The politics of cyberspace is of importance both for the future use of
computer-mediated communication1 (CMC) and within traditional political arenas, commerce and society itself. As illustrated with the J18 protests,
the incorporation by political activists of CMC within their repertoire will
influence not only their own campaigning abilities, but the responses
required by governments and security forces.
Technological changes in communication have long been recognised as
important to the development of cohesion between dispersed
Alex Schafran, Matthew Noah Smith, and Stephen Hall
‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ interchangeably). Drawing on writings such as Thomas Hobbes’s famous seventeenth-century definition of liberty as ‘the absence of external impediment’, Berlin characterized negative freedom as the freedom one has in virtue of the absence of obstruction imposed by others. 1 For example, if you are locked in a jail cell, then the walls, bars, door and locks, among other things, obstruct your ability to exit the cell. You are not free to leave.
Scholars and activists from across the political spectrum followed Berlin in focusing
methods which are legally allowed, but informally discouraged by the state. Yet others use channels which are outright taboo, yet which are not explicitly illegal, such as petitions, collective bargaining or strikes. These channels are used to put forward a request for change in the law as well as for wider social and political change. As will emerge through the chapter, the majority of NGOs performing these ‘acts’ continue to use the language of law in order to legitimise and sustain their activism, which further emphasises the ambiguous role of the law in the process
forward-looking and creative ( Gergen, 2015 ; and for a critique see Wolfe, 1989 ). Moving beyond the dominant focus of academic scholarship on realism and critique, pragmatists advocate an epistemology that is proudly political with a small p; in the spirit of post-representational thought, their work is focused on generating ideas that can reconfigure the world.
In this vein, the expedition was an attempt to facilitate the formation of publics comprising diverse groups of people focused around issues of common concern. The expedition was based on the pragmatic
a new politics of protest?
Protest movements are continually appropriating new technologies. The
telephone, stills camera, video camera, mobile phone and fax machine
have all been utilised (Harding 1997). In many ways CMC is simply one
more addition to this list. The question at the heart of this book, however,
is whether the ways in which CMC is being utilised enable fundamental
changes in the way environmentalists organise themselves, the tactics they
develop and even the influence and success they can achieve.
In The Internet Galaxy (2001
Securing or denying minorities’ right to the city?
community development projects,
casting those who are unable to participate as undeserving of citizenship rights
(Ghose and Pettygrove, 2014). While sufficient research on community gardening
and its relevance to civil society –especially within the current market-driven
economic condition –exists, the subtle similarities and differences
between the extensively explored US (and to some extent UK) experience and
that from the rest of the global North is only beginning to unfold as more scholars
focus on these issues in the European State context (Certomà et
Not only does this invisibility produce a serious deficit in our understandings
of the dynamics of global change, but it also causes us to avert our eyes from
the very sites where work and political contestation is taking place in the
global political economy. As MNCs increasingly outsource their production
and services, they become fractured into loosely connected sites, many of
them employing unprotected and precarious workers. The programmes of
restructuring in the advanced industrialised countries (AICs), whether
‘hyperflexible’ or ‘flexi
Titles such as the one above – capturing clouds – are ambiguous. Do clouds capture? Or are they themselves captured? Through this double meaning, the title enables a productive questioning of subject–object distinctions and therefore makes possible an interrogation of received notions of agency. In particular, when combining such ambivalences with issues of technology, a redrawing of arrows between a supposed subject and an assumed object entails interesting political consequences. This chapter conducts such a
border-crossings and bordering processes take place, contributing to the negotiation of borders in the public sphere and constructing new configurations of belonging and becoming (Brambilla, 2015 : 24). This means that these aesthetic forms are central to the political process, the latter being characterised by the philosopher Jacques Rancière as a partage du sensible , a ‘distribution of the sensible’ ( 2004 ) or, to retain the ambivalence of the original wording, a ‘sharing/division of the sensible’. What narratives and images make possible is identifying various
of happiness and individual and family/community comfort in which to live, but the febrile nature of consumer capitalism relentlessly pushes us to do so in narrow, individualised ways, while awareness of the ecological implications (the ecological footprints of our everyday life/consumption) is denied us. Those sceptical about the need for transformative approaches to knowledge, politics and ethics must consider seriously the history of this and the last century, and ask themselves if they are happy with business as (more or less) usual.
Another way of looking at