On Agoras (v.4)

Concepts of ‘public sphere’

as a matter of responsibility

Taking the issue of responsibility in the publishing sphere leads to the notion of the public. From here on, what means public and how the subject (either the authorial or creational/constitutional one as sides of the public discourse) approaches it and how the public appears today through the category of responsibility?

For the purposes of this issue of the magazine it was proposed to discuss the 'processual' publishing as a matter of 'actual gestures', distinguishing the gesture from the action. At first glance, it may seem that the structural positioning of the topic as such formulates the condition of the responsibility of/in the public sphere. But what if this position damps the peak of the action as, first of all, a matter of responsibility? If one agrees that the gesture is more like 'signifying motions and signalling something' instead of 'changing' it, than, does it mean a withdrawal of the significance of the responsibility now a days? Il pensiero debole? The very same one may argue this with the recent condition of the de-centred structure or even subject and by that - the disempowered ones. Does it mean that the de-centring has to be, in the same time, dis-empowered or freed of full responsibility?

Let this list of questions be junctioned with the following statement: 'public sphere' is not only 'being democratised' to say and to criticise whatever was placed and whomever placed the statement into the field of public (by different means), but rather to accept the higher degree of responsibility carried by the both sides of the public dialogue: the placed statement and the critique of it.

According to this, let it be taken three forms of public space for three different conditions of public responsibility: the agora, the book and the blog. The first one alludes on the oral tradition in the ancient Greece, the second reflects the Gutenbergian era and the latest relates to the McLuhanian one. And they may seam as historical survey of the developing or the presence of the attitude between the public statement and its responsibility, i.e. as items in a diachronical structure, but for this occasion they are taken as three synchronic concepts. They are understood as three different concepts of the appearing of the statement in the public sphere and the level of the public responsibility (or responsibility in the public).

1. THE AGORA CONCEPT

In ancient Greece agora meant a public open space used for assemblies and markets. Stoa (at the Athens' agora) was the large portico in which the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea gave the founding lectures of the Stoic school of philosophy in the 5th century BC. [Fig. 1] The metaphor of the stoa for this concept is based upon the situation in which the verbal communication between the author of the statement confronts to the audience in direct and by that becoming public. While presenting (making present by its presence), promoting and defending the statement there were not more than few tens of listeners and, if provocative enough, repliers and critics. The confrontation was realised trough direct confrontation that means that the author was bodily (i.e. physically) present in front of the public. So, the author's responsibility was personal responsibility. The responsibility for the statement was temporary - lasting for only limited period of time (while discussing), but not permanent. Due to the fact that the promotion of the statement was verbal, the public sphere appears as a direct critic or critique.

fig. 1

2. THE BOOK CONCEPT

This concept appeared after the invention of the press and printing machine by Johannes Gutenberg in 1450. What appeared was the possibility of disseminating of the statement to the hundreds and thousands of readers, instead of limited editions of the medieval manuscripts. [Fig. 2] By that the public sphere switched to the readership, replacing the verbal confrontation via oral discussion. Not the oral, but publicised statement of the author through the printing appeared as material presence for a critique of the statement. This disables direct confrontation and enables pre-confrontation (known only for the author and the editor/publisher as a priori) and post-confrontation (vivid as a posteriori reaction of the public). The former through the publisher's approval or recommendation, the later via reviews and polemics printed some time after the making of the statement public. Having the publisher or editor/ial as a approval of the value of the statement certain degree of the author's responsibility is exchanged with the former's meta-responsibility. The author's responsibility is not in front of the public (in the agora's sense), but rather behind the name on the cover of the book or the review. As such, this concept deals with the temporally responsible for the statement (of or relating to time, that lasts, as opposed to the temporary - which is for some period of time) both of the author and the editor/publisher.

fig. 2

3. THE BLOG CONCEPT

It was in 1965 when McLuhan, almost prophetically, introduced into the language the terms such as 'media', 'global village' and 'age of information', among the others. 'In general, he writes, electric speed-up requires complete knowledge of ultimate effects.' This ultimate (as 'being of the end of the process') denotes the mass media as an indication 'of the fact that everybody becomes involved in them at the same time. Thus commodity industries under automation [or cybernation] share the same structural character of the entertainment industries in the degree that both approximate the condition of instant information.' From here on, the public sphere, as it is pixeled, becomes an entertained subject. [Fig. 3] The tens of thousands of surfers are mediated via the monitor (as exponent of the virtuality). The monitor itself is creating the virtual presence of the author and as such s/he is 'hidden' behind it. And vice versa, the critique of the statement inter-plays mediated confrontation, appeared through different adds, pod-casts, posts, comments, impressions, etc. Such a condition of hidden presence (based on the media ability to be hidden, replaceable and changed, and behind different 'names' or the technological possibility to create even avatars) seriously questions the origin and the originality of the notion of responsibility, since the responsibility is recognised as personal approved either by the physical presence of the author (agora concept) or by the referentiality to the publisher (book concept). By this, the blogger generates a quasi-responsibility which designates the blog concept as ephemerally responsible for the statement.

fig. 3

In other words, the issue of responsibility transforms from one concept to another. The agora concept of full responsibility, due to the fact of the personal and physical presence (in vivo) in the public, is irreplaceable from its carrier (the author of the statement, comment, critique). As such, the verbal medium of promoting the statement recognises centred position based upon the knowledge in extenso. Only in this sense the capacity of the knowledge builds the power (or empowerment) as centred position.

In the book concept the personal responsibility is substituted (but not yet disappeared) from its carrier by the transferring, and by that sharing with, to the editor or the peer review process. The responsibility in the printed medium is re-centred due to the fact that the valuability of the statement is denoted not only by knowledge, but first of all by the argumentation and its referentiality. By that it is re-centred because the responsibility is partially transferred to others' capacities of knowledge: the power is disseminated and spread through the community of professionals.

The blog concept shares apparent, simulated responsibility, even pseudo-responsibility. It derives from the nature and the structure of the medium in which the statement is transmitted. The pixeled medium is changeable by anyone which means that it is still not a referential one. Therefore it may appear that this is a reason why there is no need for knowledge and argumentation (referentiality). It appears as de-centred not because that it can be dispersed among the tens of thousands of surfers, but because it is displaced from the position of the centre as position of power - disempowered. The notion of the most democratic medium, as it is proclaimed, comes out from the widening of the field of knowledge: instead of the professionals, towards whom the statement is addressed, it is available to the large (laic) public.

If it so, how the uncritical understanding of the democratisation of the public sphere results? Keeping in mind the first and only concept of dis-powerment of the centre, the responsibility lost its own reason and cause. As much the public sphere is democratised (and especially - de-centred), that less responsibility is present. It appears that claiming for gestures rather than for action leads to the condition of having a statement, or placing it in the field of public as being fully democratic, but without responsibility. In other words, it is more to be fully democratic through gestures, instead of being fully responsible for the action. The more interest is forced in the processual without being conclusional has no meaning. The disempowering of the centre does not mean that one has no or less responsibility in the public. The rhizomatic structure of the today's spirit of time had no thought of loosing the personal responsibility on behalf of the group or mass. It just spread the responsibility to any single subject of that very same group or mass: the disempowered centre as single turned into empowerment of the plurality of singles. And that requests form of personal responsibility which is not hidden behind the 'democratised' pixeled medium through which instead of action, there will be promotion of gesture that 'implies an indication, a sign' only, gesture that 'entails a particular type of agency, as well as an idiosyncrasy that is specific to what it suggests'.

Hence, 'publishing the public' still needs to be published statement (even of the subject from the general public) as a system of responsibility which still recognises and consists the form of improvement by the system.

Public does mean democratic (or at least - democratised) plurality, but it easily slips into impersonal responsibility or personal irresponsibility. Even more - into impersonal irresponsibility. After the personal responsibility (stoa concept), shared responsibility (book concept) and hidden responsibility (pixel concept) who needs that?, what is the sense of it?, where does it lead to? Or there is need for a new concept of the public on the horizon: the one of the avatar - the one of impersonal irresponsibility? A movable, replaceable, re-changeable, re-chargeable icon/platform representing the person/public in cyberspace which will transfer the responsibility to some centre - again ... to the Clarke's 'Hal 9000', for example: 'With the amazing computer Clarke presents one of the basic philosophical questions: can there be intelligence without consciousness?'

If by that the circle is closed (centre - re-centre - de-centre - centre), than: isn’t our ‘transited’ and less personally responsible post-modernity turned back to some ‘quasi’ antiquity?*

============

From: nat muller

Date: 20 февруари 2008 17:51:41 GMT+01:00

To: nvilic@sonet.com.mk

Cc: Alessandro Ludovico

Subject: Re: proof

dear nebojsa,

now it's my turn to apologise for being late in getting back to you with feedback. thanks for your text: i think the idea fits well in the overall idea of the publication; but it is very dense and still somehow comes across as a first draft, perhaps because the english is quite confusing. in any case, it needs quite a heavy edit (if not a rewrite) in order to make it legible, and i am not quite sure where to start.

so perhaps i will start with a few questions of clarification - not sure whether most of them are mostly due because language issues, but here we go. after your reply, i will send you a first edit (or rather rewrite) of the text, and with your ok i will send it to labforculture for final copy editing. however, if there is someone in skopje who can do a first edit, that would be great, and i can polish it and then get it copy-edited.

here we go:

- paragraph 1: when you say *creational subject*, do you actually mean *creative subjected*? -- NO.

- paragraph 1: when you say *dis-powered*, do you mean *disempowered*? -- YES.

- i wonder whether referring to agora/book and blog as *concepts* is the right word? wouldn't another word be more appropriate in this context? manifestation? sphere? ??? -- NO.

- p2: the bit on the agora, your final sentence: *Due to the fact that the promotion of the statement was verbal, the public sphere appears as a direct critic or critique.*

--> here you mean the public sphere=the auditors/audience/listeners, and that their critique is direct because of the realtime/live communication wit the speaker, right? -- YES.

- p2: book: you use the terms *pre-confrontation* and *post-confrontation*.

--> i think we should reformulate that in english; is confrontation the right word here? in english it is very strong; is encounter perhaps better? -- NO, IT HAS TO BE STRONG, SINCE THE WHOLE TEXT HAS STRONG POSITIONS.

- p2: the book: you state: *The former through the editor's approval or peer review recommendation, the later via reviews and polemics printed some time after the making of the statement public*

--> i feel the editorial/peer review dynamic is typical for academic publishing. perhaps we should generalise this to the role of the publisher and leave editors and peer reviewers out? -- OK. I CHANGED IT. BUT, OFF RECORD, REGARDING THE EDITORIAL - SEE WHAT YOU DID FROM MY TEXT AND HOW MANY REMARKS YOU HAVE ON THE TEXT??? YOU, AS AN EDITOR, ARE IMPROVING AFRONT OF THE PUBLIC WHAT I SAID IN THE TEXT! IF NOT, WHY THEN THEESE REMARKS?

--> the last sentence is very convoluted and confusing: *As such, this concept deals with the temporally responsible for the statement, of or relating to time, as opposed to the temporary.* who is temporarily responsible for the statement: author or publisher? the 2nd half i do not understand, but i think this is because of the rather confusing grammatical construction: can you shed some light? -- OK, I CHANGED.

- p2: blog: your conclusion:*Such a condition of hidden presence (based on the media ability to be hidden behind different 'names' or the possibility to create even avatars) seriously questions the origin and the originality of the notion of responsibility.*

--> what do you mean by *origin* and *originality* within this context? i think you should elaborate on that, because it is unclear. -- I ADD SOME EXPLANATIONS.

- *By this, the blogger generates a quasi-responsibility which designates the blog concept as ephemerally responsible for the statement.*

--> but how is this different from print authors using pseudonyms and noms de plume? that is also a type of *hiding*. -- I AM NOT REFERRING TO THEM. UNDER "AUTHOR" IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE NAME IS NOT PSEUDONYM.

--> and how is it ephemeral? -- I ADD FEW WORDS IN THE BRACKETS ABOVE, BEFORE "AVATARS".

--> because it is the immediacy of the medium? -- NO, BUT BECAUSE OF IT IS STILL UNDER POSSIBILITY TO CHANGE ANY CONTENT (AS HACKERS ARE DOING, FOR EXAMPLE).

--> the book concept is also mediated, albeit through a different technology. -- THE BOOK CAN NOT BE CHANGED OR INTERVENTED AFTER THE PRINTING.

--> and is it fair - after the death of the author -- WHO SAID THAT??? WHY, THAN, IF SO, YOU STILL PUT YOUR NAME ABOVE OR UNDER THE TEXT???

--> to place all responsibility with the author? -- YES, AND IT IS SO SINCE THE RENAISSANCE!

--> what about the responsibility of the readers there? -- THE SAME AS FOR THE AUTHOR.

--> why should that be quasi? what distinguishes between responsibility proper and responsibility quasi? -- BECAUSE OF THE DISSABILITY TO IMPROVE THE "AUTORSHIP" DUE TO THE SPECIFIES OF THE DIGITAL MEDIUM. AND IT IS AS SUCH. THEREFORE, OPPOSITE OF THE FAX, E-MAIL IS STILL NOT RECOGNISED AS VALUABLE AND VALID DOCUMENT - BECAUSE IT IS CHANGEABLE AND INCONSTANT.

- p3 on the book: *The responsibility in the printed medium is re-centred due to the fact that the valiability of the statement is denoted not only by knowledge, but first of all by the argumentation and its referentiality.*

--> what do you mean here by denoted? -- "THE STATEMENT IS INDICATED", LET'S SAY.

--> and i am confused about the role of argumentation&referentiality (sorry, it's just the sentence that is really unclear) -- THE ARGUMENTATION AND REFERENTIALITY ARE ELEMENTS OF THE METHODOLOGICAL APPARATUS AS APPROVAL IN THE SYSTEM OF KNOWLEDGE, AND I DID NOT DISCOVER THIS. AND THIS IS SERIOUS COMPONENT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY - IT IS USED FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO CHECK WHETHER YOU ARE RIGHT OR WRONG. FROM THE OTHER HAND, THE STATEMENTS WITHOUT THEM ARE DENOTED AS "IMPRESSIONISTIC" - RELATED TO THE IMPRESSION, BUT NOT BY THE FACTS AND ARGUMENTS. YES, IT IS VERY ACADEMIC.

- same paragraph: again you state the distribution of power is shared amonts professionals, but isn't this much more the case for academic publishing. -- YES, IT IS ACAMEDIC, SINCE THE SYSTEM OF KNOWLEDGE, AND YET RESPONSIBILITY, IS BUILT UPON THIS POLITICS.

--> where's the role of the reader here? -- S/HE HAS TO USE THE SAME SYSTEM (ARGUMENTATION AND REFERENTIALITY) IN THE REVIEWS AND CRITIQUES. OTHERWISE, THE REVIEW HAS NO LEGITIMATION, IT BECOMES JUST IMPRESSION. THEREFORE THE "WORLD" FADE OUT - SINCE RECENTLY EVERYONE TOOK THE RIGHT TO SAY EVERYTHING WITHOUT EFFICIENT ARGUMENTS.

- p3: blog: i really think designations such as *siulated* and *pseudo responsibilit* need a bit more argumentation to bring the point home. it is not true that the pixelled medium is changeable by anyone: if you don't have admin authorisation for a website, you cannot change it. zines online function like that. as do blogs. -- WHAT ABOUT CRAZY HACKERS?

--> sure: people can leave comments but that does not necessarily change the author's text. -- YES, BUT I AM TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF THE MEDIUM FOR SOME OTHER ONE TO CHANGE THE AUTHOR'S TEXT.

--> and why sould there be no need for knowledge and referentiality in here? -- YES, IT CAN BE, BUT THERE IS NOT - BUT, THIS IS OTHER QUESTION.

--> many would argue that hperlinking is in effect creating a trail of cross-references. surely there are more types of knowledge than purely academic refereed ones? -- WELL, YES, THERE ARE OTHER TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE, BUT I AM TALKING ABOUT RESPONSIBLE KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS SUSPICIOUS [OR, AT LEAST, I AM] WITH THIS MEDIUM.

--> so why then is it disempowered? -- BECAUSE THE MAIN TASK OF THE MEDIUM [AS IT IS CLAIMED, BESIDE THE FACT THAT IS, BY DEFINITION, MOST CONTROLLED MEDIUM EVER] IS TO DE-CENTRALISE THE POINTS OF POWER, JUST BECAUSE OF THE DEMOCRATIC COMPONENT OF ITS ACCESSIBILITY. AS THE CENTRE OF POWER IS MORE DEMOCRATISED, THAT MORE DE-CENTRES HAS LESS POWER - IT IS JUST A RULE OF THE NATURE [AND POLITICS] [SEE THE EXAMPLES FROM THE HISTORY.]

--> aren't books also dissiminated to whomever wants to buy them? -- NO, THEY ARE NOT. I WILL RATHER BUY A BOOK OF NN, BUT MAYBE I CAN NOT FIND 30 EUROS TO PAY IT. TO WANT AND TO CAN IS NOT THE SAME. I.E. COMPUTING IS MORE ACCESSIBLE THAN THE PRINTED MEDIUM, IT IS A FACT.

--> perhaps it would be good to know what you exactly mean by *centre*: who/what is it? where is it located? is it always the author? -- IN THIS CASE OF RESPONSIBILITY - YES.

- p3: your concluding paragraph: i think a few words are missing in this sentence: *In other words, it more to be fully democratic instead of being fully responsible for the action.*...ehhh..? -- YEEEE!!!!

-p3, final paragraph: *The dis-powered centre as single means empowerment of the plurality of singles.* hmmm equally confusing: can you just illustrate perhaps with a concrete example, so i can perhpas get a better grip on what you actually mean? -- I ADD SOME CHANGES.

--> also what follows afterwards: *And that requests form of personal responsibility which is not hidden behind the 'democratised' pixeled medium through which instead of action, there will be promotion of gesture that 'implies an indication, a sign' only, gesture that 'entails a particular type of agency, as well as a idiosyncrasy that is specific to what it suggest'. * is equally cryptic: can we translate this into a concrete example? -- I DO NOT THINK SO.

- * p3, final paragraph: *Hence, 'publishing the public' still needs to be published statement (even of the subject from the general public) as a system of responsibility which still recognises and consists the form of improved by the system.* -- TYPING MISTAKE - improvement.

--> i do not understand the last part of the sentence: *which still recognises and consists the form of improved by the system.*. what do you mean by this? -- THAT THE IMPROVEMENT COMES FROM THE ELEMENTS, APPARATUSES AND METHODOLOGIES OF THE SYSTEM.

--> don't you feel like (p4) the logic of:*After the personal responsibility (stoa concept), shared responsibility (book concept) and hidden responsibility (pixel concept* is really cutting corners and reduces the concept of agora, book, and blog do someting comepletely one-dimensional. isn't reality and the way these technologies and their mediations work, far more complex and hybrid? -- YES, MAYBE. YES, THEY ARE MORE COMPLEX, BUT CAN ONE INTERPRET THE PHENOMENA WITHOUT CONCEPTUALISATION, WHICH MEANS ONE-DIMENSIONAL, BLACK & WHITE. THEREFORE ARE THE OTHER AUTHORS WHO WILL ADD + DIMENSIONS. THEREFORE YOU EDIT THE THEMAT. BECAUSE, NO ONE CAN ACCOMPLISH THE TOTALITY OF THE PHENOMENA, EVEN THE ANCIENT GREEKS.

--> also: the concept of the avatars is hardly a new one: it comes from hinduism, but we see different manifestations of it throughout different times and with different technologies. i simply do not think the technophobic great evil of the internet explanatio does justice to any kind of argument. -- OK.

--> finally your concluding sentence: *isn’t our ‘transited’ and less personally responsible post-modernity turned back to some ‘quasi’ antiquity?*

--> if so...then what are the consequences, dangers of that? it would need more elaboration. -- THEREFORE IT IS THE QUESTION FORM OF THE SENTENCE. IT SLIGHTLY LEADS TO MY POINT, THAT: YES, WE ARE TURNED BACK TO SOME QUASI ANTIQUITY, SINCE THE RESPONSIBILITY IS DELIVERED BACK TO THE AGORA, BUT THIS TIME THE AGORA IS THE COMPUTER MONITOR - NOT THE [PHYSICALLY] OPEN PUBLIC SPACE.

lookig fwd to your reply and thnX!

nat

-- FINALY, BY THIS, YOU HAVE PERFECT CHANCE TO WRITE A CRITIQUE ON MY TEXT IN THE NEXT ISSUE OF MAGNET. BUT, PLEASE, WITH ARGUMENTATION AND REFERENTIALITY.

From: nat muller

Date: 04 мај 2008 12:42:11 GMT+02:00

To: Nebojsa Vilic

Cc: Alessandro Ludovico

Subject: Re: the text finally

hi nebojsa,

wow...i didn't expect a reply anymore. uhhh. so thanks for taking your time to comment - even with a 2,5 month delay.

however, i am afraid it will be impossible to include your txt simply for pragmatic reasons: the designed document is off to print as we speak, and even with your changes, the text would need a lot of copy editing work to turn it into proper standard english.

as i mentioned before in my comments, i think most of my problems with the text were due to the - at times - opaque use of english. and while i may not agree on your positions and your manner of argumentation, i do think it is very interesting to discuss these issues. such a polemical text might benefit more from a more inclusive discussion with a readership: on a mailing list or forum, or at a panel/symposium?

we will keep you updated when mag.net is ready for distribution. we will aslo put everything freely online as pdf.

my very best wishes from cairo/

nat

============

______

* The first version [v.1] of this text was verbally presented at Documenta 12 Launch Lectures on July , 200. The second version [v.2] appeared digitally on www.labourforculture.org and www.nvilic.blogspot.com. The version [v.3] was commissioned for publishing in The Mag.net reader . This new, corrected version [v.] is, now, xeroxed and handy delivered as quasy-published...