commit 6470f09b7ea783c2c8a4bc9a39b5974ff6c76957
parent d1c12493ce1e6045a629521e2f817aa7b82237b0
Author: ugrnm <ultrageranium@bleu255.com>
Date: Fri Jan 31 13:40:42 +0100
thesis 3 slides in progress
Diffstat:1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/transmediale-2020-7-theses/index.html b/transmediale-2020-7-theses/index.html
@@ -418,30 +418,67 @@ universel openess became a question of who should be talking to who
because of that fediverse could grow from a network of a few thousands FLOSS nerds to something much larger because. Selective exclusion allowed communities to define themselves and guard themselves and consequently the network fits more communities because they can exclude each other. setting exclusive boundaries allows more to join on their own terms.
----
+---
<!--aymeric-->
# THESIS 3
## Fediverse as a site for online agonistic pluralism?
+---
+class: words, center, middle
+4.3 million accounts<br />
+5000 servers
+
+???
Once again, the Fediverse exists as a collection of communities that not only can talk to each other, but use social media communication to define themselves in relation to the others.
-Sounds great on paper, now try to make sense of how collective identity, ideology, and conflicts can be understood when you have 4.3 millions accounts spread over more than 5000 servers.
+---
+class: words, center, middle
+4.3 million accounts<br />
+5000 servers
+
+???
+Sounds great on paper, now try to make sense of how the dynamics of collective identity, ideology, and conflicts can be understood when you have 4.3 millions accounts spread over more than 5000 servers.
We need some help.
+---
+class: words, center, middle
+Agonism
+
+???
And some help can potentially be found in the political theory of agonism, and more particularly how agonism can be a useful tool to navigate through this giant mess.
+---
+class: words, center, middle
+Agonism
+
+???
And the type of agonism that we're particularly interested in here, is the one articulated by Chantal Mouffe.
+--
+???
In Mouffe's view, political consensus is impossible and radical negativity cannot be avoided in a system where diversity is limited only to similar competing groups within the same hegemonic order.
+--
+???
And, yes indeed this is precisely what is going on right now on commercial social media.
+
+---
+class: words, center, middle
+Pluralism of hegemonies
+
+???
Now, the bet made by agonism is that by creating a system in which a pluralism of hegemonies is permitted, it is possible to move from an understanding of the other as an enemy, to the other as a political adversary. But for this to happen, different ideologies must be able to materialise via different channels and platforms.
+---
+class: words, center, middle
+conflictual consensus
+
+???
In such a situation we move from political consensus to conflictual consensus.
Easier said than done.
