Late capitalism does not appropriate anything: it nurtures, exploits, and exhausts its labor force and its cultural and affective production.
The above quote is at the heart of Tizian Terranova's argument about the current state of labor. It is important that she begins with a quote from Marx, for her argument uses a Marxist method to analyze contemporary society and the state of labor. Hardt and Negri make a similar argument in Multitude, explicitly stating that the state of informational capitalism needs to be analyzed in its own terms. Since the economic logic of today is no longer dominated by the logic of industrial production, as it was in Marx's day, we need to look at the material conditions and logics of informational capitalism to gain an understanding of it and develop ways to resist it.
This analysis, for Terranova, results in the conclusion that many of the aspects of society that were once understood as outside or separate from capitalism have been firmly incorporated into the system. This “immaterial labor”, which includes the creation of art/culture/affects/etc, is not produced exclusively by a class of knowledge workers, but rather, increasingly by the social body as a whole. For some theorists, like Hardt and Negri, this signals the revolutionary potential of those outside of the “workers” (in the more classical Marxist conception), since the entire social body is incorporated into the system of capitalist exploitation.
As an artist, specifically one using digital technology, the complicity of my work with the production of immaterial labor is an important aspect to thinking over the implications of a radical political stance. As Terranova convincingly points out, it is no longer the situation in which subcultural movements resist or “sell-out” to the system. They are nurtured and exploited by the system from their inception. So how do we produce socially transformative practices which are not based on old resistant politics, but which take the current material conditions of relationships of production into account?
Both Ian Bogost and Noah Wardrip-Fruin argue that games are a potentially fruitful way for users to develop procedural literacy since they are a direct mode of playing with algorithms. Both authors also argue that games, and computer programs more generally, are loaded with authorial meaning and intent—they are not neutral tools. Bogost goes on to develop his idea of “procedural rhetoric”, explaining how authors can use processes to make an argument. Through play, users understand the game's arguments as they figure out the system and its underlying rules. I agree that playing games is a good way of understanding computer procedures, but I think there are potential dangers for games that apply procedural rhetorics to social, natural or other non-digital systems.
At best, applying procedural rhetorics to complex, analog systems could be a way of simplifying an argument and perhaps encourage broader, systematic thinking about analog systems. At worst, such a move has the potential to impose the “Computational Universe” (the view espoused by Wolfram and others, which I wrote about in Week 3) on analog systems. If we are to reduce the complex social, natural and economic interactions which make up the fast food industry to the simple simulation that is The Mc Donald's Videogame, then we are decidedly unequipped to really go to the root/s of the problem. If, however, the game is a starting point for dialogue, perhaps the imposition of computer metaphors onto a complex, analog world can be avoided. The dialogical seems like it should be a key component to any project which attempts to mount a procedural argument based on analog systems.
More interesting to me are projects that make clear connections between computation and the material world. Rather than creating simulations of the world in the computer, we can use processes to open up participatory, dialogical spaces in the world which allow reflection on complex, procedural systems which pervade our everyday lives. It is important to not allow the social to be subsumed by the “Computational Universe”.
Wafaa Bilal's project Domestic Tension is a good example of this sort of work (which I will be writing more on later): 
http://www.wafaabilal.com/html/domesticTension.html
Cellular Automata http://nicklally.com/fdm225/ca.html
I rarely incorporate narratives in my own work, but Noah Wardrip-Fruin makes a convincing case that learning the history of Artificial Intelligence, including narrative experiments, has important political implications. He uses the example of an automatic terrorist watch list as a political proposal that is doomed to fail, but which relies on the population's ignorance of computer processes to be enacted. While this watch list would obviously be blackboxed, we can understand the imminent problems that would arise by looking at specific examples of known AI systems. Wardrip-Fruin analyzes a number of narrative-generating AI systems and infers that through understanding them, “we will be able to dismiss the idea of magical computer systems and instead think meaningfully about the potentials and limitations of such systems” (217). His project is not only to suggest new ways of creating narrative systems, but also a development of procedural literacy, whereas people can “make more informed decisions at the intersection of processes and politics” (217).
I also am interested in his analysis of Terminal Time and the “dual reflection” performed by its audience (272). Audience members in the first showing can reflect on the voting process enacted, while in the second showing, they can reflect on their on complicity in the process and play against the system. The system simultaneously allows participants to play with and understand its processes as well as reflect on larger social systems which work in similar ways. This seems like an interesting mode of working for the artist interested in procedural literacy as a political project.
This week's readings focus on the computer program ELIZA, which was an early experiment in Artificial Intelligence. Widely dismissed as a trick by computer theorists, ELIZA nevertheless stands as a canonical example of AI. Warren Sack's essay is a good example of the importance of Software Studies to the development of computer science. He describes his interest in the Platonic tradition through its ties with critical thinking around computers. Using a combination of Plato's view of the Sophists and post-structuralist theory, Sack undermines the underlying logic of AI research while suggesting the cultural importance of projects like ELIZA. This article is an interesting example of applying cultural theory to computer theory in a way that seeks to change the path of software development—a worthy interventionist goal for the field.
Noah Wardrip-Fruin looks specifically at ELIZA in an attempt to view its successes, failures and lessons for those engaged with digital fictions. I found the assertion that “most systems of control that are meant to appear intelligent have extremely restricted methods of interaction” an interesting claim resulting from an analysis of ELIZA (37). Wardrip-Fruin uses the example of “playful interaction” with systems that determine financial surveillance having the potential for people to figure out the system and thus exploit it. If Software Studies is focused on “procedural literacy” and understanding systems, I wonder what implications this has for those “intelligent” systems which we are only allowed limited access to. Perhaps this quick observation holds interesting promise to further analyzing this field's relationship to systems of power. Or at least, the specific object we choose to study clearly has important cultural/political implications.
I also found it interesting that Weizenbaum's article hints at an important principle of Software Studies (in 1966!) when he observes, “the transformation rules which cause the input... are based on quite specific hypotheses about the world. The whole script constitutes, in a loose way, a model of certain aspects of the world” (43).
Katherine Hayles provides a careful reading of code in relationship to written and spoke language, bringing in both Saussure and Derrida's theoretical frameworks. She concludes the chapter by positioning code alongside language and calling for critical software studies which can have the potential to steer software towards a myriad of possibilities—from the liberatory to the dangerous. This critical reading of software and attention to its cultural implications is the project picked up by the contributors to Matthew Fuller's book.
An interesting theme that was explored several times in the book was the disconnect between computing metaphors (ie: the button, the desktop, memory) and the actual (or possible) functioning of the computer. Several times throughout the book, the glitch or breakdown of the system was illustrated as a time when that spell is broken and people can glimpse into the workings of the underlying system. Olga Goriunova and Alexei Shulgin assert, “A glitch reminds us of our cultural experience...” (115). Soren Pold refers to system errors and reflexive programs (net art being an example) as moments when the “functional spell” of the computer is broken (33). And Richard Wright describes data visualization as being one of the few techniques which lessens the distance between software processes and the limitations of human perception (79).
I wonder what the implications of such thinking are on Software Studies which predominately focuses on analyzing computer processes and their cultural implications. Do glitches and errors (intentional or not) provide users with a cultural understanding of software? Can they hint at the underlying processes of computer systems? I am interested in the potential for new kinds of understandings that they can engender, but I wonder if most experiments of that kind are more akin to formalist experiments with code. Just like the abstract expressionists wanted to make their work about the paint, perhaps most glitch experiments are really trying to make formalist expressions with code. Although, in discussion, Warren mentioned the example of glitches in video revealing the functioning of video codecs. This might be the best example I can think of that shows glitches actually revealing the functioning of a process, but does understanding a codec really produce a deeper cultural understanding of code? As a programmer artist, I am definitely drawn to the aesthetic—I wonder how much of my interest results from my immersion in the genre and how much is interesting for those outside of it.
Boolean logic comprises the building blocks of computing, as outlined in this week's readings, which begs the question is: What are the implications of that logic on critical readings of software? Surely, to understand procedural operations, one must understand Boolean logic since programming languages are built on that logic and contain direct references to that logic, even at levels of abstraction that are far removed from the physical hardware of the computer. At the level of output, discrete functions will mimic or simulate analog systems, but it is always the result of boolean logic at lower levels. Some theorists, like Wolfram and possibly Hillis, would argue that the world functions like a computer and that these discrete functions make up the “building blocks” of the world which create more complex emergences.
But perhaps this discrete logic is fundamentally different than the analog and these “building blocks” have important ramifications for our understanding of computer processes. Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker, in The Exploit, describe networks as forms that are permeated by the logic of control. They make this assertion because networks rely on protocols and protocols are rules which control the functioning of the network. I wonder if this logic permeates the whole of software since it is built on the discrete functioning of boolean logic and can only mimic the continuous and the fluid which typifies the analog world. And then, what are the implications for human subjectivities which are increasingly shaped by the logic of computing?
Connect Three Points http://nicklally.com/fdm225/
Katherine Hayles argues against “linear causal models” as a way to analyze the relationship between society and computational procedures. Her methodology is more nuanced and complex—focusing on feedback loops between computational processes and subjects as they collectively influence and define each other. She asserts that “Computational Universe” (the view espoused by Wolfram and others) is both a metaphor and a means. The view has the power to shape subjective and political configurations through the mere belief in the view. But, in Hayles estimation, such views are reductive and ignore the complex interactions between the digital and analog, between subjects and computers.
The complexity of these interactions and the ways in which society and technology coevolve should be, in my opinion, at the heart of software studies. That way, we can posit software studies not merely as an analysis of the state of the “software society” but as an intervention. Critical thinking about software processes, hacking existing systems and creating new ones have important societal and political ramifications as society coevolves with software. Likewise, the state of software cannot be understood divorced from the material, social and political conditions of a society.
Wolfram's view, in this regard, is reductive and merely poses societal formations as the effects of a universe based on computation. Hayles, on the other hand, amusingly states that “Wolfram and his cellular automata coevolve together in a synergistic dynamic that allows emergences to occur across many levels of complexity” (36). Warren Sack also hints at a new conception of algorithms outside of the “Computational Universe” view, stating a much more complex view of algorithms as being “the newest form of writing that can be used as a form of representation, a form of action, and a means to connect and separate people” (35). I'm interested in thinking about algorithms as “actions” and their effects on societal formations and vice versa.
Most of this week's essays examine the importance of developing “procedural literacy” as a means to participate in a society which is shifting away from the logic of prose to the logic of software processes. This shift and call for new pedagogical models is juxtaposed with Plato's call for new pedagogical models in the face of the shift in ancient Greece from a society ruled by the logic of poetry to the logic of prose. In this shift, Plato recognized new possibilities for critical thinking which mimetic poetry precluded. In a similar way, many theorists who write about “procedural literacy” see new possibilities for thinking about complex systems, both in modeling natural systems and understanding computer systems.
Papert and Kay's essays provide specific examples of pedagogical methodologies for children to learn programming and understand complex systems and concepts. I think Mateas' and Bogost's analysis of processes being expressive cultural artifacts, not neutral technological tools, must be included in any pedagogical model of software. The focus of any educational program around software should be to develop a literacy that allows one to understand and enact processes, but also to develop critical analytical tools that allow one to understand the cultural and historical significance of certain processes and how they have influenced our thinking. Any program which ignores a cultural/historical component risks creating students who think like computers rather than students who think critically about computers. Mateas provides one possible route for a critical introduction to “procedural literacy”--there is undoubtedly much work to be done to develop other routes for such introductions, especially for varied audiences.
The question of audience is also important in terms of access. If one of the goals of Software Studies is to develop a “procedural literacy” as a way to allow participation in a society increasingly governed by software processes, the the question of who is able to access the technology required to participate becomes crucial. Kay addresses this by stating that access to computers is not the only problem—training people to teach them is also a hurdle. Thus, it becomes quite a challenge to harness the resources to implement any kind of “procedural literacy” educational programs in areas of poverty which are most affected by and have the smallest voice in global technological capitalism. And as Olu Oguibe in The Culture Game has argued, disenfranchised communities not only lack the means to intervene in technological capital, but they also increasingly lack the means to access, intervene in or critique their own representations within informational networks created by others. Software Studies then must address the real material conditions of society in creating calls for new pedagogies as well in its critical analysis of software as a cultural form imbued with meaning.
This week's essays provide introductions to the emerging field of Software Studies and argue for the importance of that project. Central to these arguments is the recognition that software processes have become a ubiquitous part of contemporary life which shape political, social and cultural formations. The project is a call for critical theory which analyzes computer processes as objects imbued with meaning and social and cultural ramifications.
The work is then expressly political, both as a means of analysis and in its call for the shaping of future computer processes (through new creations and hacking) which in turn shape contemporary life. The methodology of such an analysis differ across these writing. Warren Sack and Mark Marino stress the importance of reading and writing code as a way to understand the significance of computer processes. Sack argues that one must know the language of the debate (code) to enter into that debate. Noah Wardrip-Fruin, on the other hand, is more focused on what he terms “operational logics”, arguing that understanding how processes work is central to developing computer literacy. He describes the ways in which people, through play with systems, can begin to understand these logics and help develop an understanding of the “software society”.
These two methodologies perhaps signal two diverging paths for contribution to Software Studies. For cultural theorists who want to engage with software processes as a cultural form, perhaps a general understanding of “operational logics” without a developed understanding of code is enough to provide significant contributions to Software Studies as a field. Of course, more in-depth readings of code by other theorists can help inform this understanding. Here I am thinking of Sack and Marino's analysis of understanding code as significantly different than literature/language. While I think coders provide a different contribution to the field, both in their analysis and actual contributions of critical software, I think reading/writing code might not be necessarily imperative (but probably helpful) to understanding higher level processes and logics.
At another level of analysis are larger systematic social theories. Lev Manovich mentions Manuel Castells as an example of a theorist whose work deals with technology and society but mostly ignores software in that analysis (Hardt and Negri come to mind as another example). I am interested in Software Studies as an analytical tool with a political and ethical dimension that can integrate with these larger social system theories. It seems like Software Studies often hints at this integration and an important project should be to pose Software Studies as a productive tool that can further critical projects of this sort. Sack's historical analysis begins this project (although I don't quite understand the dismissal of Marxist theory—maybe some clarification there could be helpful) and I think much can be done to build upon, integrate and shift critical social theory through the analytical lens of software. And Software Studies as a field must not ignore larger societal factors (capital, class, race, gender, etc) which are crucial to an understanding of the importance of Software and which have been theorized extensively in other fields.
twitter
flickr
facebook
Equipment