Re: [ox-en] hackers v 'politicians'
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten oekonux.de>
- Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:35:53 +0200
Hi Graham and all!
Last week (9 days ago) Graham Seaman wrote:
I just found an article quoting oekonux messages as part of an interesting
comparison between hackers and activists and the limitations of their
interaction. I'm not sure when it was published, it may be old to others
but I hadn't seen it before:
http://multitudes.samizdat.net/article.php3?id_article=1030
(by Patrice Riemens)
A very interesting article. Particularly these paragraphs I
wholeheartedly agree with:
"Hacker culture", a concept one often encounters these days among
networked activists, purports to represent this playful confluence
between tech wizardry and the moral high ground. Hence, "Open
Source" (see note 3 again) is fast becoming an omnibus framework and
a near-universal tool-kit to tackle very diverse social issues, such
as artistic production, law, epistemology, education, and a few
others (5), which are but remotely - if at all - related to the
field of software research and development, and the social
environments from which it originates. There is little wrong in
itself to this - imitation being the best of compliments - but for
the fact that it tends to obscure a sticky problem. Between hackers
and activists often looms a wide gap in approach and attitude that
is just too critical to be easily papered away. And it is precisely
this fundamental difference that is usually being hushed up by the
evangelists of what I call the "hackers-activists bhai-bhai"(6)
gospel. A good, if a contrario, example of a really occurring
non-equivalence between political activists applying ICT and hackers
is provided by that spurious hybrid known as "hacktivism" (7).
The main principle at work here is the so-called "Hackers Ethic".
And its practice is the usual, daily activity of hackers. To put it
very simply, without going deeper into its precise content, the
hacker ethic runs strikingly parallel to the formula "l'art pour
l'art' (art for art's sake). What matters here, is the realisation
that, unlike activists, hackers are focused on the pursuit of
knowledge and the exercise of curiosity for its own sake. Therefore,
the obligations that derive from the hacker ethic are perceived by
genuine hackers as sovereign and not instrumental, and always
prevail above other aims or interests, whatever these may be - and
if there are any at all. This consequently makes the hackers
movement to be wary of any particular blueprint of society, however
alternative, and even adverse to embrace particular antagonism (some
hackers, and not minor ones, are for instance loath to demonise the
Microsoft Corporation). Hence the spread of political and
philosophical opinions harboured by individual hackers, without any
loss of their feeling of identity and belonging to the 'mouvance' at
large or even their particular group, is truly astonishing, and very
unlikely to obtain within any other 'new social movement'. In fact,
the militant defense of individual liberties and a penchant for
rather unequalitarian economic convictions one encounters in tandem
among a good many hackers has provided for bafflement among
networked political (i.e. left-leaning) activists coming to be
better acquainted with their 'natural allies'. Yet it is neither
fortuitous nor aberrant that the Californian transmutation of
libertarianism (8) enjoys such widespread support among hackers.
The existence of such 'ideological' positions has its reflection in
the daily and usual activities of hackers, which are generally
characterised by an absence of preconceived ideas and positions.
Despite the avowed 'end of the great narratives', this is not the
case with political activists, since they do have objectives and
aims that precede their actions. Hackers, on the other hand, are
usually happy with the 'mere', but unrestricted, pursuit of
knowledge, which reduces their 'political program', if that can be
so called, to the freedom of learning and enquiry, and thus would
seem to fall very much short of demands for justice, equality,
emancipation, empowerment, etc that are formulated by political
militants. Yet they seem to be content with it, and there are (immo)
good arguments to think that such a program, as limited as it may
sound, is essential, not subsequent, to the achievement of the
better society we all aspire too.
I could not have it said better (especially not in English ;-) ) and
this is exactly why I do not count much (any more) on the traditional
left. There are some - like the leftist people on this list - who can
see there is something new and promising here and a lot who simply do
what they always did. This is also an answer to Martin's question
about the traditional left.
Ahm - I added this to the link page.
Mit Freien Grüßen
Stefan
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/