lecturer in digital media and culture at the University of Manchester, UK.

sam.hind@manchester.ac.uk

Tag: The Semaphore Line

  • Protest and Place

    (Re)constructing the meaning of place, even in temporary ways, can be a tactical act of resistance along with the tactics we traditionally associate with protest, such as speeches, marches and signs.[…P]lace (re)constructions can function rhetorically to challenge dominant meanings and practices in place. Place is a performer along with activists in making and unmaking the possibilities of protest.

    (Emphasis added)

    From: Endres and Senda-Cook (2011) ‘Location Matters: The Rhetoric of Place in Protest’. Available here (subscription required). I’ve italicized that final sentence because it makes an incredibly important point: who, or what makes or ‘unmakes’ the possibilities of protest? Place is no container of action; no empty grid of co-ordinates waiting to be filled by protesters. Place can be made and re-made by anyone and anything – including non-human matter, and protest equally is an event comprised of and changed by bodies, words, data, legal instruments, musical instruments, walls, temporary barriers and more.

  • March Dynamics: Why place matters

    This will be the first of two posts today about protest. They are both related to yesterday’s NUS march in London, ‘Demo 2012’. Below is a map of the march route and associated tweets, pictures and other media put together by East London Lines. Both the Guardian and ELL live blogged during the event too.

    Take a look at the map. What do you see? What do you recognise? If you don’t know London at all this might prove difficult. The march started on Victoria Embankment (the map is orientated north, so head to the blue pin just above the River Thames). This is a common start point for London protests, no doubt partly because it can accommodate such large amounts of people. Although this isn’t the whole story as I’ll mention later. The Stop the War march in 2003, the TUC ‘anti-cuts’ march in 2011, and the TUC anti-austerity march in 2012 all started on the Embankment. It then snaked its way round to Westminster Bridge, where a flurry of tweets were sent by the ELL’s reporter Thomas Jivanda, and as the Guardian reported, a small sit-in took place.

    So first up, why here? Why Westminster Bridge? Well, again, for those who don’t know London, its close to one thing: the Houses of Parliament. Now, each and every major protest in the city has gone past the House of Parliament. Why? Because it is the centre of political decision-making in the UK. Although politicians may not be in session, or even be able to hear the protesters from the chambers inside, it nonetheless forms a symbolic oppositional place. But not every city has an amenable space to protest in front of such a building. John Parkinson’s book ‘Democracy and Public Space’ is an interesting look on this subject, and he has a downloadable paper on representation and public space, here (direct download). In fact, London doesn’t really have a space for such protest either, that’s why protesters are forced to sit-down and slow-up on the road junction nearby and not in Parliament Square itself. The 2005 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act restricted the right to demonstrate in an area up to 1km away from any point in Parliament Square (directly outside Parliament), and was in place for nearly 6 1/2 years (relevant sections of the act, section 132-138 here). The 2011 Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act repealed SOCPA and, in short, replaced ‘demonstration’ with ‘prohibitive activity’ (see relevant sections, 141-159 here). So now you can’t use amplified noise equipment, tenting or sleeping equipment in Parliament Square, whereas SOCPA outlawed demonstration wholesale. So the law has been relaxed slightly, in part due to Brian Haw’s legal battles. But nevertheless, forms of demonstration are severely restricted in this area. This is why every major protest has continued it’s route north of Westminster Bridge, not over it to the south, because every protest has wanted to face the House of Parliament for the longest period possible, before heading along Whitehall to Downing Street. Every march I’ve been on slows down on this bend as people take a good old look at it, shout a lot and generally increase their rowdiness! Protesters took to occupying Westminster Bridge for a short while for this reason. The route, as you can see on the map, turned over the river and headed towards Waterloo Station away from Parliament. Even the NUS’s rallying cry for the demo seemed to re-iterate this implicitly:

    Thousands of students will march through the streets of London to stand up for their future. With a government that is consistently taking students’ futures from them, it is more important than ever that your voice is heard.

    It’s pretty difficult to ‘march’ on ‘the streets of London’ making sure your ‘voice is heard’ to those in ‘government’ when the march route is directed to a park bordering South London. That’s why you had people tweeting these sorts of things, and also why the rally ended, farcically, with NUS president Liam Burns being heckled by protesters and a small number of them actually storming the stage (pictures here, and video here). What this serves to illustrate, even in a growing world of ostensibly ‘online’ protest, place matters. Yes, people tweet and take photos, but they also reinforce symbolic spaces during  protest events, and this  is just as important as ever, as the NUS have just found out.

    Below is a map of the area I’ve talked about, with descriptions of the importance of this particular point for protesters. Above it is a Google Streetview image of the same location. Note the junction at the end where the cars are turning towards the camera is Westminster Bridge. Note also the black road blocks separating the road and the pavement. My next post will be on the ‘gamification’ of protest.

     

  • Mapping racist tweets

    I’m a little late to the game here, but the ever popular floatingsheep blog smashed their previous daily page view high with this post entitled ‘Mapping Racist Tweets in Response to President Obama’s Re-election‘ 10 days ago. I don’t think I need to explain what it’s about, it’s pretty self-explanatory.

    It drew a lot of comments, understandably. From people questioning the small sample size (395 ‘hate’ tweets in total), the search terms (‘monkey’ OR ‘nigger’ AND the text ‘Obama’ OR ‘reelected’ OR ‘won’), the exclusion of racist tweets towards Romney (rectified by floating sheep, here), the geolocation of tweets (2-5% of all tweets), the use of particular search terms in the positive (for example, ‘nigger’), and the mapping of racial tweets as opposed to tweeters (the results could have produced multiple tweets from the same individual).

    They’re all now included in a FAQ section, here, in response to the many questions floatingsheep received as to their choice of method. For me, it says a lot about people’s ability to pick holes in ‘scientific’ method. Although the comments started to get a little wild, they did at least open the door for a response from the floatingsheep team, clarifying the methods they used. It really isn’t a sample of the American population, let alone the American twitter population, let’s get that clear. 395 tweets is so far removed from a representative sample size it’s at the best kind of naive drawing any conclusions (‘the south is racist’) and at the worst, dangerous. I think floatingsheep know that. Still, it says a lot about the pitfalls of mapping tweet data, because there are just so many removals from the population at large. In this case:

    NOT people in USA

    OR

    people in USA tweeting

    OR

    people in USA tweeting racist comments about Obama

    OR

    people in USA tweeting racist comments about Obama with geo-location activated

    BUT

    people in USA tweeting particular racist comments about Obama with geo-location activated during a 7-day period at a specific time as searched for in a built database

    That’s 4x removed from the classification that, I would argue, most people think of this data as representing. That is, constituting the people of the USA. Although maybe it’s only 3x removed, because I’d like to think most people have the intelligence to think this at the least is only feasibly representative of those with twitter (it doesn’t take much to realise there are more young people than old people on twitter, whatever that may mean). There’s a danger in not making this patently clear to people.

  • Guns and People Kill People

    Although I’ve posted on Bruno Latour countless times (here, here and here for starters), I’ve never talked about his guns and people argument I’ve only posted once on his guns and people argument, here, but nevertheless I’ll continue because I really didn’t think I’d talked about it before! In short, and contrary to the opposing slogans ‘guns kill people’ and ‘people kill people’, Latour says ‘guns and people kill people’. It may seem like a get-out from the debate, but assure me, it works better in the context of Latour’s general philosophy. You’ll find it in his 1994 Common Knowledge paper, ‘On Technical Mediation – Philosophy, Sociology, Genealogy’ (available here). It’s basically an example geared to back up his ‘program of action’ concept. If you start reading from page 30 through to page 34 you’ll get the main bulk of the argument, although if you continue on through the paper you’ll get a more conclusive understanding of the whole thing, obviously. He ends this section with:

    These examples of actor-actant symmetry force us to abandon the subject-object dichotomy, a distinction that prevents understanding of techniques and even of societies. It is neither people nor guns that kill. Responsibility for action must be shared among the various actants. (34)

    I did a quick search for the two slogans above and came across a clip of Eddie Izzard which I thought was pretty funny. I guess it kind of emphasises Latour’s point; you need both of them for a new outcome!

     

  • Anticipatory politics

    8 years before Barnett wondered whether Thrift wanted to pursue a political project in his notion of affect, here he is, arguing for a political project of the notion of affect (in the affirmative):

    This ‘politics of the half-second delay’ has the potential to expand the bio-political domain, to make it more than just the site of investment by the state or investments by transnational capitalism. It may well explain the deep affective investments that are made by so many in a politics of nature, investments which move far beyond the cognitive and which are often figured as a restitution of all that has been lost. Perhaps…the outcome might be figured more accurately as new appreciations and anticipations of spaces of embodiment, best understood as a form of magic dependent upon new musics of stillness and silence able to be discovered in a world of movement.

    Taken from his 2000 paper, ‘Still life in nearly present time: the object of nature’ in Body and Society. The abstract is available here, but I can’t find a freely downloadable version I’m afraid.