“For the purpose of this report, interaction (that is face-to-face interaction) may be roughly defined as the reciprocal influence on individuals upon one another’s actions when in one another’s immediate physical presence. (…) A ‘performance’ may be defined as all the activity of a given participant on a given occasion which serves to influence in any way any of the other participants. Taking a particular participant and his performance as a basic point of reference, we may refer to those who contribute the other performances as the audience, observers, or co-participants. The pre-established pattern of action which is unfolding during a performance and which may be presented or played through on other occasions may be called a ‘part’ or ‘routine’.” p. 26/27

(At which point Goffman refers to Von Neumann & Morgenstern’s The Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour in a footnote).

“A status, a position, a social place is not a material thing, to be possessed and then displayed; it is a pattern of appropiate conduct, coherent, embellished, and well articulated. Performed with ease or clumsiness, awareness or not, guile or good faith, it is none the less something that must be realized.” p. 81

(Reminder to myself: on p. 232/233 Goffman describes five perspectives for analyzing ‘social establishments’: technical, political, structural, cultural and dramaturgical).

“In this report the performed self was seen as some kind of image, usually creditable, which the individual on stage and in character effectively attempts to induce others to hold in regard to him. While this image is entertained concerning the individual, so that a self is imputed to him, this self itself does not derive from its possessor, but from the whole scene of his action, being generated by that attribute of local events which renders them interpretable by witnesses. A correctly staged and performed scene leads to audience to impute a self to a performed character, but this imputation — this self — is a product of a scene that comes off, and is not a cause of it. The self, then, as a performed character, is not an organic thing that has a specific location, whose fundamental fate is to be born, to mature, and to die; it is a dramatic effect arising diffusely from a scene that is presented, and the characteristic issue, the crucial concern, is whether it will be credited, or discredited”. p. 244/245

The next paragraph is even better maybe; Goffman regards the person as a “peg on which something of collaborative manufacture will be hung for a time”, while the means for producing selves are “often bolted down in social establishments”. The theater metaphor provides him with the idea of a ‘back region” with “tools for shaping the body”, a “front region with its fixed props”; co-participants on stage and an audience. He then states: “The self is a product of all of these arrangements, and in all of its parts bears the marks on this genesis.” p. 245.

(It’s this framework that allows for applying ‘Goffman’ to the scene of personal publishing.)

“A character staged in a theatre in not in some ways real, not does it have the same kind of real consequences as does the thoroughly contrived character performed by a confidence man; but the succesful staging of either of these types of false figures involves use of real techniques — the same techniques by which everyday persons sustain their real social situations.” p. 246/247

Erving Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin Books, London, 1990 (1959).

Goffmann applied to blogging by Danah Boyd: http://www.zephoria.org/alterity/archives/2005/03/goffman_and_pos.html.

I spent the last few days in Amsterdam & I don’t seem to do much more here than reading, just reading, devouring pages of text, for pleasure.

Nicholson Baker, Checkpoint. Baker’s novel about a guy who plans to shoot George W. Bush. The American reviews trashed the book, but I quite liked it, as an intelligent exposition of the sort of Bush-hatred that besets so many people.

Samuel Butler, Erewhon (almost finished). A classic, mentioned often in the literature on science & technology because in the upside-down world of Erewhon machines are outlawed. Enjoyable satire.

Joseph Conrad, Typhoon. Read this one in the Dutch translation and decided to more often read novels in translation: more reading pleasure (that is, if the translation is a good one). I’ve read Conrad’s Nostromo twice in English and still don’t get what it is about, seems all too subtle for my knowlegde of the language. Typhoon is the sort of perfectly built and carefully told narrative, with a main character that you’ll never forget — a story that makes you want to turn back to pre-1920’s literature.

J.G. Ballard, Running Wild. Novella, about murders in a gated community outside London. Now comes across as a sketch or a study or his later novel Cocaine Nights and Super Cannes. (I now see that a new Ballard-novel is announced for september).

Alfred Jarry, Superman (partly). Also in Dutch translation. Funny, hilarious.

Joris van Casteren, In de schaduw van de Parnassus. About twenty interviews with Dutch poets that never made it. Interesting because it sketches how the literary systems works. In these interviews one sees what is thrown out, what is forgotten, these poets had their work published at some point, but then did not stand ‘the test’ of quality, of perseverance, of conforming just that little bit, of time (the fashion changed).

And lots of papers.

Also revisited bits and pieces of Ihab Hassan’s early writings on postmodernism, as they are assembled in The Postmodern Turn. (It amazes me again how fresh those essays are, after so many years, how fresh his way of playing with the essay-form). And scanned through some of Erving Goffman’s The Presentation of Self in Everyday’s Life that I picked up from the Jan van Eyck library.

Pietro Caucchioli will be the winner of this years Tour de France. That’s my hunch.

The Tour de France has not been my favorite cycling event to watch over the past few years. As many other true cycling fans I prefer the Giro and the Vuelta. The Tour has become overloaded with ‘stress’-factors, the stakes are too high, the riding is often defensive, and the ‘parcours’, with all the flat stages in the beginning, asks for a boring narrative.

When all the news about the big doping affair in Spain began to spread and exert influence, I began to have hope for an exciting Tour, if not because of the riding, but because of all the changes that professional riding is going through at once (and that athletics and football will have to go through too). There are too many interesting sides to this affair, just one of them is that it’s mainly top riders who are involved — no ‘small riders’, no ‘domestiques’.

Today came the big news: all the riders on the Spanish list will not be allowed to start. On the list (here’s a very provisional list: http://www.cycling4all.com/d_news.php): Ullrich, Basso and Mancebo. Ullrich is immediately expelled by his team, Mancebo has immediately resigned from cycling. I don’t know about Basso.

We still do not know if Vinokourov will start, and if he starts he will be under tremendous pressure, because his team is (or was) a key in the whole scandal that’s now unfolding.

I suddenly have high hopes for a exciting Tour — in terms of the course (‘de koers’). Now there will really be about 30 riders who can win. And with this whole doping-story it can only gets stranger and stranger.

The weirdest thing is: David Millar is back for his first day of competition after being expelled from cycling for EPO-use for 2 years. He could be a major contender if he has been able to regain his old form.

A beautiful book, for various reasons. First of all a wonderfull overview and introduction into Latours view on technology. Secondly a very precise account of how a revolutionary type of metro never gets ‘off the ground’ — because of the love for technology (and other reasons), or rather the lack of it: Aramis is a project that does not go through translations… that is not negotiated enough. (Who loves has to negotiate and change). Thirdly it shows that one can write a true sociological novel, or do novelistic sociology. (A bit what Powers does from the side of the novel — Latour and Powers love each others work).

“By definition, a technological project is a fiction, since at the outset it does not exist, and there is no way it can exist yet because it is in the project phase.” p. 23

“Give me the state of things, and I’ll tell you what people can do — this is how technology talks. Give me the state of human beings, and I’ll tell you how they will form things — this is the watchword of sociology. But both of these maxims are inapplicable! For the thing we are looking for is not a human thing, nor is it an inhuman thing. It offers rather, a continuous passage, a commerce, an interchange, between waht humans inscribe in it and what it prescribes to humans. It translates the one into the other.” p. 213

“The work of folding technological mechanisms can go from complication to complexity. This is because technological detours go from zero to infinity according to whether the translation goes through intermediaries or through mediators.” p. 219

Bruno Latour, Aramis or the Love of Technology, Harvard UP, Cambridge &c., 1996 (1993)

“The thirteenth-century Franciscan, St. Bonaventura, said that there were four ways of making books: ‘A man might write the works of others, addding and changing nothing in which case he is simply called a ‘scribe’ (scriptor). Another writes the work of others with additions which are not his own; and he is called a ‘compiler’ (compilator). Another writes both others’ work and his own, but with others’ work in principal place, adding his own for purposes of explanation; and he is called a ‘commentator’ (commentator) … Another writes both his own work and others’ but with his own work in principal place adding others’ for purposes of confirmation; and such a man should be called an ‘author’ (auctor).’ ”

Quoted in Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, Communications and Cultural Transformations in early-modern Europe, Cambridge UP, 1979, p. 121/122

I promised to up some quotes from Peter Morville’s Ambient Findability, http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/ambient/, a book that takes a closer look at some of the webdevelopments of the past two years, focussing on yes, findability, traceability, and wayfinding. What to say about a book like this one? Yes, I recognize the problems that Morville identifies, yes, he gives a good overview of current developments (the chapter on the Semantic Web versus folksonomies is balanced and therefore quite good), yes in this very American way that also will appeal to intelligent businessmen, he gets his message across and also refers to Wittgenstein of Lakoff & Johnson when he likes too, or to some obscure psychology-paper if that’s necessary. His writing style is maybe a bit too informal, too much talking-as-if-he’s-presenting-in-front-of-you, but I’m not unsympathetic towards such a pedagogic approach (because that’s what it is). So why does a book like this leave me unstatisfied? Firstly because he doesn’t have new information for me (but he probably has for others). Secondly because when he is critical — and Morville certainly is critical — he only skims the surface, doesn’t dig, doesn’t go into the entangledness of politics, economics and technology. It never becomes really dark and dirty: he believes in markets, intelligent customers and discriminating consumers — but abhors fastfood. He’s not always optimistic, he knows — and points out — that humans are blind and lazy in many respects, but he certainly believes that we have the power to design technology that is good for us, as the internet shows. Nevertheless, if one is not so up to date, this book might bridge the gap.

Well, some quotes then…

“This fast food approach to information drives librarians crazy. “Our information is healthier and tastes better too” they shout. But nobody listens. We’re too busy Googling.” p. 55

“The Web allows our information seeking to grow more iterative and interactive with each innovation. The berrypicking model [of aquiring information] is more relevant today than ever.” p. 60

“The human natural tendency in information seeking is to fallback on passive and sampling and selecting behaviors derived from millions of years of [evolution]” p. 61 (Actually a quote from Marcia Bates, 2002)

“Most of the world will never be ready for the Semantic Web. And We’re still waiting for the few that constitute the rest to catch up.” p. 133

“… most categories we emply in daily life are defined by fuzzy cognitive models rather than objective rules.” p. 133 [Morville pits Lakoff & Johnson’s Metaphors We Live By against the Semantic Web].

“How will we make sense of this tower of babble? In the midst of this cacophony, to whom will we listen? Who will we trust? Will we rely on formal hierarchy or free tagging, library or marketplace, cathedral or bazaar? Will we place our confidence in words or people? And are we talking about cyberspace or ubicomp? The answer lies in the question, for we will not be bound by the false dichotomy of Aristotelian logic. To manage complexity, we must embrace faceted classification, polyhierarchy, pluralistic aboutness and pace layering. And to succeed we must collaborate across categories, using boundary objects to negotiate, translate, and forge shared understanding.” p. 153/154

“Findability is at the center of a fundamental shift in the way we define authority, allocate trust, make decisions, and learn independently.” p. 162

Peter Morville, Ambient Findability, O’Reilly, Sebastopol Ca. 2005.

More Morville: http://www.findability.org/.

Bruno Latour, Aramis or the Love of Technology, 1996 (1993). Quotes coming up.
Peter Morville, Ambient Findability, 2006. Idem.
Thomas Vaessens, Ongerijmd succes, 2006. (Plus some more from his earlier book on postmodern poetry).

(Just to say that I’m not only cycling).

If you want superb comedy: watch and listen to Slavoj Zizek explaining film in A Perverts Guide to Cinema. I was never a fan of Zizek, but now I am. I burst out laughing loud a few times. Zizek says: “with sound we get … the complete edible universe”. (Edible = oedipal). And sure, cultures that do not have toilets do not need psychoanalysis, the whole theory does not apply to them! Zizek is a born comedian! At Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xegCeH_BavE&search=slavoj. Or is it that television by definition turns theory into parody?

There was no chance for live blogging at the SLSA-conference.

Here’s what I typed at some point: “No, no live blogging, and how I miss being able to quickly check something online, find a reference, an answer to a question, the name of an author mentioned, while listening to a presentation. How I miss multitasking, just reading some blogs while listening. How I miss it, to write down my notes in a disciplined way, and upload, while listening: my mind will not wander that much. But there is no airport here, not for me. And a marked difference between new media conferences and the academic world is that almost nobody here is using a laptop during sessions, which make me think I am not playing by the rules here when I have my laptop open and start typing.”