooks,too),thesemaybe“consideredexpensiveinEuropeandtheU.S.,buttheyarefarbeyondthereachofmanyindevelopingeconomies.Forexample,a$108biologytextbooksellsfor$51inAfrica,buttheU.S.GNIpercapitais$41,400,andthefigureforUgandais$250.Obviously,thedevelopedworld’stextbookbusinessmodeldoesnotmeettheneedsofthoseinthedevelopingworld.Weneedapublishingmodelthatcanmeettheneeds of Uganda and the many other countries that are notamongtheWorldBank’shigh-incomecountries(thosewithGNIpercapitaabove$10,066)”(McCubbreyandWatson2006).

•Provide a means of opening out and continuing the discussion of their research—by using blogs, wikis, social networking sites likeMySpaceandYouTube,virtualenvironmentssuchasSecondLifeandothertools.

•Encourage browsing by enabling even those readers who still prefer to pur-chase a paper copy to read the texts concerned first—thisisincreasinglydifficult in the conventional bookselling market, as bookstoresare takingfewerandfeweracademic titles.Asaresult, theele-ment of chance and serendipity traditionally associated withbrowsing in a bookshop is brought back. (Both Amazon.com’s“SearchInsidetheBook”andGoogleBookSearchwithits“Part-nerProgram”havebeenexplicitlyconceivedtoprovideaserviceofthiskind,notleastwithaviewtoactingasamarketingtoolforbooksales.)

•Easily and quickly fulfill their obligations to funding bodies—in2006the United Kingdom Economic and Social Research Council(ESRC)followedtheleadsetbythelikesoftheU.S.NationalIn-stitutesofHealth(NIH),theEuropeanOrganizationforNuclearResearch(CERN),andtheWellcomeTrust,whohaveforsometimenowrequestedthatresearchersmaketheirresearchavaila-bleonanopen-accessplatform.TheESRCmadethedepositingof research outputs in an open-access repository a mandatoryconditionoftheawardoffundingfromOctoberofthatyearon-ward.25

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle 53

Inaddition,authorshaveall theadvantagesassociatedwithelec-tronicpublication,includingeaseofnavigationandsearching,speedofaccess,abilitytolinkcitationstootherelectronicpages,texts,sites,andresources(onlineencyclopediasandbookstoressuchasWikipediaandAmazon, for instance,or relevant e-mail lists anddiscussion fo-rums),andtoconnecttheirtextstoothermultimediamaterialingen-eral,includingvideo,streamingvideo,andaudiofiles.Toprovidejustonequickexample: individual journalarticlesarerarely included inlibrarycatalogues.Digitaltexts,however,canbeindexedeventothelevelofspecificwordsandphrases,andthecontentofwholecollectionssearchedona speedanda scale that isunthinkable inanon-digitalcontext.

Allthisisavailableforfree—tobothauthorsandtheirreaders.Justgotothisaddress:http://www.culturemachine.net/csearch.

Whatismore—anditisnodoubtworthemphasizingthispoint—thankstotheHarnad/Oppenheimpreprintandcorrigendastrategy,itisstillperfectlypossibleforculturalstudieswritersandscholarstogoontopublishresearchplacedinthearchiveinpreprintformasjournalarticles,andinmanycasesbookchapters,orindeedacademicmono-graphs;andtodosowithoutfearofinfringingcopyrightagreements.AccordingtoHarnad,avariationonthisstrategyevenworksretrospec-tively forresearch literature thathasalreadybeenpublished—some-thingthatislikelytobeofparticularinteresttothoseinculturalstud-iesandinthehumanitiesgenerally.Ofcourse,thepublisher’spolicy,license,orcopyrightagreementmayalreadyexplicitlypermittheself-archivingofeitherthefinaleditedandpublishedversionofthetext,oroftherefereedbutunedited“post-print,”asitiscalled.Happily,thisisbecomingincreasingly thecase,especiallyasmoreandmore institu-tionsandfundingbodiesare,asIsay,makingitmandatoryforresearch-ers todeposit the research they supportonanopen-accessplatformeitherimmediatelyuponpublicationorafteraspecifiedperiodoftime(usuallysomewherebetweensixmonthsandtwoyears).Butifthepub-lisher’spolicy,license,orcopyrightagreementdoesnotallowthis,oriftheauthorissimplynotsure,orforwhateverreasondoesnotfeelcom-fortableaboutdoingsojustyet,thenasalastresortHarnadadvocatesputtingtogether“arevised2ndedition!Updatethereferences,rear-rangethetext(andaddmoretextanddataifyouwish).Fortherecord,theenhanceddraftcanbeaccompaniedbya‘de -corrigenda’file,stat-ingwhichoftheenhancementswerenotinthepublishedversion”(Har-

why all sCholarship shoulD Be availaBle54

nad2001/2003,n.p.).26Infactthislastpoint—regardingtheabilitytoself-archiveopen-accessversionsoftextsthathavealreadybeenpub-lished,orthathavealreadybeenacceptedforpublication(asisthecasewithsomepermissionsaroundpostprints)—maybealmostas impor-tantasfarasculturalstudiesisconcernedasthecapacitytocircumventmanyoftherestrictionscopyrightagreementsplaceonaccessviatheposting of preprints. It certainly has the potential to render open-accessarchivingevenmoreapplicableandappealingtoafieldthat—partlybecauseitdoesnotplacesomuchemphasisonthespeedwithwhich the results of research are shared, published, and communi-cated—lacksthehistoryandcultureofthepreprintexchangeofmanysciencedisciplines.

DespiteeverythingIhavesaidsofar,however,theadvantagesthisprocessofferstoculturalstudiesteachingandresearcharenottheonlyreasonIaminterestedinopen-accessarchiving.Iamalsointerestedinitbecauseoftheethicalandpoliticalquestionsopen-accessarchiv-ing raises for academic and institutional authority and legitimacy,andthewayitpromisestotransformandredefineourrelationshiptoknowledge.

55

2

Judgment and Responsibility in the Wikipedia Era

Onespeaksoftentoday,perhapstoooften,ofthecuttingedge.Weshouldneverforget,however,thattocut,thatedgemustcutinmorethanonedirection:notmerelyintotheunknown,butintoestablishedknowledgeaswell.

—Samuel Weber, “The Future Campus: Destiny in a Virtual World,” 1999

A Section in Which the Author Explains Why So Many Academic Electronic Journals Remain to All Intents and Purposes PredigitalAsthereadermayhavegathered,itisnotmyintentionheretoprovideabroadaccountordetailedhistoryofthedevelopmentofopenaccess,itsphilosophy,theassociatedlegaldisputesanddebates,andthecasefor its economic, social, and intellectualbenefits.Anumberof textsavailablebothonlineandoffalreadycoverthesetopics.1 Besides,forallthatIhavewrittenDigitize This Book!,at least inpart,toadvocateforopenaccess tobeadoptedmoreextensively, in thehumanitiesespe-cially,Iamnotinterestedinopenaccesssomuchforitsownsake;myconcernhereismorewiththewayitprovidesuswithachancetothinktheuniversityotherwise,bothethicallyandpolitically.InthisrespectIwanttoconcentrateontwokeyissues.

Muchofthedebatesurroundingthedigitalreproduction,publica-tion, andarchivizationof theacademic research literaturehasbeentakenupwithtwomainareasofconcern.Thefirstoftheseisthatofcopyright, which Idiscussed in chapter 1; the second is quality con-trol—notinthesenseofthestandardofthetechnicalreproduction,publication,andarchivingoftexts,ortheiraccessibilitytothereader,

juDgment anD responsiBil ity5�

butthequalityofthearchivedworkitself:howtheestablishedstand-ardsofscholarshipandresearch,andthustheidentityandcoherenceofagivenfieldofstudy,canbemaintainedafterthetransfer,transla-tion,or,better,transcodingofscholarshipintothedigitalmedium.Thestatusandauthorityof scholarlywork is regardedas somehowbeingplacedinquestionbythedigitalmodeofreproduction;thereisevenacertainanxietyandapprehensionattendantonthischangeinthemate-rialsupportofknowledge.2And,tobesure,asJ.HillisMillerremarksinanarticlefrom1995on“TheEthicsofHypertext,”bypositioningthenormalandtheusualina“strangeanddisorientatingnewcontext,”newdigitalmediatechnologiesdoencourageus,oratleastprovideuswithachance(whichisalsoalwaysarisk),toseeacademicscholarshipandresearchagain,“inanewway,”asifforthefirsttime,andsoac-countforitandjudgeitanew(Miller1995,32,35).

Forexample,theprocessofestablishinganopen-accessarchive(asweshallsee,theestablishmentofanopen-accessarchiveisverymuchaprocess)immediatelyraisessomeintriguingquestions.Howis ittobedecidedwhatistobeincludedinsuchanarchiveandwhatisnot?Whatfactors leadtoaparticular textorworkbeingvalorizedasworthyofinclusion?Inshort,whatisgoingtoconstitutea“proper”pieceof,inthiscase,culturalstudieswritingorresearch?Withwhatauthority,ac-cordingtowhatlegitimacy,cansuchdecisionsbemade?Onwhatcrite-riaaretheyultimatelytobebased?

Currently,anacademictextacquiresacertainamountofauthorityand legitimacy in twoprimaryways.Thefirst,perhaps theeasiest todealwithinthiscontext,isbybeing“published.”Anynumberofpeoplecanwriteabook-lengthtextandprintitup,butifaworkis“published”itmeansaprofessionalpressconsideredthattextofsufficientvalueandqualitytobeworthbringingoutinbookform—which,aswehaveal-ready seen, nowadays means more and more that they thought theywouldbeabletosuccessfullymarket,distribute,andsellit.Itisimpor-tanttoemphasizethatthingshavenotalwaysbeenlikethis.Inaguidetosomeoftheperilsofpublishingforgraduatestudentswrittenbackin1998MeaghanMorrisnotesthat:

Therewasatime[andMorrisisonlytalkingaboutthemid-1980s]whenacademicbookswerepublishedbyheavilysubsidizeduniver-sitypresses anda fewcommercialpublishersprepared to carry aprestigelistataloss.Thissystemmateriallysustainedtheethosof

juDgment anD responsiBil ity 5�

“knowledgeasintrinsicallyvaluable”;agoodbook,containingorigi-nal thoughtandresearch, carefully reviewedbyexpertsanddulyrevised(oftenseveraltimes)forpublication,couldusuallyexpecttofindahomeirrespectiveofitschancesofmakingmoney.Thisisnolongerthecase.Bytheendofthe1990s,academicpublishingwasanindustrydominatedbyafewtransnationalcorporations(Routledge[since purchased by Taylor and Francis] is the best known) andasmallishnumberof largeuniversitypresseseitherforcedto livewithoutsubsidy,ordrawingupplanstodoso.Exceptions,likesmallpresses, do remain.On thewhole, most academicpublishers areincreasingly expected tobe self-sustaining, and thereforemakeaprofit.(Morris1998,501–2)

ThekindofopenaccessarchiveIamtalkingabouthere,however,iseffectivelyfreetothereader,sowhetheraparticulartextwillsellornotisnolongeraconsideration.Someonecanwriteabookonasubjectsomarginalandobscureitmaybeofinteresttoonlyoneotherpersonintheworld—whatyoumightcallarealmicro-publicornanoaudience—yetitmightstillbeworthincludinginsuchanarchive.Consequently,theeconomicsofpublishingisnolongersuchanimportantfactorwhenitcomestodecidingwhatanopen-accessarchiveofculturalstudies–relatedmaterialshouldcontain.

Thesecond,andmoreproblematic(atleastasfarasIamconcernedhere),wayinwhichthevalueandqualityofanacademicpieceofwrit-ingorresearchisdeterminedisbypeerreview.Giventhefactthatsomeformofpeerreviewusuallyconstitutespartoftheprocessofgettingpublishedinbothbookandjournalarticleform,onecouldsaythatthisisthemainwayinwhichtheworthofanacademictextismeasured.3(Changestotheacademicpublishingindustry,however,meanthattherigorofpeerreviewcanvary;thenewer“for-profit”commercialpub-lishersareoftentemptedtospendlesstimeandcareoneditingandrevising a text than the older “not-just-for-profit” or “not-necessarily-for-profit”universitypresses.)Withpeerreview,authors submit theirworkinthefirstinstancetoaneditor(whowillmostlikelybeanem-ployeeof thepublisher in the caseofbookpublishing, a fellowaca-demicinthatofthescholarly journal,orperhapssomecombinationofbothwithregardtoaneditedbookseries).4Iftheeditorconsidersthesubmittedpiecetobepotentiallyinterestingandstrongenoughtobeappropriateforpublication,theadviceofspecialistsinthefield—

juDgment anD responsiBil ity5�

peers—is sought. They review the text in question and report backtotheeditorastowhetherit issuitableforpublicationinitscurrentform;suitableforpublicationonlyafterappropriaterevisionsaremade;ornotsuitableforpublicationatall.Onlyoncethepiecehaspassedthroughthepeer-reviewprocesstothesatisfactionofbotheditorandrefereesisitacceptedforpublication.

Yetthechangefrompapertodigitalraisesquestionsforthisrigor-ous systemofquality control.Asanyonewhohas spentevena smallamountoftimeonlinecanconfirm,itisoftenhardtotellwhensurfingtheWebwhatexactly is legitimateknowledgeandwhat is not.Thisisbecauseelectronicpublicationsdonothavethesameauraofauthorityasaprofessionallyproducedpapertext.Aslongastheypossessabasicleveloftechnologicalknow-how,almostanyonecanpublishontheWebandmakeitlookreasonablyimpressivetoadegreetheycouldnotwitha self-published printed paper text, since the latter will tend to lackthequalityofpaper,typography,illustrations,andgeneralall-around“glossiness”ofaprofessionallyproducedtitle.Mostacademiconline-only journals have responded to this challenge to their authority byimitatingtheirpapercounterparts:5intheir“page”layout;theirpubli-cationofmaterialintheformof“essays”or“papers”writteninalinear,sequentialform;theirsizeandlength;theirrelianceoninternationaleditorial boards of established academics who have already proventhemselves in the “paper” world; and most especially in their peer-reviewingandcertificationprocesses.Theyhavedonesoinordertotrytoreassuretheuniversityaboutsomethingthatisstillrelativelynewbydemonstrating that theyareproviding recognizable formsofqualitycontrolandeditoriallegitimacywithinthisnewmedium.(Culture Ma-chine,theopen-accessjournalIcoedit,isasguiltyofthisasanyotherjournal,because if itwasn’t the likelihood ispeoplewouldn’t treat itparticularlyseriously.)6

The problem with the attempt to maintain academic authorityinthismannerafterthetransitiontothedigitalmediumisthat,first,itpositionselectronicpublishingmerelyasaprostheticextensionofprint—albeitoneofferinganimprovedlevelofperformanceintermsofthespeedofproduction,theamountofmaterialthatcanbestored,theeaseofinformationretrieval,thegeographicalrangeofdistribu-tionanddissemination,reductionsincostforreproductionandstaff-ing,andsoon.(Itisnotjustacademictextsthatdothis,ofcourse.Sincethe invention of the Web in the mid-1990s, perhaps the majority of

juDgment anD responsiBil ity 5�

digital publications have mimicked the form of the print magazinepage:theBBC’sWebsitebeingjustoneofthemostwell-knownexam-ples.)7Second,itassumes,evenaswemove(albeitnotinanysimple,linear,or teleologicalway)fromanepochof ink-on-paperreproduc-tiontoonethatoperatesincreasinglyintermsofbits,pixels,andcom-puterfiles,thatacademicsaregoingtocontinuetotakepapermoreorlessastheirmodel.Putanotherway,itpresupposesthatacademictextswillmaintaintheirtraditional,predigitalform,asderivedfromtheat-tributesofwriting,marking,ortracingonpaper,even when these texts are reproduced digitally; and that these textswill thereforecontinue toberecognizable asproper, legitimate, academicpiecesofworkas thesetermsaredefinedinandbythecodeorlanguageof“paper.”Third,theattempt tomaintain academic authority in thismannerupholds thebeliefthatdigitalacademictextscan,andindeedshould,thereforecon-tinuetobejudgedaccordingtosystemsofpeerreview—completewiththeirsocial,cultural,andeconomichierarchiesandfilters,standardsand values, rules and procedures—that have their basis, if not theirorigins,intheink-on-paperworld.

PapercentrismTheabovenodoubtexplainswhymanydigitaljournals—includingagood number of open-access publications—remain in effect largelypredigital, tied to the ink-on-paper template.Such “papercentrism” isnotconfinedtotheproductionofonlineacademicjournals,however.Asimilarsetofassumptionsunderpinsmanyofthebetter-knownopen-accessarchivingmodels.

TakeStevanHarnad’sinfluentialaccountofhowself-archivinginthelikesofthearXiv.orgE-PrintArchiveandCogprintscan“free”theresearchliterature.AccordingtoHarnad,thewayto“distinguishself-publishing (vanity press) from self-archiving (of published, refereedresearch),”and thusestablish the latter’s legitimacyandauthority, ispreciselybymeansofpeer-review.Becauseheisworkinginthesciences,wherethepriorityistopublisharticlesinthemostrespectedjournals,itistheprestigejournalpublisherandreviewerwhomheseesasprovid-ingthiselementofqualitycontrol:

Theessentialdifferencebetweenunrefereedresearchandrefereedresearch is quality-control (peer review, Harnad 1998/2000) anditscertification(byanestablishedpeer-reviewedjournalofknown

juDgment anD responsiBil ity�0

quality).Althoughresearchershavealwayswishedtogiveawaytheirrefereedresearchfindings,theystillwishthemtoberefereed,andcertifiedashavingmetestablishedqualitystandards.Hencetheself-archivingofrefereedresearchshouldinnowaybeconfusedwithself-publishing,foritincludesasitsmostimportantcomponent,theonlineself-archiving,freeforall,ofrefereed,publishedresearchpa-pers.(2001/2003,n.p.)

Thepublisherandrefereesoftheprestigejournalsupplycontrolqual-ity,then;thearchiveitselfisperceivedasmerelyprovidingaccesstothealready-certifieddata.Indeed,forHarnad,whoforallhistalkof“Sub-versiveProposals” (1994a)admits toadvocating “a veryconventionalformofqualitycontrol”(1994b),thisisthe“onlyessentialservicestillprovidedbyjournalpublishers...peerreview”(2001/2003,n.p.).

NotethepointHarnadmakesinparentheseswhenhewritesthatthe“essentialdifferencebetweenunrefereedresearchandrefereedre-searchisquality-control(peerreview)anditscertification(byanestab-lishedpeer-reviewedjournalofknownquality).”Online-onlyacademicjournalsareforthemostpartstillconsideredtoonewandunfamiliartohavegainedthelevelofinstitutionalrecognitionrequiredforthemtobe thoughtofasbeing“established”and“ofknownquality.”8Therelativelyfewonlinejournalsthathaveacquiredsuchastatushaveal-mostinvariablybeenabletodosoonlybymimickingtheirtraditionalprinted paper counterparts, especially and above all in their peer-reviewprocesses.AsHarnademphasizes,suchconventionaland“con-servative” (1998/2000, n.p.) forms of quality control are essential totheirbeingcertifiedas“established”and“ofknownquality”inthefirstplace. “Peer review itself isnotadeluxeadd-on for researchand re-searchers:Thisquality-controlserviceanditscertificationisanessen-tial(Harnad1998/2000).Withoutpeerreview,theresearchliteraturewouldbeneitherreliablenornavigable,itsqualityuncontrolled,unfil-tered,un-sign-posted,unknown,unaccountable”(2001/2003,n.p.).Sofor“establishedpeer-reviewedjournal”wecanreallyreadestablishedpeer-reviewed paper—or at least papercentric—journal. Harnad’s em-phasisonaccreditationbyestablishedpeer-reviewjournalsofqualitymeans, ineffect, that the legitimacyandauthorityofadigitally self-archivedacademictextisderivedfromandhasitsbasis intheworldofhard-copy, ink-on-paperpublishing.What ismore, this is thecaseregardless of whether this happens directly, by means of the sort of

juDgment anD responsiBil ity �1

peer-reviewserviceprovidedbyanactualpaper journal,orindirectly,viathatofanonline-onlyjournal“ofknownquality.”Foralthoughthemediumofthelattermaybedigital,accordingtowhatis(asweshallsee)aquitetraditionalparadoxofauthority,itsqualitycontrolproce-dure(andhencetheonlinejournalitself)isnecessarilydependentforits legitimacyona systemofpeer-review thathas its “origins” in thepaperworld,andwhichisinturndependentonthatworldforitsownauthority and legitimacy. That changes in the material support ofknowledgefrom“hard”toelectronicwill,accordingtoHarnad,“makeitpossibleforjournalstoimplement[peer-reviewprocedures]notonlymore cheaply andefficiently,but alsomoreequitably andeffectivelythanwaspossibleinpaper,”doesnothingtoalterthisstateofaffairs.Such changes represent merely a prosthetic extension and improve-mentoftheexisting“paper”practicesofpeerreview,asopposedtoarethinkingandaworkingoutofwhatmodesoflegitimationmightactu-allybeneededtorespondtothespecificityandsingularityofdigitalmodesofpublication.

Limited Ink: From the Database to Hyperness, by Way of Codework and Wikified TextsAllofthishassignificantconsequencesforthewayinwhichaproper,legitimatepieceofdigitallyreproducedacademicwritingisconceived,defined,andunderstood;and thushowonemightdecideorchoosewhattowelcomeintoanopen-accessarchiveandwhattocastout,whatisdeemedimportant, relevant,andvaluable,andwhatunimportant,irrelevant, and worthless. At this point questions of ethics—under-stood,accordingtothephilosophicaltraditionofJacquesDerridaandEmmanuelLevinas,asadutyandresponsibilitytowhatthelatterterms“the infinitealterityof theother”whoplacesme inquestionand towhomIhavetorespond—cometoimposethemselves(althoughtheywereneverreallyabsent).9Forinboththemodelsofelectronicpublish-ingwehavelookedatsofarinwhichpeerreviewisusedasameansofsustainingacademicauthority—thatofopen-accessjournalpublishing(the“goldenroad”toopenaccess)andopen-accessself-archiving(the“greenroad”)10—wecanseethatapapercentric,ifnotindeedthelit-eralink-on-paperform,isclearlybeingimposedontowritersofscholarlytexts.Whatismore,thisissoevenifatextisnotdestinedtoappearinprintatall,butistobepublisheddirectlyontheWebinanonlinejour-nal,ordepositedstraightfromtheauthor’spersonalcomputerintoan

juDgment anD responsiBil ity�2

e-printarchive.Evenifthereisnooriginal,ink-on-paperversion—neverhasbeenandneverwillbe—academictextsstillhavetobewritteninsuchawaythattheycanbepublishedinhardform(atleastpotentially)iftheyaretobecapableofgoingthroughthepeer-reviewprocessandreceivingaccreditation.WitnesstheexampleHarnadprovidesofthosepapers(“nooneknowshowmany,”hewritesinparentheses)initiallydepositedinarXiv.orgasunrefereedpreprints,butwhoseauthorsneverreplaced themwith thefinal revisedandpublisheddraft, eitherbe-cause they could not be bothered or because the pieces in questionwere never in fact actually accepted for publication. “The ‘InvisibleHand’ofpeerreviewisstillthere,”Harnadinsists,“exertingitscivilis-inginfluence,”sinceintheopen-accesse-printarchivingsystemas itcurrentlyexiststhesetextsarestillwrittenwithaviewtoappearinginapeer-reviewedjournalatsomestageinordertoreceiveaccreditation,eveniftheyneveractuallydo:

JustabouteverypaperdepositedinLosAlamosisalsodestinedforapeerreviewedjournal;theauthorknowsitwillbeanswerabletotheeditorsandreferees.Thatcertainlyconstrainshowitiswritteninthefirstplace.Removethatinvisibleconstraint—lettheauthorsbeanswerabletonoonebutthegeneralusersoftheArchive(orevenitsself-appointed“commentators”)—andwatchhumannaturetake itsnaturalcourse, standardserodingas theArchivedevolvestoward the canonical state of unconstrained postings: the free-for-allchat-groupsofUsenethttp://tile.net/news/listed.html,thatGlobalGraffitiBoardforTrivialPursuit—untilsomeonere-inventspeerreviewandqualitycontrol.(Harnad1998/2000,n.p.)

In order to be recognized as legitimate and gain accreditation,then,academicelectronictextsareoperatingontheprincipleof“lim-itedhospitality”:theyareineffectbeinglimitedandrestrictedtothatwhichcanbereproducedonpaper.Consequently,ifthereislittleevi-denceofculturalstudiesacademicsproducingtexts,orevenjournals,specificallydesignedtoexploittheuniquepropertiesoftheInternetandWorldWideWeb,assomehaveindeedclaimed,11thismayhaveasmuchtodowiththewayinwhichwritersofscholarlydigitalworksarebeingrequired,disciplinedeven,toseekcertificationinaformthatisnotnecessarilytheir“own,”butwhichisimposedonthembytheaca-demicinstitution,withitsalready-establishedrulesandproceduresof

juDgment anD responsiBil ity �3

legitimation, as with any lack of imagination or technical ability ontheirpart.12

Yetmustwereallyinsistthatdigitaltextsconformtothestandardsandhierarchiesofthepaperworldsothatwemightbeabletounder-standandjudgethemandhencepossibly includetheminaculturalstudiesopen-accessarchive?Isthisnottotaketoolittleaccountofthewaysinwhichelectronicwritingandpublishingmaydifferfromthatofink-on-paper,andthusriskrestrictingtheproduction,publication,andevenunderstandingofelectronictextstothatwhichismerelyarepeti-tionof thesame,orat least theverysimilar? Is therenotaveryrealdangerhereofignoringorexcludinganythingthatisnew,different,innovative, or exceptional, any heterogeneous excess that cannot berecuperatedwithinthelogicofidentity?Tounderstandthepotentialof,andthepossibilitiescreatedby,digitalmodesofreproductionandpublication,shouldn’twealsorequireacertainopennesstoalterity,tothe unknown, the unpredictable, and unexpected, to precisely thatwhichcannotberecognizedandsubsumedunderthefamiliar?

Whathappensifandwhenwritersandresearchersstopattemptingtotransferprint-basedaestheticsintotheelectronicmediumand,asisalreadyhappeningtoacertainextentinthesciencesandhumanities(and insomecontributions toCulture Machine),produceworkthat,al-thoughnotentirelynewordifferent,isneverthelessspecifictothedig-italmodeofpublication; texts thatarenotrestricted to thebookoressayformat,butthatare“borndigital,”andarethereforeperhapsnoteven recognizable as texts in the ink-on-paper sense?WithoutgoingintointeractiveartworksandthehypertextofBolter(1991)andKolb(1994,2000),whichinmanywaysseemsratherdatednow(nooffenseintended);norintothemanyopportunitiesthatarecreatedbythein-tegrationofothertypesofmaterialsupport,includingaudioandim-ages,bothmovingvideoclipsandstillphotographsandpictures—herearejustafewofthemanypossibleeasilyidentifiableexamplesofwhatcanhappen“ifandwhen.”

The DatabaseWhathappensifandwhen“writers”takethedatabase,notnecessarilyasLevManovichhassuggested,asthe“newsymbolicformof[the]com-puterage ...[andas]anewwaytostructureourexperienceofour-selvesandoftheworld”?Tomymindthatwouldbetotakeinsufficientaccountofthemanydivergencesbetweendifferenttypesofnewmedia.

juDgment anD responsiBil ity�4

(AsManovichacknowledges,notallnewmediaobjectsarecharacter-izedbyanabsenceoflinearnarrative,evenif“underneath,onthelevelofmaterialorganization,theyarealldatabases”—although,asN.Kath-erineHaylespointsout,Manovichappearsheretobebothcontradict-inghisclaimelsewherethat“notallnewmediaobjectsareexplicitlydatabases” [Manovich 2001, 221], and conflating databases with da-tastructures[Hayles2005,n.p.].)Itwouldalsobetooverlookthemanysimilarities thatexistbetween“new”and“old”media.Butwhathap-penswhenwriterstakethedatabaseatleastasamodelforstructuringtextsthat“donottellstories;theydonothaveabeginningorend;infact,theydonothaveanydevelopment,thematically,formallyorother-wise that would organize their elements into a [fixed] sequence. In-stead,theyarecollectionsofindividualitems...onwhichtheusercanperformvariousoperations: view,navigate, search”(Manovich1998,n.p.;2001,218–19).ItiscertainlynothardtoimagineasituationwhereDigitize This Book!andtheCulturalStudiese-Archive,insteadofbeingseparate,astheysupposedlyarenow—thebookandthearchive,the“textual”andthe“real,”the“theoretical”andthe“practical”(astateofaffairs that reinforces those academic hierarchies that privilege thepapermeansofmaterialsupportoverthedigitalthroughthegreaterstatusawardedtotheformerwhenitcomestopublishingjournals,at-tracting funding, making academic appointments, and so on)—arecombinedtoformamultiplicitoustext/database/institutionthatisin-deed“borndigital.”

CodeworkWhathappensifandwhentextsareproducedinwhichthetechnicalandculturalpracticesofelectronicwritingarecombined,asinthecaseofcodeworks?Herenotionsofauthorshipareproblematized,ascode-works areproducedbyentitiesor avatars suchasMez,Antiorp, andJODI,whichmayormaynotbemachinic,andwhichblurthebounda-riesbetweenartandwriting,poeticlanguageandcomputercode.13

BlogsWhathappensifandwhenacademicspublishtheirresearchandideasintheformofweblogs?Ofcourse,forlargenumbersofacademicsweb-logsamounttolittlemorethanonlinediariesandscrapbooks.Forin-creasingnumbersofothers,however,theyarecomingtoberegardedasahighlyeffectivemeansbywhichwritersandresearcherscanaccess

juDgment anD responsiBil ity �5

peopleinthecommunityatlarge,thusenteringthepublicsphereofdebateandenablingthemtobecome,ineffect,aformofpublicintel-lectualforthetwenty-firstcentury.14Thatsaid,eventhemostardentofadvocateswouldacknowledgethatpublishinginanacademicblogisverydifferent,intermsofitsstatusandcredibility,topublishinginarefereedacademicjournal,simplybecausethetwomodesofreproduc-tionarenotsubjecttothesamekindsofpeerreview.Indeed,foralltheir burgeoning popularity with academics—Michael Bérubé, JodiDean,MelissaGregg,andTedStriphasare justa fewof those inthecultural studies field experimenting with the form15—it remains un-clearastoexactlyhowacademicblogsaretobeevaluatedandassessed.Whenbloggingisundertakenbyacademics,shoulditbeconsideredaprivate,amateurhobby,partoftheirprofessionalresponsibilityaspub-liclyfundedscholars,orassomethinginbetween?Thisquestiontakesonanevengreaterurgencywhen it comes tohiringandpromotioncommittees,asthecaseofJuanColetestifies.InJuly2006The Chronicle of Higher Education publishedadiscussionamongsevenacademicblog-gersprovokedbyspeculationthatColehadfailedtoacquireapositionatYaleUniversitybecauseofhisbloggingactivities.Shouldacademicswhopublishtheirideasandresearchintheformofblogs,andareabletoreachalargeaudienceindoingso(Cole’sblogisreportedtoreceive200,000viewersamonth),expecttohavesuchworktakenintoaccountinthesamewayasthosewhopublishpredominantlyinbooksandref-ereedjournals?16

Wikified TextsWhathappensifandwhentextsarecoauthoredbylargegroupsofof-tenanonymouspeople(fromacertainperspectiveatleast)usingwikis,freecontent,andopen-editingprinciples?17WithoutdoubtWikipediais themostwellknownof these,but there isalsoDigg, thenewssitewherethecommunityofreadersthemselvesdonatenewsstoriestheyhavefoundontheWeb,inblogs,podcasts,Websites,andsoforth,andotherreadersthenvoteonthem;thestorythatreceivesthemostvotesisthenputonthefrontpage.18InamovedirectlyinspiredbyWikipe-dia,TheInstitutefortheFutureoftheBookalsoputMcKenzieWark’sthenwork-in-progressGAM3R 7H30RY(2006)onlineinaseriesofWebpages,eachofwhichcontainedaparagraphfromthebookandaboxwherepeoplecouldposttheirresponsestoandcommentsonWark’swriting.Wark’sprojectwasmoreaformofopenpeercommentaryand

juDgment anD responsiBil ity��

openpeerreview(orevenpeer-to-peerreview)thananinstanceofthekindofopeneditingfoundonWikipedia;ofpotentiallymoreinterest,the writer Douglas Rushkoff was reported to be exploring writing awikifieddoctoraldissertationatUtrechtUniversityinwhicheitherthebasicskeletonofhisthesisisbuiltuponbyvolunteers,orhisoriginalcontent is “nestedwithin layersofmaterialcontributedbycollabora-tors”(Vershbow2006).19

HypernessWhathappensifandwhentheveryconceptof“text”becomes,asAndyMiahhasargued,“increasinglyuninterestingoruseless”?—aswritersusesoftware,suchasMacromedia’sFlash,whichhastheeffectofren-deringthetextmoreas“imagethantext,ungraspableandflat,layeredwithavirtualandinvisiblehyperness...[and]thesub-levelofhyper-ness,whichisreallywhatisofinterestwhendiscussinghypertext,de-rivesfromthenatureofthebrowser,ratherthansomenewcharacter-isticoftext”(2003).20

A New Code of the Digital?Onedoesnot evenhave to resort solely to suchavant-garde texts todrawattentiontothisissue.Audioandvideointerviewsorrecordingsofconferencetalksandproceedingscanbefoundonmanyacademic-relatedWebsites.These,too,donotconformtothetraditionalformatofacademicscholarlywriting;nordothevideosofuniversitylecturesthatare increasinglyappearingonYouTube. Indeed, thesameprob-lematicisafeatureofeventhemostconventionaldigitallyreproducedonlineacademicjournal,astheveryweb-likestructureoftheWebof-tenmakesitdifficulttodeterminewheretextsend—orbegin,forthatmatter.Allthecuttingandpasting,graftingandtransplanting,inter-nalandexternallinkinginvolvedmeansthattheboundariesbetweenthetextanditssurroundings,itsmaterialsupport,areblurredandcanbecomealmostimpossibletodetermineonline—justastheboundariesseparatingauthors,editors,programmers,producers,consumers,us-ers,andcommentators/criticsareblurred.“Allthismaysoundfineandlargely innocuousbut scholarsandresearchers stake theircareeronwell-definedproducts,thatistosayobjectsendowedwithstabilityrela-tivetotimeandplace....Ingoingdigital,textslosethisphysicalstabil-ity,thisguaranteeofpermanence.Again,thismaylooksomewhatin-consequentialuntilwestopandthinkthatthewholeideaoftheauthor

juDgment anD responsiBil ity ��

dependsonit”(GuédonandBeaudry1996,n.p.).(Certainly, thisas-pectofnewmedia—itschallengingof theauthor function—ismorelikelytocreateproblemsforcopyright,itseemstome,thanthe“aca-demicgifteconomy”[Barbrook1998]andtheopen-accesspublishingandarchivingofresearchandpublicationsperse.)

How, then,are such texts tobe judgedandassessed?Are they tobejudgedandassessed?Oraretheysimplytobedismissedasbeingsomehowimproperorillegitimatebecausetheycannoteasilyberepro-ducedinink-on-paperform,andsoareincapableofreceivingaccredi-tationbytheestablishedpeer-reviewprocesses?21Onwhatbasiscanwemakesuchdecisions?Arethepre-establishedpaperstandardsandcri-teria for judging, reviewing, and certifying academic work sufficientfor responding responsibly anddoing justice todigitally reproducedtexts;textswhosefluid,unfinished,networkedformmeanstheymightneverread—orbewritten,forthatmatter—inthesamewaytwice,andwhichoftenrenderhighlyproblematicthedistinctionsonwhichcriti-calinterpretationtraditionallydepends:reader/writer,inside/outside,beginning/end, human/machine and so forth? Or does the (poten-tially) radicallydifferentnatureof electronicpublishing require theinventionofnewstandardsandcriteriaforthemaintenanceof“qualitycontrol”?Perhapsweneedanewknowledge, anewgrammar, anewlanguageandliteracy,anewvisual/aural/linguisticcodeofthedigitalthatiscapableofrespondingtothespecificityandindeedsingularityofsuchtextswithanansweringsingularityandinventiveness?22

The Parasite and the GuestNowyouwillnoticeIamnotsuggestingthatalljudgmentanddecision-making—orpeerreview,forthatmatter—besomehowdoneawaywith.Ifpeopleareabletoself-archive,touploadmaterialintoanopen-accessrepositoryofthiskindthemselves(which,asfarasboththearXiv.orgE-PrintArchiveandtheCulturalStudiese-Archiveareconcerned,theyare),23iftheyareabletodosobeforepeerreview(ditto),iftheyareabletodosoevenwithouteverfinallysubmittingtheirworkforpeerreview(likewise),howisthe“parasite”tobedistinguishedfromthe“guest,”the welcome contribution to the field—in this case that of culturalstudies(butwecouldraisesimilarquestionsregardingliterarystudies,philosophy,andindeedthehumanitiesandknowledgeingeneral)—fromtheunwanted,theillegitimate,theunimportant,theirrelevant,theunworthy,thatwhichiswithoutqualityormerit?Traditionalmoral

juDgment anD responsiBil ity��

philosophyteachesusthatwecanonlymakesuchethicaldecisionsifwehavealaw,rule,orsetofproceduresthatenactalimitingjurisdic-tion,thatallowustochoose,to judge,todiscriminate, todeterminevalueandworth,andconsequentlytosort,reject,eject,orexclude.Cer-tainly,whenitcomestoquestionsofdisciplinarity,institutionalization,andofarchiving,itisstillnecessarytochoose,tojudge,andtomakedecisions;toelect,filter,andselectwhatistobecontainedinthear-chiveandwhatisnot;acertainexerciseofpower,andwithitacertaininjustice,thustakesplaceimmediatelywhenanarchiveisfounded.24InfacttheresponsibilityofchoosingorjudgingIamreferringtoisines-capable.Thisresponsibilitycertainlycannotbeeludedbyrefusingtochooseortodecide;bytryingtohaveacompletelyopensystem(asifsuchathingwerepossible)withnoformofpeerrevieworothermeansfor the assessment of contributions at all. For one thing, that wouldleavethespaceofjudgmentemptyandthusavailabletobeingfilledinandoccupiedbythereturningdominantmodesofpower,judgment,authority,andlegitimation.Foranother,itwouldinnowayfreeusfromtheresponsibilityofmakingadecision,assucharefusalwouldstillbeadecision,onlyapoorone,sinceitwouldnotbeconsciouslyassumingtheresponsibilityofdeciding.25

Butifresponsibilitycannotbeeludedbyrefusingtojudgeorde-cide,neithercanweridourselvesoftheresponsibilityofjudgingandofmakingadecisionbydecidingonceandforallwhattherulesandval-uesgoverningourchoicesanddecisionsare—thattheyaregoingtobethoseofthesystemcurrentlyusedwithregardtoink-on-paperpublish-ing,peerreview;ortheproceduresofpeerreviewandpeercommen-tarythatStevanHarnadoversawatthepeer-reviewedpaperjournalof“openpeercommentary”hefoundedandediteduntil2001,Behavioral and Brain Sciences,andtheonline-onlypeer-reviewedjournalofopenpeercommentaryhestilledits,Psycoloquy;orthesystemofpeer-to-peerreviewadvocatedbyKathleenFitzpatrickandTheInstitutefortheFu-tureoftheBook—andthattheserulesandvaluesaregoingtoapplytoeverything,inallforeseeablecircumstances.26AsJacquesDerridaquiterightlysaysinatextthat,likethisone,isverymuchconcernedwiththepragmaticsofdeconstruction(althoughwhichofDerrida’s isn’t?),“ifyougiveuptheinfinitudeofresponsibility,thereisnoresponsibility”(1996a,86).

juDgment anD responsiBil ity ��

We Have Always Been DigitalJudgmentanddecision-making, then,cannotbeabandonedordoneawaywith.Theproblemisratherwiththeauthorityofanysuchjudg-mentanditsmodeofperformance.Therules,procedures,standards,andcriteriabywhichjudgments,interpretations,selections,anddeci-sionsaremadeinthepaperworldregardingcertificationandaccredi-tationcannotsimplyandunquestioninglybeextendedandappliedtoelectronictexts.ThisiswhyitisnotsufficienttorespondtoGreenblatt’s(2002)requestforsolutionstotheproblemofthedeclineinacademicmonographpublishingbycalling,assomehavedone,forresearchtobeputontheInternet,andforequalvalueandstatustobeattachedtopeer-reviewedonlinepublications.27Digitalpublishingcannotauto-maticallybeassumedtobemerelyaprostheticextensionofink-on-pa-perpublishing.Thatwouldbetotaketoolittleaccountofthepotentialdifferenceandspecificityoftheelectronicmedium,itsmaterialformand properties, as represented by the hardware, software, operatingsystem,browser,programmingcode,graphicalinterface,icons,frames,hyperlinks, location-sensitive pull-down tables, multiple-windowedscreensandtheabilitytoadd,copy,delete,refresh,andreformatcon-tent(toprovidejustafewofthemostobviousexamples).28Infact, itcouldbearguedthatnodecisionorjudgmentwouldbemadehereatall,thatitwouldrepresentarefusalofresponsibility.Forifonealreadypresumes to know the rules, laws, values, and procedures by whichsomethingis tobedecidedandassessed, ifoneimaginesthatoneisalreadyfamiliarwiththatwhichistobejudged—again,inthisparticu-larcase,culturalstudies,whatitis,whatformittakes,howitistoberecognized,andthuswhatisworthincludinginaculturalstudiesopen-accessarchiveandwhatisnot—thenthereisnojudgmentordecision.Itsplaceistakenbythemereapplicationofarule,law,orprogram.Inorderfortheretobeadecision,theidentityofculturalstudiescannotbeknownordecidedinadvance.AsDerridaputsitalittleearlierinthesame text, “if there is a decision, it presupposes that the subject ofthedecisiondoesnotyetexistandneitherdoestheobject. ...EverytimeIdecide,ifadecisionispossible,Iinventthewho,andIdecidewhodecideswhat”(1996a,84).Iwouldeventakethissofarastoinsistthatthisinjunctionappliesnotjustto“new”culturalstudiestexts:thosethat have yet to be published or receive academic accreditation; or

juDgment anD responsiBil ity�0

those that emanate from formations of cultural studies outside theAnglo-American/Australiannexus—fromplacessuchasCanada,Hol-land,Finland,Turkey,SouthAfrica,Brazil,Taiwan,Singapore,SouthKorea, Japan, Poland—and that therefore do not always necessarilylooklike“culturalstudies”asithasbeentraditionallydefined,perhapsbecausetheydonotsharetheformer’santiestablishmentbeginnings,orconcernswithanotionofpoliticsandsocial justicebasedoneco-nomicequality.Iwouldarguethatitappliestothe“whole”ofthecul-turalstudiescorpusorcanon,tothehistoryofwhatisthoughtorun-derstoodtobeculturalstudies.Inshort,andshockingasitmaybetosome, regardlessof thecopyright issues,wecannotdepositdigitizedversionsof,say,RaymondWilliams’sCulture and Society(1958)orStuartHall et al.’s Policing the Crisis (1978) in the archive, confident in theknowledge that the authority and legitimacyof these texts as classicworksof cultural studies is alreadyassured:byhistory, thefield, thediscipline.Wecannotdosoforthesimplereasonthatthiswouldagainbetomerelyapplyapre-givenruleorprogram.(Whichisnottosaysuchclassictextswouldnotbeincluded,justthatthisdecisioncannotbemadeautomatically,inadvance.)

Still,ifjudgmentcannotbeavoided,neithercanthequestionofthestatusandlegitimacyofdigitalacademicworkberesolved,asonemightinitially be tempted to think, through the development of decision-makingsystems,peer-reviewingprocedures,andrulesfortheprovisionofcertificationandaccreditationcateringspecificallyfortextsthatareborndigital.Itisnotamatterofelectronicpublishingsimplybeingdif-ferent from paper publishing, in a manner akin to the way in whichmanypeoplehavepointedoutthattoteachonlineyouneedtodomorethanmerelyput yourcoursematerialson theWeb,experimentwith“course-casting”—usingwebcastingandpodcastingtorecordlecturesasaudioorvideofilesandthenmake themavailable for students todownloadontotheircomputersoriPods—orholdseminarsinSecondLife.29Theproblemgoesmuchdeeperthanthat,totheextentthatthedigital mode of reproduction raises fundamental questions for whatscholarlypublishing(andteaching)actuallyis;indoingsoitnotonlyposesathreattothetraditionalacademichierarchies,butalsotellsussomething about the practices of academic legitimation, authority,judgment,accreditation,andinstitutioningeneral.Infact,echoingacritiqueofthestructureofthesignthatwasfirstproducedbyDerridasomeyearsagoandthathasmorerecentlybeenreplayedbyBernard

juDgment anD responsiBil ity �1

Stiegler(2002),Iwanttoriskthefollowingpropositionorhypothesis:thatacademicauthorityisalready“digitized”;thatitisinasensealwaysalready in a similar condition to that which is brought about by theprocessofdigitization.

The Process of InstitutionalizationNodoubtatfirstblushmylastpointmayseembizarre.ToexplainwhatImean,letmeturntooneoftheplaceswherequestionsofinstitutionaljudgment,legitimacy,andresponsibilityhavebeenmostpowerfullyar-ticulatedinrecentyears.

Inwhatisstillhisbest-knownandmostinfluentialbook,Institution and Interpretation,SamuelWebershowshowinstitutionalizationcanbeconstrued rather differently from how it has traditionally been con-ceived.“Thedominanttendency,”Weberwrites,followingtheworkofRenéLourau,“hasbeentoreducetheconcepttoonlyoneofitsele-ments:themaintenanceofthestatusquo,andtherebytoeliminateitsdynamic,transformativeaspect”(Weber1987,xv).Inotherwords,in-stitutionalizationhasbeentakenforgranted;ithasbeenperceivedassomethingthatalreadyexistsandisestablishedandthatjustneedstobedescribed,ratherthanasaprocesstobeunderstood.Weber,bycon-trast,putsforwardanotionofinstitutionalization“inwhichinstitutedorganizationandinstitutingprocessarejoinedintheambivalentrela-tionofeverydeterminatestructuretothatwhichitexcludes,andyetwhich,quaexcluded,allowsthatstructuretoset itself apart”(xv).

Weber’sanalysisoftheprocess of institutionalization(expoundedinanumberofbooksandarticles,includingarecentlyreprintedandex-panded[2001]versionofInstitution and Interpretation),istoorichandmultifacetedtoenableanythingmorethanapartialaccountofittobeprovidedhere.30Besides,itisperhapssufficientlywellknownbynow,andhasbecomesoabsorbedintothemainstreamofliteraryandcul-turaltheory(evenifthe“origins”ofthiskindofinstitutionalanalysiswithWeberare,ironicallyenough,notalwaysexplicitlyacknowledgedorevenrecognized),astomakeanyattemptatacomprehensivesum-marysuperfluous.SoletmejustreplayafewofwhatItaketobeitsmostpertinentfeatures,atleastasfarasthequestionofthemaintenanceofacademicqualityandlegitimacyisconcerned.

Ofparticularinterestfromthepointofviewofrethinkingtheuni-versityisthewayinwhichadiscipline,forWeber,canonlyinstituteit-

juDgment anD responsiBil ity�2

selfbyaidofwhatliesoutsideit,bydistinguishingitselffromthatwhichit isnot,what it excludesorexpels from its limits.He identifies thisprocedureasbeing“highlycharacteristicoftheorganizationofknowl-edgeinmodernsociety,”andnotesthatit“hasdevelopedwithproblem-aticintensityinwhatwecallthehumanities”(137–38)(itselfaconceptcurrentlyintheprocessofbeingreplacedformanycommentatorsbyculturalstudies,althoughWeber’schiefconcernherelieswiththatpartof thehumanities“dedicatedto literarystudies”).31Significantly, thisprocessofdelimitationanddemarcation,whichenablesthedisciplinetoestablishthedifferenceofitsownidentityasaself-contained,inde-pendent,andautonomousdomainofknowledge,doesnotentail thecompleteandtotalrejectionofwhatitisnot;“rather, the exclusions persist qua exclusions, and theymustbe somaintained if theyare todelimitwhatfallswithinthescopeof[thediscipline’s]determinations”(1987,145).Insteadofbeingabletoforgetaboutwhatithasexpelledandgoaboutitsbusiness,then,thedisciplinehastocontinuallyrefertothatwhichliesoutsideitslimits.ThisresultsinwhatWebertermsthe“am-bivalence of demarcation”:“Thedemarcationisambivalentbecauseitdoesnotmerelydemarcateonethingbysettingitofffromanother;italsode-marks,thatis,defacesthemarkitsimultaneouslyinscribes,byplac-ingitinrelationtoanindeterminableseriesofothermarks,ofwhichwecanneverbefullyconsciousorcognizant”(145).

Atthispointitbecomespossibletodetectacertaininstabilityintheprocessofinstitutionalization(aninstabilitythatIwanttoarguecre-atesourfirstproblemwhenitcomestothinkingaboutwhattoincludeinaculturalstudiesopen-accessarchive).32Forifadisciplineisdepend-entforitsidentityonwhatitisnot,onwhatitexpelsoutsideitsborders,ifitcandelimititsinternalcoherenceasanidentifiable,recognizable,andautonomousbodyofthoughtonlybymeansofthis“ ‘exclusionary’activity”(138),thenitcannotbeeitherself-identical,independent,au-tonomous,orself-contained.Whatismore,thisirreduciblecomplica-tioninitsidentitydoesnotcomealongaftertheformationofthedisci-plineinitsideal,self-containedpurityandunity.Rather,thisrelation,thiscontaminationbytheother,bywhatispositionedasbeingoutsideandheterogeneoustoit,isoriginary:itcomesbeforetheestablishmentofthediscipline’sidentityandisinfactwhatmakesthedisciplineanditsfoundingpossible(andsimultaneouslyimpossible).Thedisciplineis thus always opened to its others: other academic disciplines andotherformsofknowledge,bothlegitimateandillegitimateornotyet

juDgment anD responsiBil ity �3

legitimate;butalsootherformsofwhatforshortmightbecalled“non-knowledge”(althoughthistermisnotwithoutproblems).

Now, according to Weber, this process of de-markation effectivelyneverends.Nevertheless,ifitistotakeplaceatallitmustbebroughttoahalt:“Wemustbothreferthedefiningtermstoothermarksthatcanneverbefullydefinedforusandatthesametime—butthispreciselyfracturestheSamenessofthatTime—wemust‘forget’thisirreduciblyundefinablevestige,thissetofexclusionsthatisneitherentirelyinde-terminatenorfullydeterminable”(145).Inthisway,Weber’sanalysishelpsustorecognizethatanysuchdifferentiationorde-markationthatgoestoinstituteadiscipline—thejudgmentordecisionastowhattoincludeandwhattoexclude,whatshouldbetakeninsideandwhatex-pelled—isaninherentlyunstableandirreduciblyviolentone:thevio-lenceinherentinthisde-markation,theforcefularrestationofthein-herentinstabilityofthediscipline’slimits,canneverbedisarmed;theinstabilitycanneverberemovedonceandforall:onlydegreesofmoreorlesscontrolarepossible.

Whatwecanalsoseefromtheaboveisthatatthediscipline’sfound-ingthereisanaporia of authority.Forwheredoestheauthoritytostopthisendlessprocessofde-markationandestablish—institute—adisci-plinebysettingitselfapartfromothers,fromwhatitisnot,comefrom?Adisciplinecannotfounditself.Thatwouldrequireittoalreadypos-sess such authority. This authority must come from somewhere else,somewherethatisoutsidethedisciplineandthatprecedesit.Adisci-pline is thus indebtedtosomeother,externalauthority for its legiti-macy.Andyetthesearchfororiginsandlegitimacydoesnotend,orbegin,there.Forevenifthisexternalauthoritywereexaminedinturnitwouldnotenablethedisciplinetoescapetheaporiathatliesatitsheart. For where would that authorizing authority gain its authority?Itwouldhavetocomefromoutsidethatauthorizingauthority,whoseauthorizingauthoritywould in turncomefromoutside itsauthority,in a process leading to a series of infinite regressions. As far as theuniversity isconcerned—which iswheredisciplinesdogainmuchoftheirauthority—itsaccreditation,itslegitimacyasaseatoflearning,itspowertoawardtitlesofcompetency,doescomesfromelsewhere,fromoutside:thisauthorityisgrantedtotheuniversitybythestate,viaac-crediting agencies. (In Britain these include the Quality AssuranceAgencyandtheBritishAccreditationCouncil.)Butfromwheredoesthestategainitsauthority?33

juDgment anD responsiBil ity�4

Of course (and continuing to move quite quickly across Weber’svariousanalysesinInstitution and Interpretation,forreasonsofeconomy),inordertofunctionasalegitimatelyinstitutedfieldofknowledgethedisciplinemustineffectoverlookorforgetallthis,andactinsteadasifitisbeholdentonoonebutitselfforitsauthority—althoughitcannotforgetitsindebtednessentirely,sinceitisupontheambivalenceofde-marcationandtheaporiaofauthoritythatthedisciplineisfounded.34Thedisciplinethusseekstoovercomeitsunstableandviolentnaturebyperformativelyproducingasetof“founding”principlesandproceduresfortheinstitutionandreproductionofitselfanditsoriginalguidingidea. These principles and procedures form the basis of the variousrules,regulations,laws,norms,protocols,andconventionsconcerningtheidentityofitsfoundingthinkers,theirfollowersandinterpreters,itscanon and pedagogical techniques, as well as its various forms andstylesofwriting,publication,researchassessment,andsoonthatgotomakeupthediscipline,definingitssphereofcompetenceandprovid-ingthemeansbywhichitdevelops.Theproblemisthatasthedisci-plinedoesproceedtodevelop,increasinglylittleattentionispaidtotheviolentandparadoxicalauthorityonwhichitisbased.Describingsomeofthedistinctivefeaturesofthe“cultureofprofessionalism”astheyap-pearwithintheuniversity,Weberputsitlikethis:

The university, itself divided into more or less isolated, self-containeddepartments,wastheembodimentofthatkindoflimiteduniversalitythatcharacterisedthecognitivemodelofprofessional-ism.Itinstitutedareasoftrainingandresearchwhich,onceestab-lished,couldincreasinglyignorethefoundinglimitsandlimitationsofindividualdisciplines.Indeed,theverynotionofacademic“seri-ousness”cameincreasinglytoexcludereflectionupontherelationofone“field” toanother,andconcomitantly,reflectionuponthehistoricalprocessbywhichindividualdisciplinesestablishedtheirboundaries.Orthehistoricaldimensionwasregardedasextrinsictotheactualpracticeofresearchandscholarship:historyitselfbe-cameonedisciplineamongothers.(1987,32)

It isnotsurprisingthatprofessionalscholarsandacademicshaveforthemostpartfollowedtheseprocedureswithregardtofoundingprin-ciplesanddisciplinaryborders.Afterall,todootherwisewouldinvolvetheminbringingtheirownlegitimacy,basedonwhatWeberanalyzes

juDgment anD responsiBil ity �5

asthe“professionalist paradigm of knowledge,”intoquestion:“Theregula-tiveideaofthisparadigmisthatoftheabsolute autonomy of the individual discipline,construedasaself-containedbodyofinvestigativeproceduresandofknowledgeheldtobeuniversallyvalidwithintheconfinesofanunproblematizedfield”(147).35However,asIsay,itmeanslittleatten-tionispaidtotheirreduciblyparadoxicalandinevitablyviolentnatureofthediscipline’sownfoundation.Whenevertheissueofitslegitimacyisraised,thedisciplinemerelyresortstonarrativemyth-makingofonesortoranother,(re)tellingthestoryofitsfoundation,andtherebygen-eratingeffectsoflegitimacythroughrepetitionthatcanonlyultimatelybemaintainedthroughviolenceandforce.

The University Lives On/OnlineReturningtothesubjectofopenaccessandthearchive,wecanseethatnowherearetheimplicationsofWeber’sanalysisoftheinstitutionandof the process of instituting more apparent than with regard to thequestionofthemaintenanceofacademicqualitycontrolandcertifica-tion.Whonowqualifiesasabona fidepeer-reviewer,referee,fundingapplication assessor, RAE panelist, or hiring, tenure, or promotioncommitteemember?Andwithwhatlegitimacyaretheyabletomakethedecisionastowhattoprivilegeandwhattodenigrateorexcludefromagiveninstitution,discipline,journal,orarchive?Onthebasisoftheirmembershipintheprofession?Theirpublicationrecord?Theircompletionofacertifiedcourseoftraining?Theirpositioninarecog-nizeduniversitydepartment?AsGeoffreyBenningtonhasnotedwhencommentingonthemannerinwhich“thelegislatorisalways,undecid-ably,alsoacharlatan,”atthetimeofthelegislator’s“coming,itisimpos-sibletodecideastohislegitimacy—inviewofquitetraditionalpara-doxesofauthority,thefinalestablishmentofthatlegitimacycanonlybeprojectedintoaninfinitefuture.Theradicallyperformativelayingdownofthelawbythelegislatormustcreatetheverycontextaccordingtowhichthatlawcouldbejudgedtobejust:thefoundingmoment,thepre-,isalwaysalreadyinhabitedbythepost-”(1990,132,131–32).

Inthisrespect,Weber’sanalysisprovidesatleastonemeansofex-plainingsomeoftheproblemsStevanHarnadgetshimselfintoregard-ingtheopen-accessself-archivingofe-prints.Indeed,Harnad’sattempttoinstituteandinstitutionalizetheself-archivingofe-printsappearstoofferanalmostexemplaryillustrationofWeber’sanalysis.Witnessthewayinwhichtheacademiclegitimacyprovidedbytheestablishedpa-

juDgment anD responsiBil ity��

percentricsystemofpeerreviewiswhatunderpinsthemechanismofqualitycontrolintheopen-accessself-archivingsystemforHarnad:thisenablesthefieldofe-scholarshiptodistinguishbetweenthatwhichislegitimateandthatwhichisnot,andthusmaintainorderandstand-ards.Atthesametimethelegitimacyofthis“established”peer-reviewsystemisrarelythoughtabout,interrogated,ordiscussedinHarnad’sworkonopenaccess.WhatisimportanttoHarnad,forallhistalkabouttheimportanceofpeerreview(1998/2000;2001/2003),isnotthetak-ingofthisissueseriously,butthetakingofitforgranted.Yethowarethe judgments, decisions, and choices inherent in peer review to bedistinguishedfrommereprejudice,bias,whim,fantasy,projection,ortransferenceiftheirauthorityandlegitimacyarenotrigorouslyexam-ined,discussed,anddetermined?Suchquestionsareindeed“irrelevanttoimmediateconcerns”asfarasHarnadisconcerned.Heisnotinter-estedinwherethislegitimacycomesfromoronwhatitrests,somuchaswithrepeating,reproducing,andreplicatingthislegitimacyintheworldofopen-accessjournalpublishingandself-archiving.

Mypointinarguingthatattheoriginsoftheacademicinstitutionthereliesanaporiaofauthorityisnotconnectedtosomenaïveideaofbringingitcrashingdown.This“deconstructivepragmaticsofinstitu-tions,”toadoptWeber’sterminology,isnotadestructioninthatsense.Ifweacknowledgethatviolenceisintrinsictoauthority,wemust—tofol-lowbothWeberandDerrida—resorttorules,conventions,andstabili-zations of power. This is precisely the moment of the emergence ofpolitics.Deconstruction, forDerrida, isawayofshowingthat,“sinceconvention,institutionsandconsensusarestabilizations,”theymustbeseen as fixing in place something intrinsically unstable and chaotic.“Thus,itbecomesnecessarytostabilizepreciselybecausestabilityisnotnatural;itisbecausethereisinstabilitythatstabilizationbecomesnec-essary;itisbecausethereischaosthatthereisneedforstability”(1996a,83–84).Derridaperceives thischaosandinstabilityasa threatandapromise;itistheconditionofboththepossibilityandimpossibilityofethicsandpolitics,aswellasofthedecision.“[T]hischaosandinstabil-ity...isatoncenaturallytheworstagainstwhichwestrugglewithlaws,rules,conventions,politicsandprovisionalhegemony,butatthesametime it is a chance, a chance to change, todestabilize. If therewerecontinualstability,therewouldbenoneedforpolitics,anditistotheextentthatstabilityisnotnatural,essentialorsubstantial,thatpoliticsexistsandethicsispossible”(1996a,84).

juDgment anD responsiBil ity ��

Mypoint in illustrating theaporiaofdisciplinary legitimacyandinstitutionalauthorityisrathertoemphasizethischance—whichisal-waysalsoarisk,apromise,anopportunity,aloss—torethinkorthinkotherwise,andhencetochangethemannerinwhichtheacademicinsti-tution lives on.36 If Bernard Stiegler is right when he remarks that achangeordevelopmentintechnologysuspendsorcallsintoquestionasituation“whichpreviouslyseemedstable”(2002,149),thenitisthischance,thisopportunity,ifonlywecantakeit,thatthetransitiontothedigitalmodeofpublicationopensup,viaitsexpositionoftheinsti-tutingprocess.Andwehavetotakethischancenowperhaps.Foronceallthissettlesdownandisnolongerquitesonew,maybethisopportu-nitywillhavebeen lost.AsCarolynMarvinobserved some timeagonowinWhen Old Technologies Were New,“theintroductionofnewmediaisaspecialhistoricaloccasionwhenpatternsanchoredinoldermediathathaveprovidedthestablecurrencyofsocialexchangearere-exam-ined,challengedanddefended”(1988,4).

Ofcourse, theethicalproblemIamdescribinghere—of infiniteresponsibilitytoanunconditionalhospitalitytotheotherandthene-cessityofresponding,ofmakingadecision—isnotnew.Itcertainlydidnotoriginatewiththeinventionofinformationtechnology.AsWeberhas shown, a delimitable space such as a discipline or field of study(suchasculturalstudies)cannotbeconstitutedwithoutalsoopeningituptothatwhichliesoutsideit—thatwhichisnotthatdiscipline,butalsothatwhichis“notknowledge.”Adisciplinehastohaveacertainrelationtoothers—ofbothinclusionandexclusion—inordertobeadiscipline.Anddisciplineshavealwaysbeenstructuredlikethis,evenwhentheywereconceived,astheywerebymore“traditional”and“pro-fessional”modesofthought,asbeingautonomousandself-contained.This is what I meant when I suggested earlier that academic authority is already digitized; that it is in a sense always already in a similar condition to that which is brought about by the process of digital reproduction.37What isnew(andwhatisthushistoricallyspecifictothisparticularmomentintime)istheextenttowhichnewmediatechnologymakesitpossibletomultiply,to a perhaps unprecedented extent, the permeability of this border,thisfrontiercontrol,andthusbringtheproblemofwhat,inthiscase,canandcannotbelegitimatelyincludedinculturalstudiesas cultural studiestoattentionandthematizeit.38Forwhiledisciplineshavealwaysattemptedtopolicetheirborders,andhavealwaysbeenmoreorlessviolentandlackinginanyoriginalfoundingauthoritywhendoingso,

juDgment anD responsiBil ity��

digitalreproduction,notleastbecauseofitsspeed,thenumberoftextsthatcanbeproduced,published,archived,preserved,andstored,thegeographicrangeoverwhichthosetextscanbedistributed,andtherelativeeaseandlowcostofallthis,togetherwiththelackofstability,“fixity,”andpermanenceofdigitaltextsthemselves,hastheeffectofhighlighting the irreducibly violent and aporetic nature of any suchauthority,makingitmuchmorevisible.

Another Cultural Studies Is PossibleIn this respect the open-access reproduction and publication of thescholarlyresearchliteratureprovidesanopportunityforculturalstud-iestotakeon,ratherthanmerelyactout,theeffectsoftheambivalenceWeber describes in Institution and Interpretation, thus demonstratingthatitispossibletoenvisageatleastonealternativeformofinstitution-alizationor“counter-institution”forculturalstudiesofthekindWeberlooks towardat theendof thebookwhenhe talksaboutconceiving“institutionalizedpracticesofa‘discipline’thatwouldassumetheam-bivalentdemarcationsthatmakeit,andthem,possible”(1987,149).39What is interesting about openaccess archiving inparticular ispre-ciselytheextenttowhichitbringsintoquestion“theexistingdefinitionanddelimitationofknowledge,aswellastheconditionsofitspractice:in short, thediscipline and theuniversity”(49). Indoing so itenablesus to conceive of a future for the university in terms other than: eithergoingalongwiththeforcesofcapitalistneoliberaleconomicsthatareincreasingly turninghighereducation intoanextensionofbusiness;or,alternatively,advocatingareturnto thekindofpaternalisticandclass-bound ideas associated with Leavis, Arnold, and Newman thatpreviouslydominatedtheuniversity,andwhichvieweditintermsofaneliteculturaltrainingandthereproductionofanationalculture.ThisiswhatImeantwhenIsaidthatthe“strangeanddisorientatingnewcontext”ofopen-accessarchivingmayofferusachancetoseeculturalstudiesagain“inanewway,”asifforthefirsttime,andsoaccountforitandjudgeitanew.

(Iwouldevengosofaras tosuggest that thedigitalordigitizedculturalstudiestextjudgedanewlikethiswouldbetheonlyonethatiscapableofclaimingacertainlegitimacy.Tobesure,thoseassessedac-cordingtotherulesandconventionsofthepaperpeer-reviewsystemarenot,because,aswehaveseen,thatsystemoperatesmerelybyadher-ingtopredeterminedandunquestionedcategories.Sothedigitalcul-

juDgment anD responsiBil ity ��

turalstudiestextinthisscenarioisinawayactuallytheonlyonethatisbeingrespondedtoresponsibly.Contrarytothemannerinwhichtheyaregenerallypositioned, then, there isnotfirst,andmostauthorita-tively,ink-on-paperacademicwritingandpublishing,andthenasec-ondary and inferior digital copy of this written and published “lan-guage.” Rather than coming after and being placed in a secondarypositiontotheink-on-papertext,whenitcomestothequestionofle-gitimacythedigitaltextnowsomewhatparadoxicallyappearstocomefirstandhavepriority—andnotjustinthesensethatmostacademicsnowadayswriteusingpersonalcomputers.)

Inthisrespectacultural studiesopen-accessarchivepromises to“bemorethanabaseofdata,arepositoryofthegiven”(Foster1996).Itisnotjusta“museumification”ofculturalstudies—toborrowawordofSteveDietz’sIlikeverymuch(1999):ameansofreproducingandcon-firmingexistingconceptionsofculturalstudies;ofcollecting,gather-ingtogether,interpreting,filtering,andclassifyingwhatculturalstud-iesalreadyisorisrememberedandperceivedashavingbeen(theworkofRaymondWilliams,RichardHoggart,StuartHall,LawrenceGross-berg, Paul Gilroy, Meaghan Morris, Angela McRobbie, Kuan-HsingChen,bellhooks,TriciaRose; andbefore that,ofAntonioGramsci,LouisAlthusser,F.R.Leavis,MatthewArnold,andsoon).Aculturalstudiesopen-accessarchivewillofcoursebepartlythat.Butitisalsoameansofproducingandperformingwhatculturalstudiesisgoingtobeinthepast(apastthatisstillverymuch“tocome,”toborrowDerrida’sphrase); and therefore what there is a chance for cultural studies tohavebeeninthefuture.

�0

Metadata I I

Print This!

About the BookDigitize This Book! develops an argument I laid out in an earlier book, Culture in Bits (2002). There I showed, first, how for many cultural studies had become too concerned with producing abstract Foucauldian, Der-ridean, or Lacanian readings of cultural images and texts that are far removed from the practical, political, material realities of power and op-pression. What cultural studies needed from that standpoint—and needs even more so today post–September 11, July �, and the attacks on Af-ghanistan and Iraq—is far more social, economic, and political analysis emphasizing the importance of the empirical, the material, and the con-crete.

Second, I showed how this had led cultural studies to become caught in a struggle with political economy;1 a conflict in which, despite various efforts to transcend it by means of a dialectical combination of the two,2 cultural studies remained—and, indeed, to a large extent remains—trapped, unable to think its way out.

Third, I showed how the work of theorists associated with the philosophy of Jacques Derrida, such as Bill Readings, Robert J.C. Young, J. Hillis Miller, and Samuel Weber—work which, as Young observes, “does not merely recognize mutual incompatibilities, but shows how they can operate in relation to one another in a productive economy” (R. Young, 1���b)—can help us think through this impasse in the study of culture.

Culture in Bits thus argued for a reimagining or reinvention of the relation of cultural studies to what is often called “Theory”: a reinvention that avoids the simple binarism of efforts to “connect or culturally trans-late between theory and practice” (McRobbie 1���, 1�2); and that in-stead draws attention to some of the ambiguities that both radically dis-rupt cultural studies and expose it to forms of knowledge and analysis

metaData i i �1

cultural studies can comprehend only by placing its own identity in ques-tion, at least potentially.3

Digitize This Book! pursues this argument further and takes it into a new terrain by focusing on one such form or branch of knowledge in particular: that associated with new or emerging media technologies. This book looks most closely at the aspect of new media concerned with the digital reproduction, publication, and archivization of cultural studies itself. Picking up where the final chapter of Culture in Bits left off, Digitize This Book! endeavors to demonstrate that, as Walter Benjamin (1��3) and, more recently, Bill Readings (1��4) and Jacques Derrida (1���b) have reminded us, these new, digital media technologies not only change the process of accessing, communicating, exchanging, classifying, stor-ing, and retrieving knowledge, but they also change the very content and nature of that knowledge. It follows that the consequences and im-plications of digital media for research into cultural studies themes, prob-lematics, and questions cannot be explored simply by using the rec- ognized, legitimate, preconstituted, disciplinary forms of knowledge: literary studies, philosophy, sociology, history, psychoanalysis, and so on. Digital media change the very nature of such disciplines, rendering them “unrecognizable,” as Derrida says of psychoanalysis.

What this means as far as cultural studies specifically is concerned is that, as I put it by playing on a much-cited passage from Derrida’s Archive Fever, cultural studies would not have been what it was when, say, Richard Hoggart wrote The Uses of Literacy (1�5�), if digital media technology had existed then. From the moment this new media became possible, cultural studies could in the future no longer take the form that Hoggart and so many other practitioners of cultural studies envisaged for it.4

In particular, Digitize This Book! investigates how new media tech-nologies promise to change the very content and nature of cultural stud-ies. It thus approaches new media through the question of the difference the medium itself makes, and then tracks some of the changes different digital communication technologies are making in and of themselves—as opposed to analyzing how new media merely remediate older media forms, and deliver a preexisting and more or less unchanged content, albeit in new ways. By exploring the potential for a digitized cultural studies and analyzing some currents in digital media development that call for new ways of thinking, Digitize This Book! attempts to open cul-tural studies to the possibility of discovering new objects and new forms

metaData i i�2

of knowledge: not just in the gaps and margins between the already constituted disciplines that make up cultural studies’ interdisciplinary rep-ertoire; but objects and forms of knowledge that require the develop-ment of new methods and conceptual frameworks, new tools and tech-niques of analysis—something that may indeed render cultural studies “unrecognizable” as cultural studies.

It is with this uncertain, unknowable, unforeseeable future—a future that has profound and far-reaching implications for how we understand not only cultural studies but also scholarly writing, publishing, and re-search, the institution of the university, even culture, politics, and eth-ics—that this book is experimenting.

metaData i i �3

About CSeARCH: Call for Contributions

Culture Machine is currently seeking contributions to an open-access archive for research and publications in cultural studies and related fields, including literary, critical and cultural theory, new media, visual culture, communication and media studies, philosophy, psychoanalysis, science and technology studies, feminist theory, and post-colonial the-ory.

The archive, called CSeARCH, which stands for Cultural Studies e-Archive, is free to download from and upload to.

You can find CSeARCH at: http://www.culturemachine.net/csearch.Here you can browse the archive and read and download its

contents.To upload work into the archive go to the “Submit” page. Fill in the

brief details and you will then be sent a login name and password via e-mail, together with a direct link. Click on the link and you will be there—no need to login at that point the first time. (The password merely ensures no one but you can edit your entries.)

Anything that is already in digital form, be it Word, pdf, and so on, can be uploaded into the archive quite easily and very quickly (in min-utes, in fact). So early and/or hard to come by texts, including out- of-print books, book chapters, journal editions or articles that can be scanned or otherwise digitized can all be made available this way. However, the idea of the archive is not just to preserve documents from the past, but also to make recent and even current work widely available open access: both that which has already been published and that which is awaiting publication.

More information about the CSeARCH open-access archive is avail-able on the CSeARCH Web site. If you have any questions or problems, please e-mail me at: gary@garyhall.info.

metaData i i�4

Google These!

AffectAporiaBitTorrentCodeworkCopyleftCounter-institutionCreative CommonsCritical Art EnsembleThe “Golden Road”The “Green Road”GREPHHactivismMash-upNapsterNeoliberalOpen ContentOpen EditingOpen SourceRe-mixResponsibilityRT@markSingularityTactical Media

Hakim BeyJacques DerridaLawrence GrossbergJean-Claude GuédonStevan HarnadN. Katherine HaylesDouglas KellnerGeert LovinkLev ManovichMark PosterEric RaymondBill ReadingsRichard StallmanPeter SuberE.P. ThompsonSamuel Weber

metaData i i �5

If You Like This Book, You Might Also Like . . .

Giorgio Agamben, Remnants of Auschwitz: The Witness and the Archive

Nicholson Baker, Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on PaperWalter Benjamin, Walter Benjamin’s Archive: Images, Texts, SignsJorge Luis Borges, “The Library of Babel”Timothy Clark, The Poetics of Singularity: The Counter-Culturalist Turn

in Heidegger, Derrida, Blanchot and the Later GadamerJacques Derrida, Geneses, Genealogies, Genres, and Genius:

The Secrets of the ArchiveMichel Foucault, Archaeology of KnowledgeSigmund Freud, “A Note upon the ‘Mystic Writing Pad’”Jürgen Habermas, “The Idea of the University: Learning Processes”N. Katherine Hayles, Writing MachinesThomas H. Huxley, Science and EducationLewis Hyde, The GiftJean-Noël Jeanneney, Google and the Myth of Universal KnowledgeAdrian Johns, The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the

MakingPeggy Kamuf, The Division of Literature: Or the University in

DeconstructionImmanuel Kant, “On the Wrongfulness of Unauthorized Publication

of Books”Søren Kierkegaard, RepetitionF. R. Leavis, Education and the University: A Sketch for an “English

School”Sylvère Lotringer and Christian Marazzi, eds., Autonomia: Post-Political

PoliticsMarcel Mauss, The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic

SocietiesJohn Henry Cardinal Newman, The Idea of a University: Defined and

IllustratedFriedrich Nietzsche, “On the Future of Our Educational Institutions”Jeff Noon, Pixel Juice: Stories from the Avant PulpAvital Ronell, The Telephone Book: Technology, Schizophrenia, Electric

SpeechF.W.J. Schelling, On University Studies

metaData i i��

Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “The Rani of Sirmur: An Essay in Reading the Archives”

E.P. Thompson, Warwick University Ltd.: Industry, Management and the Universities

John Willinsky, The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship

metaData i i ��

alt.Archives

The arXiv.org E-Print Archive, http://www.arXiv.orgThe Atlas Group Archive, http://theatlasgroup.org/aga.htmlBioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral.comDAREnet, http://www.darenet.nl/en/page/language.view/homeDirectory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), http://www.doaj.orgDirectory of Open Access Repositories OpenDOAR, http://www

.opendoar.orgEuropean Archive, http://europarchive.orgFlinders Academic Commons, http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/dspaceGallica, http://gallica.bnf.frInternet Archive, http://www.archive.orgOpen Journal Systems, http://pkp.sfu.ca/ojsProject Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.orgPublic Library of Science (PLoS), http://www.plos.orgPubMed Central, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov

��

3

IT, Again; or, How to Build an Ethical Institution

Ourchallengeinthisnewcenturyisadifficultone:topreparetodefendournationagainsttheunknown,theuncertain,theunseen,andtheunexpected.

—Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2002

BynowIhopetohavepersuadedyou,dearreader,oftheimportanceofdigitizingacademicresearchandscholarshipandpublishing itopenaccess,evenofcreatingopen-accessjournalsandopen-accessarchives.1Noneofthisisespeciallydifficulttodo.Nowadaysasignificantnumberofuniversitiesprovidethemeansfortheirstafftobothpublishtheirresearch electronically via local repositories and access other storesheldbyinstitutionsparticipatingintheOpenSocietyInstitute(OSI)and the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition(SPARC) international initiatives.SHERPA(SecuringaHybridEnvi-ronmentforResearchPreservationandAccess)hasalsosetupanumberofinstitutionalarchivesofopen-accessresearchwith,inAugust2006,thirty-sevenuniversitiesintheUnitedKingdombeinglistedatitssite.2In fact, according toa Joint InformationSystemsCommittee( JISC)OpenAccessbriefingpaperofApril2005,“bythebeginningof2005,therewerealmostfortyOpenAccessarchivesintheUK”alone;3whilein October 2006 the Directory of Open Access Repositories (Open-DOAR)wasabletoproduceaquality-assuredlistof798repositories.4Likewise,itispossibletocreateandrunanopen-accessjournalorar-chivewithverylittlebywayoffunding(somethingthatiscertainlythecaseasfarasbothCulture MachineandCSeARCHareconcerned).AsSolomonemphasizes,“allthatisneededaree-mailforcorrespondence

it, again ��

[and]aWebserverforcontentdistribution.Theseareavailabletovir-tuallyanyuniversityfacultymemberthroughtheirinstitutionortheycanbepurchasedforlessthan$US50.00fromacommercialInternetserviceprovider”(2006,n.p.).ThereisevenavailableontheWebfreeand open-source software that makes it possible for institutions andindividualresearchers tocreatetheirownarchives.5All that isreallyrequiredistime,energy,andenthusiasm.

Butwhenitcomestoopen-accessarchiving,thisisinmanywaystheeasypart.Thatis, it isfinesolongasyourambitiondoesnotextendmuchbeyondreproducingthecurrentpapersysteminthedigitalme-dium.Thelastchapter,however,hasdrawnattentiontosomeof theethicalproblemswiththat.What,then,ifwewanttodomorethanjustpublishour“papercentric”researchopenaccessorconstructanopen-accessrepositoryofourowntorivalthatofthearXiv.orgE-PrintAr-chiveatCornell?Whatifwewanttoexplorethepossibleformsthatanethicallyjustandresponsibleopen-accessarchivemighttake?

Sofarwehaveseenhowdigitizationprovidesuswithanopportu-nity,ifonlywecantakeit,tothinktheinstitutionofculturalstudies,andwithittheuniversity,differently,andthustochangethemannerinwhichtheyliveon.Assumingthatwedowanttomakethemostofthisopportunity,howarewetodecidewhattowelcomeintoaculturalstud-iesarchive?Howarewetomakearesponsibleethicaldecisioninasitu-ationthat,aswehaveseen,ismarkedbyanirreducibleambivalenceofdisciplinarydelimitationandanaporiaofinstitutionalauthority?ForhelpinansweringthesequestionsIwanttoreturntotheworkofper-hapsthemostinfluentialofrecentthinkersontheideaandlegitimacyoftheinstitutionoftheuniversity:SamuelWeber.Ibeginbyturning,nottowhatinthecircumstancesmightappeartobeWeber’smostobvi-ouslyrelevanttexts,Institution and Interpretation(1987/2001)andMass Mediauras(1996),noreventohismorerecentessaysonthefutureoftheuniversity,“TheFutureCampus:DestinyinaVirtualWorld”(1999)and“TheFutureoftheHumanities:Experimenting”(2000),buttoalesser-knownearlyessayinwhichWeberdiscussesanotherformofIT.This is iterability,aconceptherepeatsafterDerridaandtowhichheascribesthenickname“it.”6

itIn“Signature,Event,Context”Derridashowshow,ifit istofunctionaswriting,itmustbepossibleforcommunicationtobe“repeatable—

it, again�0

iterable”—legible, in the absence not only of its “original” meaning,context,referent,andof“everydeterminedaddressee,”butalsointhe“absence of a determined signified or current intention of significa-tion”(Derrida1982a,315,318).“Thisiterability(iter,onceagain,comesfromitara,other,inSanskrit,andeverythingthatfollowsmaybereadastheexploitationofthelogicwhichlinksrepetitiontoalterity),struc-turesthemarkofwritingitself,anddoessofornomatterwhattypeofwriting(pictographic,hieroglyphic,ideographic,phonetic,alphabetic,tousetheoldcategories).Awritingthatwasnotstructurallylegible—iterable—...wouldnotbewriting”(1982a,315).ReplicatingDerrida’saccountofiterabilityin“It,”Weberfocusesonhowtheprocessofcogni-tion(also)alwaysinvolvesrepetition(iterability/alterity).“Inorderforamark to function, itmustberecognized—that is repeated,”Weberwrites,paceDerrida.Indeed,it“isonlyinandthroughsuchrepetition...thattheidentityofthemarkconstitutesitselfasthatwhichstaysthesameandisrecognizedassuch”(Weber1978,6).And“ifidentityisaproductofrecognition,andhenceofrepetition,”Weberproceeds toargue,itfollowsthat“thereisnoconsistentpossibilityofrecognizinganidentityindependentofandpriortosuchrepetition”(1978,7).Hencethewayinwhich,inordertobeabletocognizesomething,wealreadyhavetobeabletore-cognizeit,thatis,re-peatit,seeortakeitagain.Toknowandunderstandanobject(forinstance,apieceoforiginal,dig-ital, cultural studieswritingor research), toperceive, conceptualize,interpret,judge,orassessit,todeterminewhatitis,andjustasimpor-tantwhatitisnot,weneedtobeabletocompareandassimilatethis“new”objecttothatwhichisalreadyknownandunderstood.Iterabilityis thusnecessarywhen itcomes to thinkingabout theproductionofknowledge,forWeber,sinceitisonlythroughsuchrepetitionthattheobjectinquestioncanbemeasuredagainstanearlieralreadyknownandfamiliarinstance,and,bymeansofthatcomparison,establishedandrecognizedasthesameoratleastsimilar.Somuchsothat,ashelatermakesclearinInstitution and Interpretation,itisdifficulttoconceiveofarelationtosomethingwhichis“ ‘absolutelyincognizeable.’”Thiswouldappeartoentaila“contradictioninterms,sincethereisnowayofconceivingorconceptualizingalterityexceptastheotherofcogni-tion,whichisnothingbutanegativemodeofknowledge.Togeneralizethisother,totranscendentalizeit,istoassertthatwecanknowwhatwecannotknow,whichisunacceptable”(Weber1987,11).

it, again �1

Thequestionof iterability also lies at theheartof the transitionfrompapertoelectronicpublishing(from“it”toIT),Iwanttoargue.Inafurtherrepetitionofhisanalysisofiterability,thistime,appropri-atelyenough, inthecontextofadiscussionof“thefutureofthehu-manities”and,indeed,theuniversity,Weberacknowledgesthat

wherever it is a question of repetition, technology and telecom-munication are never very far away. Why? Because, as Benjaminwasperhapsoneofthefirsttoclearlystate,themodeofbeingofmoderntechnologyisrepetitiveandreproductive.The“workofart,”soBenjamininsists,musthenceforthbediscussedwithrespecttoitsintrinsic“reproducibility.”Andsuchreproducibilityinvolvesin-scription: the tracingof traits:photography, cinematographyandnow,wemightsay,videography.(Weber2000,n.p.)

Yetviewingcognitionintermsofaprocessofrepetitionandcompari-sonwithanearlierinstanceconstitutedastheselfsameisonlyoneas-pectof theacquisitionofknowledge.Anyactof intellectionalsohasanotherdimension,onethat,althoughitcanneverbeentirelyabsentorremovedfromthescene,isoftenexcluded,repressed,ignored—orindeedtakenforgranted.Forifcognitioninvolvesaprocessofreduc-ingwhatisunknowntowhatisfamiliar,italsoinvolvesremainingopentowhatcannotbeassimilated,butinsteadtransformsthefamiliarintosomethingthatisdecidedlylessso.Toputitanotherway,whiletheactofintellectiondeniestheobjectinquestionitsnewness,itsdifference,itsheterogeneity, thisactmustalsoestablishcontactwith somethingthatispreciselynew,different,foreign,other.Otherwise,howareweabletodistinguishbetweenknowledgeandmeremisunderstandingorillusion?

Howisitpossibleto“know”forcertainthatintherebyassimilatingthehithertounrecognized“object”towhat is familiar,wearenotabandoningorlosingpreciselythatwhichmakesitdifferent,other.Inshort,thatwhichmakesitapotentialob-jectofknowledge.Forifknowledgeistodistinguishitselffromhallucination,projectionormerephantasm,itmustretainarelationshiptothatwhichresistssubsumptionunderthefamiliar.Theprocessofdiscovery,thepro-ductionofknowledge,musttherebyalwaysentailatransformation

it, again�2

ofwhathashithertobeenfamiliar,takenforgrantedorconsideredas “knowledge” into something less self-evident—just as inverselyittransformsthehithertounknownintosomethingmorefamiliar.(Weber2000,n.p.)

Infactheterogeneity,difference,alterity,othernessareintroducedintotheactofintellectionbytheveryprocessofrepetitionandcomparisonout of which recognition, and hence the acquisition of knowledge,emerges.The“alterity”presupposedbyallrepetitioncanneverbeen-tirelyabsorbedintotheidentificationofthesame.Therewillalwaysbe“excess, remainder, left-over”(Weber1978,12).This logic,whichwehaveseenDerridareferto,linksrepetitiontoalterityanddistinguishesiterabilityfrommererepetition(Derrida1982a;seealsoDerrida2001d,76).What ismore,“thisholdsnot simply for the identificationofanobject,butforthestructureofconsciousnessthatsuchanobjectimplies,”asWebermakesclearin“It,”whenhewrites:“Iterability,then,iswhat,forDerridaatleast,precludesconsciousnessfromeverbecomingfullyconsciousofitsobjectoritself.Ifsomethingmustbeiterableinorderto become an object of consciousness, then it can never be entirelygrasped,havingalreadybeensplitinandbyitsbeing-repeated(ormoreprecisely:byitsrepeated being)”(Weber1978,7).Allofwhichhassignifi-cantconsequencesfortheprocessof“reading”;andalsothatofpeerreview,sinceitisnotjusttheidentityofthetextorobjectbeingread,repeated,judged,orassessedthatis“split”andnolongerself-identical,butalsothatoftheconsciousnessorsubjectthatisdoingthereading,repeating,judging,orassessing.

Anyattempt toknowandunderstandanobject throughpercep-tion,conception,interpretation,judgment,orassessmentmustbyne-cessityproceedbymeansoftwo“distinct,ifinterdependentoperations”:theoneinvolvingacertainclosurewherebythatwhichhasalreadybeenre -cognizedisincorporatedintoouralreadyexistingsystemsofknowl-edgeandunderstanding;theotherinvolvinganopennesstothatwhich,initsverynewness,alterity,difference,andheterogeneity,requiresanalterationandtransformationofthesesystemsinorderforittobeca-pableofbeingunderstood(Weber1978,2).7Thequestionthatremainstobeansweredis:Howarewetodobothatthesametime?This“prob-lemanditsimplicationshaveconstitutedoneofthemajoroccupationsandpreoccupationsofWesternthought,”accordingtoWeber(1978,3).Asinthecaseofdisciplinaryidentity(butreallywearetalkingabout

it, again �3

thesamething,this“tensionbetweenopennessandclosure[alsochar-acterizing]theuniversitybothinitssocialfunctionanditsepistemicpractice”[seeWeber1999,n.p.]),inordertobeabletoknowandiden-tifysomethingwecannotplacelimitsontheprocessofcognition;yetatthesametimewehavetoplacelimitsonit.8Wedonotknowwheretostoporcallahalttothisprocess;butifwewanttoknow,wehavetoar-restitsomewhere:

For once we have conceded that our knowledge, our coming-to-knowpresupposesapriorknowing,itisdifficulttoknowwheretostop.Andyet,ifwecannotknowwheretostop,thentheveryno-tionofknowledgeitselfbecomesquestionable.Ifthere-ofrecogni-tioncannotbegroundedinanoriginal,self-containedcognition,thentherearenoreasonablegroundsforassertingthatcognitionitself—thatis,trueknowing—ispossible.Instead,wearefacedwithanintrinsicallyopen-endedprocessofrepetition:thecognitiveactcanonlyaccedetoitsobjectbyreproducinganearliercognition,whichitselfisonlyrelatedtoitsobjectthroughanotherrepetitionofanearliercognitiveact...andsoon.(Weber1978,3)9

AsinInstitution and Interpretation,wefindourselvesfacedwithasitua-tioninwhichweareunabletoenvisageaninstitution,adiscipline,oreveninthiscasetheveryactofacquiringknowledge,withoutlimitsandhencesomeformofclosure.Giventhat,asfarascognitionisconcerned,likejudgmentanddecisionmaking,theoperationofre-cognition,as-similation,andreductionoftheunknowntothatwhichissimilarandfamiliarcannotbeavoided,anymorethanitispossibletothinkofa“ ‘text’withoutlimitation...[o]fwritingwithoutsomesortofclosure,”thequestionheretoobecomesnot“whether”suchlimitationsaretobeimposedonthisprocess,“buthow?”(Weber1987,xvi).ToreiterateWe-ber,itisnotsomuchtheexistenceandsurvivalofclosureassuchthatneedstobeexplored,“butratherthemannerinwhichitliveson;notwhetherornotsuchanassumptionmustbemade,butratherhowitisperformedandwithwhatconsequences”(1987,xix).Inparticular,whatall thisdoes ishelpus tothinkaboutknowledgeandunderstandingdifferently. For “if iterability makes recognition and understandingpossible,italsomakesthempossibleonlyasformsofmisrecognitionormisunderstanding,sincetheobjectrecognizedorunderstoodwillneverbefullypresenttoconsciousness,norentirelyidenticaltoitself.

it, again�4

This,ofcourse,endowsthenotionof‘misunderstanding’withastatusquitedifferentfromthattraditionallyascribedtoit,aslongasitiscon-sidered to be simply the opposite or other of understanding. As anineluctableaspectofiterability,misunderstandingnolongerexcludesunderstanding”(Weber1978,7).

Wecan therefore see thatmisunderstandingcannotbe removedfromtheprocessofcognitioninordertomaketheactofperception,conception, interpretation, judgment,or assessmentmore legitimateandauthoritative,thushelpingtoestablishtheidentityanddifferenceofaparticulardisciplineasalegitimateandaccreditedfieldofknowl-edge.Misunderstandingispartofwhatmakestheprocessofcognitionpossible.Allofwhichimmediatelyraisesquestionsforideasconcern-ingthelegitimacyandauthorityofacademicscholarship.Whatnowisthestatusofthatknowledgebywhichtheotheristobeunderstoodifmisrecognition,error,projection,hallucination,andillusioncannotbedeniedorexcludedfromtheanalysis,butarealltermsforthatwhichmakes it possible in the first place—“‘the structure of iterability,’ inshort” (1978, 9). This question becomes even more pertinent to thecaseinhand(thatis,thedigitalreproduction,publication,andarchivi-zationoftheculturalstudiesresearchliterature)whenoneconsidersthatthisproblemissomethingthatnewmedia,withtheiropeningupof the academic institution’s space of authority and legitimation tointrusion,transformation,andreconfiguration,makeincreasinglyap-parent.AsWebermakesclearinanotheranalysisconcernedwithbothrepetitionandthefutureoftheuniversity:

Theverynotionofscholarshiptendstotakeforgrantedtheena-blingexclusionsandlimitsthroughwhichanyfieldofknowledgeisconstitutedasaclosedandself-containedarea.Inaworldofin-creasingvirtualisation,takingsuchexclusionsforgrantedislessandlesseffective,andperhapsalsolessandlessefficient.Itisnotamereaccidentthatthevocabularyimposedbythecomputerisationofin-formationisonethatstressesdynamicrelations,ratherthanstaticfields.TheInternetconsistsofwebsites,oflinksandnetworks,notofself-containedrealmsorfields.Andtheeconomicvalueofcom-modities,asiswellknown,isnotinherentintheirphysicalmakeupnoraccessibleintheirimmediatemanifestation,butratherafunc-tionofcomplexrelations.Botheconomicandtechnologicalfactorsthuscontributetoavirtualisationofrealitywhichcannolongerbe

it, again �5

effectivelyarticulatedbytraditionalnotionsofknowledge,basedonacriterionoftruthastheadequationofthoughttoitsobject.Inthefaceofvirtualisationthereisatendencywhichbynomeansisun-mitigatedtoreconstruetherelationofknowledgetotheunknown.Hitherto,onecouldsay,theunknownwasregarded,fromthepointofviewofacademicscholarship,primarilyastheotherornegativesideofknowledge:asthenot-yet-known.Butinthelightofvirtuali-sation,theunknownbecomesasitweretheelementormediumofknowledge,notmerelyitsnegativeother.Virtualityemergesnotasapossibilitytoberealizedoractualized,butasthedynamictendencyofanetworkoflinks,outofwhichknowledgeemergesasnodesorclustersofconnections,whichinturnarealwayssubjecttotransfor-mationby furtherexplorationordevelopmentof thenetworkornetworks.(Weber1999,n.p.)

Againitseemsthelegislatorisalways,undecidably,alsoacharlatan.Is this a proper analysis? Have we really built such a cultural studies open-

access archive? Am I only joking? Are you sure? Can you tell?

Apprehension and AnxietyWeber’sargumentin“It”proceedsfromadiscussionofa“certainclo-sure”inthestrategyofdeconstruction(1978,13);toaconnectionbe-tweeniterability,apprehension,anxiety,andFreud;andfromthere,inlatertexts,toadiscussionofKierkegaard,“experimenting,”theuniver-sityina“virtualworld”(1999),and,indeed,theveryfutureofthehu-manities(2000).NowthereisalottosayhereaboutWeber’sanalysisofapprehensionandanxietyin“It”:hisaccountoftheemergenceofprofessionalismasan“efforttoestablishameasureofself-control...on thepartof ... agroup, seeking todefineand tomaintainacer-tainidentityinthefaceofanextremelydynamic,unsettling,andpow-erfulreorganizationandtransformationof society” in Institution and Interpretation;andtheapprehensionandanxietyapparentinmuchofacademiaoverthepossibleeffectsofdigitalreproductiononscholar-ship(1987,27).

For instance, apprehension, Weber writes in “It” (and it is worthquotinghimatlength):

marksthatinitial,“original”contactwiththeobjectthatallcognition—andrecognition—necessarilypresumes. It seemsof some inter-

it, again��

est,therefore,thatthisword,eventoday,isanythingbutunivocal.Forapprehension,ofcourse,alsomeans:anxiety.Itsignifiestheactofunderstanding,ofrecognition,ofperception:anactbywhichwecatchthemeaningofaphraseorascertaintheexistenceofathing;andyetalsosignifiestheconcernwithorexpectationofsomethingadverse,uncertain,andpossiblydangerous.

Isapprehension,then,perhapsjustwhatwehavebeenlookingfor—fromtheverybeginning?Doesitmarktheplaceof thatbegin-ning,preciselyindividing it?Andifthisequivocationmakesuscu-rious,wewillnotbedisappointedbycertainofitsothermeanings:forinstance,toapprehendsomeoneis,ofcourse—inthe“physical”sense—toarrestthatperson,inthenameofthelaw(inorderthathebebroughttojudgement).(Weber1978,17)

Laterin“It”heputsitthisway:

Itisasanxietythattheegoapprehends“thepresenceofdanger,”determining it as its other: as the lossof itsobject, as separation,asprivation.Asanxiety,theactofapprehension...isreinscribedasthere-actiondeterminingwhatcannotfullybedetermined,butwhatisalsoneverentirelyindeterminate....[I]sn’t“reading”justanothernameforwhatIhavetriedtodescribeasapprehension:thatambivalentefforttogetittogetherbyholdingitinabeyance,byar-restingitsmovement,re-acting(to)it—asthoughitweredangerous,threatening.(Weber1978,21–22,22)

Can the institution’s desire to ultimately locate the authority ofdigitallyreproducedtextsinthepaperworld(aswehaveseenwiththeexampleofHarnad)notbereadasanattemptto“establishandtoin-stitutionalize” a “systemofdefense” (Weber1987,30); and thusas aresponsetoitsanxietyovertheshiftfromink-on-papertodigitalpub-lishingand,inparticular,thefearthatacademictextsreproducedus-ingITmaynotbesoeasytounderstandorjudge?Inotherwords,isthisdesireonthepartoftheinstitutionameansofcopingwith,andestab-lishingameasureofcontrolover,aprospectivecrisisinacademicau-thoritythatisbeingbroughtabout(toacertainextentatleast)bytheriseoftheknowledgeeconomy?MarkPosterhaswrittenonthesubjectofhow“digitalizationhasradicallyalteredtheconditionsofculture,”andhow,“inresponse,theRIAAhasexertedenormousinfluenceon

it, again ��

politicians to pass laws, including the DMCA [Digital MillenniumCopyrightActof1998],toextendcopyrighttocoverdigitalproducts.InthiswaytheRIAAhopestomaintaincontroloverculturalobjects,”Posterasserts(Poster2005,n.p.).Coulditnotbearguedthattheaca-demic institution is trying todo somethinganalogouswith scholarlytextsandopen-accesspublishingandarchivingintermsofpeerreview?Therearecertainlyanumberofdefiniteadvantagesasfarastheinsti-tution is concerned in regarding digital texts as merely a prostheticextensionofpaper(aswesawissooftenthecasewithregardtotheelectronicreproduction,publication,andarchivizationoftheacademicresearchliterature).Indeed,fromacertainperspective,farfrombeingaproblem,thisrestrictionofelectronicpublishingtothefamiliarap-pearstobepartofthepointofalotofthisdiscussionanddebate.Afterall,ifelectronictextsweretobepositionedastoodifferent,thiswouldplace thembeyond thereassuringcontrolof thepeer-review system:theywouldconsequentlythenappearneither“reliablenornavigable,[their]qualityuncontrolled,unfiltered,un-sign-posted,unknown,un-accountable”(Harnad2001/2003,n.p.).As such theywouldcreateasenseofanxietyintheiraudience.Aretheylegitimateornot?Howcanwebesure?Howcanwetell?

Fromthisposition, thepeer-reviewsystemappearsasameansofcopingwithacertainanxietyandapprehension thatdigitalpublica-tionsmaybeoutofthecontroloftheinstitution:itisameansofdisci-pliningsuchtexts,keepingthemwithindefinedandmeasurable(i.e.,assessable)limits.WecouldspeculatethatonereasonHarnadissore-luctanttomaketheleapfurtherintothedigitalandtakewhatIhavecharacterizedasaresponsible,ethicaldecisionconcerningthestand-ardsandcriteriaforthejudging,reviewing,andcertifyingofacademicworkonwhichanopen-accessarchivecouldbebased,isbecausedoingsowouldforcehimtoaddresstheuncomfortablequestionofscholarlylegitimacyingeneral—aquestionthat“inthefaceofanextremelydy-namic, unsettling, and powerful reorganization and transformationofsociety,”hehastriedsohardtokeepclosed.ForifHarnadweretoacknowledgethatscholarshiponthenetissonewthattheold“paper”standards of peer review do indeed no longer necessarily apply, notonlywouldthisplaceinquestionhisowncompetenceandauthoritytoread,apprehend,arrest,andjudge;itwould(aswecannowsee,follow-ingWeber)threatenthestatusandidentityofhisdisciplineandprofes-sion.IsthisthereasonHarnad’sworkoftenappearssoobsessedwith

it, again��

peerreview?DoesHarnadrealize,consciouslyorunconsciously, thatthis isaweakspot?Isthiswhyhehashadtorepeatedlysupportanddefenditinarticleafterarticle,e-mailaftere-mail,andarguethatthepriorityistomake100percentoftheresearchliteratureopenaccess,withanythingelse,includingissuesaroundthelegitimacyofpeerre-view,actingmerelyasadelayordistraction?AsWebermakesclear,thislevelofanxiety(oftenevident indiscussionsof the implicationsandconsequences of new media technologies) about maintaining legiti-macyviapeerreview,lestwefallintoanarchyandchaos,onlyindicatesthat thebelief in the importanceofpeerreviewmaybeaneffort tocopewiththeanxietyratherthan“anobjectivelygroundedcognition”(Weber1978,4).

NowIrealizethatbyraisingtheseissuesIriskbeingregarded(bywhom?Harnad?thoseinculturalstudies?bytheinstitution?)assome-whatunreliable,unaccountable,uncontrollable,dangerous,mad,crazyeven;assomeonewhoisthreateningtobringthewholesystemofaca-demicvalidationandaccreditationcrashingdownaroundourears;oratleastassomeonewantingtomakeitdifficultforthesystemtocarryonasitdidbefore,asithasforsomanyyearsnow.Whilenotwantingtopositionmyself insomeromantic,heroicrole, this isundoubtedlytheriskonemusttakeinordertoaddress,responsibly,questionscon-cerningthelegitimacyoftheinstitution.Foristheabovenotthewayinwhichthe institutionsooftenattempts toprotect itself fromsuchquestions—byexcludingtheminadvanceastheworkofthedangerousorthemad,andthusasillegitimateorinappropriate,beforetheques-tionof legitimacyhasevenbeguntoberaised.Indeed,preciselybe-causethequestionofinstitutionallegitimacyisonthevergeofbeingraised....

ButsinceIhavetostopthechainornetworkoflinksandconnec-tionssomewhere,IthinkIwillenditherefornowandbringthischap-tertoaclosewithsomefinalremarksonthepossibleconsequencesofWeber’s analysis for a cultural studies open-access archive and fromthereare-thoughtinstitution.

The ExceptionTosumup(andagainmovingveryquickly):whatWeber’sworkon“it”helps us to understand is that knowledge, understanding, and judg-mentinvolve“theaporeticpossibilityofremainingopentothetraceof

it, again ��

theotherinrepetitionevenwhileconfrontingthesame.Thispossibil-ityisaporeticinsofarasthisopeningtotheothercanneverbefreeofadegreeofclosure,ofassimilationandappropriation”(Weber2000,n.p.).What thismeans forcultural studies is that inorder tounder-stand itselfafter the inventionof the Internet—butnot justafter theInternet,sinceiterabilityisanintrinsicfeatureofalljudgmentandun-derstanding—forittobeabletojudgeanddecideonthestatusoftextsthatare“borndigital,”culturalstudiesmustconsistofanondialectical(ornotsimplydialectical)aporetic“openingofandtoward”thatwhichisdifferent,new,foreign(2000,n.p.).

Inthecontextofaculturalstudiesopen-accessarchive,thisobvi-ouslysuggestsanopeningofandtoward:

•Those“legitimate”branchesofknowledgethataretraditionallyincluded in the interdisciplinary repertoireof cultural studies:thoseencompassedbydisciplinessuchassociology,philosophy,arthistory,literarytheory,andsoforth

•Moremarginalizedformsofknowledge,suchasthoseassociatedwithdifferencesofgender,sexuality,race,orethnicity

•Aswellas,increasingly,thoseformsofknowledgefoundinforma-tionsofculturalstudiesoutsidetheAnglo-American/Australiannexus—includingPoland,Finland,Turkey,SouthAfrica,Brazil,Taiwan,Japan,Singapore,andSouthKorea

This aporetic possibility also includes that legitimate knowledge as-cribed to disciplines that have been marginalized or excluded fromcultural studies: some of the more commercially profitable areas ofstudyassociatedwithscience,technology,electronicandcomputeren-gineering,health,hospitality,sport,tourism,leisurestudies,andsoon—whichareprivilegedwithinthecontemporaryuniversityformeetingtheneedsofindustryandsocietyinthenewglobaleconomy,butwhichareoftenfoundwantingwhenjudgedaccordingtothemorepoliticallycommittedandinterrogativecriteriaofculturalstudies—couldallpos-siblybeincludedinthiscategory.So,too,couldthelikesofpoliticaleconomy,socialpolicy,andanthropology,albeittovaryingdegreesandextents,dependingontheparticularsituationandcircumstances.

Rather less obviously, Weber’s work on “it” suggests an aporeticopeningtoward:

it, again100

•Formsofknowledgethatarenot,ornotyet,regardedaslegiti-mate:includingnotjustmanyofthoseassociatedwithIT(e-mails,e-mail lists, blogs, wikis, wikified texts, Web 2.0—the kind ofthingIhavebeenquotingfrominthisbook,infact)thatarenotrecognizableaslegitimateifjudgedbytherulesandconventionsofthepaperworld,10butcertainwaysofbeingethicalandpoliti-cal,too

•Whatmightbecalled“non-knowledge”—theapparentlyuseless,unimportant,irrelevant,obsolete,worthless,senseless,trivial,ormistaken(hypnosis,forexample,orprojection,hallucination,il-lusion,transference,naffness,phantomism)

Moreradicallystill,itsuggestsanopeningtowardthatwhichrefusestofitintoculturalstudies;thatwhichisnotculturalstudies’other,butis“other than the other itself ”(Weber1987,11),andwhichratherresistscul-turalstudiesasnew,different,foreign,heterogeneous,and,resistingit,pushescultural studies intoadoptingnew formsand inhabitingnewspacesinwhichitmaynolongerrecognizeitselfas cultural studies.Inotherwords(andtoreiterateWeberonceagain),culturalstudiesmustberethoughtfromthepointofviewofthe“exception;whichistosay,fromtheperspectiveofwhatrefusestofitin,whatresistsassimilation,butwhat,insodoing,revealstheenablinglimitsofallsystem,synthesisand self-containment” (Weber2000,n.p.). For there is aparadoxorcontradictionor, indeed,aporia in the relation to the “other”or the“outside”ofknowledge.Identifyingandnamingthesenon-knowledges(evenasmisunderstanding,misrecognition,error,illusion,projection,hallucination,hypnosis,transference,naffness,death,orwhatever)iswhatmakesthisrelationpossible.Itisonlybyidentifyingandnamingthemthatwecanhaveanysuchrelationtothesenon-knowledges.Atthesametimeitisalsothatwhichrendersthisrelationimpossible,be-causethisrelationisineffectonlybeingextendedtothatwhichcanbenamedandidentified;whereasthedifferencebetweennon-knowledgeandtheotherofknowledgeisthatthelattercannotbenamedoridenti-fied—itisratherthatwhichknowledgecannotordoesnotknow,andwhichisthereforeindeedtheotherofknowledge.Theaporeticrela-tiontonon-knowledgethusinvolvesabreakwithknowledge,withwhatcanbeknown.Itrequiresthatweopenknowledgeup,notonlytothatwhichcanbenamedandidentifiedastheotherofknowledge(asnon-

it, again 101

knowledge,ornot yetknowledge,orknowledge-to-come),butalsothatwhichcannot.Inthecontextofaculturalstudiesopen-accessarchive,itrequiresthatweopenourselvestotheabsolute,unknownother;thatwebepreparedtoletitin,toreceiveitwithoutnecessarilyaskingittorespondreciprocally,byidentifyingornamingitself,notjustaslegiti-mateornot-yet-legitimate,butevenasnon-knowledgeortheunknown.For in even requesting contributors to identify themselves and theirresearchbytitle,author,publication,date,subjectarea,abstract,key-words,andsoforthwearenotbeingopentotheotherbutareaskingthem,demandingofthem,thattheyconformtocertainpreestablishedrules, laws, and criteria.11 Witness the way in which the arXiv.orgE-PrintArchivewas(unsuccessfully)suedbyanindependentresearcherandanAmericancreationist,bothofwhommadeseparateclaimstotheeffectthattheircivilrightshadbeeninfringedbythearchivemod-erators’decisionnottopublishtheirworkinthearchiveonthegroundsthat neither is affiliated with a recognized physics institution (Times Higher Education Supplement 2002,4).12

Granted,thereisarisk(whichisofcoursealsoanopportunity)thatasaresultthecontentsofanysuchculturalstudies“open”archivewillnot look toomuch like cultural studies,or academic scholarship,orknowledge,even,at leastas thesearecurrentlycommonlyconceivedandmosteasilyrecognized(andespeciallyastheyareunderstoodac-cordingtotheconventionsofink-on-paperpublishing).Yetatthesametimethisquestioningofculturalstudiesisalso“perhaps”themost“re-sponsible” thingforculturalstudies todo,at least inDerrida’ssenseofthetermresponsibility,sincetherecanbenoresponsibility,andnoethics,nopolitics,andindeednoculturalstudies,Iwouldargue(seeG. Hall 2002), without the experience of the undecidable; without,in this case, the constant (re)takingof thedecisionofwhat culturalstudiesis.

Willaculturalstudiesopen-accessarchivereallymakeitpossibleforustodothis?ObviouslyIcannotbesure.Ihavenowayofknowing.Ifthereisatransformationinthematerialsupportsofknowledgefrompaperandanaloguetodigitalunderwayatthemoment,thedevelop-ment of the cultural studies open-access archive I am involved withcancertainlybeseenas(asmall)partofthisprocess,experimentingwithhow this transfiguration in support isgoing tochange theverycontentandnatureofknowledge.Yetatthesametimeanysuchcul-

it, again102

turalstudiesrepositoryundoubtedlyrisksfailing,visiblyifnotindeedspectacularly—preciselybecauseof thequestions itencouragesus toaddress.Still,thisrisk—ofparalysis,ofchaos,ofthearchivebeingmoreorlessunusedorunusable—isjustthatofthesituation,oftryingtodosomethingnew,somethingdifferent,somethinginteresting,somethingethical.

i i . hyperpolitiCs

105

4

Antipolitics and the Internet

Fororagainstthewaronterror,orthewarinIraq;forthetermina-tionofanodioustyrantandhiscrimefamily,fortheultimateweap-onsinspection,theopeningofthetortureprisons,locatingthemassgraves,thechanceoflibertyandprosperity,andawarningtootherdespots;oragainstthebombingofcivilians,theinevitablerefugeesandfamine,illegalinternationalaction,thewrathofArabnationsandtheswellingofAl-Qaeda’sranks.Eitherway,itamountstoaconsensusofakind,anorthodoxyofattention,amildsubjugationinitself.Doeshethinkthathisambivalence—ifthat’swhatitreallyis—excuseshimfromgeneralconformity?

—Ian McEwan, Saturday, 2006

Stories We Tell Ourselves About New MediaOneofthemainargumentsinthisbook—asdevelopedinthelasttwochapters—isthatthepotentialchallengetotheestablishedmodesofacademiclegitimationofferedbythedigitalreproductionofscholarlyresearchliterature,andopen-accesspublishingandarchivinginpar-ticular,raisesquestionsonemightplaceundertheheadingof“ethics.”(Again,IstressthatIamusingethicsherenotaccordingtoitsconcep-tualizationbytraditionalmoralphilosophy,whereethicsconsistsofasetofpredefinedcodesandnorms,butratherinthesenseJacquesDer-ridagivestotheterm.FollowingthephilosopherEmmanuelLevinas,whosework isbecoming increasingly importantwithincultural stud-ies,1Derridaunderstandsethicsasanobligationtowardtheincalcula-blealterityoftheotherwhorendersmeresponsibleandwhocallsmeintoquestion.) In thischapterand thechapters that followIwillar-guethatthispotentialchallengeisnotjustethicalbutalsopolitical—

antipolit iCs anD the internet10�

althoughnotnecessarily,ornotalways,oratanyratenotonlyintheusuallyrecognizedsenseoftheterm.

Forinstance,asIexplainedinmyfirstsetofmetadata,“NotesonCreatingCriticalComputerMedia,”Iamnotsuggestingthatopenac-cessingeneral,andtheculturalstudiesarchiveIfoundedinparticular,arepoliticalinthesensethattheyprovideameansofmovingthe“de-constructive”philosophyofSamuelWeberorJacquesDerrida,orevenmyownwork,awayfromaconcernwithproducinganegativetheoreti-calcritiqueoftexts,andtowardanaffirmative,practical,materialin-terventionbymeansofthecreationofanactualinstitutionusingtheInternet,theWeb,e-mail,andsoon.Thatwouldimplythatotherin-stancesandperformancesofdeconstruction,thosethatdo not involvetheproductionofamaterial/virtualinstitution,arejustnegativeformsofcritique:thattheyareinterestedmerelyinpointingouttextualapo-rias,ambiguities,ambivalences,contradictions,paradoxes,andsoon,ratherthanusingthemasabasisforinventingsomethingdifferentandnew.Thereisalsoarelatedriskofintimatingthat,incontrasttowhatIamdoinghere,otherformsofdeconstructionarenotconcernedwiththeinstitution,whereasforDerrida,atanyrate,deconstructioninvolvesaconstantposition-takingwithregardtotheinstitution(1992a).InthisrespectIwoulddisagreewithWeberwhen,inInstitution and Interpreta-tion,hewritesthatdeconstructionhasnotconcerneditselftoomuch“withtheinstitutionalconditionsofitsownpractice,”andhas“tendedtodownplaytheforcesandfactorsthatalwaysoperatetoinstituteandto maintain certain sets of paradigms, notwithstanding (or even be-causeof)theirintrinsicallyaporeticstructure”(1987,19).Deconstruc-tionhasoften(givenitsconcernwithsingularityandtheevent,Iamwaryofsayingalways)beenaffirmative,notleastbecauseithasbeendefinedastheconstantadoptingofapositionwithregardtopoliticsandtheinstitutionoftheuniversity.TheperformativestagingofDer-rida’s texts is justoneway inwhich theyhavechallenged traditionalacademic disciplines and the functioning of the university as it hasbeen institutionally delineated. Witness, too, Derrida’s own involve-ment in founding and supporting numerous “real-life” counterinsti-tutions such as the Groupe de recherche sur l’enseignement philos-ophique(GREPH),theEtatsgénéraux,andtheCollègeinternationaldephilosophie.NoristhisaspectofdeconstructionsolelyafeatureofDerrida’s laterwork,thatwrittenafterWeberhadpublishedthefirst

antipolit iCs anD the internet 10�

editionofInstitution and Interpretationin1987.TheseperformativeandcounterinstitutionalfacetsofDerrida’sthoughtwerealreadyevidentinhisearlierwritings,includingMargins of Philosophy(1982b)andDissemi-nation(1981),tonamebuttwo.2

Similarly, Iamnotmaintaining that theopen-accessrepository Iaminvolvedwith,withitsfocusonmakingatacticaluseofthe“realworld,”empirical,ethnographic,andexperientialcontextofthecon-temporary university, is potentially political because it appears to re-spondtotheregularcallsforculturalstudiestomoveawayfromthegrand theoretical, “textual,” “linguistic” approaches that supposedlycame todominate thefield in the1980sandearly1990s, andmovebacktoreality,thematerial,andthesortofpoliticalcommitmentthatisregardedaslyingattherootsofculturalstudies.AsIalsomadeclearin “NotesonCreatingCriticalComputerMedia,”anumberofques-tionscanberaisedagainstthisposition.Indeed,itisbynomeanscer-tainthatculturalstudiescanreturntoearlierformsofpoliticalengage-ment,evenifitdidaspiretogodownthisroute.Toattempttodosowouldbeto ignoretheveryeconomicandpoliticalrealities that thedesiredmovetowardpoliticsissupposedtoenableculturalstudiestotakeintoaccount.Chartingthefateoftheuniversityinaworldincreas-inglydominatedbyaneconomicandmanagerial logicofprofitandloss, Bill Readings demonstrated in his 1996 book The University in Ruinshowthe“humansciencescandowhattheylikewithculture,candoCulturalStudies,becauseculturenolongermattersasanideafortheinstitution.”The“notionofcultureasthelegitimatingideaofthemodern university has reached the end of its usefulness” (Readings1996,5),accordingtoReadings,andhasbeenreplacedbytheconceptof“excellence,”whichhasthe“singularadvantageofbeingmeaning-less,ortoputitmoreprecisely,non-referential”(1996,22).Thisprocessof“dereferentialization”meansthatwecannotreturntowhatReadingscallsthe“UniversityofCulture”:thisinstitutionisruinedandhaslostitshistoricalreasonforbeing.Anyattempttodwellinthoseruinswiththeaidofpoliticssimplyamountstotaking“recoursetoromanticnos-talgia”(1996,169).Ratherthanenablingareturntopolitics,then,thepresentpoliticalsituationrequiresculturalstudiestogiveupthis“reli-giousattitudetowardpoliticalaction”andmovebeyonditsmelancholia“foralostideaofculturethatneedspoliticalrenewal”(1996,191).

Thechallengetoscholarlylegitimationthatisposedbydigitization

antipolit iCs anD the internet10�

andtheopen-accessmovementisnotnecessarily,ornotalways,ornotjustpoliticalinthesensethatitconformstosomealreadyestablishedand easily recognized criteria of what it means to be political. This iswhyIhaveforthemostpartresistedpresentingdigitizationandopenaccessintermsofthekindofdiscoursesandnarrativesintowhichtheyhaveusuallybeen inscribed.Amongthesemoretypicalandfamiliarnarrativesconcerningopenaccesswecanlistthreecharacteristicap-proaches.

The liberal, democratizing approachseesopenaccessasenablingthepro-ductionofglobalinformationcommons.

Thetransitioninthesphereofbookproductionfrommanualcopy-ingtoprinthasbeendescribedasexertinganumberofpoliticaleffectsonsociety.Priortothis,accesstowrittentextswasprimarilythepre-serve of the wealthy or educated elite. The development of mass in-dustrialprintingtechniques,however,enabledbookstobereproducedcheaplyonalargescale.Asaresultthemajorityofindividuals,includ-ingmanyof thosewithonly limitedbudgets,wereeventuallyable topurchasebooks,whileeventhesmallestoftownscouldaffordtobuildapubliclibraryofitsown,whichmadebooksmoreaccessiblestill.TheEnlightenmentfantasyofauniversallyliterateandeducatedsocietyinwhichallknowledgeisobtainablebyeveryone,nomatterhowlowlyorimpoverished,wasthusperceivedashavingbecomearealpossibility.

Byplacingmoreideasandinformation,frommoresources,withineasyreachofagreaternumberoftheworld’spopulationthananypre-vious form of media or technology, the Internet, and with it open-accesspublishingandarchiving,isoftenregardedashavingthepoten-tialtoachievesocialandpoliticaleffectsonasimilarlyprofoundscale.Liketheprintingpressbeforeit,theprocessofmakingbooks,journals,anddatabasesopenaccess, togetherwith the computing technologyrequiredtosupportanddevelopthem,ispositionedasdemocratizingknowledge.Itdoessobyrenderingknowledgeandtechnologyavailabletothosewhocannotaffordtoinvestintheproductionofsuchthingsthemselves,butwhoneverthelessstandtobenefitfromtheircollectivesharing.Openaccessthusenablestheemergenceofaformof“globalinformationcommons,” inwhichalltheparticipantsareabletogiveandreceiveinformationforfree,oratleastforverylittlecost.Assuch,itisseenasofferingasolutiontosomeoftheproblemsofglobaldemoc-

antipolit iCs anD the internet 10�

racy,especiallywhatiscalledthe“digitaldivide”:thesituationwherebysome nations around the world, especially those in the “developingworld,”donothavethesamedegreeofaccesstoknowledgeasthoseintheWestandNorthbecauseoftheprohibitivecostofaccessingit,andsoareunabletoparticipateintheglobalmarketplaceonequaltermsorotherwisetakefulladvantageofandcontributetoadvancementsineducation,science,medicine,technology,andculture.

We have already encountered one variation on this approach inbothmyIntroductionandchapter2,withStevanHarnad’sconvictionthat theself-archivingof therefereedscientificresearch literature isgoingtomake“theentirefull-textrefereedcorpusonline/Oneveryresearcher’sdesktopeverywhere/24hoursaday.../Forfree,forall,forever” (2001/2003, n.p.).3 This belief—that knowledge should notnecessarilybeowned,copyrighted,orexchangedbypublisherssolelyforprofitandrestrictedtothoseconnectedtoaffluentinstitutions,andshouldinsteadbemadeavailableforfree(oratleastrelativelycheaply)toeveryonewhowishestoaccessit—afewyearsagoled32,362researchscientistsin183countriestoboycottanyscientificjournalthatrefusedtomakeresearchpapersfreelyavailableontheInternetsixmonthsaf-terpublication.Whenthatboycottfailed,sinceyoungerscholarsespe-ciallyfoundtheystillhadtopublishinthosejournalsinordertoem-barkontheircareers,thisbeliefthenledthemtolaunchtheirownfreeonlinejournals(Meek2001,3;MacLeod2003,9).Anotherinfluentialexample,againconcernedwithscientificresearchanditspublication,althoughthistimeemanatingfromtheworldofpolicy,isprovidedbyShuichiIwata,thepresidentoftheGlobalInformationCommonsforScienceInitiativeoftheInternationalCouncilforScience’sCommitteeonDataforScienceandTechnology(CODATA).Iwataliststhefollow-ingscientificdevelopmentsaspotentiallyexertingamajorimpactonthescientificcommunityinthenextfivetotenyears:

•Thedigitizationandgeneralaccessibilityofall,pastandpresent,scientificdataandinformation.

•An increase in long-distance scientific collaborations enabledbytheInternet,whichwillrelyonaccesstosubstantialdatacol-lections,large-scalecomputingresources,andhigh-performancevisualizationofdata.Thiswill lead toe-sciencegainingprece-denceovermore“localized”scientificwork.

antipolit iCs anD the internet110

•Thedevelopmentofpublicdataaccesssystemsthatwillfacilitategeneral access to the scientific collections mentioned above.(Iwata2006)

The renewed public sphere approachperceivesopenaccessashavingthepotentialtofacilitatethecreationofarevitalizedformofpublicsphereofdiscussion,debate,informationnetworking,andexchange.

Famously,forJürgenHabermas,thecommercialmassmediahavehadamajorparttoplayinthedemiseofthepublicsphere.Theyhavedonesobyturningthegeneralpopulaceintopassiveconsumersofme-dia spectacle.Consequently, theproblemwithpoliticalparticipationtoday, it is said, is thatmostmembersofdemocratic societiesdonotpossesssufficientinformationtobeabletomakeknowledgeabledeci-sionsandsoplayanactiveroleinthedemocraticprocess.Inbreakingdown thebarriersbetween theacademiccommunityand therestofsociety,however,aswellasbetweenscholarlyresearchandotherkindsofworkthatoccurinplacesoutsidetheacademicinstitution,itisheldthatopen-accesspublishingandarchivingisfacilitatingthecreationofarevitalizedformoftheidealizedpublicsphere.Itdoessobysupplyingthe public with the knowledge and information required to enablethemtoexercisetheirpowersofcriticalreasonandcontributetodem-ocratic debate, thus giving them a chance to actually converse andengagewiththemedia,asopposedtopassivelyconsumingmessagesfromthem.4

Although he mentions neither Habermas nor the public spherespecifically,JohnWillinskyposesavariationonthistheme“ofhelpingcitizens take advantage of new information sources to further theirdemocraticparticipation”that“liesattheheartofthepoliticalcase...for open access to research and scholarship” (Willinsky 2006, 127).Willinskyalsosubscribestoanumberoffeaturesoftheliberal,democ-ratizing,global informationcommonsapproach, asmy Introductionsuggested.Norishealoneinthis.Infact,theabovetwoliberaldemo-craticperspectivesonopenaccessareoftensointerrelatedandinter-twinedinmanypeople’sargumentsastomakethemdifficulttodistin-guish.5

The gift economy approachpositionsopenaccessashelpingtoestablishanewkindofaradical,digitaleconomyofthegift.

From this point of view, open access offers a radically different

antipolit iCs anD the internet 111

meansforthecommunicationandexchangeofknowledgeandideasfromthataffordedbycapitalism’sfree-marketeconomies—albeitonethat,farfrombeingsimplyopposedtoorsituatedoutsideofcommod-itycapitalism,actuallyarisesout of and co-exists with it.Itthusprovidesamodelforthesubversionofthelogicofcommodificationandforthedevelopmentofnewandradicallyalternativeformsofsocial,political,andeconomicorganizationtosupplementorrivalthatofcapitalism.

Inthelatter,ideasandknowledgearecommodified,givenexchangevaluesorprices,andthendistributedbymeansofthemarket.Theem-phasishereisontherighttoownandcontrolintellectualpropertytotheexclusionofothersinordertorecoupthecostoftheirproductionanddistributionbychargingafeetopossessthem(inthiscase,intheformofbookcoverprices,journalsubscriptions,thecostofregisteringforaccesstoonlinedatabases,andsoforth).Itisthereforeasystemthatdependsonaneconomicsoflackandinsufficiencyinthat,iftherearenotenoughinstancesofaparticularcommoditytomeettheneedsanddesiresofeveryoneinsociety,thenthosewhocanaffordtoaremoti-vatedtopayforsuchcommoditiesinordertoacquirethem.Themar-ketsetsthevalueorpriceofthesecommodities,takingintoaccounttherelationbetweenhowmanyareavailable,andhowmanypeoplewishtoobtainthem.Thefewercommoditiestherearetogoaroundandthemorepeopletherearewhowanttopurchasethem,thehigherthepriceislikelytobe.Butthissystemalsodependsonaneconomicsoflackandinsufficiencyinthatsuchcommoditiesarerivalrous.Ifonepersonpur-chasesandsoownsandpossessesasingularcommodity,thatcommod-itycannotbeownedorpossessedbysomeoneelse,unlessitistradedtotheminexchangeformoneyorsomeothercommodity.Atthatpointownershipoftheoriginalcommoditytransferstothatsecondperson:itbecomestheirpersonalproperty,withitsinitialpurchasernolongerbeinginpossessionofit.

Now,withincapitalism,legallawsandrightsaroundcopyrighthavebeenbuilt into its logicofcommodification,exchange,anddistribu-tion toensureandenforce thiseconomicsof insufficiencyand lack.Thesesamelawsandrightshavethenbeenusedtotrytocontroltheproduction, copying, distribution, and exchange of digital culture.(TheFederationAgainstCopyrightTheft[FACT]hasapparentlyeventrainedsnifferdogstosearchforpiratedDVDsbeingsmuggledthoughairportsbycounterfeitinggangs.)However, these lawshavehadonlyverylimitedsuccess.Asthecaseoftheopen-accesspublicationofdigit-

antipolit iCs anD the internet112

allyreproducedacademicscholarshipandresearchclearlyshows,itismuchmoredifficulttomakedigitalobjectsoperateaccordingtothelogicofcommodificationandthemarketandaneconomicsofinsuffi-ciency.Thisispartlybecausetheyaresoeasyandcheaptoproduce,copy,store,access,exchange,acquire,anddistribute.Butitalsohastodowiththefactthatdigitalobjectsarenonrivalrous.Someonecanownacopyofadigitallyreproducedjournalarticle,say,andtheycanmakeitfreelyavailabletoasmanypeopleastheylikesimplybypublishingitopenaccessorbyuploadingitintoanopen-accessrepository.Yettheydonotthemselvespossessthatarticleanythelessfordoingso.Theystillhavetheircopy,todowithastheyplease.Theyhavealsojustmadetheircopyfreelyavailabletoasmanyothersaswishtoreadandpossessitasagift,somethingthatisnotscarceandthatthereforedoesnotneedtobecompetedorcompensatedforinfinancialterms.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthosewhopublishopenaccessdonotreceivecompensationfordoingso—onlythattheirgiftingiscompensatedbyindirectmeans:inthecaseofopenaccess,bythegreaterlevelsoffeedbackandrecogni-tionauthorsreceivefortheirwork.6

RichardBarbrookis justoneofthosetohaveputforwardacasealongtheselines.ForBarbrook,theacademicgifteconomythatoper-ateswithinuniversities,wherebyscientistsgiveawayanddistributetheirresearch and findings for free, is more or less a modern, “hi-techversion”ofthePolynesiantribalpotlatchgifteconomythatanarcho-communists from “May 1968 to the late Nineties” believed “demon-stratedthatindividualscouldsuccessfullylivetogetherwithoutneedingeitherthestateorthemarket.”7And,indeed,bytakingpartinaradical,digital systemofgiftexchange inwhichpeopleareable tocirculatematerialas freesoftware,opensourceandopencontent,andcreatenewkindsof texts likewikis andblogs,open-access journalsandar-chivesareoftenperceivedashelpingtoconstructanonlineeconomythat promises to fundamentally alter and subvert notions of privatepropertyandsystemsofcommodification.Itisanemergenteconomythatformanyrepresentsachallengetocapitalismitself.

ButifIhavereservationsaboutpositioningopenaccessaspoliticalintermsofthekindsofdiscoursesandnarrativesintowhichithasusu-allybeeninscribed,howdoIproposetoconceptualizeits“politicality”?ToanswerthisquestionweneedtoaddresstheveryissueofwhatitistobepoliticalontheInternetbyinvestigatingthedominantformsofon-linepoliticsandpoliticalparticipation.

antipolit iCs anD the internet 113

Remediating PoliticsTodate,themajorityofcriticsandresearchershaveapproachednewmediausingpreestablished(whatIwilllaterrefertoas“transcenden-tal”)frameworksofknowledgeandmethodsofanalysis.Forthemostparttheyhavepresumedthatthefutureisunderstandableintermsofthepast,thenewintermsoftheold.TheopeningessayofMarkTribeandReenaJana’srecentbook,New Media Art,providesanillustration,supplyinganumberofexamplesfromarthistorythatnewmediaartissupposedly“like,”andthatcanthereforebeusedtohelpusunderstandandinterpretit.TheseincludeDadaiststrategiesofthephotomontage,collage,thereadymade,popartandvideoart(TribeandJana2006,8–9).8Perhapsthemostobviousexampleofthisapproach,however,isthewayinwhich,fromatleastthe1990sonwards,therelationshipbe-tweennewmediaandpoliticshasbeenarticulated.It isperspectiveson,andnarrativesabout,thisrelationshipthatwillconcernmeinthenextsectionofthischapter.

BeforeIgoanyfurther,IshouldpointoutthatIrealizepresentingthepoliticsofemergingmediaasbeingmadeupofopposingperspec-tives,asIamabouttodohere,isbynowsomethingofacliché.Mostbooksonthesubjectbeginbypositioningnewmediatechnologiesasbeing trapped in just such a set of contrasting and conflictual dis-courses,somuchsothatoneInternetcompanyactuallyused(orshouldthatbeparodied?)thebinaryformofdebatesofthiskindinitsadver-tising.AOL’s“Discuss”adsinvitedconsumerstoaddresssuchtopicsas“IstheInternetagoodthingorabadthing?,”layingoutsomeoftheprosandconsofeachsideoftheargument:

Some people think the internet is a bad thing. Somewhere youridentitycanbestolen....Itisoneofthemostdangerousweaponsevercreated.Awayfortheunhingedtospreadevil,freeofsupervi-sionorcensorship.Aplaceformankindtoexerciseitsdarkestde-sires.Anopenmarketwhereyoucanpurchaseanythingyouwant.Orwellwasright....

Somepeoplethinktheinternetisagoodthing.Themostpow-erfuleducationaltooltheworldhaseverknown.It’spreservingourhistory,makingsurethatinthefutureweneverforgetthepast....The internet isaplace that is freeof stateregulation,censorshipandcontrol...Orwellwaswrong.Itisnotthestatethatholdsallthepower,itisus...Whatdoyouthink?9

antipolit iCs anD the internet114

Nevertheless,Ihavedecidedtoprovideabriefreplayofthesedebates—whichoccurinbothmainstreamandacademicmedia—inordertoil-lustrate,bydrawingonsomecontemporaryexamples,thatdespitethefactthatthisdialecticalrhetorichasbecomesomethingofacliché,thepoliticsofnewmediacontinuestobeconceivedandunderstoodverymuchinsuchadualisticmanner.At theriskofactually legitimatingandsolidifyingthestructureIamtakingissuewith,Ihopethat thisreiterationofthediscoursesof“digitaldialectics”willactassomethingofadisablingmechanism,makingitjustalittlebitmoredifficultfornewmediapoliticstocontinuetobeconceptualizedandapproachedinthisfashioninthefuture.

“Some People Think the Internet Is a Good Thing . . .”Onesuchgroupofnarrativespositionsnewmediaasgeneratingop-portunities for democratic participation, challenge, and even resist-ance.Theemphasishere isplacedon theway inwhichcellphones,computers,laptops,theInternet,e-mail,blogs,wikisandthelikehavebrought about adramatic change in theworkingsof themedia andcultureindustries.Thetop-down,few-to-manyinformationflowsasso-ciatedwith thehierarchical,broadcastmodelof themassmediaareregardedashavingbeensupplemented,orevensupplanted,byafarmoredemocratic,interactive,heterogeneous,affective,many-to-manynetwork model associated with emerging digital media and oftenseenasoperatingoutsideof “official,” centralized stateorcorporatecontrol.

Blogginginparticularhasfrequentlybeenheldupasanexampleof the way in which, thanks to the Internet, the media is becomingmuchmorepopularlyparticipatoryanddemocratic.Tobesure,therehavebeen reports inThe New York Times of corporategiants suchasMicrosoftandWal-Martusingblogsandbloggersnotjusttopromotetheirproductsbutalso tohelp improve theirpublic image(Barbaro2006).Yetnoneofthishasbeenenoughtopreventanynumberofcrit-icspositioningbloggingasheraldingthedeathof“bigmedia”;orattheveryleastas“transformingthewaynewsandinformationaredissemi-nated,”asthejournalistandradiohostArianaHuffingtonputitonthevery day The Guardian launched the first rolling comment blog by aUnitedKingdomnewspaper:

antipolit iCs anD the internet 115

Blogginghasempoweredthelittleguy—levellingtheplayingfieldbetween the media haves and the media have-only-a-laptop-and-an-internet-connection. It’s made the blogosphere an invaluabletool forholdingthemainstreammedia’s feet tothefire.Asblog-gerextraordinaireGlennReynolds(akaInstapundit)putsitinhisnewbook,An Army of Davids,“Wherebeforejournalistsandpunditscould offer illogical analysis or cite ‘facts’ that were in fact false,now the Sunday morning op-eds have already been dissected onSaturday night, within hours of their appearing on newspapers’websites.”(Huffington2006,30)10

EvenRupertMurdoch,ownerofFox,The Times,andThe Sun(amongmanyotherthings),hasconcededthat,withthenumberofblogsdou-blingeverysixmonths,“powerismovingawayfromtheoldeliteinourindustry—theeditors,thechiefexecutivesand,let’sfaceit,theproprie-tors,”andthat“weareatthedawnofagoldenageofinformation—anempireofnewknowledge.”11

Nowherehasthise-empireofnewknowledge,this“digitaldemoc-racy”asithasbeencalled,beenheldtobemoreinevidencethanwithregardtowhatPresidentGeorgeW.BushdescribedasAmerica’s“big-gestmistake”—sofar—ofthesecondGulfWar:thetortureandabuseofprisoners inAbuGhraibprison(Bush2006). Indeed, ifGulfWarOnewasthefirstTVwar(inthesensethatitwasthefirsttobetelevisedas livespectacle),andtheKosovowarthefirstInternetwar(Keenan2002),thenthelatestattackonIraqcanbeconsideredthefirstdigitalwar,inthatitisthefirstinwhichthetroopsthemselvesactedassignifi-cantproducersanddistributorsofmedia,able to shares imagesandreal-time footage of their wartime experiences with the rest of theworld.Theexistenceofdigitalmediaandcultureingeneral,andblogsinparticular,certainlymadeitextremelydifficultfortheforcesofthe“coalitionofthewilling”tokeeptheabusescommittedatAbuGhraibunderwraps.Whichofcourseisnottosaythatthosewhotookthepic-turesandvideosof theseatrocitieswerenecessarilypoliticallymobi-lizedagainstthewar.Accordingtoonegovernmentconsultant,inmanycasesimagesofsexualhumiliationwereusedto“createanarmyofin-formants, people you could insert back in the population” and who“would do anything—including spying on their associates—to avoiddisseminationoftheshamefulphotostofamilyandfriends”(quotedin

antipolit iCs anD the internet11�

Hersch2004).Thiswouldcertainlyexplainwhysomanyoftheseim-agesgototheratherunusuallengthsofpresentingforinspectiontheactual perpetrators of these crimes and not just their victims. Yetwhethertheyweretakenforthisreason,orsimplyasperversetrophiesor souvenirs, the ease and speed with which the pictures from AbuGhraib could be downloaded and e-mailed, made into DVDs, circu-latedandpublishedinmainstreambroadcastingandprintmedia,andposted,archived,andpublicizedonarhizomaticnetworkofWebsitesandblogs,thusgeneratingfurtherandsustainedmediaandpublicin-terestover the longterm,madeboththe images themselvesandtheensuingpolitical scandalhard, ifnot indeed impossible for theU.S.governmenttocontain,control,andmanageaccordingtoitsownpo-liticalagenda.12

Fromthisangle,newmediaispresentedverymuchasprovidingameansofovercomingmanyofthelimitationsandproblemsassociatedwiththeold,“elite,”globalmassmedia,especiallytheirdisempoweringandhomogenizing nature, and theway they are concentrated in in-creasingly fewer—and richer—hands.Nowadays, theargumentgoes,peopledonotjustlistentoorwatchmediamessages;thankstotheIn-ternetandWorldWideWebtheyarealsoabletocreate,broadcast,cir-culate,andexchangetheirownideasandculturalcreations.Assuch,new media is positioned as supplying the necessary knowledge andequipmentfor justaboutanyone,evenchildrenandthoseservinginthemilitary,tonotonlyconsumemediabutproduceitaswell,thusaid-ingandpromotinggreatersocialdialogue,whichinturnhelpstobuildandsustainactiveparticipationandengagementindemocraticformsofpoliticsandsociallife.

Whenadoptedbymediaandculturalstudiescritics, thispositiveandoptimisticchampioningofthedemocraticpotentialofemergingmediaoftenconstitutessomethingofaresponsetoearlier,morepessi-mistic,FrankfurtSchool–typecriticismsoftheroleoftheold,elitecul-tureindustries.ItthereforecomesasnosurprisetofindDouglasKell-ner,arenownedcommentatorontheFrankfurtSchoolandWebmasterofthe“Illuminations”criticaltheoryWebsite,13adheringtothisviewofInternetpoliticsinwhatisoneofthemostwidelyreferredtoarticlesonthesubject:“Techno-Politics,NewTechnologies,andtheNewPublicSpheres” (1997). Whereas the mass media—the press, TV, radio sta-tions,filmcompanies,andsoon—isforthemostpartcontrolledbythesamecentralizedgovernmentbodies,institutions,multinationalbusi-

antipolit iCs anD the internet 11�

nesses,andmediaconglomeratesthatdominatetherestofsociety,theInternet, forKellner,alongwithpublic-access televisionandcommu-nity and guerrilla radio, opens media technologies to “interventionandusebycritical-oppositionalintellectuals,”andthustothecreationofnewpublicspheresofdemocraticdiscussion,analysis,anddebate.Writinginthemid-1990s,Kellnerisabletociteanumberofinsurgentintellectualswhoarealreadymakinguseofthenewpublicspheresena-bledbymediatechnologyintheirpoliticalprojects.TheseincludetheTiananmenSquaredemocracymovementinChina,theMcLibelcam-paignwithitsMcSpotlightWebsite,aswellastheEZLNZapatistamove-mentinChiapas,Mexico.Using“computerdatabases,guerrillaradio,andotherformsofmediatocirculatetheirstrugglesandideas”through-outtheworldfromthebeginningoftheiractivity(1997),theZapatistamovementhasvariouslybeendesignatedthefirstsocialmovementoftheInternetage,thefirstinformationalguerrillamovement(Castells1996),and the“first instanceofNetwarfare”(GarridoandHalavais2003,166).

Inanarticlefrom2005writtenwithRichardKahn,Kellnerupdateshisanalysisof techno-politics to the twenty-firstcentury.Needless tosay,inanerawhentherhetoricofthe“waronterror”isbeingutilized“to limit thepublic sphere, curtail informationandcommunication,legitimategovernmentsurveillanceofelectronicexchange,andtocutbackoncivilliberties,”theabilityofdigitalmediatechnologiestohelpbuild and sustain activeengagement indemocratic formsofpoliticsandsociallifehasassumedaddedimportance(KahnandKellner2005,77).InfactKahnandKellnerarenowabletoidentifywhattheybelievetobea“newcycleofInternetpolitics”ashavingemergedafterSeptem-ber11andtheattacksonAfghanistanandIraq.Thiscycle“hascon-sistedoftheimplosionofthemediaandpoliticsintopopularculture,withtheresultbeingunprecedentednumbersofpeopleusingtheIn-ternet and other technologies to produce original instruments andmodes of democracy” (2005, 78). Among the many examples theyprovide is the use of new information communication technologies,including the Internet, cell phones, and text messaging by politicalgroupssuchasMoveOn,A.N.S.W.E.R.,andUnitedforPeaceandJus-tice to “circulateanti-war information,organizedemonstrationsandpromoteawidediversityofanti-waractivities”(2005,78).14TheyalsoanalyzetheeffortsofVermontGovernorHowardDean’steamofInter-net activists to “successfully catalysehis grassroots campaign” in the

antipolit iCs anD the internet11�

2004 U.S. Democratic primaries through the use ofnew media. ForKahnandKellner, theDeancampaign showed that Internetpoliticswasnotlimitedtoa“self-containedcybersphere”;rather,itwasaforcethatwasabletomakepracticalinterventionsintothepoliticalstrugglesofcontemporarymediaculture(2005,79).15LastbutnotleastamongtheexamplesIwanttoprovide,theauthorsfocusontheSpanishpeo-ple’s use of the cell phone and Internet networks during the March2004election.Thesewereemployedtodenouncethe“allegedlies”ofthethenConservativePartygovernmentregardingtheMadridterror-istbombingsofthatmonth(thegovernmenthadblamedthesebomb-ingsonETAinwhatmanysawasanattempttodistanceitselffromanypossible connection to the “war on terror”), and call for an end toSpain’sinvolvementintheoccupationofIraqaspartofBush’s“coali-tionofthewilling.”AccordingtoKahnandKellner,theexploitationofalternativemodelsofinformationandcommunicationmobilizedthealreadydiscontentedpublicandresultedinanunexpectedvictoryfortheoppositioncandidate.

“. . . Some People Think the Internet Is a Bad Thing . . .”Narrativesofthiskindconcerningtheliberatoryandthusintrinsicallypoliticalcharacterofnewmediaareaccompaniedby,andcontrastedto,variousstoriesthat insteadportraynewmediaasameansforthecontinuation,reinforcement,intensification,andextensionofthepow-ersofbothgovernmentandthemarketwithinlatecapitalism.

Atitsmostbasic,newmediaispositionedfromthelatterstandpointasenablingglobalorganizationsandcorporationstogenerategreatercommercialrevenue:bothbyallowingthemtoselltheirexistingprod-uctsandservicestomorecustomersonaworldwidescale,andbyallow-ingthemtodevelop,market,andsellnewproductsandservicesthathaveonlybeenmadepossiblebytheemergenceofspecificnewmediatechnologies. Sonotonly canconsumerspurchaseCDsonline fromAmazonandeBay,butalso theycannowpay todownloadmusicviaiTunes.16Whilethelate1990sisregardedasthehighpointofthiscom-mercializationoftheInternet,theprocessisverymuchcontinuingto-day,albeitinalessfeverishmannerfollowingthedot.comcrashthatoccurredbetweenmid-1998andMarch/April2000.

Aparticularlycharacteristicfeatureofthistakeonnewmediaisthelargedegreeofpowerthatisassignedtolatecapitalism’seconomicsys-tem.Thishas ledquite a fewcritics toquestion theextent towhich

antipolit iCs anD the internet 11�

Internetsubcultures(if“subculture”istherightword),suchasthoseassociatedwithpeer-to-peerfilesharing,doindeedrepresentabreakwith,orasubversivechallengeto,thecommodifyinglogicofthefreemarket, as is frequently claimed. It may be tempting to depict file-sharingnetworkssuchasKazaa,Gnutella,andFreenetasanattackoncopyrightandtheveryregimeofprivatepropertyitself,onethathasthepotentialtotransformandevenpossiblydestroycapitalismasweknowit.Nevertheless,thefactremains,nomatterhowfreelyMP3mu-sicfilesaredistributedandexchanged,andhowmuchthelikesoftheRIAAperceivethisasathreat,mostofthoseinvolvedinfilesharingarenot technically competent enough tobe able to construct theirowncomputers.Sotheystillhavetobuytheequipmenttodotheactualup-anddownloadingoffiles,nottomentiontheCreativeZensandAppleiPods theyneed toplay themon. In this respect,Apple/iPod/iTune(andnowiPhone)canbesaidtoformamutuallysupportivenexusforpromotingfurtherconsumption.Farfromfacilitatingresistancetothelogicofcapitalismperse,Apple’siconiciPodprovidesmerelyadegreeof freedomfrommaterials—because it isneaterand lessbulky thanWalkmansorCDplayers,andsimplertouse,organize,andcarry.Ap-ple is strivingtoassociate this feelingof“freedom”withthe“ideaofsocial/political/culturalliberation,”whichthecompanyhastradition-ally used to position itself and its products in the market with anemphasisontheApplebrandbeingmorealternative,individualistic,nonconformist,andcountercultural(Heckman2006).(Witnesstheir“ThinkDifferent”campaignandofcoursethewayinwhichwheneversomeoneartyorliberalusesacomputerinaHollywoodfilmitisalmostinvariablyanAppleMac.)

Evenwhenitisconcededthatanaspectofdigitalculturemayoper-ateaccordingtoadifferentlogictomuchofthatoflatecapitalism,agreatdealoftimeandenergytendstobespentondemonstratingjusthowdifficultitisforthataspectofdigitalculturetoescapetheneolib-eral economy’sprocessesof co-optionandcommercialization to anysignificantdegreeorlengthoftime.Thefreesoftwareandopen-sourcemovements,aschampioned in suchbooksasRichardStallman’sFree Software, Free Society (2002) and EricRaymond’sThe Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary(2001),are frequentlyofferedasacase inpoint.Within thesemove-mentsthemselves,freeandopen-sourcesoftwareisdepictedasprovid-ing evidence that distributed groups of people can collaborate in

antipolit iCs anD the internet120

onlinesituations,withouttheneedofformalizedrelationships,toco-operativelydevelop,share,anddistributesourcecodetoanextremelyhighstandardwithouthavingprofitas theirmainmotivation.Whilesomehaveseeninthisamodelfornewkindsofinstitutionsandevenforthefutureorganizationofsociety,criticshaverepeatedlystressedhowquicklytheforcesofcapitalistcorporateculturehavecometoem-braceandtradeuponmanyoftheproducts,aswellasthephilosophy,of the free software andopen-sourcemovements (sometimesknowncollectively as FLOSS: Free/Libre/Open Source Software). With theopen-source Linux operating system generally being regarded as alow-cost alternative to the available proprietary offerings, and withtheopen-sourceApachesystemhavingthelargestmarketshareofalltheavailableWebservers,theworkoffreesoftwareandopen-sourcecodersisoftenutilizedbycommercialorganizationstohelpgeneratefinancialprofits,forinstance.TheytendtoseeFLOSSasameansofacquiringbothsoftwareandtheassociatedresearchanddevelopment(debugging,upgrading,etc.)atverylittleexpense;andtheyfrequentlydosowithoutofferinganythingmuchinreturnthemselves—thusgo-ing against the ethos of commons-based peer production and opensharingorgiftingthatcharacterizesthesemovements—justifyingtheiractionsonthegroundsthattheyhavetousefreeandopen-sourcesoft-wareiftheywishtoremaincompetitive,sincetheirbusinessrivalsaredoubtlessdoinglikewise.Atthesametime, it isstressedthata lotofsoftware companies, and the venture capitalists behind them, havebeenabletoturnahandsomeprofitfromopensourcebyoperatingonthebasisthat,althoughthesourcecodetheydistributemaybefree,thehardwareandtechnical support theyareable tosupply togowith itcertainlyisnot.Similarly,thepointismadethatmanyofthoseinvolvedintheproductionoffreeandopen-sourcecodingareonlyinapositiontodosobecausetheirleveloftechnicalexpertisemeanstheycanoftenacquire relatively well-paid flexible work in the high-skill knowledgeeconomy.Whilethisenablesthese“precarious”creativeworkerstotaketime away from regular employment to devote to the production ofsourcecode,italsomeanstheyarenomoreabletooperateoutsideorin direct opposition to neoliberal capitalism than peer-to-peer filesharers.

When it comes to media and cultural studies specifically, thereareanynumberofvariationsonthisapproach.Somecriticshavear-guedthattheInternetandthediscoursessurroundingitfunctionvery

antipolit iCs anD the internet 121

muchas“afullconsensus-creatingmachine,whichsocializesthemassofproletarianizedknowledgeworkersintotheeconomyofcontinuousinnovation,”where their labor canbe furtherexploited. “After all ifwedonotgetonlinesoon,thehypesuggests,wewillbecomeobsolete,unnecessary,disposable”(Terranova2000,n.p.).Thisprocessofcon-sensuscreationandexploitationhasbecomeparticularlyapparentinrecentyearswithregardtowhathasvariouslybeencalled“Web2.0,”“LiveWeb,”“SocialWeb”or“socialnetworking”—andnotonlyinthesensethatifyoudon’thaveapresenceonMySpaceorFacebooknowa-days,it’seasytofeelyou’revirtuallynoone,inatleasttwosensesoftheterm“virtual.”Byharnessingthe“collectiveintelligence”oftheiruserstoprovide“user-generatedcontent”forfree,andbyhavingthesamecommunityofusersmoderatethatcontent,andevenorderandstruc-tureitthemselvesviausertagging,examplesofthe“LiveWeb”suchasMySpace,YouTube,Flickr,Facebook,andBebo(orwhicheverhappenstobeflavorofthemonthatthemoment)areportrayedashavingthepotentialtogenerateaseconddot.comboomtorivalthatofthe1990s,astheyprovideInternetcompanieswithcontentandorganizationforfree,withminimalstaffcostsneededformaintenanceofthesites.17Nodoubt this ability to retainownershipandcontrolwhile at the sametimeexternalizingmostoftheircostsispartlywhatpersuadedRupertMurdochtobuyMySpace,withitsreported98millionmembersworld-wide,for$580millionin2005;Yahoo!topayanestimated$35millionfor Flickr; and Google to spend $1.65 billion dollars on taking overYouTubeinOctober2006.Butitisalsopossibletoobserveinthisevi-denceofthewayinwhich,thesedays,eventhemostapparentlydemo-cratic,distributed,self-organizing,andpopularlyparticipatoryofcom-munitiescanalsobeacommoditythatcanbeboughtandsold.18

Othersmeanwhilehavepositionedsuch“socialcomputing”aslead-ingtoformsofelectronicBalkanization.Thereasoninghere is that,yes,peoplemaybeempoweredtobecomeactivelyinvolvedinbuildingcommunitiesby thesesocialnetworks—orantisocialnetworks in thecaseofSnubster,whichbringspeopletogetheraroundshareddislikesandthecreationof“hatelists,”ratherlikeanegativeMySpace.19How-ever, the Internet’seradicationofphysicalorgeographicconstraintsdoesnot lead to theconstructionofa formof “global village,”as somany,buildingontheworkofMarshallMcLuhan(1964;McLuhanandPowers1989),hadearlierpredictedwith regard to themediaof thetwenty-firstcentury(althoughMcLuhanwas,ofcourse, thinkingpri-

antipolit iCs anD the internet122

marilyintermsoftheeffectsoftelevision).Instead,thesecommunitiestendtoberatherself-selecting,withthosewithsimilarsocial,intellec-tual, and economic interests and viewpoints gravitating to the samesitesandspaces,andtheninteractivelycustomizingthosesitestosuittheir own interests still further once they get there. The result isa number of self-contained and quite homogenous special-interestgroupsoflike-mindedindividualsbeingformedatvariouslocationsontheInternet,withrelativelylittletravelorcross-pollination—ofideas,philosophies,orsocialandpoliticalpointsofview—occurringacrossandbetweenthem.

InacritiqueofthepoliticalimpactoftheInternetthatappearedinthesame2005issueofCultural PoliticsasKahnandKellner’s“Opposi-tionalPoliticsandtheInternet,”JodiDeantakesthiskindofanalysisoftheInternet’s“segmentationandisolationofuserswithinbubblesofopinionwithwhichtheyalreadyagree”stillfurther(Dean2005,69).Characterizing thecurrentpolitical-economic formation in termsof“communicativecapitalism,”Deanportraystheroleofnetworkedcom-municationtechnologieswithinthecurrentconjunctureas“profoundlydepoliticizing.”OneofthemainexamplessheusestoillustratehercaseisthatofthenumerouscritiquesofGeorgeBush,thewaronterror,theevidenceofweaponsofmassdestruction,andtheimpendingattackonIraqthatwereofferedbymyriadalternative,independent,progressive,andcriticalmediaoutlets.Theantiwarmessageconveyedbythesecrit-icisms“wasnotreceived,”sheclaims.Instead,themessagemerely:

circulated,reducedtothemedium.EvenwhentheWhiteHouseac-knowledgedthemassiveworldwidedemonstrationsofFebruary15,2003,Bushsimplyreiteratedthefactthatamessagewasoutthere,circulating—theprotestorshadtherighttoexpresstheiropinions.Hedidn’tactuallyrespondtotheirmessage....So,despitethetera-bytesofcommentaryandinformation,therewasn’texactlyadebateoverthewar.Onthecontrary, inthedaysandweekspriortotheUSinvasionofIraq,theanti-warmessagesmorphedintosomuchcirculatingcontent, just likealltheotherculturaleffluviawaftingthroughcyberia.(Dean2005,52)

Deananalyzesthissituationintermsofadistinctionanda“significantdisconnect”between“politicsasthecirculationofcontent”inthepub-licsphereand“politicsastheactivityofofficials”(2005,53).Itispre-

antipolit iCs anD the internet 123

ciselythislackofconnectionthatchallengesthevery“premiseoflib-eraldemocracy,”inthatthe“communicativeinteractionsofthepublicsphere”aremeanttohaveanimpacton“officialpolitics”(2005,53).SuchanimpactforhernolongerhappensintheUnitedStatestoday,asdebateandaneedtorespondtotheissuesraisedhavebeenreplacedbyaconstantcirculationofcommunicativeflowsandtheoverproduc-tionofinformation.

Furthermore,DeanpositionsthekindofargumentwehaveseenKahnandKellnerdeveloparoundInternetpoliticsasanexampleof“technologicalfetishism.”ThelattersheregardsasbothdepoliticizingandashelpingtomaintainthelackofconnectionbetweenwhattakesplaceontheInternetandwhatoccursintherealmofpolicy.Itisdepo-liticizingbecauseourinvolvementultimatelyempowersthoseitissup-posedtoresist.Strugglesonthenetreiteratestrugglesinreallife,but“insofarastheyreiteratethesestruggles,theydisplacethem.Andthisdisplacement,inturn,securesandprotectsthespaceof‘official’poli-tics.Thissuggestsanotherreasoncommunicationfunctionsfetishisti-callytoday:asadisavowalofamorefundamentalpoliticaldisempower-ment or castration” (2005, 61). In short, the Internet for Dean is atechnologicalfetishinthatitactsasascreenontowhichideasofpoliti-calactioncanbeprojected. Itprovidesmerely the fantasyofpoliticalactivity and participation. Significantly (especially for some of thethingsIamgoingtosayinamoment),DeanisabletousemanyofthesameexamplesKahnandKellnerdrawon—includingbothHowardDeanandMoveOn—tomakeherpoint.

Yetforothers,newmediamayhaveplayedanevenmorefundamen-talpoliticalrolewithinthedevelopmentoflatecapitalistsocietiesthanthatascribedtoitbyDean.AswesawinmyIntroduction,neworemerg-ingmediatechnologyispositionedashavingbeenvitaltothedevelop-mentofthe“information”or“knowledgeeconomy,”helpingtotrans-formtraditionalmodesofproduction,consumption,anddistribution,andcreatingintheirplacenewtypesoffirms,products,andmarketsbasedaroundthecommodificationandcommunicationofknowledgeandinformation.Newmedia’srolemighthavebeenevenmoreimpor-tantthanthis,however.Itmaynotonlyhavehelpedwiththedevelop-mentoftheneweconomy,butalsohavehadalargeparttoplayinthecreationofglobalization(althoughasLawrenceGrossbergpointsout,sincecapitalismhasalwaysbeenboundupwithglobalization,“globali-zation as a neo-liberal ideology” would be a more accurate way of

antipolit iCs anD the internet124

puttingit[2005a,125]).Fortheproductionofaglobalneoliberalfree-marketeconomycouldonlybeachievedasaresultofthe“deregulationoftheinternationalfinancialmarkets,characterisedintheUKastheStockExchangeBigBangof1988,”andthe“endingofprotectionismundertheaegisoftheWorldTradeOrganisation(WTO).”Thisinturncouldonly takeplaceoncesufficientcomputingtechnologyandnet-workshadbeendevelopedandputinplacetohandlethecomplexdataandinformationneededtodealwithaderegulated,privatizedfinan-cialmarket.Inthisrespect,theInternetisnotjustaproductoffree-market,neoliberal capitalism, reproducing itsbelief that themarketknowsbestacrossthefaceoftheplanet,andthusactingasapowerfultoolforextendingthehegemonyof“globalizationasaneo-liberalide-ology”(Listeretal.2003,198,201).TheInternethasinfacthelpedtocreate capitalism,at least in itscontemporary, free-market,neoliberalform.20

“. . . What Do You Think?”Sofarsofamiliarperhaps.Still,asanaccountoftherelationshipbe-tweenpoliticsandnewmediathisbipartitenarrativeistoocursorytofunctionasanythingmorethanasignpostforfurtheranalysis.WhileIam convinced it is important to track the development of narrativetrendsofthiskind,andevenonoccasiontoengagewiththem,Inever-thelesshavestrongreservationsaboutdebatesonnewmediabeingpre-dominantlyarticulated through,andthus stoppingat,anattempt todeterminetheradicalpoliticalpotential(orlackofpotential)ofblog-ging,HowardDean,filesharing,Apple’siPod,opensource,MySpace,Web 2.0, “cyberbalkanization,” “communicative capitalism,” techno-logical fetishism,HowardDeanagain....Or, for thatmatter,anyofthose other related issues I have not touched upon but quite easilycouldhave,suchashacking,hacktervism,“wardriving,”“culturejam-ming,” viral video, Internet porn, censorship, surveillance, identitytheft,theCreativeCommons,intellectualproperty,mash-ups,freecon-tent,openpublishing,andsoforth.

Isaythisforanumberofreasons.First,becauseargumentsofthekindsketchedabove—wheredigitaltechnologyispresentedaseithergeneratingopportunitiesfordemocraticparticipation,challenge,andresistance,orasameansforthecontinuation,reinforcement,andin-tensificationoflatecapitalism—havealreadybeenwell-rehearsedandwidelydebatedelsewhere:inthemajorityofaccountsofInternetpoli-

antipolit iCs anD the internet 125

tics,infact.Second,becauseitseemstomethat,insettingtheissueupinsuchaway,asaconflictbetweentwocontrastingapproaches,thereisadangerofreducingthepoliticsofnewmediatoaseriesofmore-or-lesshomologouspositions:technophiliaortechnophobia,optimismorpessimism,radicalismorconservativism,progressivismorcorporat-ism, immanenceor transcendence,productionorconsumption,pro-fessionalismoramateurism,theoryorpractice,utopiaordystopia,in-side or outside, authentic or inauthentic, potlatch or the consumereconomy,andsoon.(Which,asIarguethroughoutthischapter,isin-deedthedominantwayinwhichthepoliticsofdigitalmediahasbeenpositionedtodate.)21

AthirdreasonIamreluctanttocontinuepositioningnewmediadebateslikethisisbecauseitmeans,paradoxicallyenough,adoptingandperpetuatingaveryoldand,Iwouldargue,ratherdatednarrativestrategy.Certainly,thepredispositiontoseedisputesovernewmediaperseintermsofadialectic(andoftena“stalled”oneatthat)betweentechophiliacs and technophobes, optimists and pessimists, and soforth, isnotconfinedtotheperiodstretchingfromthe1990stothepresent,noreventotreatmentsofdigitalpolitics.Thisnarrativeten-dencyhasalonghistoryintheanalysisofthepoliticaleffectsofmediatechnologies,onethatstretchesbackthroughtheworkofFredricJame-son, JürgenHabermas,MarshallMcLuhan,RaymondWilliams,Her-bertMarcuse,TheodorAdorno,WalterBenjamin,BertoltBrecht,andbeyond.

Fourth,chartingthehistoryofthesediscussionsoverthepoliticsofemergingmediabyoutlining themethodologiesofoneapproach inrelation to the other would overlook the extent to which—althoughtheymayappear tobedialecticallyopposed—both“sides” inthisdis-puteareinfactequallyimportanttothecontinuationofculturalcriti-cism,includingInternetcriticism,initspresentform,asistheantago-nismbetweenthem.Inshort,itwouldtaketoolittleaccountofthewayinwhichbothofthese“sides”areimplicatedineachotherastheircon-ditionsofpossibility.22Asaresult,sucha“digitaldialectics”approachwouldmerelyrepeatandreinforcethe“radicallogicofincompatibilitybetween centrifugal and centripetal forces, simultaneously forcingcultures and peoples together as it pulls others apart,” which bothStuartHallandRobertYounghaveidentifiedasoperating“asthecul-turalandeconomicdynamicoflatecapitalistsociety”itself(seeG.Hall2002,44;R.Young1996b,8).

antipolit iCs anD the internet12�

New Media TacticsIamawarethatforsomepeoplethe very actofrehearsingthesedichoto-mousapproachestonewmedia—althoughconductedinacriticalspirit—is somewhat out-of-date. From this perspective, I am being ratherunfairindoingso,sinceevenifatonestageintheirhistory—inthe1990s,say—discussionsoverthepoliticsofnewmediadidtakethedia-lectical form I have attributed to them, things have moved on sincethen,notleastundertheinfluenceofthethoughtofGillesDeleuzeandFélixGuattari.PartofwhatIamtryingtoemphasize,however,withmyreferences to recent writings by Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner,JodiDean,evenPeterLunenfeldandGeertLovink,isthedialecticalghost that still hangs over such debates. To quickly provide just onemoreexample,witnessthewayinwhichthechairoftheCreativeCom-monsproject,23LawrenceLessig,positionshiscontributiontothede-bate over free culture as “a balance between anarchy and control”(2004,xvi):“thedebatesofarhasbeenframedattheextremes—asagrandeither/or:eitherpropertyoranarchy,eithertotalcontrolorart-istswon’tbepaid....What’sneededisawaytosaysomethinginthemiddle—neither‘allrightsreserved’nor‘norightsreserved’but‘somerightsreserved’—andthusawaytorespectcopyrightsbutenablecrea-torstofreecontentastheyseefit”(2004,276–77).Itseemstomethatthemajorityofnarrativesthroughwhichnewmediaanditspoliticsaretodayconceivedandunderstoodhavenotchangedquitesomuchassomepeoplewouldliketothinkandhaveusbelieve.Moreover,thiscanbeseentobethecaseevenwithregardtothosewhohaveattemptedto“moveon”frompositionsofthekindIhavedescribedabovebyexplic-itlychallengingthedialecticaltermswithinwhichthepoliticsofnewmediahasotherwisebeenperceived.ElsewhereIhaveshownhow,inordertoproduceamethodologyfortheiranalysisofthemultitudeof“immateriallaborers”intheneweconomythatisexplicitlynondialecti-cal,MichaelHardtandAntonioNegriunwittinglyrepeatintheirbookEmpiretheverydialecticsofculturalcriticismtheyareexplicitlytryingtoelude(G.Hall2006).Soletmeillustratethispointherewithadif-ferentexample:thatof“tacticalmedia.”

OneofthethingsIamtryingtodowiththisbookistoshowhownew media can be used to create “practical,” performative, affectiveprojects that make an institutionally pragmatic “tactical use of thespaceoftheuniversity.”Iaminterestedinemployingnewmediatacti-

antipolit iCs anD the internet 12�

callytotaketheopportunitypresentedtousbydigitaltechnologyintheformofopen-accessarchivingtoact now.Foroncetheestablishedinstitutionsandfundingbodiesbecomemoreinvolved(forexample,theEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil[ESRC],ArtsandHumani-tiesResearchCouncil[AHRC],andsoforthintheUnitedKingdom),theopportunitiesIamoutlininghereforamoreinterestingethicallyandpoliticallyresponsibleformofopen-accessarchivingmaybelost.The “tactical”useofdigitalmediacanalso serveasaguardagainstsomeofthepoliticalmechanismsthatareinevitablylinkedwithinstitu-tionalization.Evenifopen-accesspublishingandarchivingis“success-ful” (whatever that might mean) in helping us address the politico-ethicalissuesandquestionsIamidentifyingthroughoutthisbook,wemight eventually have tomoveonat somepoint toother, as yetun-mapped,politico-ethicalterrainsandtasks.SuccessmaywellresultinarepositorysuchastheCSeARCHculturalstudiesopen-accessarchivereproducingandactingout,ratherthantakingonandthinkingother-wise,thekindofproblemswehaveidentifiedasbeingassociatedwithinstitutions(notleasttheirreduciblyviolentandinevitablyparadoxicalnatureoftheauthorityonwhichtheyarebased).

Havingsaidthat,Iamnottryingtopositioneitheropen-accessar-chivingorCSeARCHasanexampleof“tacticalmedia”strictlyspeak-ing,atleastasthelatterhasbeendefinedbyDavidGarciaandGeertLovinktogetherandseparatelyinarangeoftexts.IwanttofocusonGarciaandLovink’sdefinitionoftacticalmediahere:partlybecauseitisoneofthemoredetailedandinteresting,andpartlybecauseitisthemostfrequentlycited(indeed, it isoftenregardedas“seminal”).ButthemainreasonIwant toconcentrateontheirdefinitionof tacticalmedia is because it has been positioned as an attempt to followDeleuze’sdictum“Experiment,neverinterpret”(DeleuzeandParnet2002, 48; cited byWark2006b, 274)—an attempt that might, in thewordsofMcKenzieWark,“freeitselffromthedialecticofbeinganal-ternativeoropposition,whichmerelyreproducesthesterilesenseofaWedomversusaTheydominthemediasphere”(2006b,273).

In“TheABCofTacticalMedia,”GarciaandLovinkportraytacticalmediaverymuchintheseterms:asanattempttonotrepeatandrepro-ducethedialecticsofoppositionaloralternativeapproachestotheme-dia.Theyarequitepreparedtoacknowledgethatadheringto“theclas-sicritualsoftheundergroundandalternativescene”wouldbebyfartheeasierandsaferoption(GarciaandLovink1997,n.p.).Theprob-

antipolit iCs anD the internet12�

lemwithproposingalternativemedia,actions,policies,ormovements,from their tacticalmedia–orientedperspective, is thatoppositionofthiskindistooeasilyco-opted:itistooeasilyturnedintojustanotherlifestylestatementorbrandingandmarketingopportunity.OneneedonlythinkofLive8andtheMakePovertyHistorycampaign,aswellasalltheCheGuevarat-shirtsthatareforsale,alongsidethosebearingthewords“CalvinKlein,”“fcuk”and“pornstar,”torealizethatnowa-days being overtly “oppositional,” “alternative,” even “revolutionary”oftenamountstolittlemorethanafashionchoice.What ismore,asGarciaandLovinkmakeclear,attemptsattakingsuchanoppositionalstandtoooftenrepeatearlierunsuccessfulattemptsatbeing“alterna-tive,”as youproceed fromaperiodof initialenthusiasmandexcite-menttooneoffrustrationthatthingsarenothappeningfastenough,untilthatinturngiveswayto,andisreplacedby,eventualexhaustionanddisillusionment.Oneofthemainwaysinwhichtacticalmediadif-fersfromotherformsofalternativemedia,forGarciaandLovink,isthatitisconsciouslyanddeliberatelyendeavoringtobreakoutofthiscycleofenthusiasm,disappointment,andfailure.Itisnottryingtocon-structdirectalternativestothedominantmainstream:amorepoliti-callyradicalnewspaper,oramoreethicallyresponsibleInternetsearchengine(aright-onversionofGoogle,say,oramorecaringandsharingalternativetoMicrosoft).“Althoughtacticalmediaincludealternativemedia,”GarciaandLovinkstressthatthesemediaformsare“notre-strictedtothatcategory.Infactweintroducedthetermtactical,”theywrite,verymuchwithaviewtodisruptingandtakingus“beyondtherigid dichotomies that have restricted thinking in this area, for solong,dichotomiessuchasamateurVsprofessional,alternativeVsmain-stream.EvenprivateVspublic”(GarciaandLovink1997,n.p.).AstheyputitinaninterviewwithAndreasBroeckmann:“FromPaperTigertothe BBC’s video diaries we discovered that the tactical cuts straightacross the marginal vs mainstream dichotomy” (Garcia and Lovink2001,n.p.).

Tacticalmedia is in this respectpresentedasbeing verymucha“post-1989” phenomenon (the term tactical media was itself first pro-posed in1992,according toLovink[seeMeikle2000]). It is seenastakingupthe“legacyof‘alternative’mediawithoutthecounterculturelabel and ideological certainties of previous decades” (Lovink 2001,254).Thismeansthatthoseinvolvedintacticalmediadonotsharethegrandnarrativesorteleologicaldreamsoffuturerevolutionandlibera-

antipolit iCs anD the internet 12�

tion;nordotheyidentifywiththe“leftistdogmatismandghettogrouppsychology”thatarecharacteristicofmanyearlierandotherformsofradicaloppositionandresistance(Lovink2001,259).Tacticalmediadonotoperatebymeansoflarge-scaleoppositionalmovements,repre-sentativepoliticalparties,collectiveunions,organizedsocialgroups,orestablishedinstitutions.Instead,takingtheircuefromDeleuzeandGuattari, theyareaboutbecoming“minor.”Theirapproachis there-foremorefluid,viral,hit-and-run.Tacticalmediaareaboutlatchingontothoseopportunitiesthatarecreated“becauseofthepaceoftechno-logical change and regulatory uncertainty,” using whatever mediumisappropriatetothatparticularsituationandlocale:itcouldbeWebsites, zines, pirate radios, street demonstrations, raves, local TV, orwhatever.Theyareaboutgaining“access(tobuildings,networks,re-sources),hackingthepower,”andthen,oncethathasbeenachieved,knowingtherighttimetodisbandanddisappear(Lovink2001,260).Yes, there are connections to be made between old and new media,theoryandpractice,undergroundandmainstream,amateurandpro-fessional,creativeanduncreative.Yes,oftenveryunusualalliancesareforgedbetweenthedifferentgroupsandindividualsthatareinvolvedinsuchactivities:activists,artists,academics,critics,hackers,program-mers,journalists,andsoon,whocometothepartyfromavarietyofbackgrounds,allwiththeirowndifferentspecialties,hopes,andexpec-tations. Yet such connections and alliances are always comparativelyloose,mobile,andtemporary,notleasttoensurethatparticulartacti-cal media actions and events cannot themselves be assigned a fixedidentity—not even as “tactical media”—or co-opted in turn into an-otherlifestyleorfashionchoice(Lovink2001,260).Thisiswhytacticalmediacanbedescribedas“neverperfect,alwaysinbecoming,perfor-mativeandpragmatic,involvedinacontinualprocessofquestioningthepremisesofthechannelstheyworkwith”(GarciaandLovink1997,n.p.).Thisisalsowhythetypicalchampionsoftacticalmediaare“theactivist,Nomadicmediawarriors,thepranxter,thehacker,thestreetrapper,thecamcorderkamikaze”(GarciaandLovink1997,n.p.);andwhy“tacticalmedia”itselfissomethingofanambivalent,problematic,andcontentioustermtouseinrelationtosuchactivities.

Now,inthisbookIamnottryingtohaveaneffectonthemain-streammedia,oratleastitsnewsagenda,inthewaytacticalmediaof-tendoes.NoramIagainstlarge-scaleoppositionalmovementsormorealternative, strategic forms of politics per se. Still, a number of dis-

antipolit iCs anD the internet130

coursesandpracticesareassociatedwithtacticalmediaonthisaccountthatIfindextremelyproductivewhenitcomestothinkingabouthowtoexploitnewmediatoproduceapragmatic“tacticaluseofthespaceoftheuniversity.”Theseincludetacticalmedia’sawarenessthatitisof-tennotenoughtobejust“oppositional”or“alternative,”andthewill-ingness of tactical media practitioners to move on from the kind ofemphasison“identitypolitics,mediacritiquesandtheoriesofrepre-sentation”thatunderpinmostoppositionaloralternativeapproachestothemedia,andthatGarciaandLovinkpresentasbeing“incrisis”asthe “carping and repressive remnants of an outmoded humanism”(GarciaandLovink1997,n.p.).24Alsointerestingaretacticalmedia’sexplorationofformsoforganizationandresistanceotherthanthoseassociated with representational party politics, organized social andcollectivemovements,thedogmaticleft,theunions,evennongovern-mentalorganizations(NGOs);itsflexible,mobile,experimental,disor-ganized,pragmatic,provisional,performativenature;anditsabilitytoexploitwhatGrahamMeiklecalls“thesmallcracksthatappearinthemediascapethroughtherapidevolutionoftechnologyandthecatch-upprocessofregulatorypolicy”(Meikle2002,120)—allofwhichreso-nates“pragmatically”withmyownworkaroundopen-accesspublish-ingandarchiving,toacertainextent.

Oneofthethingsthatremainsproblematicinthisotherwiseoften-promising discourse around new media, however, is the manner inwhich,forallitsattemptstoexploreandexperimentwiththedevelop-mentofnewformsofpoliticalandsocialorganization,mobilization,andactivism, tacticalmedia reproduces theveryapproachof “beingalternativeoroppositional”itpresentsashaving“restrictedthinkinginthisareaforsolong,”andthatitissupposedlytryingtofreeitselffrom.25TheeasiestwaytoillustratethisiswithGarciaandLovink’spositioningofthoseinvolvedintacticalmediaasbeingexcludedfromthewiderculture.“TacticalMediaarewhathappens,”theyinsist,“whenthecheap‘do it yourself’ media, made possible by the revolution in consumerelectronicsandexpandedformsofdistribution(frompublicaccessca-bletotheinternet)areexploitedbygroupsandindividualswhofeelaggrievedbyorexcludedfromthewiderculture.Tacticalmediadonotjustreportevents,as theyarenever impartial theyalwaysparticipateanditisthisthatmorethananythingseparatesthemfrommainstreammedia”(GarciaandLovink1997,n.p.).Yet,foralltheirclaimsthattac-ticalmediaactivistswanttogobeyondrigiddichotomiessuchasthose

antipolit iCs anD the internet 131

between mainstream and underground, amateur and professional,creative and uncreative (and presumably also aggrieved and non-aggrieved,includedandexcluded),areGarciaandLovinknotsettingthoseinvolvedintacticalmediaupinsomethingofadichotomousrela-tionoftheirown?ItisadialecticalstructureLovinkrepeatswhenhewritesthat“tacticalmediaemergeoutofthemargins,yetneverfullymakeitintothemainstream”(Lovink2001,257);orwhenhepositionsitasapost-1989phenomenon,andcontrasts itsemphasison limitedtacticaleventstotheteleologyandgrandnarrativesofpreviousformsofopposition.Infact,isthewholeideaoftacticalmediaasGarciaandLovinkoutlineitnotbasedpreciselyonadichotomyfoundinthewrit-ingsofMicheldeCerteau:thatbetweentacticsandstrategy,theweakandthestrong?In“TheABCofTacticalMedia”thetwotacticalmediatheoristsputitlikethis:

InThe Practice of Every Day LifeDeCertueau[sic]analyzedpopularculturenotasa“domainoftextsorartifactsbutratherasasetofpracticesoroperationsperformedontextualortextlikestructures.”Heshiftedtheemphasisfromrepresentationsintheirownrighttothe“uses”ofrepresentations.Inotherwordshowdoweasconsum-ersusethetextsandartifactsthatsurroundus.Andtheanswer,hesuggested,was“tactically.”Thatisinfarmorecreativeandrebelliouswaysthanhadpreviouslybeenimagined.Hedescribedtheprocessofconsumptionasasetoftacticsbywhichtheweakmakeuseofthestrong.Hecharacterizedtherebellioususer(atermhepreferredtoconsumer)astacticalandthepresumptuousproducer(inwhichheincludedauthors,educators,curatorsandrevolutionaries)asstrate-gic.Settingupthisdichotomyallowedhimtoproduceavocabularyoftacticsrichandcomplexenoughtoamounttoadistinctiveandrecognizableaesthetic....Anaestheticofpoaching,tricking,read-ing,speaking,strolling,shopping,desiring....

Awareness of this tactical/strategic dichotomy helped us tonameaclassofproducersofwhoseemuniquelyawareofthevalueofthesetemporaryreversals intheflowofpower. ...Wedubbedtheir(our)worktacticalmedia.(GarciaandLovink1997,n.p.)

CarolineBassettisjustoneofthosetohaveexpressedreservationsconcerningsuch“tacticalprojects”andtheirjustification(althoughtheexamplesheusesisnotGarciaandLovinkbutMatthewFuller’sBehind

antipolit iCs anD the internet132

the Blip [2003]). She argues that, despite establishing its identity interms of its difference from other approaches to the media, tacticalmediamerelyconstitutesanotherformofsubculture,developedoutofarelationbetweenmediaartistsandactivists.Ironicallyenough,itthusechoesculturalstudies’own,muchdisparaged,romanceoftheopposi-tionalandresistant“outsider”(Bassett2006).26Tobesure,GarciaandLovinkmaywellbelievethatitisnecessarynottoreproducethedialec-ticsofoppositionaloralternativeapproachestothemedia.Neverthe-less,intheirwritingstacticalmediaappearsunknowinglyanduncon-sciouslytrappedintheverydiscoursesitistryingtoelude—discoursesthat,aswehaveseen,arecharacteristicoftheculturalandeconomiclogicoflatecapitalismitself.Debatesovertacticalmedia,itsexistence,usefulness,andeffectiveness,certainlyhaveatendencytorepeatthedialecticalstructureofculturalcriticismIoutlinedearlier.Thisisevi-dentfromthewayinwhichGarciaandLovink’s“TheABCofTacticalMedia”itself“doesn’tentirelysucceedinextractingitselffromtheop-positionallanguageofWedomversusTheydom,”asWarkhimselfac-knowledges,albeitalmostinpassing(2006b,273).Itisalsoapparentfromtheclaimssomearenowmakingthatthekindofexperimenta-tionwithmediatoproducecreativeformsof(romantic)emancipatorypolitical dissent and subversion that often use flexible, networkedmodesofdecentralized(dis)organizationandthatdidindeedcometobecaricaturizedas“tacticalmedia”isnolongervalidintheWestandNorth.Ithasnotbeenvalidsincethepost–September11introductionofa “stateofexception”(Agamben2005)and theassociatedclamp-downontheactivitiesofthelikesofSteveKurtzandCriticalArtEn-sembleontheonehand,27 andtheco-optionoftacticalmedia’sdo-it-yourselfattitudebysocialnetworkingsitessuchasFacebookandFlickrontheother.28

Politics and the InternetTheprecedingsectionsofthischaptercanbeaccusedofbeingfartooquickandschematicasaportrayalofthepoliticsofnewmedia.Ithere-forewanttoemphasizethatneither“side”inthisrelation—neitherthatwhichIhavecharacterizedasperceivingtheInternetasa“good”thing,nor thatwhichportrays itas “bad”—isahomogeneous, self-identicalentity.ThesameisalsotrueofthedialecticallynondialecticalapproachofGarciaandLovinkand“tacticalmedia.”Alltheserespectivetakesonnewmediaanditsrelationtopoliticsdifferwithinthemselvesaswellas

antipolit iCs anD the internet 133

betweenthemselves;andifitisimportanttobeattentiveto,andevenparticipatein,thesedebatesovermediatechnology,itisjustasimpor-tantnottoconflatewhatarelargelyheterogeneous,unequal,anddif-ferentiateddiscoursesandnarratives.

ThisisoneofthemainreasonsIhavenotgoneintoanyparticularlyrigorousdetailregardinganyoftheargumentsIhavediscussedsofar(andwhyIhavetriednottocitetoomanytextsbythinkerswhohaveproducedtheoriesofdigitalpolitics—otherthanthoseIampreparedtodiscuss in a littlemoredepth).To show, in a responsible, ethical,hospitablemanner,howdialectics isenactedindiscoursesonandofdigitalpoliticswouldrequiremetorespondtosuchtextsinacareful,patient,singularfashion.(Notleast,itwouldrequiremetoshowhow,perhaps in spite of themselves—and depending on the text and theparticularstrategytobeadopted—suchtextsintheirdifferentandsin-gularwayschallenge,resist,andtransformthe“digitaldialectics”nar-rative,atthesametimethatsuchtexts,intheirdifferentandsingularways,andalsoperhapsinspiteofthemselves—againdependingonthetextandtheparticularstrategytobeadopted—reproduce,maintain,andupholdit.)

NowIcouldcertainlyhavedemonstratedhowthisisthecasebyof-feringsingularanalysesofthetextsofLunenfeld,KahnandKellner,Dean,GarciaandLovink(or,indeed,LessigandCreativeCommons);orofartisticpracticesand“tacticalmedia”eventsandactivitiessuchasthe Act Up campaign around AIDS policy, the B92 radio station inSerbia in the early 1990s during the Kosovo conflict, the Sarai NewMediaCentreinDelhi,theguerrillaactivitiesofAdbusters,®TMark,andthe“YesMen”orthe“contestationalrobots”describedbyCriticalArtEnsemble(2001).29However,Iamgoingtoleavetheperformanceofatleastthebeginningsofamoredetailed,hospitable,rigorousanalysisofthiskindforthechapterthatfollowsandatextIbelievehasthepoten-tialtobeevenmoreradicalandproductive.Atthisstageinmyargu-ment, Imerelywant todrawattention to theway thepoliticsofnewmediahastoooftenbeenunderstoodprimarilyintermsofthepast,intermsofold,preestablishedideasofpoliticsandpoliticalactionandresistance.AsIpointedoutattheendofmyfirstsetofmetadata,theproblemwithsuchinterpretationsofthepoliticsofnewmediaformeisthattheyimplythatwhatpoliticsis,whatitmeanstobepolitical,isalreadymoreorlessknown.Ratherthanattemptingtorespondrespon-sibly to each particular instance and conjunction of new media and

antipolit iCs anD the internet134

politics,mostoftheavailablenarrativesarelimitedtomeasuringcer-tainnewmediaformsandpracticesagainstalreadyestablishedandle-gitimatedideasof“politics.”Sincethedecisionastothepoliticalthingtodoistakeninadvance,onceandforall,itisextremelydifficultforsuch conceptions of digital politics to recognize and remain opento thesingularityof specificperformancesofnewmedia—especiallythoseelementsthatdonotfitthepredecidedtheories,elementsthatarepreciselythatwhichcannotbepredicted,inotherwords.Asaresult,littleattentiontendstobepaidtothepossibilitythat,notonlycouldthepoliticsofdigitalmedia(likedigitizedtextsthemselves—atleastasIdescribedtheminchapter2)bedifferentandnew,butalso,inordertobecapableofunderstandinghowthepoliticsofdigitalmediacould be different and new, that we might need to be open to the idea ofchanging, perhaps radically, our current political theories, agendas,vocabularies, and conceptual frameworks. This includes being pre-pared to reconceive and reimagine their current basis in notions oftheoryandpractice,thedialecticand,asweshallseeinthenextchap-ter,citizenship,thepublicsphere,evendemocracyitself.

Sucharelianceon,andindeedsafeguardingof,predecidedcon-ceptionsofpoliticsisclearlyevidentintheargumentofRichardBar-brookIreferredtobrieflyatthebeginningofthischapter.Aswesawthere,Barbrookpositionstheacademichi-techgifteconomyaspoliti-calbecauseitoffersaradicallydifferentmodelforthecommunicationandexchangeofknowledgeand ideas fromthataffordedbycapital-ism’smarketeconomies—albeitoneinwhich“money-commodityandgiftrelationsarenotjustinconflictwitheachother,butalsoco-existinsymbiosis”(Barbrook1998,n.p.).Barbrookiscarefultostressthat,al-thoughthissystemplayedacrucialroleinthehistoryanddevelopmentoftheInternet,andassuch“hasexpandedfarbeyondtheuniversity”:

thehi-techgifteconomywasnotanimmanentpossibilityineveryage.Onthecontrary,themarketandthestatecouldonlybesur-passed in this specific sectorat thisparticularhistoricalmoment.Crucially, people need sophisticated media, computing and tele-communicationstechnologiestoparticipatewithinthehi-techgifteconomy....Inaddition,individualsneedbothtimeandmoneytoparticipatewithinthehi-techgifteconomy.Whilealargenumberoftheworld’spopulationstilllivesinpoverty,peoplewithintheindus-trialisedcountrieshavesteadilyreducedtheirhoursofemployment

antipolit iCs anD the internet 135

andincreasedtheirwealthoveralongperiodofsocialstrugglesandeconomicreorganizations.Byworkingformoneyduringtheweek,people can now enjoy the delights of giving gifts at other times.Onlyatthisparticularhistoricalmomenthavethetechnicalandso-cialconditionsofthemetropolitancountriesdevelopedsufficientlyfortheemergenceofdigitalanarcho-communism.(Barbrook1998,n.p.)

Forallitshistoricalspecificity,however,farfromattemptingtodevelopatheoryofpoliticsthatisitselfspecifictotheeraofdigitalreproduc-tion,Barbrookapproachesthisgifteconomyforthemostpartasmerelyahi-tech—ifless“purist,”morecompromised,indeedoftencorporateandstate-sponsored—versionoftheutopiananarcho-communismthatwas advocated by the Situationists, New Left militants, and similargroupsinthe1960s(Barbrook1998,n.p.).30

Thisprotectionismtoward“old,”“authorized”notionsofpoliticalactionandresistanceisalsoapparentinthemorerecentanalysisofthe“newcycle”ofInternetpoliticsprovidedbyKahnandKellner.Forthem,itis“notthattoday’sInternetiseitherwhollyemancipatoryoroppres-sivetechnology,butratherthatitisanongoingstrugglethatcontainscontradictoryforces”(KahnandKellner2005,80).Fromthispositiontheyareable toacknowledge therelevanceof JodiDean’sargumentregardingthepotentialtechno-fetishismofInternetpolitics,whilesi-multaneouslyinsistingthatshehas“inappropriately”identified“Inter-net culturalpoliticswith fetishism”(2005,97n.23).Opposingwhattheycharacterizeas“totalizing,overlydismissiverejectionsoftheInter-net and technopolitics” (2005, 93), Kahn and Kellner argue instead“foramoredialecticalvision”;onethat,whilerecognizingthe“limita-tionsofInternetpolitics,”neverthelesspermitsthemtoengage“india-lectical critique of how emergent information and communicationtechnologies(ICTs)havefacilitatedoppositionalculturalandpoliticalmovementsandprovidedpossibilitiesforthesortofprogressivesocio-politicalchangeandstrugglethatisanimportantdimensionofcon-temporaryculturalpolitics”(2005,76).Significantly,indoingsoKahnand Kellner claim that “against the capitalist organization of neo-liberalcapitalism”a“FifthInternational...ofcomputer-mediatedac-tivismisemergingthatisqualitativelydifferentfromtheparty-basedsocialist and communist Internationals of the past” (2005, 84). Thisleadsthemtospeculatethatanumberofemergentonlinepoliticaland

antipolit iCs anD the internet13�

culturalprojectstodayareinvolvedinreconfiguringtheshapeofpar-ticipatory anddemocraticglobal citizenship forboth theglobal andlocalfuture(2005,81).

Canwe thereforedetect inKahnandKellner at least thebegin-ningsofahospitableopeningtotheideathatInternetpoliticsmaytakesomenew,different,surprising,andunforeseenforms?Quitepossibly.Butifthisisthecase,itisanopeningthatisnotexploredrigorously.Onthecontrary,KahnandKellner(likeKellnerinhisearlierarticle[1997]) clearly already know what politics, democracy, social justice,oppositionalintellectuals,andthepublicsphereareinthisessay;andconsequentlytheyknowwhatnetpoliticshastodoinordertoactpo-litically.Theirargumentissimplythatthe“effectiveuseofcommunica-tionnetworks”ishelpingto“define,coalesceandextend”alreadyexist-ingnotionsofoppositionalpolitics,democracy,social justice,andsoforth“acrosstheworld”(2005,78).Farfromconsidering,seriously,thepossibilitythattheInternetanddigitalculturemayrequireustocon-ceiveourideasofstruggleandthepoliticaldifferently,theirmainaimisto“articulateInternetpoliticswithactually[already]existingpoliti-calstruggles”(2005,80),andinsodoing“maketechnopoliticsamajorinstrumentof[analreadyunderstoodanddecideduponconceptionofoppositional]politicalaction”(2005,80).ThereisthusrelativelylittlethatisparticularlynewaboutthepoliticsKahnandKellnerdescribeandhardlyanythingthatcouldnothavebeensaidaboutpoliticsbeforethe invention of the Internet. Indeed, given that their essay is con-cernedwiththerelationbetween“oppositionalpoliticsandtheinter-net,”theInternetseemstohavehadremarkablylittleimpactontheirunderstanding of oppositional politics. Like Barbrook, they situatepoliticsontheInternetasacontinuationofahistoryofalreadyestab-lishedalternativeandradicalmediaactivism.Thishistoryincludesthe“communitymediamovementthatfromthe1960sthroughthepresenthaspromotedalternativemedia”(2005,77–78),andtheinventionoftheInternetintheiraccounthasdonesurprisinglylittletotransformortochangethat.

Post-politicsTurningtotheothersideinthisstalleddialectic(atleastasIhavesetituphere,followingKahnandKellnerandothers),thistendencywhenitcomestothinkingaboutthepoliticsofnewmediatorolloutapoliti-

antipolit iCs anD the internet 13�

calprojectorprogramthatisalreadyknownanddecideduponin ad-vancecanbedetectedeveninJodiDean’sargumentin“CommunicativeCapitalism.”LikethatofKahnandKellner,Dean’stakeonthepoliticsofnewmediaisfarfrom“allornothing.”Sheiscarefultostressthatsheisnotsuggestingthat“networkedcommunicationsneverfacilitatepo-liticalresistance,”andthat,forher,the“politicalefficacyofnetworkedmediadepends”verymuch“onitscontext”(Dean2005,52).Itisjustthat, “under the conditions of intensive and extensive proliferationofmedia”thatcharacterizecommunicativecapitalism,“messagesaremorelikelytogetlostasmerecontributionstothecirculationofcon-tent.Whatenhancesdemocracyinonecontextbecomesanewformofhegemonyinanother.Or,theintensecirculationofcontentincommu-nicative capitalism forecloses the antagonism necessary for politics”(2005,53–54).WhereasKahnandKellneremphasizethe“positivepo-liticalpotentialsoftheInternet,”then,Deanisfarlessoptimisticinthisessay(KahnandKellner2005,97n.23).Despitehermorecriticalap-proachtotheunderstandingoftheInternet,however,Dean’sideaofInternetpoliticsisnomoreopentoanynew,innovative,exceptional,orheterogeneousexcessthanthatofKahnandKellner.

Takehercharacterizationofthenatureofcommunicativecapital-ismintermsof“post-politics”(Dean2005,56),aconceptsheadaptsfromŽ ižek:

[P]ost-politics “emphasizes theneed to leaveold ideologicaldivi-sionsbehindandconfrontnewissues,armedwiththenecessaryex-pertknowledgeandfreedeliberationthattakespeople’sconcreteneedsanddemands intoaccount”(Ž ižek1999,198).Post-politicsthusbeginsfromthepremiseofconsensusandcooperation.Realantagonismordissentisforeclosed.Matterspreviouslythoughttorequiredebateandstrugglearenowaddressedaspersonal issuesor technical concerns. ... The problem is that all this toleranceandattunementtodifferenceandemphasisonhearinganother’spainpreventspoliticization.Mattersaren’trepresented—theydon’tstandforsomethingbeyondthemselves.Theyaresimplytreatedinall their particularity, as specific issues to be addressed therapeu-tically, juridically,spectacularly,ordisciplinarilyratherthanbeingtreatedas elementsof larger signifying chainsorpolitical forma-tions.Indeed,thisishowthirdwaysocietiessupportglobalcapital:

antipolit iCs anD the internet13�

they prevent politicization. They focus on administration, again,foreclosing the very possibility that things might be otherwise.(Dean2005,56–57)

Thesituationofcommunicativecapitalism,forDean,ispreciselynotpolitical—or,rather,itispreciselypost-political.Shecontrastsitunfa-vorablywithwhatshereferstoas“politicizationproper”(2005,65),the“dangerousterrainofpoliticization”(2005,70),whichforherhastodowith“real”struggle,conflict,antagonism,andthe“formationofstrongcounterhegemonies”(2005,53).Deanisthustypicalofmanyofthoseassociatedwithculturalstudiesinthatsheconceivespoliticsprimarilyintermsofhegemonicandcounterhegemonicstruggle—although,ad-mittedly,herconceptionofpoliticsisexplicitlybasedonaversionofLaclauandMouffe’sneo-GramsciantheoryofhegemonyratherthanareadingofGramscihimself,ashasmoreusuallybeenthecaseoverthehistoryofculturalstudies.31

AlthoughitmaybelessapparentthanintheothertwoexamplesIhavejustgiven,onceagainwecanseethatthereisapropensitywhenitcomestothinkingaboutthepoliticsofnewmediatoresorttoapoliti-calprojectorprogramthatisalreadyknownanddecidedupon(inthiscaseaconceptionofthepoliticalderivedinpartfromthepost-Marxistneo-GramscianismofLaclauandMouffe).That said,Dean’s essay issomewhatunusualinthisrespect,sinceitshowsnotonlythatthedia-lectical structure of debates over digital politics continues into thepresent,butalso that theclosingdownof thequestionofpolitics inrelationtonewmediaisitselfnot political,andisactuallyantipolitical.

AntipoliticsTo be sure, close inspection reveals that even according to her owncriteriaDean’sdepictionofpoliticsinthisessayrunsintoproblems.Forif “conflict and opposition” are truly “necessary for politics” (Dean2005, 54), if politics is only possible in a situation where the “realantagonismordissent”thatisrequiredforpoliticsisnot“foreclosed”(2005,56),thenisshenotherselfactingnonpolitically(andperhapseven post-politically, at least in the sense that post-politics is itself aforeclosureofpolitics?)ingoingalongwith,andrepeating,thehege-monicpositionthatthetheoryofhegemonycurrentlyoccupieswithinculturalstudies?Withregardtotheclosureofthetechnologicalfetish,forexample,Deanwritesthatitspoliticalpurchase“isgiveninadvance;

antipolit iCs anD the internet 13�

itisimmediate,presumed,understood.Filesharingispolitical.AWebsiteispolitical.Bloggingispolitical.Butthisveryimmediacyrestsonsomethingelse,onapriorexclusion.And,whatisexcluded,isthepos-sibilityofpoliticizationproper”(2005,65).Yetoneistemptedtoask:what about Dean’s own belief that (only) hegemonic/counterhege-monicstrugglecountsaspolitical?CouldthisassertionnotbeaddedtoDean’slist?Doeshegemonicpolitics—the“difficultchallengeofrepre-senting specific claims or acts as universal” and the articulation ofstrugglestogetherwithotherstrugglesinoppositiontoasharedoppo-nent—notlikewiseassumetheformofaforeclosedpoliticalfetishinherwork(2005,57)?32Isthisdecision—astowhatcanandcannotbeconsideredpolitical—notbeingtakeninadvance,too?AsDeanherselfsays,“[b]luntlyput,aconditionofpossibilityforassertingtheimmedi-atelypoliticalcharacterofsomething...isnotsimplythedisavowalofotherpoliticalstruggles”—includinginhercasemanyofthoseassoci-atedwiththeInternet,dismissedbyDeanasexamplesoftechnologicalfetishismthat,inreiteratinganddisplacingreal-lifestruggles,arepro-foundlydepoliticizing.Instead,“itreliesonthepriorexclusionoftheantagonisticconditionsofemergence”of that something(2005,66).ButdoesnotDean’sownforeclosureofthequestionofpolitics,andthesense that what (for her) it is to be political is already decided and“giveninadvance”andthus“immediate,presumed,understood,”reston“somethingelse,apriorexclusion,”too(2005,65)?Inthiscase,the“antagonisticconditionsofemergence”(withinculturalstudies)ofherown (transcendental) understanding of politics as always taking theformofahegemonicstruggle,andrefusalofthe“possibilitythatthingsmightbeotherwise”inthatrespect,aswell(2005,57);thattheremaybeother,rival,conflicting,opposingwaysandmeansofunderstandingpoliticsandbeingpolitical,includingsomethatmaybeassociatedwithdigitalcultureandtheInternet.Indeed,isthisantagonisticdimension,thisconflictanduncertaintyoverpolitics,overwhatpoliticsonthenetis,whichwecanseebeingkeptwithinparticularlimitswithinDean’swork,notpreciselypartofwhatpoliticsisforLaclauandMouffe,espe-cially inapluralistic, liberaldemocracy?Given its importance tomyargument, it is perhaps worth quoting from (one of) them at somelengthonthispoint:

thespecificityofliberaldemocracyasanewpoliticalformofsocietyconsistsinthelegitimationofconflictandtherefusaltoeliminateit

antipolit iCs anD the internet140

throughtheimpositionofanauthoritarianorder.Aliberaldemoc-racyisaboveallapluralistdemocracy.Itsnoveltyresidesinitsen-visagingthediversityofconceptionsofthegood,notassomethingnegativethatshouldbesuppressed,butassomethingtobevaluedandcelebrated....Tobelievethatafinalresolutionofconflictiseventuallypossible...istoputthepluralistdemocraticprojectatrisk....

Politics, especially democratic politics, can never overcomeconflict and division. ... This is why grasping the nature ofdemocraticpoliticsrequiresacomingtotermswiththedimensionofantagonismthatispresentinsocialrelations....

...Thisiswhyanapproachlikedeconstruction,whichrevealstheimpossibilityofestablishingaconsensuswithoutexclusionisoffundamentalimportanceforgraspingwhatisatstakeindemocraticpolitics.BecauseitwarnsusagainsttheillusionthatJusticecouldeverbeinstantiatedintheinstitutionsofanysociety,deconstructionforcesustokeepthedemocraticcontestationalive.Bypointingtothe ineradicabilityofantagonism,notions likeundecidabilityanddecisionarenotonlyfundamentalforpolitics...theyalsoprovidetheveryterraininwhichademocraticpluralistpoliticscanbefor-mulated.(Mouffe1996,8–9)

Mouffe’s emphasis on the importance of deconstruction when itcomestounderstandingpoliticsisworthpayingfurtherattentionto.Forwhatdeconstructiontellsusabouttherelationbetweenpoliticsandundecidability is that the decision as to what politics is and what itmeanstoactpoliticallycannotbeleftcompletelyopenandincalculable.Ifitisnotgoingtobesubjecttothespecificdemandsoftheparticularcontext, thedecisionregardingpoliticscannotbe takenafresheachtime.Ithastobebasedonrationallycalculateduniversalvaluesofinfi-nite justice and responsibility.This iswhyadecision “has tobepre-paredbyreflectionandknowledge,”forDerrida(2001a,61);why“itisnecessarytoknowthemostandthebestpossible”(2001b,54).Atthesametime(andasIhavebeenemphasizinghere,forbothtacticalandstrategicreasons),anysuchdecisioncannotbemadesolelyonthebasisofknowledgeknownanddecideduponapriori,suchasapreconceivedpoliticalagendaortheory(e.g.,thatofhegemonicstruggleandresist-ance),whichisbothbeyondquestionandunconditionallyanduniver-sallyapplicable.AsIsaidbefore,thatwouldbetoriskfailingtorecog-

antipolit iCs anD the internet 141

nizethesingularityoftheobjectofknowledge—inthiscase,Internetpoliticsandthepoliticsofnewmedia—itspossiblenoveltyanddiffer-ence.Inordertodeterminewhatitmeansforaspecificinstanceandperformanceofnewmediatobepolitical,adecisionhastobemadebased on a calculation that is open to that which cannot be knownorcalculatedinadvance.ThisiswhatDerridameanswhenheinsiststhat“betweenthewidest,mostrefined,themostnecessaryknowledge,and the responsible decision, an abyss remains, and must remain”(2001b,54).

Aresponsiblepoliticaldecision, forDerrida, requires respect forbothpolesofthenonoppositionalrelationbetweenclosureandopen-ness,theconditionalandunconditional,theuniversalandthesingu-lar,theidealandtheempirical,thecalculableandincalculable,decid-ableandundecidable.“Itisbetweenthesetwopoles, irreconcilable but indissociable, that decisions and responsibilities are to be taken,” hewrites(2001b,45).Indeed,farfromthedifficult,uncertainnatureofthissituationhavingadepoliticizingeffect,ajustandresponsiblepo-liticalact,forDerrida,hastogothroughtheordealoftakingadecisioninjustsuchanincalculableandundecidablespace.Eventhen“[o]neisneversureofmakingthejustchoice;oneneverknows...Itisherethatresponsibilities are tobe re-evaluatedat eachmoment, according toconcretesituations....Buttorecognisethese‘contextual’differencesisanentirelydifferentthingfromanempiricist,relativist,orpragma-tistresignation”(2001b,56–57).

Returning to Dean’s analysis in “Communicative Capitalism,” ittherefore seems somewhat ironic, especially givenher own concernsabouttheforeclosureofthepoliticalandadherencetoaconceptionofthepoliticalthatportraysitasreferringtothe“ineradicabilityofan-tagonism”LaclauandMouffederivefromdeconstruction,thatitispre-ciselythisantagonisticdimension,thisconflict,uncertainty,andunde-cidabilityregardingpolitics—whichiswhatpoliticsis,forDean—thatweseebeingforeclosedinherownessay.Thisstateofaffairsleadshertorepeatthroughout“CommunicativeCapitalism”whatIwouldargueisthenonpoliticalgestureofplacinghernotionofpoliticsverymuchinatranscendentalpositionwithrespecttootherdiscourses.

Toprovideanexample:onepossibilityDeanis notopentoin“Com-municativeCapitalism”—andthisisthecasedespiteherownrepeatedemphasisontheimportanceofcontext(2005,52,66)—isthatthehis-torical and social situation may actually have changed so much that

antipolit iCs anD the internet142

hegemonicstruggleisnolongeranappropriateconcepttousewhenitcomestounderstanding,analyzing,andresistingthecontemporarypo-liticalconjuncture.Instead,aswehaveseen,sheiswillingtorecognizesomethingaspoliticalonlyif itcontinuestoconformtothepoliticalvocabulariesand frameworksof interpretation thatarealready tran-scendentallydecidedinadvance—ofboththeemergenceofcommuni-cativecapitalismandherexaminationoftheInternet—andthatwereinitiallydevelopedinacontextthat,onherownaccount,wasverydif-ferentfromthatofcontemporarycapitalism.Itisacontextshecontin-uestocontrastunfavorablytothe“currentpolitical-economicforma-tion,”and thatpresumablyexistedbefore theproliferationofmediasheassociateswithcommunicativecapitalism.(Otherwisehowcanthatproliferation have been depoliticizing and have lead to post-politics[2005,51]?Forthattohappen,thingsmusthavebeenpoliticizedandpoliticalatsomestagefirst.Butwhen?InwhatDeancalls,afterAgam-ben,“theoldregime”[2005,56]?)Sothesepoliticalvocabulariesandframeworksofinterpretationstemfromapreviousera:before“demo-craticdeliberationand,indeed,struggle”had“collapsed”(2005,54);whenthe“politicalenergy”neededfor“thehardworkoforganizingandstruggle”(2005,64)—whichiswhatpoliticsisreallyabout,accord-ingtoDean—hadnotbeendisplacedasitapparentlyhasintheUnitedStatestoday(2005,53);whenan“essentialcommunicativityofhumanbeings”waspossible(2005,56);andwhenpoliticswasstillabout“ac-tivelyorganizedpartiesandunions”ratherthanthe“domainoffinan-ciallymediatedandprofessionalizedpracticescenteredonadvertising,publicrelationsandthemeansofmasscommunication,”as it isnow(2005,55).

Toacertainextentonecanunderstandwhyshepositionsherargu-mentinthismanner.ForaswearetoldbyDeanherself,theparadoxofthissituationisthatthefetish(whichinthiscaseishegemonicpolitics)“actuallyenablesustoremainpoliticallypassive.Wedon’thavetoas-sumepoliticalresponsibility”forthesimplereasonthatthefetish“isdoingitforus”(2005,63).Theonlywayofopeningherselfuptoanypotentiallydifferentformsofpoliticswouldbe,asshepointsoutinaslightlydifferentcontext,bymeansof“theRealthatrupturesmyworld,thatistosaytheevilother[inthiscase,ofdifferentformsofpoliticstothatofthestruggleoverhegemony]Icannotimaginesharingaworldwith”(2005,69).Ifshedidaccessoradmitwhatisforeclosedandelim-inatedinadvanceinthisway,theproblemDeanwouldthenhaveisthat

antipolit iCs anD the internet 143

any such ethical, responsible, hospitable, opening to the (political)otherwouldchallengethevery(hegemonic,transcendental,and,aswewillsee,moralistic)ideasshedependsonforhersenseofthepolitical.AsDeanacknowledges:“ifeverythingisoutthereontheInternet,any-thingIfailtoencounter—orcan’timagineencountering—isn’tsimplyexcluded (everything is already there), it is foreclosed. Admitting oraccessingwhatisforecloseddestroystheveryorderproducedthroughforeclosure”(2005,69).Yetformethisindeterminacyandtemporarysuspensionofknowledgeispreciselythepoint.Andunlesswearepre-paredtoacceptthis,weareresortingtowhatWendyBrownhascalledan“anti-politicalmoralism.”

AsClareBirchallandIhaveshowninadifferentbutrelatedanaly-sisofthepoliticsofculturalstudies(2006a),Brownusesthistermtorefertoacertain“resistance”tothinkingandintellectualinquiryonthepartofmanyleftistswhoeitherrefuseorareunabletogiveuptheirdevotion to previously held notions of politics. Consequently, whilemanyonthelefthave:

lostconfidenceinahistoriographyboundtoanotionofprogressortoanyotherpurpose,wehavecoinednopoliticalsubstituteforpro-gressiveunderstandingsofwherewehavecomefromandwherewearegoing.Similarly,whilebothsovereigntyandrighthavesufferedsevereerosionsoftheirnaturalisticepistemologicalandontologicalbasesinmodernity,wehavenotreplacedthemassourcesofpoliti-calagencyandsitesofjusticeclaims.Personalconvictionandpolit-icaltruthhavelosttheirmooringsinfirmandlevelepistemologicalground,butwehavenotjettisonedthemassourcesofpoliticalmo-tivationorassitesofcollectivefealty.Sowehaveceasedtobelieveinmanyoftheconstitutivepremisesundergirdingmodernperson-hood,statehood,andconstitutions,yetwecontinuetooperatepo-liticallyasifthesepremisesstillheld,andasifthepolitical-culturalnarrativesbasedonthemwereintact.(Brown2001,3–4)

Inpointoffact,moralism“soloathesovertmanifestationsofpower,”Brownmaintains,“thatthemoralist inevitablyfeelsantipathytowardpoliticsasadomainofopencontestation forpowerandhegemony”;and“theidentityofthemoralistis”actually“stakedagainstintellectualquestioningthatmightdismantlethefoundationsofitsownpremises;itssurvivalisimperilledbytheverypracticeofopen-endedintellectual

antipolit iCs anD the internet144

inquiry”(2001,30).Whichiswhyitisperceivedasbeing“antipolitical.”Theproblemisthatsuchmoralizingoccupiestheplaceofandinfactreplacesgenuinecriticalinterrogation.Indeed,Browngoessofarastoarguethat,“despiteitsrighteousinsistenceonknowingwhatisTrue,Valuable,orImportant,moralismasahegemonicformofpoliticalex-pression,adominantpoliticalsensibility,actuallymarksbothanalyticimpotenceandpoliticalaimlessness—amisrecognitionofthepoliticallogicsnoworganizingtheworld,aconcomitantfailuretodiscernanydirectionforaction,andthelossofaclearobjectofpoliticaldesire”(2001,29).

Post-hegemonic Politics?ItisnodoubtworthemphasizingthatIamnottryingtosuggestwithanyofthisthatwehaveactuallyentereda“post-political”era,asDean,followingŽ iž ek,asserts.NoramIclaimingthatthepoliticsofanothercontextDeanreferstoistodaycompletelyoutmodedandoutofdate;andthat,consequently,whatwereallyneedtodoiscometotermswiththisfact,ratherthancontinuingtostrugglefutilelyagainstit.Insteadofclaimingweareinapost-politicalera,Iwanttoask:Canthecurrentpoliticalterrainnotbebetterunderstoodsomewhatdifferently,aspost-hegemonic—atleasttotheextentthatitcannotsimplybeassumedandtakenforgrantedthatourpoliticalsituationcan always and everywhere be analyzed in terms of either hegemonic or counterhegemonic struggle(asbothculturalstudiesandtheleftfrequentlyhavesuggested)?33

MyresponsetothequestionraisedbyDean—“Whyhastheexpan-sionandintensificationofcommunicationnetworks,theproliferationof thevery toolsofdemocracy,coincidedwiththecollapseofdemo-craticdeliberationand,indeed,struggle?”(Dean2005,54)—isthere-foresomewhatdifferentfromhers.Forme,theanswertothisquestionliesnotsomuchwiththeparticularconditionsandextensiveprolifera-tionofnetworkedcommunicationtechnologiesandtheir“profoundlydepoliticizing”effect,asDeanclaims.Instead,Iwonderifthecausesofanysuch“significantdisconnect”donotactuallyrest,atleastinpart,simply—yetat thesametimemoreprofoundlyandradically—withachangetowhatDeanreferstoas“officialpolitics”inthesocietiesoftheNorthAtlanticcapitalistindustrialnation-states(2005,53).Letmeat-tempttopursuethisspeculativehypothesisalittlefurther,bytakingasaspecificexamplethatofBritainandNewLabour.

As Stuart Hall points out, the New Labour party in the United

antipolit iCs anD the internet 145

Kingdomisahybridregime.ForHall,thisregimeiscomposedoftwointerconnectedstrands:adominantneoliberalstrandandasubordi-natesocialdemocraticstrand.Significantly,therelationbetweenthesetwo strands is not a “static formation”; it is a “transformist” process(S.Hall2003,19).NewLabour’sproject, its long-termstrategy, is totransformthesubordinatesocialdemocraticstrand“intoaparticular variantoffree-marketneo-liberalism....(inexactlythesamewaythatThatcherism delivered a ‘neo-liberal variant’ of classic Conservativ-ism)”(2003,12,22).TothetwostrandsidentifiedbyHallInowwantto add a third: a neoconservative one. I am thinking here of themovetakenbytheNewRight(inwhichIwouldincludetheBushad-ministrationintheUnitedStatesandthatofBlairandNewLabourintheUnitedKingdom)overthelastdecadefromtheneoliberalismofThatcherandReagantotheneoconservativismofmuchofBushandBlair’slaterpolitics.Now,forHall,NewLabour’sstrategyis“authenti-cally”ahegemonicone,“eventhoughitmaynotbecapableofproduc-ingastablehegemonicoutcome.Itaimstowinenoughconsentasitgoes,andbuildsubordinatedemandsback into its logic”(2003,20).However,addingtheneoconservativestrandintothisalreadycomplexhybridmixmeansthat,asLawrenceGrossberghasinsisted,wecannotassumethatthecontemporaryconjuncturecanbeunderstoodasaheg-emonic struggle—or not simply as a hegemonic struggle (Grossberg2005b,357).Stressingthatthe“presenceofahegemonicstruggleisnotguaranteed,”andthatthetheoryofhegemonyisa“particularkindofpolitical struggle, not a universal one” (2005b, 357), Grossberg per-ceives the current historical and social context more in terms of “astrugglebetweenthose(liberalsandtosomeextent,leftists)whothinktheyarewagingahegemonicstruggle,andthose(significantfractionsofthenewright)whoaretryingtoinventnotonlyanewsocialforma-tion,butanewpoliticalcultureaswell,onebuiltnotoncompromisebutonfanaticism,”andinwhichthesettlementisoften“accomplishedbehindthebackofthosestrugglingoverthefieldofthesocialforma-tion”(2005b,358).This isespecially true,Iwouldmaintain,withre-gardtotheneoconservativesonbothsidesoftheAtlantic,withtheirextremereligiousness.ForJohnGray,forexample,“thearmedmission-aries intheWhiteHouse ... reflect thegrowingpowerofAmericanfundamentalism.” Similarly, he argues that while Blair took up the“neoliberal economic programme” almost by “default,” he was verymuchaneocon“fromconviction.”Itwastheneoconservativeblendof

antipolit iCs anD the internet14�

“Leninismandreligion”thatmostaccuratelyrepresentedhis“personaloutlook”(Gray2005,18).SowhileThatchersoughttowinconsentinordertoleadthroughahegemonicstrategyofconstant(re)negotiation,the“modernization”programimplementedbyNewLabourcanoftenbeseentohaveoperatedratherdifferently.Taketheexampleofthe15February2003antiwarprotests.ClosetotwomillionpeoplemarchedonthestreetsofLondontodemonstrateagainstattackingIraq.Never-theless,TonyBlairwas stillprepared to “ignore thepublicwill” andtakehiscountrytowaronthegroundsthatheandGeorgeW.Bushconsideredtheuseofsuchforceandpowertoimpose“freedom”and“democracy”onanothernationthe right thing to do—andwhatismorehedidn’tneedtohideit(seeG.Hall2006).

Interestingly,Deanusesthesameexampleinherconclusion,claim-ingitconsistedof“tenmillionpeopleworldwide.”Whilesheregardsthe Internetasbeingof vital importance to thepoliticalactivists in-volvedinbringingaboutsuchevents,enablingthemasitdoesto“estab-lishsocialconnectionstooneanother,”forher,thisdoesnotautomati-callylinktotheformationof“politicalsolidaritieswithmoreduration.”Intruth,sheremainsconvincedthatnowadaysthe“politicalimpactofnewtechnologiesproceedsinpreciselytheoppositedirection,thatistosayinthedirectionofpost-politics”(Dean2005,71).Thisisduetothefundamentaldisconnection she identifiesbetweenpolitics asofficialpolicy and politics as the communicative interactions of the publicsphere.Sheregardstechnologicalfetishismasfunctioningtodisavowandconcealthispolitical“disempowermentorcastration”(2005,61).AllofwhichleadshertocharacterizeInternetpoliticsas“apoliticsofandthroughnewmedia,andthat’sall”(2005,65),andtocontrast itunfavorably, as we have seen, to larger, stronger, and longer-lastingcounterhegemonicformsofpoliticalstruggleandresistancethattakeplacein“reallife,”“ontheground”(2005,61,65).Atthesametime,shepositionstheopportunitiesforsuchformsofstruggleandresistance,somewhat melancholicly, as having now mostly been lost. Regainingthem“maywellrequirebreakingwithandthroughthefantasiesattach-ingustocommunicativecapitalism,”sheconcludes(2005,71).

YetsuchananalysiscanonlybemadeonceDeanherselfhasfore-closedthequestionofpolitics.ThiseliminationoftheantagonisticandundecidabledimensionofpoliticsallowsDeantocontinuetoassume,andtotakeitforgranted,thatthecontemporarypoliticalcontextcan,likethatofthepast,be best analyzed, understood, combated, and resisted in

antipolit iCs anD the internet 14�

terms of hegemony;and that theproblemrestswith those troublesomecommunicativetechnologiesandtheirsupposeddepoliticizingeffect,ratherthanwithanychangesintheactualnatureofpolitics.ForGross-berg,bycontrast,theattemptonthepartofthenewrighttoinventanewpoliticalculturemeansthattheproblemliesnotonlywiththeap-parentcollapse,disappearance,ordisplacementofmanyopportunitiesfor larger, stronger, and longer-lasting forms of (counter)hegemonicpoliticalorganization,struggle,andresistance;butalsowiththemorefundamental issuethathegemonyperse isoften“inadequate,”asheputs it,“toeitheranalyzeorrespondtothecomplexlychangingbal-anceinthefieldofforcesor,moreconventionally,tothevectorsandrestructurings thatarepotentiallychanging thevery fabricofpowerandexperience”(2005b,358).

Still,itisnotmyintentionwithanyofthistosidewithGrossbergagainst Dean, and argue that politics is now necessarily post-hegemonicandthatwehavethereforeenteredwhatmightbeconsidereda“post-hegemonic”politicalera.NoramImaintainingthataresponsibledeci-sioncannoteverbetakentotheeffectthathegemonyisanappropriateconcepttousewhenattemptingtounderstand,analyze,andrespondtoaparticularsituation.ThepointIamtryingtomakeisnotsomuchaboutwhetherhegemonyisoris notstillappropriateatall.Iamratherusingthisspeculativehypothesistoshowthatthesituationisfarmoredifficult,complex,multiplicitous,anduncertainthanDeanallows(al-thoughIacknowledgethereissomethingattractiveaboutthewill topower-knowledge thatgoes toproduce suchaconvincing large-scaleinterpretation of Internet politics). In particular, I am using it as ameansofdrawingattentiontothefactthatDeanisnotwillingtomakeadecisionthatisopentotheactualcomplexitiesofasocialorculturalsituation, to the incalculable, theother, theundecidable, theunpre-dictable;andespeciallytothepossibilitythatpoliticsontheInternetmaynotalwayslooklikepoliticsasitismosteasilyrecognizedandusu-allyknownandunderstood,certainlywithinculturalstudies.

Asaresult,Dean’sanalysisofpoliticsin“CommunicativeCapital-ism”isnotpoliticalevenaccordingtoherowndefinitionofpolitics.Wecanseethistoacertainextentfromthewayinwhich,forallherempha-sis on both the importance of context, and the work of Laclau andMouffe,Deandoesnotactually take intoaccount thecontextofherpolitics,especiallythepossibilitythatthe“context”mayhavechanged,andthatconsequentlyherconceptionofpoliticsmayneedtochange,

antipolit iCs anD the internet14�

too.Deanprefersinsteadtorelyonnotionsofpolitics(specificallyheg-emonicstruggleandresistance)developedinapreviousandwhatsheherselfdescribesasaverydifferenthistoricalconjuncturetomakemor-alistic condemnations of other forms of politics for not being political enough,forbeinginfact“post-political,”asjudgedbythestandardsandcriteriaofthatearlierhistoricalcontext.34ButDean’sanalysisofpoliticsinthisessayisalsonotpoliticalbecauseitdoesnotopenitselftothe“realantagonismanddissent”—includingthatoverideasofwhatpoli-ticsisandwhatitmeanstobepolitical—thataccordingtoherarenec-essaryforpolitics.IfthepoliticalforLaclauandMouffeisadecisiontakeninanundecidableterrain(see,forexample,Mouffe2000,130),theterraininwhichDeanmakesdecisionsoverthepoliticalinthises-sayisforherverymuchadecidableone.Theupshotisthatsheuncriti-cally adheres to and repeats the transcendental hegemonic positionthatthetheoryofhegemonyitselfoccupieswithinculturalstudies.

WhatthisanalysisofDean(aswellasBarbrook,KahnandKellner,andthetacticalmediaofGarciaandLovink)makesclear,then,isthatnotonlydoespresumingthatnewmediacanbeunderstoodintermsofpre-decidedcategoriesandconcepts—includingthoseofthegiftecon-omy,hegemony,andthedialectic—leadpoliticsontheInternettore-maintoall intentsandpurposes trapped in thedialecticofculturalcriticism,unabletothinkawayout(thusfailingtochallengethecul-turalandeconomicdynamicofcapitalismandmerelyrepeatingitsdia-lecticalstructureinstead);butitalsoignoresorforeclosesanypossibili-ties forapolitics that isnew,different, innovative,orexceptional,aswellasforanyheterogeneousexcessthatcannotberecuperatedwithinpoliticsasitisalreadyknownandunderstoodtoemerge.Alongwithnotrespondingresponsiblytotheethicalchallengepresentedbytheother,bywhatcannotbepredictedorforeseen,italsoturnsouttobeantipolitical(despiteitsproclamationstothecontrary).

What’smore,thetendencytoapproachnewmediausingold,prees-tablishedframeworksofknowledgeandmethodsofanalysis likethis(includinganalreadyestablishedandeasilyrecognizedconceptofpoli-tics)mayalsobeonereasonwhy,todate,theliteratureonnewtechnol-ogyanddigitalmediahasyettoproduceanyindisputabletrue“exem-plars,”toborrowatermfromJeffreySconce.Sconceseesthefieldofdigitalcultureashavinggeneratedmany“synthesizers”—thosewhoof-tensetthe“overalltermsofdebateforafieldandbrokerswhatisandwhatisnot‘hot’”—allofthem“vyingtogeneratethevisionaryexem-

antipolit iCs anD the internet 14�

plar” (Sconce 2003, 190).35 Yet it has generated few actual visionary“exemplars,”inthesenseofpeoplewhohaveproducedan“influential,groundbreakingwork...thatservesasthefoundationforsubsequentdebateinthefield”(2003,189).Theacademicspinonnewmediain-stead “seems more a competition among former critical exemplars”(2003,190)—amongwhomcanbeincludedSpinoza,Bergson,Marx,Heidegger, Benjamin, Adorno, Williams, Debord, McLuhan, Haber-mas,Foucault,deCerteau,Derrida,Deleuze,andGuattari.36Insteadofdevelopingnew,singular,oratleastspecifictheoriesofthepoliticsofnewmedia,criticshaveforthemostparttendedtounderstanddigitalpoliticsintermsofalreadydecidedandlegitimatedtheoriesandideas.(Again,onecouldspeculatethatthismaybebecausetheoriesofdigitalmedia, like digital publications themselves, also have to derive theirauthority from elsewhere—from the nondigital “paper” world. Andthatitisonlythosefiguresdeemedimportantinthepaperworldwhoareregardedashavingtheauthorityandlegitimacytopronounceontheworldofthedigital.)

Onenotable(albeitpossiblyonlypartial)exceptiontothis“theo-retical reiterationof theold” isprovidedbyMarkPoster inhis1997essay “Cyberdemocracy: Internet and the Public Sphere.” What is soinnovativeaboutthisessay,asIreadit,isthewayitshowsthattoaddressthequestionoftheimpactandeffectoftheInternet’s“costlessrepro-duction,instantaneousdisseminationandradicaldecentralization...uponthesociety,thecultureandthepoliticalinstitutions”isto“askthewrongquestion”(Poster1997,205).Itisthewrongquestionforatleastthreeinterconnectedreasons.First,becausefarfrombeingdifferentandopposed,bothoftheaboveinterpretationsofpoliticsontheInter-net (i.e., that which sees the Internet either as a reinforcement offree-marketneoliberalismorasameansofresistingcapitalistsystemsof domination—as well as the dialectic between the two) adhere towhatPosteridentifiesasa“modern”—asopposedtoa“postmodern”—understandingofpolitics.Second,becausethis“modern”understand-ingofpoliticsmaybepreciselywhattheInternetchallenges.AsPostersaysearlyonin“Cyberdemocracy,”“[w]hilethereisnodoubtthattheinternetfoldsintoexistingsocialfunctionsandextendstheminnewways...whatarefarmorecogentaspossiblelong-termpoliticaleffectsoftheInternetarethewaysinwhichitinstitutesnewsocialfunctions,onesthatdonotfiteasilywithinthoseofcharacteristicallymodernor-ganisations”(1997,202).And,third,becauseanysuchnewfunctions

antipolit iCs anD the internet150

may“onlybecomeintelligibleifaframeworkisadoptedthatdoesnotlimitthediscussionsfromtheoutsettomodernpatternsofinterpreta-tion”(1997,202).

NowitisnotmyintentiontoputPoster’sessayforwardasacandi-dateforanexemplarinnewmediastudiestorivalSconce’schampion-ing of Sherry Turkle’s Life on the Screen (1996): not least because (aschapters 2 and 3 demonstrated, and as the chapter that follows willproceedtoshow)itistheprocessofhowinstitutionsandfieldsarefoundedthatIamtryingtointerrogatehere(ratherthanattemptingtorepeatsuchfoundationalandinstitutionalizingmomentsmyself).Neverthe-less,IdowanttomakeaclaimfortheimportanceofPoster’sessayinthecontextofthischapter’sparticularconcernforunderstandingthepoliticsofdigitization. Iwant todo sobecause “Cyberdemocracy” is(still)oneoftheplacesthathasperhapsgonefurthesttowardexplor-ingthequestionofhowtounderstandpoliticsontheInternet,raising“theissueofanewunderstandingoftechnology[that]finallyleadstoareassessmentofthepoliticalaspectsoftheInternet”(Poster1997,210).AlthoughIwillarguethat“Cyberdemocracy”doesnotgofarenoughinmanyrespects,andalthoughitisnowrelativelyoldinnewmediaterms,thisessayremainsformefarmorepowerfulthanalotofmorerecenttextsondigitalmedia.And,interestingly,especiallyasfarasabookonopenaccessisconcerned,PosterachievesthisbyfocusingontheInter-net’sability(orotherwise)toactasaformofpublicsphere.Hetakesthisparticularfocusbecauseformanypeoplepoliticsisoftenalreadyreducedtothenotionofapublicsphere(PostercitestheworkofRitaFelskibywayofillustration[1997,208]);andbecauseforhimthe“issueofthepublicsphereisattheheartofanyreconceptualizationofdemoc-racy”(1997,206),andthuspolitics.ButIalsowanttomakeaclaimfortheimportanceof“Cyberdemocracy,”becauseitisperhapsthenearestwehavetoaclassictextonthesubjectofInternetpoliticsandtheInter-netasanewformofpublicsphere,atleastif“judgedintermsofcourseassignmentsandnumberofcitations”(Sconce2003,190).Therefore,IturninthenextchaptertoPoster’saccountofpoliticsontheInternetforhelpwithansweringthequestionregardinghowdigitizationandthearchivemaybepoliticalaswellasethical.

151

Metadata I I I

The Specificity of New Media

The archive is first the law of what can be said, the system that governs the appearance of statements as unique events. But the archive is also that which determines that all these things said do not accumulate endlessly in an amorphous mass, nor are they inscribed in an unbroken linearity, nor do they disappear at the mercy of chance external accidents; but they are grouped together in distinct figures, composed together in accordance with multiple relations, maintained or blurred in accordance with specific regularities. . . . Far from being that which unifies everything that has been said in the great confused murmur of a discourse, far from being only that which ensures that we exist in the midst of preserved discourse, it is that which differentiates discourses in their multiple existence and specifies them in their own duration.

—Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, 1972

Tactical Media TheoryThe emphasis placed in the last chapter on acting tactically goes some way toward explaining why it is so important for me not to generalize about new media in this book. What I am primarily focusing on is one actual, specific form and use of new media: that associated with open-access electronic publishing and archiving, and my own “practical” work in this area in particular. I am doing so, as I made clear in my first set of metadata, partly as a way of responding to concerns around re-search on new media raised by Jeffrey Sconce and Mark Poster, among others. Sconce and Poster see new media research as preoccupied more with other writing on new media than with new media itself (Sconce 2003, 1��), too often manifesting a fondness for the general over the particular, and providing strings of catchy but nonetheless vague terms that fail to guide “the virtual traveller in any particular direction” (Poster 2001, 141). At the same time, my focus on the specific is intended to

metaData i i i152

help me argue that the transformation in the publication of academic research literature that is being brought about by the shift from print to digital offers us a chance to raise important questions regarding how scholarship is conducted and how the university works as an institution (and, from there, the politics—and ethics—of cultural studies). As Eva Hemmungs Wirtén writes, “the most basic of presuppositions regarding long-standing cultural relationships are questioned when we are forced to contend with the definitions of what a book really is, and what it means to be an author, a reader, or a publisher. Such questions are al-ways present within print culture, but they insist on being addressed more directly at a time of drastic technological changes” (Hemmungs Wirtén 2004, ��).1

I want to stress that this shift or transformation in the mode of repro-duction from print to digital media, rather than determining our techno-future in a particular way, offers us nothing more than an opportunity, a chance. I also want to insist that this opportunity, this chance, has to be taken. Hence my emphasis in chapter 4 and throughout this book on the need to act tactically. Witness also my efforts in chapter 2 to show that, to date, the majority of academic online journals and digital repositor-ies—including open-access journals and archives—do tend to function in a relatively closed, papercentric manner, not least by attempting to de-liver an unchanged and preexisting ink-on-paper content, albeit in a “new,” re-mediated form. This is the case, as we have seen, with regard to Stevan Harnad’s influential account of how the system of self-archiving of e-prints in open-access repositories works, as well as with many of the already existing open-access archives, including the arXiv.org E-Print Archive at Cornell. Consequently, I maintain that if we do not make the most of the opportunity to raise such questions regarding the author-ity and legitimacy of scholarship and the institution of the university that are created by the current transition in the mode of technological re- production, academic online publishing will continue to function for the most part in a relatively closed, papercentric, unethical, and antipolitical fashion.

Moreover, I argue that this is a chance that very much has to be taken now. Once this period of technological change settles down and is no longer perceived as quite so new—once bodies such as (in the United Kingdom) the ESRC or AHRC are able to fully establish and de-velop their own disciplinary and institutional repositories, or companies like AOL, Yahoo, and Google become involved and figure out how to

metaData i i i 153

make a substantial profit from doing so—then the opportunity to set the policy and agenda for open-access archiving will very likely be lost. This may indeed already be the case in the sciences, where the requirements involved in a journal subscribing to Thompson Scientific’s Web of Sci-ence (which journals in many fields need to do, as publications listed at the top of its citation indexes are increasingly being linked to funding, employment prospects, career advancement opportunities, promotion, and so on) impose a papercentric form on electronic publications (see chapter 2, n. 12). In this respect there may be little time to lose: at the time of writing only one of the seven U.K. research councils has yet to establish an open-access mandate, for instance.2 This is why I believe the argument developed here is rather timely; and why it is important to encourage and promote the taking of this chance to address these issues of knowledge, legitimacy, ethics, politics, and the university, and of the difference the new media themselves make.

That said, it is not my intention to associate the digital realm in gen-eral with the thematics of the unknowable and the incalculable in this book; nor to argue that new media is intrinsically open or undecidable. Other forms and performances of new media operate differently to open access, and in doing so often provide far less opportunity for taking the kind of politico-ethical and institutional chance I am referring to.

This last point has significant implications for how we understand digital culture. For instance, in an article from 2005 entitled “Who Con-trols Digital Culture?,” Poster hypothesizes that it is very much possible that in the future the sharing or gifting ethos of peer-to-peer networks I detailed in my opening chapter will become a prominent, perhaps even the dominant mode of cultural exchange:3

An infrastructure is being set into place for a day when cultural ob-jects will become variable and users will become creators as well. Such an outcome is not just around the corner since for generations the population has been accustomed to fixed cultural objects. But as we pass beyond the limits of modern culture, with its standard-ized, mass produced consumer culture, we can anticipate more and more individuals and groups taking advantage of the facility with which digital cultural objects are changed, stored, and distributed in the network. A different sort of public space from that of moder-nity is emerging, a heterotopia in Foucault’s term, and peer-to-peer networks constitute an important ingredient in that development,

metaData i i i154

one worthy of safeguarding and promoting for that reason alone. If copyright laws need to be changed and media corporations need to disappear or transform themselves, this result must be evaluated in relation to a new regime of culture that is now possible. (Poster 2005, n.p.; 200�, 204)

Certainly, the idea that the relations of production and distribution associated with peer-to-peer networks can be scaled up to form a new regime of culture or new kinds of networked institutions, even a plan for the future organization of society in which cultural, political, and eco-nomic decisions are made in an open, distributed, participatory, coop-erative, networked fashion, is a seductive one.4 (All the more so if this idea is able to incorporate the new notions of the human, technology, citizenship, the public sphere, democracy, and politics—as well as the relations between them—that we will see Poster’s analysis of “Cyberde-mocracy” opening us up to in chapter 5.) No doubt grand historical narratives of this sort—in which the relatively fixed and stable imagined communities associated with the classical idea of the nation-state are often regarded as being superseded by more complex, fluid, and mobile networks of people—also have a certain tactical and, indeed, strategic value themselves. To be sure, if peer-to-peer networks are to be consid-ered one important ingredient in the emergence of any such potential new regime, I would want to insist upon open access being another. The two are by no means mutually exclusive. After all, one can easily imag-ine establishing a system of peer-to-peer review to rival the peer-review system that is dominant within academia at the moment.5 Nevertheless, there are at least two questions I would raise as far as any such hypoth-esis is concerned.

To begin with, if a new, post-“modern” (as distinct from “postmod-ern”) regime of this kind does emerge, what will it look like? Instead of being a realm in which culture in general takes on the distributed, net-worked, participative, cooperative character of much new media, I won-der if it is not more likely to assume the form of a mixed and (as Poster’s reference to Foucault indeed suggests) heterogeneous economy, with different media, both “new” and “old,” digital and analogue, and the related infrastructures, operating in a relation of coexistence and even at times convergence and synergy, yes, perhaps, but also of divergence, competition and antagonism. This in turn connects to a further question.

metaData i i i 155

Even if such a new form of “public space”—different to that of modernity and derived at least in part from the gifting ethos of digital culture’s peer-to-peer networks—is possible, would the various ingredients that go to make up this “heterotopia” (in which we could perhaps include peer- to-peer file sharing, free software, open source, open content, the Crea-tive Commons, open-access publishing and archiving, and so on) all contribute to such a distributed, networked, participative regime in more or less the same way? Or, just as there are obvious commonalities and points of connection between them, would there not be areas of friction, conflict, and even incommensurability, too?

Of course I cannot answer these questions here if for no other reason than their future-oriented nature makes that impossible. The point I am trying to make in raising them is that, if we are to substitute the “cultural analyst’s penchant for the particular” for the “philosopher’s taste for the general,” it is not enough to take into account the difference and specifi-city of the digital medium of reproduction: its material form and proper-ties. Attention also needs to be paid to the many distinctions and diver-gences that exist between the various ingredients that go to make up digital culture at any one time. This is something I tried to do in chap- ter 1 by emphasizing that the situation regarding the digital reproduc-tion of scholarly literature is in many respects very different to that of the peer-to-peer sharing of music files.� Open access is capable of working in the way described here because of the specific character of both academia and open access at the moment: that is, because the majority of scholars do not expect, or need, to get paid directly or substantially for their writings (their “reward” comes more from the increase in feed-back and recognition and enhancement to their reputation that open access offers); and because the e-print self-archiving system enables academics to retain copyright over their work, or at least avoid infring-ing most publishers’ copyright agreements (which means that texts can be distributed freely, rather than being “stolen” or “pirated,” as is often the case with regard to music). In this respect one could say that the open-access publishing and archiving of academic scholarship and re-search constitutes a strategic use of a specific form of digital culture within particular institutional and sociopolitical contexts (although, as we shall see, it cannot be reduced to those contexts). It is not something that is necessarily generalizable or transferable to other forms and prac-tices of digital culture—the peer-to-peer sharing of music and video

metaData i i i15�

files, the decentered electronic distribution of films, the digital storage of visual art, the online publication of science-fiction literature, and so on— although it may be.�

This does not mean that all these various forms and practices are absolutely different and completely heterogeneous either. As I also ob-served in chapter 2, the very web-like structure of the Web often makes it difficult to determine where texts begin or end; all the cutting and past-ing, internal and external linking that takes place blurs the boundaries not only between the text and its surroundings, its material support, but also between other media and cultural texts, techniques, forms, and genres, making such boundaries almost impossible to determine. To be sure, many instances of digital culture—such as Amazon’s peer-review-ing, Wikipedia’s open editing, YouTube’s video sharing, and Flickr’s pho-tosharing—have a number of features in common with open-access pub-lishing and archiving: not least that they make use of digital networks, are dependent on an open, social process of collaboration and coop-eration, are made up of user-generated content, and have the potential for the individual user (or “producer”) to be able to create and modify that content as well as reproduce, store, and distribute it. Together with their material differences, however (as represented by the particular platform, hardware, software, operating system, programming code, graphical interface, and so on), I would argue that they also operate in different ways, situations, and contexts.� They are therefore not necessar-ily capable of having the same or comparable effects. Likewise with re-gard to computer games, search engines, and virtual environments such as Second Life or Habbo.� As with open access (or so I have argued here), these, too, may have the capacity not merely to extend prostheti-cally existing forms and practices of knowledge and information, but also to reconstitute them differently—thus requiring us to develop new forms of knowledge and new techniques of analysis in order to compre-hend them, and in so doing, cause us to see them again, as if for the first time. Still, I am wary of stating that they do so in a manner similar to open-access archiving. The extent to which instances of new media have the potential to reconstitute forms of knowledge differently is again something that would have to be worked out by paying close attention to the specificity and indeed singularity of each in relation to a particular context.

Obviously, this is not something I can do for all the examples of digital culture mentioned above. Instead, I have taken a (tactical) deci-

metaData i i i 15�

sion to focus on just one, that which has the potential to be of most con-cern to the scholarly community (from which I imagine the majority of readers of this book are likely to be drawn): the open-access publication and archiving of research literature. Even here things are not so simple, however, as the open-access movement is itself neither unified nor self-identical. There are significant differences even among the various “fla-vors” of open access. That is why at times in this book I have focused on the model of open access that is being invented and creatively explored by the digital repository of cultural studies texts I am involved with.

I am interested in the actual, singular points of potentiality and trans-formation that are provided by specific instances and performances of digital media. Let me reiterate: as far as I am concerned there is no sys-tem, set of principles, ethos, or philosophy (that of the academic gift economy, say) that can be necessarily privileged and extrapolated out of open access—or any other example of new media, for that matter—and made to function as generally (and unconditionally) applicable to culture, or even digital culture, as a whole, either now or in the future.10 The issue is more complex, multiplicitous, and uncertain than that. I am arguing that open-access archiving has the potential to work in the way described here in particular institutional contexts and at particular times. The same ideas and practices may be translatable to other situations and contexts, other singular points of potentiality and transformation, thus becoming in the process a prominent, even perhaps dominant, fea-ture of culture, and possibly even leading to the emergence of a new regime of culture, new kinds of institutions or new forms of social and political organization. (This is because any singularity always has a rela-tion to the general and the common. After all, a singularity must escape recognition as a singularity, as something that relates to the common understanding of what a singularity is, otherwise it is not singular but only an example of a general type: “singularity.” The singular is by defi-nition that which resists being described in general categories. Yet a singularity also has to be capable of being recognized as an instance of the general type “singularity,” since if it were absolutely different and singular no one would ever be able to understand it as a singularity [see G. Hall 200�, 45]. The forging of connections between different in-stances and performances of new media and their articulation with other struggles and resistances to form counterhegemonic groups or networks brought together by their opposition to a shared opponent would thus obviously be, for some, as we have seen in chapter 4, one way of being

metaData i i i15�

political in relation to the Internet.) However, the ideas and practices concerning open-access archiving may turn out not to be translatable to other situations and circumstances at all. In which case, if questions of ethics and politics are to be raised and responded to responsibly, the development of different ideas, tactics, and strategies may be required—perhaps those associated with peer-to-peer networks, perhaps not. This, too, is something that would have to be worked out by paying close at-tention to the specificity and singularity of each in relation to particular contexts.

The Specificity of Open-Access ArchivingInstances of new media, then, need to be thought, analyzed and under-stood in terms of at least a more specific form of analysis, and in fact a “media-singular analysis,” I would argue.11 Such an approach offers a number of advantages. It reduces the risk of producing vague, futuro-logical generalizations about digital culture. It also helps avoid falling into the trap of privileging one specific instance of digital media and assuming that a whole new cultural regime based on its particular prin-ciples and ethos is possible. This is not to say peer-to-peer networks and open access do not have the potential to be important ingredients in the emergence of a different sort of “public” space from that of modernity, one in which both can operate together with relatively little friction and hostility. It is only to signal that we also have to remain open to the pos-sibility that they may conflict and even be incommensurable, and thus lead to a heterogeneous and divided form of space—or even to multiple different regimes of culture that operate in an antagonistic relation to-ward one another. (Nor need this possibility necessarily be viewed pes-simistically since, as we saw in chapter 4, the specificity of politics is marked by a certain refusal to eliminate conflict and antagonism, in a pluralistic, liberal democracy at least.)

Still further, approaching new media in this way assists with eluding the kind of “technological fetishism” that provides merely the fantasy of political activity and participation Jodi Dean locates around blogging and peer-to-peer file sharing, but that, I have argued, she herself suc-cumbs to a variation of with respect to her own antipolitical fetishization of hegemonic struggle. This approach encourages us not to decide in advance what the political and ethical thing to do is when it comes to understanding and interpreting digital culture, and to instead remain

metaData i i i 15�

open precisely to the latter’s specificity and, indeed, singularity. This openness to that which is novel, innovative, or exceptional and to any heterogeneous excess in turn facilitates the appreciation and analysis of the various opportunities that different instances of new media offer with regard to taking the kind of political and institutional chances I am dis-cussing in this book. In this respect, the choice of which specific instances of new media to focus on is very much a tactical and political one.

All of which explains why, although I began Digitize This Book! by asking about the university in the age of a host of different examples of new media (Google, BitTorrent, Wikipedia, MySpace, Kindle, and so forth), and although for the sake of convenience, time, and economy (and also in the hope of engaging as many potential readers as possi-ble) I have on occasion referred to digitization in general, I have not attempted to extend my analysis to apply to new media and digital cul-ture as a whole. Instead, I have for the most part focused on one specific form and use of new media: namely, that associated with open-access publishing and especially open-access archiving.

The specificity of open-access archiving resides in the way in which it ena-bles researchers to circumvent a lot of the restrictions placed on access to research and publications by copyright and licensing agreements, and thus provides a response to many of the issues and dilemmas that have been presented to scholars by an increasingly market-driven and commercial academic publishing industry.

Open-access archiving is able to offer a number of advantages and benefits to authors. As we saw in chapter 1, as far as the cultural studies repository I am involved with is concerned, these include enabling au-thors to:

• Publish their research immediately upon completion • Make their work available from (almost) any desktop, twenty-four

hours a day, to anyone who has Internet access • Provide their audience, including fellow writers and researchers,

undergraduate and postgraduate students, and the general pub-lic, with as many copies of their texts as they need

• Increase the size of their readership • Potentially increase the reading figures, impact, and even sales of

their paper publications

metaData i i i1�0

• Publish books and journals that have too small a potential read- ership to make them cost-effective for a “paper” publisher to take on

• Make their research “permanently” available • Republish texts that are out of print • Distribute their texts to an extremely wide (if not necessarily “glo-

bal”) audience • Link to underlying, background, and related research • Fulfill their obligations to funding bodies easily and quickly

The specificity of open-access archiving also resides in the way it deter-mines what can be collected, stored, and preserved, and the particular nature of the questions this determination raises.

It is important to realize that an archive is not a neutral institution; rather, as we have seen, it is part of specific intellectual, cultural, techni-cal, and economic/financial networks. An archive’s medium, in particu-lar—be it paper, celluloid, or tape—is often perceived as being merely a disinterested carrier for the archived material. Yet the medium of an archive actually helps to determine and shape its content; a content, moreover, that is performed differently each time, in each particular context in which it is accessed or material is retrieved from the archive. An open-access archive is no exception in this respect. Its specific form, medium, and structure shape what it preserves, classifies, and performs as legitimate scholarship, in both time and scope.12

Consequently, and as I demonstrated earlier, a digital cultural stud-ies archive is not just a means of reproducing and confirming existing conceptions of cultural studies: of selecting, collecting, gathering, inter-preting, filtering, organizing, classifying, and preserving what cultural studies already is or is perceived as having been. It is partly that. But it is also a means of producing and performing cultural studies: both what it is going to look like in the past; and what there is a chance for cultural studies to have been in the future. (At its most basic, this means that, just as those who were active in the United Kingdom Workers Education As-sociation and who published in paper form are remembered as being among cultural studies’ founders, while those who taught at the WEA but did not publish are not [Williams 1���], so those cultural studies authors whose work cannot be digitized likewise risk being excluded from any open-access initiatives and thus not appearing as part of cultural studies’ future or even its past. This is simply because, no matter how “open” any

metaData i i i 1�1

open-access repository is or how responsibly and hospitably its proto-cols are designed and applied, it can only accept texts and materials in digital form.)

The determination of content by the archive’s medium is a feature digital repositories share with other kinds of archives. One of the issues that is specific to open-access archiving, however, is the manner in which, as a result of the profound transformation in the publication of the academic research literature that is being brought about by the change in the mode of reproduction from ink-on-paper to digital, questions that were already present with regard to the print medium and other media, but that tended to be taken for granted, overlooked, marginalized, ex-cluded, or otherwise repressed, are now insisting “on being addressed more directly” (Hemmungs Wirtén 2004, ��). As Adrian Johns reminds us in The Nature of the Book, up until the middle of the eighteenth cen-tury the printed book was an unstable object; for example, Shakespeare’s first folio included more than six hundred typefaces and numerous incon-sistencies in its spelling, punctuation, divisions, arrangement, proofing, and page configurations. As a result, readers had to make critical deci-sions about particular printed books regarding their identity, consist-ency, and trustworthiness on the basis of “assessments of the people in-volved in the making, distribution, and reception of books” ( Johns 1���, 31–32). Early in the history of the printed book, then, readers were in-volved in forming judgments around questions of authority and legiti-macy: concerning what a book is and what it means to be an author, a reader, a publisher, and a distributor. The development and spread of the concept of the author, along with mass printing techniques, uniform multiple-copy editions, copyright, established publishing houses, editors, and so forth meant that many of these ideas subsequently began to ap-pear “fixed.” Consequently, readers were no longer “asked” to make decisions over questions of authority and legitimacy. Such issues were forgotten (much as we have seen in chapter 2, they were forgotten around questions of academic and disciplinary authority). The digital mode of reproduction, however, promises to place us in a position where readers are again called on to respond and to make judgments and decisions about the nature and authority of (digitized) texts, and of the disciplines, fields of knowledge, and registers these texts are supposed to belong to (or not), precisely through its loosening of much of this fix-ity.13 In this respect, open-access archiving has for me a certain tactical quality. We can now see that the destabilization created by the shift

metaData i i i1�2

from print to digital offers us an opportunity and a chance, if only it can be taken, to approach academic research and scholarship anew, as if for the first time; and thus to raise precisely the kind of responsible ques-tions concerning knowledge, the discipline, the university, and the institu-tion that in many respects we should have been asking anyway. These questions concern two further aspects of what I describe as “the specifi-city of open-access archiving.”

The Ethical Issues Raised by Open AccessWhat is to be included in the archive and what excluded? What catego-ries of inclusion and exclusion should govern disciplinary protocols as far as the digital publication, transmission, dissemination, exchange, storage, and retrieval of academic research and scholarship is con-cerned?

The ethical problems concerning the maintenance of an infinite and aporetic responsibility to an unconditional hospitality to the alterity of the other that an open-access repository enables us to bring to attention and emphasize were one of the main reasons I wanted to get involved in setting up an open-access archive (even though with Culture Machine I have been publishing an open-access online journal since 1���). I became interested in doing so not just for the usual reasons that are of-fered to justify taking the “green” road to open access (open-access self-archiving) over the “gold” (publishing in open-access journals): that an archive is cheaper, because it does not require the establishment of expensive gate-keeping and copyediting procedures; that it provides open access to research without restricting authors to particular journals, and without asking them to pay for publication (as is the case with some models of open access); that it enables greater ease of searching and retrieval than a dispersed array of journals and articles; or even that, when it comes to promoting the wider adoption of open access, it will be easier to convince academics to self-archive their research—because of the advantages it offers them in terms of gaining increased feedback on their work and developing their reputation through the enhanced levels of recognition and impact it can bring—than it will be to convert the existing journals to open access—because the publishers of the latter are more likely to feel they have something to lose: namely, income from subscriptions. Actually, I would suggest that, as far as the humanities in general and cultural studies in particular are concerned, the opposite may be true. Publishing in digital repositories is newer and less familiar

metaData i i i 1�3

to most people in these fields than publishing in journals, even electronic ones. Open-access archiving may thus require academics to make a larger shift in their thinking and scholarly practices if it is to be accepted than would open-access journal publishing. (That said, this is something that can be countered to a certain extent by funding agencies and institu-tions making it mandatory that any research they support be either pub-lished in an open-access journal or deposited in an open-access reposi-tory.)14

I also wanted to get involved in establishing an open-access archive because “archives can be filled with objects and documents of a quirky nature: letters; recordings; a lock of hair; a manuscript; a photograph; or documentation of individuals, groups, families, organizations; mani-festos; constitutions; tax records and on it goes,” as Elvis Richardson and Sarah Goffman remind us in an editorial in an issue of Photofile devoted entirely to the subject of the archive (Richardson and Goffman 200�, 1�). Compared to a journal, which is a “serious, scholarly publication” (Wikipedia 200�c), an archive (which can be understood as both the objects and documents assembled and the place where they are located) is by definition far more open—at least potentially—to the “quirky”: that is, the different, the foreign, the heterogeneous, the exces-sive. An archive is therefore capable of placing us in a position where we have to make decisions over what can be included in it, and with what authority and legitimacy, in a way a journal simply is not.

A “serious” academic journal, for instance, will primarily publish peer-reviewed articles that are recognizable as “proper” pieces of schol-arly writing or research. Yet along with e-prints of peer-reviewed essays, an academic archive could also contain monographs, edited books, textbooks, book chapters, journal editions, out-of-print books, working papers, discussion papers, theses, bibliographies, conference papers, presentations, teaching material, and lectures. Artifacts of a more unu-sual nature could also conceivably be collected in the most serious of academic archives. I am thinking of drafts of work in progress, manu-scripts, leaflets, posters, “underground literature,” photographs, sound recordings, film, video, multimedia resources, software, maps, letters, diaries, and personal correspondence. I also have in mind “laundry notes and scraps” like the one stating “‘I have forgotten my umbrella,’” which was found among Nietzsche’s papers after his death and about which Derrida has written at length (1���, 13�); or even the content of dreams, such as those of Hélène Cixous, which are detailed in her note-

metaData i i i1�4

books and which are now included as part of the Cixous archive at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (see Derrida 200�).15 And that is to restrict myself solely to examples that, though perhaps “quirky,” are al-ready authorized.

What is more, if this is true of archives generally, it is even truer of open-access repositories. As chapter 2 made clear, one of the issues that is specific to open-access archiving (or certain instances of it any-way) is the extent to which the digital technology that enables it also makes it possible to multiply the permeability of its border control, thus bringing the problem of what can and cannot be legitimately included to attention and emphasizing it. Because of the speed of the digitization process; the sheer size, number, and variety of texts that can be pro-duced, published, archived, preserved and stored; the geographic range over which those texts can be distributed; and the relative ease and low cost of the digitization process, together with the lack of stabil-ity, fixity, and permanence of the digital texts themselves, the irreducibly violent and aporetic nature of any such authority is made much more apparent. By providing us with an opportunity to raise ethical questions of this kind that are often otherwise kept hidden and concealed, an open-access archive is capable of having a much larger impact than an open-access journal. (And in the process we can be potentially far more open, radical, and experimental in making responsible decisions about the quality and value of a piece of writing or research, and ask: what if Sigmund Freud or Richard Hoggart had had, not just e-mail, but the Web, a blog, a wiki, text messaging, Amazon peer-reviewing, pod-casting, social networking, peer-to-peer file sharing?)

The fact that an archive is able to include books in particular (both pre- and post-publication) is especially significant as far as raising ques-tions for ideas of knowledge, the discipline, the university, and the institu-tion is concerned. The desire to broach issues of this nature is also why, when working on developing an open-access archive, it was important for me that it have a cultural studies focus. A number of the queries this project raises regarding institutional legitimacy and authority may be applicable to other fields. And yet, as cultural studies is arguably the means by which the university currently thinks itself, it provides a privi-leged mode of access to questions of this kind, in a way that physics, or the cognitive sciences, say, or even literary studies and philosophy, do not. There is, then, something specific for me about a cultural studies open-access archive.

metaData i i i 1�5

The posing of such questions—and the potential to do so that is cre-ated by the digitization of the research literature—has radical conse-quences for cultural studies in turn. Cultural studies has tended to pride itself on its interdisciplinary approach. However, its interdisciplinarity sustains the identity and limits of disciplines as much as it challenges them (see G. Hall 2002, 2004b). Hence cultural studies may include those branches of knowledge that are conventionally included in its inter-disciplinary repertoire, but it nevertheless still excludes (more or less vio-lently) nonlegitimate or not yet legitimate forms and kinds of knowledge, including those that are not recognizable as legitimate if judged by the rules and conventions of the “paper” world, as well as what might be called “non-knowledge”: the apparently useless, unimportant, irrelevant, trivial, or mistaken.

This is not to say there should be no limits. This is quite simply not possible. Limitation is inevitable, as chapter 3 showed by means of an analysis of the work on institutions and institutionalization of Samuel Weber. There are always limits. The point is rather to realize and ac-knowledge this process of limitation (rather than try to avoid it and thus end up repeating it unknowingly) and to think about how to assume these limits, and with what authority and legitimacy. For me, open- access archiving helps to put cultural studies in a position where it be-comes more difficult to avoid addressing these questions: not least because of its potential openness to the quirky (the different, foreign, and heterogeneous; that which is not necessarily, or not yet, legitimate; and even the apparently useless, unimportant, obsolete, worthless, and trivial); and also because of its use of digital technology, which serves to accentuate the irreducibly violent and aporetic nature of any such delim-iting authority.

Now to have an effect on cultural studies and to raise ethical (and political) questions for its own thinking on the university, it is crucial to be able to direct these queries at one of its main sources and criteria of value. This is where the significance of books comes in. Books (such as this one—hence my title: Digitize This Book!) have an important role to play as far as the institutionally pragmatic tactical use of open-access archiving I am detailing here is concerned, since they are the main crite-rion for employment, tenure, and promotion in the humanities in general, and cultural studies in particular. We can thus see that the ability to in-clude books bestows upon an open-access archive such as CSeARCH (which does include books) the potential to have a far larger impact—

metaData i i i1��

on cultural studies especially, but also the humanities generally, and from there perhaps the institution of the university—than an open-access journal.

The Political Issues Open Access PresentsThis brings me back to the question of the politics of open access I began by addressing in the previous chapter, with the analysis of the “digital dialectic” and the oppositional structure of new media criticism in gen-eral. I want to explore this issue further in the chapter that follows, by means of a reading of Mark Poster’s essay “Cyberdemocracy.”

1��

5

HyperCyberDemocracy

hyper:excessive;goingbeyondorabove—The Penguin English Dictionary

Cyberdemocracy: The Internet and the Public SphereInhisessay“Cyberdemocracy,”MarkPosteridentifiesanumberofwaystheInternetmay“resist”andreconfigure“modern”conceptionsofpol-itics.Theseincludeoneofthebasicassumptionsunderpinningmanyofthe“olderpositions”regardingpoliticsontheInternet:namely,thatwearesovereign,autonomous,andunifiedindividualscommunicatingrationallywitheachother, sometimes face-to-face,as inpublicmeet-ings(theGreekagora,eighteenth-centurycoffeeshops,NewEnglandtownhalls),butmoreoftennowadaysviaexternaltechnologicalmediaofcommunication(television,radio,thepress,andsoon).ForPoster,theInternetrepresentsachallengetothisideathat“therelationbe-tweentechnologyandthehumanisexternal.”Itdoessobyimposing“atransformationofthesubjectpositionoftheindividualwhoengageswithinit”(1997,205).Posterseesinmany“‘virtualcommunities’”ontheInternet(suchasMOOsandMUDs—heoriginallywrotethisessayin1995)a“direct solicitation toconstruct identities in thecourseofcommunicationpractices.Individualsinventthemselvesanddosore-peatedlyanddifferentlyinthecourseofconversingormessagingelec-tronically”(1997,211).Inthiswaytheyproduceanewrelationtotheirbodiesastheycommunicate,onethatPostercharacterizesintermsofthe(then)“newsocialfigureofthecyborg”(1997,213–14).

Iwanttosaymoreabouttherelationbetweenthehumanandtech-nology,andthecyborg,inamoment.Atthisstage,theimportantpointtonoteisthattechnologyisnotunderstoodhereasjustprosthetic:thatis,assomethingthatisattachedtoorusedbyhumanbeingsfrom“a

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy1��

preconstitutedpositionofsubjectivity.”Technology,accordingtoPoster—likelanguageandculturefor“postmodernists”—alsoconstructssub-jectivity,thusunderminingideasofunifiedhumanidentityandauton-omousselfhood.

ItisworthemphasizingthatPosterisnotadvocatingwiththisargu-mentthekindofoptimisticcelebrationoftheInternetthathas(oftenincorrectly) been associated with cultural studies’ approach to newtechnology(andnotjustnewtechnology,butcapitalism,consumerism,popularculture,andsoforth):thatpeoplearefreetoconstructtheirownidentitiesthroughactsofpureconsciousness.Posterexplicitlydis-tanceshimselffromsuchanideaonthegroundsthatitwouldappearheis“depictingtheInternetastherealizationofthemoderndreamuniversal,‘active’speech”;andbecauseitwouldrestonthe“notionofidentity as a fixed essence, pre-social and pre-linguistic” (1997, 211).Thenewhuman-machine“assemblagesofself-constitution”(1997,213)thatPosterperceivestheInternetasmakingpossibledonot“referbacktoafoundationalsubject”;neitheraretheyproducedbymeansof“actsofpureconsciousness.”Instead,Posterargues,“Internetdiscoursecon-stitutesthesubjectasthesubjectfashionshimorherself”(1997,211).

AccordingtoPoster,this“newregimeofrelationsbetweenhumansandmatter”installedbytheInternethasseriousconsequencesforatleastthreekeyaspectsofthewayinwhichpoliticsonlinehasgenerallybeenunderstood:technologicaldeterminism,thepublicsphere,anddemocracy.

Technological DeterminismInthe“grandnarrativeofmodernity,theInternetisanefficienttoolofcommunication,advancingthegoalsofitsusers,whoareunderstoodas preconstituted instrumental identities” (Poster 1997, 205–6). Bytransformingtherelationbetweentechnologyandthehumanandbe-tweentechnologyandculture,however,theInternetresists“thebasicconditionsforaskingthequestionoftheeffectsoftechnology”onsoci-ety,culture,andpoliticalinstitutions,thusproblematizingthemodernpositionsofthemajorityofpoliticalconceptualizationsoftheInternet,whicharepremisedonthequestionofthelatter’stechnologicaleffects(1997,205).

This is aparticularly important point—and evenmore so in thecontextofthepreviouschapter’sanalysisoftheantipoliticalnatureofmost theoriesof thepoliticsofnewmedia todate.The listof those

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy 1��

adopting such modern positions toward Internet politics would cer-tainlyincludeBarbrook,Dean,andKahnandKellner.Infact,thelat-terexplicitlystatethattheywantto“maketechnopoliticsamajorin-strumentofpoliticalaction”(KahnandKellner2005,80).Butitwouldalsoapplytowhatareseenbysomeasmoreradicaloravant-gardeap-proachestonewmediacriticism,suchasthe“qualifiedformofhuman-ism”oftacticalmedia,whichGarciaandLovinkdescribeasofferinga“usefulantidotetoboth...‘theunopposedruleofmoneyoverhumanbeings’—butalso...tonewlyemergingformsoftechnocraticscient-ismwhichunderthebannerofpost-humanismtendtorestrictdiscus-sionsofhumanuseandsocialreception”(GarciaandLovink1997,n.p.[myemphasis]).ForLovink—whoopenlyadmitstoadvocatinga“‘rad-icallymodern’” approach tonewmedia (which isopposed to,or, inhiswords,situated“beyondthemelancholyofpostmodernism”)—“allformsof technologicaldeterminismshouldbecondemned.Technol-ogyisnotinevitability;itisdesigned,itcanbecriticised,altered,under-mined,mutatedand,attimes,ignoredinordertosubvertitslimiting,totalitariantendenciescausedbyeitherstatesormarkets”(1997,37).TechnologyisthuspreciselyatoolforLovink,tobeusedtoproducemoreeffectivemeansofactionandresistance.Tobesure,wehaveal-readyseenhowtacticalmediaisbasedverymuchonanotionof“use”derivedfromdeCerteau.“Whatmakes[o]ur[m]edia[t]actical?”Gar-ciaandLovinkaskrhetorically.“InThe Practice of Every Day LifeDeCer-tueau[sic]analyzedpopularculturenotasa‘domainoftextsorarti-factsbutratherasasetofpracticesoroperationsperformedontextualortextlikestructures.’Heshiftedtheemphasisfromrepresentationsintheirownrighttothe‘uses’ofrepresentations.Inotherwordshowdoweasconsumersusethetextsandartifactsthatsurroundus.Andtheanswer,hesuggested,was‘tactically’”(1997,n.p.).

Yetthismodernconcernwiththequestionofeffectsandwithsee-ingtheInternetasatoolisfarfromconfinedtotheapproachesIhavediscussedsofar.AsPosterpointsout,itappliestothebulkofpoliticaltakesontheInternet.Thestudyofnetworksandnetwarillustratesthispoint.EugeneThackerhasshownthatmostacademicaccountsofpo-liticalnetworkssuchastheEZLNZapatistamovement,theanti–WorldTradeOrganizationprotests,andal-Qaedafocusonthehumanaspectofthesenetworks,especiallythedecision-makingprocess.Theydosoattheexpenseofanalyzingthe“uncanny,”“nonhuman”characteristicsofsuchnetworks:thatis,thebehaviortheyexhibitthatismoreakinto

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy1�0

herds,swarms,flocks,orthespreadofbiologicalvirusesthanitistohuman-managed,rationallyregulatedentities.Thackerconsequentlyarguesthat:

Approaches to studyingnetworks seemtobecaughtbetween theviewsofcontrolandemergencewithrespecttonetworksasdynamic,living entities. On the one hand, networks are intrinsically of in-terestbecausethebasicprinciplesof their functioning(e.g. localactions,globalpatterns)revealsamodeoflivingorganizationthatisnotandcannotbedependentonatop-down,“centralized”mind-set.Yet,foralltheidealistic,neoliberalvisionsof“opennetworks”or“webswithoutspiders,”thereisalwaysaninstrumentalinterestthatunderliesthestudyofnetworks,eithertobetterbuildthem,tomakethemmoresecure,ortodeploytheminconfrontingothernetworkadversariesorthreats.(2005,n.p.)

ItisworthemphasizingthatwhenPosterwritesabouttheInternettransformingtherelationbetweentechnologyandthehumanontheonehand,andtechnologyandcultureontheother,heseesitasresist-ing“thebasicconditionsforaskingthequestionoftheeffectsoftech-nology”onsociety,culture,andpoliticalinstitutions,notbecausewearefreefromtechnology’sdeterminingeffectsontheInternet,butbe-causetheInternet“ismorelikeasocialspacethanathing;itseffectsaremorelikethoseofGermanythanthoseofhammers.”ForPoster,“theeffectofGermanyuponthepeoplewithinitistomakethemGer-mans...;theeffectofhammersisnottomakethemhammers...buttoforcemetalspikesintowood.AslongasweunderstandtheInternetasahammerwewillfailtodiscernthewayitislikeGermany”(Poster1997,205).Thisisanextremelyimportantpoint,thefullimplicationsofwhichareoftenmissedbycommentatorsonPoster’sessay.Forwhatthismeans is that there isno simpledistinctionbetween technologyand its users. Poster acknowledges that the Internet is complicatedenoughthatitmayberegardedtosomeextentasahammer.Neverthe-less,technologyhereisnotreducibletoasetoftoolsthatcanbeusedforhumanends.InthewordsofMarshallMcLuhan,“mediaeffectsarenewenvironmentsasimperceptibleaswatertofish”(1969,22).Sowecanneverpositionourselvessufficientlyoutsideoftechnologytocom-pletely understand its effects. If anything, technology is more like acountryoranenvironment:itjustisthespaceormediumweoccupy.

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy 1�1

Thus,asarecentanalysisbyPosterofthemusicindustry’srelationtotheinnovationofdigitaltechnologysuggests,themostimportantques-tionmaynotbe“Whocontrolsdigitalculture?”oreven“Whooughttocontroldigitalculture?”(the forcesofneoliberalcapitalismor thosewhoareattemptingtochallengeandresistsuchforces?),butrather,“iscontrolagoodtermtouseinrelationtodigitalculture?”(2005,n.p.).

Clearly,allof thishasradicalconsequences for theway inwhichpoliticsontheInternetisusuallyunderstood,aswesawinthepreviouschapter: in terms of either generating opportunities for democraticparticipation,challengeandresistance;orasameansforthecontinua-tion,reinforcement,intensification,andextensionofthepowersoflatecapitalism.

The Public SphereAccordingtoPosterin“Cyberdemocracy,”theInternetalsohasradicalconsequencesfortheideaofthepublicsphere,sinceitraisesquestionsfortraditionalnotionsof:

1.Politics—forwecannow see that the Internetunderminesnotjust the basic conditions for asking the question of the effectsof technologyonsociety,culture,andpolitical institutions,butalso the very idea of a prelinguistic, “pre-social, foundational,individualidentity...positedasoutsideofandpriortohistory,”aswellasthevisionofsocietythatliesatthebaseofEnlightenmentnarrativesofpoliticalliberation(Poster1997,203).

2.Citizenship—sincetheabovemeansthattheInternetalsocreatesproblemsforthebeliefthatweareautonomousunifiedindividualswiththerighttocriticizethegovernmentandcontributetothewaysocietyisrun.(AswesawinmyIntroduction,thisideaunderliesmany interpretations of open-access publishing and archiving,whichareseenaspromoting“democracybysharinggovernmentinformationasrapidlyandwidelyaspossible”[Suber2007b,n.p.].Fromthispointofview,inbreakingdownthebarriersbetweentheuniversityandtherestofsociety,andbetweenacademicresearchand other kinds of research that occurs in places outside theinstitution,open-accesspublishingandarchivingispositionedassupplyingcitizenswiththeknowledgeandinformationnecessarytotakepartindemocraticdebate.)

3.The public sphere—sincetheInternetchallengesthedistinction

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy1�2

betweenthedomainsofthepublicandprivateonwhichtheveryconceptofthepublicspheredepends.(Theformer,thepublic,isperceivedasbeinggovernedbyadesireforhumancommunityandgroupsolidarity;thelatter,theprivate,byadesireforfree-dom,self-realization,andcreation.)1

Thenotionofthepublicsphereisespeciallyunderthreatatatimewhen personal means of communication are becoming increasinglyubiquitous, mobile, and easy to use in communal spaces, and whenmoreandmoreof thepublic arena isbeingprivatized, and—in thecaseofmotorways,towncenters,railwayandsubwaystations,shoppingcenters,parks,andfootballstadiums—placedunderincreasedsurveil-lance.(Interestingly,whiletheUnitedKingdomhasonly1percentoftheworld’spopulation,itcurrentlyhas20percentoftheworld’sclosed-circuit television[CCTV]cameras—afigureestimatedat5million.)Similarly,whilethemostpersonalandprivateofspacesisinmanywaysone’shome,nowhereisonelinkedtotheoutsideworldmorethanathome,whencommunicatingbye-mail,surfingtheWeb,ortakingpartin“socialnetworking.”Howexactlyis“public”communicationontheInternet inchatroomsandelectroniccafés tobedistinguished from“‘private’letters,”Posterasks(1997,209)?Wecanseethatthedistinc-tionbetweenpublicandprivateisbeingrenderedunstableontheIn-ternet—andthatisbeforeweevenbegintoconsiderexamplesprovidedbyWebsitessuchasJenniCam(whichwasoneofthefirstlive,not-for-profitwebcamsites,allowinganyonetolookinona20-year-oldAmeri-canstudent’sdailylifeinacollegedorm),TVshowssuchasBig Brother(wherecontestantsareconfinedtoahouseandwatched24hoursadayovertheInternetandonsatelliteTV,withtheeditedhighlightsbeingbroadcastonterrestrialtelevision),andother,evenmoreextremeIn-ternetphenomena.2

Poster goes so far as to present Habermas’s model of the publicsphereasbeing“systematicallydeniedinthearenasofelectronicpoli-tics,”notleastbecause,aswesawearlierinthischapter,ontheInternetthepublicandexternalspaceoftechnologyisalwaysalreadyapartofthe private, internal space of human subjectivity and even the body(1997,209).This,too,isanimportantpoint,asithighlightsacommonmisconception evident in many interpretations of the Internet (andconsequently,ofopen-accesspublishingandarchiving,too),interpre-tationsthatperceivetheInternetasanewformofpublicsphereofthe

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy 1�3

kindHabermasoutlinedinhis1962book,The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.Thisisamisconception,notonlybecausethediffer-encebetweenpublicandprivateisbeingrenderedunstableontheIn-ternet;butalsobecauseitsimultaneouslycollapsesthesignificantdis-tinctionbetweentheideaoftheInternetasanewformofpublicsphere,andtheideathattheInternet(andwithitopen-accesspublishingandarchiving)mighthelpfacilitatetheproductionofanewformofpublicsphere. To argue for the former rather than the latter is a commontendencyamongmanytheoristsoftheInternet,whoattempttounder-standtheInternetintermsofHabermas’smodel.3Indeed,thisishowPosterhimselfanalyzesthecurrentsituationintherecentessaycitedabove,whenheclaimsthatthepeer-to-peerlandscapeofmusicdown-loadsitesandfile-sharingnetworks,applications,andprotocolssuchaseDonkey,FastTrack,andBitTorrent“ismaintainedasapublicsphereoutsidethecommoditysystem”(Poster2005,n.p.).YetasLeeSalterhaspointedout,theonlythingthatthepublicsphereaccordingtoHaber-masandtheInternethaveincommonisthattheybothremainformallyopentoeveryone.Whilethebourgeoispublicspheresoughttoformacommonwill,theInternetforSalter,bycontrast,fragmentsoratleastappearstoplaceinquestionnotionsofuniversalityandcommoninter-est,leadingasaconsequencetothepluralismofgoalsandwills(Salter2003, 122). If what Habermas calls in Between Facts and Norms theperiphery or informal public sphere (as opposed to the eighteenth-centurybourgeoispublicsphere)“canbestbedescribedasanetwork for communicating information and points of view”(Habermas1996,360;quoted by Salter 2003, 124; Salter’s emphasis), then the Internet re-mainsclosertobeingthe“facilitatingmechanism”requiredbythisin-formalsenseofthepublicsphere.IfHabermas’srequirementofthein-formalpublicsphereisthatitshouldhave“‘theadvantageofamediumofunrestrictedcommunication’”whereby itwouldbemorecapableofidentifyingproblemsituations,expandingthediscursivecommunity,and enabling the articulation of collective identities and need inter-pretations,thencertainlyamediumtofacilitatethismustbeinplace(Salter2003,125).Inshort,ifwedowanttoperceivetheInternetinHabermas’s terms, rather than declare it a public sphere in itself, itwouldbemoreaccuratetopresentitas“asupportingfoundationonwhichpublicspherescanbebuilt”(Salter2003,136)(ornewformsandkindsofpublicspheres,inPoster’scase,asweshallsee).However,thatwouldstillleavetheproblemofthewayinwhichtheInternet,nomat-

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy1�4

terhowmuchitencouragesactiveparticipation,appearsto“questiontheideaofuniversalityorcommoninterest,”asSaltersays,“facilitatingpreciselytheopposite—pluralism,”andthusmakingtheproductionofanyHabermasianinformalpublicspheredifficulttoachievebymeansofthenet(2003,122).Notonlythat,theInternetchallengestheverydistinctionbetweenthepublicandtheprivateonwhichtheconceptofthepublicsphererests,inbothitsinformalandbourgeoisguises.

DemocracyThe above argument obviously raises questions for the idea of theautonomousunifiedsubjectwhocanparticipateinthepublicspherethroughthepublicexerciseofreason.YettheInternetdoesnotmerelyconstitute an interference in the ability of the contemporary publicspheretooperateasa“homogenousspaceofembodiedsubjectsinsym-metrical relations,pursuingconsensus through thecritiqueof argu-ments,” thus facilitatingdemocracy(Poster1997,209).According toHabermasinThe Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere(1962),thecommercialmassmediahaveturnedpeopleintoconsumersofinforma-tionandentertainment,ratherthanparticipantsinaninteractivedemo-craticprocess.WhatPostershows,however,isthattheInternetenables“newformsofdecentralizeddialogue...newcombinationsofhuman-machineassemblages,newindividualandcollective‘voices,’‘specters,’‘interactivities’whichare thenewbuildingblocksofpolitical forma-tionsandgroupings”(1997,210).Hecitesasanexample individualsconstructingtheiridentitiesonlineinwaysthatappeartoreducethe“prevailinghierarchiesofclass, raceandespeciallygender.” Internetcommunitiesthusoperate“asplacesofdifferencefromandresistancetomodernsociety”(1997,213).TheInternetinthismannerraisesthepossibilityoftheemergenceof“newformsofpowerconfigurationsbe-tweencommunicatingindividuals”(1997,206).

Inthisrespect, it looksasthoughitwouldnotbetoodifficulttoconstructanargumenttotheeffectthattheInternetanswerssomeoftheproblemswithHabermas’sconceptofthepublicspherethathavebeenidentifiedbyNicholasGarnhamandothers,suchasHabermas’sfailuretotakeseriouslynotionsofpleasure,desire,andplay,andhisoverlookingofthedevelopmentofaworking-class“publicspherealong-sideandinoppositiontothebourgeoispublicsphere,”onebasedon“solidarity rather than competitive individualism” (Garnham 1992,359);orthefactthat,intermsofclass,gender,ethnicity,andsexuality

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy 1�5

especially,Habermas’spublicsphereexcludesfarmorepeoplethanitincludes.However,asImadeclearabove,mostaccountsofHabermasandthepublicsphererestrict themselves tohisStructural Transforma-tion,withoutreferringtothemorenuancednotionofthepublicsphereHabermasputsforwardinotherbooks,suchasBetween Facts and Norms(1996)andThe Theory of Communicative Action(1986/1989).4Iamconse-quentlyreluctanttostartbuildinganargumentregardingtheInternetandHabermas’sconceptionofthepublicspherewithoutembarkingonafarmorecareful,patient,andhospitable(re)readingofHabermas’svarioustextsfirst.SoletmejuststaywithPosterforthetimebeing.

ForPoster,oneoftheconsequencesoftheInternet’sabilityto“in-stantiate new forms of interaction and ... pose the question ofnewkinds of relations of power between participants” (1997, 206) is theneedtodiscardHabermas’sideaofthepublicsphere,atleastasitwaslaidoutinStructural Transformation,“inassessingtheInternetasapo-liticaldomain”(1997,209–10).Instead,weneedtoaskwhethertherehasemergeda“newpoliticsontheInternet”(1997,206),anewformofpublicspherethatwouldbecapableofrepresentingnewsubjectivitiesandcollectivities.5

NowofcourseanumberofcriticismshavebeenraisedwithregardtowhatsomehaveseenasPoster’spositive,optimistic,eventechnophil-iacaccountofInternetpolitics(seeListeretal.2003,179–82).Forex-ample,ithasbeenpointedoutthat,evenifhisisanaccuratestudyofwhathappenson the Internet,thenetisjustonepartoflifeandsociety,andcannot,onitsown,overcomerelationsofpowerandsocial,politi-cal,andeconomicinequalitieselsewhere.Ithasalsobeenstressedthat,onaglobalscale,Internetaccessisstillrelativelylimited;andthatPost-er’sanalysisin“Cyberdemocracy”isverymuchbasedonapre–WorldWideWebmodeloftheInternet,alotofthepost-Webnetbeingmuchlessinteractive,operatingasitdoesprimarilyintermsofclickingonWebpages (asopposed to thewritingandreadingof text inASCII-formatteddocuments).Furthermore,foralltheenthusiasmaboutthepublicsphereanddistributedinteractivitythatismanifestedbyPoster,Kellner, andothers,nowadays theWeb functions for themajorityofpeopleaccordingtothebroadcast,few-to-manymassmediamodel—and this is the case even in the era of Web 2.0 and the so-called“liveWeb.”WitnessthenationallyreportedfindingsofDirectgovthat,whilethereare75.8millionWebsites,asof2006mostBritishInternetusers were still visiting only six: Google, eBay, Amazon, Streetmap,

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy1��

Lastminute.comandBBC.co.uk,with51percentofusersreturningtooneofthese“supersites”(Directgov2006;Sayid2006,26).

ButitisnotjustthequestionsPosterraisesforpoliticsontheInter-netand theoptimismofhis ideaof thenetasanew formofpublicspherethatmake“Cyberdemocracy”sointerestingforme;itisalsohisawarenessthattheInternetrepresentsapotentialchallengetoourcon-ventionalunderstandingofpolitics,disruptingthe“basicassumptionsoftheolderpositions”(Poster1997,204).ConsiderationofthisissueleadsPostertogomuchfurtherthanmerelysuggestingthatchatrooms,bulletinboards, e-mail lists, and the likemay “serve the functionofaHabermasianpublicspherewithoutintentionallybeingone”byoper-atingas“placesnotofthepresenceofvalidityclaimsortheactualityof critical reason, but of the inscription of new assemblages of self-constitution,”whichishowthisessayisusuallyreadbybothtechnophil-iacandtechnophobiccriticsalike(1997,213).Inwhatisundoubtedlyoneofthemostradicalsectionsofhisanalysis,butthat(perhapsforthisveryreason)isalsooneofitsmostoftenoverlooked,Posterextendshisquestioningofmodernformsofpoliticstotakeineventhatmostdominantofour(“old”)politicalnormsandideals:democracy(1997,203)(theissueofthepublicspherebeing“attheheartofanyreconcep-tualizationofdemocracy,” forPoster,asIsay[1997,206]).Fromthispointof view, “rather thanbeing ‘post-’ andrepresentingabreakofsomekind,”evenErnestoLaclau’s“postmodern,”post-Marxist,radicaldemocraticpoliticsappearsasmerelytheextensionof“existing[mod-ern]politicalinstitutions”(1997,204).

Pause . . .Iwanttopauseamomentinmyreadingof“Cyberdemocracy”tocon-sidersomeoftheconceptsPosterisworkingwith,notleastthoseofthe“modern”andthe“postmodern.”

To my knowledge, none of the thinkers Poster explicitly asso-ciates with postmodernism in “Cyberdemocracy”—Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Jean-Luc Nancy, Ernesto Laclau—have overtly identifiedthemselves with the term. They associate themselves more closely, Iwouldsuggest,withdeconstruction.TheonlyphilosopherPostermen-tionswhodoesexplicitlytakeontheconceptofpostmodernismisJean-François Lyotard. He does so in his celebrated book The Postmodern Condition(1984)—althoughinterestinglyPosterdescribesLyotardasapost-structuralistratherthanapostmodernist.(GiventhatLyotard,un-

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy 1��

likeLacoue-Labarthe,Nancy,andLaclau,isnotgenerallyexplicitlyas-sociatedwithdeconstruction,isthisslipanindicationthatwhenPosterrefers to postmodernism in “Cyberdemocracy” he is really thinkingaboutdeconstruction?)ButeveninThe Postmodern Conditionthingsarenotquitesostraightforward.Atfirst,Lyotarddoesgivetheimpressionof simply going along with the idea that the postmodern follows onfromthemoderninalogicalsequenceofhistoricalprogression,andthusdoesindeed“representabreakofsomekind.”Fromthisvantagepoint,weencounterthepostmoderncondition,inwhichgrandnarra-tivesofscientificadvancementandprogresshavelosttheirlegitimacy,“asweenterso-calledpost-industrialsociety”—or,indeed,Poster’s“sec-ondmediaage”(1995).YetatthesametimeLyotard’sbookalsopro-vides a rigorous critique of any such “grand narrative” of historicaldevelopmentandprogression.Forisnottheargumentthatgrandnar-ratives are now no longer desirable or even possible itself a grandnarrative?Issuchanarrativenotinfactmoremodernthanpostmod-ern?ThisissomethingLyotardhimselfacknowledges:bothinalaterdefinitionofthepostmodern(Lyotard1986,6);andalsoinhisessay“Answering theQuestion:What IsPostmodernism?,”which formsanappendixtotheEnglishtranslationofThe Postmodern Condition.Herethepostmodernno longer constitutes agrandnarrative;nordoes itfunctionasabreakorboundarylineseparatingthemodernfromthepostmodern.A“workcanbecomemodern,”forLyotard,“onlyif it isfirstpostmodern.Postmodernismthusunderstoodisnotmodernismatitsend,butinthenascentstate,andthisstateisconstant”(1984,79).Thepostmoderndoesnotjustcomeafter,then;italsoinaparadoxicalsensecomesbefore,too.ThispointisagainmadeexplicitbyLyotardinafurtherdefinitionofpostmodernism,thistimecharacterizednotasa“newage”butasthe“rewritingofsomeofthefeaturesclaimedbymo-dernity”;aprocessofrewriting,furthermore,that“hasbeenatwork,foralongtimenow,inmodernityitself”(1991).6

Now analyses of this kind regarding notions of the postmodernhaveofcoursebeenmadeanumberoftimesbefore.ThereasonIammentioningthissomewhatwell-rehearsedpointagainisbecauseithasserious implications for Poster’s argument regarding the Internet’sreconfigurationofthepolitical.Toreturntojustthefirstoftheexam-plesprovidedabove(not leastbecauseitseemstounderpinmanyoftheothers):thechallengePosterseestheInternetaspresentingtotheideathat“therelationbetweentechnologyandthehumanisexternal”

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy1��

(1997,205)would,onthisbasis,notbeconfinedmerelytochatrooms,MOOsandMUDs,theInternet,oreventhepostmodernageseenasanewanddistincthistoricalera.Thiskindofrelationbetweentechnol-ogyandthehumanwouldbeafeatureofothereras,too,sincefromthisperspectivetechnologyisnotjustpartofwhatmakesus“acyborgincyberspace,”asPosterhasit;itispartofwhatmakesushumanperse(1997,213).

Interestingly,thisissomethingthathasbeeninsisteduponbytwootherphilosophersassociatedwith“postmodernism”/deconstruction:BernardStiegler,whounderstandsthisrelationintermsof“originarytechnicity”(1998);andJacquesDerrida,whoreferstoitasthe“techno-logical condition.”Asfarastheyareconcerned,technology“hasnotsim-plyaddeditself,fromtheoutsideorafterthefact,asaforeignbody...this foreign or dangerous supplement is ‘originarily’ at work and inplaceinthesupposedlyidealinteriorityofthe‘bodyandsoul.’Itisin-deedat theheartof theheart”(Derrida1994b,244–45).Seeing therelationbetweenthehumanandtechnologyinthismannerenablesustorespondtoatleastoneofthecriticismsthatisoftendirectedatPost-er’sanalysisofInternetpoliticsin“Cyberdemocracy”:namely,thatindi-vidualsareonlyabletoinventtheiridentitiesandexperimentwithnewhuman-machine “assemblages of self-constitution” by conversing ormessagingelectronicallyontheInternet.Offline,thebody,themeat,isnever leftbehindentirely,whichmeans that theprevailinghierar-chiesofage,class,race,gender,andsexualityremainrelativelyintact.AfterStieglerandDerrida,wecanseethattechnologyisnotjustconsti-tutiveofthehumaninthecourseofonlinecommunicationpractices;rather,thehumanisalwaysalreadyconstitutedinandbyarelationwithtechnology.Whatismore,thisisthecaseevenbeforeindividualhumansengageinsuchexplicitlytechnologicalactsastakingpartinInternetchatroomsandonlinevirtualcommunities.Theeffect is tobroadenPoster’sanalysisout,frombeingconfinedtotheInternet,andspecifi-callytovirtualonlinetextualcommunities,toencapsulatingsomethingoftherelationbetweenthehumanandtechnologyinsocietyinamoregeneralsense.Whichisnottosaythatthe“originary”relationbetweentechnologyandthehumanisalwaysandeverywherethesame.Differ-enttechnologies—writing,thebook,theprintingpress,thetypewriter,photography, radio, cinema, television, the Internet, the Web, P2P,“Web2.0”—enabledifferentwaysofconceivingthisrelationatdiffer-

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy 1��

enttimes.Whatwecanperhapssayisthatthemannerinwhichtechnol-ogy is both fundamental to, and functions as a disturbance of, oursenseofthehumanissomethingthatishighlightedandmademorevisiblebytheInternet.

The“novelty”ofwhatPostercalls“postmodernpolitics”thereforeperhapslieswiththefactthatitisnotdifferentfrom“modernpolitics”inanykindofbinary,oppositional,ordialecticalsense.Tobefair,thisissomethingPosterhimselfappearstoacknowledgein“Cyberdemoc-racy”whenhewritesthat:

the“postmodern”positionneednotbetakenasametaphysicalas-sertionofanewage.Theoristsaretrappedwithinexistingframe-worksasmuchastheymaybecriticalofthemandwishnottobe.IntheabsenceofacoherentalternativepoliticalprogramthebestonecandoistoexaminephenomenonsuchastheInternetinrelationtonewformsoftheolddemocracy,whileholdingopenthepossibil-ity thatwhatemergesmightbe somethingother thandemocracyinanyshapethatwecanconceivegivenourembeddednessinthepresent.(1997,204)

. . . RestartWhatisimportanthere—andwhatIhavebeenattemptingtodrawat-tention to albeit in a roundabout way—is Poster’s awareness that wecannotunderstand the Internet simplybyrelyingupon theold,pre-established(andlegitimated)ideasandcriteria—inthiscase,thatoftechnological determinism, the public sphere, and democracy; that,indeed, toask“about therelationof theInternet todemocracy is tochallenge or to risk challenging our existing theoretical approachestothesequestions”(1997,202–3);andthushisopennesstorethinkingpoliticsbeyond, inexcessof, its traditional, subjective, foundational,democratic,transcendentaldeterminations.AsIsaidearlier,asfarasPosterisconcerned,evenErnestoLaclau’spost-Marxistradicaldemo-cratichegemonicpoliticswouldinthissenseappeartobemerelyanextensionofcurrent,modern,politicalinstitutions.WhatPosterissug-gesting,bycontrast,isthat,inordertounderstandthepoliticsoftheInternetweneedtoremainopentothepossibilityofaformofpoliticsthatis“somethingotherthandemocracy”aswecancurrentlyconceive

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy1�0

it(1997,204).Inthisway“Cyberdemocracy”canbeheldascreatingaspacefortheemergenceofaconceptionofdemocracy,andindeedofpolitics,thatisasyetunthoughtwithin,oronlythoughtinrelationtotherupturesof,theWestern,Northerntradition.

HyperCyberDemocracyUnfortunately, this latteraspectofPoster’sessay isone that is rarelycommentedupon.Mostresponsestohiswork(whethersupportiveornot)tendtoconcentrateonthoseelementsthatcanbeaccommodatedwithin conventional, modern conceptions ofpolitics and the relateddebates:hisfocusonthepublicsphere;thechallengethatispresentedbytheInternettohierarchiesofrace,class,gender,andsoforth;andthewayinwhichtheInternetprovidesanalternativespaceforpoliticstotherestofsociety.

Whatismore,theremaybegoodreasonforthis.(InfactIwouldargue that the kind of criticisms I identified earlier as having beenraisedwithregardtoPoster’soptimisticaccountofpoliticsin“Cyberde-mocracy”arepartlyansweredbytheverypremisesofhisthesisinthisessay.)Certainly,hisargument—thatitmightbepossibletorecognizethenoveltyofpoliticsontheInternetonlybybeingopentonewideasof politics and new frameworks for the analysis of politics—createsproblemsformoreconventionalattemptstounderstandthepoliticalpotentialoftheInternet(andforanyroutineclaimswemightthereforemakeastothepoliticalnatureofopen-accesspublishing).Ontheonehand,wecannowseethatitisimpossibletosimplyinventanewtheoryofpoliticsinordertoarriveatanunderstandingofwhattakesplaceontheInternet.Thisispartlybecauseanysuchnewtheory(andassoci-atednewpolitics)wouldbeperceivedtolackacertainlegitimacyandauthority.Itslegitimacywouldnodoubthavetobeshoredupinsomemanner,possiblybyreferencestoalreadyestablishedsourcesandfig-ures—including the aforementioned Benjamin, Heidegger, Debord,McLuhan,Williams,Derrida,Deleuze,andothers.Butitisalsopartlybecause,asPostershowswithhisownanalysis,“theoristsaretrappedwithinexistingframeworks”(1997,204).Thereisnothingthatisabso-lutelynew.Eventheideathatthingshavechangedandthatweareliv-inginaneweraisanoldonethathasbeenrepeatedatvariouspointsthroughouthistory.Infact,ifpoliticsontheInternetwereabsolutelynew,itwouldbeunrecognizable,since(asweknowfromchapter3,andDerridaandWeber’sworkoniterability)inordertobeabletocognize

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy 1�1

something,wealreadyhavetobeabletore-cognizeit,thatis,re-peatit,seeor take itagain, tobeable tocompareandassimilate this “new”objecttothatwhichisalreadyknownandunderstood.(ThisisalsowhyIhavedecidedtoapproachthequestionofpoliticsontheInternetbydrawingonan“older”analysis,ofnewmediaatleast—thatofPosterfrom1995and1997—ratherthan,say,attemptingtoprovideacom-pletely“new”analysisofmyown.)

Ontheotherhand,ifwecannotinventapoliticsthatisabsolutelynew,neithercanwemerelyapplytheold,modern,legitimateformsofpolitics—forms that,aswehave seen,applynotionsof technologicaldeterminism,thesovereignindividual,thepublicsphere,evendemoc-racy—totheInternet.AsPostershows,thatwouldbetoriskfailingtorecognizethelatter’spotentialdifference,itsnovelty;andparticularlythewayinwhichthedigitalmediumchallengesandraisesquestionsforourideasofthepublicsphere,democracy,andindeedpolitics(aswellaslegitimacyandauthority)ingeneral.Onceagain,then,wearecaughtinanaporetictensionbetweenopennessandclosure.

Nowmostpoliticallycommittedculturalcriticshave(intheirownterms)goodreasonsfornotwantingtoraisesuchquestionsregardingtheirpoliticalprojects.Thisisbecausepoliticsisafundamentalpartofwhattheythinktheyaredoing.Sotheycannotquestiontheirpoliticstoomuchwithoutputtingtheidentityoftheirprojects,andwithittheirownidentitiesas politically committed cultural critics,atrisk(seeG.Hall2002).Or,toexpressitsomewhatdifferently,drawingthistimeontheanalysisIdevelopedinchapter4bymeansofareadingofJodiDean’s“CommunicativeCapitalism”essay,theparadoxofthissituationisthatthefetish—whichisinthiscasepolitics—“actuallyenablesustoremainpoliticallypassive.Wedon’thavetoassumepoliticalresponsibility”forthesimplereasonthatthefetish“isdoingitforus”(Dean2005,63).Theonlywayofopeningourselvesuptoanypotentiallydifferent,non-modern, nonhegemonic, non-technologically determinist, nondemo-craticformsofpoliticswouldbe,aswesawDeanpointout,via“theRealthatrupturesmyworld,thatistosaytheevilotherIcannotimaginesharingaworldwith”(2005,69).Yetifwedidaccessoradmitthatwhichisforeclosedandeliminatedinadvanceinthisfashion,theproblemwewouldthenfacewouldbethatanysuchresponsible,hospitableopen-ingtothepoliticalotherwouldchallengetheverymodern,hegemonic,technologicallydeterminist, anddemocratic ideaswedependon foroursenseofthepolitical.

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy1�2

It is therefore perhaps not surprising that the majority of criticshave not wanted to “risk challenging our existing theoretical ap-proachestothesequestions,”andhavepreferredinsteadtocontinuewiththeconventional,legitimate,transcendental,modern,hegemonicconceptions of politics and frameworks of analysis when it comes tounderstandingthepoliticsoftheInternet,includingideasthatviewitintermsoftechnologicaldeterminism,citizenship,thepublicsphere,anddemocracy.

Nor,ithastobesaid, isPosterhimself immunetothistendency.Despite thequestionsheraises formodernapproaches topolitics in“Cyberdemocracy,”heisoftenstilltobefoundretainingacommitmenttopoliticsasitisconventionally(andtranscendentally)understoodinthisessay—thusperhapsmakinginterpretationsof“Cyberdemocracy”alongtheselinesunderstandabletoadegree.Ahintofthiscomesearlyon,withtheexamplehegivesoflimitingthediscussionfromtheoutsetto modern forms of interpretation: that “if one understands politicsastherestrictionorexpansionoftheexistingexecutive,legislativeandjudicialbranchesofgovernment,onewillnotbeabletoevenbroachthequestionofnewtypesofparticipationingovernment”(1997,202).Yetoneisentitledtoask,regardlessofwhethertheformsofdoingsoareoldornew,ispoliticsreallytobeunderstoodasonlyorevenprimar- ilyintermsofparticipationingovernment?Isthisnotalsoanexampleof limiting thediscussion fromtheoutset tomoderncategoriesandpatternsof interpretation?AsSamuelWeberaskswhenspeakingon,andduring,theeventsofSeptember11:

Isthepoliticalnecessarilytiedtothestate?Tosociety?Isitprimarilya question of Power? Of the Common Good? The General Will?Community? Is itmanifestprimarily in “action”? In strategies? Inpolicies? Is it necessarily bound up with “subjects,” in either thephilosophical,grammaticalorsocialsenseoftheword?Whatisitsrelationtospatialandtemporalfactors:totheorganizationofspacethrough the assigning of places, and to the organization of timethroughtheregulationofpast,presentandfuture?...

The problem in doing “justice” to “the political” is the “cut”required todefine the term. “State,” “power,” “action”—the triadpresupposed inmostconsensualdefinitionsof the term—areno-tionsthatoperatelike“freeze-framephotographs”...bringingtoa

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy 1�3

haltanongoingandhighlycomplexanddynamicnetwork of relationsthat is constantlyevolvingand thereforeonlyprovisionally delimit-able.(Weber2001,n.p.,myemphasis)

JacquesDerridadevelopsasimilarargumentinEchographies of Tele-vision(DerridaandStiegler2002).Giventhatpoliticsisproducedandcarriedoutby,or inrelation to,anation-state,andgiven theway inwhichwhathereferstoas“teletechnologies”arechallengingthesover-eigntyofthenation-state,thequestionarisesforDerridaastowhetherpoliticsinitsmosteasilyrecognizable(modern)formisstillpossible.

Witness,too,Poster’sclaiminthisessaythat“thereisnoadequate‘postmodern’ theory of politics” (1997, 203). This is also somewhattroubling.Foristhisreallythecase?OrisitjustthatPosterfailstorec-ognizeanadequatetheoryofpoliticsintheHeideggerianflavoredde-constructionofPhilippeLacoue-LabartheandJean-LucNancy,aswellas the post-Marxist deconstruction of Ernesto Laclau, because their“postmodernpolitics”doesrepresentthekindof“break”withtheexist-ing institutions and ways of being political he is looking toward—atleasttotheextentthatitrethinkstheconceptofpoliticsoutsideandbeyond many of its traditional, subjective, foundational, and demo-craticdeterminations.Consequently,itdoesnotnecessarilylooklikea“theoryofpolitics”asthisisusuallydefinedandunderstood,becauseitdoesnotcomeintheformofa“coherentalternative[forwhichwecanperhapsread‘modern’]politicalprogram”(1997,204).Justasdemoc-racyis“itselfa‘modern’category”forPoster,istheideathatatheoryofpoliticsisadequateonlyifitoffersarecognizably“coherentalternativepoliticalprogram”anddefinitionofa“newpoliticaldirection”(1997,203)notalsoarathermodernnotion?IsPoster’s ideaofpoliticsnotalsoraisedheretoatranscendentalposition,wherewhatitmeanstobepoliticalisalreadygivenandagreeduponapriori?Indeed,isitnotpos-sibletoestablishaconnectionbetweentheabovetwoexamplesofPost-er’scontinuedcomplicitywithmoderncategoriesandconceptionsofpolitics?Doeshisdecision,takeninadvance,thatpoliticsontheInter-netispostmodern(whereaspoliticsforLaclau,forexample,isratheradecisiontakeninanundecidableterrain),andatthesametimehisinabilitytoperceivea“theoryofpolitics”anddefinitionofa“newpo-liticaldirection”(1997,203)in“postmoderntheory,”notmeanthat—despitehis“pleaforindulgencewiththelimitationsofthepostmodern

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy1�4

positiononpolitics”(1997,204)—hehimselfoftenhastoresortto“po-liticaltheoriesthataddressmoderngovernmentalinstitutionsinordertoassessthe‘postmodern’possibilitiessuggestedbytheInternet”(1997,203),preciselybecause,tohismind,postmoderntheoriesarenotreallyadequatealternatives fordoing so?Anddoes thisnotgoagainsthisown openness elsewhere in this essay to reconfiguring the conceptofpoliticsbeyond,andinexcessof,itstraditional,subjective,founda-tional,democratic,transcendentaldeterminations?

AlthoughPoster showshow the Internetmayrequireus to thinkbeyondandinexcessofourusualnotionsofthepublicsphere,democ-racy,andevenpolitics,then,wecanseethathehimselfattimesdisplaysacertainreluctance todoso,preferring instead to staymoreor lesswithinconventionalunderstandingsofculturalcriticismandacademiclegitimacy(largelybecauseoftheproblemsoutlinedabove,asIsay).Witness,toprovideanotherbriefexample,thewayinwhich,attheveryendof“Cyberdemocracy,”herefersexplicitlytothefactthatthe“na-tureofauthorityaswehaveknownit,”including“scholarlyauthority”(1997,214)—andlater,inWhat’s the Matter with the Internet,theveryideaoftheauthor—ischallengedandchangeddrastically,andindeed,“se-riouslyundermined”(1997,214)bytheshiftfromprinttodigitaltech-nology.Despitethis,Posterappearsunwillingtoplacethelegitimacyandauthorityofhisownidentityandfunctionasanauthoratrisk:hedoesnotperforma reimaginingofhisownauthority and “scholarlyenterprise”(2001b,60)(inthewaythat,say,wesawopen-accesspub-lishingandparticularlyarchivingenablingustodoinchapters2and3byopeningcultural studies toother formsof“non-legitimateknowl-edge,”andthusassuming—ratherthanrepeating—theambivalenceinauthoritythatmakesitpossible).Instead,Posterlikenshimselftoa“re-porter,returninghomefromaforeignculture”—inthiscasethelandofnetworked“digitalauthorship”—torelateexoticdiscoveries in theoldimperiallanguageofprint(2001b,61).Postermakesthedecisionnot to risk the legitimacy and authority of his own work and doesnotpursuetheradicalpotentialoutlinedin“Cyberdemocracy.”Eventhoughheencouragesorevenpushesus toward taking therisk thatisimpliedbyhisargument—thattheInternetmayrequireustothinkbeyondcurrentconceptionsofthepublicsphere,democracy,politics,andevenscholarlyauthority—hestopsshortoftakingthisriskhimself.Instead,hedecidestostaywithintheacceptedconventionsofacademic

hyperCyBerDemoCraCy 1�5

criticism.LikeHarnad,hetooremainsconfinedtotheprintmodeoflegitimation(2001b,61).

Nevertheless,Poster’sessay—andespeciallywhatmightbecalledhishyperpoliticization,hisrefusaltoconsiderthequestionofpoliticsasclosedordecidedinadvance,andhisconsequentwillingnesstoopenupaspaceforthinkingaboutpoliticsandthepolitical(anddemocracyandthepublicsphere)“limitlesslyandunconditionally,”beyondandinexcessofthewayinwhichtheyaretraditionallyconceived—haspro-foundimplicationsforourunderstandingoftheformsofpoliticsthataremadepossiblebytheInternet.Byfollowingthelogicofhisanalysiswecanseethat,inordertobeabletoaddressthequestionofwhatitmeanstobepoliticalontheInternet,weneedtobepoliticallycommit-ted. For as we have seen, Poster himself does not abandon his com-mitment to modern politics. “Theorists are trapped within existingframeworks,”asheadmits.Indeed,onecouldsaythatitishiscommit-menttopoliticsthatleadshimtoquestionideasofpoliticsinthisman-ner.Butwealso,andatthesametime,needtobeopentothepossibilitythatwemightbeabletounderstandthenoveltyanddifferenceoftheseformsofpoliticsonlybyadopting,oratleastbeingopento,newideasofpoliticsandnewframeworksfortheanalysisofpolitics.Inshort,weneedtobecommittedtobothpoliticsand hyperpolitics.

Consequently,ifIamatallabletoasktheabovequestionsofhiswork,itisonlybecausehehasopenedupapath,aspace,formetodoso.Inotherwords,Posterhasalreadydrawnattentiontotheproblemsof“limitingthediscussionfromtheoutsettomodern[transcendental]patternsofinterpretation.”Farfrombeingacritique,then,Iregardmy“provocation”inthischapterasmoreofacontinuationandextensionofthecriticalpotentialofhisproject;asawayofusingPoster’sworkon “cyberdemocracy” and the “Internet as a public sphere” to thinkthroughandbeyondhim.Inshort,Iseeitasawayoffollowingthelogicofhisanalysistoexcessinordertoproducewhatmightbethoughtofasahypercyberdemocracy.

1��

ConClusion

Next-Generation Cultural Studies?

Yes,Ialsoacceptthetermhyper-analysis.Fortworeasons.First,youhavetopushtheanalysisasfarasyoucan,limitlesslyandunconditionally.Butsecondly,youalsohavetotakeyourselfbeyondanalysisitself...

—Jacques Derrida, Paper Machine, 2005

The Politics of Open AccessHaving considered some of the multiple discourses and narrativesaroundthepoliticsofnewtechnologiesandnewmediainthelastfewchapters,letusnowreturntothespecific(orperhapsevensingular)questionofthepoliticsofopenaccess,weavingtogethersomeoftheconnectionsthatcanbemadebetweenanumberofthenodalpointsIhavetoucheduponinthisbookontheway.

ByfollowingthelogicofPoster’sargumentin“Cyberdemocracy,”andespeciallyhisopenness toreconfiguringpoliticsbeyond,and inexcess of, its traditional, subjective, foundational, democratic, andtranscendentaldeterminations,wecanseethatthepotentialchallengeto theaccepted,establishedmodesof scholarlyauthorityandknowl-edgelegitimationthatisofferedbythedigitizationofresearchlitera-ture isnot just ethical (in the sense that itposes thequestionof anaporetic responsibility to Levinasian alterity). This challenge is alsopolitical—although not necessarily in the most usually recognizedsenseoftheterm.

Forinstance,itwouldbearelativelyeasymatterformetopresentopenaccessasameansforthecontinuation,intensification,andexten-sionofneoliberalcapitalism,and thusasgoingalongwithcapitalistdominationandthemaintenanceofsocialandpolitical inequalities.Fromthisperspective,Icouldarguethatopenaccessispoliticaltothe

ConClusion1��

extentthatithelpstomaintainandsupporttheidealsofthe“knowl-edgeeconomy,”makingmoreknowledgeandinformationavailabletomorepeople(justasthateconomy’semphasisoncompetitionandthemarkethasproducedthe“crisisinscholarlypublishing”wesawinchap-ter1),andsohelpingtotraintheflexible,continuallyretraininglaborforce of “knowledge workers” and “precarious” creative workers re-quiredbycontemporarycapitalism.It iscertainly importantforneo-liberalgovernmentsthatknowledgeandinformationshouldbereadilyaccessible,giventhatitisknowledgeanditssuccessfulcommercialex-ploitationbybusinessthatisheldasthekeytoasociety’ssuccessandfutureeconomiccompetitivenessandprosperity.Therefore,itshouldnot surprise us that open access holds a special attraction for manygovernmentbodies.Itdoessobecauseitiscapableofprovidinganex-tremelycost-effectivemeansofdisseminatingknowledgeandresearch,andthusmakingitwidelyavailable—especiallywhencomparedtothelevelsof investment thatarenecessary to fund institutional researchlibraries tocontinuallypurchasebooksandsubscribeto increasinglyexpensiveacademicjournals.(Basically,thereiscomparativelylittleex-penseinvolvedinaccessingresearchpublishedinmanyflavorsofopenaccess,orindisseminatingit:theresourcesittakestopublishanddis-tributeahundredthousandcopiesofanarticleorevenabookarefre-quentlymoreorlessthesameasittakestodosoforjustone.)Atthesametimeasintroducingmorecompetitionintothescholarlypublish-ingmarket,theopen-accessapproachtoacademicpublishingoffersameansforgovernmentstoobtainmaximumreturnontheirfinancialinvestments by making the results of the research they fund “morewidelyavailable,morediscoverable,moreretrievable,andmoreuseful”(Suber2007b,n.p.).1 Such “outcomes” are thereforeopen togreateradoption,development,andexploitation,notjustbyotheracademics,butbybusiness,industry,entrepreneurs,journalists,consultants,pol-icymakers,teachers,andthegeneralpublic,too.Thisinturncanleadtobothincreasedlevelsofsociallearningandunderstanding,andtonewresearchresultsandinnovation.Moreover,openaccessprovidesgovernmentagencieswithawayofensuringthatpublicly fundedre-searchersmakevisibleforpublicscrutinyexactlywhatitistheydowithanymoneytheyareawarded,enablingthoseagenciestobettermoni-tor,assess,andmanagesuchresearchactivitiesandfunding.Byena-bling them to collect increasingly detailed data and information onwhatandwhoisbeingcited,bywhom,andwhere—andsosupposedly

ConClusion 1��

tracktrends,identifyhubs,andpredictfuturedirections—itthusgoesalongwiththeinsistenceofmanyneoliberalgovernmentsonpoliticalaccountability and on developing mechanisms for greater “transpar-ency” (such as the RAE, RQF, and bibliometrics—the indexing andrankingofjournalsandarticlesintermsoftheirimpact,thenumberoftimestheyarecited,andsoon)asameansofpromotingeconomicef-ficiencyand“valueformoney.”2

Inthisrespectopenaccesscanbeseentobeverymuchadheringto,andhelpingtosupport,theideologyoftheknowledgeeconomyanditsemphasisondevelopingstructuresandprocesses forthemanage-ment and promotion of imaginative, creative, innovative knowledgeandideas.(Thisiswhy,whilethelikesoftheRIAAaretryingtomain-tainandenforcecopyrightaroundmusicandfilm,othersarearguingthatsuchlawsshouldberelaxed,orthatdifferentlawsshouldbeap-pliedasfarasknowledgeandinformationareconcerned,inordertoenableandencouragetheirtransferandcommunication.)Openaccessprovidesofficialsandinstitutionswiththehopeofgeneratingandpro-motingfurtherresearch,education,andtrainingopportunities,bothnationallyandinternationally.Italsofacilitatesorganizations,institu-tions, and researchers in cooperating and collaborating quickly andcheaplyacrosstraditionalboundariesandoverlargegeographicaldis-tances,aprocessthatsimultaneouslyspreadsthevaluesofneoliberal-ismand theknowledgeeconomyglobally.All ofwhichexplainswhyfundingagenciesareincreasinglyinsistingthattheresearchtheysup-portfinanciallyispublishedinanopen-accessrepositorybyaspecifiedperiodof timeafter thedateof its initialpublication inpaper form(usually somewhere between six months and two years); and why byJanuary2004more than thirtynationshadalreadysignedon to theOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment’s(OECD)DeclarationonAccesstoResearchDatafromPublicFunding.3

Bythesametokenitwouldbealmostasstraightforwardtoportrayopen access as, alternatively, allowing more opportunities for demo-craticparticipation, challenge, andeven resistance.Wehavealreadyseenhow,justasmuchnewmediacanbesaidtohelpstrengthenlatecapitalism,somanyofitspracticesalsocometothreatencapitalism’sestablishedideasofproperty,itsbusinessmodels,anditsfilmandmu-sicindustries.Thisargumentappliestoopenaccess,too.Openaccessispoliticalonthisaccountbecauseitprovidesameansofovercomingmanyofthelimitationsassociatedwiththeold,massor“big”media,

ConClusion1�0

particularlythedisempoweringandhomogenizingnatureoftheaca-demicpublishingindustry.4Openaccessallowsacademicstotakethemeansof(re)productionintotheirownhands(although,asmyfirstsetofmetadatashowed,“production”isaconceptthatiscomplicatedandrenderedproblematicinanewmediacontext),andcutoutthemiddle-menandmiddlewomenof thepublishing industries, inorder tonotonly create but also publish, disseminate, broadcast, and exchangetheirownideas,messages,andculturalcreations.5

Variationsonthisthemeofthepoliticsofopenaccesshavebeenofferedbyawiderangeofcriticswritingfromavarietyofperspectives.Forsome,becausethedigitalmodeofreproductionmeansknowledgemaybecommunicatedanddistributedatverylittlecost,decisionsoverthepublicationanddistributionofresearchcannowbemade,notonthebasisofthemarketandagiventext’svalueasacommoditytogetherwithitsrelatedabilitytomakeafinancialprofitforitsauthor,publisher,producer,ordistributor,butonthebasisofalternativevaluesandcrite-ria.Theseinclude,fortheauthor,thework’scapacitytoactasaformofself-advertisementthatenhanceshisorherreputationandlevelofrec-ognition;and,forthepublisher(whoisalsooftenitsauthorinopenaccess,especiallywhenitcomestotheself-archivingofe-prints), thework’sintellectualvalueandquality.Withparticipantsnowabletogiveandreceiveinformationmoreorlessforfree,openaccessisperceivedasenablingtheemergenceofa“globalpublicinformationcommons”inwhichaccesstoknowledgeandideasisavailabletoeveryonewhoisconnectedtotheInternet:richandpoor,privilegedandunderprivi-legedalike.Thisenables thebreakingdownof thebarriersbetweentheuniversityandtherestofsociety,aswellasbetweencountriesinthe“developed” and “undeveloped” worlds; and helps to overcome boththe“Westernization”oftheresearchliteratureandwhathasbeenre-ferredtoasthe“digitaldivide”throughthecreationofafarmorede-centralizedanddistributedresearchcommunity.

Others,meanwhile,haveemphasized themanner inwhichopenaccessaidsandpromotesgreateracademicandevensocialdialogueasarchivesofresearchandpublicationsaremadeavailabletothepublic.Openaccessispositionedhereascontainingthepossibilityofchang-ingthepublicpresenceofacademicandintellectualthoughtinsociety;somethingthatinturnhelpstobuildandsustainactiveengagementindemocratic formsofpolitics. It is thuscreditedwith thepotential tohelpcreateanewdemocratic,publicsphereofdebate,discussion,in-

ConClusion 1�1

formation networking, and exchange. Quite a few people have evengonesofarastopresentopenaccessaspartofaradical,hi-tech,gifteconomy,onethatactsasamodelforneworalternativeformsofsocialandpoliticalorganization.Fromthisviewpoint,openaccesstakespartin,anddrawsattentionto,averydifferentformofsymboliceconomyfrom that afforded by capitalist free-market neoliberalism. It is anemergenteconomythatpromises toalterandfundamentally subvertcapitalism’snotionsofprivatepropertyandsystemsofcommodifica-tion,andthatforsomeevenposesathreattocapitalismitself.

Capitalism vs. the CommonsNow,whileIwouldnotwanttoentirelydismisstheargumentsandposi-tionsdelineatedabove,Iamnotparticularlyinclinedtoargueforthepolitics of open access along any of these lines. For one thing, as Ipointedoutinchapter4,thesetwosidesofthedigitaldebatearenotsoeasilydistinguishedandopposed.Tobesure,the“globalinformationcommons”modelisoftenregardedasbeingverydifferentfromthatofcapitalist neoliberalism, with the latter’s belief in the idea that “themarketknowsbest.”Bethatasitmay,theideaofa“commons”isnotinitselfnecessarilyoppositionaloralternativetocapitalismandthemarket(anditiscertainlynotsituatedoutsideofit)—despitethevariousobjec-tionstoopenaccesslodgedbythepublishingindustryandcompaniessuchasReedElsevier.

InarecentdiscussionwithPauloVirnoonthesubjectoftherela-tionsbetweencapitalism,thepublicsphere,andthecommon,AntonioNegrimakespreciselythispoint,arguingthatcapitalism in fact creates the common.6 Negri defines the common as “abstract labour: i.e. thatensembleofproductsandenergiesofworkthatgetsappropriatedbycapitalandthusbecomescommon.”Inotherwords,“itistheresultofthelawofvalue.”Accordingly,thecommonisinextricablylinkedwithexploitation:

Itiscapitalismthatcreatesthecommon.InMarxthereisn’tacon-ceptionofthecommonthatisapre-capitalistcommon(yes,thereare thecommons,but theyarenotproductive). Ifwewant tore-duceandbringthecommonwithinamodernconceptionwemustaccept thisdefinitionof thecommonasabstract labour,accumu-lated,consolidated....

ConClusion1�2

Evidently,wehave to start thinking thisabstract,common,assomethingthatisthecommonofexploitation.(NegriinVirnoandNegri2003,n.p.)

Howtoseparatethetwo,howtodetachthecommonfromexploitation,becomesakeyquestionforNegri,not leastwithregardtotheemer-genceofhisconceptofthemultitude(HardtandNegri2004).Indeed,forNegri,“theconceptofthemultitudecanonlyemergewhenthekeyfoundationofthisprocess(i.e.theexploitationoflabouranditsmaxi-malabstraction)becomessomethingelse:whenlabourstartsbeingre-garded,bythesubjectsthatareatstake,involvedinthisprocess,inthiscontinuousexchangeofexploitation,assomethingthatcannolongerentertherelation,thisrelationofexploitation.Whenlabourstartsbe-ingregardedas something thatcanno longerbedirectlyexploited”(NegriinVirnoandNegri2003,n.p.).

Sothecommoniscloselyboundupwithcapitalism,andisinfactimpossiblewithoutit.Itisnotthatthecommonandcapitalismarecom-pletelyopposed,withthecommonofferinganalternativetocapitalismandthemarket.Thedifferentiatingfactorisrathertherelationofex-ploitation.ForNegri, this“unexploited labour iscreative labour, im-material,concretelabourthatisexpressedassuch.”Significantly(andthis iswherewecomeback to therelationbetweenopenaccessandtheproductionofa“globalinformationcommons,”asopposedtothe“common”),attheendofhiscontributiontothisdiscussionNegricitesnetworksandtheWeb—whichIwouldsuggestwouldalsoincludeopen-accessandpeer-to-peernetworks—asexamplesofthekindofcoopera-tiveactivitythatcouldgotocreatethe“activecommonoflabour,”andhencethemultitude:

Cooperationitselfispartofthatcreativityofsingularlabour.Itisnolongersomethingthatisimposedfromoutside.Wearenolongerinthatphaseofcapitalistaccumulationthatalsohasafunctionofcon-structionoftheworkers’labourcapacitytobeputintoproduction.Singularitiesofandinthemultitudehaveassumedcooperationasqualityoftheirlabour.Cooperation—andthecommon—asactivityis anterior to capitalist accumulation. Hence we have a commonthatisafoundationoftheeconomy,onlyinsofarasit isseenasthiselementofcohesionoftheproductionofsingularitywithinthe

ConClusion 1�3

multitude.Examplesof thiscouldbenetworksandall theconse-quencesofadefinitionofthecommonasthephenomenologyoftheweb.(VirnoandNegri2003,n.p.)

Whatismore,thisargumentthattheactivityofcooperationandthecommon that is a foundingphenomenaof the Internetmaynotnecessarilybe intrinsicallyopposed tocapitalismdoesnot justapplyto the relation of open access to a “global information commons.”TizianaTerranovamakesasimilarcasewhenarguingagainstRichardBarbrook’svisionofthehi-techgifteconomyas“aprocessofovercom-ingcapitalismfromtheinside”thatispreparingforthelatter’seven-tualtransformation“intoafuture‘anarcho-communism’”(Terranova2000,n.p.).7Nomatterhowconvinceditsparticipantsarethattheyaredrawingontheresourcesofgovernmentandthemarkettoestablisha potlatch economy of free exchange, and so develop an anarcho-communismonthenetthat“transcendsboththepurismoftheNewLeft do-it-yourself culture and the neo-liberalism of the freemarketideologues,” forTerranova the twoeconomicmodels—the commod-ity and the gift—do not remain in the end irreconcilable, as theydoforBarbrook.Sheisthusnotquiteasoptimisticaboutthecapabili-ties of the Web as Negri, arguing that Barbrook in particular “over-emphasisestheautonomyofthehi-techgifteconomyfromcapitalism.”Indeed,forher,the“freelabor”ofthedigitaleconomy’s“immateriallaborers”is“structuraltothelatecapitalistculturaleconomy.”8More-over, it is a relationship that should by no means be reduced to the“benign, unproblematic” coexistence of two “equivalent” economicmodels. No matter how idealistic many of its adherents may be, theOpen Source movement cannot be seen as principally oppositionaloranarcho-communist,forinstance.Rather,likethedigitaleconomyasawhole,forTerranova,OpenSourceactuallysustainsandevenin-tensifies capitalism through its overreliance, indeed dependency, onfreelabor.

HyperpoliticsItwouldbe interesting in this respect—andwoulddefinitely requirecarefulanalysis—toexaminetheextenttowhichTerranova’sdepictionoftheintensificationofcapitalremainscaughtinthekindofadher-enceto“modern”conceptionsof theInternet thatapproachit in in-

ConClusion1�4

strumental terms—asking questions about the impact and effect oftechnologyonsocietyandculture—andalsotopre-decidedandpre-legitimated political theories, vocabularies, and agendas—includingboththedigitaldialecticandthedialecticalrelationofthepoliticsofdigitalculture—Ihaveanalyzedearlier.For instance,whensheposi-tionsherarticleaslooking“atsomepossibleexplanationforthecoex-istence, within the debate about the digital economy, of discourseswhichseesitasanoppositionalmovementandothers,[takenfromthemanagerialliterature,whichpresent]itasafunctionalistdevelopmenttonewmechanismsofvalorisation”—whatwemightcallthepoliticallyoptimisticandpessimisticpositions—andwrites,contraBarbrook,that“theInternet isalwaysandsimultaneouslyagifteconomyandanad-vancedcapitalisteconomy”(freelaborbeingforTerranovaa“conceptwhichembracesthecontradictionsofthesedebateswithoutprovidingasynthesis”[2000,n.p.]),doesherattempttoholdthetwoeconomicmodels togetherrepeat thisdialectic(asdo intheirownwayLovinkandtacticalmedia)?Ordoes itactuallyenableher to thinkthroughthisrelationinamoresubtle,Foucault/DeleuzeandGuattari–inspired,nondialecticalfashion?Toputthisanotherway,towhatextentisTer-ranovaactuallysuccessfulwhenitcomestothinking“beyondthecate-goriesthatstructuremuchnet-debatethesedays,”aswhenshewritesinaversionofhertextfrom2003:

IhavestartedfromtheoppositionbetweentheInternetascapitalandtheInternetastheanticapital.Thisoppositionismuchmorechallengingthantheeasytechnophobia/technophiliadebate.Thequestionisnotsomuchwhethertoloveorhatetechnology,butanattempt tounderstandwhether theInternetembodiesacontinu-ationof capitalorabreakwith it.As Ihaveargued in thisessay, it does neither. It is rather a mutation that is totally immanentto latecapitalism,not somuchabreakasan intensification,andthereforeamutation,ofawidespreadculturalandeconomiclogic.(2003,n.p.)

Again,answeringthesequestionswouldrequiremetomakeapa-tient,rigorous,ethicalresponsetoTerranova’stextalongthelinesofwhatIatleastbegantoperforminchapter5forPoster’s“Cyberdemoc-racy.”Otherwise,Iriskmerelyperpetuatingtheveryirresponsible,in-hospitable,dialecticalstructureIhavebeguntotrytothinkthrough

ConClusion 1�5

andimaginativelyreinventhere.SufficeittosayatthisstagethatIamnotdisposedtoargueforthepoliticsofopenaccessalongthelinesIdetailedabovebecause,asImentionedearlier,itseemstomethatthesetwo“sides”ofthedigitaldebatearenotsoeasilydistinguishedandop-posed.Iamalsonotofamindtodosobecause,asthepreviouschap-tershaveshown,toinsistthatdigitizationispoliticalperseandthusviewaculturalstudiesopen-accessarchivesolelythroughpre-decidedconceptionsofthepoliticsoftheInternet(whetherthesebebasedonLaclauandMouffe’sneo-Gramsciantheoryofhegemony,thephiloso-phyofFoucault,DeleuzeandGuattari—orDerrida,forthatmatter—ortheItalianAutonomistMarxismofNegri,Lazzarato,andVirno),wouldbepreciselynotpolitical.Infact,thelastquestionthatwouldberaisedbyanysuchpresentationofthepoliticsofaculturalstudiesopen-accessarchiveasfarasIamconcernedwouldbethequestionofpolitics.Poli-ticswouldinsteadbeplacedinatranscendentalpositionwithrespecttoallotherdiscourses.Toadoptsuchastancewouldthusresultinlittleornoattentionbeingpaidtothepotentialofthenettoresistandrecon-figuretheverynatureofpoliticsaswecurrentlyunderstandit,itsbasisinnotionsofcitizenship,thepublicsphere,democracy,andsoon(andIwouldincludeboththedigitaldialecticandthedialecticalrelationofthepoliticsofdigitalcultureIanalyzedinchapters4and5inthis);aswell as the possibility that politics on the Internet (like digital textsthemselves,atleastasIdescribedtheirpossibilitiesinchapter3)maybenew,different,surprising,andheterogeneous.Inshort,therewouldbenoresponsibleorethicalopeningtothefuture,theunknown,theincalculable,ortheotherhere,atleastintermsofanyunderstandingofInternetpolitics.

ThisiswhatissointerestingaboutPoster’s“Cyberdemocracy”es-say:thewayitshowsthattoaddressthequestionofthepoliticsofopenaccessinthemannerofmostanalysesoftheInternet—thatis,intermsof the impact and effect of its “costless reproduction, instantaneousdissemination and radicaldecentralization ... upon the society, thecultureandthepoliticalinstitutions”—isto“askthewrongquestion”(1997,205).Aswehaveseen,itisthewrongquestion,first,becausethevast majority of interpretations of Internet politics adhere to whatPosteridentifiesasa“modern”understandingofpolitics—andIwouldincludeBarbrook’s“hi-techgifteconomy”(1998),Lunenfeld’s“digitaldialectic” (2001a), Garcia and Lovink’s “tactical media” (1997, 1999,2001),Kellner’s“techno-politics”(1997;KahnandKellner2005)and

ConClusion1��

Dean’s“communicativecapitalism”(2005),inthis(albeit indifferentways),aswellasHarnad’sandWillinsky’svisionsofopenaccessashelp-ing,inademocraticmanner,toproduceaformofglobalinformationcommonsandrevitalizedpublicsphere.Second,itisthewrongques-tiontoaskbecausethismodernunderstandingofpoliticsmaybewhattheInternetresistsandreinvents.Third,it isthewrongquestionbe-causeanysuchnewfunctionsmay“onlybecomeintelligibleifaframe-workisadoptedthatdoesnotlimitthediscussionsfromtheoutsettomodernpatternsofinterpretation.”AsPosterpointsout,“wemayneedtolookelsewhereforthemeanstonamethenewpatternsofforcerela-tions emerging in certain parts of the Internet” (1997, 204). And Iwouldarguethisincludesnotjusttheterm“democracy,”whichiswhatPosterisreferringtowiththiscomment,buttheterm“politics”aswell.Consequently,ifthereaderhasthusfarfailedtoperceivemypoliticsinthisbookinanytermsotherthanthoseofincalculabilityandundecid-abilityandacertainrespectfortheother,Iwouldsuggestthisisper-hapsbecauseprojectssuchasthisalmostinvariablytendtoberecog-nizedaspoliticalonlytotheextenttheyadheretotheold,“modernpatternsof interpretation”—which isofcoursewhat Iamsuggestingmaybeinadequatewhenitcomestounderstandingnewmedia.Onecouldevenargue,onthebasisofthereadingsIhaveprovidedofJodiDean,ErnestoLaclau,andChantalMouffe,thatthisuncertainty,unde-cidability, and conflict over politics—this antagonistic dimension, inotherwords—ispreciselywhatpoliticsis.

PartofwhatIamsayinghere,then,isthatcertainforms,practices,andperformancesofnewmedia—includingmanyofthoseassociatedwithopen-accesspublishingandarchiving—makeusawarethatwecannolongerassumethatweunproblematicallyknowwhatthe“political”is,orwhatsortsofinterventionscountaspolitical.Atthesametime,Irealizeitisnotenoughformetojustconcludewithwhatmightbechar-acterized(quitewrongly,inmyview)asatypically“Derridean”moveof“it’sallopen/undecidable/anaporia/aboutrespectingtheother.”Thatwouldmerelybe to leave thespaceof judgmentanddecisionempty,andthereforeliabletobeingfilledinandoccupiedbythereturnofthekindofdominantmodesofpower,judgment,authority,andlegitima-tionIamattemptingtointerrogateandplaceinquestion.AstheworkofHarnad,Guédon,Suber,Willinsky,andothershasshown,weneedtohaveaphilosophyofopenaccessifwearegoingtomakeithappenandpersuademorescholarsandacademics,nottomentiongovernmental,

ConClusion 1��

organizational,andinstitutionalpolicymakers,toparticipateinpub-lishingresearchinthisfashion.Again,noneofthisistosaythatallweneedtodoisoperateonsome“meta”levelandjustendlesslythinkandtheorize. I am not arguing against making judgments and decisionsaboutactingthiswayratherthanthat,orsuggestingthattheneedtothinkshouldbeusedasanexcuseforinactionandfornotmakingadeci-sion.NeitheramIagainst takingapositionormaintainingthatoneparticularcultural,social,politicalorethicalissueismoreurgentatagivenmomentthananother.AndIamcertainlynotclaimingthat,be-causeoftheaporeticnatureofanyauthorityandclaimtolegitimacyIidentifiedinchapter3,weshouldnolongerattempttoproduceformsofcommonsorcommunity,newpublicspheresordifferentmodesforthesharingandexchangeofknowledgetothatprovidedbycapitalistneoliberalism. While what I am offering here may not in itself be apolitics,weneverthelessstillhavetobe“political.”Thisremainsformeone of the unconditional horizons of both cultural studies and newmediawork.Infact,IwouldmaintainthatthesettingupoftheCul-turalStudiese-Archiveisitselfverymuchthetakingofanaffirmativepolitical(andethical)positionwithregardtotheproduction,repro-duction,publication,communication,distribution,dissemination,andexchangeofacademicresearchandscholarlyliterature,theinstitutionoftheuniversity,andevenculturalstudies.However,openaccesscan-notalwaysbepositionedasbeingpoliticallyprogressive,ineverysitua-tion and circumstance, for the foreseeable future. Open access mayhavethepotentialtobedemocratic,but,aswehaveseen,it is not always and everywhere democratic in every conceivable situation.Openaccessalsohasthepotentialtobeneoliberal,forexample.Sothereisnothingin-trinsicallyorinherentlydemocraticorevenpoliticalaboutopenaccess.Moreover,theremaynotbetoomuchdisparitybetweenmanyofthesedifferentnotionsofopenaccess,aswehavealreadyseenbymeansofmyreadingofNegriabove.AsJohnWillinskynotes,whenitcomestoopenaccess,itisoftenhardtodistinguish“thehuman-rightsconcernsfromthehumancapitalperspectives”promotedbythelikesofUNESCO(United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)andothers(Willinsky2006,95;seealson.3ofthischapter).

Asthepreviouschaptershowed,inordertoaddressthequestionofwhatitmeanstobepoliticalontheInternet,weneedtobecommittedtobothpoliticsandwhat—ifthehyperrealisunderstoodasbeingmorerealthanreality—Iwanttocallahyperpolitics.Thelatternamesarefusal

ConClusion1��

toconsiderthequestionofpoliticsasclosedordecidedinadvance,andaconcomitantwillingnesstoopenupanunconditionalspaceforthink-ingaboutpoliticsandthepolitical“beyond”thewayinwhichtheyhavebeen conventionally conceived—a thinking of politics which is more than politics,whilestillbeingpolitical.9Iwouldevengosofarastoarguethatthetwo—politicsandhyperpolitics—cannotbeeasilyseparated;thatinfactwecannotdopoliticswithoutdoinghyperpolitics.

Thechallengetoscholarlyauthoritythatisrepresentedbydigitiza-tionandopen-accessarchivingisthereforenotnecessarilyornotonlypoliticalinthesensethatitconformstosomealreadyestablishedandeasilyrecognized(transcendental)criteriaofwhatitmeanstobe politi-cal: forexample, that ithelps to facilitate theproductionofaglobalinformation commons, new form of public sphere, or high-tech gifteconomy.Butitmayhavethepotentialtobepoliticalinthatsofarasitremainsvigilantabouttheethicalquestionoftheotheritalsohelpsustokeepopenthequestionofpolitics—andthustobebothpoliticalandhyperpolitical.

Letmeroundoffmyargumentbysketchingthree“politicalpossi-bilities”thatpresentthemselvesatthispoint.

Hyper–Cultural StudiesElsewhereIhaveshownhowthefieldofculturalstudiesisdefined,incertainimportantconceptionsatleast,asapoliticallycommittedanaly-sisofcultureandpowerthatatthesametimecriticallyreflectsbackonitselftoanalyzeitsownrelationstopoliticsandpower(G.Hall2002).ThespecificityofculturalstudiesisthusmarkedbywhatStuartHallreferstoasan“irresolvablebutpermanenttension”betweenitscom-mitment topoliticsand its“endless,” theoretical self-interrogationofwhat itmeans to “docultural studies” (S.Hall 1992,284). From theperspectiveofthelatter,culturalstudiesisunconditionalinthesensein which Derrida describes the humanities as being “without condi-tion” in “TheFutureof theProfession”(2001c). Ithas the right, thefreedom,theability,toanalyzeandcriticize“everything,”includingit-selfanditspolitics,eventheideathatculturalstudiesisinherentlyleft-wing(Flew2005,n.p.).Infact,Iwouldgosofarastosaythatculturalstudiesisonlypossiblethroughacertainself-critique,acertainpervert-ability,bywhichitsvariousnorms,protocols,andconventionsaretrans-gressedandrethoughtbeyondandin excess ofthewayinwhichtheyhave

ConClusion 1��

traditionallybeenconceived—tothepointwhereculturalstudiesmaynolongerberecognizableas cultural studies.

Thisisnottosayculturalstudiesdoes notentailcertainbeliefs,val-ues, and commitments, including political commitments, that markthe limitsandboundariesof this self-critical, self-reflexive,uncondi-tionalattitude.Itdoes.(Onecurrentmanifestationofthesebounda-riescanbeseeninthedecisionmadebythemajorityofthoseincul-tural studies to date—including academics, teachers, researchers,editors,librarians,publishers,andscholarlyassociationsandsocieties—nottomaketoomuchoftheresearchliteratureavailableinopen-accessform;adecisionthat,itcouldbeargued,passivelyrendersthatliteraturesubject[albeitunconsciouslyperhaps]totheneoliberalcor-poratization and marketization of both the university and academicpublishing.)Itisjustthat,ifculturalstudiesistoremainconsistentwithmanyofitsownideasaboutitself,atthesametimeasbeingpoliticallycommitted and engaged, it also has to keep the question of politicsopenandundecided.Ithastobesimultaneouslycapableofplacingitsconceptionsofpoliticsatrisk,ofquestioningandcritiquingthem,andindoingsooftakingthechancethat its ideasofpoliticsandwhat itmeansforculturalstudiestobe political—andwithitculturalstudies’veryidentityas cultural studies,sinceculturalstudies’politicalcommit-ment is a fundamental part of its identity—will be transformed andchanged.It,too,hastobebothpoliticalandhyperpolitical,then.

Nowinawayculturalstudiesjust isthisirresolvablydifficultrela-tion,thisaporiaorinsolubleimpassebetweenthesetwoequallyunde-cidablepositions,whichareneitherreconcilablenordissociablefromoneanother.(Here,too,wecannotdecideandyetwemustdecide,aswecannotescapethenecessityofmakingadecision—notleastbecause,aswehaveseen,decidingnottodecideisstilladecision.)Culturalstud-iesinthissensehasalwaysbeen“hyper–culturalstudies.”Theproblemisthatthisopenandradicalizingaspectofculturalstudies,thisuncon-ditionalrighttoanalyzeandcriticizeeverything,includingitselfanditspolitics,issomethingculturalstudieshasoftenattemptedtomarginal-izeoratleastkeepwithincertainlimits,inrecentyearsespecially.Ithasdonesopartlyinanattempttopoliceandreinforceitsboundariessoastonotriskthedesignation“culturalstudies”beingappliedtoanyoldcollectionofsubjectsandapproaches.Thelatterissomethingthatap-pearstobehappeningfairlyoftennowadays,notleastasaresultofthe

ConClusion200

contemporaryuniversity’senthusiasmfordownsizing.Iamthinkingofthewayinwhichdepartmentsandsubjectsareasare“restructured”andthesurvivorsgroupedtogether inaninterdisciplinaryfashionunderthename“culturalstudies,”asifthiswereenoughtosomehowgivethis“rationalization”anintellectualjustification,whenmoreoftenthannotithasthereductionoffinancialcostsasitsprimarymotivation.Ialsohave in mind the associated fondness of language departments forusingthetermto“rebrand”andgivethemselvesaboostinpopularityamong students and university managers alike, by becoming depart-mentsofItalianculturalstudies,Spanishculturalstudies,SouthAmer-icanculturalstudies,andsoon.DespitehowDerrida(somewhatirre-sponsibly,perhaps)depictsitin“TheFutureoftheProfession,”culturalstudies isnota“good-for-everythingconcept”(2001c,50). In thisre-gardIverymuchagreewithStuartHallwhenheinsiststhat“itdoesmatterwhetherculturalstudiesisthisorthat.Itcan’tbejustanyoldthingwhichchoosestomarchunderaparticularbanner.Itisaseriousenterprise,orproject,andthatisinscribedinwhatissometimescalledthe ‘political’ aspectofcultural studies.Not that there’sonepoliticsalreadyinscribedwithinit.Butthereissomethingat stakeinculturalstudiesinawaythatIthink,andhope,isnotexactlytrueofmanyotherveryimportantintellectualandcriticalpractices”(S.Hall1992,278).Indeed,itisonlybydelimitingthisunconditionalrighttoanalyzeandcriticizeeverything,includingitselfanditspolitics,inthismanner,thatcultural studies canattempt to stabilize andmaintain its (politicallycommitted)identityanddifferenceas cultural studies.

Butculturalstudieshasalsomarginalizedordownplayeditsuncon-ditionalrighttoanalyzeandcriticizeeverythingoutofadesiretobe-come, ifnotnecessarily a “discipline in itsownright” (S.Hall1998,191),thencertainlya“legitimate”academicfieldofstudyandresearch;10andtoberecognizedandacceptedwithintheinstitutionassuch(andthisinaperiodofinstitutionaltransitionandchangewhenmanyfieldsare being “rationalized” and “restructured”). The reluctance on thepartofmanyinculturalstudiestopublishtheirresearchine-printar-chivesoropen-accessjournalscanbeseenasonesymptomofthisde-sire.Thespateofintroductionsandreadersthathavebeenproducedoverthelastfifteentotwentyyearsorso,andthatareoftendesignedtoprecisely establish, define, and delimit the cultural studies field andvariousaspectsofitby(re)tellingitsnarrativesoforigin,canbeseenasanother.Noristhisdesirenecessarilyalways,ineverysituationand

ConClusion 201

circumstance,unwelcome.Peopleinculturalstudiesneedjobs,fund-ing,andsupportiftheyaretocontinuetoteachandtotrainothersandproduceresearch.Establishingandsustainingculturalstudiesasale-gitimateareaofteachingandresearchwithintheacademyisanimpor-tantpartofmakingthispossible.

Still,allthismayprovideoneexplanationastowhyculturalstudiesisforsomecurrentlyexperiencingsomethingofacrisisoveritspolitics:why its attempts to be political according to the most obvious, easy-to-identify, and taken-for-granted signs and labels no longer appearparticularlyeffective;whyitishardtoseemuchengagementbetween“theory”and“politics”inculturalstudiestoday.11WhichisnottosaythatthepoliticsassociatedwiththeNewLeft,StuartHall,theBirming-ham School, Lawrence Grossberg, Angela McRobbie, David Morley,MeaghanMorris,HenryGiroux,PaulGilroy,JohnClarke,Kuan-HsingChen, Tony Bennett, bell hooks, Tricia Rose, Douglas Kellner, JodiDean, and others must now in every situation and circumstance beabandoned;justthatwecannottakethe“politicality”oftheirpoliticsfor granted. As we have seen, to have certain political “convictions”fixedanddefinedapriori,toforeclosethespaceofthepolitical,ispre-ciselywhatitmeansforculturalstudiesnot to be political.Ifwewanttobecapableofunderstandinghowculturalstudiescanthinkthroughitsrelationtocontemporaryformsofpolitics,includingthoseassoci-atedwithanticapitalism,anti-neoliberalism,andtheInternet,andthusenact a responsible analysis and critique of politics, we need to becapableofatleastraisingthisquestionofwhatitmeanstobepoliticalinthis particular context.Wecannotsimplyapplytheestablished,legiti-mate, traditional cultural studiesmethods andpoliticsderived fromtheNewLeft,Hall,theBirminghamSchoolandsoon—northeneo-GramscianismofLaclauandMouffeforthatmatter—tothissituation.Thatwouldbetotakelittle ifanyaccountofthespecificityofeithertheirhistoricalandpoliticalconjunctureorours,andinfactwouldbetosuccumbtothekindofmoralismormelancholiaWendyBrownseesassymptomaticofsomuchoftheleft.Inordertobepoliticalweneedto remainopen to thepragmaticdemands of eachparticular, finiteconjunctionofthe“here”and“now,”whateverandwhereveritmaybe.Indeed,andasIhavearguedelsewhere(G.Hall2008;HallandBir-chall2006a),iftodaywereallywanttoproducesomethingequivalentto what, say, Stuart Hall and the Birmingham School were able toachieveusingGramsci and the theoryofhegemony, and in thisway

ConClusion202

maintain cultural studies’ politically committed identity, we need torepeatneitherthecontentoftheiranalyses(thefocusonworking-class/youth/blackculture/thecultureofyoungwomen...),northeirdisci-plinary objects (English literature, popular culture, the mass media...),northeirapproachesandmethodologies(asderivedfromsociol-ogy,ethnography,politicaleconomy...),noreventheirtheory(Marx-ism,semiotics,structuralism,structuralistMarxism,feminism,psycho-analysis,post-colonialism...),butrathertheiropennesstoalterity,tothe“singularityoftheother,”includingthatofthecontemporarypo-liticalconjuncture,andthusthedifference,thedisruptiveforceandper-formativeaffectoftheiranalyses,notleastwithintheinstitutionoftheuniversity.Aspartofthis,wehavetofacethepossibilitythatthe“here”and“now”maychangeusandourpolitics;thatwemayindeedhavetochangeifwearetobecapableofrecognizingeachsuchsingularcon-junctionorconjunctureandrespondingresponsiblyanddoingjusticetoit.Inshort,wehavetobeabletoimagineandinventnewformsofpolitics—andwithit,newformsofculturalstudies,beyondmoralismormelancholia.

Inthislight,digitization,open-accesspublishing,andthearchivearealsopotentiallypolitical,Iwanttoargue,inthattheyencourageusto ask those questions—of politics, but also of ethics and of legiti-macy—thatareotherwiseoftenkeptconcealedandignoredbutthatculturalstudiesshouldbeposingifitwantstoremainconsistentwithitsowndefinitionsofitselfanditsideasofwhatitmeanstobepoliticaland to “dopolitics.”Howdoesopen-accessarchivingachieve this? Itdoessobypositioningthenormalandtheusual—inthiscase,culturalstudiesandthemoreconventionalmodesof“doingculturalstudies”—ina“strangeanddisorientatingnewcontext,” thushelpingustoseeculturalstudiesagain“inanewway,”asifforthefirsttime,andsoac-countforitandjudgeitanew.Includedinthisisthechancetoraisethequestionofculturalstudies’politics.Theopen-accessarchivingofcul-turalstudies,inotherwords,placesusinapositionwherewehavetomakethedecisionovercultural studies—andwith itwhat itspoliticsis,what itmeans for cultural studies tobepolitical—again, as if forthefirsttime(andtokeepondoingso,aswecontinuetobeconfrontedwithnewtexts,whicharedifferentinbothformandcontent,andwhichrequireustomakenewjudgments,interpretations,andselections).12Inthisway,open-accessarchivingoffersusachance,ifonlywecantakeit,to take thedecisionovercultural studies’politics inanundecidable

ConClusion 203

terrain without ultimate recourse to any determinate transcendentalgesturesorpreestablishedcanonicaldefinitions.Or,toputitanotherway,itcallsonustorespondandtomake(responsible)judgmentsinarelationofsingularitytoeachparticularconjunctionofthe“here”and“now.”Indoingsoitopensculturalstudiestoasyetunheardofcon-ceptsofpolitics—conceptsperhaps“beyond”itstraditional,individual,subjective,foundational,democraticdeterminationswiththeirbasisinideasofsovereignty,citizenship,thepublicsphere,andsoforth—totheextentthatwemayindeedneedanewwordtorefertothepoliticsthatnewmediaandopenaccess(eventually)makepossible.

Assuch,digitizationandopenaccessrepresentanopportunity,achance, a risk, for the (re)politicization—or, better, hyperpoliticiza-tion—of cultural studies; a reactivization of the antagonistic dimen-sionthatispreciselywhatculturalstudies’politicsis.ForasIsaidatthebeginningofthissection’sdiscussionofculturalstudies,thisquestion-ingofpoliticsandthepoliticalhaslongbeenanimportantpartofwhatitmeanstodoculturalstudies.Althoughthiskindofresponsibleques-tioningoftheculturalstudiestraditionmaybeinexcessofthattradi-tion and may take us beyond it, thus producing what we might call“hyper–culturalstudies,”itisafundamentalpartofit,too.13

Another University Is Possible . . . PerhapsAsIobservedinmyIntroduction,followingtheincreasingcorporatiza-tionoftheacademythathastakenplaceoverthecourseofthe1990sandearly2000s,anumberofpeopleassociatedwithculturalstudieshaveturnedtheirattentiontotheuniversityinrecentyears.Neverthe-less,thetendencywithinculturalstudiestofetishizethepoliticsassoci-atedwithits“founding”thinkers,theirfollowers,andinterpreters(Stu-artHall,theBirminghamSchool,andsoforth)thatIanalyzedearlierhasmeantthatculturalstudieshascontinuedtoplaceatleasttwosig-nificant (and interconnected) limits on its own otherwise importantthinkingontheuniversity.Ontheonehand,culturalstudieshaslargelyinsisted on adhering to already established and legitimated concep-tions of politics and the political. On the other hand, it has at besttended to downplay, and at worst marginalized and even remainedblind to,othermeansandspaces forpoliticsand forbeingpolitical.Includedinthisaremanyresourcesforbeingpoliticalthatareassoci-atedwiththeuniversity,suchasthekindofanalysisoftheinstitutionalstructuresofacademicdiscourse thathasbeenprovidedby thinkers

ConClusion204

associatedwithdeconstructionoverthelasttwentyyearsorso.Thisiswhy(asImadeclearinmyIntroduction)Ihavesupplementedmycul-turalstudiesapproachtotheelectronicreproductionandpublicationof knowledge and research in open-access archives here with thethoughtofanumberofwriterswhohavebeeninfluencedbythephi-losophyofJacquesDerrida,includingSamuelWeber,BernardStiegler,ErnestoLaclau,andChantalMouffe:inordertohelpmeshiftculturalstudiesbeyondsomeofthelimitsithassettoitsownimportantengage-mentwiththeuniversity.

Thatsaid,Iwanttoemphasizethat,asIpointedoutinchapter4,Iamnotsuggestingthatthedigitalreproduction,publication,andar-chivizationofknowledgeandresearch,andwithittheculturalstudiesopen-accessarchiveIaminvolvedwith,CSeARCH,arepoliticaltotheextenttheyprovideawayofturningthesupposednegativetheoreticalcritique(oreventheoretical“critiqueofacritique”)ofdeconstructionintoaffirmative,practical,creative,andconstructivematerialproduc-tion.NoramImaintainingthat,bymakingapragmaticinterventioninthe “realworld” context of the contemporary university, open-accessarchivinghas thepotential tobepolitical in the sense that therehasbeenacallinrecentyearsforculturalstudiestomoveawayfromthetheoretical,“textual,”linguistic,andlanguage-basedapproachesthatareportrayedasdominatingthefieldinthe1980sandearly1990s,andbacktothematerialandtoconcretereality.Thechallengetoscholarlylegitimizationthatisrepresentedbyopen-accessarchivingisformenotnecessarily(ornotjust,ornotonly)politicalinthesensethatitcon-formstosomealreadyestablishedandeasilyrecognizedcriteriaofwhatitistobe political(i.e.,thatithelpstofacilitatesomeformofrenewedpublicsphere,helpingnearlyeveryoneindemocraticsocietytomakeknowledgeabledecisionsbygiving“thepublicfreeaccesstothemem-oryanddatabanks”—thepoliticalpathLyotardsuggestswefollowattheendofThe Postmodern Condition[1984]).14However,open-accessar-chivingmaybepotentiallypoliticalinthesensethatonewayinwhichculturalstudiescanthinkthecontemporaryuniversitywithoutresort-ingtoeithernostalgiaforanationalcultureorthediscourseofbusi-nessandconsumerismthatisincreasinglytakingovertheinstitution(notleastbymeansofthesortofprocessandproceduresbywhichintel-lectual work is turned into a form of property and source of profit,somethingthatcanbeprimarilybought,sold,andaccountedfor,andforwhichpropertyrightsarethereforeneeded)isbykeepingtheques-

ConClusion 205

tionofthought—includingthatofpoliticsandethics—openandunde-cidable(seeG.Hall2002).Thedigitizationofacademictextsandre-lated materials, and the depositing of them in open-access archivesseemstometoprovideanopportunitytodojustthis;and,bycreativelyexperimentingwiththeinventionofnewinstitutionalformsinthisway,tothinktheuniversity(andethics,andpolitics,andtheInternet)af-firmativelyandotherwise,inexcessofboththeneoliberalcorporatismofwhatReadingsreferredtoasthe“UniversityofExcellence”andthetraditionalelitismofthe“UniversityofCulture.”Infact,whatissoap-pealingaboutopen-accessarchivingforme(asImadeclearattheendofchapter2)ispreciselytheextenttowhichitenablesustobegincon-ceiving a different future for the university:beyondregardingitastrappedby the forcesof capitalistneoliberal economics that are increasinglytransforminghighereducationintoanextensionofbusiness;butalsobeyondadvocatingareturntothekindofpaternalisticandclass-boundideas associated with F.R. Leavis, Matthew Arnold, and John HenryCardinal Newman that previously dominated the university—ideasthatviewitintermsofaneliteculturaltrainingandreproductionofanationalculture,withallthehierarchiesandexclusionsarounddiffer-encesofclass,race,gender,andethnicitythatthatimplies.

Anotheruniversityispossible,then,itseems.Whatismore,thesituationfortakingthischance,thisrisk,mayif

anythingbeevenmoreopportunenowthanitwaswhenReadingswaswritingaboutthe“UniversityofExcellence”inthe1990s.Cancertainweaknessesandvulnerabilitiesnotbedetectedinthecurrentdiscoursesofmanagerialism,economism,andthemarketthataredominatingtheuniversity?Tobesure,asJacquesDerridacontendsinbothSpecters of Marx(Derrida1994a)andEchographies of Television(DerridaandStieg-ler2002),wemaynotbeabletoridourselvesoftheideaofthemarketentirely;norwouldthisnecessarilybedesirable.Theideaofthecom-mon,asAntonioNegrihasshown,isnotopposed or alternativetocapital-ism.“Thereisnocommonbeforecapital.Thereisnocommonbeforecapitalisthistoryimposedit.”ThequestionforNegriisrather“howtotakethecommonawayfromexploitation?”(NegriinVirnoandNegri2003,n.p.).Derridasimilarlydistinguishesbetween“acertaincommer-cialistdeterminationofthemarket”(DerridaandStiegler2002,47),withitsemphasison“immediatemonetaristicprofitability”(2002,83),andasenseofthemarketasa“publicspace,”whichisa“conditionofwhatiscalleddemocracy”(2002,44).Nevertheless,thefinancialcrisis

ConClusion20�

inAsia; thedeclineof thedotcoms; theeventsofSeptember11; theimpendingdefeatofthecoalitionforcesinIraq;the“creditcrunch”;togetherwiththeincreaseinpopularsupportforanti-neoliberalglo-balizationandpro-environmentalmovementsandissues;theelectionvictoriesforleft-wingpartiesinLatinAmericaandelsewhere;thefur-therdevelopmentof the Internetand theWorldWideWeb;and thegeneralmovementtoward“freecooperation”or“give-awayculture”inwhichopen-sourceoperating systems suchasGNU/Linuxarebeingcreatedanddistributedfreeofchargeforotherstouseandcoopera-tivelybuilduponanddevelop;peer-to-peermusicfilesharingnetworkssuch as eDonkey that are hosting “on average approximately two tothreemillionuserssharing500milliontotwobillionfilesvia100to200servers”(Wikipedia2006b);andanunpaid,collaborativecommu-nityofanonymousamateureditorswhohaveparticipatedinconstruct-ing the largest andmost consistentlyup-to-dateencyclopedia inhis-tory—theseallseemtohaveplacedaquestionmarkformanyagainstsomething that for theprecedingdecadeseemedsounquestionable.Namely,themeritsofthe“freemarket,”andtheideathatthemarketandtheassociatedvisionofthe“knowledgeeconomy”offerthebestofallpossibleworlds.Mightthisnot,then,beanopportunemomentforacademicsandintellectualstoproductivelycounterandchallengethediscourse of global neoliberalism, managerialism, economism, andconsumerismthatiscurrentlytakingovertheuniversity—notleastbyexperimentingwithnewkindsof institutionsanddifferentmodesofexchange,includingsomeofthoseassociatedwithdigitalculture?

Perhaps,perhaps...

A New, Innovative, Creative, Experimental Militancy?Moreimmediately,itmightevenbepossible(althoughthisisverymuchaspeculativeconjectureatthisstage)tolinkmyargumentconcerningtheimplicationsofnewmediaforacademicresearchandscholarshipinthisbook,andculturalstudiesresearchandscholarshipinparticu-lar,tocertain“political”developmentsandevents,includingsomeofthose associated with political and environmental activism, “autono-mous”politics,andthe“anticapitalist,”anticorporate,anti-neoliberal,andglobaljustice,world,andEuropeansocialforummovements.Iamthinkingherenotjustofthewayinwhich,forNegri,networksandtheWeb—including open-access publishing and archiving and peer-to-peernetworks—areexamplesofthecooperationthatgoesintotocre-

ConClusion 20�

atingthecommon,andhencethemultitude.ThequestionsIamrais-ingaroundthissubjectalsoconcerntheconnections,ifany,thataretobemadebetween cultural studies and suchprogressive socialmove-ments.Whatroleareculturalstudieswritersandpractitionerstoadopttowardthem?AretheytoassumethetraditionalculturalstudiesroleoftheGramscianorganicintellectual?Isthisstilldesirableorevenpossi-bletoday?Arethese“older”waysofbeingpoliticalstillrelevant?Doestheworldinwhichwecurrentlylivecontinuetobebestanalyzedandunderstood in terms of hegemonic struggle and resistance? Or aretheytoadoptanewrole,somethingperhapsmoreakintowhatHardtandNegriascribetothefigureofthemilitanttoday,ascomparedtomilitantintellectualsofthepast,whenattheveryendofEmpiretheywritethat:

Today the militant cannot even pretend to be a representative, even of the fundamental human needs of the exploited. Revolutionary political militancy today, on the contrary, must rediscover what has always been its proper form:notrepresentationalbutconstituentactivity.Militancy today is a positive, constructive, and innovative activity. This is the form in which we and all those who revolt against the rule of capital recognize ourselves as militants today. Militants resist imperial command in a crea-tive way.(HardtandNegri2000,413)

Inshort,besidesattemptingtorepresentsomelargersocialorhistori-calmovement,be this theproletariat, theanticapitalist,or“alterglo-balization”“movementofmovements,”orwhatHardtandNegrirefertoas themultitude,docultural studieswriters, thinkers,andpracti-tionersnotalsoneedtoexperimentwithwaysofbeing“militant”inapositive,innovative,creative,andconstructivefashionintheirownsitu-ations,institutions,andplacesofwork?

Inwhichcase,canopen-accessjournalsandarchivessuchasCulture Machine and CSeARCH be seen as specific and indeed singular in-stances of this kind of inventive, creative, affirmative, experimentalmilitantism—singularinstancesthatareneverthelessalwayslinkedtoacertaingeneralityandcooperativecommonality?

20�

Metadata IV

The Singularity of New Media

Experiment, never interpret.—Gilles Deleuze, Dialogues II, 2002

Can open-access journals and archives such as Culture Machine and CSeARCH be seen as singular instances of the kind of inventive, crea-tive, experimental militantism Hardt and Negri talk about? Due to the (by now understandable, I hope) reluctance on my part to subscribe to a “ready-made” version of politics, I want to leave this question in abey-ance for the time being. I only want to stress that, while a cultural studies open-access archive would not be simply or even most interestingly po-litical to the extent that it adheres to preconceived ideas of politics, it may have the potential to be so in at least two ways:

• by encouraging us to take a decision over cultural studies without recourse to determinate transcendental justifications as to what cultural studies is, and where its politics and ethics lie

• in its potentiality to keep the question of thought open and unde-cidable in the context of the contemporary university

Furthermore, if we are to take this chance, this hyperpolitical keeping open of the question of politics also needs to include the keeping open of politics “itself.” The decision as to what it would mean for open access and the archive to be political cannot be made once and for all. As Chantal Mouffe explains, with regard to what is for her also a hyperpo-liticization:

Undecidability is not a moment to be traversed or overcome and conflicts of duty are interminable. I can never be completely satisfied that I have made a good choice since a decision in favour of one al-

metaData iv 20�

ternative is always to the detriment of another one. It is in that sense that deconstruction can be said to be “hyperpoliticizing.” Politiciza-tion never ceases because undecidability continues to inhabit the decision. Every consensus appears as a stabilization of something essentially unstable and chaotic. Chaos and instability are irreduc-ible, but as Derrida indicates, this is at once a risk and a chance, since continual stability would mean the end of politics and ethics. (Mouffe 1���, �; 2000, 13�)1

We cannot therefore state that the manner in which open access enables us to keep questions of ethics, politics, cultural studies, discipli-narity, and the university open is political always and forever. This deci-sion is one we constantly need to (re)take anew: both because we can never be sure that our previous decisions were the correct, or the best, or at any rate the least worst ones we could have taken; and because any such open-access archive will keep on being confronted with texts that are different in both form and content, and thus in effect new poten-tial parasites, viruses, and unwelcome guests.

Hyperanalysis (More Than Just Another New Theory of New Media)At this point a question concerning the relation between politics and eth-ics arises. What exactly is this relation if both the political and ethical dimensions of the archive appear to depend on keeping open the ques-tion of cultural studies’ identity and role? (This is certainly a decision that anyone involved with a cultural studies open-access archive is going to have to make—and more than once.)

We have already seen how ethics, for Derrida, following Levinas, is an infinite and aporetic responsibility to an “unconditional hospitality” (Derrida 1���; 2000, 14�); and how politics is, as Laclau and Mouffe put it, a decision taken in an undecidable terrain (see, for example, Mouffe 2000, 130). But can an ethics of hospitality such as that I have outlined regarding digitization and the archive found a politics, or be used to work out a program or plan as to how this might be achieved? In Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas, Derrida would appear to suggest that it cannot; or at least that there can be “no assured passage, following the order of a foundation . . . between an ethics or a first philosophy of hospitality, on the one hand, and a law or politics of hospitality, on the other” (1���, 20).2 In marked contrast to Poster’s claim that such a “post-

metaData iv210

modern” position does not offer us an “adequate” theory of politics, because it does not offer a “coherent alternative political programme” (Poster 1���, 203, 204), Derrida does not interpret this lacuna between ethics and politics negatively, as a failing. Instead, he sees it as putting us to the test, as in effect requiring us “to think law and politics other-wise” (Derrida 1���, 20–21), and thus as being both ethically and po-litically welcome:

Would it not in fact open—like a hiatus— . . . a decision and a responsibility (juridical and political, if you will), where decisions must be made and responsibility, as we say, taken, without the as-surance of an ontological foundation? According to this hypothesis, the absence of a law or a politics . . . would be just an illusion. Beyond this appearance or convenience, a return to the conditions of responsibility and of the decision would impose itself, between ethics, law, and politics. (Derrida 1���, 21)

The lacuna between ethics and politics does not amount to the absence of rules, then. It involves the inevitability of having to make a leap of faith at the moment of the ethical and political decision, as if beyond this deci-sion. Unless we do this, we will simply be following a previously outlined project, plan, or course of action where no decision and no leap needs to be taken. “Nothing could make us more irresponsible; nothing could be more totalitarian,” Derrida warns (1���, 11�).

At the same time Derrida is careful to emphasize that if politics is not founded once and for all—because that would limit the freedom to make the leap that is necessary for a decision to be taken—neither is it entirely arbitrary. As we saw in chapter 4, the decision as to what politics is and what it means to act politically cannot be left completely open and incal-culable. In fact, if we were to agree that politics is arbitrary, we would be returning to a conception of the sovereign who is always instituted in an inherently unstable and irreducibly violent and arbitrary manner, but whose conditions of institution are usually forgotten or obscured. We would also be reinstating the autonomous and unified sovereign subject as the originator of any such decision and ethics. A decision that re-mained “purely and simply ‘mine,’” that “would proceed only from me, by me, and would simply deploy the possibilities of a subjectivity that is mine” would not be a decision, according to Derrida (1���, 23, 24). It would be the “unfolding of an egological immanence, the autonomic

metaData iv 211

and automatic deployment of predicates or possibilities proper to a sub-ject, without the tearing rupture that should occur in every decision we call free” (1���, 24). For Derrida, “decision and responsibility are al-ways of the other. They always come back or come down to the other, from the other, even if it is the other in me” (1���, 23). Indeed, it is pre-cisely from this demand for an ethical response on my part “to the other, from the other,” and from the “alterity” of a decision made by the other in me, as if for me, that political invention, understood as the working out of rules, norms, conventions, principles, and procedures, occurs.3

So, we cannot devise a “coherent alternative” preconceived pro-gram or plan for founding a politics on ethics that is going to be uncon-ditionally and universally applicable to every circumstance and situa-tion. But, if we are not going to simply reinstate the autonomous and self-contained subject, or be determined purely by the pragmatic de-mands of the particular context, neither can the decision regarding poli-tics be entirely arbitrary. We have to base it on universal values of infi-nite justice and responsibility; there has to be some link between ethics and politics. Once again, we find that making a just and responsible decision for Derrida requires respect for both poles; we just have to go through the trial of taking a decision in such an undecidable terrain. And it is here, too, “that responsibilities are to be re-evaluated at each mo-ment, according to concrete situations” (Derrida 2001b, 5�); because each time a decision is taken is different, each situation and context in which a decision is taken is different. So on each occasion we take a decision we have to invent a new rule, norm, or convention for taking it that exists in a relation of singularity to both the infinite demand for uni-versal values of justice and responsibility placed on us by the other (by the other in us), and each particular, finite, “concrete” conjunction of the “here” and “now” in which this demand occurs.4

Coming back to digitization and the archive, we can now see that the link between ethics and politics cannot be decided responsibly once and for all a priori; rather this is something that has to be worked out, invented, and creatively explored in a relation of singularity to the par-ticular situation and context of a specific archive. I therefore want to offer at least one more speculative hypothesis as to how digitization and the archive may be ethical and political: this is that it may be so to the extent that it takes us “beyond analysis itself” (Derrida 2005, 13�); or at least beyond what can be discerned, discovered, and predicted by means of analysis. For what is important about a cultural studies open-access ar-

metaData iv212

chive specifically now is not merely the intended consequences and ef-fects I can predict, foresee, and articulate here on an individual level, consequences that are informed by my own theory and philosophy of new media and open-access archiving. To paraphrase Poster, the way to understand the ethical and political effects of a cultural studies archive is not just to analyze and critique it, but to build the archive (Poster 1���, 205). And by building it I mean devising, developing, constructing, and programming it (in the sense Steve Green and I have constructed and programmed CSeARCH); but I also mean inventing it by using it, upload-ing and downloading texts and material into and from it, making the associated ethical and political decisions, creating an environment, set-ting “in place a series of relations” (1���, 205), and otherwise “doing things with the archive” that may be unanticipated and unpredictable. For there is always something that resists theory, something that is en-gaged only in the archive’s performance, and that therefore escapes or is in excess of any attempt to analyze it merely in terms of its specifi-city.

This is why I would argue that, although I have initiated and devel-oped the CSeARCH open-access archive for cultural studies along with Steve Green, it does not necessarily represent anything especially attached to me. Admittedly, I am writing Digitize This Book! in my own name, as one of the people who devised and worked on this project. But this archive does not represent Gary Hall, Culture Machine, or cultural studies for that matter. It is not my intention to use CSeARCH as a means of illustrating or embodying any ideas, theories, groups, fields, or modes of thought to which I am attached or with which I am involved. The Cul-tural Studies e-Archive is rather an emergent project, constantly in the process of becoming. It remains open to use, critique, transformation, and perversion by others, whose purposes and intentions may be very different or even antagonistic. If it does constitute an ingredient in the possible emergence of what Poster refers to as “a different sort of public space from that of modernity . . . a heterotopia in Foucault’s term,” it would be in this sense—at least to the extent that it does not have a fixed or central idea, or one person or group of people controlling it. Instead, CSeARCH endeavors to allow for multiple uses and functions.

This is also why, for all my talk of specificity, I have not attempted to lay out a set of sharply defined rules or protocols governing the function-ing of CSeARCH, either here or elsewhere, other than those outlined in chapter 1 regarding the benefits it brings to cultural studies authors: that

metaData iv 213

it is free to download from and upload to and so forth. For example, CSeARCH does not contain a “controlled vocabulary” of metadata or a preset list of terms and categories under which articles can be submitted, classified, and indexed: that is something for authors to decide upon and develop.5 Likewise with regard to the archive’s system of peer re-view: it would be quite possible for “users” to make a decision not to have a system for the judgment and assessment of contributions at all. We could simply leave the archive in the condition it is in at the time of writing, where it is relatively open, and authors are just asked to indicate the “status” of their work (that is, whether it is published, in press, under-going peer-review, unpublished, and so on), and let value and quality be determined by what is picked up on and used and what is not. Alter-natively, users could decide to generate for CSeARCH a system of peer review; of peer review and open peer commentary (of the kind Stevan Harnad runs at the journal he edits, Psycoloquy, and that the journal Nature recently experimented with); or of peer-to-peer review (such as that advocated by Kathleen Fitzpatrick and The Institute for the Future of the Book).� We could even invent something altogether different regard-ing peer review, a system as yet unknown and that I cannot predict. For, as I said earlier, the Cultural Studies e-Archive should not be regarded as “finished”; it is “experimenting” in the sense Samuel Weber has given to this term when he refers to it as meaning “repetitive,” “never conclu-sive or contained,” “on-going and futural” and so forth.�

In view of this, part of my own political and ethical project with this book has not been merely to work out as rigorously as possible a new theory or philosophy of open-access publishing and archiving based on my own experience that others can then discuss, analyze, criticize, and engage with. Without question I have done this with my comments on the relation between politics and hyperpolitics, academic publishing, or reinventing both cultural studies and the university. Moreover, it has been crucial for me to have done so: both with regard to attempting to per-form this philosophy in the construction and functioning of a specific in-stance of open-access archiving, and the making of just and responsible decisions in relation to it; but also with respect to using this as an op-portunity to keep the question of thought—including that of the politics and ethics of open-access publishing and archiving and how to make an ethical and political response to the increasing corporatization of the contemporary university—open. Digitize This Book! will thus itself per-haps be capable of making affirmative, performative, affective interven-

metaData iv214

tions into the field of open-access publishing, cultural studies, and the idea of the university in its own way.

To leave it at this, however, would be to very much go against what I have said about politics not being defined in advance and not being raised to a transcendental position. It would imply that I already have my (new) theory or philosophy of new media thoroughly worked out and in place, and that I am merely using open-access publishing and archiving and Digitize This Book! as a means of illustrating it. It would therefore be to fail, conspicuously, to remain open to the singularity of either CSeARCH or Digitize This Book!, as well as to their possible unintended and unfore-seeable consequences and effects. In particular, it would be to fail to remain open to the temporal and affective performativity of their func-tioning: the way in which the politics and ethics of open-access archiv-ing cannot simply be decided in advance but have to be created and invented by its users in a relation of singularity to finite, “concrete” con-junctions of the “here” and “now,” too. Along with developing a theory and analysis of ethics and politics in relation to open-access publishing and archiving in this book, then, I have also attempted to go beyond theory and analysis and produce a “hyper-analysis,” as it were (Derrida 2005, 13�). Or, to think this another way, one of the ideas behind CSeARCH has been to place the academic institution or community, or at least that part of it which includes cultural studies scholars, writers, researchers, practitioners, librarians, editors, and journal and book pub-lishers, in a position where they are called on to respond and to make ethical and political decisions in this respect, rather than passing the re-sponsibility for such decision making over to others (to archive directors such as myself and Steve Green, for example).

This is another aspect of the specificity of open-access archiving that can be added to those I detailed in my third set of metadata, “The Specificity of New Media.” Since authors are largely in charge of self-archiving their own work (even in institutional repositories), an open- access archive—in marked contrast to a journal, where the responsibility for publication falls primarily on the editors and selected peer review-ers—distributes the responsibility for doing justice to the situation among everyone in the field, even if many decide to forfeit or ignore this respon-sibility. (What is more, this responsibility includes those in the field mak-ing decisions, not just with regard to archives such as the one I am involved with, but also about whether they should experiment with think-ing the university differently and otherwise, perhaps by creating open-

metaData iv 215

access repositories or journals of their own, using the software that is freely available on the net for doing so, as I suggested at the beginning of chapter 3.)

Digital “counter-institutions” such as CSeARCH can in this way act as actual, “concrete” institutional points of potentiality and transformation, by creating specific and, indeed, singular institutional situations in which academics and other members of society are required to take these kinds of responsible ethical and political decisions and where, at the very least, it becomes that little bit harder for them to avoid doing so. This is not to say that I can somehow, by means of the Cultural Studies e-Archive or even books on open access, institute ethical or political decision making. There can be no guarantee that others will perform the ethical and political roles and tasks I have suggested here in relation to the archive (not in relation to CSeARCH; not even if they do get in-volved in creating open-access repositories of their own). Nor is there a guarantee that open-access publishing and archiving in general, and CSeARCH in particular, will not be taken up and utilized by neoliberal political processes and organizations involved in the current move to-ward the corporatization of the university and the creation of a climate of accountability. To attempt to invent a cultural studies institution or open-access archive that could not be co-opted in this way, however, would not only be a rather uninteresting and sanctimonious thing to do, it would also be impossible.� A fixed, pure and incorruptible institution could only be a violent, transcendental, totalizing, and totalitarian fan-tasy. One could even argue, after Derrida, that it is precisely the structur-ally open and undecidable nature of the situation—the fact that an insti-tution or archive can be used to facilitate the forces of capitalism and globalization—that gives it ethical and political force.

21�

notes

Introduction. Another University Is Possible1.ThetitleofthischapterisaplayonasloganoftheWorldSocialForum

movement:“AnotherWorldIsPossible.”2.Ofcourse,notallof thechangesIdetailhereapplytoevery institution

internationally.Doesthismeanweshouldreferto“universities”ratherthanto“theuniversity”?Perhaps.Butatthesametimewouldtherenotbeariskindoingsoofgoingalongwithaneoliberalagendathatwishestoposition“universities”inboththenationalandinternationalmarketplaceasbeingextremelydiversein their missions, capabilities, and profiles, with some being more “research-intensive”andothersmore“teachingandlearning”–centered?(Theimplicationsofthisshiftfromtheideaof“theuniversity”to“universities”areapparentintheattemptsbeingmadeinvariouscountriestomoveawayfromnationalcollectivebargainingaroundacademicsalarylevelsandtowardmorelocalformsofnego-tiationbasedpartlyondifferencesininstitutionalmissions,profiles,andstatus.)ThisisoneofthereasonswhyIcontinuetoreferto“theuniversity”throughoutDigitize This Book!Still,Iagreewiththeedu-factorycollectivetoacertainextentwhentheywrite:“Theuniversityisakeysiteforinterventionbecauseitisnowaglobalsite.Indeed,thereisnosuchthingas‘theuniversity’butonlyuniversi-ties,intheirspecificgeographical,economic,andculturallocations.Evenwithinuniversitiesthereexistsarangeoflabourpracticesandconditionsaswellasdif-ferentculturesoforganisation.If,inanalogytothefactoryofyesteryear,wearetounderstandtheuniversityasaparadigmaticsiteofstruggle,wemustmapandunderstandthesedifferences(evenastheyaretakingshape)”(2007,n.p.).

Forthepurposesofthisbook,mostofmyspecificexamplesaretakenfromtheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,andAustralia,bothbecausethesearethemaincentersofneoliberalismandbecausetheuniversitysystemsinthesecoun-triesareoftenheldupasmodelsforthetransformationofeducationalsystemselsewhere.Theseexamplesmaybetranslatable to thesituationofuniversitiesinothergeographical,economic,andculturallocations,ortheymaynot.Thisissomethingthatwouldhavetobeworkedoutbypayingcloseattentiontothespecificityandsingularityofeachinrelationtoparticularcontexts.

Togetmoreofaflavorofthecurrentstateof“theuniversity”internationally,seethevariousdiscussionsandarticlespostedontheedu-factorydiscussionlistandWebsiteathttp://www.edu-factory.org.Foradiscussionoftherelationbe-tweenthespecific,thesingular,thegeneral,andthecommoninthecontextoftheuniversity,seemythirdandfourthsetsofmetadata.

3.IntheUnitedKingdomandAustraliathisprocesshasbeenunderwayfor

sometimeviatheintroductionoftheResearchAssessmentExercise(RAE),Re-searchQualityFramework(RQF)andothermechanismsforthedistributionoffunding.TheRAEandtheRQFareexercisesdesignedtomeasurethequalityofacademicresearchintheUnitedKingdomandAustraliarespectively.Similarex-erciseshavealsobeencarriedoutinNewZealand,HongKong,andelsewhere.TheWebsiteforthelastUnitedKingdomresearchassessmentexercise(RAE2001)describes themainpurposeof theRAEasbeing to“enable thehighereducationfundingbodiestodistributepublicfundsforresearchselectivelyonthebasisofquality. Institutions conducting thebest research receive a largerproportionoftheavailablegrantsothattheinfrastructureforthetoplevelofresearchintheUKisprotectedanddeveloped.TheRAEassessesthequalityofresearchinuniversitiesandcollegesintheUK.Ittakesplaceeveryfourtofiveyears”(RAE2001).

4.Aspartof theneoliberal “auditculture” inwhicheverything isdeemedmeasurable, league tables ranking the performance of universities accordingto various criteriahavebeenpublished in theUnitedKingdomby anumberofnewspaperssincetheearly1990s.ThepracticeofrankinguniversitiesusingleaguetablesisfarfromconfinedtotheUnitedKingdom,however.Therearealsoleaguetablesthatrankuniversitiesinternationally,suchastheShanghaiJiaoTongUniversityRanking,availableat:http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm.

Stuart Hall characterizes the “rich panoply of ‘audit culture’” as follows:“[t]heexponentialexpansionofpublicservicemanagersoverprofessionalsatthecoalface;unachievabletargets;sociallyuninformativeleaguetables;perpet-ualmonitoring;themercilessproliferationofpointlessbureaucraticdetail;theintroductionofselectivityundertheguiseof‘diversity’”(2003,21).AlthoughHallisreferringtotheeffectofthe“topdownmanagerialistapproach”oftheNewLabourgovernment inBritainon society ingeneral,hisdescriptionwillbeonlytoofamiliartoalotofthosewhoareworkingwithinthecontextofthecontemporaryuniversity.

5. ManyoftheprocessesIamdescribingareofcoursefarfromconfinedtohighereducation.Forinstance,itwouldbeinterestingtoprovideanequivalentanalysisofthecorporatizationandmarketizationofsecondaryandevenprimaryschooleducation.SeeKlein(2000)andRikowski(2003)forthebeginningsofsuchananalysis.IhaverestrictedmyaccountheretotheuniversityfortacticalreasonsthatIhopewillbecomeclear.

6.Thetermneoliberalismisoftenusednowadaysbutrarelyoronlyvaguelydefined.Fortwointerestingrecentexceptions,seeLawrenceGrossberg’sCaught in the Crossfire(2005a)andStuartHall’s“NewLabour’sDouble-Shuffle”(2003).

Grossberg begins his chapter on the subject by emphasizing that “[n]eo-liberalism is not a unified movement. ... It describes a political economicproject.”Hethenproceedstocharacterizeitasfollows:“[First,][i]tssupportersareboundtogetherbytheirfundamentaloppositiontoKeynesiandemandsidefiscalpolicyandtogovernmentregulationofbusiness....Manyneoliberalssup-portlaissez-faireanddefinethefreeeconomyastheabsenceofanyregulationor control. Second, neoliberals tend to believe that, since the free market isthemostrationalanddemocraticsystemofchoice,everydomainofhumanlife

notes to introDuCtion21�

shouldbeopentotheforcesofthemarketplace....Third,neoliberalsbelievethateconomicfreedomisthenecessarypreconditionforpoliticalfreedom(de-mocracy);theyoftenactasifdemocracywerenothingbuteconomicfreedomorthefreedomtochoose.Finally,neoliberalsareradicalindividualists.Anyappealto larger groups (e.g., gender, racial, ethnic, or class groups) as if they func-tionedasagentsorhadrights,ortosocietyitself,isnotonlymeaninglessbutalsoasteptowardsocialismandtotalitarianism”(2005a,112).

StuartHall,meanwhile,writing inaBritishcontext,characterizesNewLa-bour’s particular variant of free-market neo-liberalism—their “social democratic variant ” as opposed to Thatcherism’s “neo-liberal variant of classic Conserva-tism”(2003,22)—likethis:“Newlabourhasworked—bothdomesticallyandglo-bally(throughtheinstitutionsof‘globalgovernance’suchastheIMF,theWTO,theWorldBanketc.)—tosetthecorporateeconomyfree,securingthecondi-tionsnecessaryforitseffectiveoperationathomeandglobally.Ithasrenouncedtheattemptstograftwidersocialgoalsontothecorporateworld...Ithasde-regulatedlabourandothermarkets,maintainedrestrictivetradeunionlegisla-tion,andestablishedrelativelyweakandcompliantregulatoryregimes....

“NewLabourhas spread thegospelof ‘market fundamentalism’—marketsandmarketcriteriaasthetruemeasureofvalue—farandwide.Ithas‘cosieduptobusiness,’favouringitsinterestsinmultiplepublicandprivateways...

“However,NewLabourhasadaptedthefundamentalneo-liberalprogrammeto suit its conditions of governance—that of a social democratic governmenttrying to govern in a neo-liberal direction while maintaining its traditionalworking-classandpublic-sectormiddle-classsupport,withallthecompromisesandconfusionsthatentails....

“ ‘Entrepreneurial governance’ ... promotes competition between serviceproviders, favours the shift from bureaucracy to ‘community,’ focuses not oninputsbutonoutcomes(delivery),redefinesclientsasconsumers,de-centralisesauthoritythrough‘participatorymanagement,’andprefersmarketmechanismstoadministrativeones”(S.Hall2003,13–15).

IwillbereturningtosaymoreaboutHall’sanalysisofNewLabourinrelationtoneoliberalisminchapter4.

7.SeeGaryHall(2002,112–15),whereIargueanyattempttomoveoutsidetheuniversityisalreadyauniversitymove;theideathatthereisanoutsidetotheuniversityitselfbeingauniversityidea.

8.ReadingsishereadaptingSamuelWeber’sterm“deconstructivepragmat-ics”fromhisbookInstitution and Interpretation(1987).ForWeber,a“deconstruc-tivepragmatics”would“workfromthe‘inside’ofthevariousdisciplines,inor-dertodemonstrateconcretely, ineachcase,howtheexclusionof limits fromthefieldorganizesthepracticeitmakespossible”(1987,32;citedbyReadings1996,225n.8).FormoreonthecentralthesisofReadings’book,seemy“www.culturalstudies.ac.uk”(inG.Hall2002).

9.Seew.ww.culturemachine.net.Italsoincludesthenon–open-accessCulture Machinebookseries,publishedbyBerg.

10. See www.culturemachine.net/csearch. I may be wrong in making thisclaim. In many ways I would like to think so. Still, while the DSpace archive

notes to introDuCtion 21�

establishedatFlindersUniversity inAustralia (http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/dspace/) has focused on the humanities, CSeARCH is the only archive I amawareof(at the timeofwriting) that focusesoncultural studiesandculturaltheory.

11.IwillgiveamoredetailedandnuancedaccountofopenaccesslaterinthisIntroductionaswellasinthechaptersthatfollow.Forotherdefinitionsofopenaccess,seetheBudapestOpenAccessInitiative(2002)athttp://www.soros.org/openaccess/;theBethesdaStatementonOpenAccessPublishing(2003)athttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm#summary;theBerlinDec-larationonOpenAccesstoKnowledgeintheSciencesandHumanities(2003)at http://oa.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html; and Peter Su-ber’sOpenAccessNewsblogathttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html.

12.Seehttp://www.arXiv.org.13.CertainpartsofmyargumentinDigitize This Book!firstappearedinear-

lierformsasarticles,conferencepapers,seminarpresentations,e-mailsandlist-servpostingsdesignedtoatoncefound,announce,andintroducetheculturalstudies open-access archive CSeARCH (see, e.g., G. Hall 2003, 2004a, 2004b,2007a).Thatsaid, thisbookshouldnotberegardedasadescriptionofafin-ished product or institution. Nor is it a text that claims to already know theanswerstothemanyquestionsitposes.Rather,likeCSeARCHitself,Digitize This Book!is“experimenting”inthesenseSamuelWeberhasgiventothisterm:“Thepresentparticipleinvolvesamovementthatisfirstofall,repetitive,secondofall,neverconclusiveorcontained,third,on-goingandfutural,andfourthandfinally,actualandimmediate”(Weber2000,n.p.).ElsewhereinhisexplorationofthisconceptWeberreferstoKierkegaard:“Iamthinkinghere...ofthekindofexperimentingpractisedbyKierkegaard,forinstanceinhisstudyofRepetition,whichbears the subtitle:A Venture in Experimenting Psychology. ...Kierkegaardinvokesthisnotion[ofadifferentkindofexperiment]asanecessarycorollaryofatemporalityofrepetitionthatexcludesallimmanenceandcognitivecontrol,inwhichreflexivitydoesnotcomefullcircletoproduceaconceptofitself,butinsteaddoublesupintoalanguagethatcannolongerbeassignedtoasingle,authoritativespeakerortoareliable,truthfulvoice....ForKierkegaard,experi-mentinghastodowiththewayconceptsemergeandoperateinasingularsitu-ation:‘Iwantedtolettheconceptcomeintoexistenceintheindividualityandthesituation,’hewrote.Thesituationheheredescribescouldbedescribedasavirtualsituation;itisthatofatextwhoseimportonlyisaccessibletoareadingthatmovesitelsewhere;anditisthatofatheatre,inwhichthespectaclemovesthespectatorsomewhereelse”(Weber1999,n.p.).

14.Foradefinitionof“immaterial labor,”seemyfirstsetofmetadata.Seealsothedistinctionbetween“knowledgeworker”and“immateriallaborer”pro-videdinmyConclusion(n.8).

15.Isthisperhapsanotherreasonmanymoderngovernmentsarecurrentlyadvocatingopenaccess?

Questionsastowhatshouldbearchivedandrememberedandwhatforgot-tencertainlyhavefar-reachingconsequences;oneneedonlyconsidertherela-

notes to introDuCtion220

tion between new media and collective memory to see that. As Geert LovinkhaspointedoutwithreferencetotheworkofJamesYoung:“...theHolocauststillistheprimarytestcaseabouthowmediaandmemoryshouldrelatetoeachother. ... JamesYoung, inhisbookonthehistoryandmeaningofholocaustmemorials,The Texture of Memory(1993)...saysthat‘thesociety’smemorymightberegardedasanaggregatecollectionofitsmembers’manyoftencompetingmemories.Ifsocietiesremember,itisonlyinsofarastheirinstitutionsandritu-als organize, shape, even inspire their constituents’ memories. For a society’smemorycannotexistoutsideofthosepeoplewhodotheremembering—evenifsuchmemoryhappenstobeatthesociety’sbidding,initsname.

“Mediamemory, inthiscontext,couldbetheway inwhichsocietyactivelyusesthestoredinformationaboutthepast.WithYoung,wecouldspeakofan‘artofpublicmemory,’inwhichlargeinteractivearchivesplayanimportantroleinthefuture,asextensionsoftheexistingsitesofmemory.Mediamemoryisem-beddedinthewaypeopleareusingmachines,itisanactiveprocessofconstruct-ingthepast,notmerely[a]technicalone,whichcanbereducedto‘storage’and‘retrieval’”(Lovink1999a,162–63).

Thisconnectionbetween“newmedia”andtheHolocaustisnotanewone;nordoesitonlyconcerncontemporarynewmedia’streatmentofthepast.AsEdwinBlackshowsinIBM and the Holocaust(2001),“new”Hollerithpunch-cardtechnologywaspartofwhatmade the identificationof the Jewishpopulationpossible for theNazis.So theconnectionbetweennewmedia,archiving,andpowerisperfectlyclear,evenifitwasnotbefore.

16.FormoreonGoogleBookSearch,seeKelly(2006)andJeanneney(2007).Jeanneneyoffersaninterestingbook-lengthcritiqueofGoogleBookSearchintermsofitsAnglo-andAmerican-centrism.

17.Seehttp://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/.18. Indeed, theopen-accessarchivingof researchhasbeenbuilt intoAus-

tralia’sResearchQualityFramework(RQF).Itisthereforemandatory,asfarastheRQFisconcerned,thatallResearchOutputgeneratedbyResearchGroupswithinAustralianuniversitiesisdepositedinInstitutionalRepositories(IR)forthe2008RQF.Consequently,asArthurSalereportedinNovember2006,“everyuniversitywillhavetohaveanIRtoholdthefull-textofResearchOutputs.Abouthalfalreadydo,withEPrintsandDSpacebeingthemostpopularsoftwarewithafewFedora-basedrepositoriesandoutsourcedProQuesthosts”(Sale2006).Evenmorerecently,DannyKingsleynotedthat:“Ofthe38universitiesinAustralia,approximatelyhalfhaveactive,online,repositoriesthatcarrycurrentresearchdocuments....TheOpenDOARwebsite...[lists]52repositoriesforAustralia.Ofthese,24aredigitalthesesrepositories,fourinstitutionshavemorethanonerepository listed,onewasapilotand twowere forpublic libraries, leaving21institutionalrepositoriesatAustralianuniversities”(Kingsley2007).

19.Seehttp://www.openarchives.organdhttp://www.arl.org/sparc.Aregis-tryofthoseuniversitiesthathaveadoptedaself-archivingmandatethatrequiresstaffmemberstodeposittheirresearchandpublicationsinaninstitutionalOArepositoryisavailableatROARMAP(RegistryofOpenAccessRepositoryMate-rialArchivingPolicies):http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/.

notes to introDuCtion 221

20.ADirectoryofOpenAccessJournals(DOAJ)inLund,Sweden,isavailableathttp://www.doaj.org/.InApril2008thiscontaineddetailsof3,338journals.

21. See, for example, http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/index.html;http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/291/5512/2318b;http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html;The Times Higher Ed-ucation Supplement,6June2003,16,and8November2002,18–19;The Guardian, Education,17June2003,1.

22.See theAlliance forTaxpayersAccess in theUnitedStates,whichbillsitself as “adiverse andgrowingallianceoforganizations representing taxpay-ers,patients,physicians,researchers,andinstitutionsthatsupportopenpublicaccesstotaxpayer-fundedresearch”athttp://www.taxpayeraccess.org.Accessed26October2006.

23.Forsomeoftheproblemsinherentinthisideaofhavingafullyintegrated,indexed,andlinkedglobalarchiveofacademicworkthatcanbecentrallyhar-vestedandsearched,seemythirdsetofmetadata.Foravariationonthistheme,seealsoJeanneneyonGoogleand“themythofuniversalknowledge”(2007).

24. As John MacColl, Head of the Digital Library Division at EdinburghUniversityLibrary,neatlyexplains:“Itmakeslittlesenseforacademiclibrariestobepurchasingjournalswhichnooneactuallyreads,andwhosemainvalueto the community is their ‘citability.’ The logical resolution to this absurdity,asHarnadhasadvancedinhiswork,isforthejournaltitlestocontinuetoex-istbutprimarilytoprovidethefunctionofqualitycontrol,theorganisationofpeerreview.Thetitlesshouldcontinue,almostcertainlyinelectronic-onlyform,andwillcontinuetopickupsubscriptions—perhapsfromindividualsubscrib-ers,ormembersofthelearnedsocietieswhopublishtheminmanycases,ratherthanfromacademiclibraries—butwillnotdependuponlibrarysubscriptionsfor their existence. Their economic basis will change as they disinvest in themachineryofprintandelectronicdistribution,scalingdowntheirproductiontoamuchreducedlevel(andabandoningprintdistributionentirely),andwillbefundedthroughchargesleviedonacademicandresearchinstitutionsfortheprovisionofpeer-reviewservices”(MacColl2002).

MeanwhileJohnWillinskyprovidesanalternativeeconomicmodelforopenaccessbasedontheconceptofapublishingandarchivingcooperative(2006,86–87).

25.Bycomparison(andforreasonsthatwillbecomeevenclearerwithchap-ter1),theadoptionofopen-accesspublishinginthehumanitieshasbeenmuchslower.Anumberofexplanationscanbeofferedtoaccountforthisdiscrepancy.Theyincludethefactthatthecrisisinpublishinghasnotyetreachedthesamelevelinthehumanitiesasithasinthesciences:inthelatter,academicjournalsarenotonlyalreadyveryexpensive; theyarerapidly increasing incostall thetime.Thingsarechanginginthisrespect,however.Thereisnowsomethingofacrisisinpublishinginthehumanities,too(seeGreenblatt2002;andchapter1).Thisisinlargepartowingtotherisingcostsofbooksandjournalsinthehu-manities;thegrowingreluctanceofpublishersinthehumanitiestocommissionresearch-ledbooksthatwillnotgeneratesignificantfinancialprofits(althoughthereareofcoursestillexceptions,includingmanyAmericanuniversitypresses,

notes to introDuCtion222

thatarenotquitesoprofitoriented);andthepreferenceofsuchpublishersforpublishingintroductionsandreadersinstead.

Nevertheless, open-access publishing in the humanities continues to bedogged by the perception that online publication is somehow less “credible”(thatis,lessrigorouslymanagededitoriallyandintermsofqualitycontrolandpeer review) than print. Although such concerns are also a feature of open-accesspublishingintheSTMs,theyareinmanywayseasiertocounteractthere.Thatisbecausethemainmodeofpublicationinthesciencesistheacademicjournal,withpeer reviewbeing themain systemof validation,andacademicsrunbothofthose.AsVitekTraczofBioMedCentralputitwhentestifyingbeforetheUnitedKingdom’sHouseofCommonsScienceandTechnologyCommitteein2004,“itisthescientistswhodotheresearch,whopublish,whoreferee,whodecide.Mostoftherefereesarechosenbyanotherscientist.Thisisaprocessrunbyscientistsandforuspublisherstopresumethatwehavesomemajorscientificroleorinfluenceiswrong”(citedinWillinsky2006,8).Soifacademicsinthescienceshavewantedtochangethejournalstheyruntopublishingonlineandopenaccess,withvalidationbeingmaintainedthroughpeerreview,ithasbeencomparativelyeasy for themtodoso;orat least ithasbeencomparedtothehumanities,wherethesituationisalittlemoredifficult.

Inthehumanities(althoughitdiffersfromdisciplinetodisciplineandlan-guagegrouptolanguagegroup)themostvaluedunitofinstitutionalandprofes-sionalcurrencytendstobethebookandthesystemofvalidationdependentontheprestigeofthepressthatpublishesit.Peerreviewingstilltakesplace,butitistakenforgrantedandisinawaylessofanissue,oratleastlessofasourceofanxiety,asitisregardedassomethingthatisprovidedmoreorlessautomaticallybyvirtueofbeingattachedtoaqualitypress.Itisherethatthedifference,andthedifficulty,lies.Forthoughtheymaybeinvolvedindoingtheresearchandalsoinpeer-reviewingit,academicsdonotrunthemajorityofpublishingcom-panies—noteventheuniversitypresses(althoughthereareagainexceptions,mostnotablyPolityPressintheUnitedKingdom).SoinmarkedcontrasttothesituationdescribedbyTraczinthesciences,itisnotacademicswhointhemainaredecidinginthehumanities,itispublishers.Thisisonereasonithasbeenharderforscholarsinthehumanitiestobringaboutashifttoonlineopen-accesspublication.

Theproblemhasbeencompoundedbythefactthattherehasbeenlessin-terestindoingsointhehumanities,sinceforpublishersopenaccessdoesnotappeartogenerateprofits,andforacademicselectronicallyreproducedbooksdonotcarrythesameprestige,eveniftheyhavebeenpeer-reviewedeverybitasrigorouslyasabookpublishedby,say,Duke,Harvard,MIT,orMinnesota.

Otherreasonsforthecomparativelyslowacceptanceofopenaccessinthehumanities,despitethefactthatithasbeenverysuccessfulinthesciencesformorethanfifteenyearsnow,include:

•What is arguably the main open-access funding model in the sciences,“author-pays,”isnoteasilytransferabletothehumanities.Authorsinthehumanitiesarenotusedtopayingtohavetheirworkpublished,evenifthis

notes to introDuCtion 223

justamatterofcoveringthecostofitsproductionandprocessing.Theytendtoassociatedoingsowithvanitypublishing.Atpresenttheyarealsolesslikelytoobtainthegrantsfromeitherfundingbodiesortheirinstitu-tionsthatarenecessarytocoverthecostofpayingtheequivalentofoften$300ormoretodoso(despitethename,authorsdonotusuallypayforpublicationoutoftheirownpocketintheauthor-paysmodel).

•Scientistshavealongerhistoryofworkingwithcomputers,sincetheverynature of research in the sciences—which often involves accessing andcompilingcomplexdatasets,empiricaldata,statisticalmodelingandrun-ning simulations—means it is better suited to being supported by com-putingthanthemore“fuzzy”kindsofknowledgeandinformationthatisbeingdealtwithinthehumanities.

•Thereisgreateremphasisoncollaboration(thoseinthescientific,techni-cal,andmedicalfieldsmoreoftenwork ingroupsandresearchteams),andonthedisseminationoffindingsasfastaspossibleinthesciencesthaninthehumanitiesgenerally.Afterall,ifyoufindacureforcancer,thereisasenseinwhichitisimportanttoletpeopleknowaboutitandhavethemtestandverifyyourresearchassoonaspossible—asensethatisnotquitepresentwithregardtoaphilosophicalreadingofDeleuzeorWhitehead,nomatterhowinterestingororiginalitmaybe.Thereisalsoprestigetobegainedfrombeingthefirsttopublishparticularfindings.

•Thereismoreemphasisontheidearatherthanitsexpressioninthesci-ences.Bycontrast,scholarsinthehumanitiescanspendalongtimecare-fullycraftingtheirtexts,notjustasthevehiclefortheexpressionoftheirideas,butaspiecesofwriting.Theyarethereforelessinclinedtodistributedraftsorworks-in-progress.

•The sharing of material has a long history in the sciences. As Tschidernotes,“beforetheInternet,scientistsoftensentpaperstocompetingscien-tistsinpre-publishedformats,perhapssimultaneouslytosharetheirworthandclaimownershipoverideastheypresented”(Tschider2006,n.p.).

•As Jöttkandtpointsout, “humanitiesdisciplineshavecertainestablishedbibliographicconventionsthatareslowtochange.Manystillonlyrecog-nizethepublisherversionofanarticleasthe‘officialpublicationofrecord’anddonotyetacceptpre-orpostprintsasacceptablecitationalternatives”( Jöttkandt2007,n.p.).

Itwouldthereforebeamistaketopresentthedevelopmentofopenaccessinthesciencesassolelyaresponsetothecorporatizationoftheuniversityandtheacademicpublishingindustry.AlthoughwhenglossingthishistoryIhavecon-centrated(fortacticalandpoliticalreasons,onecouldsay)ontheopenaccessmovement’srelationwithneoliberalismandtheriseinthepriceofjournals,itisclearlyalsoapartofthislongerhistoryof“gifting”withinthesciences.

26.Thisseemslikeanappropriatepointtocommentonthelengthofmanyofmyendnotes(suchasn.25above).Theseareoftenlongerthanmightordi-narilybeexpectedinabookofthiskind.ThisisbecauseendnotesareoneofthedevicesIamemployingtoexploreandexperimentwithsomeofthedifferences

notes to introDuCtion224

andsimilaritiesbetweenink-on-paperanddigitalpublishing.Forinstance,ifIweretodigitizeDigitize This Book!,manyofmyendnoteswouldnodoubttakeaverydifferentform.Mostobviouslyandstraightforwardly,onecanspeculatethattheywouldappearaslinkstoseparatepagesorfileswheretheycouldconstituteshortextracts, sections,ormicro-chapters in theirownright. (If ithelps, thismightbeoneusefulwaytothinkaboutthem.Thisendnoteisitselfnoexcep-tioninthisrespect.)Asitis,thespecificityofthemediumoftheprintedcodexbookalongwiththecodesandconventionsofacademicpublishingmeanthatIamoften(butnotalways,asweshallsee)restrictedtorelyingonendnotestoprovidesuchmaterial.

AnotherwayIamattemptingtocreativelyexploreandexperimentwithsomeofthedifferencesbetweenprint-on-paperanddigitalmediainDigitize This Book!iswiththefoursetsof“metadata”thatareinterspersedthroughoutthebook.Astheepigraphtothefirstofthesesetsindicates,metadatais“dataaboutdata.”Itis“informationthatdescribesanothersetofdata”—say,thecontentsofabook—andhelpsoneto locateandaccess it. In thecontextofnewmedia,metadata(suchastheauthor’sname,titleofpublication,dateandplaceofpublication,and so on) enables computers to access the content of files and documents,potentially across a rangeofdifferent sites anddatabases. Inoneparticularlyinterestingdefinition,“metadata” ispositionedasbeing“everythingthatdoesnotbelongtothedocumentitselfasitisconsultedinitsoriginalformbutthatisaddedtothedocumentwhenitisputonline”( Jeanneney2007,55).

Ihaveincludedthesesetsofmetadatapartlybecause,asIsay,theyofferyetanothermeansofhighlightingandexperimentingwithsomeofthedifferencesbetweenink-on-paperanddigitalpublishing(seemysecondsetofmetadataes-pecially);andpartlybecausetheyallowmetofurtherdescribeDigitize This Book!,andsohelpthereaderaccessandunderstandboththebookitselfandsomeofthethinkingthatliesbehindit.(NodoubtthesesectionsofDigitize This Book!willappeartosometobetooself-reflexive—or,indeed,meta.)ButIhavealsoincludedthesesetsofmetadatabecausetheyprovidemewithaspacetospecula-tivelycommentuponandexploresomeoftheunderlyingprocesses,protocols,andsystemsthatgotoorganizeandshapeknowledgeand informationaboutnewmedia. Indoing so Ihave focusedespeciallyon thekindof “data aboutdata”orwaysofselecting,ordering,structuring,andpresentingknowledgeandinformationaboutnewmediathatwouldmostlikelycomeintoplayifadecisionweretobetakentoputthisbookonline.Thisincludesideasofactivity,action,creativity,practice,production, and so forth.Of course,given that “metadatais alsodata,” analysisof this sort is a featureof someof themoreapparentlystraightforward,supposedlynon-metachaptersofDigitize This Book!,too.Ifthisonlyservestodisruptandrenderambiguousanduncertainthepreciserelationbetweenwhatistobeconsidereddataandwhatistobeconsideredmetadatahere(orembeddedmetadata,oreven“meta-metadata”),thenthatisalltothegood,atleastasfarastheargumentregardingethicsandpoliticsIgoontode-velopinthisbookisconcerned.

27.FormotivesthatIexpounduponinmyfirstsetofmetadata,alotofthetimeIamfocusingononespecificarchiveinDigitize This Book!:CSeARCH.This

notes to introDuCtion 225

isasubjectarchive,atleastinthesensethatitisdesignatedasaculturalstudiesrepository,althoughlikesomeinstitutionalarchivesitalsoacceptsbooks.

ThisisonereasonIoftenreferto“open-accessarchives”ratherthan,forex-ample,continuallydistinguishingbetweene-printorsubjectarchives(whichasageneralrulearemadeupofthepre-andpost-printsofscholarlyarticlesofapar-ticularfieldorfields)andlocalinstitutionalrepositories(whicharecomposedof the scholarlypublicationsofaparticular institutionandaremore likely toincludebooksaswellasarticles):becausealongsidee-printsofjournalarticles,thekindofopen-accessarchivingIamspecificallyinterestedininDigitize This Book!isthatwhichcanalsoincludebooks.Formoreonthis,seemythirdsetofmetadataon“TheSpecificityofNewMedia.”

28.See,forexample,RobertYoung(1992),BillReadings(1996),andDianeElam(2000).

29. This is why CSeARCH has been designated a cultural studies archive,rather than, say, a literary theory or philosophy archive—although it is opentosubmissionsfrombothofthelatterfields,too,aswellasanumberofothers,includingcriticalandculturaltheory,newmedia,visualculture,communicationandmediastudies,philosophy,psychoanalysis,andpostcolonialtheory.

30.Inthedeconstructivetradition,forexample(assumingforthemomentthatthereissuchathing),“politics”and“thepolitical”arenotthesame.ChantalMouffeprovidesonewayofdistinguishingbetweenthem:“By‘thepolitical’Ire-fertothedimensionofantagonismthatisinherentinhumanrelations,antago-nismthatcantakemanyformsandemergeindifferenttypesofsocialrelations.‘Politics,’ontheotherside,indicatestheensembleofpractices,discoursesandinstitutionswhichseektoestablishacertainorderandorganizehumancoexist-ence in conditions that are always potentially conflictual because they are af-fectedbythedimensionof‘thepolitical’”(2000,101).

IfIhavenotalwaysrigorouslyadheredtosuchadistinctioninDigitize This Book!itispartlybecause,forme,therelationbetweenpoliticsandthepoliticalisatthesametimealsosomewhatconflictual,difficult,multiplicitous,unstable,anduncertain(astheabovequotationfromMouffeindeedsuggests).Formore,seeinparticularmyConclusion.FormoreonMouffe’sconceptionofpoliticsand the political in relation to antagonism, see my “Hyper-Cyprus” (G. Hall2007b).

31.Booksfocusingontheinstitutionoftheuniversity,suchasE.P.Thomp-son’sWarwick University Ltd(1970),areactuallyrelativelyrarewithinthehistoryofculturalstudies;evenThompson’sbookisoutofprintandhardtogetholdofthesedays.

SometimeswhenImakethisargumentregardingthepoliticsofculturalstud-iesIworrythatpeoplemaythinkIamsettingculturalstudiesupassomethingofastrawman:thatIammerelyrepeatingwhatsomanypeopledoaroundit,whichistowriteandtalkaboutculturalstudieswithoutreferringtospecificexamples,whichinturnmeansthatIoftendonotrecognizetheculturalstudiestheyarereferringto.Instead,suchanalysesseemtobemoreaproductofprojectionandstereotypeandcertainlybearlittlerelationtoanythingImightunderstandoridentifyasculturalstudies.ThisiswhyIhavepreviouslytakengreatcaretolocate

notes to introDuCtion22�

versionsoftheargumentIammakinghereinspecifictextsatspecificpointsinculturalstudies’history(seeG.Hall2002).Butjusttoshowthatallthisisnotathingofculturalstudies’past,letmebrieflycite,asanexampleofwhatImean,oneofthemorerecentinstancesofitIhavecomeacross.ThisisMarcusBreen’surging—inacontributiontotheSeptember2006AssociationforCulturalStud-iesnewsletter,writteninresponsetoarequestfromtheeditorsforcommentsonthecurrent“stateofculturalstudies”—forculturalstudiestobelessconcernedwithdiscussingitscurrentstate,andmoreconcernedwithengaging“thecurrentworldcrisis.”Includedinthelatter,accordingtoBreen,are:“therumblingsthatseemtogrowlouderandlouderabouttheendofsustainablelifeonourfragileplanet;thefactthat120FdegreeheatiskillingthepoorandelderlyinFranceandGermany,theUnitedStatesandelsewhere;Israelisgiventhego-aheadtowageaproxywarinitsandtheUS’seffortstoproveapointlesspoint;jihadistsarepromptedtogreaterheightsofnegativismthroughtheprovocationsof‘enti-tled’westerners;therateofglobalpovertyincreasesdaily”(2006).

32. There are other exceptions one could provide here besides Striphas.These include, in their different ways, Neilson and Mitropoulos (2005) andGregg(2006),tocitejusttwoofthemostrecentandinteresting.

33.See,forexample,Aronowitz(2000);GirouxandMyrsiades(2001);Rob-insandWebster(1999,2003);Ross(2000);Rutherford(2003,2005);Webster(2004)—althoughtheargumentIgoontoexpanduponinchapter4—aboutwantingtodevelopanethicsthatretainsarelationofinfiniteresponsibilitytoanunconditionalhospitalityevenwhenitcomestothereadingofothertexts,andaboutmyconcernovercitingtoomanytextsIamnotpreparedtorespondtohereinacareful,patient,singularfashion—wouldalsoapplytotheseandotherexamples,too.

34. See, for example, Aldred and Ryle (1999); Giroux (1988); and Steele(1997).

35.See,forexample,Clark(1999);Fynsk(2004);Kamuf(1997,2004);MillerandAsensi(1999);Readings(1996);Royle(1995);Stiegler(2003);Weber(1987,1999,2000);andYoung(1996a).

Metadata I. Notes on Creating Critical Computer Media1.Mostbooksonnewmediaincludeintheiropeningpagesanattemptto

definetheterm(i.e.,thatalthoughitmeansdifferentthingsindifferentcon-texts,whatiscommonlymeantbynewmediaisdigitalorelectronicmedia;andthatthisisfrequently,butnotalways,associatedwiththecomputer:theWeb,theInternet,e-mail,blogging,podcasting,andsoforth),alongwithanacknowledg-mentofthedifficultyofdoingso.Moreoftenthannotthisdefinitionisthenaccompaniedbyanaccountofthevariousdebatesoverthemeritsofusingtheparticularexpression“newmedia”overotherpossiblerivals,including“emerg-ing” or “emergent media,” “digital media,” “computer media,” “networkedmedia”and“newtechnology.” Imustconfess that, ifanything, Ihavea slightpreference for “emerging media,” as derived from Raymond Williams notionofthe“dominant,residual,andemergent”(1997).Itseemstomethat“emerg-

notes to metaData i 22�

ingmedia”hasmoreofthesenseof“becoming,”ofthingsinprocess,thatIamtrying toarticulate inDigitize This Book!. It is also somewhatbroader in scopethan,say,“computermedia,”“networkedmedia,”oreven“digitalmedia,”withtheirprivilegingoftheformalandthetechnical.Atthesametime,however,Ifind“emergingmedia”aratherawkwardexpression touseregularlyover thecourseofabook-lengthproject.Plus,asWendyChunobserves,“newmediahastractionbecauseofjobsandprogramsperpetuatedinitsname—itisafieldwithitsownemergingcanonandinstitutionalspace”(Chun2006,2).Ihavethere-foreresortedinthemaintotheterm“newmedia”inDigitize This Book!,althoughIhavealsoonoccasionmadeuseofotherterms,including“computermedia,”partlytoindicatesomethingofthefluid,ambivalent,conflictual,undecidedna-tureoftherelationsbetweenthem.

Sincethisdebateover“newmedia”anditsrelationto“old,”“residual,”orobsoletemediaisnowitselfratherold,Idonotintendtoretraceithere,noraccountforthevariousdifferencesbetween“emergingmedia,”“digitalmedia,”“computermedia,”“newtechnology,”andsoon(notleastbecausethedifficultyofdefining“newmedia”inanyfinalorcompletesensetellsusratheralotaboutit).Instead,Irefertheinterestedreadertosomeoftheplaceswheretheseis-sueshavebeendealtwithindetail.TheseincludeMarvin(1988),GitelmanandPingree(2003),Listeretal.(2003),Manovich(2001),Chun(2006),andAcland(2007).Foraninterrogationoftheterm“new”inaslightlydifferentcontext,seeHallandBirchall(2006a).

2.Seemythirdandfourthsetsofmetadata:“TheSpecificityofNewMedia”and“TheSingularityofNewMedia.”

3.ForDerrida,forinstance,writingisverymuchamaterialpractice.Inor-dertounderstandawrittenmark,asenseofitspermanenceisnecessary,whichmeansitmusthavethepossibilityofamaterialorempiricalinscription.“Mate-riality”isthustheconditionofwriting’sverypossibility.Thisiswhythetranscen-dentalisalwaysimpure,forDerrida:textualityandmaterialitycannotbesimplyopposed,aslanguageandwritingarealreadymaterial.

IthankFedericaFrabettiforreemphasizingtheimportanceofthispointtomeinrelationtothetendencywithinmuchcontemporarynewmediatheorytopositionDerrida’s thoughtasbeingtooconcernedwiththetranscendentalasopposedtothematerial.SeeFrabetti(2007).

4.Formoreontherelationbetweenculturalstudiesanddeconstruction,seeHall(2006).

5.Theuseofproprietarytechnologies—whenarangeoffreesoftwareandopen-sourcetechnologyfortheconstructionandoperationofopen-accessar-chivesisalsonowavailable—couldbesaidtobejustoneofthetacticallyprag-maticdecisionsmadeinrelationtoCSeARCH.

6.Seethecallforpapersfor“Counter-Movements:InstitutionsofDifference,”atwo-dayconferenceheldattheUniversityofPortsmouth,24–25July2006.

7.MatthewFullerdescribes“criticalsoftware”asbeing“designedexplicitlytopulltherugfromunderneathnormalisedunderstandingsofsoftware”:eitherby“usingtheevidencepresentedbynormalisedsoftwaretoconstructanarrange-

notes to metaData i22�

mentoftheobjects,protocols,statements,dynamics,andsequencesofinterac-tionthatallowitsconditionsoftruthtobecomemanifest”;byrunning“justlikeanormalapplication,”butonewhich“hasbeenfundamentallytwistedtorevealtheunderlyingconstructionoftheuser, thewaytheprogramtreatsdata,andthetransductionandcodingprocessesoftheinterface”;orbyrewritingthein-terfacesofstandardsoftwarepackages“inordertogainaccessto[their]kernelof truth”(2003,22–23).The impressionofanunderlying structuralist feel toFuller’s account—something that is in factquitecommon to those interestedinsoftwareduetotheinfluentialroleChomskianlinguisticshasplayedinthehistoryof softwaredevelopment(Frabetti2007)—isonlycompoundedby thepositioningofareferencetoBarthes’sMythologiesatthebeginningofhisdiscus-sionofcriticalsoftwareinBehind the Blip.

8.See,inparticular,Hayles’schapterinWriting Machineson“Media-SpecificAnalysis”(2002,29–33).

9.Seemyfourthsetofmetadata,“TheSingularityofNewMedia.”10.Avariationonthisargumentcouldcertainlybemadewithregardtothe

waveofnewmediaartistsandnetcriticswhoareattemptingtoestablishtheorig-inalityanddistinctivenessoftheirworkbyopposingtheirfocusontheunfolding“particularities”ofsoftwareculturetothe“grandtheory–panoramas,”“genericsummations”and“pretensionstotimelessness”ofpreviousgenerations.Theselatterare1990scyberpunksandcyberculturalistsmoreoftenthannot,althoughInoticethe“depletedjargonsandzombieconferencingofFilmStudies”getamention,too(Fuller2003,17,16–17,18).

11.IsCSeARCHtheoryorpractice?IsDigitize This Book!?Ofcourse,thattheyoccurindifferentmediumswithdifferentkindsofmaterialsupport—thebookandthearchive,the“textual”andthe“real”—makesitarelativelyeasymattertoquicklyandunthinkinglydividethemintothe“theoretical”andthe“practical.”Butisthatreallyenoughtoensurethetwocanbesosimplycontrastedinthisway?

12.Formoreonthefetishinrelationtonewtechnology,seechapter4.13.AndrewRoss,forinstance,goessofarastoarguethat“thetrafficgoesin

bothdirections,”andthatalongwiththecorporatizationoftheuniversity,“thementalityandcustomsofacademiclifearebeingtransplantedintoknowledgefirms, whose research is increasingly conducted along similar lines” (Lovink2007,n.p.).

14.Kamufprovidesasoneexemplaryexample:“theHumanRightsProjectatBardCollege,directedbyThomasKeenan(aprofessorofComparativeLit-erature),[which]coordinatesnumeroushumanrightsactions intoanunder-graduate curriculum: “‘Theproject is interdisciplinary andhumanities-based,withafocusonthephilosophicalfoundationsandthepoliticalmechanismsofhumanrights,andaspecialinterestinfreedomofexpression,thepublicsphere,andmedia.TheProject’smainemphasisisonforginglinksbetweenthehumanrightsmovementand theacademicworld, includingactivists, faculty,and theundergraduateswhomightotherwisenotfindwaystodevelopandapplytheirinterestinhumanrights’”(Kamuf2004,n.p.).

notes to metaData i 22�

For another exampleofusingmedia tacticallywithin auniversity context,see“FromtheTopDown:AFilmAbouttheUniversityofSussexManagement”(2006),availableathttp://www.ussu.net/sortUSout/documentary/index.html.Accessed8October2006.

15.CarolineBassetthasalsoexpressedthisdoubtinrelationtothetacticalmediaapproachwithwhichCAEandLovinkarebothassociated,althoughthespecificexampleBassettisreferringtoisMatthewFuller’sBehind the Blip(2003).Bassett’sconcerniswith“thedegreetowhichafocusontacticalmediaobscuresastrengthofculturalstudies,whichisitscapacitytoconsiderformsofpracticethatdonotregisterasexplicitlypolitical,andthatdonotrequirethekindsofac-tiveskillsorexpertknowledgethatthefreesoftwaremovementvalorisesandthattacticalmediaemploys,butwhichnonethelessdonotconform”(2006,234).

16.ItisinterestinginlightofthisthatLovinkassociateshistacticalmediaac-tivismwitha“qualifiedformofhumanism”(GarciaandLovink1997).Formore,seemydiscussionofhumanismandtacticalmediainchapters4and5.

For a critique of the term “creative” in this context, see Donald (2004,235–46).

17.Formore,seeHallandBirchall(2006a),fromwhichthispartofmyanaly-sishasbeentaken.

18.Theterm“QueenslandIdeology”isitselfaplayonRichardBarbrookandAndyCameron’s“Californianideology”(1995).

19.Theproblemswiththeproduction/consumption,andespeciallytheory/practice relationsoutlinedabove,go someway towardexplainingwhy, in thepast,IhaveturnedtotheoryandthethoughtofJacquesDerridawhenattempt-ingtothinkthroughsuchrelations.Farfrombeingcapableofbeingpositionedasonepoleinthedialecticalrelationbetweentheoryandpractice,deconstruc-tionoffers ameansof thinking throughoppositionsof thiskindand, inpar-ticular,theproblemoftheincommensurabilityoftherelationbetweentheoryandpractice(theway,aswehaveseen,theoryandpracticecannotbecombinedbecausetheorycreatesdifficultiesforsuchsimplisticnotionsoftheoryandprac-ticeaswellasanydialecticalrelationbetweenthem).Deconstructiondoessobyenablingus toholdtheoryandpractice together inaproductiveeconomy inwhich their irreconcilable differences are neither dialectically subsumed intosomeall-encompassingsynthesisorunity,norleftinsomenegativedialecticofdebilitatingdisunity.

Sayingthat,ithasbeenimportantformenottopositiondeconstruction(ortheory)assomethingthatcouldbeappliedtopracticefromtheoutside,asaformofcorrective.Instead,Ihavetriedtoshow,bymeansofcloseandsingularreadings,thatamoreinterestingunderstandingofthisissueisalreadyavailablefrom“political,”“practical,”“creative”texts.AndIwanttodosomethingsimilaras far as deconstruction’s relation to the digital dialectic between new mediatheoryandpracticeisconcerned.IwouldnotwanttosaytoomuchmoreabouttheworkofLunenfeld,Lovink,andsomeoftheotherpeopleImentionherewithouttacklingitinasimilardepthanddegreeofsingularity.

notes to metaData i230

1. Why All Academic Research and Scholarship Should Be Made Available in Online Open Access Archives—Now!

1.Interestingly,thesaleofvinylwasatthetimereportedelsewheretohaveincreasedbyacorrespondingamount,drivenlargelybytheenthusiasmforDJ-ing,whichusesvinylformixingtracks.

2.Thedeclineisreportedtohavecontinuedwithaworldwidedecreaseinsalesof4percentto$US8.4billion(£4.5billion)beingrecordedforthefirsthalfof2006ascomparedtothepreviousyear(Allen2006a,35).

3.Seehttp://www.napster.com.4.MarkPoster goes even further, suggesting that “mostdiscussionsof the

currentconditionof...file-sharingbeginand endwithNapster”(Poster2005,emphasismine).PostergivesasanexampleLawrenceLessig’sbookCode: And Other Laws of Cyberspace(1999).

5. See http://www.kazaa.com; http://www.gnutella.com; http://www.edonkey2000.com;http://developer.berlios.de/projects/gift-fasttrack;http://www.emule-project.net/home/perl/general.cgi?l=1;andhttp://www.bittorrent.com.

Strictly speaking,Napster,Gnutella, andKazaaarepeer-to-peer(P2P)net-works;eMuleisapeer-to-peerfile-sharingapplication,workingwiththeeDonkeynetwork;FastTrackisapeer-to-peerprotocol,usedbytheKazaa(andother)file-sharingprograms;whileBitTorrentisalsoapeer-to-peerfile-distributionproto-col,aswellasthenameofafreesoftwareimplementationofthatprotocol.

Atthetimeofwriting,thethreemainnetworksforfilesharingareeDonkey,FastTrack,andGnutella.Inmid-2005,themostpopular,eDonkey(alsocalledeDonkey2000networkored2k)wasreportedashosting“onaverageapproxi-matelytwotothreemillionuserssharing500milliontotwobillionfilesvia100to200servers”(Wikipedia2006b).

Formoreinformationaboutthevariouskindsoffile-sharingprograms,seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peerandhttp://www.slyck.com.

It isnotmyambitionhere toprovideanaccurate recordofallprograms,clients,andWebsitescurrentlyinoperation.Ink-on-paperbooksarenotoriouslybadatthissortofthingquitesimplybecauseofthetimeittakestowrite,publish,anddistributethem.BythetimeyouarereadingthissomeoftheexamplesofP2PIhaveprovidedheremaywellhavechangedorevenceasedoperation.Iamonlyendeavoringtocaptureacertainsliceofwhatishappeningatthetimeofwriting.

6. See http://www.apple.com/itunes; http://www.hmv.co.uk/hmvweb/navigate.do?ctx=1530;8;-1;-1&pPageID=1530&pGroupID=8; and http://virgindigital.co.uk/download.php.

Evenwiththeemergenceof the legalmusicdownloadsites,youngpeoplearestillreportedtobespendingverylittleonmusic.AsSteveRedmondoftheBPIpointsout,“thebiggestsitesrequireyoutohaveacreditcardandkidstendnottohavecreditcards....Fundamentally,it’sbeenquitedifficultforkidstoengageinthelegalpurchaseofmusic....Undoubtedlyalotofkidshavebeenfile-sharing”(quotedinAllen2006b,29).

notes to Chapter 1 231

7. See http://www.myspace.com and http://www.facebook.com. Other so-cial networking sites currently popular in different places around the worldinclude: Cyworld (South Korea), http://www.cyworld.com; Fotolog (SouthAmerica), http://www.fotolog.com; hi5 (Central America), http://www.hi5.com;LiveJournal(UnitedStatesandRussia),http://www.livejournal.com;andOrkut(BrazilandIndia),http://www.orkut.com.

8.Interestingly,atleastonestudyhassuggestedthat“thereislittleevidence”thatmusicsaleshavebeenaffectedbyfilesharing,orthatit“isthemainculpritbehind the recent decline in CD album sales” (Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf2005,n.p.).

9.FinkelsteinandMcCleeryprovidethefollowingexample:“WhentheBer-telsmann conglomerate took over the Random House conglomerate in 1998[whoseVintageClassicslistincludesworksbyBarthes,deBeauvoir,andFreud],thenewownersexpectedRandomHousetomakea15percentprofitandtoincreaseturnoverby10percentannually.Thiswouldhaveentaileda leapinprofits from$1million to$150milliononannual salesof roughly$1billion;itwouldalsohave involvedconcurrentgrowth in thosesalesof$100million”(2005,124).

10. What is more, this is the case despite what some have identified as asubstantial“shiftinlibraryacquisitions,frompurchasedownershiptolicensedaccess”(Covey2005,5),andthefactthatvariouspackagedealsandlicensingagreementsmeanthatmanyjournalsarenowalsoavailableonline.AsWillinskynotes, ironically enough: “the inevitable cancellation of journal subscriptionsandreducedcirculationresultingfromhigherpricesisstill leadingtogreaterpublisher profits.Thepublishinggoal isnotnecessarily increased circulationforthejournals.Profitsarecomingnotonlyfromincreasedpricesandpublish-ingefficiencies,but fromtakinggreateradvantageof thegrowingnumberoftitlespublishershold, through such strategies as ‘bundling’ titles in licensingarrangementswithlibrariesthatcarryno-cancelpoliciesforallofthetitlesinthebundles.Theeffectistoincreasethepublisher’sshareofsubscribinglibraries’budgetsbeyondthenumberoftitlesthatlibrariesmightotherwisehaveordered(leadingtocutsinothertitles).

“Elsevierhasahigherprofitmarginonitslower-qualityjournals(withfewersubmissions),whichisoneofthereasonsforabundlingstrategythatdoesnotal-lowlibrariestocanceltheselower-qualityjournalswithoutcancellingthehigherqualityonesinthesamebundle”(Willinsky2006,17,17n.5).

11.Theaveragepriceofa200-pagehardbackpaperpublishedbookis£50or$US99(thisfigureisfor2006).LightningSourceisabletoproducea168-pageprint-on-demandbookforaslittleas$3.09(Rosenthal2006).Giventhatsoftwareandopen-sourcecodeforcreatinge-printarchivesisavailableontheWebforfree(seehttp://www.eprints.org/softwareandhttp://dspace.org),itispossibleformanymodelsofopen-accesspublishingtobefarcheapereventhanthis.

12.Seehttp://www.arXiv.org.Farfrombeingacaseofacademicsbelatedlyfollowing theNapstermodel, it couldbe argued thatNapsterwasonly a ver-sionof a gift economy thathas longexistedwithin academia, andwhichhashad a profound influence on the shaping of the net. As Richard Barbrook

notes to Chapter 1232

hasmaintained: “Fromitsearliestdays, the freeexchangeof informationhasthereforebeenfirmlyembeddedwithin the technologiesand socialmoresofcyberspace.WhenNewLeftmilitantsproclaimedthat‘informationwantstobefree’backintheSixties,theywerepreachingtocomputerscientistswhowerealreadylivingwithintheacademicgifteconomy.Aboveall,thefoundersoftheNetneverbotheredtoprotectintellectualpropertywithincomputer-mediatedcommunications.Onthecontrary,theyweredevelopingthesenewtechnologiestoadvancetheircareersinsidetheacademicgifteconomy.Farfromwantingtoenforcecopyright,thepioneersoftheNettriedtoeliminateallbarrierstothedistributionofscientificresearch”(Barbrook1998,n.p.).

13.Anarchiveoftheongoing(1998)discussionontheAmericanScientistOpenAccessforumregardingtheprovisionofopenaccesstothepeer-reviewedscholarlyresearchliteratureisavailableathttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/.Accessed18May2007.

14.This isofcoursenot theonly importantdifferencebetweenthem.An-otherconcernsthewayinwhichtheopen-accesse-printself-archivingsystem,atleastasitischaracterizedbythearXiv.orgE-printArchive,isbasedonadatabase,hostedonacentralserver,whichcollects,publishes,andstoreswrittenacademictexts. Napster, by contrast, is (or was in its original incarnation) a music file-sharing toolbasedaround a centraldirectory that lists thedata that is beingoffered for exchange by other registered participants. Neither arXiv.org norNapsterarethereforewhatiscalledapeer-to-peer(P2P)network,atleastnotinthepropersenseoftheterm.“Pure”P2Pfile-sharingnetworkssuchasGnutellaconsistofadecentralizednetworkofconnectedmachinesthatareindependentofeitheracentralizedclient serveroracentralizeddirectory.Thisallows theresponsibilityforanybreachesofcopyrighttobetransferredtothemuchhardertoprosecuteindividualend-userratherthanlyingwithacentralserver.

NoneofwhichwasenoughtopreventKazaa—asemi-centralizedsystem,incontrasttoNapster’scentralizedsystemandGnutella’sfullydistributedone—beingforcedbyalawsuitfromtheRecordingIndustryAssociationofAmerica(RIAA) to agree in July 2006 to “stop facilitating the pirating of copyrightedmaterial ... tocoughupmorethan$115mtoaccountforpasttransgressions[and]becomea legitimate,Napster-esqueservice”(Harris2006).However, inthe “recent case in California of Virgin vs. Marson, Mrs. Marson had a claimbeingmadeagainstheronthebasisthatsheownedthecomputerandpaidfortheInternetthroughwhichtheillegalfilesharingwastakingplace”dropped,onthegroundsthattheRIAAconsideredthat“theuseofanIPaddressasevidenceagainstfilesharersisnotenoughtoprovethatthepersonbeingchargedcom-mittedcopyrightinfringement.”Thishasledsometonowsuggestthat“thebestwaytodefendyourselfagainsttheRIAAistoopenupyourWiFinetworktoyourneighbours.Essentially,themorepeoplewhoareusingtheinternetthroughasharedIPaddresstheweakertheevidencetheRIAAcansummonagainstyou”(Garside2006).

15.Forasomewhatdifferenttakeonthemusicindustry’srelationtopiracyandcopyright,writtenfromthepointofviewofamusician,see“CourtneyLoveDoestheMath”(Love2000).

notes to Chapter 1 233

16.InMarch2002theMotionPictureAssociationofAmericabeganalegalactionagainstMusicCity.comandothersforswapping“pirated”televisionpro-gramsandfilmsonline.

17.InBooks in the Digital Age,JohnB.Thompsondefineselectronicpublishingascomprising“atleastthreedifferentformsofcomputer-basedmedia:diskette,CD-ROMandtheinternet.”However,sinceitwas,asThompsonacknowledges,“abovealltheriseoftheinternetinthe1990swhichopenedthewayforamuchmoreradicalvisionofelectronicpublishing,”itisthisversionofelectronicpub-lishingIammostinterestedinhere( J.Thompson2005,316).

As farasopenaccess itself isconcerned, therearenumerous styles. Inhis2006bookThe Access Principle,JohnWillinskyidentifiesasmanyasten“flavors”ofopenaccess:“Homepageopenaccess”;“Openaccesse-printarchive”;“Authorfeeopenaccess”;“Subsidizedopenaccess”;“Dual-modeopenaccess”;“Delayedopenaccess”;“Partialopenaccess”;“Percapitaopenaccess”;“Openaccessin-dexing”;and“Openaccesscooperative”(Willinsky2006,211–16).

Nevertheless,openaccessisgenerallypresentedastakingoneoftwomainforms.Thefirstiswhatiscalledthe“goldenroad”toopenaccess.Thisiswherejournals make their contents open access, either immediately upon publica-tion,orafteraspecifiedperiodoftime,suchassixmonthsafterinitialpubli-cation.DavidJ.Solomonrecentlysummedupsomeof thedifferent“golden”modelsinuseasfollows:“Ontheoneendofthespectrumtherearejournalsthatprovidefreelyaccessibleabstractsbutrestrictaccesstofullarticlestopaidsub-scribers.OntheotherendofthespectrumiswhatWillinsky(2006)hascalledsubsidized journals.These journalsprovideunrestrictedaccess to full textsofarticlesfromthedateofpublicationwithouthavingtoresorttochargingauthorsforpublication.[Culture Machinewouldfallintothiscategory.]Inbetweentherearedelayedaccesswhereopenaccessisrestrictedtosubscribersforaperiodoftime,partialopenaccess,wheresomecontent isopenandsomerestrictedtosubscribersanddualmodewheresomeformsofpublicationsuchasprintedorPDFversionsarerestrictedtosubscribersbutotherlessdesirableorlessexpen-siveformsofaccesssuchasHTMLarefreelyavailable.Therearealsomodelswherethereisopenaccesstothecontentofjournalsbutauthorsarechargedtofundpublication”(Solomon2006,n.p.).Thepurestformofopenaccessinthis“golden”sense,however, iswhenjournalschargeneithertheirauthorstopublishinthemnortheirreaderstoaccessthem.

Thesecondformofopenaccessiscalledthe“greenroad”toopenaccess.This is where authors “self-archive” copies of their research (which may ormaynotbepublishedelsewhere)insubjectrepositories(suchasarXiv.organdCSeARCH) or personal, departmental, or institutional repositories and Websites,includingindividualblogs.(Comparedtoblogs,open-accessjournalsandopen-accessarchivesobviouslyconstitutemoreorganizedandsystematicwaysofpublishing,atleastintermsofprospectivereadersbeingabletosearchforandfindmaterial.)

Asfaraspublicationininstitutionalrepositoriesisconcerned,theHarnad/OppenheimpreprintandcorrigendastrategyhasbeensupersededforHarnadas the optimal strategy by the Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA)

notes to Chapter 1234

mandate,asproposedandrecommendedbytheEuropeanResearchAdvisoryBoard(EURAB).Thisisasfollows:

1.Therepositorymaybealocalinstitutionaland/orasubjectrepository.2.Authors should deposit post-prints (or publisher’s version if permitted)

plusmetadataofarticlesacceptedforpublication inpeer-reviewed jour-nalsandinternationalconferenceproceedings.

3.Deposit should be made upon acceptance by the journal/conference.Repositoriesshouldreleasethemetadataimmediately,withaccessrestric-tionstoafull-textarticletobeappliedasrequired.Openaccessshouldbemadeavailableassoonaspracticableaftertheauthor-requestedembargo,orsixmonths,whichevercomesfirst.

4.Suitable repositories should make provision for long-term preservationof,andfreepublicaccessto,publishedresearchfindings.(Harnad2007a,n.p.)

According to Harnad, this mandate is “specifically designed to immunise thepolicyfromallthepermissionsproblems(imaginedandreal)andembargoesthathavebeendelayingadoptionofGreenOAmandates[wherebyinstitutionsandresearchfundershavemade itmandatory thatanyresearchtheysupportfinanciallyismadeavailableOA;seemyIntroduction,n.19]orhaveledtotheadoptionof sub-optimalmandates(thatalloweddeposit tobedelayedornotdoneatall,dependingonpublisherpolicy). ...Thekey to theID/OAman-date’ssuccessandpoweristhatitseparatesthemandatorycomponent(depositofthefinalpeer-revieweddraftimmediatelyuponacceptanceforpublication—nodelays,noexceptions)fromtheaccess-settingcomponent.(Immediateset-tingofaccesstothedepositasOpenAccessisstronglyrecommended,butnotmandatory:provisionallysettingaccessasClosedAccessisanallowableoptionwherejudgednecessary.)”(Harnad2007b,n.p.).

For more on the “golden” and green” roads to open access, see Guédon(2004) and Harnad, Brody, Vallières et al. (2004), as well as the Self-archiving FAQ at http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/. For an account of why,althoughIaminfavorofandsupportboth,Iamforthemostpartspecificallyprivilegingthe“greenroad”toopenaccesshere(thatis,publishingself-archivedcopiesofresearchindigitalarchives),seemyIntroduction,theendofthecur-rentchapter,andmythirdsetofmetadata,“TheSpecificityofNewMedia.”

18.Researchontheimpactofopen-accesspublishinghasbeencarriedoutby,amongothers,Lawrence(2001),Antelman(2004),HarnadandBrody(2004),andEysenbach(2006).Eysenbach, forexample, foundthatarticlespublished“as immediate open access in the PNAS [Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences]werethreetimesmorelikelytobecitedthannon–openaccesspapers,andwerealsocitedmorethanPNASarticlesthatwereonlyself-archivedbytheirauthors”(Wikipedia,2006a).However,otherstudieshavedisputedthedegreeoftheimpactofopenaccess.Fortheverylatestfiguresregardingtheimpactofopenaccess(figuresthatareregularlyupdated),seetheWebsiteoftheOpenCitationProjectathttp://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html.

19. Inanarticlewritten inhonorofStuartHallandhisactivitiesover the

notes to Chapter 1 235

years,AngelaMcRobbiedescribesbeinginthe“audienceatanacademicmediaand communications conference where a whole array of editors were on thestageandaskedtogiveanupdateonpublishingintheirRAEratedjournals.”Toherhorror,notoneoftheseeditorssomuchas“flinchedwhentheydescribedtheirreadershipsasapaltry300or400internationally”(McRobbie2000,219).Myself,Iamsurprisedshewassosurprised.Ofcourse,thesefigureshavetobequalified by the fact that, as most paper journals are purchased by universitylibraries, theyareoftenreadbyfarmorepeoplethanactuallybuythem.Theamountsuchjournalsmaybephotocopied,andthewayalotofthemappearinmultipleformats(digitalaswellaspaper,includingaggregatedatabasesofjour-nalcontents),alsohastobetakenintoaccount.Still,thefiguresMcRobbiecitesgoalongwaytoexplainwhysomanynewjournalsarebeingproduced.Afterall,ifindividualjournalsonlysellintheregionof500copiesorsoperedition,onewayforpublisherstosellmorejournalsissimplytoincreasethenumberoftitlestheypublish—especiallyiftheyhaveacaptivemarketinuniversitylibrarieswhoarelikelytofeelobligedtosubscribetomostifnotallthejournalsproducedinaparticulararea.Consideringthatpublishersfrequentlypayforneitherthecon-tent,theediting,northepeer-reviewprocessthatmakesthesejournalspossible(andthatatthetimeofwritingtheyearlysubscriptiontoatleastonejournalinthesciences,Brain Research,costsover$US21,000,withothersinthehumanitiesandsocialsciencesalreadyoperatingona“pay-to-playbasis,”chargingthelikesof$US200reader’sfeeforreviewingarticlesandthen$US100perpagethatisactuallypublished),academicjournalpublishingcanbeextremelyprofitable.

20.Seehttp://www.culturemachine.net.Ofcoursesuccessstoriesinopen-accesspublishingabound.Mostfamously,

the Public Library of Science’s (PLoS) open-access journal PLoS Biology is re-portedtohavehadan“initialimpactratingof13.9andaThompsonScientific(formerlyInstituteforScientificInformation)rankingofNumber1inbiologyjournals”onlytwoyearsafteritwasfirstestablished(Tschider2006).

IncontrasttoCulture MachineandCSeARCHandothers,thenot-for-profitPLoS(http://www.plos.org/), likethefor-profitBioMedCentral(http://www.biomedcentral.com), the foremost corporate open-access publisher, chargesauthorsafeetopublish,althoughaccesstothejournalsthemselvesisfree.Thefee forBioMedCentral,whichproducesmore thanonehundred journals intheareasofbiologyandmedicine,is£750–£900or$US1350–1750;whilePLoS Biologychargesauthor’sfeesof$US2,500topublish(thesefiguresareforJune2007).However,BioMedCentralandPLoSwillgrantindividualpublicationfeewaiverrequestsin“genuine”casesofanauthor’sfinancialhardship(asjudgedonacase-by-casebasis).

21.Seehttp://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/.TheUnitedKingdomGovernment’sScienceandTechnologyCommittee,chairedbyIanGibson,MP,evenconductedan inquiry into the “open-access” publication of academic research (Gibson2004).Itconcludedinsupportofdepositingpubliclyfundedresearchinopen-accessarchives,seeingitasapublicgood.Itwasmorecautiousaroundthepos-sibilityofopen-access,author-paysjournals:bothbecausethiswouldhavedrasticconsequencesforthepublishingindustryasitcurrentlystands,andalsobecause

notes to Chapter 123�

itwasbelievedthattherewaslikelytobelittleenthusiasmforitamongmanyaca-demics,especiallyinartsandhumanitiesfields,wheregrantsandinstitutionalfundingtocoverthecostofpublishinginthiswayarehardertocomeby.

22.Seehttp://www.free-culture.org/freecontent.Accessed12August2006.23.“Permanently”hasbeenplacedinquotationmarksheretoindicatethat

Iamawarethatdigitalmediacanquicklybecomeobsolete,URLsdead,andsoon.WeshouldcertainlynotassumethattheInternetwillremaininitspresentformforthelongorevenmid-termfuture.Asthetechnologychanges,itisquitepossiblethat“older”formswillbecomeoutdatedandincreasinglyinaccessible,justasitisnowhardtowatchaBetamaxvideoorlistentoaneight-tracktape.AsNicholsonBakermakesclearinDouble Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper(2002), there isevenacase tobemade thatpaperwill surviveas long, ifnotlonger,thanmanyotherformsofinformationstorage, includingthoseassoci-atedwithdigitaltechnology.

24.Seehttp://globaltext.org.25.Moredetailsareavailableat:http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/accessandhttp://

www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Support/access.Similarly, in the United States Congress, The Federal Research Public Ac-

cessActof2006,whichwas introducedinSenate inMay2006,advocates thatall federally fundedresearchbemadeavailableopenaccessno later than sixmonthsafteritsinitialdateofpublication.MythankstoRachelWilsonofRMITUniversityinMelbourneforbringingthisacttomyattention.Indeed,suchisthemomentumofthemovementtowardopenaccessintheUnitedStatesthatwhathadpreviouslyonlythestatusofarequesthasnowalsobeenmademandatorybytheNationalInstitutesofHealth(NIH).Asof7April2008,mostNIHgrant-eesarerequiredtomaketheirresearchoutputsavailableopenaccessthroughPubMedCentral(http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov).

26.Isuspectinalotofcases(andforsomeofthereasonsgivenbelow)thisparticularvariationontheHarnad/Oppenheimpreprintandcorrigendastrat-egymaywellworkbetterinpracticefortextspublishedasjournalarticlesthaninorasbooks.Althoughofcoursetheydiffer,manypublishers’copyrightagree-ments,especiallyforbooks,coverderivativeworksinamannerthatwouldin-cludesuchrevisedsecondeditions.AsispointedoutontheSelf-Archiving FAQontheEPrintsWebsite:“Whereexclusivecopyrighthasbeenassignedbytheauthortoajournalpublisherforapeer-revieweddraft,copy-editedandacceptedforpublicationbythat journal, then that draftmaynotbeself-archivedbytheauthor(withoutthepublisher’spermission).Thepre-refereeingpreprint,how-ever,hasalreadybeen(legally)self-archived.(Nocopyrighttransferagreementexistedatthattime,forthatdraft.)”(Self-Archiving FAQ,writtenfortheBudapestOpenAccessInitiative2002–2004,n.p.).

But“whereexclusivecopyright”hasbeentransferredbytheauthortoapub-lisherintoto—forexample,“ina‘workforhire,’”where“theauthorhasbeenpaid(orwillbepaidroyalties)inexchangeforthetext,”asisoftenthecaseinbookpublishing—itmaywellbe that theauthor isnot legallyallowedtoself-archiveitoranyfutureeditionsderivedfromit(unlessthosefutureeditionsareveryextensivelyrevised, that is;andeventhenthatmaynotbeenough).This

notes to Chapter 1 23�

isbecause,although“[t]he text is still theauthor’s ‘intellectualproperty,’ ...theexclusiverighttosellorgiveawaycopiesofithasbeentransfer[r]edtothepublisher”(Self-Archiving FAQ,writtenfortheBudapestOpenAccessInitiative2002–2004,n.p.).

AsHarnadmakesclear,however,thisparticularstrategicvariationisdesignedtobeemployedonlyinthoseinstanceswhereapublisherwillnotexplicitlyallowtheself-archivingofeithertheeditedandpublishedversionofthetext,ortherefereedbutuneditedpost-print.Writingin2001–2003,Harnadwasalreadyabletonotethatsuchcasesarerarerthanonemightthink.Hecitesfigurestotheeffectthatapproximately10–30percentofjournalpublisherswillallowtheself-archivingoftherefereedpost-print.ByAugust2007thisfigurehadrisentoover60percent,withmorethan90percentofjournalspermittingthearchivingofeitherpost-orpreprints(seehttp://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php;seealsoHar-nad,Brody,Vallièresetal.2004).Otherpublisherswillallowauthorstomodifytheircopyright transferagreement forms inadvanceofpublication topermittheself-archivingofpost-printswithsomethingalongthelinesofthefollowingclause,“butonlyifyouexplicitlyproposeityourself(theywillnotformulateitontheirowninitiative)”:“Iherebytransferto[publisherorjournal]allrightstosellorleasethetext(on-paperandon-line)ofmypaper[paper-title].Iretainonlytherighttodistributeitforfreeforscholarly/scientificpurposes,inparticular,therighttoself-archiveitpubliclyonlineontheWeb”(http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/copyright.html;Harnad2001/2003,n.p.).

If you ask, most journal publishers will generally release texts for self-archivingatsomestageoncethevolumeinquestionhasbeenpublished(notleastbecauseafteracertaindatejournalsalesoftendropandtheyhavenorealsalevalue);andallthemoresonowthat,asIsay,fundingbodiesareincreasinglyrequestingifnotrequiringresearcherstoincludetheirresearchinopen-accessjournalsorrepositoriesasaconditionofreceivingfunding.

Harnad’sfocusisonjournalarticlesbecausetheissueoffeesandroyaltiesmeansthat, forhim,“books ...arenot,andneverwillbe,authorgive-aways”(Harnad2001/2003,n.p.).Butthisisnotnecessarilyso.Aswehaveseen,whilethemajorityofauthorshavelittletoloseintermsofroyalty/feeincomefrompublishingopenaccess,theyhavealottogainpotentiallyintermsofincreasesinreadershipandsoon.WitnessthewayIhavealreadybeenabletociteanumberofbookswhoseauthorsandpublishershavebothagreedtomakethemavailableopenaccess(e.g.,Lessig2004;Willinsky2006).Soitisalwaysworthitforthoseroyalty/feebookauthorswhowishtopublishopenaccesstoasktheirpublisherstopermit theself-archivingof their titles, too.Especiallysincemostacademicbooksdonothavemuchlong-termsalesvalue,either.Ortheseauthorscouldsimply refuse togiveapublisherexclusivecopyrightandonly signacontractwithapressthatwillpublishtheirworkonanonexclusivebasis.(ThisiswhattheFacultyofArtsandSciencesatHarvardUniversitynowrequiresitsstafftodo,forinstance.)

Fordetailsofanumberof“authoraddendums”—thatis,lawyer-writtendocu-mentsthatauthorscan“signandstapletoapublisher’sstandardcopyrighttrans-feragreement”andthat“modif[y]thepublisher’scontracttoallowauthorstore-

notes to Chapter 123�

tainsomerightsthatthedefaultcontractwouldhavegiventothepublisher,”andsoenablethemtopublishopenaccess—seethe2June2007issueoftheSPARCOpen Access Newsletter (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/06-02-07.htm).These include, in chronologicalorder, theauthoraddendumsproduced by “SPARC (May 2005), MIT ( January 2006), Science Commons( June2006),OhioLINK(August2006),SURF-JISC(October2006)”and,mostrecently,thatadoptedbyagroupofuniversitiesmakinguptheCommitteeonInstitutionalCooperation(CIC)inMay2007(Suber2007a).

Forthosestillunsureaboutmakingsuchaproposaltotheirpublishersforwhateverreason,inJune2007SHERPA’sRoMEOservicelistedthreehundredpublishercopyrightpoliciesonself-archiving,includingthosepublisherpoliciesthat comply with funding regulations. SHERPA stands for Securing a HybridEnvironment forResearchPreservationandAccess,RoMEO forRightsMeta-dataforOpenArchiving;seehttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php.Fordetailsofthosejournalsthatexplicitlypermitauthorself-archiving,seehttp://romeo.eprints.org;andforjournalsthatspecificallyendorsetheself-archivingofthepublisher’seditedPDF,HTMLorXMLversion(asopposedtojusttheauthor’srefereedversion),see:http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php.Anotheroptionis,of course, togoalongwith the ID/OA(Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access)mandate(seen.17above).

When it comes to the “past (retrospective) literature,”Harnadwrites that:“TheHarnad/Oppenheimpre-print+corrigendastrategywillnotworkthere[al-thoughheinsiststhatthevariationonthisstrategydescribedabovewill],butastheretrospectivejournalliteraturebringsvirtuallynorevenue,mostpublisherswillagreetoauthorself-archivingafterasufficientperiod(6monthsto2years)haselapsed.Moreover,forthereallyoldliterature,itisnotclearthaton-lineself-archivingwascoveredbytheoldcopyrightagreementsatall”(2001/2003,n.p.).Indeed,somehavearguedthatitshouldbepossibletomakeallresearchpub-lishedbefore1996availableopenaccess,asprevioustothatdatenocopyrightagreementswouldincludeaclauserelatingtotheregulationofdisseminationthroughdigitalmeans.

Butevenifpublishersdorespondtosuchventuresbygettingtogetherandagreeing among themselves to try to prevent the self-archiving of either thepublished versionof texts, the refereedbutuneditedpost-prints,oreven thepreprints,ortorestrictself-archivingtointernal,institutional,noncommercialuse only—although why should they? arXiv.org has been operating for morethanfifteenyearsnowwithoutanysuchdifficulty—thereisacasetobemadeforacademicscuttingoutthemiddle-menandwomen(that is thepublishinghouses)andtakingthemeansofproductionintotheirownhandsandpublish-ingtheirworkfor,andby,themselves.Afterall,asIpointedoutearlier,academ-icsoftendonotgetpaid,eithersubstantiallyordirectly,foralotofthewriting,editorialwork,or refereeing that goes into theproductionof scholarly texts;publishersoftenget thiswork for free. (Thereareexceptions,particularly incommercialscientific,technical,andmedicalpublishing,wherepublisherscaninfactpayquitewellforeditingandevenpeer-reviewing.Still...)

There is also, of course, an argument that copyright on the net does not

notes to Chapter 1 23�

makesense.AsRichardBarbrookhasmaintained,followingTimBerners-Lee:“Technically, every act within cyberspace involves copying material from onecomputertoanother.OncethefirstcopyofapieceofinformationisplacedontheNet,thecostofmakingeachextracopyisalmostzero.Thearchitectureofthesystempresupposesthatmultiplecopiesofdocumentscaneasilybecachedaroundthenetwork.AsTimBerners-Lee—theinventoroftheWeb—pointsout:‘Conceptsofintellectualproperty,centraltoourculture,arenotexpressedinawaywhichmapsontotheabstractinformationspace.Inaninformationspace,wecanconsidertheauthorshipofmaterials,andtheirperception;but...thereisaneedfortheunderlyinginfrastructuretobeabletomakecopiessimplyforreasonsof[technical]efficiencyandreliability.Theconceptof“copyright”asexpressedintermsofcopiesmademakeslittlesense’”(Barbrook1998,n.p.).

Inthisrespect,perhapsthemostsensibledefaultstrategyofallisthatadvo-catedontheSelf-Archiving FAQwrittenfortheBudapestOpenAccessInitiative.This ispositionedasbeingthe“onethat thephysicistshavebeensuccessfullypracticingsince1991andcomputerscientistshavebeenpracticingsinceevenearlier.” It is simply “don’t-ask/don’t-tell.” Instead, self-archive your text, the“preprintaswellasyourpostprint,andwaittoseewhetherthepublishereverrequestsremoval”(Self-Archiving FAQ,writtenfortheBudapestOpenAccessIni-tiative2002–2004,n.p.).

2. Judgment and Responsibility in the Wikipedia Era1.See, forexample, JohnWillinsky’sThe Access Principle (2006).Thereare

alsonumeroussitesontheWebthatofferuseful introductions,histories,andsummaries,includingPeterSuber’sblogOpenAccessNews(availableathttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html),andespeciallyhis “OpenAccessOverview” (available at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm);andtheJuneandJuly2006issuesoftheonlinejournalFirst Monday11(6)(avail-ableathttp://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_6).Formoreonthe“digitalrevo-lution”inacademicpublishinggenerally,seeJohnB.Thompson(2005).

2.Thisanxietyandapprehensionisnotnecessarilymisplaced.Inapresenta-tiongiventoa jointBritishScienceFictionAssociation/ScienceFictionFoun-dationeventinLondonon14May2006,BruceSterlingnotedhow,whenhisstudentswanttoknowsomethingaboutaparticularsubject,theyfirstGoogleit,thenlookforitinWikipediaathttp://en.wikipedia.org.Ifitisn’tinWikipedia,theystartaWikipediaentrybeforelookingforitonTechnoratiathttp://www.technorati.comorotherWebsites.Onlyrarelydotheyturntobooks:notjustbecausetheWebcontainsmorematerial thenanynumberofpapertextscanhopetoprovide;norbecausethematerialcontainedinabookisoftenoutofdatebythetimeithasgonethroughthewholeofthepublicationandprintingprocess(althoughallofthatissometimestrue);butalsobecausetheydonotassignbooksandthescholarswhowritethemthesameauthorityasdidpreviousgenerations.AccordingtoSterling,atleast,hisstudentsdonotgivewritersau-thoritysimplybecausetheyhavecertainqualifications,orhavepublishedother

notes to Chapter 2240

authoritativetexts.Theyarenotconcernedaboutthat.Theyarejustlookingforwherethemostinterestingandexcitingworkisbeingproducedonagiventopicregardless.

Thisisnottosaytherearenohierarchiesorsystemsofaccreditationoperat-inghere,forallthatJimmyWales,founderofWikipedia,maythinkofhimselfasan“anti-credentialist.”“Tome,thekeythingisgettingitright,”heisreportedassaying,“andifaperson’sreallysmart,andthey’redoinggoodfantasticwork,I don’t care if they’re a high-school kid or a Harvard professor” (quoted inLanchester2006,18).Rather,thesehierarchiesandsystemsofaccreditation—theturntoWikipediafirst,forexample,ortheuseofTechnoratiaboveothersearchengines—areoperatingaccording to verydifferentcriteria from thoseprivilegedintheacademy.

3.Infact,asitisoneoftheprimarymeansbywhichuniversitiesandresearch-fundingagenciesandcouncilsattempttomeasurethequalityandvalueofschol-arlyworkusingmechanismssuchastheRAEintheUnitedKingdom,evenmoreimportancecanbeattachedtopeerreviewthanthis.

4.Foroneaccountofthe“valueadded”thatpublishers,andfacultyeditorialboardsinparticular,bringtotheprocessofscholarlycommunication,atleastwithregardtouniversitypresses,seeThatcher(1999).

5.Theproblemdoesnotarise inthecaseofthoseprint journalsthatalsoofferaccess toanelectroniconlineversion(whichaccordingtosomereportsamountstoalmosthalfofthejournalscurrentlyavailable),astheirauthorityandstatustendstobevouchsafedtotheironlineversions.

6.Thismimicryworksbothways.Manypaperpublicationsarenowimitatingtheirdigitalcounterparts,notinthehopeofappearingmorelegitimate,buttoacquiresomeoftheirauraofnoveltyandsexinessandtopitchideasthatareperceivedasincreasingsales.In2004JohnSutherlandreportedinThe Guardiannewspaperthat“HarperCollinsisreleasingaBlitz-barrageofitsnewlydevisedPS(MorethanaPaperback!)editions....Theideaoriginatedwiththeparapher-naliaattachedtoDVDswhere,inadditiontothefeaturemovie,thehomeviewergetsinterviews,locationshots,insidergossip,geekyfactoids.InApril’sfirstbatchof more-than-paperbacks, Douglas Coupland’s Hey Nostrodamus (fictionalisedColumbine)hasanappendixwithAbouttheAuthor(biblioinfo,Q&A,headlinereviews),AbouttheBook(reportagefromthehistoricalmassacre),aLocationFeature(whereDouglascreateshisnovels)and if-you-liked-this-you’ll-like-thatadvice”(2004,4).

7.Seehttp://www.bbc.co.uk.InBehind the Blip,MatthewFullerattributesthepredominanceofthepaperandpagemetaphors inWebdesigntothewayinwhich “the techniquesofpage layoutwereportedoverdirectly fromgraphicdesignforpaper.ThismeantthatHTMLhadtobecontainedasaconduitforchannelling direct physical representation—integrity to fonts, spacing, inflec-tions,andsoon.Theactualityof thenetworkswerethussubordinatedtothedisciplinesofgraphicdesignandofgraphicaluserinterfacesimplybecauseoftheirabilitytodealwithflatness,thescreen(thoughthereareconflictsbetweenthembasedaroundtheirrespectiveidealisationsoffunctionality).Currentlythis

notes to Chapter 2 241

isasituationthatisalreadyedgingtowardscollapseasotherdatatypesmakesincursionsinto,through,andbeyondthepage”(2003,55–56).

8.ThisisborneoutbyareportbytheKaufman-WillsGroupentitled“TheFactsAboutOpenAccess:AStudyoftheFinancialandNon-FinancialEffectsofAlternativeBusinessModelsonScholarlyJournals”(2005),inwhichmostonlinejournalsaredescribedasbeingrunonvoluntarylabor,andashavinginternalpeer-reviewsystems,poorcopyediting,inconsistentstyle,etc.

9.ForLevinas,wearealwaysconfrontedby thealterityof theOther.Thisconfrontationisbothanaccusationandasourceofourethicalresponsibility,whichiswhyethicsisinevitableandfoundational,whyitisafirstphilosophythatprecedesontology(seealsomyfourthsetofmetadata).ForLevinas,thelatterisaphilosophyofbeinginwhichtheotherisunderstoodintermsofconceptsandcategoriesthatbelongtothesame.Ontologyhereamountstoascertainingtheextent towhichtheOthercan(orcannot)berecognizedas thesame,asbeing likeme.Levinas,however, thinks ethics somewhatdifferently. Forhim,ethicsisadifferentmodeofthinkingthatcomesbeforeontology(albeitnotinalinear,temporalsense).JoannaZylinska—alsowritinginthecontextofadiscus-sionoftheethicsofculturalstudies—succinctlysumsupthisaspectofLevinas’sphilosophy: “Instead of attempting to thematize and conceptualize the otherasalwaysalreadyknown,ethicspointstotheradicalandabsolutealterityoftheotherwhichcollapsesthefamiliarorderofBeingandcallstheselftorespondtothisalterity.Thispossibility,aswellasnecessity,ofrespondingtowhatLevinasdefinesasanincalculablealterityoftheotheristhesourceofanethicalsenti-ment.Refusingtoasserttheself’sprimacy,Levinasfocusesonthevulnerabilityoftheselfwhenfacingtheother,whoisalwaysalready‘absolutelyother,’andwhocannotbefullygraspedbytheself.Thisothernesscanevokedifferentreac-tionsintheself.Buteventhoughtheothercanbeignored,scorned,orevenannihilated,heorshehastobefirstofalladdressed(respondedto)inonewayoranother”(Zylinska2005,13).

10.Seechapter1,n.17.11.SeeBellamy:“MychallengetothosethatuseDerridaorBeyorAdorno

orBourdieuwithintheirdisciplinaryframeworkstoadvanceourunderstandingofnewmedia,iscanyouenacttheideasofthesethinkersinasophisticatedwaythroughnewmedia,orcanitonlybedonethroughwritingbooksaboutbooks?IchallengeculturalstudiesandnewmediatheoriststoproduceaDerridaengineoraBourdieudatabaseoraBeyGISmap.Iamnotawareofanymajorcontribu-tionthatculturalstudieshasmadewithinthismediumbeyondusingitasapub-lishingandnetworkingmechanism,andbeyondwritinginnumerablevaluablebookstocritiqueitfromadistance.Weneedmorepeopleengagedinbuildingacademicresourceson-linethathelpustolookatthingsinnewways”(2002).Formore,see“TheMilkbarChallenge”and“CulturalStudiesandOnlineInno-vation”stringsonthefibreculturemailinglist,archivedatwww.fibreculture.org.

12.Witness,totakejustoneexample,theformatrequiredforanelectronicjournal that wishes to be selected and included in Thompson Scientific’s In-stituteforScientificInformation(ISI)WebofScience(WOS),whichclaimstocover“over16,000internationaljournals,booksandproceedingsinthesciences,

notes to Chapter 2242

socialsciencesandartsandhumanities”:“TheFormat of Electronic Journalsisex-tremelyimportanttoISI.FollowingareasetofguidelinesforElectronicJournalformats.Followingtheseguidelineshelpsinsurecorrectcitationofarticlesandreducesthepossibilityofambiguityincitationofarticles.Insurethatitiseasytoidentifythefollowingelements:

•JournalTitle •Yearofpublication •Volumeand/orIssueNumber(ifapplicable) •ArticleTitle •PageNumberorArticleNumber... •Acompletetable-of-contentsforeachissuethatincludesthepage/article

numberforeacharticle(unlessjournalisbeingpublishedassinglearti-cles).

•Labelingtheseidentifiersinbothsourcearticlesandincitationshelpsin-suretheirproperusebythosereferencingthearticleandcorrectlabelingbyabstractingandindexingfirmssuchasThomsonScientific....

“ReferencestoYourElectronicJournal:Instructauthorstoincludethefol-lowinginformationwhencitingyoure-journal:Journaltitle(useonestandardabbreviationforyourjournal;avoidacronymsthatmaybeconfusedwithothertitles);Volumenumber(ifapplicable);IssueNumber(ifapplicable;withinpa-renthesis);Pagenumberand/orarticlenumber(clearlyidentifyingthearticlenumberassuch);Yearofpublication”(“TheThompsonScientificJournalSelec-tionProcess,”availableat:http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/selectionofmaterial/journalselection.Accessed26October2006).

Interestingly,theHigherEducationFundingCouncilforEngland(HEFCE)intendstouseISI’sWOSasthedatabaseforitsResearchExcellenceFramework(REF),whichisreplacingtheRAE.

13.Forexamplesofcodework,seeMezathttp://netwurkerz.de/mez/datableed/complete/andhttp://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/netwurker.AclosereadingofthelattertextisprovidedbyKatherineHaylesinheressay“DeeperintotheMachine:TheFutureofElectronicLiterature”(2003).

A partial bibliography for Mez is available at: http://www.hotkey.net.au/~netwurker/resume2d.htm.

Formoreon“codework”ingeneral,seeRaley(2001),Sondheim(2001),whoinventedtheterm,Wark(2001),andWhite(2002).

14.Interestingly,asfarastheargumentIgoontomakeinthisbookregard-ing the importanceofdevelopingmoreopenandethicallyandpolitically re-sponsiblemodesofjudgingandassessingdigitallyreproducedscholarshipandresearch is concerned,The Institute for theFutureof theBook(http://www.futureofthebook.org)hasbaseditsargumentforamoreopenandinnovativesystemofacademicpublicationandpeerreview(andevenpeer-to-peerreview),atleastinpart,onacertainconceptionofthepublicintellectual.Inapostingontheinstitute’sif:bookblogonthesubjectofacademicblogging,RayChawrites:“Idonotmeantosuggestthateveryprofessorneedstoblog.However,onthewhole,universitypresidentsanddepartmentheads[need]toacknowledgethat

notes to Chapter 2 243

theydohaveanobligationtomaketheirscholarshipaccessibletothepublic.Scholarshipforitsownsakeoritsownisolatedcommunityhaslittleornosocialvalue.

“Therefore,thepublicuniversitywhichreceivesfundingfromthestategov-ernment,has a responsibility togiveback the results from the resources thatsocietygivesit.Further,wealsoasasocietygiveprivatehigheredschoolspro-tectivebenefits(suchasspecialtaxstatus)becausethereisanimpliedideathattheyprovideaservicetotheoverallcommunity.Therefore,onecanarguethatpartofhighereducation’sdutyincludesnotonlyteachingandscholarship,butoutreachaswell....

“Thedifficultyhasarisenbecausewithintheacademythereishistoryofacer-taindisdainthroughthosewhopursuedbecomingapublicintellectual....thewebisamuchmoredisruptiveforcethantelevisioninthisregard.Inthat,ithasdramaticallychangedhowtheuniversitypublicintellectualcanaccesspeople.Bloggingspecificallyhasloweredthebarrierofentryforacademics(andanyoneforthatmatter)tointeractwiththepublic.Now,theynolongerneedtorelyontraditionalmediaoutletstoreachamassaudience”(Cha,2006).

ButIwonder,istherenotsomethingrathermoralistic,evenneoliberal,aboutthisparticularstance?Afterall,TheInstitutefortheFutureoftheBookisnotarguingherethattechnologyshouldbeusedtoopenacademicworkuptothepubliconthegroundsthattheywanttodevelopsomekindof“gifteconomy”;noroutofthesortofbeliefthatmotivatedmanyofthosewhobecameinterestedincomputermediainthe1960s:that“informationwantstobefree.”Instead,theyappeartohaveadoptedavariationonthe“taxpayers”argument:thatitisimportantforsocietytogetvalueformoneyfromacademicsbymakingsurethelatter’sresearchisaccessibletotheoverallcommunity.Inthisrespect,aretheynot in danger of promoting ideas similar to those currently being advocatedbymanyneoliberals:thatuniversityresearchonlyhas“value”ifits“results”canimpactonandbeof“service”toprospectiveusersbeyondtheinstitution,thushelpingtobuildamoresuccessfulandcompetitivecapitalisteconomy?

15.SeeMichaelBérubé,LeBlogBérubé,availableat:http://www.michaelberube.com.

JodiDean,ICite,availableat:http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite.MelissaGregg,HomeCookedTheory,availableat:http://www.homecooked

theory.com.Ted Striphas, Differences and Repetitions, available at: http://striphas

.blogspot.com.GilRodman,RevolutiononaStick,availableat:http://www.comm.umn.edu/

~grodman/wordpress.Greg Wise, Ain’t Got Time to Blog, available at: http://jmacgregorwise

.blogspot.com.John Beasley-Murray, Posthegemony, available at: http://posthegemony

.blogspot.com.16.SeeThe Chronicle of Higher Education,28July2006.Availableat:http://

chronicle.com/free/v52/i47/47b00601.htm.FormoreonthecaseofCole,seeCha(2006).

notes to Chapter 2244

17. “Free Content” or “Free Expression” is a provisionally titled emergingmovementarguingforthesameopenprinciples tobeappliedwithregardtocontentandexpressionastheyareinFreeSoftwareandOpenSource.Justassoftwareunderthefreesoftwaredefinitioncanbefreelycopied,addedto,builtupon,reconstructed,andreconceptualized,so,too,underthisdefinition,wouldawork’scontent.SeeMöllerandHill(2006).“TheFreeContentandExpressionDefinition”ispublishedinawikithatcanbefoundat:http://freedomdefined.org/orhttp://freecontentdefinition.org.

18.Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipediaandhttp://digg.com.19.InanarticlefortheChronicle of Higher Education,Warkisquotedassaying:

“Wikipediaisbasedinsoundacademicpracticestodowithpeerreview—itjustchangeswhothosepeersare....They’renotpeoplewhoareauthorizedbyIvyLeaguedegreesoranythinglikethat.Butthere’smoreofthem,andtheyworkfaster”(J.R.Young2006).

20.IamnotgoingintodetailregardinganyoftheexamplesIamprovidinghereofthekindsoftextsthatare“borndigital.”Inordertodosoinamannerconsistentwithmyargumentinthisbookanditsemphasisonsingularityandactingtactically,Iwouldneedtorespondtothespecificityandindeedsingularityofactualtexts.Whatismore,Iwouldneedtodosowithanansweringspecificity,singularity,unpredictability,andinventivenessofmyown—inamannernottoodissimilar,perhaps(butstillnotthesame),asthewayIhaveendeavoredtore-spondtoopen-accessarchivinghere.

21.AsBenVershbowmaintainsonTheInstitutefortheFutureoftheBook’sif:bookblogwith regard towhatDouglasRushkoffapparentlycallshis “opensourcedissertation,”“[w]ritinganovelthiswayisonething,butadoctoralthe-siswill likelynotbegrantedasmuchlicense. ... it’sstill inordinatelydifficulttoconvince thesis reviewcommittees toacceptanything thatcannotberead,archivedandpointedtoonpaper.[At leastpotentially—althoughofcourseanumberofuniversitiesnowrequirethatwhataretoallintentsandpurposespa-peroratleastpapercentricthesesbesubmittedinelectronicformat.]Adisser-tationthatrequiresadigitalenvironment,whethertoemployunconventionalstructures(e.g.hypertext)ortoincorporatemultiplemediaforms,inmostcaseswillnotevenbeconsideredunlessyouwishtoturnyourthesisdefenseintoafull-blowncrusade.Yet,aspitchedasthesebattleshavebeen,whatRushkoffissuggestingwillundoubtedlybefarmoreunsettlingtoeventhemostprogressiveof academic administrations. We’re no longer simply talking about the lever-agingofnewrhetoricalformsandagradualdisentanglementofprintedpulpfrominstitutionalwarrants,we’retalkingaboutafundamentalreorientationofauthorship”(Vershbow2006,n.p.).

22.Doesmyevenputting thequestionof theresponsibleresponse todig-italacademictextsinthisfashionnothaveaperformativeaspect,inthatites-tablishesthecodeortermswithinwhichthisquestioncanbeanswered?Doesseeingdigitalpublishingintermsofitsrelationtoink-on-paperpublishingnotseverelylimitourunderstandingoftheformer?Bytaking“paper”publishingasaprivilegedreferencepointinrelationtowhiche-publishingcanbedemarcatedandelaborated,doesthisnotservetomarginalizeorexcludetheassociationsof

notes to Chapter 2 245

e-publishingwithawholehostofothertechnologicalforms,historicalprocessesand socio-politico-cultural relationships? Film, for example, or photography,video,paintinganddrawing,animation,graphicdesign,architecture,music?

23.Thatsaid,it isworthnotingthatinJanuary2004arXiv.orginitiatedanendorsementsystem.Thisrequiresnewsubmitterstosupplyanendorsement,althoughexistingsubmittersarenotaskedtodoso,oratleastnot“fortopicsinwhichtheyhavebeenactive.”Apparently,thissystemwasintroducedtocopewiththegrowthinthenumberofsubmitters,andisjustonemeansemployedbyarXiv.orginanefforttodistinguishtheparasitefromtheguestandthusen-sureits“contentisrelevanttocurrentresearchwhilecontrollingcostssowecancontinuetoofferfreeandopenWebaccesstoall”(seehttp://arxiv.org/new/.Accessed15June2007).

24.At leastoneversionof theetymologyof thewordarchiveportrays itasderiving“fromtheGreekwordarkhémeaninggovernmentororder.Foundinthewordarchitecturetheprefixmeansastartingpointorfoundingactinboththesenseofwheresomethingbegins,andalegalsenseofwhereitsauthorityisderived”(RichardsonandGoffman2006,16).

25.AnexampleisprovidedinGrahamMeikle’saccountoftheSydneyInde-pendentMediaCentre(IMC).Akey ideabehindtheIMCisopenpublishing:“There isnogatekeepingandnoeditorial selectionprocess—participantsarefreetouploadwhatevertheychoose”totheIMC’sWebsite(Meikle2002,89).ButasMeiklegoesontoacknowledgeinanendnote,“thispolicyisslightlypo-rous,however:ofnearly300storiespostedtotheendofAugust2000,forexam-ple,somefivehadbeenremovedforbeingcompletelyoff-topic.”Now,Meiklegoesontopointoutthat“eventhesestoriesarenotcompletelydeleted—theyarestillavailableonthesiteinaseparatesection”(201n.3).Nevertheless,wecanseethatthereisstillsomeelementofjudgmentinvolved,eveninexplicitlyarticulatedopenpublishing.What ismore, thiswouldbe thecaseeven if theIMChadindeedpublishedeverythingsubmittedtothem.Thiswouldstillhavebeenajudgment,adecision.

26. Behavioral and Brain Sciences (available at http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/bbs.html)ispublishedbyCambridgeUniversityPress;between1990and 2002 Psycoloquy (available at http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/psyc.html)wassponsoredbytheAmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

Regarding peer-to-peer review, Fitzpatrick says: “What if peer-review tookplacenotpriortopublicationbutontextsthathavealreadybeenmadepublic?Whatifthatpeer-reviewhappenednotanonymously,inback-channelcommu-nicationswithindividualsotherthanatext’sauthor,butintheopen,indirectcommunicationbetweenreaderandauthor?Technologiesrangingfromcom-menting to ... a more elaborated P2P system, could be made to serve manyof the purposes that current peer-review systems serve (most importantly forinstitutionalpurposes,theseparatingofwheatandchaff),butwouldshifttheprocessofpeer-reviewfromonethatdetermineswhetheramanuscriptshouldbepublishedtoonethatdetermineshowitshouldbereceived.SuchaP2Psys-temraisessomepotentialpitfalls,ofcourse—mostnotablyhowtomakesurethat

notes to Chapter 224�

thenewsystemdoesn’tsimplyremanifesttheexclusionarymannerinwhichtheoldsometimesfunctioned,throughaShirky-esque‘powerlaw’—but...suchamoveofpeer-reviewtoapost-publicationprocesswouldallowfortheongoingdiscussionandrevisionnecessarytoallscholarlythought”(2006a,n.p.).

ThisleadsFitzpatricktobequitecriticalofpeer-reviewandopenpeercom-mentaryaspracticedinthesciences.WritingintheblogofTheInstitutefortheFutureoftheBook,shereportson“theexperimentwithopenpeerreview”thatatthetimewasbeing“undertakenbythejournalNature,aswellas...thedebateaboutthefutureofpeerreview”thatwashostedbythejournal:“Theexperimentisfairlysimple:theeditorsofNaturehavecreatedanonlineopenreviewsystemthatwillrunparalleltoitstraditionalanonymousreviewprocess.

“From 5 June 2006, authors may opt to have their submitted manuscriptspostedpubliclyforcomment.

“Anyscientistmaythenpostcomments,providedthey identify themselves.Oncetheusualconfidentialpeerreviewprocessiscomplete,thepublic‘openpeerreview’processwillbeclosed.Editorswillthenreadallcommentsonthemanuscriptandinviteauthorstorespond.Attheendoftheprocess,aspartofthetrial,editorswillassessthevalueofthepubliccomments.”

Fitzpatrick deems Nature’s experiment (which has since been suspended)asa“conservativestep.”Shedoessofortworeasons,bothofwhichagainreston The Institute’s championing of their version of the idea of the public in-tellectual: “First, the journal is atgreatpains to reassureauthorsand readersthattraditional,anonymouspeerreviewwillstilltakeplacealongsideopendis-cussion.Beyondthis,however,thereseemstobearelativelackofcommunica-tionbetweenthosetwoformsofreview:openreviewwilltakeplaceatthesametimeasanonymousreview,ratherthanasapreliminaryphase,preventingau-thors from putting the public comments they receive to use in revision; andwhiletheeditorswill‘read’allsuchpubliccomments,itappearsthatonlytheanonymousreviewswillbeconsideredindeterminingwhetheranygivenarticleispublished....”

Fitzpatrick concludes that “Nature’s experiment is an honorable one, andastep in therightdirection. It is,however,aconservativestep,onethat fore-groundstheinstitutionalpurposesofpeerreviewratherthanthewaysthatsuchreviewmightbemadetobetterservethescholarlycommunity”(2006b,n.p.).

However,could thesystemofpeer-to-peerreviewFitzpatrickadvocatesnotbedescribedasbeingpotentiallyconservativeinturn?Oneofthelatter’smaingoals,forexample,seemstobeopeningupthepeer-reviewprocesstomakeitmorevisibleand includeawiderpublicof readerswhere“textsarediscussedand,insomesense,‘ranked’byacommittedcommunityofreaders”(Fitzpatrick2006b).Butagain(asinn.14above),doesallthistalkofincreasingtranspar-encyandthevisibilityoftheprocess,andofranking,nothavesomethingofafla-vorofneoliberalismaboutit?(Leaguetables,anyone?)Moreover,willthesamenothappeninsuchcasesassomepeoplearealreadyintimatinghasoccurredwithregardtomanysocialnetworkingsitesbasedonrankingsystems?Thestoryhereisthat, inthebeginning,earlyadoptersgotinvolvedandmadesomein-

notes to Chapter 2 24�

terestingandinformeddecisions.Assiteshavebecomemorepopular,however,theinfluenceofthesepeoplehastendedtobeswampedbythecrowdandthosewhoaremoreconcernedwithpromotingtheirowninterestsratherthanthoseofthesesocialnetworkingcommunities.Theresultisthatitisincreasinglythemorebanal,safe,conservativetextsthatarerankedhighest.GaryMarshallcitestheexampleofDigg.com:“Theself-proclaimed‘futureofnews’harnessesthewisdomofcrowdstoensurethatonlythemostinterestingandimportantstoriesrisetothetop....Thesedays,thenewsthatrisestothetopoftheheapisusu-ally trivial, occasionally inaccurate, and frequently followedbyflame ...warsbetweenill-informedfanboys.

“Thefutureofnews?ThesecondmostpopularWorld&BusinessstoryonDiggthisyearisSexual urges of men and women—short,badly,writtenandspec-tacularlyunfunnygagthatyou’dexpecttoreceiveinaforwardedemailfromanannoyinguncle”(Marshall2006,17).

TherealsoappearstobeanunwillingnessonFitzpatrick’sparttoassumethekindof radical responsibility Iamreferring toaroundquestionsof judgmentandauthority.WhatauthoritydothemembersofFitzpatrick’s“committedcom-munityofreaders”havetorank,peer-to-peerreview,orevencomment(otherthansomevaguenotionofdemocracyandintellectualcollaboration)?Andwithwhatlegitimacyaredecisionsmadeastowhichoftheirreviewsandcommentsaretobeincorporatedintothetext(anditssubsequentversions)anditsrecep-tionandwhicharenot?

Thepotential conservatismofFitzpatrick’s systemofpeer-to-peer review isfurtherapparentfromitsunquestionedrelianceonrelativelytraditionalconcep-tionsoftheauthorfunction,ownership,andthepublicintellectual,aswhenshewrites:“Whatthisnewsystemofpublishingandreviewimplies,however,islessamoveawayfromindividualauthorshipthanarecognitionthatnoauthorisanis-land,sotospeak,thatwe’reallalwaysworkingindialoguewithothers.Eveninaradicallycollectiveandcollaborativeelectronicpublishingsystem,theindividualauthorwouldstillexist(andwouldstillmaintainsomeformof‘ownership’overherideas,viasomemeansofCreativeCommonslicensing),butwoulddoherworkinmaterialrelationtotheworkofothers,inaprocessofdiscussionandrevisionthatnowtakesplacebehindthescenes,butthatI’dargueisimportantenoughtobemovedoutinfrontofthecurtain”(2006,n.p.).

Indeed,ratherthanaddressingtheradicalethical(andpolitical)questionsthedigitalmodeof reproductionraises for suchconcepts, theheightofFitz-patrick’sambitionoftenappears tobemerely fortheconventionalprocessofscholarlydiscussionandrevisiontobemademorevisibleandtransparent.

27.Forexample, inoneof therelatively fewdiscussionsofopenaccess tofocusonitsimplicationsprimarilyforthehumanities,LindaHutcheonproposestwosolutionstothe“crisisinscholarlypublishing”:“Thefirstisthepublicationofbookselectronically:inJuly,anannouncementwasmadethatRiceUniversityPress(whichceasedpublicationin1996)wasbeingrevivedbutwouldpublishonlyonlinebooks—peerreviewed, likeallhighquality scholarlypublications.Fordisciplineslikearthistoryandmusic,inparticular,thesavingsinthehighcostofpublishingtheirbookscouldbeimmense.Thesecondansweristhatuni-

notes to Chapter 224�

versitytenureandpromotioncommitteesinthehumanitiesshouldmoveawayfromtheprintedbookasthemeasureofsuccessandvalidatejournalarticles(inprintoronline)orelectronicbooksaswell,whenthesameprocessesofpeerreviewareinplace”(2006,n.p.).

28.Formoreonthespecificityofthedigitalmedium,seeHayles(2002,2003)andmythirdsetofmetadata,“TheSpecificityofNewMedia.”

29. In2006,BillAshraf, a lecturer inmicrobiologyatBradfordUniversity,claimedtobethefirstintheUnitedKingdomtoeliminatelecturesentirelyandreplacethemwithpodcasts(Stothart2006,1,4).ForSecondLife,seehttp://secondlife.com.

30.FormoreonWeber’swork,seeWortham(2003)andWorthamandHall(2007).

31. Weber himself gives as an example two concepts that have particularimportancewhen it comes to thinkingabouthow texts are tobe judgedandassessed,butthat,aswesawearlier, thedigitalmodeofmaterialsupportmayeffectivelychallengeandplaceinquestion.Thesearetheworkandtheauthor.HequotesRolandBarthes’“TheDeathoftheAuthor”bywayofillustration:“TogiveatextanAuthoristoimposealimitonthattext,tofurnishitwithafinalsig-nified,toclosewriting”(Barthes1968;citedbyWeber1987,xv).OtherexamplesprovidedbyWeberincludethewayinwhichtheJudeo-ChristianandPlatonictraditionofinterpretationhas“succeededinplayingthegameofinterpretationallthemoreeffectivelyfordenyingthattherewasanygamewhatsoever.Bycon-cealingitsgenealogyasinterpretationinthenamesofTruth,Being,Subjectandsoon,thetraditionsucceededinestablishingitsownauthorityanddrivingallcompetitorsfromthefield”(1987,5).

32.Culturalstudiesofcoursemayarguethatitisnotadiscipline,anddoesnotsimplydwellunproblematicallywithintheinstitution,butisinfactananti-or interdisciplinaryfield.Foradiscussionof thisclaim,andtheway inwhichculturalstudiesnonethelesscontinuestothinkofitselfintermsofspecificdisci-plinarylimits,seemyCulture in Bits(2002),especiallychapter6.Forathinkingofculturalstudiesratherdifferently,seemycommentsattheendofchapter3ofthepresentvolume,andalsomyConclusion.

33.AbrochureIacquiredonavisittoCanberrainthesummerof2006pro-motingtheNationalArchivesofAustralia(http://www.naa.gov.au)providesaready-madeexampleoftheaporiathatliesatthe“origin”ofthenationstate.Accordingtothisleaflet,“theNationalArchivesisoneofCanberra’srealgems.NestledinthetreesjustbehindOldParliamentHouse,itholdsavastcollectionofvaluableCommonwealthGovernmentrecordsincludingfiles,photos,posters,mapsandfilm.”However,apparently “themostpreciousdocument in thear-chivesisAustralia’s‘birthcertificate’—Queen Victoria’s Royal Commission of Assent.”Yetifitwasbymeansofthisdocument(alongwithAustralia’s“originalConsti-tution,”whichisalsocontainedintheNationalArchives)thatQueenVictoriawasabletoproclaimthefoundingofAustralia,wheredidsheinturnacquiretheauthoritytodoso?DoesGreatBritainhaveasimilarbirthcertificate?Andifso,wasitinturngranteditsfoundinglegitimacybyanotherauthorityexistingoutsideandpriortoitsown,aswasthecasewithAustralia?

notes to Chapter 2 24�

Forareadingofanotherfoundingnationaldocument,seeDerrida(2002b).34.CouldthisinabilitytoultimatelyforgetbewhatmotivatesHarnad’sanxi-

etywithregardtopeerreview?Forananalysisalongtheselines,seechapter3.35.Weberinfactestablishesalinkbetweensuchprofessionalizationandthe

“institutions and practices which marked the development of the humanitiesdisciplinesingeneral,andthoseofliterarystudiesinparticular”(1987,27),asthe“processofisolating,asconstitutiveoftheestablishmentofprofessionsandofdisciplines,requiresitselfanisolated,relativelyself-containedsocialspaceinwhichtooperate.Historically,thisspacewasprovidedbytheuniversity”(31).

36.Asweshallseeinchapter3,thisisnotjustconfinedtotheconsiderationofdigitaltexts.Italsoappliestoculturalstudies’relationtoits“outside”others,including:those“legitimate”disciplinesthathaveeitherbeenmarginalizedorexcludedfromculturalstudies’interdisciplinaryrepertoire;andthoseformsofknowledgethatarenot,ornotyet,regardedaslegitimate;aswellasthoseassoci-atedwithnewmediatechnologythatarenotrecognizableaslegitimateifjudgedbytherulesandconventionsofthepaperworld.

37.Forthisrelationtothe“outside”isnotjustafeatureassociatedwithelec-tronic publishing. The whole idea of the university is based on this relation,asRobertYoungmakesclearin“TheDialecticsofCulturalCriticism”(1996a).Theanxietywehavelocatedherewhenitcomestotheinstitution’sdealingwithelectronictextsisnotjustsomethingthatisproducedexternallytotheuniversitybytheoccurrenceofelectronicpublishing,then;thisanxietyispartofwhattheuniversityis.

Indeed,itisnotonlydisciplinesthathavebeensuspendedovertheaporiaofauthorityIhaveidentifiedhere.Iwouldarguethatalltheinstitutionsandprac-tices associated with the formation of knowledge—the university, the scholar,theauthor,thereader,thetext,thebookandsoon—havealwaysexistedinwhatcould be described as something of a “digital condition.” This condition hasmerelybeenintensifiedandmademoretransparentinwhatisconventionallyreferredtoas“thedigitalage.”

38.Inaninterestingarticleon“Hypercapitalism,”PhilGrahamendeavorstocapturesomethingofwhatisnewaboutthisparticularhistoricalmoment:“Whatisnewabouthypercapitalism,whatmakesitdifferentfrompastformsofsocialorganisation,isthattoday’snewmediafacilitatethealmostimmediateproduc-tion,consumption,distribution,andexchangeofvaluedcategoriesofthoughtandlanguage—knowledgecommodities—onaplanet-widescalewithamassandimmediacy that is historically unprecedented. Further, thought and languagehave themselvesbecome theprimaryobjectsofproduction,distribution, andexchangewithinthisemergentsystem”(2002a,11–12).

39.TheexampleWeberprovidesisthatoftheCollègeinternationaldephi-losophie, available at http://www.ci-philo.asso.fr/default.asp. He sees this in-stitutionasembodyingthe“attempt to institutionalizeresearchthatmightbedescribedastransgressiveinasmuchasitquestionsthedefininglimitsofthees-tablisheddisciplines”(1987,151).Forfurtherpossibleexamples,seemyCulture in Bits(2002,160n.33).

notes to Chapter 2250

Metadata II. Print This!1.SeethedebatebetweenGrossberg(1995)andGarnham(1995).2.SeeMorris(1988),McRobbie(1997)and,morerecently,duGayandPryke

(2002)andHesmondhalgh(2003).3.ArecentcollectiontitledNew Cultural Studies: Adventures in Theory,edited

bymyselfandClareBirchall(2006b),doesjustthis,exploringsomeofthenewdirections and territories currently being mapped out at the intersections ofculturalstudiesandculturaltheorybywhatwedescribeasa“post-BirminghamSchool”generationofwritersandpractitioners.New Cultural Studieslooksattheethics of Alain Badiou and Emmanuel Levinas, the post-Marxism of MichaelHardtandAntonioNegri,theschizo-analysisofGillesDeleuzeandFélixGuat-tari,theGermanmediatheoryofFriedrichKittlerandBernhardSiegert,andthebiopoliticsofMichelFoucaultandGiorgioAgamben,aswellassomeoftheareaswhereculturalstudiesisbeingmostinterestinglyreconceived,suchasRemKoolhaas’s Project on the City, and recent work around ideas of the transna-tional,thepost-human,thesecret,andtheanimal.

4.InArchive Fever,Derridaprivilegestheeffectonpsychoanalysisof“aboveallE-mail”(1996b,16).Significantly,the“mostimportantandobvious”reasonDer-ridagivesfordoingsoconcernsnotthe“majorrole”letterwritinghasplayedinthehistoryofpsychoanalysis,butrathertheeffectofe-mailon“propertyrights,publishingandreproductionrights”(1996b,17).Thisinturnrelatestoaques-tionDerridalaterraisesinparenthesesinhisessay“TheFutureoftheProfessionortheUniversityWithoutCondition”butwhichheleavesunanswered.Thisis“thequestionofthemarketplaceinpublishingandtheroleitplaysinarchivisa-tion,evaluationandlegitimationoftheacademicresearch”(2001c,25).

3. IT, Again; or, How to Build an Ethical Institution1.JustincaseIhavenotyetconvincedyouofthis,alistofthemanybenefitsof

open-accesspublishingandself-archivingisprovidedbyPeterSuber(2007b)inhis“OpenAccessOverview”athttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm.Thislistcomplementsandcanbeplacedalongsidemyown,whichIpro-videdinchapter1.MythankstoSigiJöttkandtandDavidOttinafororiginallypointingmeinthedirectionofSuber’swork.

2.Seehttp://www.sherpa.ac.uk/repositories.3.Aversionofthispaperisavailableathttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/

publications/pub_openaccess.aspx.Afurtherlistofopen-accessarchivesisavail-ableontheEPrintssiteat:http://www.eprints.org.

4.Seehttp://www.opendoar.org.5.Softwareforcreatinge-printarchivesisavailableforfreeatbothhttp://

www.eprints.org/software and http://www.dspace.org. The Online ComputerLibrary Center also provides a list of open-source software designed to helpbuild repositories and harvest data. This is available at http://www.oclc.org/research/software/default.htm.

6.WhileIamagainturningtoWeberinDigitize This Book!forhelpinthink-

notes to Chapter 3 251

ingaboutthedigitizationofthescholarlyresearchliterature,experimentinginthesensewesawWeberrefertoearlierinmyIntroduction(seen.13)alsode-scribesmyresponsetoWeber’sownwritings.Accordingly,myreadingofWeberinthisbookdoesnotcome“fullcircletoproduceaconceptofitself.”Ratherit“doublesupintoalanguagethatcannolongerbeassignedtoasingle,authori-tativespeakerortoareliable,truthfulvoice.”Inotherwords,Iamnotattempt-ingtopindownorotherwisecapturethe“meaning”ofWeber’sworkhere;nortoengagecriticallyorpolemicallywithotherinterpretationsofit;noreventoproducea“deconstructive”readingthatshowshowWeber’s textsputforwardirreconcilablepositionsthataredifferentfrom,andinmanywaysopposedto,those they are generally portrayed, or portray themselves, as espousing. I amexperimenting,byanalysisandperformance,withthewayinwhichWeber’sown“concepts...operateinasingularsituation”:inthiscase,thatofthedevelop-mentandinstitutionofaculturalstudiesopen-accessarchive.Indeed,itiswitha certain “deconstructive pragmatics” arising out of Weber’s ideas on how to(re)thinktheinstitutionofthecontemporaryuniversitythatthisbookisexperi-mentinginparticular.Weber’swritingsarethustreatedheremuchashehimselftreatsthoseofJacquesDerridaandPauldeMan:astexts“whoseimportonlyisaccessible to a reading that moves [them] elsewhere”—not least through thenotionsofrepetition,iteration,anditerabilityWeberdiscussesinanumberofbooksandarticles,amongthemhisownearlyessay“It.”

7.Indeed,theacademiceconomyisdependentforitscontinuingexistenceandoperationonacertainrelationtoheterogeneityandexcess.Iwouldthere-foreagreewithWillinskywhen,inmakingacasefortheincreaseinthecircula-tionofscholarshipthatopenaccesscanbring,hewrites:“Whatcanseemlikeanexcessivenumberofstudies—whichproducenonsignificantresults,orserveaspilotsforlargerstudies,orproveblindalleysorfalseleads—havetheirwayofcontributingtotheknowledgeinafield.Thereisnowayofpredictingwhatwill at somepoint sparkanother researcher,whatwill addamissingpiece toanother’swork”(2006,152–53).Willinsky,however,doesnotpursuetheethicalissues raisedby this aspectofhis analysis forour ideasof scholarship,knowl-edge,thediscipline,andtheinstitutionoftheuniversity,preferringinsteadtocouchhisargumentinmoralterms.See,forexample,Willinsky(2006,34)andchapter4,n.5.Alsoseechapter4formoreontherelationbetweenmoralismandpolitics.

8.Lestmyshifttothetopicofcognitioninthischapterseemalittlestrange,itisworthnotingthat,forWeberinInstitution and Interpretation,“[i]nsofarastheinstitutional roleof thehumanities is inseparable fromtheuniversity, itmustalsobeconsideredinrelationtoanelementithasoftentended,deliberatelyornot,toexcludefromitsdiscourse:thatofcognition”(1987,135).

9.Laterinhisessay,WebercitesDerrida:“This‘internalandimpurelimit’iswhatmakesiterabilitynotsimplya termdesignatinganobjectthatisself-con-tained,structuredinandofitself,butrather‘itself’amark,adividedanddeci-sivepartofamovementthatnoonetermcandecisivelydetermine,i.e.,terminate.Thisiswhythisparticulartermrefersnotsomuchtoa‘structure’astoa‘chain,

notes to Chapter 3252

sinceiterabilitycanbesupplementedbyavarietyofterms...’”(Derrida1977,210;citedbyWeber1978,9).

Indeed,iterability“mustbesubstituted”orsupplemented,forWeber,ifit“istoavoidtheparadoxicalfateofbecoming,itself,anotherformofrepetitionofthesame,evenasitseekstodelineate‘thelogicthattiesrepetitiontoalterity’”(1978,9).

10.Alongwiththefactthat,asIpointedoutinmyIntroduction(n.13),alotofthisbookfirstappearedinearlierformase-mailsandlistservpostings,thisisonemodest,“minor”wayIhaveattemptedtoavoidremainingconfinedsolelytotheprintmodeoflegitimation;andthusputthelegitimacyofmyidentityandfunctionasanauthoratriskinordertoreimagine,eveniftojustasmalldegree,myownauthorityand“scholarlyenterprise”(seechapter5).

Perhapsabettersenseofmyeffortstoassume(ratherthanrepeat)theam-bivalenceinauthoritythatmakethisbookpossiblecanbegainedbycomparingDigitize This Book! to John Willinsky’s far broader and somewhat more “prop-erly”scholarly(andthusslightlylessprovisional,speculative,andplayful)textonopenaccess,The Access Principle(2006).IsaythisforallthatWillinsky’sworkseemstomakesomethingofanodtowardthedigitalinbeingcomposed(likeadatabase?)ofanumberofshortchaptersondiscretebutrelatedsubjects(“Ac-cess,”“Politics,”“History,”andsoforth);whileDigitize This Book!iswrittenasanink-on-paperbookrepletewithanargument that takes the formofa linearlydevelopednarrative,albeita“broken”onemadeupofmultipleparts.

Granted,thereadermaythinkthisattemptonmyparttoassumesomeoftheacademicandinstitutionalambivalencethatmakesmyownauthorityandlegitimacyasanauthorpossibleisnotparticularlyremarkableorradicalbythestandardsofalotofworkinnewmedia,especiallywhencomparedtosomeofthemoreavant-gardeexperimentsIreferredtointhepreviouschapter(code-work,wikifiedtexts,andsoon).Ifso,Iwouldagree,toacertainextentatleast.Butbeforereachinganyconclusions,itisworthbearinginmindthatmyeffortstopublishanessayarisingoutofchapters2and3ofthisbookinavolumeontheworkofSamuelWebermetwithagreatdealofresistance.Thiscamebothfromoneofthepeerreviewersandalsofromoneoftheeditorsattheparticularpressconcerned,whoobjectedtoitonthegroundsthat,alongwiththe“constantself-consciousnarrative,”the“languagefeelsmoreblog-like.”

11.ThisisthemetadatacontributorstoCSeARCHareaskedtosupplytoal-lowforreasonablyefficientsearchingacrossthearchive.However,ofthese,onlythe title,author,andyearofpublicationarecompulsory; therestareentirelyoptional.Formoredetails,seemyfourthsetofmetadata,n.5.

12.Sincethen,arXiv.orghasinitiatedasystemthatrequiresnewsubmitterstosupplyanendorsement(seechapter2,n.23).

4. Antipolitics and the Internet1.See,forexample,Zylinska(2001,2002,2005,2006).Myemphasisonethics

hereconstitutesanotherimportantdifferencebetweenmyapproachandthatof

notes to Chapter 4 253

themajorityofthosewhohavewrittenonopenaccesstodate,whohavetendedtomakeacaseforopenaccessinmoralratherthanethicalterms.SeeWillinsky(2006,34)foranexample.

2. There are a number of other issues I might have raised with regard toWeber’s work. These include: how the “authorial function” is “assumed” andperformedinhiswriting,ratherthanmerely“actedout”(1987,xix),andhowitistransgressedandthoughtdifferently;aswellastheextenttowhichhisowntextscanberegardedas“institutionalpracticesofadisciplinethatassumetheambivalentdemarcationsthatmake...thempossible.”Butforeconomy’ssakeletmelimitmyselftosayingthatoneofthemostinterestingaspectsofWeber’swork is undoubtedly the stress he has placed on the importance of thinkingaboutwhathecalls“theconditionsofimposability,theconditionsunderwhicharguments,categories,andvaluesimposeandmaintainacertainauthority,evenwheretraditionalauthorityitselfismeanttobesubverted”(1987,19).

3.Formore,seeRichardPoynder’s(2007) lengthy interviewwithHarnad.ThisinterviewsituatesHarnad’sphilosophyofopenaccessinamuchwidercon-text:specificallyhisconceptionoftheevolutionofcommunicationandcogni-tion.ForHarnad,openaccessisanimportantpartoftheleaduptoafourthrevolutioninhumancognitionandcommunication,thefirstthreerevolutionsbeingthoseoflanguage,writing,andprinting.

4.ForsomeoftheproblemsofpositioningtheInternetintheseterms,seechapter5andmyreadingofMarkPoster’sessay“Cyberdemocracy:InternetandthePublicSphere.”Formoreontheissuesinvolvedinapproachingopenaccessspecificallyintheseterms,seemyConclusion.

5.Ausefuldistinctionbetweentheneoliberalandtheliberaldemocraticap-proachestopoliticshas,however,beenprovidedbyChantalMouffe.Inthefirst,which Mouffe designates as the “aggregative,” “[i]ndividuals are portrayed asrationalbeings,drivenbythemaximizationoftheirowninterestsandasactinginthepoliticalworldinabasicallyinstrumentalway.Itistheideaofthemarketappliedtothedomainofpoliticswhichisapprehendedwithconceptsborrowedfromeconomics”(2005,12–13).Inthesecond,whichshereferstoasthe“de-liberative,” theaimis toestablishaconnectionbetweenmoralityandpolitics.Advocatesof thisversionof liberalpolitics thus“wanttoreplace instrumentalrationalitybycommunicativerationality.Theypresentpoliticaldebateasaspe-cificfieldofapplicationofmoralityandbelievethatitispossibletocreateintherealmofpoliticsarationalmoralconsensusbymeansoffreediscussion”(2005,13).Politicshere,then,isunderstoodnotintermsofeconomicsbutmorality.Obviouslythelattercomesclosest todescribingtheversionsof liberalpoliticsthatwehaveseenHabermasandWillinskysubscribeto.

6. The nonrivalrous nature of digital objects has significant consequencesformorethanjustcapitalism’slogicofcommodification;italsohasimplicationsforanypresentationoftheethosofdigitalcultureandthenetintermsof“shar-ing”(thepeer-to-peersharingofmusicandvideofiles,YouTube’svideosharing,Flickr’s photosharing, and so on). “Sharing” suggests an economy whereby asingular commodity is owned and possessed by one person as their personalproperty. It is therefore a commodity that cannot be owned or possessed by

notes to Chapter 4254

someoneelseunlessitiseitherexchangedwiththemformoneyorsomeothercommodity,oradecisionistakentoactivelyshareit.However,wecannowseethatdigitalobjectsarenotnecessarilysingularcommoditiesthatcanbeownedandpossessedbyonepersonastheirpersonalpropertyinthatsense.Inmanyin-stancestheymaybebetterthoughtofas“gifts”thatcanbeownedandpossessedbymanypeoplesimultaneously,andthatcanbecopiedandchangedintonewobjectsandstored,reproduced,andgiftedagain.

The dictionarydefinitionsof“share”andgift”appeartosupport thisview.Theformerisdefinedasthe“allottedportionofsomethingownedbyordistrib-utedamongseveralpeople,”andthelatteristhe“thinggiven;actionofgiving”and“somethingextremelyeasytoobtain.”

7.Barbrookassociates thepotlatch, the circulationofgifts,with “tribes inPolynesia”inthe“TheHigh-TechGiftEconomy.”However,thepotlatchritualismoreusuallyassociatedwiththenativepeoplesofthePacificNorthwestCoastofNorthAmerica.

8.TribeandJanaattempttopositionNewMediaartasoneofthe“fewhis-toricallysignificantartmovementsofthelate20thcentury”(TribeinQuaranta2006).Todosotheyapproachitpreciselyintermsofpreestablishedframeworksofknowledgeandmethodsofanalysis:theyunderstandandinterpretNewMe-diaartintermsderivedfromtheartmovementsofthepastsuchasDadaandConstructivism,ofwhichNewMediaart for them ismerelyanother instance.“Thedefiningcharacteristicsofartmovements,inmyview,are:self-definition(theartiststendtouseacommonterm,orsetofcompetingterms,tonametheirpractice); the existence of dedicated organizations, venues, publications, anddiscoursenetworks;andacommonsetofartisticstrategiesandconcerns”(TribeinQuaranta2006).

9.Fulltranscriptsofboththe“good”and“bad”adsareavailableat:http://www.duncans.tv/2006/aol-internet-discuss. Accessed 16 June 2007. Copies ofboth ads are available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/?v=EfYVMr_hJ40.Accessed16June2007.

10.Huffington’sownblog,The Huffington Post,canbefoundathttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington.Accessed8October2006.Foradiffer-enttakeontherelationbetweenbloggingandjournalism,seeLovink(2006).

11.RupertMurdoch,inaspeechgiventotheWorshipfulCompanyofSta-tioners andNewspaperMakerson13March2006, reported inOwenGibson(2006,5).Morerecentreportshaveindicatedthatthenumberofnewblogsmaynow have reached a plateau, and even gone into decline—especially as mostblogshaveashortlifespan,withrelativelyfewstillbeingregularlyupdatedmorethansixmonthsaftertheirinitialappearanceonline.

12.See“TheAbuGhraibPrisonPhotos,”Anti-war.com,16February2006,available at: http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444. Accessed 7 May2006.

Interestingly,theUnitedStatesarmytolditspersonneltostoppostingvideoclips on the Web after it was revealed that soldiers were swapping images ofdeceasedIraqisontheNowthatsfuckedup.comsitefornudepicturesofotherpeople’sgirlfriends.Morerecently,thePentagonhasgonesofarastointroduce

notes to Chapter 4 255

newrulesrequiringallmilitarybloggerstosubmittheirentriestotheirsupervis-ingofficersforclearancebeforeposting.

13.SeeIlluminations: The Critical Theory Project,availableat:http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations.

14. See http://www.moveon.org, http://www.internationalanswer.org, andhttp://www.unitedforpeace.org.

15.IntheUnitedKingdomtheleaderoftheConservativeParty,DavidCam-eron,recentlylaunchedaWebsiteofvideoblogsmodelledonYouTubecalled“webcameron,” available at: http://www.webcameron.org.uk. Even more re-cently,aftertheNovember2006DemocraticvictoryintheUnitedStatesmidtermelections—whichDeaniscreditedashavingplayedalargepartinthroughhisrevolutionizingofhisparty’scampaigningtechniques—theBritishLabourPartyisreportedtohaveengagedDeantodosomethingsimilarforthem.

16.Seehttp://www.apple.com/itunes/download.17. See http://www.myspace.com, http://www.youtube.com, http://www

.flickr.com,http://www.facebook.com,andhttp://www.bebo.com.Ratherthanthemanagersofthesesitescreatingastandardtaxonomyofla-

belsandcategories,usersareabletocategorizethecontentsthemselvesinanywaytheywish;thesetagsarethenadoptedbythegrouporreplacedbyothermorepopular,useful,orprovocativeones.

18. For a $15-per-month subscription, for instance, YouTube has made alimitedversionofitsWebsiteavailableforuseonVerizonWirelessphonesviaaservicecalledVCast.

19.Seehttp://snubster.com.20.Thatsaid, it is importantnot topresent theneoliberalglobaleconomy

asbeing“drivenexclusivelybytheinformationrevolution.”AsChantalMouffemakesclear,doingsowoulddepriveneoliberalglobalization“ofitspoliticaldi-mension”andpresentitas“afatetowhichweallhavetosubmit”(2000,119).

21.JodiDeanprovidesherownvariationonthisthemein“CommunicativeCapitalism,”sketchingtheoscillationsinthe1990sdebateoverthecharacteroftheInternetasfollows:“Inthedebate,Internetusersappearedeitherasengagedcitizenseagertoparticipateinelectronictownhallsandregularlycommunicatewiththeirelectedrepresentatives,ortheyappearedasweb-surfingwaste-of-livesindark,dirtyroomsdownloadingporn,bettingonobscureInternetstocksorcollectingevidenceoftheUSgovernment’sworkwithextraterrestrialsatArea51(Dean1997).Inotherversionsofthissamematrix,userswereeitherinnocentchildrenordreadfulwar-gameplayingteenageboys.GoodinteractionswereonAmazon.Badinteractionswereundergroundandinvolveddrugs,kiddieporn,LSDandplutonium”(2005,68).

22.RobertYounghastracedthehistoryofthedialecticalstructureofculturalcriticism through the work of Baudrillard, Jameson, Said, Lyotard, and Lévi-Strauss,toasfarbackinthepastasArnold,Coleridge,andBurke(1996a).

Iwillreturntosaymoreaboutthewayinwhichbothofthese“sides”areim-plicatedineachotherastheirconditionsofpossibility,andtoprovideaspecificexample,inmyConclusion.

notes to Chapter 425�

23.Seehttp://creativecommons.org.24.Tobesure, it isoftenhardtosee justwhatyetanothermediaandcul-

turalstudiesreadingofafilmorTVprograminthesetermsislikelytoachieve.Thatsaid,theattemptwithinmediaandculturalstudiestoshiftawayfrommerenegativecritiquehasatendencytoleadtoanoftenuncriticalmovementfromanalysesof theallegedlyoutdated issuesof identity and representation toex-plorationsofthemediaintermsofthesupposedlymoreup-to-dateconceptofaffect(understoodsomewhatreductively).Unlessitisaccompaniedbyarigor-ousconsiderationofthehistoricalandconceptualaspectsofthisshift,however,thismovementfromnegativecritiquetotheaffirmativepossibilitiesassociatedwithaffectalltoofrequentlyendsuprepeatingthesamekindofstructuresandproblemsitissupposedtoprovideameansofleavingbehind.

25.Formoreonsomeof thedifferencesbetweenmypositionand thatoftacticalmediaasoutlinedbyGarciaandLovink,seechapter5.

26.AsBassettfurthernotes:“Many,liketheunfortunateelectronicZapatis-tas,havehadtheirmomentinaculturalstudiessunthat,atitsworst,doesmoretowarmthosewhostudyformsofresistance,thanitdoestocontributetoamove-ment.Thisworks theotherwayaround too, since, in so far as contemporarymediumtheoryandmediumpracticelionisethe‘processualaspolitical,’itisindangerofrepeating,albeitintheregisterofmediumspecificityratherthaninrelationtomedia‘content,’bothculturalstudies’oldfondnessfortheromanceof resistanceand its incapacity to register the limitsof this resistance.This isneither to disparage theory or tacticalism/hactivism. It is to question certainpresumedconnectionsbetweentheoryand(creative)practice”(2006,234).

The emphasis Garcia and Lovink place on hybridity as a way of breakingdownandmovingbeyondsuchdichotomiesdoesnotprovideameansofelud-ing such problems. “One of the most well trodden of tactical routes remainshybridisation,”theywrite,“connectingoldwithnew,thestreetandthevirtual....TakingthisrouteweinevitablyarriveatthedialecticfreezoneofEurope’snewpolitics”(GarciaandLovink1999,n.p.).Yetasweknowfrompost-colonialtheory,hybdriditycanbeanextremelyproblematicconcept.Istherenotariskhere,forexample,ofGarciaandLovinksuggestingthatbeforetheybecomehy-brid,theseelements—new,old,street,virtual,artist,scientist,technician,crafts-person, theorist,politicalactivist,andsoforth—are stable, self-identical,pure,somehownon-hybrid;andthusofhybridity,likepluralism,maintainingtheveryidentityoftheelementsthatitissupposedlybeingemployedtochallenge?

InthisrespectIamalsosomewhatwaryofGarciaandLovink’sclaimthatbytakingsucharoutetheywill“inevitablyarriveat[a]dialecticfreezone.”Thisisquitesimplynotpossible.AsIhaveshownelsewherewithananalysisofHardtandNegri’sEmpire (2000),totrytoreplacethedialecticwithanew,nondialecti-calalternativeistoremaincaughtinthedialectic.ThisiswhyDerridainsistshehas“neveropposedthedialectic.Beitoppositiontothedialecticorwaragainstthedialectic,it’salosingbattle.Whatitreallycomesdowntoisthinkingadia-lecticityofdialecticsthatisitselffundamentallynotdialectical”(Derrida2001a,33;citedbyG.Hall2006,42).

notes to Chapter 4 25�

Another way of thinking about this—one that would perhaps be more ef-fective, tactically,giventhatGarciaandLovink’s tacticalmediahasbeenposi-tionedasanattempttofollowDeleuze’sdictum“Experiment,neverinterpret”thatmight“freeitselffromthedialectic”—isofferedbyDeleuze’s“PostscriptontheSocietiesofControl” (1992).For, toparaphraseDeleuze, ifweareactingasifwearefreeofthedialectic,buttheresultofthisfreedomiscaughtinthedialectic,thenthereisclearlysomethingwrongwithournotionofbeingfreeofthedialectic.

27.In2004Kurtz,whowasworkingonaprojecttodemystifyissuesaroundgerm warfare, was arrested and accused by the United States governmentofbioterrorism,althoughthegovernmenthasbeenunabletoproduceanyevi-dencetothiseffect.

28.Forinstance,somepeoplehaverecentlyarguedthereisapossibilitythatthetacticalmediaapproachmaycontinuetobevalidinotherplaces,suchasBrazilandIndia,wherebycomparisonthestate’sabilitytoco-optsuchtacticsofresistanceisrelativelyweakandthereisstillasenseofleftistpoliticalpossibilityandurgency.SeeCaetano(2006),andtheensuingdiscussionthread,archivedathttp://www.nettime.org.

29.Forexample,LovinkhasalreadyraisedmanyofthepointsIoutlineaboveconcerning the marginal, subcultural nature of tactical media in a 2002 textwrittenwithFlorianSchneiderthatappearsalmostasaprecursortoDean’sanal-ysisof“communicativecapitalism”:“Whatcomesafterthesiegeofyetanothersummit of CEOs and their politicians? How long can a movement grow andstay ‘virtual’? ... Today’s movements are in danger of getting stuck in self-satisfyingprotestmode....Thestrategyofbecoming‘minor’(Guattari)isnolongerapositivechoicebutadefaultoption. ...What if informationmerelycirclesaroundinitsownparallelworld?What’stobedoneifthestreetdemon-strationbecomespartoftheSpectacle?...Acriticalreassessmentoftheroleofartsandculturewithintoday’snetworksocietyseemsnecessary.Let’sgobeyondthe ‘tactical’ intentions of the players involved. The artist-engineer, tinkeringon alternative human-machine interfaces, social software or digital aestheticshaseffectivelybeenoperatinginaself-imposedvacuum.Scienceandbusinesshavesuccessfullyignoredthecreativecommunity.Worsestill,artistshavebeenactivelysidelinedinthenameof‘usability.’...Theyoungergenerationisturn-ingitsbackonnewmediaartsquestionsandifinvolvedatall,operateasanti-corporateactivists”(LovinkandSchneider2002,n.p.).

Foroneattemptatamoredetailedandhospitablereadingoftacticalmedia(verymuchinrelationtonotionsofresponsibility),seeStacey(2006).Staceyhasalsodrawnattentiontosomeoftheambivalenceandambiguityoftacticalmedia,especiallyinrelationtothedichotomytheylocatewithstrategyindeCerteau,ar-guingthat:“[T]hemostinterestingthingaboutthetheoryoftacticalmedia...istheextenttowhichitabandonsratherthanpayshomagetodeCerteau.Thisisparticularlyappositetothewayitdevelopsthenotionoftacticalityitself,making‘tactics’notasilentproductionbyreadingsignswithouttransformingthem,butoutliningthewaysinwhichactiveproductioncanbecometacticalincontrasttostrategic,mainstreammedia”(Stacey,unpublishedcorrespondence).

notes to Chapter 425�

30.Barbrook’svisionoftheradicalacademicgifteconomyoperatingwithinuniversitiesisitselfinmanyrespectsalreadyanoldone.Willinsky,forexample,referstoa1942essaybythesociologistRobertMertoninwhichthelatterwasalreadypointingout“how‘“communism,”inthenon-technicalandextendedsenseofcommonownershipofgoods,’wasintegraltothescientificethos”(Wil-linsky2006,41;citingMerton1968,610).

31.Dean’sbibliographycontainsnoreferencestoanyofGramsci’swritings,whileitcontainsonetextbyLaclauandanotherbyLaclauandMouffe.FormoreontherelationofculturalstudiestotheworkofLaclauandMouffe,seeValen-tine(2006)andBowman(2007).

Iwouldliketostressthatmydiscussionofhegemonyandpost-hegemonyinthischapterisnotintendedasanengagementwiththepoliticaltheoryofLaclauandMouffe(oranyoftheotherreadingsofGramsciandofhegemonythathavebeenprovidedfromwithinculturalstudiesforthatmatter,mostnotablybyStu-artHall).MyfocusisratheronthesenseinwhichDeanunderstandsthepoliti-calin“CommunicativeCapitalism.”ForDean,here—verymuchcontratacticalmedia,aswehaveseen—“[s]pecificorsingularactsofresistance,statementsofopinionorinstancesoftransgression,”nomatterhowmanyormultipletheyare,“arenotpoliticalinandofthemselves;rather,theyhavetobepoliticized,thatisarticulatedtogetherwithotherstruggles,resistancesandidealsinthecourseorcontextofoppositiontoasharedenemyoropponent”(2005,57).

32.This iswhythesituationofcommunicativecapitalismcannotbedesig-natedaspolitical, forDean;notevenasadifferentkindofpoliticstothatas-sociatedwithherreadingofLaclauandMouffe’stheoryofhegemony.AsDeanrecognizespoliticssolelyintermsofhegemonicandcounter-hegemonicstrug-gleitcanonlybe“post-political.”

33.Myargumentregardingpost-hegemonyisthussomewhatdifferentfromthatofJohnBeasley-Murray,forinstance,whoalsousestheterm.SeeBeasley-Murray (2001); and also his Posthegemony: Hegemony, Posthegemony, and Related Mattersblogathttp://posthegemony.blogspot.com.ForBeasley-Murray,wearecurrently in a post-hegemonic condition. He cites as visible symptoms of thisfact:theendofideologytoday;theshiftthathastakenplacefrom(conscious)discourseto(unconscious)affect;andthecomingtotheforeofthemultitudeastheprivilegedsubjectofsociety.AsfarasIamconcerned,however,Beasley-Murray’sgrandnarrative is in itsownwayasantipoliticalasDean’s regardingpost-politics.Here,too,adecisionisbeingmadeinadvance:inthiscasethatwearemostdefinitelynowinapost-hegemoniccondition;andthat,consequently,whateverthenatureofaparticular“concrete”situation,itcanalwaysbestbeana-lyzed,understood,andrespondedtointermsofwhatBeasley-Murrayreferstoaspost-hegemony.Forme,thisappearstobetoomuchtheproductofBeasley-Murray’sownaffectiveinvestmentsandwilltopower-knowledgetobeconvinc-ingasanexplanationofthecontemporaryconjuncture.WhatIamarguingisthatthecontemporaryconjunctureneedstobesubjecttomuchmorecarefulandrigorousanalysis;analysisthatremainsopentothepossibilitythat,yes,wemayhaveenteredapost-hegemoniccondition,at least inthesenseIhavede-scribed,butalsothatwemay not have ;andthatoperatesonthebasisthatthe

notes to Chapter 4 25�

decisionastowhetherornotaparticular“concrete”situationcanbebestana-lyzed,understood,andresponded to in termsofhegemonicconflictand thearticulationofstrugglestogetherwithotherstrugglesneedstobetakenasre-sponsibilyaspossible,andcertainlynotdecidedinadvance.

(The 2007 issue of Theory, Culture, and Society, which also discusses post-hegemony,appearedtoolateformetoengagewithithere.SeeTheory, Culture, and Society24[3][May].)

34.Withoutdoubt itmightmake thingsawhole loteasier ifpolitics couldconfirmtothatofthepast,andwecouldalluniteinhegemonicstruggle.Thequestionis,ispoliticsofthiskind(always)possibletoday?Wasiteven(always)possibleinthepast?

35.TowardthebeginningofDark Fiber,GeertLovinkprovidesalistthatin-cludesFriedrichKittler,SiegfriedZielinski,JeanBaudrillard,PaulVirilio,AvitalRonell,VilémFlusser,andPeterWeibel(1996,24).

36.Wecansee thiseven inrelatively sophisticatedattempts toanalyze thehorizontal,decentralizednetworksoftheInternetintermsofGillesDeleuzeandFélixGuattari’s(currentlyhighlyinfluential)philosophyofimmanence,affect,deterritorialization,linesofflight,andsoonfromthe1980s.

Matthew Fuller provides a recent instance in Behind the Blip (2003). HereDeleuzeandGuattari’sbookWhat Is Philosophy?(1994)isusedas“anexampleofwheretheoreticalworkpresentsuswithanopportunitytogofurther”(Fuller2003,18),atthesametimethatitisacknowledgedthatelectronicmediaconsti-tutessomethingofablindspotor“blockage”whenitcomestofindinga“use-abletheorisationofmedia” inDeleuzeandGuattari’swork.Fuller locatesthe“beginningsofauseful[interestingthisobsessionwithusefulness,asweshallseeinthechapterthatfollows]theorisationofelectronicmedia”(2003,34n.22)inGuattari’s“Regimes,Pathways,Subjects”(1996),andinthechapter“MachinicHeterogenesis”inGuattari’sChaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm(1995).

Metadata III. The Specificity of New Media1.IftheshiftsidentifiedbyOng(1982)andMcLuhan(1964)fromoralto

written cultures, and then from literacy to printing, are two such periods of“drastic technologicalchanges,” then the transformation fromprint todigitalwearecurrentlyexperiencingisunquestionablyathird.

Others have identified further moments of transformation that could beaddedtothisthree-partmodel.Theyinclude“theinventionofthecodex,which,inthefirstcenturiesofthecommonera,enabledthetransitionfromthebookwhichoneunrollstotheoneinwhichoneturnspages...;theinventionofthe‘author’inthefourteenthandfifteenthcenturies...;theinventionofcopyright...intheeighteenthcentury”(Chartier1997,11).

2. The latest to do so is the ARHC. See http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php.Accessed10September2007.

3.Ihavearguedthattheethosofdigitalcultureandthenetmayoftenbebet-terthoughtofintermsof“gifting”than“sharing.”Seechapter4,n.6.

notes to metaData i i i2�0

4.Whenitcomestodigitalculture,Poster isbynomeansaloneinhavingsuch ideas. Many people have put forward similar hypotheses. These includetheGermanOekonuxdebateof2000–2002(http://www.oekonux.org),whichattempted to develop the principles involved in the production and distribu-tionoffreesoftwareintoaplanfortheorganizationofsociety(seeLovinkandSpehr2006).BrianHolmes’sslogan“opensourcefortheoperatingsystemsoftheearth,”andtheassociateddiscussionof“opensourceasametaphorfornewinstitutions”inWainwrightetal.(2007);aswellasMichaelHardtandAntonioNegri’spositioningof thedecision-makingcapacityof themultitudeasanalo-goustothecollaborativedevelopmentoftheopen-sourcemovement,andtheirarguingtowardtheendofMultitudefora“societywhosesourcecodeisrevealedsothatwecanallworkcollaboratively tosolve itsbugsandcreatenew,bettersocialprograms”(HardtandNegri2004,340).

5.KathleenFitzpatrickofTheInstitutefortheFutureoftheBookisjustoneofthosewhohasarguedforthedevelopmentofasystemofpeer-to-peerreview(2006a).Seealsochapter2,n.26.

6.Aswasmadeclearinchapter1,therearesignificantdivergencesevenwithinpeer-to-peerfilesharing,notleastbetweenthosenetworksthatare“pure”orde-centralized,thosethataresemi-centralized,andthosethatarecentralized.

7. For example, one cannot simply transfer the situation regarding openaccess in the academy over to the decentered electronic distribution of filmsandarguethatallfilmsshouldbegivenawayforfree,too.Thatwouldraiseanumberofdifficultpolicy-relatedquestions, suchas thatconcernedwithhowthoseinvolvedinthemakingoffilmscanearnthemoneytoenablethemtodosoandmakealiving.Issuesofthiskinddonotariseinthecaseofthemajorityofacademics,sincetheytendtobeemployedtocarryoutresearchbytheirinstitu-tions.Whichisnottosaythattheproblemofdevelopingafuturefundingpolicyforcreativelaborerscannotberesolved,nomatterhow“precarious”theirwork;justthatitcannotnecessarilyberesolvedinthesamewayinthecaseoffilmpro-ductionanddistributionasitcanfortheopen-accesspublicationofacademicscholarshipandresearch.

8.Toprovidejustacoupleofbriefexamples:incontrasttomostotherin-stancesofWeb2.0,Wikipediaiscontrolledandrunbyanonprofitorganization(theWikipediaFoundation),isfundedprimarilythroughprivatedonations,andreleasesitscontentundertheGNUGeneralPublicLicense.MuchofWeb2.0,includingWikipediathis time, tendstobedifferentagainfrommanypeer-to-peerfile sharingnetworks,especially those thatarepeer-runandpureorde-centralized in form,as the latteraredistributed,commons-basedsystemsthatarenotownedorcontrolledbyanyone(butrathereveryone).Thisiswhymoreinstancesoftheformerthanthelatterhavebeenturnedintoacommodityandboughtandsold(seechapter4).Indeed,somehavegonesofarastocharac-terizeWeb2.0as“capitalism’spreemptiveattackagainstP2Psystems”:“SuccessstoriesofthetransitionfromWeb1.0toWeb2.0werebasedontheabilityforacompanytoremainmonolithicinits...ownershipofthatcontent,whileopen-ingupthemethodofthatcontent’screationtothecommunity....EBayallows

notes to metaData i i i 2�1

thecommunitytosellitsgoodswhileowningthemarketplaceforthosegoods.Amazon... succeededbyallowingthecommunitytoparticipate inthe‘flow’aroundtheirproducts.

“...ThemissionofWeb2.0istodestroytheP2Paspectoftheinternet.Tomake you, your computer, and your internet connection dependent on con-nectingtoacentralisedservicethatcontrolsyourabilitytocommunicate.Web2.0istheruinoffree,peer-to-peersystemsandthereturnofmonolithic‘onlineservices’”(KleinerandWyrick2007,14–15,18).

9.Seehttp://secondlife.comandhttp://www.habbo.com.10. Similarly, for all the broader cultural connotations associated with the

term“opensource”inparticular,therelationsofproductionanddistributionas-sociatedwithpeer-to-peernetworksarenotnecessarilyappropriateorapplicabletoculture,orevendigitalculture,ingeneral.Theopen,distributed,participa-tory,cooperativemodelworkswellforsomethings,lesssoforothers.Ithasbeenarguedthatfreesoftware,forinstance,“hasitsstrengthinbuildingsoftwarein-frastructure:kernels,filesystems,networkstacks,compilers,scriptinglanguages,libraries,web,fileandmailservers,databaseengines.Itlagsbehindproprietaryofferings ... in conventionaldesktoppublishingand videoediting, and, as aruleofthumb,inanythingthatisn’thighlymodularizedorusedalotbyitsowndevelopercommunity....

“Similarrulesseemtoapplytofreeinformation,respectively‘OpenContent’development.Themodelworksbestforinfrastructural,general,non-individual-isticinformationresourceswithWikipediaandFreeDB(andlatelyMusicBrainz)asprimeexamples”(Cramer2006,n.p.).

11. This is a reference to, and play on, N. Katherine Hayles’s notion of a“media-specificanalysis”(seeHayles2002,106;andmyfirstsetofmetadata).Formoreon“thesingularityofnewmedia,”seemyfourthsetofmetadata.

12.AsHayleswriteswithregardtothedatabase:“Adatabasecontainsonlydata that is known and instantiated in a particular form. It does not containother information expressed in modes of organization foreign to its specificstructure.”Interestingly,fromthepointofviewofmyargumentinchapters2and3,Haylesproceedstoadd,“nordoes[thedatabase]containanythingcur-rently thoughtbutunknown inparticular,orevenmorerevealingly,anythingthatisbothunthoughtandunknown”(2005,n.p.).

Thisargumentalsoappliestostandardsforpreparingmetadata,suchasthatissuedbytheOpenArchivesInitiative,sothattextscanbeeasilyindexedandsearchedacrossarangeofopen-accessarchives,journals,anddatabases.Thesestandards,too,areneverneutral:thespecificwaysinwhichmetadataisselected,organized,andpresentedhelpstoproduce(ratherthanmerelypassivelyreflect)what isclassifiedas legitimatescholarship—andevenmoreimportant,what isnot.ThefantasyofhavingoneplacetosearchforscholarshipandresearchsuchasaUniversalSearchEngineoraGlobalArchiveorVirtualLibraryoffullyin-tegrated,indexed,linked,andjointlysearchableacademicworkmustthereforeremainpreciselythat:a(totalizingandtotalitarian)fantasy.

Thisiswhy,whenitcomestouploadingmaterialintoCSeARCH,contribu-

notes to metaData i i i2�2

torsareaskedtosupplyonlyaminimumamountofmetadata,withauthorsbe-ingfreetoindextheirsubmissionshowevertheywish(seemyfourthsetofmeta-data,n.5,formore).ItisalsowhyIarguethatstandardsforpreparingmetadatashouldbegeneratedinapluralityofdifferentwaysandplaces.Inotherwords,ratherthanadheringtothefantasyofhavingonesingle,fullyintegratedglobalarchive—even if this ismadeupof ahostofdistributed, interoperable,OAI-compliant repositories that can all nevertheless be centrally harvested andsearched(seen.14below)—Iwouldargueinsteadforamultiplicityofdifferentandattimesalsoconflictingandevenincommensurableopen-accessarchives,journals,databasesandotherpublishingexperiments.

13.Thisisanotherwayofreadingmyearlierclaiminchapter2thatacademicauthorityisalready digitized;thatitisinasensealwaysalreadyinasimilarcondi-tiontothatwhichisbroughtaboutbytheprocessofdigitization.

14.ThisisStevanHarnad’sargument.Harnadhasrecentlyadvocatedthatalluniversitiesmakeitmandatoryforstafftodeposittheirresearchininstitutional(OAI-compliant)open-accessrepositories.Hehasdonesobecauseof the lowrate of deposit to central, subject-based open-access archives. “The trouble isthat—exceptwheremandated—mostfacultyare‘not’depositingtheirarticlesontheirWebpagestoday,andonlyafewsub-disciplinesaredepositinginCRs[CentralRepositories].HenceOAisonlyatabout15%....

“Right now, the only two CRs with any appreciable content—Arxiv andPubMedCentral—certainlydohave‘highercommunitysalience’thanIRs[Insti-tutionalRepositories],sinceIRsaremostlyempty.ButInstitutionsneedmerelymandatedepositingandthe‘salience’oftheirIRswillsail,alongwiththesizeoftheircontents”(Harnad2007c,n.p.).

Ofcourse,forHarnad,noopen-accessrepositoryneedbeconsideredinsig-nificant,regardlessofhowfewdepositsitcontains.OAIcomplianceandinter-operabilitymean thatamultitudeofdistributedrepositories—both largeandsmall—canbeindexedandlinked,sothattheircontentscanbelocatedbyallthemainharvestersandsearchengines,includingOAIster(http://www.oaister.org), ROAR (http://roar.eprints.org), and Google (Scholar) (http://scholar.google.com),toformwhatisineffectone“global,”“virtualarchive”ofjointlysearchableacademicwork.Indeed,asfarasHarnadisconcerned:“Inourneweraofdistributed,OAI-interoperableInstitutionalRepositories(IRs),allarchives(IRs)areequalandthereisnoneedfor,noranyaddedbenefitwhatsoeverfromdepositinginacentralarchivelikethephysicsArxiv(whichisnowmerelyoneoftheweb’smanydistributed,interoperableOAIarchives,allbeingharvestedbycentralharvesters).Centralharvestingandsearchisthekey,notcentraldeposit-ingandarchiving.

“Onthecontrary,havingtofoundandmaintainadifferentcentralarchiveforeveryfieldandeverycombinationoffieldswouldnotonlybearbitraryandwasteful in the era of central harvesting and search, but it would also be animpedimentratherthanahelp ingettingall thedistributeduniversities(andresearchinstitutions)togetalltheirresearcherstofillalltheirownIRs,inalldisciplines,bymandatingandmanaging it, locally. (UniversityResearchInsti-

notes to metaData i i i 2�3

tuteoutputcoversallofresearchspace,inalldisciplines,andallcombinationsofdisciplines.)”(Harnad2007d,n.p.).

ForHarnad,then,thesolutiontotheproblemofthelowrateofdepositinmostsubject-basedarchivesisverymuchtheintroductionofinstitutionalman-dates.And,asIsay,ofthosecurrentlyavailableHarnadconsiderstheImmedi-ate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) mandate proposed and recommendedbytheEuropeanResearchAdvisoryBoardtobebyfarthebest(seechapter1,n.17).

OneconcernIhavewiththisparticularstrategyisthatIsuspectthemajor-ity of IRs will find it difficult to address the radical ethical or political issuesthatareraisedbydigitization,forpreciselythekindofreasonstodowiththemaintenanceofacademicandinstitutionalauthorityandlegitimacyIhavebeendiscussinginthisbook.Thisispartlywhy,whenitcametoCSeARCH,adecisionwastakentoexperimentwithbuildingasubject-basedarchiveratherthananin-stitutionalone:notjustbecausethepotentialimpactofalocalrepositorywouldlikelyberestrictedtoanindividualinstitutionandthussomewhatnarrowerbycomparison(asmyfourthsetofmetadatamakesclear,oneoftheideasbehindCSeARCHhasbeentoplacetheacademicinstitutionorcommunity,oratleastthatpartofitassociatedwithculturalstudies,inapositionwheretheyarecalledontorespondandtomakeethicalandpoliticaldecisionsinthisrespect);butalsobecauseitseemeditwouldbeeasierforasubject-basedarchive—andforaculturalstudiesarchivespecifically(seebelow)—tobringtoattentionandtakeon,ratherthanmerelyactout,suchradicalethicalandpoliticalissues.

WhichisnottosayitisimpossibleforIRstodoso.PartofwhatIamtryingtosuggestindifferentwayswithDigitize This Book!andCSeARCHisthatinterestingandresponsibleethicalandpoliticaldecisionsarepossibleinrelationtobothdis-ciplinaryandinstitutionalrepositories(ordisciplinaryrepositorieswithinuni-versities),ifonlytheopportunitypresentedbydigitizationandopenaccesscanbetaken.ThisisanotherreasonIhaveoftenreferredto“open-accessarchives”hereratherthancontinuallydistinguishingbetweensubjectordisciplinaryar-chivesandlocalinstitutionalrepositories(seemyIntroduction,n.29).

15.Foroneversionof thestoryconcerningthedifficulties involvedinthearchivingofDerrida’sownwork,seeBartlett(2007).

5. HyperCyberDemocracy1. This is the distinction Richard Rorty proposes in Contingency, Irony and

Solidarity(1989).2. JenniCambeganasan“experiment”by twenty-year-old student Jennifer

Ringleyin1996.Thesiteoperatedforsevenyearsfrom1996to2003andbecameextremelypopular.Atonestage,accordingtoRingley,itwasreceiving100mil-lionhitsaweek.

3.ThisishowMartinListeretal.presentitwhentheywriteaboutthepre-WebInternet(whichis,ofcourse,whatPosterwasconcernedwithin“Cyberde-mocracy”)intheirNew Media: A Critical Introduction:“Theessentiallyparticipa-

notes to Chapter 52�4

toryandinteractiveelementsofthepre-webInternetclearlysuggestattractivehomologieswithHabermas’sdescriptionoftheidealisedpublicsphere.News-groups,bulletinboardsandemailgroupsallhavethefacilitationofgroupcom-munications as their technological raison d’être.... The pre-web Internet wasessentiallyaboutdialogue,afundamentalbasisfordemocraticpoliticalsystemsandculture....Theparticipatorynatureofthepre-webInternetalsoansweredsomeofHabermas’scritiqueofmassmedia—namely,thatthemassmediahadplayedakeyroleinthedissolutionofahealthypublicspherebyreplacingadis-courseofcriticalreasonwithentertainmentandspectacle.Here,intheInternet,wasacommunicationsystemthatdemandednotchannel-flickingpassivitybutactiveengagementanddialogue.

“... the Internet, throughdemocratising themeansofmediaproduction,revivestheparticipatorynatureoftheidealisedpublicsphere.Itencouragesustotakepartindebateandoffersusthechanceto‘talkback’tothemedia,creat-ingdialogueinsteadofpassivity”(Listeretal.2003,176–77).

4.Salter,forinstance,noteshow,inBetween Facts and Norms,“Habermashadrejected much of the cultural dopes approach to media studies” of Structural Transformation,“arguinginsteadthatcitizensadoptstrategiesofinterpretationagainstmediamessages”(2003,125).

5. Interestingly, thisquestionhasalsobeenasked inrecentyearsbyPauloVirno(2004a).However,Poster’sinsistenceonthewayinwhich,ontheInter-net,the“public”and“external”spaceoftechnologyisalwaysalreadyapartofthe“private,”“internal”spaceofhumansubjectivityandeventhebodywouldappeartoraisequestionsforthe“public”aspectofVirno’snotionofanewpub-lic sphere“outsideof” theState, too.Consequently,Poster’sanalysis is in thisrespectbyfarthemoreradicalasfarasIamconcerned.Indeed,ratherthanre-thinkingtheconceptsofpublicandprivate,Virnomakesitclearthathebelievesitispossibleto“thinkofanewlinkbetweenthetwo,”betweenthepublicandtheprivate.Infact,forVirno,itisimportantthatapublicsphereinsomesenseispossible.“Ifthepublicnessofintellectdoesnotyieldtotherealmofapublicsphere,ofapoliticalspaceinwhichthemanycantendtocommonaffairs,thenitproducesterrifyingeffects.Apublicnesswithoutapublicsphere:hereisthenegativeside—theevilifyouwish—oftheexperienceofthemultitude”(2004a,40).ForVirno,then,theideaofthepublicspherehasacrucialroletoplayintheformationandexperienceofthemultitude.

6.SeeGaryHall(1996)foranearlierrehearsalofthisreadingofLyotard.

Conclusion. Next-Generation Cultural Studies?1.FormoreontheadvantagesofopenaccessaccordingtoPeterSuber,see

his“OpenAccessOverview,”availableathttp://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm.

2.Itwouldbeinterestingtoexploretowhatextentthisisalsopartofalargerbiopolitical digitization of populations in contemporary society, “in the sensethatvariousnumerical,statisticalandinformaticmeansofmanagingand‘regu-

notes to ConClusion 2�5

larizing’groupsofbodiesarebeingestablishedandwidelyimplemented”(Zy-linskaforthcoming).

3.Availableathttp://www.codataweb.org/UNESCOmtg/dryden-declaration.pdf.Accessed16June2007.IamagaingratefultoRachelWilsonofRMITUni-versityinMelbourneforinformingmeofthisdocument.

Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO (United Nations Educa-tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization), describes their thinking on thesubjectasfollows:“Scienceandeducationareattheverycentreofdebatesonthe challenges and opportunities of knowledge societies. We face a paradox,however.Ontheonehand,theacceleratingspreadoftheInternetandnewop-portunitiesforfreeorlow-costpublishingaregeneratingrealbenefits.Ontheotherhand, theneweconomicandtechnologicalenvironment israisingcon-cernsabouttheerosionofaccesstocertaininformationandknowledgewhosefreesharingfacilitatedscientificresearchandeducationinpastdecades....

“Ifknowledgesocietiescapableofgeneratingnewknowledgeinacumula-tive,cooperativeandinclusiveprocessaretobecreated,theyneedtobebasedon a foundation of shared principles, particularly that of equitable access toeducationandknowledge....

“... The public domain principle can be conceptually extended by theassimilation of ‘open access’ information made freely available by its rights-holderswithoutcost.Onewell-knownexampleofopenaccessistheopensourcesoftwarelicensebywhichcomputerprogramsaredistributedfreeofchargebytheirauthorsforexploitationandcooperativedevelopment.AnotheristhevastamountofdocumentationproducedandmadeavailablefreeofchargebytheUnited Nations and its specialized agencies. Yet another is the movement ofeducationalinstitutionsaroundtheworldtoprovidetheireducationalresourcesontheInternetfreeofchargefornon-commercialusage,typifiedbytheOpen-CourseWareprojectoftheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology.TheUNESCODraftRecommendationurges Member States and internationalorganizationstoencourageopenaccesssolutions,andUNESCOitselfisstronglycommittedtopromotinginformation-sharingineducation,thesciencesandculture,andtodisseminatinginformationandsoftwarefordevelopmentunderopenaccessconditions”(2003,n.p.).

4.Itshouldbeemphasized,however,thatopenaccessdoesnotnecessarilyenableall researchtobemadeavailable toeveryone.Aswesaw inchapter2,thoseversionsofopenaccess thatrelyonestablishedpaper journals forpeerreviewonlypermitthatwhichis(potentially)publishableinink-on-paperformtobemadeavailable.Theythusagaintakeusbackfirmlyintotheeconomyoftheacademicpublishingmarket,aswesawwiththeexampleofGoogleBookSearch.

Thereisalsothedelimitingeffectoffunding.Forinstance, ifonlythatre-searchwhichisfundedbygovernmentagencies,policyinstitutes,researchcoun-cils, and so on is mandated to be made available through open access, thenthatwhichisnotprovidedforinthisfashioneitherfindsfinancialsupportelse-where,andisthusabletoappearthroughopenaccess;or,asisincreasinglythecaseintheUnitedKingdom,whereuniversitiesandacademicswithinthemare

notes to ConClusion2��

being“encouraged”moreandmoretorelyonsourcesoffundingexternaltotheirinstitutionsforresearchsupport,itrisksnotbeingconductedatall,andsoobviouslyisnotabletoappearthroughopenaccess.Thisisespeciallytrueofthehumanities,whichfinditnotoriouslydifficulttoattractmoneyforresearchfrombusinessandindustry.FollowingonfromsomeofthethingsIsaidearlier,onecouldevengosofarastosaythatopenaccesshelpsthestatecontrolwhatresearchiscarriedoutandwhatisnot.

Bethatasitmay,theabovesituationiswhy,forHarnad,“UniversityOAself-archivingmandatesareanessentialcomplementtotheresearcherfunderOAself-archivingmandates”:becauseuniversity“mandatescoverunfundedaswellasfundedresearch”(Harnad2007b,n.p.).However, thisdoesnotentirelyre-solvetheproblemwherebyitmaybemainlyresearchapprovedandfundedbygovernmentagenciesthatismadeavailablethroughopenaccesssince,asIsay,inthehumanitiesatleast—becauseofthedifficultyofattractingfundingfrombusinessandindustry—researchthatisnotfundedfromthesesourcesisincreas-inglyatriskofnotbeingcarriedout(seeG.Hall2008).

5.Inthefaceofsuch“disintermediation,”manyinthepublishingindustryhaveofcourseattemptedtodefendthe“value-added”theycontinuetoperceivepublishers as offering, beyond what scholars can achieve themselves. See, forexample,Thatcher(1999);and,morerecently,the“StatementonOpenAccess”bytheAssociationofAmericanUniversityPresses(2007),andthe“BrusselsDec-larationonSTMPublishing”bytheInternationalAssociationofScientific,Tech-nicalandMedicalPublishers(2007).

6.Thisisthespecificexampleofthewayinwhichbothofthese“sides”areimplicated ineachotheras theirconditionsofpossibility Ipromised Iwouldreturntoinchapter4(seen.22).

7. Unless otherwise stated, all quotations are from the online version ofTerranova’s article, available at http://www.uoc.edu/in3/hermeneia/sala_de_lectura/t_terranova_free_labor.htm.Accessed7February2007.

8. Terranova considers “immaterial labor” a more useful concept than“knowledgeworker”onthegroundsthattheformerisnot“completelyconfinedtoaspecificclassformation”inthewaythatthelatterhasoftenbeen.Findingafocusonlabormoreinterestingthanasearchfor“theknowledgeclass,”shecitesMaurizioLazzarato’sdefinitionofimmateriallaborasreferringto:“two different aspectsoflabor.

“Ontheonehand,asregardsthe‘informationalcontent’ofthecommod-ity,itrefersdirectlytothechangestakingplaceinworkers’laborprocesses...wheretheskillsinvolvedindirectlaborareincreasinglyskillsinvolvingcybernet-icsandcomputercontrol(andhorizontalandverticalcommunication).Ontheotherhand,asregards theactivity thatproduces the ‘culturalcontent’of thecommodity,immateriallabourinvolvesaseriesofactivitiesthatarenotnormallyrecognizedas‘work’—inotherwords,thekindsofactivitiesinvolvedindefin-ingandfixingculturalandartisticstandards,fashions,tastes,consumernorms,and,morestrategically,publicopinion”(Lazzarato1996,133;citedbyTerranova2000,n.p.).

Accordingly,TerranovafollowsLazzaratoinseeingthisformoflaborpower

notes to ConClusion 2��

asnotbeingrestrictedtohighlyskilledworkers;ratheritisa“formofactivityofeveryproductivesubjectwithinpostindustrialsociety,”thusproblematizing“theideaofthe‘knowledgeworker’asaclassinthe‘industrial’senseoftheword”(2000,n.p.).

SincepartofmyintentionwithDigitize This Book!istoengagewiththedomi-nant neoliberal language and discourses around the “knowledge economy”whenitcomestothinkingabouttheinstitutionoftheuniversityandopenac-cess(ratherthancategorizeknowledgeworkersaspartofaclass),Ihavepre-ferred toemploy the term“knowledgeworker”here.However, IwouldagreewithTerranovawhenshesaysthat“the‘knowledgeworker’isaverycontestedsociologicalcategory”:partlybecause“knowledgecannotbeexclusivelypinneddowntospecificsocialsegments,”soitisdifficulttoknowexactlywhoqualifiesasa“knowledgeworker”andwhodoesnot;andpartlybecauseiftheconstituentpopulationoftheInternetislargelyseenasbeingmadeupof“knowledgework-ers”(whichformehereitisnot),thereisariskofimplying:“thatallweneedtoknowishowtolocatetheknowledgeworkerswithina‘class,’andknowingwhichclassitiswillgiveusananswertothepoliticalpotentialoftheNetasawhole.Thereforeifwecanprovethatknowledgeworkersaretheavantgardeoflabor,thentheNetbecomesasiteofresistance(Barbrook1998);ifwecanprovethatknowledgeworkerswieldthepowerininformatedsocieties,thentheNetisanextendedgatedcommunity for theMiddleclasses(Robins1996)”(Terranova2000,n.p.).

9.Iamofcoursenottheonlyonetousetheterm“hyper”inrelationtopoli-tics.Aswesawinmyfirstsetofmetadata,andwillseeagaininalittlemoredetailinmyfourth,ChantalMouffealsoreferstotheundecidabilitythatcontinuestoinhabitthedecisionasa“hyperpoliticization.”Whatdifferentiatesmyperspec-tivefromMouffe’sis:

First, the way in which, for me, hyperpoliticization raises questions for anumberofaspectsofMouffe’sownpolitics,includingthenatureofsomeofthepoliticaldecisionsshemakesregardingbothhegemonyanddemocracy.Seemy“Hyper-Cyprus:OnPeaceandConflictintheMiddleEast”(2007b)formore.

Second,theemphasisIplacenotjustonhyperpoliticsbutonhyperanalysis,too—onthatwhichtakesusbeyondwhatcanbediscerned,discovered,andpre-dictedbymeansofanalysis;andthusontheimportanceofremainingopentoperformativeaffects.(Whatthismeansinthiscaseisremainingopentothewaythepoliticsofopen-accessarchivingcannotbedecidedinadvancebuthastobecreatedandinventedbyitsusersinarelationofsingularitytofinite,“concrete”conjunctions of the “here” and “now.”) See my fourth set of metadata, “TheSingularityofNewMedia.”

10.Foradiscussionofthewayinwhichculturalstudiescontinuestothinkit-selfintermsofspecificdisciplinarylimits,despiteStuartHall’sclaimsherethatitisnot“adisciplineinitsownright;itneverhasbeen,andIdon’tthinkitshouldaspiretobe.Itdefinesafieldofwork”(S.Hall1998,191),seemyCulture in Bits(2002),especiallychapter6.

11.ThisiswhyIhaveturnedtoPoster’s“Cyberdemocracy”inchapter5asonewayofthinkingaboutthepoliticsofculturalstudies.Icouldperhapshave

notes to ConClusion2��

performedasimilaranalysisusingmoreconventional,“mainstream”contempo-raryculturalstudiestexts,atleastasthelatterisunderstoodinitsmorerestrictedsense, inwhich itsoriginsareperceivedas lyingprimarily inBritainwith theNewLeft,StuartHallandtheBirminghamSchool,andbeforethatwithRichardHoggart, Raymond Williams, and E.P. Thompson. I would have had to workhardertodoso, though.For,asIsay, insteadofendeavoringtoremainopentonewformsofpoliticsandnewwaysofbeingpolitical—preciselythekindofopenness,infact,thatonecouldargueproducedthesingularworkandideasthatresultedintheemergenceanddevelopmentofculturalstudiesinthefirstplace—culturalstudieshastoooftenresortedtothefetishizationofthepoliticsassociatedwithits“founding”thinkers,theirfollowersandinterpreters,anditsestablishedcanonoftexts.(Allofwhichisverymuchinaccordance,ofcourse,withthewayinwhich,followingWeber,wehaveseenhowa“discipline”attemptstoovercometheinherentlyviolent,aporetic,andparadoxicalnatureofitsfoun-dationbyproducingafoundingsetofprinciplesandproceduresfortheinstitu-tionandreproductionofitselfanditsoriginalguidingidea.)

12.Formoreonthis,seemyfourthsetofmetadata,“TheSingularityofNewMedia.”

13.Hencetheway ithaspreviouslybeenpossible formetoproducecare-fulreadingsofcertainprivilegedtextsintheculturalstudiestradition—byRay-mondWilliams,StuartHall,MeaghanMorris,andAngelaMcRobbie—readingsthatrevealthemintheirdifferentwaysasproducingexperimentalandinventiveinterrogationsofwhatitistobepoliticalthatarehyperpoliticalinthattheyaremorethanpoliticalwhilestillbeingpolitical.SeeG.Hall(2002;2004b;2006).

14.LyotardofcoursewasnotthinkingofthisintermsofproducinganewformofHabermasianpublicsphere.LyotardisinfactverycriticalofHabermasinThe Postmodern Condition,especially thenotionthat the“goalofdialogue isconsensus”; Lyotard preferred to emphasize dissensus instead (Lyotard 1984,65,61).

Metadata IV. The Singularity of New Media1.Forabriefaccountofsomeofthedifferencesbetweenmyperspectiveand

thatofMouffe’sinrespecttohyperpolitics,seemyConclusion,n.9.2.Ethicscomesfirsthere—i.e., thequestioniswhetherethicscanfounda

politicsandnotwhetherapoliticscanfoundethics—becauseethics,forLevinas,is foundational. It isafirstphilosophy thatprecedesontology(seechapter2,n.9).So,sinceethicsprecedesontology,italsoprecedespolitics.

3.Anethicsofhospitalitycannotsimplyfoundapolitics,then.ButasJoannaZylinskanotes,andasIhavebeingtryingtoemphasizethroughoutthisbook,whatsuchaLevinasianunderstandingofethics“canhelpuswithwhenitcomestodevelopingapoliticsofculturalstudies,”andofaculturalstudiesopen-accessarchive,“istherecognitionthattheotherisalwaysalreadymoral,andthusthatourpoliticscannotbethoughtwithoutoroutsideethics”(Zylinska2005,11).

4.FormoreonthisaspectofDerrida’sthought,seehisdiscussionofdeci-sionismintheworkofCarlSchmittinPolitics of Friendship(1997).Formorespe-

notes to metaData iv 2��

cificallyonthedifficultyofdistinguishingethicsfrompolitics,seeBennington(2000),wherehewrites:“ifthethirdpartmakespossibletheethicalrelationassuchbyinstigatinganoriginaryandnecessarycontaminationofitspurity,thenthedefiningfeatureoftheethical(thedualfigureoftheface-to-face,howeverasymmetrical) tends tobe lost in theperspectiveofamultiplicityof relationsintroducedbytheopeningtothethirdpartyingeneral.Inwhichcasewemightwanttosaythatweareasmuchinthedomainofpoliticsasofethics”(Benning-ton2000,45).

5.Atthemoment,whenuploadingintoCSeARCH,contributorsareaskedtosupplyaminimumamountofmetadatatoallowforreasonablyefficientsearch-ingacrossthearchive:title,author,publication,yearofpublication,subjectarea,abstractordescription,formator[peerreview]status,keywords.Ofthese,onlythetitle,author,andyearofpublicationarecompulsory;therestareentirelyop-tional.Moreover,althoughsuggestionsareprovidedinanaccompanying“helpbox”thatcanbeviewedbyclickingonthequestionmarkattheright-handsideofeachsectionofthesubmissionform,nonecomeswithacompulsoryvocabu-lary.Authorsarefreetoindextheirsubmissionsinanywaytheywish.

Theideabehindauthorindexinginsuchanopenwayistoencourage,in-deedrequire,contributorstomakeadecisionastohowtheirworkistobeiden-tified,classified,andunderstood.

Iprefernottothinkaboutthemannerinwhichsuchauthorindexingsys-temsemergeintheprocessofactuallybuildingandusingthearchiveintermsof what are today often described as “folksonomies.” For me, the concept offolksonomiesleavesthetraditionalmodelforgeneratingtaxonomies—theun-derlying system by which metadata organizes, structures, and presents knowl-edge—moreorlessintact,withthehierarchymerelybeingreversed,fromtop-downtobottom-up.

6.Seechapter2,n.26.7.Thatsaid,Iamawarethatallthiscreatesaratherdifficultsituation:both

becauseitisimpossibletohaveaninstitutionwithnorules;andbecausemyownethicalinvestmentsorpoliticalcommitmentsdonotdisappear,evenifIoftenattempttokeepthem“veiled”whenactingforandaspartoftheCulturalStudiese-Archiveproject.Thistensionisinevitable,though,anditissomethingwhichwe—asscholars,teachers,andstudents—experienceallthetime.

8.Forarehearsalof these ideas inaslightlydifferentcontext, seeG.Hall(2004b).

notes to metaData iv2�0

2�1

BiBliography

Abrahams,Paul,andJamesHarding.2002.“TheDigitalDivide.”Financial Times,21May.

Acland,CharlesR.,ed.2007.Residual Media.MinneapolisandLondon:Univer-sityofMinnesotaPress.

Agamben,Giorgio.2005.State of Exception.TranslatedbyKevinAttell.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Aldred,Nannette,andMartinRyle,eds.1999.Teaching Culture: The Long Revolu-tion in Cultural Studies.Leicester,Eng.:TheNationalOrganisationforAdultLearning.

Allen, Katie. 2006a. “Digital Downer: Piracy Hits CD Sales.” The Guardian, 14October.

———.2006b.“NoMoreBigSpendersasTeenagersSwitchtoFile-Sharing.”The Guardian,31October.

Antelman,Kristen.2004.“DoOpen-AccessArticlesHaveaGreaterResearchIm-pact?”College and Research Libraries65.Availableat:http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/staff/kantelman/do_open_access_CRL.pdf.Accessed16June2007.

Arnold,Matthew.1868.Culture and Anarchy.Cambridge,Eng.:CambridgeUni-versityPress,1932.

Aronowitz,Stanley.2000.The Knowledge Factory: Dismantling the Corporate Univer-sity and Creating True Higher Learning.Boston:BeaconPress.

AssociationofAmericanUniversityPresses.2007.“StatementonOpenAccess.”27February.Availableat:http://aaupnet.org/aboutup/issues/oa/statement.pdf.Accessed4June2007.

Baker,Nicholson.2002.Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper.London:Vintage.

Barbaro, Michael. 2006. “Wal-Mart Enlists Bloggers in P.R. Campaign.” New York Times, 7 March. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/technology/07blog.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.

Barbrook,Richard.1998.“TheHigh-TechGiftEconomy.”First Monday3.Avail-ableat:http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_12/barbrook/.Updatedandrepublishedin2005.First Monday(December).Availableat:http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9810/msg00122.html.RepublishedinReadme! Filtered by Nettime: ASCII Culture and the Revenge of Knowledge,JosephineBosmaetal.,1999.Brooklyn,N.Y.:Autonomedia.

———. 2002. “The Napsterization of Everything.” Science as Culture 11(2)( June).

Barbrook,Richard,andAndyCameron.1995.“TheCalifornianIdeology.”Mute

BiBliography2�2

3 (Autumn). Available at: http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/theory-californianideology-mute.html.Accessed6November2006.

Barlow, J.P. 1998.Cybernomics: Toward a Theory of the Information Economy.NewYork:MerrillLynch.

Barthes,Roland.1968.“TheDeathoftheAuthor.”InImage, Music, Text.Trans-latedbyStephenHeath.London:Flamingo,1984.

Bartlett, Thomas. 2007. “Archive Fever.” Chronicle of Higher Education, 20 July.Available at: http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i46/46a00801.htm. Accessed23July2007.

Bassett,Caroline.2006.“CulturalStudiesandNewMedia.”InNew Cultural Stud-ies: Adventures in Theory,ed.GaryHallandClareBirchall.Edinburgh:Edin-burghUniversityPress.

Beasley-Murray,John.2001.“SubalternPolitics:SolidarityandCritique(or,FourThesesonPosthegemony).”PaperpresentedattheLatinAmericanStudiesAs-sociationCongress,Washington,D.C.,8September.Availableat:http://www.art.man.ac.uk/SPANISH/staff/Writings/subaltern.pdf. Accessed 22 June2006.

Bellamy,Craig.2002.“TheMilkBarChallenge.”Postedonthefibreculturemail-inglist,22July.Archivedathttp://www.fibreculture.org.

Benjamin,Walter.1973.“TheWorkofArtintheAgeofMechanicalReproduc-tion.”InIlluminations,ed.HannahArendt.TranslatedbyHarryZohn.Lon-don:Fontana.

Bennington,Geoffrey.1990.“PostalPoliticsandtheInstitutionoftheNation.”InNation and Narration,ed.HomiK.Bhabha.London:Routledge.

———. 2000. “Deconstruction and Ethics.” In Interrupting Derrida. London:Routledge.

Bhabha,HomiK.1994.“TheCommitmenttoTheory.”InThe Location of Culture.London:Routledge.

Black,Edwin.2001.IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Ger-many and America’s Most Powerful Corporation.London:TimeWarner.

Bolter,JayDavid.1991.Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing.Hillsdale,N.J.:LawrenceErlbaum.

Bowker.2006.“U.S.BookProductionPlummets18Kin2005;SmallerPublishersShowtheLargestDropinNewTitles.”Availableat:http://www.bowker.com/press/bowker/2006_0509_bowker.htm.Accessed18May2007.

Bowman,Paul.2006a.“CulturalStudiesandSlavojŽ iž ek.”InNew Cultural Stud-ies: Adventures in Theory,ed.GaryHallandClareBirchall.Edinburgh:Edin-burghUniversityPress.

———.2006b.“StreetFetishism:TenThesesonStreetPolitics.”Unpublishedessay.Available inCSeARCHat:http://rime.tees.ac.uk/VLE/DATA/CSEARCH/MODULES/CS/2006/03/0119/_.docCSeARCH.Accessed6November2006.

———.2007.Post-Marxism versus Cultural Studies: Theory, Politics and Intervention.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Breen,Marcus.2006.“IsThereaCulturalStudiesImperative?”Cultural Currents3(September).

BiBliography 2�3

Brown,Wendy.2001.Politics Out of History.LondonandPrinceton,N.J.:Prince-tonUniversityPress.

Budapest Open Access Initiative. 2002–2004. Self-Archiving FAQ. Available at:http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/.Accessed15March2008.

Butt,Danny,andNedRossiter.2002.“BlowingBubbles:Post-CrashCreativeIn-dustriesandtheWitheringofPoliticalCritiqueinCulturalStudies.”Paperpresentedat“UteCulture:TheUtilityofCultureandtheUsesofCulturalStudies,” theCulturalStudiesAssociationofAustraliaConference,Univer-sityofMelbourne,5–7December.Postedonthenettimemailinglist,10De-cember2002.Availableat:http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-1-0212/msg00057.html.

Bush,GeorgeW.,andTonyBlair.2006.“PresidentBushandPrimeMinisterTonyBlairof theUnitedKingdomParticipate in JointPress Availability.”WhiteHouse Web site, 25 May. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060525-12.html.Accessed16June2007.

Caetano,MiguelAfonso.2006.“TechnologiesofResistance:TransgressionandSolidarity in Tactical Media.” Posted on the nettime mailing list, 30 May2006.Availableat:http://osdir.com/ml/culture.internet.nettime/2006-05/msg00070.html.

Cassy,John.2003.“PiratesTurnDowntheMusic.”The Guardian,11February.Castells,Manuel.1996.The Power of Identity.Cambridge,Eng.:Blackwell.Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management at the University

of Bournemouth. 2007. “Counting the Cost of a Writing Career.” Avail-able at: http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/newsandevents/News/march07/counting_the_cost_of_a_writing_career.html.Accessed12March2007.

Cha,Ray.2006.“NowPlaying:AcademicsintheRoleofthePublicIntellectual.”PostedontheInstitutefortheFutureoftheBook’sif:bookblog,1August.Available at: http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/. Accessed 2 August2006.

Chartier,Roger.1997.“TheEndoftheReignoftheBook.”SubStance82.Chun,WendyHuiKyong.2006.“Introduction:DidSomebodySayNewMedia?”

InNew Media, Old Media: A History and Theory Reader,eds.WendyHuiKyongChunandThomasKeenan.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Clark,Timothy.1999.“LiteraryValues:InstitutionalForce.”Culture Machine1.Availableat:http://www.culturemachine.net.

———.2005.“FreedomsandtheInstitutionalAmericanismofLiteraryStudy.”InThe Poetics of Singularity: The Counter-Culturalist Turn in Heidegger, Derrida, Blanchot and the Later Gadamer.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Covey, Denise Troll. 2005. Acquiring Copyright Permission to Digitize and Provide Open Access to Books. Washington, D.C.: Digital Library Federation and theCouncilonLibraryandInformationResources.Availableat:http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub134/pub134col.pdf.

Cramer,Florian.2006.“TheCreativeCommonMisunderstanding.”Postedonthenettimemailinglist,9October.Availableat:http://osdir.com/ml/culture.internet.nettime/2006-10/msg00029.html.

BiBliography2�4

CriticalArtEnsemble.2001.Digital Resistance: Explorations in Tactical Media.NewYork:Autonomedia.

Dean,Jodi.1997.“VirtuallyCitizens.”Constellations4(2)(October).———.2005.“CommunicativeCapitalism:CirculationandtheForeclosureof

Politics.”Cultural Politics1(1).Deleuze,Gilles.1992.“PostscriptontheSocietiesofControl.”October59(Win-

ter).Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. 1994. What Is Philosophy?. Translated by

GrahamBirchillandHughTomlinson.London:Verso.Deleuze,Gilles,andClaireParnet.2002.Dialogues II.TranslatedbyHughTom-

linsonandBarbaraHabberjam.London:Athlone.Derrida,Jacques.1977.“LimitedInc.”Glyph2.———. 1979. Spurs: Nietzsche’s Styles. Translated by Barbara Harlow. Chicago:

UniversityofChicagoPress.———.1981.Dissemination.TranslatedbyBarbaraJohnson.London:Athlone.———.1982a.“SignatureEventContext.”InMargins of Philosophy.Translatedby

AlanBass.London:HarvesterWheatsheaf.———.1982b.Margins of Philosophy.TranslatedbyAlanBass.London:Harvester

Wheatsheaf.———.1983.“ThePrincipleofReason:TheUniversityintheEyesofitsPupils.”

Diacritics13(Fall).ReprintedinJacquesDerrida,2004,Eyes of Philosophy: Right to Philosophy 2.TranslatedbyJanPlugetal.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniver-sityPress.

———.1990.“SendsOffs.”Yale French Studies 77: Reading the Archive: On Texts and Institutions.ReprintedinJacquesDerrida,2004,Eyes of Philosophy: Right to Philosophy 2.TranslatedbyJanPlugetal.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.

———.1992a.“Mochlos;or,TheConflictoftheFaculties.”InLogomachia: The Conflict of the Faculties,ed.RichardRand.LincolnandLondon:UniversityofNebraskaPress.ReprintedinJacquesDerrida,2004,Eyes of Philosophy: Right to Philosophy 2.TranslatedbyJanPlugetal.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.

———. 1992b. “ ‘This Strange Institution Called Literature’: An Interviewwith Jacques Derrida.” In Acts of Literature, ed. Derek Attridge. London:Routledge.

———.1994a.Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International.TranslatedbyPeggyKamuf.London:Routledge.

———. 1994b. “The Rhetoric of Drugs.” In Points . . . Interviews, 1974–1994.TranslatedbyPeggyKamufetal.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.

———.1996a.“RemarksonDeconstructionandPragmatism.”InDeconstruction and Pragmatism,ed.ChantalMouffe.London:Routledge.

———.1996b.Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression.TranslatedbyEricPrenowitz.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

———.1997.Politics of Friendship.TranslatedbyGeorgeCollins.NewYorkandLondon:Verso.

BiBliography 2�5

———. 1999. Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas. Translated by Michael Naas andPascalle-AnneBrault.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.

———.2000.Of Hospitality.TranslatedbyRachelBowlby.Stanford,Calif.:Stan-fordUniversityPress.

———.2001a.“IHaveaTastefortheSecret.”InA Taste for the Secret,ed.JacquesDerrida and Maurizio Ferraris. Translated by Giacomo Donis. Cambridge,Eng.:Polity.

———.2001b.“OnForgiveness.”InOn Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness.Trans-latedbyMarkDooleyandMichaelHughes.London:Routledge.

———.2001c. “TheFutureof theProfessionor theUniversityWithoutCon-dition(Thanks to the ‘Humanities’WhatCould Take PlaceTomorrow).” InJacques Derrida and the Humanities: A Critical Reader, ed. Tom Cohen. Cam-bridge,Eng.:CambridgeUniversityPress.

———. 2001d. “Affirmative Deconstruction, Inheritance, Technology.” In De-construction Engaged: The Sydney Seminars, ed.Paul PattonandTerry Smith.Sydney,Australia:PowerPublications.

———.2002a.Who’s Afraid of Philosophy? Right to Philosophy 1.TranslatedbyJanPlug.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.

———.2002b.“DeclarationsofIndependence.”InNegotiations: Interventions and Interviews, 1971–2001.EditedandtranslatedbyElizabethRottenberg.Stan-ford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.

———.2004.Eyes of Philosophy: Right to Philosophy 2.TranslatedbyJanPlugetal.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.

———.2005.Paper Machine.TranslatedbyRachelBowlby.Stanford,Calif.:Stan-fordUniversityPress.

———. 2006. Geneses, Genealogies, Genres and Genius: The Secrets of the Archive.TranslatedbyBeverleyBieBrahic.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Derrida,Jacques,andBernardStiegler.2002.Echographies of Television: Filmed In-terviews.TranslatedbyJenniferBajorek.London:Polity.

Dietz,Steve.1999.“Memory_Archive_Database.”Switch,3.0.Availableat:http://switch.sjsu.edu/web/v5n3/C-1.html.Accessed23September2006.

Directgov.2006.“DeathoftheSurfer...BirthoftheSupersite.”Pressrelease,6 March. Available at: http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government/docs/direct_gov/final_tickbx_pr_release.pdf.

Donald,James.2004.“What’sNew?ALettertoTerryFlew.”Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies18(2)(June).

DuGay,Paul,andMichaelPryke.2002.Cultural Economy.London:Sage.Edu-factory collective. 2007. “edu-factory.org manifesto.” Available at: http://

www.edu-factory.org.Accessed24February2007.Eisenstein,Elizabeth.1979.The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communica-

tions and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe.2vols.Cambridge,Eng.:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Elam, Diane. 2000. “Why Read?” Culture Machine 2. Available at: http://www.culturemachine.net.

Evans,Matthew.2002.Talkpresentedat“TheNewInformationOrderandthe

BiBliography2��

FutureoftheArchive”conferenceofTheInstituteforAdvancedStudiesintheHumanities,attheUniversityofEdinburgh,22March.

Eysenbach, Gunther. 2006. “Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles.”PLoS Biology, 4(5): e157. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157.Accessed16June2007.

Finkelstein,David,andAlistairMcCleery.2005.An Introduction to Book History.NewYork:Routledge.

Fitzpatrick,Kathleen.2006a.“OntheFutureofAcademicPublishing,PeerRe-view,andTenureRequirements.”The Valve,6January.Availableat:http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/on_the_future_of_academic_publishing_peer_review_and_tenure_requirements_or/.Accessed9October2006.

———.2006b.“IntroducingMediaCommons,”PostedontheInstitutefortheFuture of the Book’s if:book blog, 17 July. Available at: http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2006/07/introducing_mediacommons_or_ti.html.Accessed10August2006.

———.2006c.“OntheFutureofPeerReviewinElectronicScholarlyPublish-ing.”PostedontheInstitutefortheFutureoftheBook’sif:bookblog,28June.Available at: http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2006/06/on_the_future_of_peer_review_i.html.Accessed2August2006.

Flew,Terry.2004.“Creativity,the‘NewHumanism’andCulturalStudies.”Con-tinuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies18(2)(June).

———.2005.“IsCulturalStudiesInherentlyLeft-Wing?”PostedontheCSAAdiscussion list, 5 January. Archived at: http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum. Available at: http://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/Week-of-Mon-20050117/000628.html.

Foster,Hal.1996.“TheArchiveWithoutMuseums.”October77(Summer).Foucault,Michel.1972.The Archaeology of Knowledge.TranslatedbyA.M.Sheridan

Smith.LondonandNewYork:TavistockPublications.Frabetti,Federica.2007.“TechnologyMadeLegible:ACulturalStudyofSoft-

wareasaFormofWritingintheTheoriesandPracticesofSoftwareEngineer-ing.”Unpublishedpaperpresentedatthe“Re-mediatingLiterature”confer-ence,UniversityofUtrecht,4–6July.

Fuller,Matthew.2003.Behind the Blip: Essays on the Culture of Software.NewYork:Autonomedia.

Fynsk,Christopher.2004.The Claim of Language: A Case for the Humanities.Min-neapolisandLondon:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Garcia,David,andGeertLovink.1997.“TheABCofTacticalMedia.”Postedonthenettimemailinglist,16May.Archivedat:http://www.nettime.org.Alsoavailable at: http://subsol.c3.hu/subsol_2/contributors2/garcia-lovinktext.html.

———.1999.“TheDEFofTacticalMedia.”Postedonthenettimemailinglist,22 February. Available at: http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-9902/msg00104.html.

———.2001.“TheGHIofTacticalMedia:AnInterviewwithAndreasBroeck-mann.”Postedonthenettimemailinglist,16August.Availableat:http://www.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0108/msg00060.html. Also pub-

BiBliography 2��

lishedinArtnodes,UniversitatObertadeCatalunya(UOC),December2002.Available at: http://www.uoc.edu/artnodes/eng/art/broeckmann0902/broeckmann0902.html.

Garnham,Nicholas.1992.“TheMediaandthePublicSphere.”InHabermas and the Public Sphere,ed.CraigCalhoun.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

———. 1995. “Political Economy and Cultural Studies: Reconciliation or Di-vorce?”Critical Studies in Mass Communications12(1).ReprintedasNicholasGarnham,1997,“PoliticalEconomyandthePracticeofCulturalStudies,”inCultural Studies in Question,ed.MarjorieFergusonandPeterGolding.Lon-don:Sage.

Garrido,Mario,andAlexanderHalavais.2003.“MappingNetworksofSupportfortheZapatistaMovement:ApplyingSocial-NetworksAnalysistoStudyCon-temporarySocialMovements.”InCyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice,ed.MarthaMcCaugheyandMichaelD.Ayers.London:Routledge.

Garside,Ryan.2006.“RIAAForcedtoDropDownloadCase.”bit-tech.net,1Au-gust.Availableat:http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/08/01/RIAA_forced_to_drop_download_case/.Accessed12August2006.

Gibson,Ian.2004.“ScientificPublications:FreeForAll?”House of Commons Sci-ence and Technology Committee,20July.Availableat:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399.pdf.Accessed16June2007.

Gibson,Owen.2006.“InternetMeansEndforMediaBarons,SaysMurdoch.”The Guardian,14March.

Gitelman,Lisa,andGeoffreyB.Pingree,eds.2003.New Media, 1740–1915.Cam-bridge,Mass.:MITPress.

Giroux,HenryA.1988.Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learn-ing.Granby,Mass.:BerginandGarvey.

Giroux,Henry,andKostasMyrsiades,eds.2001.Beyond the Corporate University: Culture and Pedagogy in the New Millennium.NewYorkandOxford:RowmanandLittlefield.

Graham,Phil.2002a.“Hypercapitalism:Language,NewMedia,andSocialPer-ceptionsofValue.”Discourse and Society13(2).

———.2002b. “Hypercapitalism:APoliticalEconomyof Informational Ideal-ism.”New Media and Society2(2).Availableat:http://www.philgraham.net/HC1.pdf.Accessed28November2006.

Gray, John.2005. “Mimic,MissionaryandaMasterofMediaSpin.”The Times Higher Education Supplement,8April.

Greenblatt,Stephen.2002.“CallforActiononProblemsinScholarlyBookPub-lishing: A Special Letter from the President.” MLA Documents and Reports,28May.Availableat:http://www.mla.org/scholarly_pub.Accessed16 June2007.

Gregg,Melissa.2002.“CulturalStudiesandOnlineInnovation.”Postedonthefibreculturemailinglist,12December.Archivedathttp://www.fibreculture.org.

———.2006.Cultural Studies’ Affective Voices.Basingstoke,Hampshire,Eng.:Pal-graveMacmillan.

BiBliography2��

Grossberg,Lawrence.1995.“CulturalStudiesandPoliticalEconomy:IsAnyoneElseBoredwithThisDebate?”Critical Studies in Mass Communications12(1).Revised and reprinted as Lawrence Grossberg, 1997, “Introduction: ‘Bir-mingham’inAmerica?,”inBringing It All Back Home: Essays on Cultural Studies.DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress.

———.2005a.Caught in the Crossfire: Kids, Politics and America’s Future.Boulder,Col.,andLondon:Paradigm.

———.2005b.“CulturalStudies,theWarAgainstKids,andtheRe-becomingofU.S.Modernity.”InRace, Identity and Representation in Education,ed.CameronMcCarthy,WarrenCrichlow,GregDimitriadis, andNadineDolby, 2nded.NewYork:Routledge.

Guattari,Félix.1995.Chaosmosis: An Ethico-Aesthetic Paradigm.TranslatedbyPaulBainsandJulianPefanis.Sydney,Australia:PowerPublications.

———. 1996. “Regimes, Pathways, Subjects.” In The Guattari Reader, ed. GaryGenesko.Oxford:Blackwell.

Guédon,Jean-Claude.2004.“The‘Green’andthe‘Gold’RoadstoOpenAccess:TheCaseforMixingandMatching.”Serials Review30(4).

Guédon,Jean-Claude(withGuylaineBeaudryforthesectiononSGML).1996.“Meta-Surfaces or Ends and Means to Grow a Viable Electronic ScholarlyJournal.” Surfaces. Available at: http://pum12.pum.umontreal.ca/revues/surfaces/meta-surfaces.html#AII.Accessed9April2002.

Habermas,Jürgen.1962.The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An In-quiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society.TranslatedbyThomasBurger.London:PolityPress,1989.

———.1986.The Theory of Communicative Action,Vol.1, Reason and the Ration-alization of Society.TranslatedbyThomasMcCarthy.Cambridge,Eng.:PolityPress.

———.1989.The Theory of Communicative Action,Vol.2,Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. TranslatedbyThomasMcCarthy.Cambridge,Eng.:PolityPress.

———.1996.Between Facts and Norms.TranslatedbyWilliamRehg.London:Pol-ityPress.

Hall,Gary.1996.“AnsweringtheQuestion:‘WhatIsanIntellectual?’”Surfaces6.Availableat:http://pum12.pum.umontreal.ca/revues/surfaces/vol6/hall.html.

———.2002.Culture in Bits: The Monstrous Future of Theory.LondonandNewYork:Continuum.

———.2003.“TheCulturalStudiese-ArchiveProject(OriginalPirateCopy).”Culture Machine5.Availableat:http://www.culturemachine.net.

———.2004a.“DigitizeThis.”The Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Stud-ies26(1)( January–March).

———.2004b.“WhyYouCan’tDoCulturalStudiesandBeaDerridean:CulturalStudiesAfterBirmingham, theNewSocialMovementsand theNewLeft.”Culture Machine6.Availableat:http://www.culturemachine.net.

———.2006.“CulturalStudiesandDeconstruction.”InNew Cultural Studies: Ad-

BiBliography 2��

ventures in Theory,eds.GaryHallandClareBirchall.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

———.2007a.“IT,Again:HowtoBuildanEthicalVirtualInstitution.”InExperi-menting: Essays with Samuel Weber,ed.SimonMorganWorthamandGaryHall.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.

———.2007b.“Hyper-Cyprus:OnPeaceandConflictintheMiddleEast.”Talkpresentedat “Communication inPeace/Conflict inCommunication,”Sec-ondInternationalConferenceinCommunicationandMediaStudies,East-ernMediterraneanUniversity,Famagusta,NorthCyprus,2–4May2007.Re-visedandpublishedas“WikiNation:OnPeaceandConflict in theMiddleEast.”Cultural Politics(forthcoming).

———.2008.“Coca-colonisedThinking?”The Oxford Literary Review,28.Hall, Gary, and Clare Birchall. 2006a. “New Cultural Studies: Adventures in

Theory (Some Comments, Clarifications, Explanations, Observations, Rec-ommendations, Remarks, Statements and Suggestions).” In New Cultural Studies: Adventures in Theory,eds.GaryHallandClareBirchall.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

———,eds.2006b.New Cultural Studies: Adventures in Theory.Edinburgh:Edin-burghUniversityPress.

Hall,Stuart.1992.“CulturalStudiesandItsTheoreticalLegacies.” InCultural Studies,ed.LawrenceGrossberg,CaryNelson,andPaulaTreichler.NewYork:Routledge.

———.1998.“CulturalComposition:StuartHallonEthnicityandtheDiscursiveTurn.”Journal of Composition Theory18(2).

———.2003.“NewLabour’sDouble-Shuffle.”Soundings24.Hall,Stuart,CharlesCritcher,TonyJefferson,etal.1978.Policing the Crisis: Mug-

ging, the State, and Law and Order.London:Macmillan.Hardt,Michael,andAntonioNegri.2000.Empire.Cambridge,Mass.,andLon-

don:HarvardUniversityPress.———.2004.Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire.Harmondsworth,

Eng.:Penguin.Harmon,Amy.2002.“CDTechnologyStopsCopies,ButItStartsaControversy.”

New York Times,1March.Harnad,Stevan.1994a.“I.Overture:TheSubversiveProposal.”InScholarly Jour-

nals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing: An Inter-net Discussion about Scientific and Scholarly Journals and Their Future, ed.AnnShumeldaOkersonandJamesJ.O’Donnell.Washington,D.C.:AssociationofResearchLibraries,June1995.Availableat:http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/toc.html.

———. 1994b. “VI: Reprise.” In Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subver-sive Proposal for Electronic Publishing: An Internet Discussion about Scientific and Scholarly Journals and Their Future,ed.AnnShumeldaOkersonandJamesJ.O’Donnell.Washington,D.C.:AssociationofResearchLibraries,June1995.Availableat:http://www.arl.org/scomm/subversive/sub06.html.

———.1998/2000.“TheInvisibleHandofPeerReview.”Nature.5November

BiBliography2�0

1998. Available at: http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html.AlsoavailableinExploit Interactive5,April2000.Availableat:http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review;http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/nature2.html;andhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/nature2.html.

———.2001/2003.“ForWhomtheGateTolls?HowandWhytoFreetheRef-ereedResearchLiteratureOnlineThroughAuthor/InstitutionSelf-Archiv-ing,Now.”Availableat:http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm.

———.2007a.“EURAB’sProposedOAMandate:Strongestofthe20Adoptedand 5 Proposed So Far.” Posted on Open Access Archivangelism, 15 January.Available at: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/196-guid.html.

———.2007b.“USandEUBothHavePetitionsforOAMandates.”PostedontheBOAIForumlist,14March.Archivedathttp://threader.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lists/boaiforum/.AlsopostedonOpen Access Archivangelism,14January.Availa-bleat:http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?serendipity%5Baction%5D=search&serendipity%5BsearchTerm%5D=immunise.

———. 2007c. “Re: D-Lib article about Cornell’s Institutional Repository.”PostedontheBOAIForumlist,15March.Archivedathttp://threader.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lists/boaiforum.

———.2007d. “UniversityofLeicester’s Self-ArchivingPolicy.”Postedon theBOAIForumlist,8June.Archivedathttp://threader.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lists/boaiforum. Also available at: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/6469.html.

Harnad,Stevan,andTimBrody.2004.“ComparingtheImpactofOpenAccess(OA)vs.Non-OAArticlesintheSameJournals.”D-Lib Magazine10(6)( June).Availableat:http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html.

Harnad,Stevan,TimBrody,F.Vallières,etal.2004.“TheAccess/ImpactProb-lemandtheGreenandGoldRoadstoOpenAccess.”Serials Review30(4).

Harris,Wil.2006.“KazaaCutsOut,CoughsUp.”bit-tech.net,27July.Availableat:http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/07/27/kazaa_cuts_out_coughs_up/.Accessed12August2006.

Hartley,John,andRobertaA.Pearson,eds.2000.American Cultural Studies.Ox-ford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Hayles,N.Katherine.2002.Writing Machines.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.———.2003.“DeeperintotheMachine:TheFutureofElectronicLiterature.”

Culture Machine5.Availableat:http://www.culturemachine.net.———.2005. “NarratingBits.”Vectors1(Winter).Availableat:http://vectors.

usc.edu/narrating_bits/.Accessed14November2006.Heckman, Davin. 2006. “Re: Query on Modes of Resistance.” Posted on

CULTSTUD-L: a listserv devoted to Cultural Studies, 2 June. Available at:http://osdir.com/ml/culture.studies.general/2006-06/msg00009.html.

Hemmungs Wirtén, Eva. 2004. No Trespassing: Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Boundaries of Globalization.Toronto,Canada:UniversityofTo-rontoPress.

BiBliography 2�1

Hersch,SeymourM.2004.“TheGrayZone:HowaSecretPentagonProgramCametoAbuGhraib.”The New Yorker,24May.

Hesmondhalgh,David.2003.“CulturalIndustriesandCulturalStudies.”PostedonCULTSTUD-L:alistservdevotedtoCulturalStudies,28February.Avail-able at http://osdir.com/ml/culture.studies.general/2003-02/msg00046.html.

Hoggart,Richard.1957.The Uses of Literacy.London:ChattoandWindus.Huffington,Ariana.2006.“NowtheLittleGuyIstheTruePitBullofJournal-

ism.” The Guardian, 14 March. Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1730326,00.html.Accessed8October2006.

Hutcheon,Linda.2006.“WhatOpenAccessCouldMeanfortheHumanities.”Project Open Source/Open Access, 13 September. Available at: http://open.utoronto.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=389&Itemid=66.Accessed6November2006.

InternationalAssociationofScientific,TechnicalandMedicalPublishers.2007.“BrusselsDeclarationonSTMPublishing,”11May.Availableat:http://www.stm-assoc.org/brussels-declaration/.Accessed28July2007.

Iwata, Shuichi. 2006. “Message from the President.” The Global InformationCommonsforScienceInitiative,InternationalCouncilforScience:Commit-teeonData forScienceandTechnology (CODATA).Available at:http://www.codata.org/wsis/GlobalInfoCommonsInitiative.html.Accessed23April2006.

Jacobs,Neil,ed.2006.Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects.Oxford:Chandos.

Jeanneney,Jean-Noël.2007.Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge: A View from Europe.TranslatedbyTeresaLavenderFagan.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Johns,Adrian.1998.The Nature of the Book: Print and Knowledge in the Making.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Jöttkandt,Sigi.2007.“No-feeOAJournalsintheHumanities,ThreeCaseStud-ies.”PresentationbyOpenHumanitiesPress at “FromPractice to Impact:Consequences of Knowledge Dissemination,” Berlin 5 Open Access Con-ference, Padua, 19–21 September. Available at: http://www.aepic.it/conf/viewpaper.php?id=261&cf=10.

Kahn,Richard,andDouglasKellner.2005.“OppositionalPoliticsandtheInter-net:ACritical/ReconstructiveApproach.”Cultural Politics1(1).

Kamuf,Peggy.1997.The Division of Literature or The University in Deconstruction.ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress.

———.2004.“TheUniversityintheWorldItIsAttemptingtoThink.”Culture Machine6.Availableat:http://www.culturemachine.net.

Kaufman-WillsGroup.2005.“TheFactsAboutOpenAccess:AStudyoftheFi-nancialandNon-FinancialEffectsofAlternativeBusinessModelsonSchol-arly Journals.” Sponsored by the Association of Learned and ProfessionalSociety Publishers. Available at: http://www.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?id=200&did=47&aid=270&st=&oaid=-1.Accessed16June2007.

BiBliography2�2

Keenan,Thomas.2002.“LookingLikeFlamesandFallingLikeStars.Kosovo,theFirstInternetWar.”InMutations.Bordeaux,France:Arcenreve,Centred’architectureandACTAR.

Kellner,Douglas.1997.“Techno-Politics,NewTechnologies,andtheNewPub-licSpheres.”New Political Science41–42(Fall).Availableat:http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/Illumina%20Folder/kell32.htm.Accessed8Octo-ber2006.

Kelly,Kevin.2006.“ScanThisBook!”New York Times,14May.Kingsley, Danny. 2007. “The One That Got Away?: Institutional Reporting

ChangesandOpenAccess inAustralia.”April.Availableat:http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/45158/1/Kingsley-One%20got%20away.pdf.Accessed5June2007.

Klein,Naomi.2000.“TheBrandingofLearning:AdsinSchoolsandUniversi-ties.”InNo Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs.London:Flamingo.

Kleiner,Dmytri,andBrianWyrick.2007.“Info-Enclosure2.0.”Mute3(4)( Janu-ary).Availableat:http://www.metamute.org/en/InfoEnclosure-2.0.

Kolb,David.1994.Socrates in the Labyrinth: Hypertext, Argument, Philosophy.Water-town,Mass.:EastgateSystems.

———.2000.“HypertextasSubversive?”Culture Machine2.Availableat:http://www.culturemachine.net.

Laclau,Ernesto.1996.Emancipations.London:Verso.Laclau,Ernesto,andChantalMouffe.1986.Hegemony and Socialist Strategy.Lon-

don:Verso.Lanchester,John.2006.“ABiggerBang.”The Guardian Weekend,4November.Lawrence,Steve.2001.“FreeOnlineAvailabilitySubstantiallyIncreasesaPaper’s

Impact.”Nature411(6837),31May.Lazzarato,Maurizio.1996.“ImmaterialLabor.”InMarxism Beyond Marxism,eds.

SareeMakdisi,CesareCasarinoandRebeccaE.KarlforthePolygraphcollec-tive.London:Routledge.

Leavis,F.R.1943.Education and the University.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1979.

Lessig, Lawrence. 1999. Code: And Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: BasicBooks.

———.2004.Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity.London:Penguin.Lister,Martin,JonDovey,SethGiddings,etal.2003.New Media: A Critical Intro-

duction.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.Love,Courtney.2000.“CourtneyLoveDoestheMath.”Salon14June.Available

at:http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/.Accessed12August2006.

Lovink,Geert.1996.“EssayonSpeculativeMediaTheory.”InDark Fiber: Tracking Critical Internet Culture.Cambridge,Mass.,andLondon:MITPress,2003.

———.1997.“PortraitoftheVirtualIntellectual.”InDark Fiber: Tracking Critical Internet Culture.Cambridge,Mass.,andLondon:MITPress,2003.

———.1999a.“FragmentsofNetworkCriticism.”InDark Fiber: Tracking Critical Internet Culture.Cambridge,Mass.,andLondon:MITPress,2003.

BiBliography 2�3

———.1999b.“Kosovo:WarintheAgeoftheInternet.”InDark Fiber: Tracking Critical Internet Culture.Cambridge,Mass.,andLondon:MITPress,2003.

———.2001.“AnInsider’sGuidetoTacticalMedia.”InDark Fiber: Tracking Criti-cal Internet Culture.Cambridge,Mass.,andLondon:MITPress,2003.

———. 2003. “Introduction: Twilight of the Digerati.” In Dark Fiber: Tracking Critical Internet Culture.Cambridge,Mass.,andLondon:MITPress.

———.2006.“BloggingandJournalism,CrackingtheMyth.”8August.Availableat:http://www.networkcultures.org/geert.Accessed19November2006.

———. 2007. “Organic Intellectual: Interview with Andrew Ross [Revised].”Postedonthenettimemailinglist,11July.Availableat:http://www.networkcultures.org/geert/interview-with-andrew-ross/.

Lovink,Geert,andFlorianSchneider.2002.“AVirtualWorldIsPossible:FromTactical Media to Digital Multitude.” Artnodes, Universitat Oberta de Cat-alunya(UOC).Availableat:http://www.uoc.edu/artnodes/eng/art/lovink_schneider0603/lovink_schneider0603.html.

Lovink, Geert, and Christoph Spehr. 2006. “Out-Cooperating the Empire?—ExchangewithChristophSpehr.”Postedonthenettimemailinglist,9July.Available at: http://www.networkcultures.org/geert/out-cooperating-the-empire-exchange-with-christoph-spehr/.

Lunenfeld,Peter,ed.2001a.The Digital Dialectic: New Essays on New Media.Cam-bridge,Mass.,andLondon:MITPress.

———.2001b.“DigitalGrabs:TheDigitalDialecticandNewMediaTheory.”InThe Digital Dialectic: New Essays on New Media.Cambridge,Mass.,andLondon:MITPress.

Lyotard, Jean-François. 1984. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.TranslatedbyGeoffBenningtonandBrianMassumi.Manchester,Eng.:Man-chesterUniversityPress.

———.1986.“DefiningthePostmodern.”InPostmodernism: ICA Documents 4 and 5,ed.LisaApignanesi.London:InstituteofContemporaryArts.

———.1991. “Re-writingModernity.”The Inhuman: Reflections on Time.Trans-latedbyGeoffreyBenningtonandRachelBowlby.London:Polity.

MacColl, John.2002. “FreeAccess toResearchPublications?ThePotentialoftheOpenArchivesInitiative.”Paperpresentedat“TheNewInformationOr-derand theFutureof theArchive,”TheInstitute forAdvancedStudies intheHumanities,attheUniversityofEdinburgh,20–23March.Availableat:http://www.iash.ed.ac.uk/proceedings/maccoll/maccoll.html.

MacLeod, Donald. 2003. “Publishers Damned: Free Online Science ServiceChallengesEstablishedJournals.”Guardian Education,7January.

Madden,Mary.2004.“Artists,MusiciansandtheInternet.”Pew Internet and Amer-ican Life Project,5December.Availableat:http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Artists.Musicians_Report.pdf.

Manovich,Lev.1998.“DatabaseasaSymbolicForm.”Availableat:http://www.manovich.net/docs/database.rtf. Revised and reprinted in Lev Manovich,2001,The Language of New Media.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

———.2001.The Language of New Media.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

BiBliography2�4

Matsuura,Koïchiro.2003.“UNESCO’sApproachtoOpenAccessandPublicDo-mainInformation.”Availableat:http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/006/AD377B/ad377b04.htm. Accessed 6 Novem-ber2006.

Marshall,Gary.2006.“IdiotWind.” .net157(December).Availableat:http://www.netmag.co.uk/zine/big-mouth/idiot-wind.

Marvin,Carolyn.1988.When Old Technologies Were New.NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

McCubbrey, Don, and Rick Watson. 2006. “Call for Participation Global TextProject—ISBook.”PostedonthenettimemailinglistbyMichaelGurstein,19May.Availableat:http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l@bbs.thing.net/msg03493.html.

McEwan,Ian.2006.Saturday.London:Vintage.McLuhan,Marshall.1964.Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.NewYork:

Signet.———.1969.Counterblast.London:RappandWhiting.McLuhan,Marshall,andB.R.Powers.1989.The Global Village—Transformations in

World Life and Media in the 21st Century.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.McRobbie,Angela.1997.“TheEsandtheAnti-Es:NewQuestionsforFeminism

andCulturalStudies.”InCultural Studies in Question,ed.MarjorieFergusonandPeterGolding.London:Sage.ReprintedinAngelaMcRobbie,1999,In the Culture Society.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

———.2000.“StuartHall:TheUniversitiesandthe‘HurlyBurly.’”InWithout Guarantees: In Honour of Stuart Hall,ed.PaulGilroy,LawrenceGrossberg,andAngelaMcRobbie.London:Verso.

———. 2002. “From Holloway to Hollywood: Happiness at Work in the NewCulturalEconomy.”InCultural Economy: Cultural Analysis and Commercial Life,ed.PaulduGayandMichaelPryke.London:Sage.

Meek,James.2001.“ScienceWorldinRevoltatPoweroftheJournalOwners.”The Guardian,May26.

Meikle,Graham.2000.“InterviewwithGeertLovink.”M/C Reviews,3May.Avail-ableat:http://www.uq.edu.au/mc/reviews/features/politics/lovink.html.

———.2002.Future Active: Media Activism and the Internet.London:Routledge.Merton,Robert.1968.“ScienceandDemocraticSocialStructure.”Social Theory

and Social Structure,3rded.NewYork:FreePress.Miah,Andy.2003.“(e)text:Error...404NotFound!OrTheDisappearanceof

History.”Culture Machine5. Availableat:http://www.culturemachine.net.Midgley,Simon.2002.“TheEndofBooks?”Guardian Education,9April.Miller, J. Hillis. 1995. “The Ethics of Hypertext.” Diacritics 25(3) (Fall). Re-

visedandreprintedinJ.HillisMillerandManuelAsensi,1999,Black Holes: J. Hillis Miller; or, Boustrophedonic Reading.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.

Miller,J.Hillis,andManuelAsensi.1999. Black Holes: J. Hillis Miller; or, Boustroph-edonic Reading.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.

Möller,Erik,andBenjaminMakoHill.2006.“[cclicenses]AFreeContentand

BiBliography 2�5

ExpressionDefinition.”Postedonthenettimemailing listbyJaroslawLip-szyc,1May.Availableat:http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l@bbs.thing.net/msg03457.html.

Morris,Meaghan.1988. “Banality inCultural Studies.”Block 14.Anextendedrevisionof“BanalityinCulturalStudies”isavailableinPatriciaMellencamp,ed.,1990,Logics of Television: Essays in Cultural Criticism.LondonandBloom-ington:B.F.I.PublishingandIndianaUniversityPress.

———.1998.“PublishingPerilsandHowtoSurviveThem:AGuideforGradu-ateStudents.”Cultural Studies12(4).

Mouffe,Chantal.1996.“Deconstruction,PragmatismandthePoliticsofDemoc-racy.”InDeconstruction and Pragmatism,ed.ChantalMouffe.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

———.2000.The Democratic Paradox.London:Verso.———.2005.On the Political.London:Routledge.Neilson,Brett.2006.“CulturalStudiesandGiorgioAgamben.”InNew Cultural

Studies: Adventures in Theory, ed. Gary Hall and Clare Birchall. Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Neilson, Brett, and Angela Mitropoulos. 2005. “Polemos, Universitas.” Border-lands 4(1). Available at: http://www.borderlandsejournal.adelaide.edu.au/vol4no1_2005/neilsonmitropoulos_polemos.htm. Accessed 16 November2006.

Newman, John Henry. 1858. “University Subjects.” In The Idea of a University: Defined and Illustrated.London:Longmans,Green,1929.

Oberholzer-Gee,Felix,andKolemanS.Strumpf.2005.“TheEffectofFileShar-ingonRecordSales:AnEmpiricalAnalysis.”Available at:http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_June2005_final.pdf.Accessed6November2006.

Ong, Walter. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. Reprint,London:Methuen,2002.

Oppenheim,Charles.2001.“TheLegalandRegulatoryEnvironmentforElec-tronic Information.” Infonortics. Available at: http://www.infonortics.com/publications/legal4.html.

———. 2004. “Re: Evolving Publisher Copyright Policies on Self-Archiving.”PostedontheAmericanScientistOpenAccessForum,9November.Availableat:http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4140.html.

O’Shea,Alan.1998. “ASpecialRelationship?CulturalStudies,AcademiaandPedagogy.”Cultural Studies12(4).

Patel,Kam.2000.“TeamFindsWayRoundCopyright.”Times Higher Education Supplement,12February.

Phillips,Stephen.2002.“TakeAwayBooksandtheChairsCollapse.”Times Higher Education Supplement,8November.

Pool,K.2000.“Love,NotMoney.”The Author(Summer).Poster,Mark.1995.The Second Media Age.London:Polity.———.1997.“Cyberdemocracy:InternetandthePublicSphere.”InInternet Cul-

ture,ed.DavidPorter.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.ReprintedinMark

BiBliography2��

Poster,2001,What’s the Matter with the Internet.MinneapolisandLondon:Uni-versityofMinnesotaPress.

———.2001a.“TheorizingtheVirtual:BaudrillardandDerrida.”InWhat’s the Matter with the Internet. Minneapolis and London: University of MinnesotaPress.

———.2001b.“TheDigitalSubjectandCulturalTheory.”InWhat’s the Matter with the Internet.MinneapolisandLondon:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

———. 2005. “Who Controls Digital Culture?” Fast Capitalism 2(1). Availableat: http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/1_2/poster.html. Re-printedinMarkPoster,2006,Information Please: Culture and Politics in the Age of Digital Machines.Durham,N.C.:DukeUniversityPress.

Poynder,Richard.2007.“TheOAInterviews:StevanHarnad,”1July.Availableat:http://poynder.blogspot.com/2007/07/oa-interviews-stevan-harnad.html.Accessed16July2007.

Quaranta,Domenico.2006.“TheLastAvant-Garde:InterviewwithMarkTribeandReenaJana.”PostedonthenettimemailinglistbyDomenicoQuaranta,30October.Availableat:http://www.mail-archive.com/nettime-l@bbs.thing.net/msg03865.html.

RAE2001.“WhatIstheRAE2001?”Availableat:http://www.hero.ac.uk/rae/AboutUs/.Accessed12August2006.

Raley, Rita. 2001. “Reveal Codes: Hypertext and Performance.” Postmodern Culture 12(1). Available at: http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.901/12.1raley.txt.Accessed7December2006.

Ramírez,Álvaro.2005. “Narratives inMediaandeCommunication:ABlogbyÁlvaroRamírez.”PostedbyÁlvaroRamírez,5June.Accessed6June2005.

Raymond,Eric.2001.The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary.Sebastopol,Calif.:O’ReillyMedia.

Readings, Bill. 1994. “Caught in the Net: Notes from the Electronic Under-ground.” Surfaces 4 (104). Available at: http://www.pum.umontreal.ca/revues/surfaces/vol4/readings.html.Accessed16June2007.

———.1996.The University in Ruins.Cambridge,Mass.andLondon:HarvardUniversityPress.

Richardson,Elvis,andSarahGoffman.2006.“Editorial.”Photofile: Contemporary Photomedia and Ideas78(Spring).

Rifkin,Adrian.2003.“InventingRecollection.”InInterrogating Cultural Studies: Theory, Politics, Practice, ed.PaulBowman.LondonandSterling,Va.:PlutoPress.

Rikowski,Glenn.2003.“TheBusinessTakeoverofSchools.”Mediactive1.Robins,Kevin.1996.“CyberspaceortheWorldWeLiveIn.”InFractal Media: New

Media in Social Context,ed.JohnDovey.London:LawrenceandWishart.Robins, Kevin, and Frank Webster. 1999. “Deconstructing the Academy: The

NewProductionofHumanCapital.” InTimes of the Technoculture.London:Routledge.

———,eds.2003.The Virtual University? Knowledge, Management and Markets.Ox-ford:OxfordUniversityPress.

BiBliography 2��

Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Rosenthal,Morris.2006.“PrintonDemandPOD:ALightningSourceExample.”Availableat:http://www.fonerbooks.com/pod.htm.Accessed16June2007.

Ross,Andrew.2000. “TheMentalLaborProblem.”Social Text 18(263)(Sum-mer).

Royle,Nicholas.1995.“ForeignBody:TheDeconstructionofaPedagogicalIn-stitutionandAllThatItImplies.”InAfter Derrida.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.

[Rumsfeld, Donald.] 2002. “Rumsfeld Warns of Threats Deadlier Than Sept.11.”NewsMax.com Wires,1February.Availableat:http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/31/163455.shtml.Accessed16June2007.

Rutherford,Jonathan.2003.“ThePrivateFinanceInitiativeandtheEducationMarket.”Signs of the Times,23February.Availableat:http://www.signsofthetimes.org.uk/pfi%5Btextonly%5D.html.Accessed19October2006.

———. 2005. “Cultural Studies in the Corporate University.” Cultural Studies19(3)(March).

Sale,Arthur.2006. “Australia’sRQF.”Postedon theAmericanScientistOpenAccess Forum, 17 November. Available at: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/5805.html.Accessed5June2007.

Salter, Lee. 2003. “Democracy, New Social Movements and the Internet.” InCyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and Practice, ed.MarthaMcCaugheyandMichaelD.Ayers.London:Routledge.

Sayid, Ruki. 2006. “76,000,000 Websites But We Use Just 6.” Daily Mirror,6March.

Sconce, Jeffery. 2003. “Tulip Theory.” In New Media: Theories and Practices of Digitextuality, ed.AnnaEverett and JohnCaldwell.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Solomon, David J. 2002. “Talking Past Each Other: Making Sense of the De-bateoverElectronicPublication.”First Monday7(8).Availableat:http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_8/solomon/.Accessed12October2006.

———. 2006. “Strategies for Developing Sustainable Open Access ScholarlyJournals.” First Monday 11(6). Available at: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_6/solomon/index.html.Accessed12October2006.

Sondheim,Alan.2001. “Introduction:Codework.”American Book Review 22(6)(September/October). Available at: http://www.litline.org/ABR/issues/Volume22/Issue6/sondheim.pdf.

Stacey, Paul. 2006. New Technologies of Democracy: How the Information and Com-munication Technologies Are Shaping New Cultures of Radical Democratic Politics.UnpublishedPh.D.thesis.MiddlesexUniversity.

Stallman,Richard.2002.Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stall-man.Boston,Mass.:FreeSoftwareFoundation.Availableat:http://notabug.com/2002/rms-essays.pdf.Accessed15January2007.

Steele,Tom.1997.The Emergence of Cultural Studies, 1945–65: Cultural Politics, Adult Education and the English Question.London:LawrenceandWishart.

BiBliography2��

Stiegler,Bernard.1998.Technics and Time, 1: The Fault of Epimetheus.TranslatedbyRichardBeardsworthandGeorgeCollins.Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUni-versityPress.

———.2002.“TheDiscreteImage.”InEchographies of Television: Filmed Interviews,by Jacques Derrida and Bernard Stiegler. Translated by Jennifer Bajorek.London:Polity.

———.2003. “Our AilingEducational Institutions.” Culture Machine 5.Trans-latedbyStefanHerbrechter.Availableat:http://www.culturemachine.net.

Stiglitz,Joseph.1999.“PublicPolicyforaKnowledgeEconomy.”PaperpresentedattheDepartmentforTradeandIndustryandCenterforEconomicPolicyResearchTheWorldBankGroup,London,27January.Availableat:http://www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/extme/knowledge-economy.pdf. Accessed31October2006.

Stothart,Chloe.2006.“DotheiPodShuffle,ButDon’tMisstheLecture.”The Times Higher Education Supplement,26May.

Striphas,Ted.1998.“TheLongMarch:CulturalStudiesandItsInstitutionaliza-tion.”Cultural Studies12(4).

———. 2002. “A Constellation of Books: Communication, Technology, andPopularCulture in theLateAgeofPrint.”Ph.D.diss.UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill.

———. 2003. “Book 2.0.” Culture Machine 5. Available at: http://www.culturemachine.net.

Striphas, Ted, and Kembrew McLeod. 2006. Special issue on “The Politics ofIntellectualProperties.”Cultural Studies20(2/3)(March/May).Availableat:http://www.indiana.edu/~bookwormandhttp://kembrew.com/academics/research.html.

Suber,Peter.2004.“WhoShouldControlAccesstoResearchLiterature?”SPARC Open Access Newsletter79(2)(November).Availableat:http://earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/11-02-04.htm.

———. 2007a. “Balancing Author and Publisher Rights.” SPARC Open Access Newsletter110(2June).Availableat:http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/06-02-07.htm.

———.2007b.“OpenAccessOverview.”Availableat:http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm.

Sutherland,John.2004.“ProfitableMargins.”The Guardian, G2,30March.Terranova,Tiziana.2000.“FreeLabor:ProducingCulturefortheDigitalEcon-

omy.”Social Text18(263)(Summer).Availableat:http://www.uoc.edu/in3/hermeneia/sala_de_lectura/t_terranova_free_labor.htm.Accessed7January2007.Ashorterversionofthisessaywaspublishedin2003inThe Electronic Book Review. Available at: http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/technocapitalism/voluntary.

Thacker, Eugene. 2005. “Living Dead Networks.” Fibreculture 4. Available at:http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue4/issue4_thacker.html. Accessed 21November2006.

Thatcher,SanfordG.1999.“The‘ValueAdded’inEditorialAcquisitions.”Jour-

BiBliography 2��

nal of Scholarly Publishing30(2).Availableat:http://128.100.205.43/access/jour.ihtml?lp=product/jsp/302/302_thatcher.html.Accessed4June2007.

Thompson,E.P.1970.Warwick University Ltd.Harmondsworth,Eng.:Penguin.Thompson,JohnB.2005.Books in the Digital Age.Cambridge,Eng.:PolityPress.Times Higher Education Supplement, The.2002.“DuoClaimsThatPhysicsWebsite

InfringedTheirCivilRights.”6December.Tribe,Mark,andReenaJana.2006.“ArtintheAgeofDigitalDistribution.”New

Media Art.London:Taschen.Tschider, Charlotte. 2006. “Investigating the ‘Public’ in the Public Library of

Science:GiftingEconomicsintheInternetCommunity.”First Monday11(6).Availableat:http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_6/tschider/index.html.Accessed17October2006.

Turkle,Sherry.1996.Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet.London:WeidenfeldandNicolson.

Valentine, Jeremy.2006.“CulturalStudiesandPost-Marxism.” InNew Cultural Studies: Adventures in Theory, ed. Gary Hall and Clare Birchall. Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Vershbow,Ben.2006.“OpenSourceDissertation.”Postedon theInstitute forthe Future of the Book’s if:book blog, 23 June. Available at: http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2006/06/open_source_dissertation.html.Accessed8February2007.

Virno,Paulo.2004a.“CreatingaNewPublicSphere,WithouttheState:Inter-viewwithPaoloVirnobyHéctorPavón.”TranslatedbyNateHoldren.Avail-ableat:http://www.generation-online.org/p/fpvirno8.htm.

———.2004b.A Grammar of the Multitude.TranslatedbyIsabellaBertoletti,JamesCascaitoandAndreaCasson.NewYork:Semiotext(e).

Virno, Paulo, and Antonio Negri. 2003. “Public Sphere, Labour, Multitude:StrategiesofResistanceinEmpire.”SeminarorganizedbyOfficinePrecariein Pisa, 5 February. Translated by Arianna Bove. Available at: http://www.generation-online.org/t/common.htm.

Wainwright,Hilary,OscarReyes,MarcoBerlinguer,etal.,eds.2007.Networked Politics: Rethinking Political Organisation in an Age of Movements and Networks.TNI,Transform!Italia,IGOPandEuromovements.Availableat:http://www.tni.org/reports/newpol/networkedpolitics.pdf.Accessed18January2007.

Wark, McKenzie. 2001. “Codework.” American Book Review 22(6). Available at:http://www.litline.org/ABR/Issues/Volume22/Issue6/abr226.html. Postedonthefibreculturemailinglist,22September.Availableat:http://www.fibreculture.org/myspinach/fibreculture/2001-September/000746.html.

———. 2006a. GAM3R 7H30RY, Version 1.1. Available at: http://www.futureofthebook.org/gamertheory.Accessed20September2006.

———.2006b.“TheWeirdGlobalMediaEventandtheTacticalIntellectual.”InNew Media Old Media: A History and Theory Reader,ed.WendyHuiKyongChunandThomasKeenan.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.

Weber,Samuel.1978.“It.”Glyph4.———.1987.Institution and Interpretation.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota

BiBliography2�0

Press.RevisedandreprintedasSamuelWeber,2001,Institution and Interpreta-tion (Expanded Edition).Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.

———.1996.Mass Mediauras: Form, Technics, Media. Stanford,Calif.: StanfordUniversityPress.

———.1999. “TheFutureCampus:Destiny inaVirtualWorld.”Hydra.Avail-ableat:http://hydra.umn.edu/Weber/text1.html.Accessed11August2006.ReprintedinSamuelWeber,2001,Institution and Interpretation (Expanded Edi-tion).Stanford,Calif.:StanfordUniversityPress.

———.2000.“TheFutureoftheHumanities:Experimenting.”Culture Machine2.Availableat:http://www.culturemachine.net.ReprintedinSamuelWeber,2001, Institution and Interpretation (Expanded Edition). Stanford, Calif.: Stan-fordUniversityPress.

———. 2001. “Responding: A Discussion with Samuel Weber.” Conducted bySimonMorganWorthamandGaryHall.Culture Machine, InterZone.Availableat:http://www.culturemachine.net.Republishedin2002inThe South Atlan-tic Quarterly 101(3) (Summer); Simon Morgan Wortham, 2003, Samuel We-ber: Acts of Reading.Aldershot,Eng.:AshgatePublishing;andSamuelWeber,2005,Theatricality as Medium.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.

Webster,Frank.2004.“CulturalStudiesandSociologyat,andAfter,theClosureoftheBirminghamSchool1.”Cultural Studies18(6)(November).

White,Michele.2002.“TheAestheticsofFailure:NetArtGoneWrong.”Angelaki7(1)(April).

Wikipedia. 2006a. “Open Access.” Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access.Accessed13June2007.

———.2006b.“eDonkeyNetwork.”Availableat:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDonkey_network.Accessed6November2006.

———. 2006c. “Journal.” Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal.Accessed9November2006.

———.2006d.“Metadata.”Availableat:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata.Accessed27February2006.

Williams,Raymond.1958.Culture and Society, 1780–1950.Harmondsworth,Eng.:Penguin,1961.

———.1977.Marxism and Literature.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.———. 1986. “The Future of Cultural Studies.” In The Politics of Modernism:

Against the New Conformists,ed.TonyPinkney.London:Verso,1989.Willinsky,John.2006.The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and

Scholarship.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.Wortham,Simon.2003.Samuel Weber: Acts of Reading.Aldershot,Eng.:Ashgate

Publishing.Wortham,SimonMorgan,andGaryHall, eds.2007.Experimenting: Essays with

Samuel Weber.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.Young, Jeffrey R. 2006. “Book 2.0: Scholars Turn Monographs into Digital

Conversations.”Chronicle of Higher Education,1August.Availableat:http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i47/47a02001.htm.Accessed16June2007.

Young,Robert.1992. “The Ideaof aChrestomaticUniversity.” InLogomachia: The Conflict of the Faculties, ed. Richard Rand. Lincoln, Neb., and London:

BiBliography 2�1

UniversityofNebraskaPress.Revisedandreprinted inRobert J.C.Young,1996,Torn Halves: Political Conflict in Literary and Cultural Theory.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.

———.1996a.“TheDialecticsofCulturalCriticism.”InAuthorizing Culture,spe-cialissueof Angelaki2(2),ed.GaryHallandSimonWortham.ReprintedinRobertJ.C.Young,1996,Torn Halves: Political Conflict in Literary and Cultural Theory.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.

———.1996b.Torn Halves: Political Conflict in Literary and Cultural Theory.Man-chester:ManchesterUniversityPress,1996.

Ž iž ek,Slavoj.1997.The Plague of Fantasies.London:Verso.———.1999.The Ticklish Subject.London:Verso.———.2001. “TheOneMeasureofTrueLove Is: YouCan Insult theOther:

InterviewwithSabineReulandThomasDeichmann.”Spiked15(November).Available at: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D2C4.htm.Accessed16June2007.

Zylinska,Joanna.2001.“AnEthicalManifestoforCulturalStudies...Perhaps.”Strategies: Journal of Theory, Culture and Politics14(2)(November).

———,ed.2002.The Ethico-Political Issue. Culture Machine4.Availableat:http://www.culturemachine.net.

———.2005.The Ethics of Cultural Studies.London:Continuum.———.2006.“CulturalStudiesandEthics.”InNew Cultural Studies: Adventures in

Theory,eds.GaryHallandClareBirchall.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

———.Forthcoming.Bioethics in the Age of New Media.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.

2�2

inDex

aBout the author

GaryHallisaculturaltheoristworkingintheareasofnewmedia,con-tinentalphilosophy,andculturalstudies.HeisprofessorofmediaandperformingartsintheSchoolofArtandDesignatCoventryUniversityintheUnitedKingdom.HisbooksincludeCulture in Bits: The Monstrous Future of Theory(2002),New Cultural Studies: Adventures in Theory(withClareBirchall,2006),andExperimenting: Essays with Samuel Weber (withSimonMorganWortham,2007).

Heisalsoanewmediawriter,editor,andpublisher.HeiseditoroftheonlinejournalofculturaltheoryandculturalstudiesCulture Ma-chine(http://www.culturemachine.net),foundedin1999;serieseditorofBerg’sCulture Machinebookseries;directorof thecultural studiesopen-access archive CSeARCH (http://www.culturemachine.net/csearch); andcofounderof theOpenHumanitiesPress (http://www.openhumanitiespress.org).Hisworkhasappearedinnumerousjour-nals,includingAngelaki,Cultural Studies,Parallax,The Review of Educa-tion, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies,The South Atlantic Quarterly,andThe Oxford Literary Review.Moreinformationabouthisworkcanbefoundathttp://www.garyhall.info.