Popular in Social Sciences

Books

City Time: On Being Sentenced to Rikers Island

Independent Scholar David A. Campbell

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Economics

Gender and Economics

University of California Santa Barbara Shelly Lundberg

American Politics

Keeping the Republic

Boston College Marc Landy

Banks and Policy Organisations

Greening the financial sector

European Investment Bank Matteo Ferrazzi

British Politics

Entrepreneurial thinking: the politics and practice of policy impact

University of Sheffield Matthew Flinders

Culture and Society

Carceral Entrapments: Views from the Prison/Street Interface in India

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Mahuya Bandyopadhya

Clicktivism, slacktivism and connective action

View more insights in Social Sciences - Political Science

View more figures from University of Canberra

View the page of Max Halupka

Read the Study

Max Halupka defines clicktivism as a type of digital political participation that is noncommittal, nonspecialized, easily replicated, and engages a political object.

Image courtesy of interviewee. September 26, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video discusses the concept of collectivism and its evolution in the context of digital politics and online political participation. The speaker draws a distinction between traditional forms of activism and contemporary online actions, which they categorize as "collectivism." This video new form is characterized by simple, easily replicable actions such as liking or sharing posts on social media.

The speaker contrasts collectivism with "slacktivism," which refers to low-effort actions that lack commitment and do not align with traditional collective action ideals. They argue that while collectivism represents a legitimate form of political participation today, slacktivism often fails to foster significant political engagement.

Furthermore, the text explores how digital actions can be seen as legitimate expressions of politics, reflecting contemporary societal values and behavioral changes facilitated by the internet. The idea of intention in political actions comes up, emphasizing that digital actions can carry unintended consequences, as illustrated through examples such as the ramifications of sharing information about abortion clinics in the context of Roe v. Wade.

Overall, the text emphasizes the importance of understanding these new forms of online political engagement, their legitimacy, and their implications for future political landscapes and democratic processes. The speaker stresses the need for society and leaders to adapt to these changes to leverage digital participation effectively.

Language:

Export as PDF

Export as PDF
Here are five key points from the video discussing collectivism and its relationship to political participation in the digital age:

1. **Definition of Collectivism**: The term "collectivism" is used interchangeably with online advocacy campaigns and activities like “clicktivism”. However, the author emphasizes that it represents a form of political participation that differs from traditional advocacy organizations. There is a focus on the ease and accessibility of participating in advocacy online compared to historical methods.

2. **Legitimate vs. Illegitimate Political Actions**: Collectivism is characterized as a legitimate form of online political participation, as it encompasses spontaneous acts like liking a post or sharing content that reflects political interests. In contrast, "slacktivism"—which refers to low-effort actions that lack meaningful political engagement—can be considered an illegitimate form of participation. The distinction highlights the importance of intention and the effectiveness of actions.

3. **Changing Nature of Political Participation**: The video suggests that the most dominant forms of political participation today have become digital, emphasizing the shift from traditional modes of collective action to those that occur within online spaces. This includes the recognition that actions such as clicking "like" have significant implications in the political landscape, highlighting the evolving nature of grassroots activism.

4. **Impact of Digital Spaces on Collective Action**: The author discusses how digital platforms enable new spaces for activism that do not require traditional organizing bodies or bureaucratic structures. Instead, political outcomes can emerge through personalized action frames, allowing for immediate responses to social issues without the need for organized, ideological commitment.

5. **Political Implications of Digital Objects**: The video examines how digital objects (like social media posts or data) can have suspended meanings and may be politicized in contemporary society, often without the original intent of the individuals involved. This presents challenges, particularly regarding how data can be used against individuals, emphasizing the complexities of intention and agency within digital politics.

These points illustrate the nuanced discussion about the intersection of digital communication, activism, and political theory, as well as the implications for individual agency in contemporary political participation.

Export as PDF
Here are some key quotes and phrases from the video that encapsulate the main ideas discussed:

1. **Collectivism Defined**:
- "The way that the term collectivism is used is interchangeable with... online campaigns, anything that's like an online campaign."

2. **Nature of Political Participation**:
- "There is a form of political participation that's happening online that is different... distinct from the campaigns."

3. **Conceptual Clarity**:
- "I just gave it some... meaty conceptual clarity, and a logical framing... that made it... approachable in the discourse."

4. **Digital Participation vs. Traditional**:
- "Digital participation is very different than traditional places."

5. **Clicktivism as Political Expression**:
- "You can go, well, that is a, that's a, an advocacy campaign and these are people doing clicktivism."

6. **The Importance of Intent**:
- "Is clicking 'like' on Facebook politics? ... And then you go, is it political participation? ... it depends on what, well, whether you mean it to or not."

7. **Collectivism as Dominant Political Form**:
- "What we find now is almost like the most dominant form of political participation in the world... the simplest, smallest, easiest replicable action that you can do online."

8. **Distinction of Political Actions**:
- "Collectivism is a... legitimate expression of politics because we can then put slacktivism as an illegitimate form of political participation."

9. **Understanding Slacktivism**:
- "Slacktivism was the term that had almost dominated this space... seen as low effort... it doesn't allow for intersubjective recognition or mutual understanding."

10. **New Modes of Political Engagement**:
- "These things become really important when we start looking at collectivism as a legitimate expression of politics..."

11. **Shift in Participatory Frameworks**:
- "As the dominant communicative structures of humanity... slowly move towards digital infrastructure, we see these elements of collectivism becoming more prominent."

12. **The Impact of Digital Spaces**:
- "We are the very beginning and we lay now the railroad tracks for... the politics of the unborn for those not yet here."

13. **Digital Objects and Intention**:
- "The suspended nature of digital objects means that you can change the direction that meaning occurs."

14. **Risk of Misinterpretation**:
- "This is one of the ways that intention starts to become really tricky in digital spaces."

These quotes highlight key themes regarding the distinctions between traditional and modern forms of political participation, the evolving nature of digital engagement, and the implications of concepts like slacktivism versus collectivism in contemporary convideos.

Export as PDF
Here are some similar articles that discuss topics related to collectivism, digital politics, online political participation, and the distinctions between activism and slacktivism:

1. **"The Rise of Digital Activism: Understanding the Shift in Online Political Participation"**
This article examines how digital platforms have transformed traditional activism into more accessible forms of participation. It explores the implications of social media on political engagement, focusing on the efficacy of online actions in driving real-world change.

2. **"Collectivism in the Digital Age: New Forms of Political Engagement"**
This piece discusses how collectivist ideals have been reinterpreted in the convideo of social media, highlighting the evolving nature of community and activism online. It contrasts online collectivist actions with previous forms of political organization.

3. **"Slacktivism vs. Activism: The Debate on Online Political Engagement"**
This article delves into the definitions and implications of slacktivism, debating whether low-effort online actions contribute to meaningful political discourse or merely serve as a distraction from more substantial engagement.

4. **"Digital Politics: The Evolving Landscape of Online Activism"**
The author investigates how digital media has changed the landscape of political activism, emphasizing the role of user-generated content in shaping public opinion and mobilizing supporters for various causes.

5. **"Hashtag Activism: The Good, the Bad, and the Slack"**
This article offers a critical look at hashtag activism, exploring how campaigns initiated on platforms like Twitter and Instagram can mobilize public interest while also questioning their depth and potential for real-world impact.

6. **"Political Intention and Digital Actions: Understanding the Consequences of Online Engagement"**
This article discusses the complexities of intention behind online political actions and investigates how sharing and liking posts can have unintended consequences, impacting social movements and public policy.

7. **"Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges and Opportunities for Political Engagement"**
This piece considers how digital participation presents both challenges and opportunities for democracy, emphasizing the need for societal adaptation to new forms of engagement that leverage technology for political change.

8. **"Navigating the New Civic Space: Online Engagement and Collective Action"**
This article focuses on how the internet has created new civic spaces for collective action, looking at various case studies of digital movements that have successfully mobilized people around common causes.

9. **"The Legitimacy of Online Activism: Assessing Impact and Engagement"**
This article questions the legitimacy of online activism, analyzing different forms of digital engagement and their effectiveness in achieving political goals compared to traditional models of activism.

Each of these articles explores themes around digital politics, the nature of political participation in a connected world, and the implications of these changes for activism and our democratic processes.

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.145 --> 00:02.605
The way that the term collectivism is used is

00:02.605 --> 00:07.405
interchangeable with, well, online campaigns, anything

00:07.405 --> 00:09.605
that's like an online campaign from Move on

00:09.625 --> 00:12.285
to get up these big advocacy organizations,

00:12.555 --> 00:13.805
were called collectivism.

00:14.835 --> 00:17.775
But there's something different if you just sort

00:17.775 --> 00:21.495
of think in puzzle it through between the,

00:22.075 --> 00:26.215
the organization which helps structure and support politics

00:26.315 --> 00:28.895
and the actions that individuals take within that structure.

00:29.425 --> 00:32.975
There is a, there is a form of political participation

00:32.975 --> 00:35.815
that's happening online that is different

00:35.815 --> 00:37.535
that happened in the past, and it's

00:38.095 --> 00:39.855
distinct from the campaigns that it,

00:39.855 --> 00:41.135
that it was sort of supporting.

00:41.875 --> 00:45.255
And so, the term collectivism had been used once

00:45.275 --> 00:46.695
or twice,

00:47.035 --> 00:51.895
but I just gave it some, some meaty conceptual clarity,

00:51.915 --> 00:55.735
and, and a logical framing, in a systematic sense

00:55.735 --> 01:00.655
that made it, I think approachable in the discourse.

01:00.655 --> 01:03.735
You can go, well, that is a, that's a, an advocacy campaign

01:03.795 --> 01:05.215
and these are people doing clicktivism.

01:05.715 --> 01:07.615
So, and, and like, either it rises out

01:07.615 --> 01:09.775
of this question honestly, the best way to understand it

01:09.775 --> 01:12.135
for me, is to ask yourself

01:12.715 --> 01:15.895
is clicking like on Facebook politics?

01:17.185 --> 01:19.045
And because it's from that, you start

01:19.045 --> 01:22.725
to have this spiraling set of questions you go,

01:23.195 --> 01:24.485
most people go, yeah, it is.

01:25.245 --> 01:27.545
And then you go, well, is it political participation?

01:27.545 --> 01:28.745
And they go, well, it depends.

01:29.965 --> 01:32.505
And it depends on what, well, whether you mean it to or not.

01:32.505 --> 01:34.745
And all that gets to a whole different area of intention.

01:35.285 --> 01:37.705
And we start to see there, it's one of the places

01:37.775 --> 01:40.145
that digital participation is very

01:40.145 --> 01:41.385
different than traditional places.

01:41.495 --> 01:42.785
It's a lot of them, but that's one of them.

01:43.725 --> 01:45.305
But anyway, returning to collectivism,

01:46.325 --> 01:48.585
the thing about collectivism is that

01:49.455 --> 01:52.345
what we find now is almost like the most dominant form

01:52.725 --> 01:54.425
of political participation in the world.

01:54.495 --> 01:58.825
Like bar none. Because it is the, the simplest,

02:00.065 --> 02:03.545
smallest, easiest replicable action that you can do online.

02:03.545 --> 02:05.545
What is the smallest political action

02:05.735 --> 02:07.185
that you can take online?

02:07.845 --> 02:10.585
And, and that was sort of conceptually what I was trying

02:10.585 --> 02:14.665
to not only get it distinct from advocacy organization, a

02:15.265 --> 02:20.045
advocacy organizations, but to also, I think

02:21.315 --> 02:24.915
conceptually and logically find the smallest or,

02:24.935 --> 02:28.595
or, political action possible in this new digital space.

02:28.825 --> 02:31.435
Because that then gives you a logical frame in which you can

02:31.435 --> 02:33.075
start attacking other questions.

02:33.135 --> 02:36.915
You know, what is not politics online, you know,

02:37.695 --> 02:41.175
or things like when is the politics

02:41.395 --> 02:43.775
of a a digital object, developed?

02:43.925 --> 02:46.575
Because if we start to question things like intention

02:46.835 --> 02:48.455
and when, whether you mean something

02:48.455 --> 02:49.735
to mean something online

02:49.835 --> 02:52.615
or not, these things start becoming real

02:52.615 --> 02:54.015
pertinent contemporary questions.

02:54.055 --> 02:57.815
Collectivism is a, a contemporary form

02:58.315 --> 02:59.805
of political participation

03:00.265 --> 03:02.445
that's situated in digital spaces.

03:03.305 --> 03:07.925
And, it's often looks like clicking, like on Facebook

03:08.345 --> 03:09.885
or reposting a meme

03:10.345 --> 03:11.805
or maybe,

03:12.505 --> 03:14.045
you could be using social buttons on any

03:14.045 --> 03:15.245
social media platforms.

03:15.825 --> 03:18.285
Um, it could be upvoting on Reddit.

03:18.775 --> 03:22.965
These are politically motivated or politically themed,

03:23.425 --> 03:24.965
or at least the individual.

03:24.965 --> 03:27.805
There's a political participation aspiration at core there.

03:28.265 --> 03:30.845
And so in, you know, liberal democracy,

03:30.945 --> 03:32.845
you recognize these actions as for what they are

03:33.895 --> 03:35.845
legitimate political expressions.

03:36.905 --> 03:40.945
Um, it's just, it becomes very complicated

03:41.695 --> 03:44.705
when you realize that these actions are politics

03:44.765 --> 03:46.865
and that they are expressions of political participation,

03:48.125 --> 03:51.465
how they start to work with old forms of collective action

03:52.085 --> 03:55.945
and how they start to supplement contemporary forms

03:56.085 --> 03:57.785
and also start to carve out their own spaces.

03:58.055 --> 03:59.785
Slacktivism was the term

04:00.695 --> 04:05.465
that had almost dominated this space of what sort

04:05.465 --> 04:08.025
of come to be known as collectivism before it.

04:08.325 --> 04:11.305
And it was, authors like mos of who

04:12.655 --> 04:16.105
used the term slacktivism as a way of,

04:16.125 --> 04:20.665
of a negative recurrent discourse where you're like,

04:20.735 --> 04:21.985
look, this is just people.

04:22.175 --> 04:25.305
It's low, it's, it's slack because it's low effort.

04:25.375 --> 04:26.985
It's, it's, it's slack

04:26.985 --> 04:29.705
because it doesn't align with traditional

04:30.235 --> 04:31.785
collective action frames.

04:32.135 --> 04:35.145
It's slack because it doesn't promote,

04:35.145 --> 04:36.465
thick ideological bonds.

04:36.605 --> 04:37.785
It doesn't,

04:37.855 --> 04:40.505
necessarily identify common concern at this core.

04:40.525 --> 04:42.625
It doesn't allow for intersubjective recognition

04:43.125 --> 04:45.785
or mutual understanding and all these core things.

04:45.805 --> 04:47.625
It it, it does it in different ways.

04:48.245 --> 04:52.725
And so the, if you compare it

04:52.725 --> 04:54.485
to old forms, which are seen as, you know, slow

04:54.505 --> 04:57.565
but effective, and these are like clicking like as a,

04:57.565 --> 04:58.805
as a form of political expression,

04:58.915 --> 05:01.485
your knee-jerk reaction is to say that this is a bad form.

05:01.485 --> 05:02.565
This is a slack form

05:02.675 --> 05:05.645
because it seems like the worst possible thing

05:05.985 --> 05:07.125
of what you have available.

05:07.785 --> 05:09.045
But when you realize that it's,

05:09.395 --> 05:13.245
it's the first step in a new epoch for, for sort

05:13.245 --> 05:14.685
of like human interaction,

05:14.685 --> 05:16.605
it's not putting the digital genie back in the bottle.

05:17.025 --> 05:18.805
You know, it's, it's here with us now.

05:19.505 --> 05:21.765
You realize that it's disingenuous just

05:21.765 --> 05:23.525
to label these things slacktivism

05:23.715 --> 05:28.245
because they are a simpler form of expression that now

05:28.805 --> 05:31.525
dominate human communicative space.

05:31.705 --> 05:35.445
You know, like I said,

05:35.445 --> 05:38.165
collectivism is now one of the most dominant forms

05:38.185 --> 05:39.445
of political participation.

05:39.625 --> 05:42.645
People will click, like to support,

05:42.985 --> 05:45.165
who they like in the presidential race,

05:45.585 --> 05:47.725
or whether they like their favorite pop star.

05:47.765 --> 05:48.805
I, these are two politics

05:48.805 --> 05:50.845
or how they're struggling with the cost of crisis.

05:51.025 --> 05:52.685
You know, people forget

05:52.685 --> 05:54.805
that politics is not just the political arena

05:54.975 --> 05:56.045
where politics happens

05:56.345 --> 05:59.325
and politicians, it's also process politics.

05:59.325 --> 06:00.605
It's the politics of the everyday.

06:01.585 --> 06:03.725
And these things become

06:04.465 --> 06:06.605
really important when we start looking at collectivism

06:07.065 --> 06:10.285
as an, a legitimate expression of politics

06:10.515 --> 06:14.485
because we can then put slacktivism as an illegitimate form

06:15.305 --> 06:19.045
of political participation be, we can't say

06:19.045 --> 06:23.245
that all clicking like, and all actions online are politics.

06:23.565 --> 06:24.805
'cause then, then nothing's politics.

06:24.865 --> 06:25.925
That's the Hearst argument.

06:26.425 --> 06:28.605
And there needs

06:28.605 --> 06:30.245
to be some things like intercept theory as well.

06:30.255 --> 06:32.125
There needs to be some things which are politics,

06:32.145 --> 06:34.605
but some things are, or at least be able to identify

06:35.805 --> 06:37.125
a difference between these places,

06:37.385 --> 06:38.965
if not the space where it happens.

06:40.545 --> 06:43.405
So when you think then about collectivism

06:43.665 --> 06:47.765
as being legitimate forms of online political participation

06:47.915 --> 06:50.205
that are non-committal, spontaneous

06:50.225 --> 06:55.045
and engaged digital objects, then slacktivism is it's,

06:55.045 --> 06:57.845
like illegitimate or non-legitimate brother

06:57.945 --> 07:00.445
or half it's a,

07:03.535 --> 07:07.055
I would say something like maybe trolling,

07:08.565 --> 07:09.955
might fit under slacktivism,

07:10.415 --> 07:14.715
but often it's, it is tied closely

07:14.715 --> 07:19.515
with things like the free rider problem, where the,

07:19.865 --> 07:22.355
this idea that, what was this?

07:22.505 --> 07:24.395
It's the moral balancing argument as well

07:24.665 --> 07:28.395
that clicking like say on a, a low effort Facebook post,

07:28.535 --> 07:30.795
you know, click like, I support this.

07:31.125 --> 07:33.075
Don't blow up the whale campaign or something.

07:34.095 --> 07:36.595
Um, somehow then, and then,

07:36.735 --> 07:38.995
and they don't decide not to blow up the, the whales

07:38.995 --> 07:40.755
that you somehow benefit from that,

07:40.775 --> 07:42.555
but from a very low import,

07:42.575 --> 07:45.075
you free writing off the benefit of it.

07:45.235 --> 07:49.635
I think that's a, a, a, a problematic, thing,

07:49.635 --> 07:50.955
again, in the connective sense.

07:51.495 --> 07:54.755
But returning then to this distinction between collective

07:54.755 --> 07:58.235
and, sorry, between, collectivism, slacktivism,

07:59.235 --> 08:02.975
collectivism is the sort of,

08:03.265 --> 08:07.175
legitimate expressions of, of political participation

08:07.175 --> 08:09.215
and political participation, aspiration online

08:09.715 --> 08:13.735
and slacktivism, is when it fails to be legitimate.

08:14.435 --> 08:17.775
Um, and I think that that conceptual clarity is important

08:18.005 --> 08:19.775
because you can find different ways in

08:19.775 --> 08:20.815
which it's not legitimate.

08:20.815 --> 08:25.095
Like it, it fails to be, to find tradition in the state

08:25.095 --> 08:27.135
and it has to have some sort of sense of tradition in it,

08:27.155 --> 08:29.815
or it might have to be a, commonly accepted

08:29.835 --> 08:33.335
or commonly perceived, action as being acceptable.

08:34.785 --> 08:38.255
These are, if, if the action fails to adhere

08:38.255 --> 08:39.895
to these things, and yeah, it slips into slacktivism,

08:39.955 --> 08:44.215
it becomes free rider, it becomes low cost, it becomes,

08:45.775 --> 08:48.435
rather than it, it becomes individual

08:49.255 --> 08:50.595
rather than personalized.

08:51.175 --> 08:53.315
And that, that frame's quite important as well,

08:53.465 --> 08:55.275
because you can think very individually,

08:55.420 --> 08:57.725
you can think very atomized, very selfishly,

08:58.465 --> 09:00.765
but what connective action frames,

09:00.765 --> 09:01.965
what the internet's very good at,

09:01.965 --> 09:04.605
it's actually quite a positive thing, is allowing us to be

09:05.125 --> 09:07.885
personal action frames instead, which is a personalization

09:07.905 --> 09:10.245
of politics around us and for us and who we are.

09:10.945 --> 09:14.885
And it's, it's a way I, I think of starting

09:14.945 --> 09:18.005
to unpick, ideas of the self

09:18.025 --> 09:22.645
and the individual from neoliberalism, which,

09:22.825 --> 09:25.005
has so many conceptual issues with it

09:25.005 --> 09:26.285
and structural issues with it.

09:26.625 --> 09:28.405
But you don't wanna lose the liberal core.

09:28.475 --> 09:32.445
It's not like an either or you're not like, like no one is,

09:32.545 --> 09:34.565
is completely just feet on the street

09:35.325 --> 09:37.445
pamphlet handing out phones down.

09:37.655 --> 09:41.565
Don't put this online. And at the same time, it's

09:42.235 --> 09:44.765
rare though possible, is what we found

09:44.765 --> 09:47.765
with connective action frames to be completely online.

09:48.625 --> 09:53.445
Um, there's, it's a very good medium, just generally

09:53.785 --> 09:57.005
for the distribution, accumulation of information.

09:57.185 --> 10:00.405
It allows you to mobilize and organize protests

10:00.945 --> 10:02.805
or collective things much easier.

10:03.505 --> 10:06.525
But when it comes to collectivism specifically as an action,

10:07.065 --> 10:11.685
it collectivism activism like supports

10:11.705 --> 10:15.205
or supplants, in some ways as we move forward,

10:15.875 --> 10:20.725
traditional collective frames, and this is, this is

10:20.725 --> 10:24.005
because collective frames become

10:25.025 --> 10:28.925
really rely on those strong, traditional, ideological

10:29.185 --> 10:30.845
by based boundaries.

10:31.225 --> 10:33.405
You, you need, it's about knowing the people's

10:33.405 --> 10:34.605
names in there.

10:34.605 --> 10:35.645
It's about knowing their last names.

10:35.675 --> 10:37.565
It's about having a vested interest in their lives.

10:37.955 --> 10:39.205
It's about that tethering

10:39.205 --> 10:40.685
of authority and community together.

10:41.865 --> 10:46.665
And that is why

10:46.685 --> 10:48.785
the, and all those things described is why

10:49.785 --> 10:51.685
if you look back in past, you look at, you know,

10:51.685 --> 10:53.925
collective action movements that have been so effective is

10:53.925 --> 10:55.685
because they leverage those aspects

10:55.825 --> 10:59.285
as strengths within representative democracies within,

11:00.025 --> 11:04.305
you know, structures of state connective,

11:05.005 --> 11:06.425
action.

11:08.185 --> 11:10.835
Alternatively, doesn't require

11:11.185 --> 11:13.555
that organizational aspect.

11:14.585 --> 11:17.325
It doesn't need an overseeing governing

11:17.325 --> 11:18.965
body to tie everything together.

11:19.065 --> 11:23.085
It doesn't need admin, it doesn't need bureaucracy or,

11:23.265 --> 11:24.525
or a deep ideology.

11:25.705 --> 11:29.725
Um, it, it, it can be a connection, again,

11:29.725 --> 11:33.045
through personalized action frames, through a connection

11:33.345 --> 11:36.485
to the project that is happening then, not necessarily

11:36.505 --> 11:39.565
to the broader ideology, on hand.

11:39.705 --> 11:42.525
So, collectivism

11:44.395 --> 11:48.315
supports traditional collective frames as we transition

11:49.265 --> 11:51.035
into this new sort of digital space.

11:51.715 --> 11:53.260
'cause collective action frames are what we have

11:53.305 --> 11:54.525
and we know that they're effective

11:54.525 --> 11:57.245
and we know that we need change to happen in a democracy.

11:57.345 --> 12:00.005
And we know we need things to go right for people.

12:00.005 --> 12:02.925
We know that representatives need to do create policy,

12:02.945 --> 12:06.325
and that policy needs to at least try to make s**t better.

12:06.345 --> 12:09.125
For some people, it's a general thrust of things.

12:10.945 --> 12:14.085
But as we sort of have the,

12:16.825 --> 12:21.285
as the dominant communicative structures of humanity

12:21.285 --> 12:24.045
and society slowly move, not so slowly

12:24.045 --> 12:26.685
after covid towards digital infrastructure

12:26.685 --> 12:31.365
and digital, you know, society, we see these elements

12:31.365 --> 12:33.445
of collectivism becoming more prominent,

12:33.965 --> 12:36.685
becoming more central, and becoming features

12:36.825 --> 12:38.645
of collective action movements.

12:39.185 --> 12:41.925
So suddenly you have things, you, you start

12:41.925 --> 12:44.405
to get new spaces for political participation.

12:44.405 --> 12:48.265
You get things like cancel culture, you get things like,

12:49.285 --> 12:54.225
cancel culture I think is a good one

12:54.585 --> 12:59.335
because it, it it, for me, it shows in a very,

12:59.445 --> 13:04.035
like a blunt sense, the strength

13:04.295 --> 13:07.415
of collectivism because that's most of the time that's,

13:07.415 --> 13:08.615
you know, when something goes viral,

13:09.405 --> 13:10.495
it's collectivism, isn't it?

13:10.495 --> 13:11.935
It's just, it's a bunch of eyes on something

13:12.515 --> 13:14.295
and then it's a bunch of expression of interest.

13:14.315 --> 13:16.695
And so when we're talking about things like something going

13:16.695 --> 13:18.535
viral or we're talking about cancel cultural,

13:18.705 --> 13:20.535
we're talking about structures of collectivism,

13:21.325 --> 13:22.895
talking about personalized

13:23.035 --> 13:25.335
or personal action frames in which come together

13:26.275 --> 13:27.415
in connective sense

13:28.075 --> 13:31.295
to create change without a necessary organizing body over

13:31.295 --> 13:34.215
the top, the outcome's, the same societal change,

13:34.675 --> 13:39.255
impact change, but without the, the same frames

13:39.255 --> 13:42.055
and structures and ideas and and paths

13:42.055 --> 13:43.335
and railroads that we used to have

13:43.445 --> 13:45.375
that led us to a specific space.

13:45.715 --> 13:47.335
And this is the big issue.

13:47.615 --> 13:49.175
'cause we are straddling these two spaces.

13:49.595 --> 13:51.175
We like to think, we're like, well,

13:51.175 --> 13:52.775
in the digital space, no, no, no, no.

13:52.825 --> 13:54.215
We're like, we're babies.

13:54.885 --> 13:57.255
Like if,

13:57.875 --> 14:00.015
if the digital spans off into assuming

14:00.015 --> 14:04.495
that climate change doesn't destroy us all, humanity

14:05.775 --> 14:08.735
progresses, or not even progresses, just persists

14:10.625 --> 14:12.645
the, and,

14:12.705 --> 14:13.845
and the digital doesn't, you know,

14:13.905 --> 14:15.485
in a sun spot doesn't destroy everything

14:15.485 --> 14:17.445
or something, you know, a solar flare or something.

14:18.465 --> 14:19.965
We are the very beginning

14:19.965 --> 14:22.605
and we lay now the railroad tracks

14:23.345 --> 14:27.085
for like the politics of the unborn for those not yet here.

14:28.265 --> 14:32.285
And this is this, this is why we have this tension

14:32.285 --> 14:34.845
because we are faced with this new space

14:34.845 --> 14:36.525
where connective action frames

14:37.265 --> 14:40.405
are logically the dominant community form

14:40.425 --> 14:43.045
and participatory form that we surround ourselves with.

14:43.265 --> 14:46.205
And yet we have no understanding of how to leverage it.

14:46.425 --> 14:47.965
We have no understanding how to use it

14:47.965 --> 14:49.005
with representative democracy.

14:49.385 --> 14:52.685
We have rep, our leaders have no idea what to do

14:52.685 --> 14:55.685
with this space because it feels

14:57.425 --> 15:01.685
slack, it feels compared to collective spaces

15:02.925 --> 15:05.455
less or different or, or, or,

15:05.875 --> 15:08.895
or somehow that there needs to be a greater giving

15:09.075 --> 15:12.535
of the self in somehow in politics than

15:12.535 --> 15:13.935
what this is, this is doing.

15:14.595 --> 15:16.495
And yet when we look at things like cancel culture,

15:16.675 --> 15:21.415
we look at, yeah, those sort of things, we can see

15:22.815 --> 15:26.695
collectivism, connective action, hugely influential,

15:26.695 --> 15:29.375
hugely powerful, makes corporations change

15:29.885 --> 15:32.095
without governing bodies, without the need

15:32.475 --> 15:35.655
to politicize an issue like collective action frames.

15:35.655 --> 15:37.295
You no longer need to move from the private

15:37.435 --> 15:39.055
to the public to the governmental.

15:39.835 --> 15:43.625
You can just move from personal action frames to change.

15:44.885 --> 15:47.665
And so that's what we're struggling with.

15:48.175 --> 15:50.655
It's not that things are worse, heck,

15:50.655 --> 15:51.895
in a lot of ways they're better.

15:52.795 --> 15:55.405
It's just there's different, and humans don't like change.

15:55.815 --> 15:57.965
We're almost defined by our resistance to change.

15:58.975 --> 16:03.035
And yeah, so we're, we are straddling this space where

16:03.775 --> 16:05.755
the efficacy of collective actions

16:06.255 --> 16:08.155
and politics of the past

16:09.255 --> 16:12.555
is being almost supplanted by the efficacy

16:13.015 --> 16:14.435
and the new space of the digital.

16:15.415 --> 16:18.835
And we are gonna have to learn how to best leverage

16:18.835 --> 16:20.435
that if we want things like democracy,

16:20.615 --> 16:24.475
if we want things like human rights to continue.

16:24.755 --> 16:28.545
I was plagued by this question, what is digital politics?

16:30.025 --> 16:34.875
Because I like basics research. Um, we tend to forget it.

16:34.875 --> 16:37.115
We, we ignore it. We're like, that stuff's worked out.

16:37.295 --> 16:38.835
And we're like, we don't have to think about

16:38.985 --> 16:40.035
what is politics.

16:40.375 --> 16:42.995
It just is, isn't it? And

16:43.995 --> 16:45.655
but when you start to interrogate some of those things,

16:45.755 --> 16:47.335
you can really open up some new spaces.

16:47.755 --> 16:51.095
Anyway. So in my head I'm like, what's digital politics?

16:52.245 --> 16:55.745
Is there anything different about the digital

16:57.255 --> 17:01.595
or is it just a speeding up of the old?

17:02.175 --> 17:04.075
Is it just an increased efficacy?

17:04.295 --> 17:06.235
Is it just a, a scaling up?

17:06.455 --> 17:10.075
Is it just a data sort of a, a bureaucracy?

17:10.375 --> 17:12.355
Is it just a new system? What, what's going on here?

17:12.355 --> 17:13.395
Is it anything different?

17:13.625 --> 17:16.435
Because we can only say that it's digital politics.

17:17.135 --> 17:19.155
If putting digital in front

17:19.155 --> 17:21.395
of politics creates something new that wasn't there

17:21.395 --> 17:24.075
before, we can't just sort of wave our hands

17:24.075 --> 17:26.955
and go, it means online stuff

17:27.385 --> 17:28.955
because it doesn't do anything.

17:28.955 --> 17:30.875
Then we're just sort of generally referring to something.

17:31.815 --> 17:36.635
So it took me years to comb through a lot of the literature

17:36.635 --> 17:38.355
and the foundational stuff on the logics.

17:38.355 --> 17:40.955
And the thing is, it's, it's so tight, it's so good

17:41.225 --> 17:43.115
that it takes a lot of time to try

17:43.115 --> 17:47.035
and find the small mistakes in a lot of the, the theory

17:47.035 --> 17:51.365
and thinking, and I won't give too much away,

17:51.365 --> 17:53.445
because it's, it's just about to come out.

17:53.625 --> 17:56.285
Uh, one of them, one of the pieces in publication.

17:57.265 --> 18:00.845
Um, no, I'll give some stuff away. I don't care.

18:02.185 --> 18:04.725
So I,

18:08.075 --> 18:11.955
when we think about the internet

18:11.975 --> 18:15.495
and when we think about the way

18:15.495 --> 18:17.855
that the world currently is in, in digital technology,

18:18.615 --> 18:21.815
I would posit that we're thinking about it in virtual

18:21.995 --> 18:24.055
frames, what I would call virtual frames,

18:24.835 --> 18:26.415
not digital frames, virtual.

18:26.435 --> 18:28.295
And this is, this is to start drawing a distinction

18:28.295 --> 18:29.775
between virtual and digital.

18:30.955 --> 18:33.655
And, I would say

18:33.845 --> 18:36.615
that the virtual lens is this continuation

18:36.615 --> 18:40.815
of those collective action sort of structures, efficacy,

18:40.905 --> 18:43.135
ideas, that old theory that has persisted.

18:43.135 --> 18:44.335
And we're like, we've got this new thing.

18:44.335 --> 18:46.175
Let's just chuck it on the pile.

18:46.175 --> 18:48.095
Let's tack this, all this stuff on. Let's keep moving.

18:49.435 --> 18:54.385
And, it doesn't necessarily work like

18:54.385 --> 18:58.575
that because to me,

18:58.875 --> 19:03.135
the digital is defined by the suspension

19:03.275 --> 19:04.535
of human substance.

19:06.315 --> 19:09.455
And the, for me, digital difference centers on

19:09.455 --> 19:10.775
that word suspension.

19:11.685 --> 19:15.215
Because what happens, it is the difference

19:15.215 --> 19:16.895
between an analog object like

19:17.785 --> 19:18.955
it's normally books on my desk,

19:18.975 --> 19:23.715
but a book, for example, an analog object like a book

19:23.715 --> 19:25.115
or a spoon or a glass

19:25.135 --> 19:26.275
or something, whatever's around my desk.

19:27.175 --> 19:31.835
And the, the difference between that and say a Facebook post

19:32.015 --> 19:35.875
or a GPS location from, you know, on your way to work

19:36.135 --> 19:39.115
or facial recognition when you go to McDonald's

19:39.115 --> 19:42.155
to pick up your burger or any number

19:42.295 --> 19:46.275
of digital objects created about you, for you around you,

19:46.375 --> 19:48.395
but not by you every day

19:48.395 --> 19:51.555
that you exist in a digital society, there's a difference

19:51.555 --> 19:54.755
between an analog object and a digital object.

19:55.255 --> 19:58.195
And to me, I argue that the digital is different

19:58.195 --> 20:02.115
because it suspends human substance in connection.

20:02.975 --> 20:06.795
And this is very different than recording,

20:07.085 --> 20:10.875
human information and, and in collection and taking it

20:11.225 --> 20:15.835
because the suspension of of human

20:16.435 --> 20:20.075
substance means that you can change the direction

20:20.265 --> 20:21.795
that meaning occurs.

20:22.655 --> 20:24.955
And that may sound a bit wacky because it is,

20:25.775 --> 20:27.395
but think about it.

20:27.525 --> 20:29.595
Right? Very easy way to think about it.

20:30.695 --> 20:33.695
Like a rowboat going up a stream.

20:34.005 --> 20:36.735
Yeah, you dip your A in and you move

20:36.735 --> 20:38.855
and there's a wake from your movement

20:38.855 --> 20:40.015
that trails out behind you.

20:40.115 --> 20:42.295
You know, you are like humans moving forward

20:43.035 --> 20:44.335
in space and time.

20:45.155 --> 20:48.205
And as we move forward, our sort of

20:48.735 --> 20:50.685
collective movement leaves trails

20:50.685 --> 20:52.165
or ripples of meaning behind us.

20:52.905 --> 20:55.005
It might, you know, and the longer we take things with us,

20:55.025 --> 20:58.365
the more in a linear temporal sense that meaning changes.

20:58.865 --> 21:01.045
So a book, a new book becomes an old book.

21:01.545 --> 21:02.965
You know, a, a new vintage

21:02.965 --> 21:04.725
of wine becomes an old vintage of wine.

21:05.105 --> 21:06.325
And that meaning changes

21:06.325 --> 21:09.765
because the age, the temporal aspect of it, new wine, not

21:09.765 --> 21:12.125
as good as old wine, you know,

21:13.615 --> 21:15.845
young people in politics versus old people in politics,

21:15.845 --> 21:17.045
there's a temporal thing to it.

21:18.155 --> 21:21.435
And for me, the

21:23.015 --> 21:26.165
difference of digital would be as if you stopped

21:26.195 --> 21:30.155
that rowboat in the middle of that, of that stream, middle

21:30.155 --> 21:34.935
of that lake river, and suddenly those ripples

21:34.935 --> 21:36.775
of movement that were behind you start

21:37.945 --> 21:39.085
to proceed ahead of you.

21:39.525 --> 21:43.615
They start to cascade around your stopped objects.

21:44.835 --> 21:47.215
And this is a similar way we can start

21:47.215 --> 21:49.455
to think about digital objects, is

21:49.455 --> 21:52.255
that we're not necessarily taking them

21:52.255 --> 21:54.695
with us like we did in collective analog sense,

21:54.835 --> 21:58.615
as we are suspending them in connection so that the ripples

21:58.615 --> 22:00.415
of their meaning protrude ahead of them.

22:01.955 --> 22:04.255
And rather than necessarily taken with us,

22:05.125 --> 22:09.655
and we are already starting to see this, we saw this,

22:11.405 --> 22:16.265
well, I think a good example of this, is Roe v.

22:16.265 --> 22:17.385
Wade in America.

22:18.615 --> 22:22.675
Um, because you have in the first instance,

22:23.615 --> 22:27.145
individuals seeking

22:28.575 --> 22:32.605
safe, legal, state sanctioned

22:33.335 --> 22:35.125
moral, everything above board, you know,

22:35.125 --> 22:36.445
everything there, there's no issue.

22:36.545 --> 22:39.205
It shouldn't be an issue. Abortions a,

22:41.685 --> 22:44.485
a making of this act illegal at the state level.

22:44.945 --> 22:47.485
And then in some of these southern states in America,

22:47.665 --> 22:52.395
you see the seeking of digital objects created in the past

22:53.135 --> 22:55.875
of women who went to abortion clinics, who went

22:55.875 --> 22:57.795
to these places to persecute them in the present.

22:58.735 --> 23:01.595
The suspended nature of the digital objects

23:01.745 --> 23:05.795
that were created at the time made re politicized

23:05.795 --> 23:07.715
or new politics created from the present.

23:08.265 --> 23:11.155
Because of that suspended sort of element

23:11.695 --> 23:13.435
allows politics to be created around them.

23:13.455 --> 23:14.915
And this is when return,

23:14.915 --> 23:16.995
then now starting talking at the start about intention.

23:17.745 --> 23:20.515
This is one of the ways that intention starts

23:20.515 --> 23:23.035
to become really tricky in digital spaces,

23:23.625 --> 23:26.115
because these women didn't intend these

23:26.115 --> 23:27.155
to be illegal actions.

23:27.305 --> 23:28.395
They didn't intend them

23:28.695 --> 23:30.515
to be persecuted, they didn't intend to do wrong.

23:30.515 --> 23:31.955
They're just following the law.

23:31.955 --> 23:33.955
They're doing what citizens do.

23:34.935 --> 23:38.155
And so the suspended nature of digital objects

23:38.155 --> 23:40.755
that were created without consent can be re politicized

23:40.755 --> 23:41.755
around individuals

23:41.775 --> 23:44.715
to persecute in the present. And this becomes

23:44.785 --> 23:47.405
More of an issue as we start to offload bureaucracy

23:47.705 --> 23:49.405
and decision making to these spaces.

23:50.385 --> 23:54.565
And this coupled with neoliberalisms in need

23:54.865 --> 23:56.525
to center on the individual

23:57.305 --> 23:59.325
and capitalism sort of need

23:59.325 --> 24:01.125
to find new spaces of exploitation.

24:01.665 --> 24:05.045
We realize that well, human information is almost a,

24:05.245 --> 24:09.275
a limitless source of exploitable capital,

24:09.575 --> 24:11.715
of exploitable data in suspended space.

00:00 - The way that the term collectivism is used is interchangeable with, well, online campaigns, anything that's like an online campaign from Move on to get up these big advocacy organizations, were called collectivism. But there's something different if you just sort

00:17 - of think in puzzle it through between the, the organization which helps structure and support politics and the actions that individuals take within that structure. There is a, there is a form of political participation that's happening online that is different that happened in the past, and it's distinct from the campaigns that it, that it was sort of supporting. And so, the term collectivism had been used once or twice,

00:47 - but I just gave it some, some meaty conceptual clarity, and, and a logical framing, in a systematic sense that made it, I think approachable in the discourse. You can go, well, that is a, that's a, an advocacy campaign and these are people doing clicktivism. So, and, and like, either it rises out of this question honestly, the best way to understand it for me, is to ask yourself is clicking like on Facebook politics? And because it's from that, you start

01:19 - to have this spiraling set of questions you go, most people go, yeah, it is. And then you go, well, is it political participation? And they go, well, it depends. And it depends on what, well, whether you mean it to or not. And all that gets to a whole different area of intention. And we start to see there, it's one of the places that digital participation is very different than traditional places. It's a lot of them, but that's one of them.

01:43 - But anyway, returning to collectivism, the thing about collectivism is that what we find now is almost like the most dominant form of political participation in the world. Like bar none. Because it is the, the simplest, smallest, easiest replicable action that you can do online. What is the smallest political action that you can take online? And, and that was sort of conceptually what I was trying to not only get it distinct from advocacy organization, a

02:15 - advocacy organizations, but to also, I think conceptually and logically find the smallest or, or, political action possible in this new digital space. Because that then gives you a logical frame in which you can start attacking other questions. You know, what is not politics online, you know, or things like when is the politics of a a digital object, developed? Because if we start to question things like intention and when, whether you mean something

02:48 - to mean something online or not, these things start becoming real pertinent contemporary questions. Collectivism is a, a contemporary form of political participation that's situated in digital spaces. And, it's often looks like clicking, like on Facebook or reposting a meme or maybe, you could be using social buttons on any

03:14 - social media platforms. it could be upvoting on Reddit. These are politically motivated or politically themed, or at least the individual. There's a political participation aspiration at core there. And so in, you know, liberal democracy, you recognize these actions as for what they are legitimate political expressions. it's just, it becomes very complicated when you realize that these actions are politics

03:44 - and that they are expressions of political participation, how they start to work with old forms of collective action and how they start to supplement contemporary forms and also start to carve out their own spaces. Slacktivism was the term that had almost dominated this space of what sort of come to be known as collectivism before it. And it was, authors like mos of who used the term slacktivism as a way of, of a negative recurrent discourse where you're like,

04:20 - look, this is just people. It's low, it's, it's slack because it's low effort. It's, it's, it's slack because it doesn't align with traditional collective action frames. It's slack because it doesn't promote, thick ideological bonds. It doesn't, necessarily identify common concern at this core. It doesn't allow for intersubjective recognition

04:43 - or mutual understanding and all these core things. It it, it does it in different ways. And so the, if you compare it to old forms, which are seen as, you know, slow but effective, and these are like clicking like as a, as a form of political expression, your knee-jerk reaction is to say that this is a bad form. This is a slack form because it seems like the worst possible thing of what you have available.

05:07 - But when you realize that it's, it's the first step in a new epoch for, for sort of like human interaction, it's not putting the digital genie back in the bottle. You know, it's, it's here with us now. You realize that it's disingenuous just to label these things slacktivism because they are a simpler form of expression that now dominate human communicative space. You know, like I said,

05:35 - collectivism is now one of the most dominant forms of political participation. People will click, like to support, who they like in the presidential race, or whether they like their favorite pop star. I, these are two politics or how they're struggling with the cost of crisis. You know, people forget that politics is not just the political arena where politics happens

05:56 - and politicians, it's also process politics. It's the politics of the everyday. And these things become really important when we start looking at collectivism as an, a legitimate expression of politics because we can then put slacktivism as an illegitimate form of political participation be, we can't say that all clicking like, and all actions online are politics. 'cause then, then nothing's politics. That's the Hearst argument.

06:26 - And there needs to be some things like intercept theory as well. There needs to be some things which are politics, but some things are, or at least be able to identify a difference between these places, if not the space where it happens. So when you think then about collectivism as being legitimate forms of online political participation that are non-committal, spontaneous and engaged digital objects, then slacktivism is it's,

06:55 - like illegitimate or non-legitimate brother or half it's a, I would say something like maybe trolling, might fit under slacktivism, but often it's, it is tied closely with things like the free rider problem, where the, this idea that, what was this? It's the moral balancing argument as well that clicking like say on a, a low effort Facebook post, you know, click like, I support this.

07:31 - Don't blow up the whale campaign or something. somehow then, and then, and they don't decide not to blow up the, the whales that you somehow benefit from that, but from a very low import, you free writing off the benefit of it. I think that's a, a, a, a problematic, thing, again, in the connective sense. But returning then to this distinction between collective and, sorry, between, collectivism, slacktivism,

07:59 - collectivism is the sort of, legitimate expressions of, of political participation and political participation, aspiration online and slacktivism, is when it fails to be legitimate. and I think that that conceptual clarity is important because you can find different ways in which it's not legitimate. Like it, it fails to be, to find tradition in the state and it has to have some sort of sense of tradition in it, or it might have to be a, commonly accepted

08:29 - or commonly perceived, action as being acceptable. These are, if, if the action fails to adhere to these things, and yeah, it slips into slacktivism, it becomes free rider, it becomes low cost, it becomes, rather than it, it becomes individual rather than personalized. And that, that frame's quite important as well, because you can think very individually, you can think very atomized, very selfishly, but what connective action frames,

09:00 - what the internet's very good at, it's actually quite a positive thing, is allowing us to be personal action frames instead, which is a personalization of politics around us and for us and who we are. And it's, it's a way I, I think of starting to unpick, ideas of the self and the individual from neoliberalism, which, has so many conceptual issues with it and structural issues with it. But you don't wanna lose the liberal core.

09:28 - It's not like an either or you're not like, like no one is, is completely just feet on the street pamphlet handing out phones down. Don't put this online. And at the same time, it's rare though possible, is what we found with connective action frames to be completely online. there's, it's a very good medium, just generally for the distribution, accumulation of information. It allows you to mobilize and organize protests or collective things much easier.

10:03 - But when it comes to collectivism specifically as an action, it collectivism activism like supports or supplants, in some ways as we move forward, traditional collective frames, and this is, this is because collective frames become really rely on those strong, traditional, ideological by based boundaries. You, you need, it's about knowing the people's names in there. It's about knowing their last names.

10:35 - It's about having a vested interest in their lives. It's about that tethering of authority and community together. And that is why the, and all those things described is why if you look back in past, you look at, you know, collective action movements that have been so effective is because they leverage those aspects as strengths within representative democracies within, you know, structures of state connective,

11:05 - action. Alternatively, doesn't require that organizational aspect. It doesn't need an overseeing governing body to tie everything together. It doesn't need admin, it doesn't need bureaucracy or, or a deep ideology. it, it, it can be a connection, again, through personalized action frames, through a connection to the project that is happening then, not necessarily

11:36 - to the broader ideology, on hand. So, collectivism supports traditional collective frames as we transition into this new sort of digital space. 'cause collective action frames are what we have and we know that they're effective and we know that we need change to happen in a democracy. And we know we need things to go right for people. We know that representatives need to do create policy, and that policy needs to at least try to make s**t better.

12:06 - For some people, it's a general thrust of things. But as we sort of have the, as the dominant communicative structures of humanity and society slowly move, not so slowly after covid towards digital infrastructure and digital, you know, society, we see these elements of collectivism becoming more prominent, becoming more central, and becoming features of collective action movements. So suddenly you have things, you, you start

12:41 - to get new spaces for political participation. You get things like cancel culture, you get things like, cancel culture I think is a good one because it, it it, for me, it shows in a very, like a blunt sense, the strength of collectivism because that's most of the time that's, you know, when something goes viral, it's collectivism, isn't it? It's just, it's a bunch of eyes on something and then it's a bunch of expression of interest.

13:14 - And so when we're talking about things like something going viral or we're talking about cancel cultural, we're talking about structures of collectivism, talking about personalized or personal action frames in which come together in connective sense to create change without a necessary organizing body over the top, the outcome's, the same societal change, impact change, but without the, the same frames and structures and ideas and and paths

13:42 - and railroads that we used to have that led us to a specific space. And this is the big issue. 'cause we are straddling these two spaces. We like to think, we're like, well, in the digital space, no, no, no, no. We're like, we're babies. Like if, if the digital spans off into assuming that climate change doesn't destroy us all, humanity

14:05 - progresses, or not even progresses, just persists the, and, and the digital doesn't, you know, in a sun spot doesn't destroy everything or something, you know, a solar flare or something. We are the very beginning and we lay now the railroad tracks for like the politics of the unborn for those not yet here. And this is this, this is why we have this tension because we are faced with this new space

14:34 - where connective action frames are logically the dominant community form and participatory form that we surround ourselves with. And yet we have no understanding of how to leverage it. We have no understanding how to use it with representative democracy. We have rep, our leaders have no idea what to do with this space because it feels slack, it feels compared to collective spaces less or different or, or, or,

15:05 - or somehow that there needs to be a greater giving of the self in somehow in politics than what this is, this is doing. And yet when we look at things like cancel culture, we look at, yeah, those sort of things, we can see collectivism, connective action, hugely influential, hugely powerful, makes corporations change without governing bodies, without the need to politicize an issue like collective action frames. You no longer need to move from the private

15:37 - to the public to the governmental. You can just move from personal action frames to change. And so that's what we're struggling with. It's not that things are worse, heck, in a lot of ways they're better. It's just there's different, and humans don't like change. We're almost defined by our resistance to change. And yeah, so we're, we are straddling this space where the efficacy of collective actions and politics of the past

16:09 - is being almost supplanted by the efficacy and the new space of the digital. And we are gonna have to learn how to best leverage that if we want things like democracy, if we want things like human rights to continue. I was plagued by this question, what is digital politics? Because I like basics research. we tend to forget it. We, we ignore it. We're like, that stuff's worked out. And we're like, we don't have to think about what is politics.

16:40 - It just is, isn't it? And but when you start to interrogate some of those things, you can really open up some new spaces. Anyway. So in my head I'm like, what's digital politics? Is there anything different about the digital or is it just a speeding up of the old? Is it just an increased efficacy? Is it just a, a scaling up? Is it just a data sort of a, a bureaucracy? Is it just a new system? What, what's going on here?

17:12 - Is it anything different? Because we can only say that it's digital politics. If putting digital in front of politics creates something new that wasn't there before, we can't just sort of wave our hands and go, it means online stuff because it doesn't do anything. Then we're just sort of generally referring to something. So it took me years to comb through a lot of the literature and the foundational stuff on the logics.

17:38 - And the thing is, it's, it's so tight, it's so good that it takes a lot of time to try and find the small mistakes in a lot of the, the theory and thinking, and I won't give too much away, because it's, it's just about to come out. one of them, one of the pieces in publication. no, I'll give some stuff away. I don't care. So I, when we think about the internet and when we think about the way

18:15 - that the world currently is in, in digital technology, I would posit that we're thinking about it in virtual frames, what I would call virtual frames, not digital frames, virtual. And this is, this is to start drawing a distinction between virtual and digital. And, I would say that the virtual lens is this continuation of those collective action sort of structures, efficacy, ideas, that old theory that has persisted.

18:43 - And we're like, we've got this new thing. Let's just chuck it on the pile. Let's tack this, all this stuff on. Let's keep moving. And, it doesn't necessarily work like that because to me, the digital is defined by the suspension of human substance. And the, for me, digital difference centers on that word suspension. Because what happens, it is the difference

19:15 - between an analog object like it's normally books on my desk, but a book, for example, an analog object like a book or a spoon or a glass or something, whatever's around my desk. And the, the difference between that and say a Facebook post or a GPS location from, you know, on your way to work or facial recognition when you go to McDonald's to pick up your burger or any number of digital objects created about you, for you around you,

19:46 - but not by you every day that you exist in a digital society, there's a difference between an analog object and a digital object. And to me, I argue that the digital is different because it suspends human substance in connection. And this is very different than recording, human information and, and in collection and taking it because the suspension of of human substance means that you can change the direction that meaning occurs.

20:22 - And that may sound a bit wacky because it is, but think about it. Right? Very easy way to think about it. Like a rowboat going up a stream. Yeah, you dip your A in and you move and there's a wake from your movement that trails out behind you. You know, you are like humans moving forward in space and time. And as we move forward, our sort of

20:48 - collective movement leaves trails or ripples of meaning behind us. It might, you know, and the longer we take things with us, the more in a linear temporal sense that meaning changes. So a book, a new book becomes an old book. You know, a, a new vintage of wine becomes an old vintage of wine. And that meaning changes because the age, the temporal aspect of it, new wine, not as good as old wine, you know,

21:13 - young people in politics versus old people in politics, there's a temporal thing to it. And for me, the difference of digital would be as if you stopped that rowboat in the middle of that, of that stream, middle of that lake river, and suddenly those ripples of movement that were behind you start to proceed ahead of you. They start to cascade around your stopped objects. And this is a similar way we can start

21:47 - to think about digital objects, is that we're not necessarily taking them with us like we did in collective analog sense, as we are suspending them in connection so that the ripples of their meaning protrude ahead of them. And rather than necessarily taken with us, and we are already starting to see this, we saw this, well, I think a good example of this, is Roe v. Wade in America. because you have in the first instance,

22:23 - individuals seeking safe, legal, state sanctioned moral, everything above board, you know, everything there, there's no issue. It shouldn't be an issue. Abortions a, a making of this act illegal at the state level. And then in some of these southern states in America, you see the seeking of digital objects created in the past of women who went to abortion clinics, who went to these places to persecute them in the present.

22:58 - The suspended nature of the digital objects that were created at the time made re politicized or new politics created from the present. Because of that suspended sort of element allows politics to be created around them. And this is when return, then now starting talking at the start about intention. This is one of the ways that intention starts to become really tricky in digital spaces, because these women didn't intend these

23:26 - to be illegal actions. They didn't intend them to be persecuted, they didn't intend to do wrong. They're just following the law. They're doing what citizens do. And so the suspended nature of digital objects that were created without consent can be re politicized around individuals to persecute in the present. And this becomes More of an issue as we start to offload bureaucracy

23:47 - and decision making to these spaces. And this coupled with neoliberalisms in need to center on the individual and capitalism sort of need to find new spaces of exploitation. We realize that well, human information is almost a, a limitless source of exploitable capital, of exploitable data in suspended space.

Faculti AI can make mistakes