Participatory culture and reinvention of everyday life

This text was presented in the International webinar “Post-Pandemic, Participation Matters” organized by School of Communication in Catholic University of Indonesia, Atma Jaya, on 26 June 2020, in Jakarta.

Selamat siang, good afternoon everybody,

First of all I want to congratulate School of communication in Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia for its 11th anniversary, and want to thank my esteemed Indonesian friends Professor Dorien Kartikawangi, head of School of Communication, Dr. Eko Widodo, dean of Faculty of Business Administration and Communication Sciences and their colleagues, for the organization of this international web Conference, in which I have the honor  to participate. My regards go also to the speakers, Professor Peng Hwa Ang, dearest Nia Sarinastiti, dearest Santi Indra Astuti and Láisa Rebelo Cavalcante.

It is a great pleasure for me to be with you, as if I am presently in Jakarta, this beautiful city close to my heart as the father of a batawi baby, and where I met admirable fellows and professors. Which you all good health and good luck in this webinar.

In the following minutes, we will question the concept of participation as a set of socio-cultural practices located in a physical space and a temporality, as well as in the digital environment. Furthermore, we will emphasize the need to invest in digital education – also known as transliteracy – and its accessibility, to include those whom the new post-pandemic world excludes.

The appearance of the novel coronavirus has deconstructed social space as we know it, and significantly disrupted our participation in its spheres. The physical and social distancing, in addition to the closing of state borders, are barely the tip of the iceberg. As a matter of fact, and in the name of safeguarding the public health, it is the very notion of participation – as an act located in space and time – that was significantly turned upside down, and must, therefore, be rethought, restructured and reconstructed in a world where humans and Covid-19 must now coexist.

However, participatory culture existed long before the internet. As for digital, it has and always will revolutionize the way we approach the different aspects of participation.

In his book The Practice of everyday life, French intellectual Michel de Certeau evokes daily invention and creativity through user operations. He proposes a distinction between two concepts: space and place.

“A place is (…) an instantaneous configuration of positions. It implies an indication of stability. A space exists when one takes into consideration vectors of direction, velocities, and time variables. Thus, space is composed of intersections of mobile elements. It is in a sense actuated by the ensemble of movements deployed within it. Space occurs, as the effect produced by the operations that orient it, situate it, temporalize it, and make it function in a polyvalent unity of conflictual programs or contractual proximities. On this view, in relation to place, space is like the word when it is spoken (…). In short, space is a practiced place. Thus, the street geometrically defined by urban planning is transformed into a space by walkers.”

Interestingly today – we are witnessing yet new forms of space, in the light of the ongoing pandemic and its impact on our digital culture.

The exemplifications are: (1) the pre-pandemic space; (2) the confinement space; and (3) the deconfinement space. Their respective representations vary according to the geographical, cultural and political context of each country. The pandemic has significantly altered the face-to-face participation in each of the space models.

Let us take the example of natural parks in a Geneva – Switzerland and the Pays de Gex, across the borders in France.

Before the pandemic, the local authorities and different users invested in the digital technology (such as websites, mobile applications, photo galleries and others) in order to develop architectonics that enrich physical spaces. The institutional websites provided information such as a description of the premises, accessibility, regulations, events and maps. Many digital projects flourished, focusing on the intersection of spaces, their stories and socio-cultural practices. Visitors in both areas could, however, swing by and have a first-hand discovery of what the place has to offer.

Nonetheless, when the confinement measures were enforced, albeit to different extents for both sides, visitors in France were asked to carry a travel certificate before leaving home. A simple task, like visiting a park, now required online research. The partial or complete closure of parks in France prevented any participatory activities. Those parks that remained open in Switzerland closed their shops and catering services and imposed severe restrictions on visitors, like precluding the gathering of more than five people or group walks.

Lately, and thanks to the deconfinement, the old participatory practices have taken a blow: despite the reopening of all parks and limited catering services, some shops and areas remain closed to limit social interaction. Other practices emerged, like off the counter orders and self-service, all while respecting strict hygiene rules such as prohibiting handshakes and hugs, wearing a mask, and enforcing the registration of contact details for people going at restaurants for contact tracing.

But what about the participatory culture in all this?

As we all observed, the social networks, blogs and websites, peer-to-peer services and online communities continued to grow and develop. Instead of merely popping by the parks, netizens debated measures taken by the authorities and enquired on how to get there by relying on the individual or collective experiences. In this participatory process, users were looking for accurate information to avert uncertainty.

There is no doubt about it: Sars-Cov-2 disrupted our society and our lives. It now dictates a new way for almost everything, a “new normal”, and we are still struggling to understand how, and why. The “virtual urbanism” professed by Milad Doueihi in 2011 has become our refuge, our new space.

The distinction between real and virtual no longer holds. Digital design structures, developed in the image of the architecture of our homes, parks and cities, is everywhere we look. Its technologies offer possibilities for interaction, action and visibility. Its architectonics recall the architecture in the physical world. They also connect conception and design to social dynamics.

As we may well imagine, working from home and physical distancing measures encouraged and empowered the emergence of participative online communities. It is significant to note that this pandemic has awakened the problem of the digital divide and digital illiteracy, further excluding people and groups from digital environments and online communities.

Today, the architectonics that we have built in the digital world, and that resemble our urban architecture need to be rethought. New digital urbanism, inspired by the changes we made to our lived spaces, must follow suit, and become more user centric.

User experience – a significant factor in the design of websites, platforms and digital applications – must be at the heart of our participation in the physical space, otherwise known as the lived space. Since we now live in both worlds, we should redesign one to reflect the changes we had to bring to the other, thus enabling the new ecosystem to fully function.

We must reinvent our everyday life so that our web and urban architecture complement each other. As such, our participation models must also be reviewed for better and fairer inclusion.

The immense acceleration and growth in the use of digital technology throughout this pandemic require a serious investment in the digital education (transliteracy) and digital accessibility to include those who find themselves excluded from this new world.

Participants should be aware of what they are participating to. They must know to what extent the production and circulation of their media content would contribute to their collective well-being.

Exchange with Dr. Dorien Kartikawangi

This pandemic has taught us many lessons:

  1. It reminded us of our animality and fragile biology. We were social beings long before we became digital subjects. It stands out as an intruder that enforces the adjustment of our space, and of our way of life if we want to survive.
  2. It showed us the similarities between our two worlds, where an urban exodus of individuals who move to the countryside is replicated in the digital, and on how we consume and look for information and share it.
  3. And finally, it teaches us that information is the essence of our civilization and that its presence requires cooperation at the local and international levels to achieve a new participatory culture in what has become our new normal.

Thank you for your attention.

Apropriar-se os rastros digitais em um design coletivo-UnB, Brasília 2018

Como transformar a rastreabilidade digital em um ato memorial através de projetos individuais e coletivos (arte, escrita, documentação, etc.)? Como entender a ultrapassagem da interação social (George Mead e o interacionismo simbólico) ao rastro digital (Escola Francesa sobre o rastro)?

Sylvia F.3

Sylvia Fredriksson (de Paris) falando dos comuns digitais. Fonte: sabáeu

A disciplina “Da construção identitária à construção da memória” no Departamento de Design na UnB-Brasília (novembro 2018), administrada pelo Dr. Hadi Saba Ayon (CDHET, Université Le Havre Normandie França, e outras afiliações internacionais), questionou a cultura digital e suas mutações sociais e culturais.

As participantes interrogaram a informação, a comunicação, o design e a memória na erá digital. Elas construíram um projeto coletivo “Design da visibilidade” na forma de website, com três eixos que convergem com as pesquisas (mestrado em Design) delas: Cidade, Comunidade e Identidade.

Site designdavisibilidade

Designdavisibilidade.wordpress.com

A conversa com Sylvia Fredriksson, pesquisadora e designer Francesa, organizada em um webinário sobre a cultura digital e os comuns, trouxe novas reflexões sobre o “terceiro-lugar’, os “comuns digitais”, o “software-livre” etc. Ela girou novas pistas para desenvolver as pesquisas e pensar em cooperação internacional.

Se a interação social é simbólica na medida em que envolve um processo de interpretação – pelo qual alguns estabelecem o significado das ações e observações de outros – e de definição – pelo qual lhes comunicam, em retorno, indicações do que eles preparam-se para fazer, a interação digital é diferente. Os rastros digitais não são símbolos/significados como os outros. Porque eles são destacáveis, mobilizáveis, e calculáveis. Eles não são mensagens e não tem código de interpretação. O que vai torná-los significativos, mas especialmente eficazes, é sua combinação e seu processamento algorítmico.

Escola Francesa 1

Todas nossas atividades no digital deixam rastros. Esta rastreabilidade não faz memória. É uma memória maquínica (anti-memória) que precisa de organização. O trabalho memorial permite reunir o que foi espalhado ou desmembrado. No ambiente digital, a agregação [montagem] de memórias não é mais pensada em termos de deposição, mas de fluxo, relacionando a aquisição, a visibilidade e a reativação de rastros.

A ultrapassagem da tecnologia computacional para usos culturais desenhados no ambiente digital, ou de “computação” para “digital” (Doueihi, 2011), mudou a construção da sociabilidade e dos espaços que habitamos. Para ter uma presença (no digital), precisamos educar-se ao digital; aprender a re-documentarizar nossos rastros; arquivá-los a fim de produzir e compartilhar conhecimento comum. Mais do que uma auto-imagem, a cultura digital é baseada em um sistema conversacional alimentado por um processamento algorítmico de metadados: uma lógica dual de documentação e relacionamento.

Video de Louise Merzeau: Collège des Bernardins (2016). Vimeo.

No ambiente digital, preservar não significa fixar, mas duplicar, circular e reciclar. Porque o conteúdo é instável, ele deve ser dobrado por uma informação sobre a informação: o metadado. Associado a toda mensagem, o metadado não apenas descreve os enunciados, ele permite a segmentação, a distribuição e a recomposição.

Mais de que restringir ou proteger seus dados, o usuário tem interesse em fazer um rastreamento, ou seja, inserir seus rastros digitais em uma comunidade, contexto e temporalidade.

O hashtag #memorastrodigital que os participantes fizeram no Twitter permitiu uma redação coletiva com muitas observações e matérias sobre a apresentação e o debate. Para consultar o arquivo das observações do webinário, pode acessar neste link:

https://twitter.com/hashtag/memorastrodigital?src=hash

Pensamos a concepção de ambientes de informação como processos “que permitem uma interação entre Informática onipresente e design de serviço, onde o arquiteto da informação considera a coleção, a organização e a apresentação da informação como tarefas semelhantes às do arquiteto confrontado com o projeto de um edifício, [um e outro trabalhando] em espaços de design para existir, viver, trabalhar, brincar “(Resmini e Rosati, 2012).

arquitetura da info 1

Com agradecimentos e vontade para continuar os debates sobre os usos, as condições e os desafios da cultura digital, terminamos o nosso webinário e acabamos o nosso curso. Até o próximo encontro, deixamos uma memória coletiva no www.designdavisibilidade.wordpress.com e outros fragmentos documentares/de design em vários lugares praticados, documentados e re-documentados.

Referências:
  • Bachimont B. (2010). La présence de l’archive : réinventer et justifier. Intellectica, n° 53-54, p. 281-309.
  • Bailey S. (2002). « Do you need a taxonomy strategy? ». Inside Knowledge, vol. 5, n° 5.
  • Bermès E. (2004). « Architecture de l’information : qu’est-ce que c’est ? », https://figoblog.org/2004/05/21/195/
  • Cardon D. (2008). Le design de la visibilité. Un essai de cartographie du web 2.0, Réseaux, vol. 6, n° 152, p. 93 – 137.
  • De Kosnik A. (2016). Rogue Archives: Digital Cultural Memory and Media Fandom, MIT Press, Cambridge.
  • Delmas Y. (2014). Histoire de l’informatique, d’Internet et du Web, https://delmas-rigoutsos.nom.fr/documents/YDelmas-histoire_informatique/index.html
  • De Meyer T. (2016). Dominique Cardon, À quoi rêvent les algorithmes, Lectures, http://journals.openedition.org/lectures/20554.
  • Doueihi M. (2013). Qu’est-ce que le numérique, Presse Universitaires de France, Paris.
    Doueihi M. (2011). Pour un humanisme numérique, Éditions du Seuil, Paris.
  • Epron B. (2017). Les quatre filières d’origine et le web, https://archinfo24.hypotheses.org/3448
  • Evernden, R., & Evernden, E. (2003). Information First: Integrating Knowledge and Information Architecture for Business Advantage. Butterworth-Heinemann.
  • Feyfant A. (2012). Architecture de l’information, architecture des connaissances. Dossier d’actualité veille et analyses, n° 74, p. 1-16.
  • Galinon-Mélénec B. (2011). Fragments théoriques du signe-trace: Propos sur le corps communicant. in L’Homme trace, Perspectives anthropologiques des traces humaines contemporaines, Tome 1, CNRS Éditions, p. 191-212.
  • Gunthert A. (2012) « Politique de la mémoire », http://culturevisuelle.org/totem/1605
  • Halbwachs M. (1992). On Collective Memory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
  • Lovink G. (2011). My First Recession: Critical Internet Culture in Transition. Institute of Network Cultures, Amsterdam.
  • Mbembe A. (2002). The power of the archive and its limits. Refiguring the Archive. Cape Town, Clyson Printers, p. 19-26.
  • Merzeau L (2017). Mémoire partagée. Dictionnaire des biens communs. Paris, PUF.
  • Merzeau L. (2013). Les paradoxes de la mémoire numérique. INTERCDI, n° 244, p. 68-71.
  • Merzeau L. (2012). Réseaux sociaux : sommes-nous tous des Big Brothers?, Émission d’Hervé Gardette, radio France Culture.
  • Merzeau L. (2012). Histoire des mémoires, Émission d’Anne Cendre, radio Fréquence Protestante.
  • Merzeau L. (2012). Faire mémoire de nos traces numériques. https://www.ina-expert.com/e-dossier-de-l-audiovisuel-sciences-humaines-et-sociales-et-patrimoine-numerique/faire-memoire-des-traces-numeriques.html
  • Merzeau L. (2009). Du signe à la trace: l’information sur mesure. Hermès, vol. 1, n° 53, p. 21-29.
  • Morville P. & Rosenfeld L. (2006). Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. Sebastopol (CA) : O’Reilly Media. (1re éd. 1998).
  • Paschalidis G. (2008). Towards cultural hypermnesia: Cultural memory in the age of digital heritage. Digital Heritage in the New Knowledge Environment: Shared Spaces and Open Paths to Cultural Content. Athenes, Metaxia Tsipopoulous, p. 179-181.
  • Resmini A. (2013). Les architectures d’information. Études de communication, n°41, p. 31-56.
  • Resmini A. & Rosati L. (2012). « A brief history of information architecture ». Journal of information architecture, vol. 3, n° 2, p. 33–45.
  • Roger T. Pédauque (2006). Le Document à la lumière du numérique : forme, texte, médium : comprendre le rôle du document numérique dans l’émergence d’une nouvelle modernité, C & F Editions, Paris.
  • Salaün J-M., Habert B. (2015). Architecture de l’information : Méthodes, outils, enjeux. De Boeck Université, Louvain-la-Neuve.
  • Salaün J-M. (2011). La théorie du document pour analyser la structuration du web, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ICyFJouHv4
  • Salaün J-M (2011). Document numérique et plateformes de distribution. Cours de l’Université d‘été du Cléo 2011, https://archive.org/details/salaun_ue-cleo_2011
  • Tiryakian A., “The significance of Schools in the Development of Sociology”, in Contemporary Issues, ed. W. E. Snizek et al., p. 227.
  • Vitali-Rosati M. (2016). Qu’est-ce que l’éditorialisation? http://sens-public.org/article1184.html?lang=fr
  • Winkin Y. (2001). Anthropologie de la communication, Paris, Seuil.

The relationship with space in the digital era: a reinvention of the identity and the environment

Managing communication

This paper is published in the Proceeding Book “Managing communication in a disruptive era” (p. 73-86), by Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia in Jakarta on April 2017.

It discusses the socio-cultural aspects of uses of geolocation (the case of Facebook Places application), and inspects the “editorial content” of urban space through location-marking services.

Geolocation associates territories and networks, the material and the immaterial, analog and digital. Hybridization of space also requires consideration of the body, of the disembodied identity and of the inter-spatiality. But does the use of these location-based applications consist only of curiosity to know where the other is, or does it make part of the construction of identity in the digital environment? Does publicly disclosing our movements count as an act of showing off, of linking relationships, or is it simply a form of expressing the link between the spatial dimensions of the action?

By exploring and listing all existing places, the “urban explorers” discover, unmask and reveal relationships and places, sometimes hidden to the eyes of all. They move entire parts of a city from Nature to Culture.