While I was at Banff, I attended a workshop were we discussed “the ethics of collaboration”. I understood the terms at face value, of course, but didn’t really realize the concept’s implications and relevance to my own work until a recent event with some former collaborators. It was this event that caused me to re-examine what it means to work together, and what the ethics of collaboration/collectives are (at least to me).

Searching the Internet for “ethics of collaboration”(!), I found an *excellent* paper, which I want to highlight because of its relevance. The paper is called, “The The Tyranny of Structurelessness” by the relatively-famous scholar Jo Freeman.

In the paper, the author writes about formal/informal organizational structures and communication channels, and asserts explicit structure is the best way to avoid hegemony by an “elite”. It seems to almost touch upon parts of Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory of social networks, particularly his idea of a “obligatory point of passage”, though she never uses those terms (they didn’t exist, I suppose–Latour wrote in the ’80s; she in 1970).

Not only does her description of outside-the-organization friends as an “elite” hit the nail right on the head, but so does her notion of looking at “whose approval is the stamp of acceptance” to understand who really has power in an organization. She also hits the mark when she says those who are on the “outside” often suffer from “paranoid delusions that something is happening of which they are not quite aware”. I might argue with her as to whether they are always delusions, but maybe that makes me delusional?!

Anyway, this should be required reading for all collaborators and collectives of any kind.

When I went into Sephora (a cosmetics store, for those unfamiliar with it) with Alex, I had a realization: they sell what amounts to dust. Maybe contained in another medium (i.e. a cream), but it’s all essentially “dust”. And they sell it for a lot of money. Thinking further, I thought of laser printer toner, and the similarities between cosmetics and toner: both are special “dust”, and both cost upwards of $100 for one unit/container of it. Is there something about producing this “dust” that makes it expensive, or is it just the markup the manufacturers can achieve because of our ignorance or addiction to style (in the case of toner, addiction to the name brand of the OEM)? And why isn’t there generic cosmetics, analogous to generic toner cartridges?

When sitting outside eating lunch, I noticed an old Cadillac drive by. I’m *sure* there is a ton of literature on this (a cursory look didn’t find any, however), but I was thinking: isn’t it interesting how one can “read” car body styles and, in doing so, gain some understanding of the times from which the design came? In the 50’s, cars were big and used thick steel–the features were rounded and soft, suggesting attention to quality, no concern in regards to fuel consumption (i.e. no oil crisis) and an optimistic outlook (I think soft features are “optimistic”?).

Today, cars are very utilitarian. Especially looking back at cars still on the road from the 80’s. Cars today use thin metal and plastic, and we are more obsessed with fuel economy (and that’s not a bad thing). Except for SUVs. They aren’t fuel efficient, and sort of embody the desire for “safety” and security in this “dangerous world” coupled with the “me first” attitude of our society.

These observations are not too novel, I know, and I’m also not sure whether I’m ascribing these properties to the cars “post mortem” or if they really are reflected in the cars’ style. Like most other interpretation, I’m sure the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

I’ve been reading some “critical theory” and “media studies” books while here at Banff, and yesterday I decided to do some surfing on the Intermedianetweb about critical theory and postmodernism. Honestly, I wanted to learn more about the people and language cited/used, as I found it quite cumbersome (for me) to understand what people were talking about here. Instead of finding that, however, I noticed there is a big debate on its value and legitimacy. Richard Dawkins even gets in on the debate, and quite harshly takes sides.

I have to admit, for all the talk about Marxism, hegemony and power structures, the language of theory is quite a power structure itself. I’m finding it hard to tell what people here at Banff are actually talking about–I have to frequently remind myself that I’m an intelligent person; at times I just feel so stupid here. It’s as if people are speaking another language. I wonder why we can’t just talk about our ideas in plain English, to make them accessible to the “proletariat” of people like me who are not so blessed with the “wealth” of theory.

Reading Wikipedia, I read that philosophers such as Strauss intended to write esoterically in order to cause readers to stop and think; interpreting slowly instead of jumping to action. Perhaps the same use of cumbersome language continues today in theory, but I feel the whole field could be moved along much faster if it wasn’t so damn hard to understand what people are actually arguing! This goal of obfuscation is just so different from those I was taught in management and design: considering your audience, and coming to their level…